Ads which illustrate why I am so pissed about Tesla's marketing of the 160

[dpeilow]

Are "up to 300 miles" weasel words too?

No because on point 2 of that datasheet it clearly states what the batteries are. In fact IMHO it just makes it worse that then on point 3 it doesn't state 45m / 80% doesn't apply across the board.

Incidentally they also say standard charging ranges from 3-5 hours, implying that 20kW was the default back then.

 

[smorgasbord]

They intentionally withheld limitations of the base models in an effort to drum up more down-payments. Remember, this is a company that needed all the money it could just to stay afloat.

That's a mighty big leap, and does not match my experience with Tesla as a company, nor its employees.

1) Tesla does not advertise or even push gathering deposits on the Model S. If you walk into a Tesla store and ask questions about the car, they'll answer them. If you ask when they'll be available, they'll say starting next summer. If you ask how you can get in line, only then will they tell you about the reservation program. I've been in Tesla stores enough to see firsthand that Tesla employees intentionally do not bring up the reservation program, even if the discussion leads them towards an opening. You have to specifically tell them you want to get one or that you want one as soon as possible and ask them how.

2) We all know that Base Models don't do everything fully equipped models do. To think that we know what the real technical and production reasons really are such that we can then ascribe motives to how Tesla decides what is available in the Base model is ludicrous.

3) Finally, remember this was an early adopter reservation program. By putting a deposit down early, you were saying that in order to be one of the first to get your Model S, you were taking a chance that the car would not end up being what you wanted it to be. How could you not realize that?

Now you know why more prudent people who were interested in the Model S did not put down a reservation deposit before now. Some wanted to see options and pricing. Some probably are going to continue to wait until they see production versions. Some will wait until they get to test drive it themselves. And some will wait until they can touch the actual vehicle they want to drive home that night. It appears you didn't match your level of risk tolerance to your actions.


That said, it's more than fair to tell Tesla that you don't like certain configuration limitations or pricing. Tesla employees I've spoken with want to hear what people like and don't like about the options. You should call/email/visit a Tesla store and tell them. Explain why. If enough people tell them, they may reconsider if they can. But to be honest, the vitriol and accusations leveled by some members here are simply not, in my view, appropriate. All you will end up achieving is that Tesla will be even less likely to talk about future models for fear of this kind backlash. Is a more closed Tesla that doesn't share info about models in development what you want?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Not a serious allegation by the least bit. They certainly nailed the 5.6 second 0-60 time of the 85 kWh option well in advance didn't they? As an electrical engineer, I can say with near certainty that this is these are the first things they calculated. They had already decided on the three different battery pack options at that time and knew of the implications they would each have on the 0-60 times, but decided not to divulge that. I'm sorry, but to think otherwise would be naive.

I'm saying a combination of the allegations is pretty serious (esp. assuming that Tesla is intentionally doing it for those purposes). If it's only the 0-60 part, that's only a minor point. That's because Tesla wouldn't be the first one to change their 0-60 claims (I know Fisker did so only shortly before they released their car! Tesla is giving a 6 month + notice.).

 

[richkae]

Not a serious allegation by the least bit. They certainly nailed the 5.6 second 0-60 time of the 85 kWh option well in advance didn't they? As an electrical engineer, I can say with near certainty that this is these are the first things they calculated. They had already decided on the three different battery pack options at that time and knew of the implications they would each have on the 0-60 times, but decided not to divulge that. I'm sorry, but to think otherwise would be naive.

It is far more complicated than that. You want to know a secret? The 40kW pack can totally hit the 5.6 second 0-60 time. It might only able to do it once. How many times can it do that and last 8 years? Thats a much harder question, to assume they knew the answer to that question a year ago is totally unfounded. They weren't even sure which battery chemistry they were going to use.

 

[onlinespending]

I agree. I don't feel misled by anything else, though I was anticipating all models having Supercharge capabilities so it's a bit of a disappointment. The pricing of all other options is more than reasonable to me, even the Technology package which I'm surprised so many others were up in arms about.

