Brainstorm: Eternal Signature Status

[roblab]

I seem to recall that some of those first owners who managed to get custom paint done in the factory pay $12k(?) for it, and Tesla still pulled the option because it wasn't enough to cover their costs.

Not sure it was costs. it took too long. The panels, before assembly, were loaded on a towable rack, hauled to another paint place, NOT the factory, painted, cured, and sent back. Then assembled. I have pictures of mine before, during and after. The charge was $12K, yup.

I had planned to get black (only had black, silver, white, red at first, and all paint stations at the factory were busy) and have it repainted, which you can still do. By the time they rip off chrome, mess up windows, pull all parts off, etc., having to replace, the repaint place was going to charge me -- also -- $12K. As color was more important than performance, that's what we did. For a week or two after ordering, I had visions of having to pay a total of maybe $80K for the car, and it got to where we just did not want to know. We were going for a Tesla and Tesla stock was OK and we weren't broke yet. It ended faaaaaar north of $80K.

Don't know how ggr got his abalone shell pink, but I was the first. By the time Tesla had done a half dozen, they felt it was more trouble than it was worth.

I suppose it could be possible that when they aren't so constrained they might offer custom colors again.

Bowing to Bonnie, agreed. It is cost, no matter where it comes from.

 

[apacheguy]

I like this proposal the best. Maybe not at cost but certainly more affordable than standard price.

No, I think it's fair to expect at cost hardware upgrades. After all, what happened to the Sig hardware upgrade promise?

 

[brianman]

No, I think it's fair to expect at cost hardware upgrades. After all, what happened to the Sig hardware upgrade promise?

That was in the service plan not the Sig offering. Or I'm misremembering.

 

[rlang59]

That was in the service plan not the Sig offering. Or I'm misremembering.

Not sure about anything Sig related but it is in the service plan.

 

[dsm363]

No, I think it's fair to expect at cost hardware upgrades. After all, what happened to the Sig hardware upgrade promise?

Yeah. That hardware promise was vague and included for all, not just Sig customers.

Tesla still has shareholders so wouldn't expect at cost. It would be nice but can't expect that. If we got a relative steep discount to production cars that would still be nice.

 

[Kraken]

All they have to do is wait for a break in the paint line. Just like they did when they painted that beautiful purple car we all saw them delivering when we all met at the Fremont chargers. They even did purple brake calipers and purple accent on the dash instead of carbon fiber etc.

That being said, they shouldn't do this at all with the signatures. Unless the old car is destroyed (and I'm sure they wouldn't car what you do with your old car), it is just adding to the total number of signatures. People could keep making more and selling it off (there is quite a demand for that color...).

Better to just transfer the little accents that say signature on it or offer some upgrades. Keep the cars themselves special, not the name that owned the spot in line.

 

[apacheguy]

That was in the service plan not the Sig offering. Or I'm misremembering.

Either way, I have not had a *single* hardware upgrade performed on my Sig. And I have the service plan.

People often forget that Sig reservations required an interest free 40K deposit and a 5K surcharge/tax. We gave Tesla a lot, and speaking as a shareholder, shareholders and Tesla owe it to us (and roadster owners) for them being in the position they are in now. It's in Tesla's best interest to treat us well.

Furthermore, Tesla Service is not supposed to take a profit. Elon has stated this before. They are supposed to be a neutral element. I maintain that at costs upgrades are unquestionably the right thing to do here.

 

[brianman]

Furthermore, Tesla Service is not supposed to take a profit. Elon has stated this before. They are supposed to be a neutral element. I maintain that at costs upgrades are unquestionably the right thing to do here.

Depending on your methodology, they already are offering service and retrofits at cost. Parts, labor, and facilities bills.

 

[Trnsl8r]

My recollection is that it was an efficiency issue not a cost issue. Meaning the time impact on the line, not the materials / labor cost. "Opportunity cost", I suppose is another phrasing.

efficiency issue = cost issue

 

[apacheguy]

Depending on your methodology, they already are offering service and retrofits at cost. Parts, labor, and facilities bills.

Parts and labor are ok with me. Facilities bills are what we all collectively pay for through our service plans or ESAs. However, are you telling me that $3,000 to retrofit power folding mirrors only includes parts and labor? Or a battery upgrade that costs upwards of $42,000? Sorry, but I see a lot of other mark up baked into those prices.

 

[Trnsl8r]

That's a cost issue. Cost issues are not just materials and labor. It also has to do with line down time, etc. Maybe you don't write a check to cover it, but it is lost revenue.

Bonnie put this more eloquently than I did. For reference, this is what I meant.

 

[Bifff67]

How bout quarterly? We wait. We have our orig sig so we are good. Factory has a sig paint day on rare occasion.

My problem would be I have to keep the early one. have to find storage, and oh yeah money. When I'm gone they'll find this stack of Teslas out in the back 40.

 

[bonnie]

Either way, I have not had a *single* hardware upgrade performed on my Sig. And I have the service plan.

