By Christopher A. Sawyer
The Virtual Driver

(April 11, 2016) A few days ago, Elon Musk pulled the covers off the Model 3 and the hype has been intense from the media coverage, especially of the approximately 150,000 preorders for the supposedly $35,000 sedan. A number of media outlets stated this was proof that the American public not only was ready for a mainstream EV, but Tesla had discovered a rich vein of untapped demand in the general public for electric vehicles.

A few even predicted this was proof that the internal combustion engine was dead, as were fossil fuels, and the future was one of charging stations and battery packs, not gas stations and piston engines.

So what did we see with the introduction of Tesla’s Model 3? Nothing less than the automotive equivalent of Apple under Steve Jobs. Like the Cupertino, Calif., computer company, Tesla has its rabid adherents and evangelists, fan boys and true believers. It also has a messianic leader its true believers think can discern the future, package products that meet needs buyers didn’t even know they had, and produce exquisitely styled, jewel-like merchandise that sells at a premium.

Sure, the Model 3 is supposed to retail for $35,000, but its on-road debut is about two years away. That gives plenty of time for the base price to rise, and for buyers to become familiar with the optional features that will take actual transaction prices into the $50,000+ price territory.

This won’t dissuade the early adopters one iota. They expect to pay more for a product that they see as superior in both design and image. The stylized “T” badge is as much a social icon as Apple’s logo, and sets its owner apart from the rest of the pack. It is a badge of honor, and of social superiority.

Where the two companies diverge is in the way that Apple — at least in the past — leaked minuscule tidbits to keep the rumor mill buzzing, but not enough to give a clear view of what it had up its sleeve. By the time of the next developer’s conference or product launch, Jobs would step out in front of the salivating crowd and reveal the latest and greatest to an audience primed to respond with paroxysms of joy.

The same excitement surrounds Tesla’s announcements, but the automaker is not as adept at managing expectations or news leaks, Musk isn’t Jobs (then again, neither is Apple’s Tim Cook), and its fans are caricatures of Apple’s. Tesla also is nowhere near as forthcoming in filling in the technical details once the product is announced. Truth be told, there is very little hard data available on the Model 3.

And for all those who are predicting great things for Chevy’s Bolt (pictured at right) because of this, please re-read the above. This has nothing to do with rationality or a sudden shift in consumer sentiment toward electric vehicles. The cylindrical cell Panasonic batteries used by Tesla are becoming outdated, and the prismatic cells provided by LG Chem for Chevy’s Bolt have greater energy density, capacity and are easier to package.

However, at some point in the future both will be outdated by newer designs. Until that happens, however, Tesla will build hundreds of millions of cells for its cars, its Powerwall and for other yet-to-be-released applications, driving down the cost per unit as the volume increases. Like Henry Ford, it’s hoped that this make each generation of product less expensive — and more profitable — than the one preceding it.

Also, the Model 3 is styled more like a concept car than a production vehicle. It is sleek and sensuous, despite its upturned duckbill nose, with its wheels pushed out to the edges of the body, and it is tautly drawn around its interior package. The Bolt is a… Well, it’s not exactly certain what the Bolt is at this point. Chevy says it is a small crossover, but it looks more like a small people mover. Because it comes from a major automaker, it is designed for low cost, production repeatability, robustness and longevity.

As such, it lacks the panache of the Tesla. It’s just a vehicle. It’s not a statement. And buyers of the Chevy will have much different expectations of its day-to-day usefulness than their Tesla buying counterparts.

Even though it looks like Model 3 buyers will have to pay an undisclosed amount to use Tesla’s Supercharger facilities, they are, in effect, members of a special club that — though open to the public — lets them fully charge their car in not much more than 30 minutes, and — if Musk’s marketing team is smart — confers special benefits unavailable to owners of other vehicles. Also, because owning a Tesla is so wrapped up in image (as, to be honest, is owning a Prius or Volt or Leaf, but to a lesser degree), the hours that it takes to charge to capacity on the in-home Wall Connector will be less of an inconvenience than it will be for those used to a five-minute gas-and-go with a conventional vehicle. Which is why the Bolt won’t have the following or draw that will be enjoyed by the Model 3. Its base of buyers will come from that background, expecting a similar experience.

No, the news coming out of the Model 3 launch wasn’t about the imminent demise of internal combustion engines and fossil fuels, or of the supposedly bright future for the less expensive but, in some ways, technically superior Chevy Bolt.

It was that Elon Musk reportedly got 150,000 people to plunk down $1,000 each to hold their place in line for a car that might be in production by late next year, giving Tesla $150,000,000 in capital it can use to bring the Model 3 to production and slow its cash burn. (In the week that followed, this has risen to 300,000 refundable deposits, which gives Tesla a $300,000,000 line of credit.)

Is Elon Musk like Steve Jobs, and Tesla like Apple? In some ways. However, a more apt description might be that of Preston Tucker and his eponymous car company, but with much more financial backing.

The Virtual Driver