Options / Pricing gripes for 160 mile version

[AnOutsider]

Where would you put this ?

You are distorting that comment way out of line. That post wasn't to imply people are happy the smaller packs don't get QC, the post was part of a general theme that if the smaller packs can charge about the same from a smaller unit (like an HPC 2), then that's fine. In the quote you chose, it DOES make sense. If there's a HPC and QC and the guy used the QC, the guy who can actually gain benefit from that QC won't be able to. Meanwhile if the person with the smaller pack had just used the HPC, both cars would be recharging at their best at the same time.

Please relax, I get some of the gripes, and while I may not agree with all of them, most people are presenting rational ideas. You seem to be willing to grab onto anything you can to incite a riot here. If you're that into EVs and such an advocate, then you should realize your outbursts are doing more harm than good.

 

[EVNow]

I sort of assume (dangerous I know!) that Tesla looked at driving habits the same way. If I totally wrong, and I might be, someone needs to explain it to me.

As you may (or may not) know I've been intimately involved with Leaf over the last two years. Also if you talk to old timers who have had EV1 or RAV4EV, they will tell you the same thing.

Once you get an EV - you want to use it as much as possible. QC makes that possible. That is why 80% of Leaf owners paid to get QC port.

Personally, why would I "downgrade" from a Leaf with QC to a Tesla, without it ?

I'm curious as to why anyone who isn't planning to buy the 160 miler wants to vigorously defends Tesla not giving the QC option. Are they trying to justify their own decison to spend more or are they feeling more "exclusive" ? Why would some one post that they would be "annoyed to say the least" if a 160 miler is using the super charger or that someone who doesn't want to pay for the 230 mile model should wait a few more years for the Blue Star ?!

 

[NigelM]

I'm curious as to why anyone who isn't planning to buy the 160 miler wants to vigorously defends Tesla not giving the QC option. Are they trying to justify their own decison to spend more or are they feeling more "exclusive" ?

Chill. I'm not trying to justify anything. I just explained that I couldn't see the day-to-day circumstances where I would ever need QC if I opted for a 40kWh ESS. I'd be happy for anyone to explain their own.

BTW, I'd be happy to see the whole world driving EV's and just as happy if they were all Tesla's, in which case there would be no exclusivity anymore.

 

[EVNow]

You are distorting that comment way out of line.

Really ? Why is it "ok" for the 160 miler to wait for 2 hours ?

Please relax, I get some of the gripes, and while I may not agree with all of them, most people are presenting rational ideas. You seem to be willing to grab onto anything you can to incite a riot here. If you're that into EVs and such an advocate, then you should realize your outbursts are doing more harm than good.

The "rational" ideas include apparent "technical limitation" of 40 kWh - and when that didn't fly - you started accusing the messenger. I think you should take a deep breath and let people who want to complain, complain. Stop making pointed personal attacks and accusing others of being "irrational".

Well, all my "outbursts" hopefully will push Tesla to reconsider the decision. Your posts are only going to Tesla feel good about their decision. And exactly how are "outbursts" harming EVs ?

BTW, this is something that a poster said on MNL. This looks more like an outburst to me - but a genuine, probably all too common reaction.

Wow, what a turn off. Are they trying to piss me off or what? So now their $50,000 model, which is what I have been seriously considering, is having quite a few of the features converted to "options", adding many thousands of dollars on to the price?
It was bad enough knowing I would have to wait >1 year for it, but now I also find out I can only have it in plain black or white (almost as bad as Henry Ford), no navigation, Homelink, keyless entry, or backup camera, reduced performance, smaller wheels and tires than they have previously displayed, and access denied to their quick charge network they are building! And they are also reducing the battery warranty, when compared to the high-priced models. I think I'll just keep the Leaf then, thank you very much.

 

[EVNow]

Chill. I'm not trying to justify anything. I just explained that I couldn't see the day-to-day circumstances where I would ever need QC if I opted for a 40kWh ESS. I'd be happy for anyone to explain their own.

Sorry, that comment wasn't directed at you.

Ofcourse, few would want to use QC on a day-to-day basis (except for fleets). May be weekends or less often.

 

[AnOutsider]

Really ? Why is it "ok" for the 160 miler to wait for 2 hours ?

Did you actually read my post or just jump to reply? IF (and that's IF because I don't know the technicalities of any of this) a 160 pack car can recharge at the same rate whether they use a HPC 2.0 or a Supercharger, then does it not make sense for them to use the HPC? What do they lose from not using the Supercharger?

