-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Also agree this is smart move by Tesla--I would expect this might also siphon off some impatient Model 3 reservation holders that were looking at higher end configs.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Well, there are always going to be people for whom the 60 price is right at the top of what they can afford, so
for them the D is kind of a non-starter. As to whether those who can afford the D should spring for it, I'll just say
that I'm certain there are people who could be perfectly happy with the non-D and do other fun things with the
money they'd save.
Zaphod
Galaxy President (former)
With the refresh front-end, I am pretty sure all frunks are the same size now, even with or without the bidodefense HEPA filter option. I'm sure it was to streamline production and part supply to have common parts.
Actually I was told by Tesla that all post refresh Frunks would be the same size - smaller than the past D Frunk to accommodate the HEPA filter that premium package cars have.
Can't see why anyone wouldn't think this is a great move by Tesla. Lowers the price point to attract many more buyers (including myself) who otherwise wouldn't buy a Model S because of the cost. It's now just in the price zone that I would be comfortable spending. Now need to decide if I'll hold out for Model 3 or take the plunge on an S. I love the fact that if I find 210 miles of range isn't quite cutting it that I can later upgrade to greater range by unlocking the full capabilities of the battery pack.
I'll try to explain (hopefully this does not get removed for snippiness)
Model S: The citation is: this announcement. No company launches a lower margin product (previously offered at a higher price) , when demand is strong enough to support current higher margin products.
Model X: The order book has been reduced/cancelled due to buyers waiting to see if problems can be fixed. So the Chinese now get theirs ahead of schedule.
Ulmo
Active Member
Tesla Model S & X platform have so many variants (especially Model S) that it's almost, but not quite, that each car is either unique or only has a handful of peers, as peered through the lenses of regional variety. Of course, if you do a factory insider list of all exactly the same models, I'm sure there's more correlations, but I'm just saying from a second-hand used market perspective, it will be hard to micro-specify exactly what you want and come up with a large list of identical cars; used Tesla buyers will have to search with search engines that allow "kind of like this" searches, rather than ultra-specific searches.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Well, there's the whole hauling around 25% extra battery weight thing
Nope, you are hauling around the same weight as the 2012 Model S pack. The cells hold more energy for the same weight.
You could argue that Tesla could make a new pack that weighs less but they have not done so. That means the 25% extra weight argument is either a misconception or a strawman argument.
If they put a 90 or 100 kWh pack in it and software limited it to 60 then you'd be hauling around the extra weight. But the weight difference isn't just capacity1/capacity2. You have to check the weight of the pack in an actual car with all the cooling/bms/pack frame and you'll find the supporting pieces make the weight difference less than the capacity difference as a percentage.
Tesla only makes 2 pack sizes at a time for the Model S/X and thus the there are only two pack weights no matter what kWh they are labled as holding.
So 2012 60 kWh pack weighs about the same as 2016 75 kWh pack
and 2012 85 kWh pack weighs about the same as 2016 90 kWh or 100 kWh pack (whenever they decide to release it)
Last edited:
Smart:
- Lower entry - I admit I only test drove/bought when the 70 came to market and got me thinking - then chose the 85D
- Convert 3 placeholders to owners - surprised there is no specific buyback option presented to placeholders
- CPO gold: as mentioned by others, Tesla can take your 60 in trade and sell it as a 75 Autopilot(with lightly used battery) at no new cost to them
- I can't get over the feeling that this is Tesla ransomware. What's the cost to Tesla of releasing the full capacity? Close to nothing, right? Maybe the battery retains a little more capacity for resale. I guess "market value" will be the justification for the $8500 ransom. Leaves a bad taste.
RogerHScott
Active Member
Not snippy (at least, IMO), but not terribly convincing, either. I think you may be oversimplifying Tesla's motives here.
There's no ransom going on here at all - you can either enjoy access to a fantastic car at a lower price point, or not.
Ulmo
Active Member
However, whatever it seems, I don't think it is wasteful:
I'm not in possession of the numbers, but nonetheless, here's some numbers to consider:
- Larger capacity batteries used for the same capacity allow more cushion.
- That cushion may allow the battery to last longer.
- That cushion is also useful in the group of people with less money to spend: their tighter margins may also confer tighter performance demands by those users, putting relatively more wear and tear on the battery, and essentially making more cushion built in a good thing for them.
- Fewer battery sizes allows some streamlining and some savings due to streamlining.
- The increased cushion can be used for value at the end of life of the battery pack, somehow. For instance, battery components have more life, or more quantity, or both. (Batteries get reused at end of vehicle pack life, e.g., in Tesla Energy.)
- The ease of upgrade as your situation changes is valuable.
- If all 6 points above assist Tesla and the marketplace in making available a lower cost product for those who need that, then this will help the consumers.
This is actually smart on Tesla's part. Some added revenue down the line, could support resale values, gives the customer a later option of more range. It will be interesting to see how long it takes some hacker to find the key to "unlocking" the range.
RogerHScott
Active Member
When you download a free app with restricted functionality do you think of it as "ransom" when you have to pay to unlock the
remaining capability? This is 2016 -- the idea that only physical objects have value is obsolete. The value of a Tesla is a combination
of the physical unit, the programming, and their "licensing" of some subset of that to you. It's a free world -- no one's forcing you to
enter into that license.
RogerHScott
Active Member
As hinted at in an above comment, longer than it will take Tesla to totally shut down that car, turning it into an expensive, though lovely, lawn ornament.
I agree that it is smart...on balance, but to me the consideration of value is critical. I expect a more expensive product to have more content, not just be more capable.
Similar threads