 

[NigelM]

No, Tesla could be considered worse than other auto-makers when it comes to the 0-60 times. Fully agreed that they are no worse on any extra options, as I fully expect to pay for additional features. But no one considers the 0-60 time an extra feature. They would consider it a baseline feature. Imagine BMW came out with three different M5's each with a different sized gas tank and upfront led you to believe that the 0-60 time was 4.5 seconds. But then two years later they conveniently tell you that in order to get the 4.5 second 0-60 time, you need to opt for the larger gas tank model. That would be absurd, but that's essentially what Tesla did by intentionally decided not to divulge those details upfront. That's far from commendable.

The comparison makes no sense. But if BMW offered three different engine sizes then you equally wouldn't expect to get the same performance out of each one would you?

 

[onlinespending]

It is far more complicated than that. You want to know a secret? The 40kW pack can totally hit the 5.6 second 0-60 time. It might only able to do it once. How many times can it do that and last 8 years? Thats a much harder question, to assume they knew the answer to that question a year ago is totally unfounded. They weren't even sure which battery chemistry they were going to use.

Right, but they calculated the 5.6 second 0-60 using a 85 kWh accurately using safe assumptions about the limitation of how much current draw these batteries could support. I'm sure they applied these same safe assumptions (without taxing the smaller capacities anymore than the large 85 kWh capacity) and came up with the sort of 0-60 times that were just announced. Don't kid yourself. They knew, that all things being equal, and the only variable being the battery capacities that there would be implications on the 0-60 times and probably had a very accurate estimate for all capacities just as they did with the 85 kWh.

And I knew putting down a reservation 2 years in advance that things were fluid. In fact, if Tesla said that all models were $5000 more than previously announced, I wouldn't be that shocked or terribly upset. I was well prepared for that. Unrelated to that, it's simply my contention that Tesla knew well in advance that the smaller battery packs would have slower acceleration and deliberately choose not to share this information. Assuming that this is the case, it's open for debate whether or not that's acceptable business practice.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The comparison makes no sense. But if BMW offered three different engine sizes then you equally wouldn't expect to get the same performance out of each one would you?

That's why analogies between ICE and EVs don't work that well. For the same cells, battery power scales directly with battery capacity. That's why some people advocate describing the battery as the "engine" to lay people. It's all from most people being ignorant about the characteristics of EVs (something that will hopefully change in the near future as more EVs come out).

As a side note, it's entirely possible for Tesla to choose cells with higher max C-rate (like A123 for example) and still have the same acceleration among all three packs (none of us know what cells they chose for the 160 and 230 packs; we only know the NCR18650A will be used in the 300 pack and that the cells in the 160/230 packs will be different). It'll just cost more per kWh and likely weigh more.

 

[onlinespending]

The comparison makes no sense. But if BMW offered three different engine sizes then you equally wouldn't expect to get the same performance out of each one would you?

Of course not. But we're not talking about an ICE here. As long as the motor responsible for turning the wheels is provided enough current to maintain the same acceleration across all pack sizes, there was no reason to believe otherwise. No consumer has been conditioned to equate car battery pack size with varying rates of acceleration. Tesla would have had you believe the only difference was strictly the capacity or range of the battery. Had these limitations been shared up front, then I'd have nobody but myself to fault for expecting otherwise.

 

[onlinespending]

As a side note, it's entirely possible for Tesla to choose cells with higher max C-rate (like A123 for example) and still have the same acceleration among all three packs (none of us know what cells they chose for the 160 and 230 packs; we only know the NCR18650A will be used in the 300 pack and that the cells in the 160/230 packs will be different). It'll just cost more per kWh and likely weigh more.