The "rational" ideas include apparent "technical limitation" of 40 kWh - and when that didn't fly - you started accusing the messenger. I think you should take a deep breath and let people who want to complain, complain. Stop making pointed personal attacks and accusing others of being "irrational".

When that didn't fly? You seem to forget that I wasn't the one who made the post or the argument. As I said, I don't have the technical knowledge to make that assessment, so I wouldn't be able to argue or "accuse" anyone.

I'm curious as to why anyone who isn't planning to buy the 160 miler wants to vigorously defends Tesla not giving the QC option. Are they trying to justify their own decison to spend more or are they feeling more "exclusive" ? Why would some one post that they would be "annoyed to say the least" if a 160 miler is using the super charger or that someone who doesn't want to pay for the 230 mile model should wait a few more years for the Blue Star ?!

Talk about personal attacks, where did I say I was justifying any decision? I KNEW from the beginning I wanted the max range possible and I opted for that. There is no need to justify or feel exclusive? If anything, I need to "justify" the 5k ding the signature people are taking, but that's not the argument here is it? And my post said that if you feel the Model S is way too expensive for what you get and you're not comfortable, there's always Bluestar which is supposed to be a cheaper, more mass-market car. Again, how is that offensive? Chill out man.

 

[VolkerP]

I'd like to chime in as my quote was mentioned as one of the disreputable ones. Ugh had to look up that word...

It is true that every EV owner wants QC because he wants to do all his driving in his EV. If my range is 40 miles I NEED it our my car is nearly useless. If the vehicle range (from one single charge) approaches my daily driving distance, that need decreases and I can live mostly with overnight L1/L2 charging. Still I'd like to have the QC to run errands or to take the occasional road trip.
The 40kWh pack should cover your daily driving or it is the wrong car for you. It is not capable to swallow the 90kW from a supercharger so Tesla omits hardware and software for the "supercharger access". QC at a lower level might be possible with a CHAdeMO adapter (Tesla or aftermarket).

 

[dpeilow]

It is not capable to swallow the 90kW from a supercharger so Tesla omits hardware and software for the "supercharger access".

All it has to do is tell the supercharger what it can swallow and that's it. If it can't take 1C = 40 kW = 54 bhp then there is a real problem as the same would be true backwards.

The LEAF and i-MiEV have different charge profiles and they manage to tell CHAdeMO chargers this.

 

[Dave EV]

Chill. I'm not trying to justify anything. I just explained that I couldn't see the day-to-day circumstances where I would ever need QC if I opted for a 40kWh ESS. I'd be happy for anyone to explain their own.

Just because you can't see yourself in that position doesn't mean that many others wouldn't be in that position. Paying an additional $20k for a car is a LOT of money - you can buy a whole car for that much!

But really, for 98% of your day-to-day circumstances, the 40 kWh pack with 110+mi real world range is going to be more than enough.

If you could recharge it from near empty to 80% in ~30 min (typical quick charge), you need to be able to handle peak charge rates very close to the 90kW peak rate of the supercharger (if you look at the QC charge profile of your typical EV you'll find that it charges over 2C under 50% full, then starts tapering off as it gets fuller to avoid overheating the batteries).

But a single supercharge enables you to nearly double your real world day trip range from 110mi to 200 mi on the 40 kWh car, 160-290 mi on the 60 kWh car and 210-380 mi on the 85 kWh car.

I don't know about you, but I drive a lot more trips in the 110-200 mi range than I do in the 210-380 mi range and on any trip more than 100 miles I generally stop every 120 miles or so for at least a 20 minute break anyway.

In general, the longest trip I might take is 500 miles a day. With supercharging this is possible on the 40 kWh car with 4 stops if one is willing to drive the speed limit. Sure, the 60 kWh car could make it with just 3 stops and the 80 kWh car with 2 stops, but on an day trip where one is in the car for 8 hours is stopping an extra hour to stretch your legs and let the car recharge going to severely hamper your trip?

Unlikely, but if you were limited to 20 kW charging now at best you've got to turn those 30 minute stops (2 hours total charging) to 1 hour stops (4 hours total charging) - that's the point where supercharging makes a difference. Even if you're just driving 200 mi a day - being able to cut your recharge time in half makes a big difference.

 

[dpeilow]

exactly

 

[GoodGuyGreg]

I like how the most vocal complaints about Teslas prices are Leaf drivers who dont even have a Model S reservation (not serious about purchasing a Tesla and won't even be affected because they werent holding a reservation) and probably not in the target income group that Teslas 50k-90k model S was made for.

