Options / Pricing gripes for 160 mile version

[Trnsl8r]

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

+1!

I have owned 17 cars in my life, none of them were bought new, and only one broke the five-figure barrier at $17k. Still feels a bit surreal spending about 5x times that amount for a car and normally I wouldn't have considered it, but Model S just made too much sense... We'll see if it continues to make sense next fall.

 

[qwk]

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

You are grasping at straws here. They already made that mistake with the roadster. This could potentialy be a "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you" scenario here.

 

[Norbert]

5) I STILL don't see a substantiated argument that the 40kWh pack won't support quick charging.

It is possible but won't work well enough to meet the standards Tesla wants to be measured by.

 

[AnOutsider]

You are grasping at straws here. They already made that mistake with the roadster. This could potentialy be a "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you" scenario here.

I honestly don't see how so? The Model S has never been the low-priced, for everyone electric car? It's ALWAYS been marketed as a luxury sedan going after BMW/Mercedes/Audi hasn't it? So how exactly am I grasping for straws by saying that anyone who may have been buying out of their price range should wait for a car that IS in their price range?

It's sounding like you're saying that those who saw the base Model S as JUST within their price range are being shafted because Tesla isn't offering the car well-equipped at that price point. So it's either Tesla includes more (possibly taking a loss) or those folks pony up a bit more cash (possibly putting them in a tough situation). Neither is really a good outcome, so in that case I say: maybe the bluestar (or, really, a Leaf) will be the car for you.

 

[Todd Burch]

It is possible but won't work well enough to meet the standards Tesla wants to be measured by.

Norbert, maybe I'm just not getting it.

Via AC current, charging power is limited to about 22 kWh (twin chargers).

But via DC current, it's limited only by the C rate, which would be a limit for quick charging anyway.. So can someone please explain where I'm missing that the base pack can't quick charge?

 

[qwk]

Well then they shouldn't have advertised the price in 2009. You could defend Tesla all day long here, but any unbiased person That has followed them from the beginning will definately not agree.

 

[JRP3]

Is it possible that the higher C rate quick charge needs a more robust and expensive cooling system as well? Maybe they think the smaller pack with the older style cells would give them warranty issues if charged at the higher C rates? Just poking around in the dark here....

 

[Norbert]

But via DC current, it's limited only by the C rate, which would be a limit for quick charging anyway.. So can someone please explain where I'm missing that the base pack can't quick charge?

I didn't say it couldn't possibly quick charge. Unless it has a chemistry less tolerable of quick charging, it should be able to get at least 40 kW. Although, as the more limited battery warranty and the slower acceleration shows, that would be in a more constrained context, since it will have to be recharged more often, and *any* use puts more strain on it that on the larger packs. But again, I'm not saying it isn't possible.

 

[qwk]

Is it possible that the higher C rate quick charge needs a more robust and expensive cooling system as well? Maybe they think the smaller pack with the older style cells would give them warranty issues if charged at the higher C rates? Just poking around in the dark here....

I'm pretty sure that Tesla stated that all the packs use automotive grade cells. Whether that means that they are the same? I don't know. The roadster used basic laptop cells.

 

[ckessel]

Well then they shouldn't have advertised the price in 2009.

So, Tesla is suppose to work towards creating a car and then say "Yea, but we can't tell you what it's going to cost. No, not even if you give us a reservation deposit. Sorry." That's your view? Tesla hasn't said much of anything except vague statements about cost the entire time except for the base price, which they kept (with whatever debates about whether it's a good price).

...any unbiased person That has followed them from the beginning will definately not agree.

Nice. Preemptively disregards anyone that disagrees with you by classifying them as biased. Between this and your "Government secretly controls our minds" bit...it's hard to debate anything with you in something resembling good faith.

 

[jimbakker666]

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.

I am not a leaf owner, and I am a reservation holder. I am also one of the most vocal with my complaint. To be clear, I was also one of the most vocal proponents of the Model S (more than a few people within my personal sphere heard about it through me). In fact, I even considered placing an ad on my blog to provide free advertising for Tesla, as a gift to a company I felt respected me as a customer. A lowly 160 buyer, but a customer nonetheless.