Or similarly, it's possible to work towards the lowest common denominator. It certainly wouldn't be ideal, but they could obviously have all battery pack options accelerate at 6.5 seconds. Obviously at full load, I expect the larger capacity batteries to supply more current. But when 5.6s was stated as the 0-60 time, I could have just as much assumed that the 40 kWh battery could supply enough current to provide that sort of acceleration, and that the larger capacity batteries would naturally be operating at less than full load to provide the same 0-60 time, but have the advantage of greater mileage range. Again, without given any information to challenge the thought that all cars would not do 5.6s, how could people be expected to think otherwise? It's just disappointing, since these limitations were likely known by Tesla and not shared. And that's my beef with this whole thing

 

[Tommy]

I've been following Tesla's progress on the Model S for about two years now; Tesla has changed their web pages several times, presumable to reflect how Tesla envisioned the model S at that moment in time. I've seen numerous exterior changes (front grill, charge port location ,side vents to name a few) as well as changes in the actual specs. One of those early specs was the car would do 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds. Although I don't have a photo to prove the web page existed there are bloggers who noted that fact, here is a link to one of them: A life more ordinary - Part 2 Model S info near the bottom of page.

This particular blogger makes good reading because he has no illusions that the base model price fully configured will significantly increase in price.

So, the fact there have been changes to the Model S, mostly in a positive way and also some shortcomings should not reflect on the character of the company to such a negative extent that is being portrayed in the different threads on this forum IMO.

I am sure Tesla wants to earn our business and a clarification from Tesla on concerns about QC and 0-60 times is warranted. However, if the prospective buyer still doesn't trust Tesla's clarification and truly feels Tesla is being less than honest with them, than the only logical recourse is to not do business with them.

 

[Doug_G]

I have to say some of this is starting to sound like whingeing to me.

First of all, Tesla was offering fully refundable reservations for a vehicle that was not designed yet. They made it clear that there was some risk in that "investment". I'm sure they did not set out to intentionally misrepresent anything to anyone. It's not at all surprising that they would be confronted by a combination of technical and financial realities, which culminated in the differences between the various product levels. I for one am rather impressed that they managed to keep their promises on the basic price points.

Secondly, the deposits total something in the 80 million range. It's a substantial amount of money, BUT it is small compared to the initial investments + public floatation + DOE loans. Tesla had no motivation to mislead to try and get incrementally more deposits. Oh, and did I mention that they're fully refundable?

Finally, the deposit is refundable. If you decide you don't like the offerings, then get your money back.

 

[jimbakker666]

Could the website have been more clear that the base model may not hit all those bullets? Yes.
Could the website have been more clear that the car is not yet fully designed and that those are targets? Yes.

Were you baited and switched? No, your deposit is refundable at any time.

So if Model S production vehicles were available today, and rather than place a deposit I had instead walked into a Tesla dealership to place an order based on the information provided to me, would that be a bait and switch?

If you believe that Tesla could have been more clear, and the only reason you aren't calling it deception is because they were only accepting refundable deposits, I believe you are unfairly placing the burden on me for some odd reason. Whether Tesla is accepting refundable deposits or full-on purchase orders doesn't change the nature of their advertising. With your acknowledgment that Tesla could have been more clear, you're letting Tesla slide on a technicality. Can we agree that the advertising in place would be illegal if cars were available now?

On those pages where it was stated '300 mile range', they also stated on the same page that it was 'up to 300 mile range'. No weasel words, just a weasel move. We all know that these are two different statements, and I'm confident when reading it that my $49k probably doesn't apply to that range. However, can you not see the inconsistency in message there? Why mix the statement 'up to 300 range' with '300 mile range', if not to confuse? Can we agree that an honest man would have said 'up to 300 mile range' each time?

As a reply to others who have said that the 160 will reap only a negligible profit or even a loss for Tesla, and their real audience are those who can afford the 230 and above, I ask: If that is the case, then why did they push $49k over and over and over again? I understand the desire to get publicity, but I believe the method used was dishonest. If they never intended on taking me to the dance, then why'd they keep telling me they wanted to go? I would have longed for the Model S regardless.

I agree with the poster who called the allegation that Tesla intentionally mislead about the $49k Model S a serious one. It is serious, that's why it concerns me so. I'm sure they understand, 100%, that they can't do that when vehicles are actually in production, because then it would be a crime. The fact that I'm merely a reservation holder does not magically absolve them of guilt. The key point here, of course, is whether they knew the specs cited wouldn't apply to the 160. People here with EV knowledge claim to have known through common sense...so wouldn't Tesla have known too?