 

[Dave EV]

I like how the most vocal complaints about Teslas prices are Leaf drivers who dont even have a Model S reservation (not serious about purchasing a Tesla and won't even be affected because they werent holding a reservation) and probably not in the target income group that Teslas 50k-90k model S was made for.

My co-worker has a reservation and has the same super-charger concerns. Having the super-charger and a well placed super-charging station would make his most frequent long distance trip feasible in the 40-60 kWh car, but otherwise he feels he would need the 85 kWh car.

I could buy any Model S if I wanted to - I think you'll find a lot of people "in the demographic" that could easily buy a Roadster but choose not to as spending lots of money of frivolous items such as luxury cars tends not to be how one gets "in the demographic" in the first place if they plan on staying there.

But maybe you're right - I should stop offering suggestions on how to improve the accessibility of Tesla's products to people on the edge of their demographic. Selling more cars isn't part of their business plan, is it?

 

[AnOutsider]

...improve the accessibility of Tesla's products to people on the edge of their demographic. Selling more cars isn't part of their business plan, is it?

I sound like a broken record but... that's what Bluestar is for :smile:

 

[dmckinstry]

I always saw this as a car suitable for upper middle-class buyers, not middle class. (And of course that middle class standard is dropping and getting smaller.

I don't know many people who consider themselves middle class and drive around BMWs and Audis...I think they'd be considered upper middle class.

I consider myself middle class, but would never pay the amount for an ICE that I would for a Model S.

 

[Norbert]

Even if you're just driving 200 mi a day - being able to cut your recharge time in half makes a big difference.

I've made similar arguments in favor of 50 kW for the Leaf, and still think it does make sense for someone owning such a car, and for Nissan since they are offering a lower-cost solution which has fast-charging as an additional option.

But that's Nissan's strategy, and what makes sense in the context of that strategy (for which I've spent a large amount of effort to defend, in the past, not only on this forum), is not necessarily what makes sense in the context of Tesla's strategy (which I prefer without disregarding Nissan's).

 

[dmckinstry]

Yeah, my dryer outlet is a NEMA 14-50, though I realize others are NEMA 14-30s. I'm fairly confident that we will get a NEMA 14-50. That just makes the most sense.

That's been my interpretation. I was under the impression that normal 40A RV park charging was going to be standard.

 

[qwk]

I sound like a broken record but... that's what Bluestar is for :smile:

There isn't going to be a bluestar if the model S isn't a success.

 

[Todd Burch]

Here's my view:

1) Almost all of us are EV enthusiasts...so we want EVs to succeed. To do that, the Model S needs to sell as much as possible, in all price ranges. I think the overwhelming majority of us would love for the base pack to charge at it's highest C rate...I know I would. So I think the overwhelming majority wants the base pack to have quick charging (even though I will be getting the 60 or 85 kWh pack).

2) Almost all of us are Tesla enthusiasts...so we all want the Model S and Tesla to succeed. If it doesn't, we all end up with a car and potentially no company behind it. I think the overwhelming majority of people (even those getting loaded everything) want those getting the base pack to be happy, because it helps Tesla and EVs in general.

3) Tesla wants the Model S to sell. Remember: Elon doesn't want to stop until every car on the road is electric. I don't think Tesla's going to alienate or shoo away base pack customers in the hope that some will upgade instead.

4) Regarding the technical issue, I don't think anyone argued that the 40 kWh pack couldn't be quick charged...just that it couldn't be quick charged at the supercharger's full 90 kW rate.

5) I STILL don't see a substantiated argument that the 40kWh pack won't support quick charging. They've mentioned that other adapters will be available. Remember they're also considered to be at the forefront of EV technology. Maybe I'm being naive, but I'd be very surprised if the base pack doesn't support any form of Quick Charging.

Regardless, there are a lot of knee jerk reactions going on without having the full information. Give Tesla the time to sort things out and tell us the whole story before we jump to conclusions.. If after that time they still don't have an answer that satisfies you, then the Model S is not for you.

Either way...let's let the true story unfold before things start turning nasty around here.

 

[Todd Burch]

That's been my interpretation. I was under the impression that normal 40A RV park charging was going to be standard.

Let's stop and think about this for a second:

Tesla wants the car to succeed. a 14-30 adapter would cost pretty much exactly the same as a 14-50. Why on earth would Tesla cripple their own charge rates for no apparent reason? It seems like we're all just in silly season on the TMC boards. A 14-30 is not rational in any way...it'll be a 14-50...quit worrying about it!

 

[AnOutsider]

There isn't going to be a bluestar if the model S isn't a success.

Granted, but that does not mean that Tesla should take a loss or that people should buy outside of their comfort range either.