RogerHScott
Active Member
Can you elaborate on what you see as the relevant distinction between "content" and "capability"?I expect a more expensive product to have more content, not just be more capable
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you elaborate on what you see as the relevant distinction between "content" and "capability"?I expect a more expensive product to have more content, not just be more capable
Wow, Big Brother really is here!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.
Doesn't matter, that much; they already have a 300 mile version out there, which they never had in the S/X platform before. If you're looking for round numbers, let me suggest that a 325 mile range, 1000/3 mile range (333), 350 mile range, 375 mile range, or a 400 mile range are cooler "round numbers" than 100KWh battery pack (except when you're tailgating a Tesla and staring at the badge with jealousy), especially that 400 mile range point. Half a thousand miles will also be another cool number. Let's say they get that out of an 80KWh battery pack; will you be complaining? Or, from a 65KWh battery pack? (I know the physics doesn't work out, but I'm just asking from a perspective of marketing.)But still no 100D.
Hmm. The many "dislikes" on this poster made me afraid to post. I am also a pro-improved AP hardware opinion person as the right path for the company, so I appreciate some of Reeler's remarks, but the rebuttals also have merit. It's just one of those sucky things about life: what's available now is just what is available now, and at some point, now is good enough.When they have blindspot warning that actually works, autopark starts recognizing things regularly and the "truck lust" is fixed, I will agree that AP 1.0 is nothing more than a perpetual beta gimmick. Until then . . .
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.
Tesla just beat the magic 200 mile range with the 60 in 2013. Nothing new here except the price is lower than when I bought my 60 three years ago.So Tesla just beats the magic 200 mile range with the 60. That might tempt some Model 3 reservation holders who planned to add a lot of options.
It may also entice people considering a Chevy Bolt. Its base price will be around $37,500 (Chevy says as low as $30k after tax credits) but once you add some options that make it more like the 60, how close will the price difference be?
Tesla just beat the magic 200 mile range with the 60 in 2013. Nothing new here except the price is lower than when I bought my 60 three years ago.
You carry around a higher margin product with you from time of purchase, that if you want to activate, you buy. For now, you have a lower margin product. Tesla marketing analytics figured out this will net Tesla a higher overall financially better position over time, regardless of the individual margin on the lower-end vehicles. They will recoup higher margins as people upgrade, either original owners or CPO, they are hoping, and/or, they are hoping, they will recoup higher margins overall through quantity, and/or this is some more complicated strategy that includes increasing the number of Tesla's in the marketplace that isn't just near term margin-specific. Or, as bears are pointing out, perhaps they're lowering their margin because of demand. I would hardly call this a huge lowering; Tesla has been increasing its prices for quite a while now. Also, perhaps they're lowering their margin from more than enough to enough --- their margin was too high, leaving too much business on the table. We're not in possession of the numbers, so it's hard to know if they're laughing all the way to the bank or just doing what they have to do to do very well.WTF?:
- 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.
Just looked at my MVPA for my 2013 Model S 60...Base price was $57,400 + $10,000 for the 60kWh battery upgrade (from 40kWh)...so $67,400 with no other options (and another $1170 for delivery fee, final inspection etc.) PLUS, I paid another $2000 to enable supercharging and have no power folding mirrors, tech package, heated seats and other sensors. So this new S60 is really a great deal, and I'm happy that Tesla is actually reducing the cost for new customers AND giving them a better vehicle.
If anything, combined sales/demand have increased for the Model X and S. Just looking at the charts linked to below, average monthly sales for the first several months of 2016 is almost 1,000 vehicles higher than the equivalent period last year (combined for the Model X and S).
2016 January - May:
Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard
2015 January - December:
December 2015 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Sales Report Card
Demand on the X has decreased from the initial 35k ordered, as buyers have postponed/canceled their orders. Sales have increased because they started at 0.
Demand on the S has softened. No company introduces a lower margin product when they are capacity constrained. This is all about keeping the production line rolling, until they release the 3
True, but it is a pain and advised against charging to 100% so 90% which is typical really just nets a good 189 rated range miles?
Someone needs to test these new batteries to see if they are sitting with the unactivated portion charged, or uncharged. If charged it should slow when charging to a crawl to 100%, but if the 15kWh difference is not being used, should get up to 100% quite easy/fast still and not be a big deal to charge to 100% on a regular basis, so you really can get that 200+ rated miles stated.
This makes sense from a Sales and Marketing standpoint as Model S sales were actually starting to slip in 2Q16.
View attachment 180183
I agree
Remember also that the non-Ds have a bigger frunk.
The price of the 75D is exactly the same as it was yesterday -- 79,500.
Still twice as much as a model 3, and now range is worse. I am not sure many will be willing to spend $9,000 for upgrade, especially once the $35k model 3 comes out.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.
I saw a $5200 saving for the 60 over the 70. Then they want $9000 extrA for the 75. It used to be $3k extra to upgrade to the 75. I agree with you they raised the price. This is all good stuff for Teslas bottom line, but as a prospecting buyer of a 70 I am not sure I find the savings worth it.Pretty sure this is incorrect. I agree with others. I think it was 75,XXX, and defaulted to the D model. Selecting RWD, or -$5,000, dropped to $71,XXX. This is for the refreshed version, during June. Maybe someone has a cashed page, someplace? The point is, most of us recognize a price increase for the 75kwh car (66k + 8.5k, for RWD).
How much do you think you want to get for it? I might be interested in buying.I'm selling my 60 in a couple of weeks when my X comes in. I don't know if this announcement is good news or bad news for me.