Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by neroden, Apr 8, 2012.
I've told three different represenatives how deeply offensive this is to Sig and Perf customers.
I think the most likely trades are Sig/Perf customers that want 19" trading with base model buyers that want 21" for something like $2500. The Sig/Perf customers get a partial rebate and the base model customers get the tires at a discount. The timing problem of course being the fact that Sig customers get their's much earlier than base model customers, but Perf customers won't have that timing issue (other than just trying to coordinate with another Model S customer with a similar P #).
I'm not sure I feel offended exactly, though obviously I feel strongly. It's all business in the end, but I think it's possibly an unfortunate business choice in this case. I'm glad you brought it to their attention though and I encourage those in a similar position to do the same. Politely of course. Tesla has shown they do monitor the board and do listen, so there's always hope.
So, more on topic, if I get a Perf one value-add thing I may have for trade is the ability to get a base model buyer the carbon gray rims!
Thank you. Three comments up I decided to make an outright offer because it looks like Tesla execs have simply chosen to do the wrong thing on this, though I do encourage them to change their minds. It's the sort of thing which leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the company's attitudes towards business; if George Blankenship is reading, *this sort of pricing mess is not how you sell iPods*.
Edit: I think what's really offensive to me about it is the utterly pointless environmental waste of the extra, gratuitous transport and handling involved in the trading. But the monetary savings are significant enough that it may well be worth it.
Mods, I don't want to derail this (again) on the wheel pricing issue, but what's the appropriate forum for talk on it? Wheel trading is so intricately tied to Tesla's pricing, so it's related, but maybe this belongs in a pricing thread somewhere?
Mod note: Thanks for the heads up! b.
Here's that link: Wheel-trading Thread
I do not know if you guys know that by choosing those 19" wheels, you will not be able to get the full performance of the performance models! 19" are not so wide as the 21", whith as consequence has less rubber on the road = less grip = slower acceleration = more stress on the tires = more tiredegradation
Jerry33 dispelled that myth on this thread: Is 4.4 seconds vs 5.6 seconds alone worth $10k?
"The contact patch area is load per wheel divided by psi. so if the load per wheel is 1000 lbs and the tires are inflated to 50 psi (for ease of math) then the contact patch is 20 square inches. In a tire has 5 inches of tread width then the contact patch is 4 inches long (actually there is a slight ovalness to the contact patch which is dependent on the stiffness of the belts, but for rough estimating 5 x 4 will do). If the tread width is 7 inches then the contact patch length is 2.9 inches.
The trick here is "all things being equal". All things aren't equal because the tread compound and the belt construction are likely to be different between the two tires. So the wide tire may stop shorter, but that won't be due to the wider width. Tire design is actually very complex."
Both the 19" and the 21" are 245 wide, so identical there. Only sidewall height differs, with the 19" having 1" taller sidewalls than the 21".
I think I saw on a photo of the tires on model X, that model X 21" has higher sidewalls compared to model S 21"
I thought 19" was 7" wide and 21" 7.5" wide
Again, given the same performance tires on the 19" and 21", the ONLY difference between the two is the slightly enhanced cornering handling and stability with the 21" wheels.
Mod note: I thought this was a thread on Tesla's wheel pricing packages ... changed the thread title to reflect the meandering over into tire performance.
Ok the 19" and 21" WHEELS are different widths. But the tires as far as anyone can tell are both 245 wide. So tire width and contact patch for both size wheels will be stupidly close.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Can someone name ANY car manufacturer that will give you a credit when you upgrade package and it comes with bigger/more costly wheels? I cant. Hell it seems that EVERY Audi has a package that comes with upgraded wheels, and according to their builder if you 'downgrade' the wheels you still pay the package price. Sure I would be a little sore about paying for wheels that I don't want but this is the way packages work.
Hell I am basically paying $3,700 just for HID headlamps. I could care less about everything else there (ok, I sort of want the maps but wouldn't pay more than about $250 for them). Why can't I get a downgrade in price for home link and the HD rearview camera? Because it is a package they bundle loss/low profit items with high profit items in packages.
Way to pull the two discussions together, ElS . Thanks!
To our detriment, it's a pretty common practice in the industry. Before stepping back to reassess the purchase decision, I was looking at replacing a '03 E320 with an "11 E350. To get the keyless go I wanted, I had to by a second level premium package at $6400. The combined package had a few things I wanted but many I could do without. A more than 10% uptick in the cost of the car is robbery. Audi is very similar in its packaging.
It does make the assembly line more efficient by putting these packages together versus 50 or so builds if they are available factory installed as single options.