People often forget that Sig reservations required an interest free 40K deposit and a 5K surcharge/tax. We gave Tesla a lot, and speaking as a shareholder, shareholders and Tesla owe it to us (and roadster owners) for them being in the position they are in now. It's in Tesla's best interest to treat us well.

Furthermore, Tesla Service is not supposed to take a profit. Elon has stated this before. They are supposed to be a neutral element. I maintain that at costs upgrades are unquestionably the right thing to do here.

Speaking as a Roadster owner, I'll say I bought my vehicle with no expectations of future goodies just because I bought a Roadster. Speaking as a Model X Signature holder, with a significant amount of money again on the line for a significant period of time (and as a shareholder), Tesla owes me nothing other than what we've contractually agreed upon.

I'm not saying they should not do more for Signature Model S owners. But to say they owe you for being there early, totally disagree.

 

[apacheguy]

Yes, but Bonnie, even you have said that you have faith in Tesla to make things right (in relation to the A pack situation, among other things). I can dig up the post for you if you want, but I clearly remember you saying that you justified your stake in a Sig X because you believed in Tesla doing the right thing. In your faith, you implied that extended beyond just a contract. Hopefully the meaning of a signature owner that lended 40K to a struggling (at the time) startup means more than just words on a paper.

 

[bonnie]

Yes, but Bonnie, even you have said that you have faith in Tesla to make things right (in relation to the A pack situation, among other things). I can dig up the post for you if you want, but I clearly remember you saying that you justified your stake in a Sig X because you believed in Tesla doing the right thing. In your faith, you implied that extended beyond just a contract. Hopefully the meaning of a signature owner that lended 40K to a struggling (at the time) startup means more than just words on a paper.

No need to dig it up, I'm happy to say it again. My experience with Tesla is that they will do the right thing. Saying 'they will do the right thing' is far different from saying 'they owe me because I invested in them early in their history'. One has nothing to do with the other. If you read something else into it, I can't help it. I was talking about the company from an ethical standpoint, not from a standpoint of 'they owe me'.

 

[rlang59]

Furthermore, Tesla Service is not supposed to take a profit. Elon has stated this before. They are supposed to be a neutral element. I maintain that at costs upgrades are unquestionably the right thing to do here.

Upgrades and their costs would be coming out of the sale side, service would just be doing the work. I would not expect those to be done at cost, and would expect them to draw a profit on them. Yes I would like them to be done at cost but I disagree that it is "the right thing to do".

 

[Owner]

I think with the Roadsters the signatures were just who was in line first, no premium. Mine was a 1.5 and I put down 70K? can't remember exact number.

We early Roadster owners actually got a discount! It was by accident. I remember one somewhat tense meeting with Elon where there was a line in the number list where if you were later than number YYY, you had to pay $10K more than us earlier group. Had to do with the contract we originally signed that they couldn't change the price. Tesla at that point was really struggling financially and they had to raise the price as even Elon was struggling. Very tough times.

I dunno. But assuming we're completing the comparison...

Roadster 101. Find an equivalently configured Roadster <= 100. Did they have the same price tag? Or was there a $3,550 - $5,050 premium for the same configuration with VIN <= 100?

 

[ggr]

And what about the Signature buyers who don't agree? They bought their car, believing no more would be made with that color. I get that you all love that color red. It's beautiful, truly is. But is it fair to the Signature buyers who are content with their car, who do not want to upgrade -- to then change the rules on them? Wouldn't you be angry if that happened?

Sure, give people a 'Signature Status' in the Tesla system. That's a nice reward for being first in line on Tesla's second car model. But I really feel that a Signature designates the first cars off the line. Subsequent cars should not have the same badging or same color.

If this is really just about 'I want to keep the same color car', order it body in white, have it sent out for custom paint, and then you have it. But personally, I'd go for the deep ruby red of Talulah's Roadster - OMG, that's the most beautiful red I've ever seen. It's the same paint as the Roadster gifted to Nissan's president, several years back. That's the color I'd pick in a heartbeat. If you ever see it in person, you'll understand.

View attachment 55748

I think that's Toyota's president, Akio Toyoda. It certainly isn't Carlos Ghosn.

 

[bonnie]

I think that's Toyota's president, Akio Toyoda. It certainly isn't Carlos Ghosn.

Oops. You're right. I wasn't thinking, I was mesmerized by that gorgeous color.

 

[brianman]

I think with the Roadsters the signatures were just who was in line first, no premium. Mine was a 1.5 and I put down 70K? can't remember exact number.

Indeed. I think if an equivalently configured Sig and Prod "early" vehicle (meaning before they added some new options, and raised prices a couple times, etc.) were identically priced (or even better at a discount like early Roadsters) then the Sig Angst thread would never have been born.

As for the larger initial reservation cost, I've always thought that was reasonable for the (generally speaking) earlier delivery and (for those that opted) exterior Red / interior White options.

That's the financial aspect -- of the Sig S.


As for the general Signature concept/sub-brand that applies to the buyer/owner, that's a very intriguing concept and a way for them to make some (all?) of us feel better about paying more for, well, "not more" for the S (and potentially the X).