Do I want Tesla to be less open about their next vehicle? No, I just want them to be more honest. If they can't figure out a way to do that with future endeavors, then that speaks very poorly about their marketing team.

BTW, I emailed them two nights ago, tactfully inquiring about the lack of 160 quick-charging and suggesting that it is a big issue for myself and others. I've yet to hear a response, so now I guess I'll just call.

 

[Arnold Panz]

I understand that some people are frustrated/angry with Tesla about the 160 mi base Model S not having quick charge, slower acceleration etc. I would only note that when I talked to people over the past few years about the car, I would say that the base price was $57k, but that would be a bare bones car that you could probably only use around your neighborhood, like a Leaf. I always said that you'd probably have to spend at least $70k to get one with the options and range etc. that you'd want from a car of that caliber.

FWIW, I was always under the impression that the $57k car was going to be stripped, but for those who could only afford that and really wanted an S it would be available. I have been focused on the higher end of the range because I always knew I wanted the 300 mi version, but Tesla must have laid some groundwork in their announcements and other publicity because I was not the least bit surprised that certain "basic" options weren't available on the 160 mi car. That's not to say they couldn't have been more up front about it, but as someone who has followed this stuff pretty closely since 2008 on the Model S, the 160 mi car was pretty much exactly as I thought it would be.

 

[onlinespending]

FWIW, I was always under the impression that the $57k car was going to be stripped, but for those who could only afford that and really wanted an S it would be available.

The $49,900* base model is also available because they can say it is. If that makes sense Basically it's far more effective in marketing and advertising to be able to say that they're offering a sub $50k luxury performance EV. They've long said it's going to be sub-$50k and they view that as a magical price target, even if it means that they made many compromises on that base model.

 

[jimbakker666]

I always said that you'd probably have to spend at least $70k to get one with the options and range etc. that you'd want from a car of that caliber.

I have been focused on the higher end of the range because I always knew I wanted the 300 mi version, but Tesla must have laid some groundwork in their announcements and other publicity because I was not the least bit surprised that certain "basic" options weren't available on the 160 mi car.

Hi Arnold,

The issue for me is that 0-60 performance and stated charge times were not listed as optional. They were presented as part of the $49k model, in fact the price was listed together with those specs. If Tesla knew those specs applied or likely applied to the more expensive variants, they simply could have quoted those estimated prices instead. They could have provided a simple matrix showing the target specs per model, then no harm no foul. If they really cared, the even could have stated that 'all specs are subject to change'. Nobody criticizes honesty.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Base Price, Base Price, Base Price

Everything Tesla promised they delivered. Nothing was promised at the Base Price. Base Price means Base Price. You want 0-60 in 5.6 seconds you can get it but not at the Base Price. In fact, you can get 0-60 in 4.4 seconds!

 

[dsm363]

Jimbaker666: If you're this angry now, I doubt you're going to have a good relation with the company or enjoy your car. This is a new company making their first car (on their own) so there are bound to be more PR missteps and other issues. You've made it very clear your think Tesla purposely misled you/lied in an attempt to bait and switch you. Most other people and especially people who have dealt with the company for years disagree.

 

[brianman]

One of those early specs was the car would do 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds.

"I feel deceived that they are delivering a 5.6. They should throttle mine back to match the early specs."

Kidding. Jim, don't kill me.

 

[brianman]

So if Model S production vehicles were available today, and rather than place a deposit I had instead walked into a Tesla dealership to place an order based on the information provided to me, would that be a bait and switch?

Yes. And the courts would probably back you on that.

Can we agree that the advertising in place would be illegal if cars were available now?

If they list specs, you put down money, and you don't get what you were promised when you paid... Yes.
If they list specs, you put down money, and they contact you with updated information giving you the option to get your money back without penalty... No.

On those pages where it was stated '300 mile range', they also stated on the same page that it was 'up to 300 mile range'. No weasel words, just a weasel move.

I assume editorial failure here rather than negative intent. But yes, that's just my opinion.