El Supreme, I do understand your point. For me the defining issues/differences are:
1) It's about what make sense rather than any comparison to other vendors. Tesla has set up a dual pricing scheme for tires which makes no sense to me. If you want to make a comparison, Tesla often touts themselves as being more like a tech company than a car company so let's compare it to building a computer. If you build a computer from almost any big tech vendor, you can downgrade and get credit for the parts you downgrade (e.g. smaller disk drive, cpu, etc).
It's that "pay for what you choose" build-a-computer experience that informs my view. If I get a more expensive item, I pay more. If I get a less expensive item, I pay less. The beauty is the simplicity and transparency of it.
2) Downgrading to the 19" tires is desirable for many people due to the nature of tires and not just the cost. With other upgrade packages, there may be things you don't care about, but it'd be hard not to classify them as superior than their basic counterpart (e.g. improved headlights). Not caring about an upgrade is different from the case where 19" tires have distinct advantages beyond cost.
3) Tesla specifically offers a downgrade option on the tires. Tesla does not offer selective downgrades of the items in the tech package. No one is asking Tesla to create an option they don't already provide, we're only asking they charge for what's actually delivered. Again, that beautifully simple "pay for what you get" approach.
To defend some of those on here who are upset that they can't downgrade, I for one understand it because I have never purchased a luxury car before. The Model S will be my first as the most luxurious car I drove before that was my 2003 Honda Accord V6-EX w/Leather (nope, not even an Acura). Hearing that this is more common practice in the luxury car market makes more sense to me and something I wasn't aware of as I didn't have this experience.
ckessel also has a point in regards to Elon wanting to be different and push that TM is more of a technology company then that of a car company. On the other hand, unlike a technology giant like Dell or HP who sell's millions of units and get's huge discounts on parts, TM doesn't have the purchasing power that these big guys have. Even Apple, Inc spill's millions of dollars ahead of a product launch to pre-purchase screens and solid state drives. The profit margins are much smaller when you are only ordering no more then 5,000 unit's at a time. Most of the big vendors wouldn't even accept an order that small as so TM has to work with the little guys with promises of growing together. In the mean time TM has to bundle and save where they can.
I am a very humble earner and my dream specifications on a Model S would almost take my whole annual paycheck to cover if I paid it off in cash. How many times has Elon said however that he is selling a premium sport in the Roadster first then a luxury sedan in the Model S after that to help fund future, more affordable cars like Bluestar? If you don't want to spend the extra on the Signature or Performance model cars then stick to a production with the 85K battery and choose the options you really want. Otherwise, why are we getting upset over $2k or $3k here and there when you look at what you are getting? The Model S will be a car like no other, safe, powerful, and a head turner for a while to come. Don't get me wrong, $3k is a lot, I couldn't even get myself to upgrade my iPad to the 3rd generation as it wasn't worth it to me. The Model S is a different animal entirely and I open it up to anyone to argue the points I made. Isn't all just perspective in the end, and I'm just saying, take a different angle when looking at this.
P.S. Sorry for the super long post.
I knew you'd reply ckessel
As a consumer I agree with you. As a shareholder I agree with they way they are doing things now. For the short and long term viability of the company I want them to make as much money as possible so they can continue making electric cars. If they cave into every request like this there will never be a Bluestar.
As a stakeholder, your agreement is based on an assumption that their choice will net more money than my suggested pricing choice.
Is that assumption true? I can say Tesla is losing money due to the choice in one case: mine. I won't be getting the Perf model with the choice as it stands. It pushes the effective price differential (all other options the same) between base and perf beyond my comfort zone. It moves it from a $8500 upgrade to a $12000 upgrade. They'd sell a $8500 more expensive Perf car to me if they changed their policy.
So, Tesla is losing out on $8500 from me. The question is, how many cases like mine match up with the additional profit margin on Tesla's 21" tires? Tesla isn't in the tire business, I'd think the margin difference on the 21" tires vs. the 19" isn't all that significant.
Their choice may very well be losing you value as shareholder. We really have no way to know.
I would suspect the profit difference to Tesla to be incredibly small either way, so to my mind that would argue for providing the downgrade credit since if it's a wash then they might as well be as customer friendly as possible.
I think it goes back to who their expected customer is/will be. If the bulk of their customers will be previous/potential BMW, Audi, MB, Cadillac buyers then they are used to things being packaged this way. I would echo the question, does any car manufacturer give you a credit for downgrading parts in a package? I don't know of one. Let's face it, with modern JIT inventory and assembly lines, manufacturers could easily have every but and bolt be different from one car to the next with very little cost. This is about profit. The same can be said about cable and satellite providers. There's no technical reason I can't pick and choose individual channels yet these companies require you to purchase a bundle (case in point, I want Speed Channel to watch motorcycle racing. I couldn't give two shakes about football, baseball, etc yet I have to buy the entire sports package form Comcast to get one channel). It's just the way it is today. You can piss and moan about it but there are no alternatives (yes, I could watch races on my computer but that's a PITA for me).