Now that I see the ol' switcharoo they pulled with the 160, things are a bit different.

 

[GoodGuyGreg]

What changes can Tesla make that will make you support them like you did before? Please be reasonable but I would like to know exactly what.

 

[surfingslovak]

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.

I think you are making too many assumptions here. I don't know what income group you belong to, and I don't really care. I think that most people on this forum can buy a $90K car and have spare change left. Some more than others, but that's not the point. Part of your argument is correct, Tesla does not want to move to volume sales yet. We don't know the reasons and many potential buyers are disappointed. They have budgeted a certain amount, patiently waited, evangelized the technology and the company, etc. Some have even bought a bridge car while waiting, there is nothing wrong with that, and I don't see a reason to look down on them.

And that's the part of the argument I don't get. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have seen this in several posts. Some folks come off pretty elitist and respond to the disappointment of a certain customer group in an unsensible way. There is really no need for that. Tesla has made a business decision, which will disappoint and ultimately turn off a portion of their perspective customer base. And perhaps for good. This is unfortunate, there is no need to throw salt into their wounds. While I question this decision, I hope that Tesla will do well, and I wish they communicated this better. There is no need to turn the very people you need to be ambassadors for this technology against you.

 

[brianman]

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.

Disagree on this one. If all of the shipped Model S were 60+ or 85 kWh, that would be success. The 40 kWh doesn't need to sell at all for Model S to be a success. If fact, as long as production is saturated the lower the percentage of 40 kWh buyers the better.

 

[benji4]

Tesla I'm sure felt that it was extremely important to actually hit their $49,900 target, and I'd hate to see what this thread looked like if they went over that by $5,000 or something whether supercharging was included or not... Let's assume that perhaps they will actually lose a few thoasand $ on each 40kWh model they sell. Including supercharging would increase that loss of course, but more importantly they would end up selling more 40kWh models and conversely less 60kWh and 85kWh models. This situation is very similar to the $20,000+ difference between the Roadster Sport than the base Roadster. Tesla wants to sell more sports than base Roadsters because that's the only way they can make money since it costs them much less than $20,000 to actually upgrade the base Roadster to a sport. Nobody can blame them for wanting to stay in business! At the end of the day this is all about economics, and it seems apparent that Tesla needs to sell more of the expensive models and less cheaper ones in order to keep their business viable.

All that said, the 40kWh Model S is going to be a damn good car. They hit the price they promised, it looks like it's going to be on time, and it seems like pretty much everything else they promised is there as well. You still get an amazing amount of bang for the buck out of the base model, and I'm sure that their will be many, many happy customers with all of the different trim levels. The Leaf is no Model S, it just doesn't even compare really. Tesla just had to make the more expensive grades appealing enough to tilt the balance and sell more of them. Unfortunate maybe, but completely neccessary. I'm personally not critical at all towards them for this decision. They aren't perfect of course, and it's easy to see how lack of supercharging on the base Model S could upset some people, but it's important to keep things in perspective and try to understand the big picture.

 

[Norbert]

I think you are making too many assumptions here.

I was actually getting a bit the same impression, while I do know that Jim is an exception there. There were serious accusations regarding Tesla and predictions of doom, so discussion was inevitable.

 

[dsm363]

Now that I see the ol' switcharoo they pulled with the 160, things are a bit different.

If Tesla had promised quick charging on the 40 kWh pack that's one thing but they were vague about it. I understand your frustration but I don't think Tesla lied. They were probably evaluating their options before making a decision. I agree with others though that if you're thinking of taking many road trips, you'd likely be unhappy with the 40 kWh pack anyway for many years until the infrastructure was built out.

 

[Todd Burch]

Disagree on this one. If all of the shipped Model S were 60+ or 85 kWh, that would be success. The 40 kWh doesn't need to sell at all for Model S to be a success. If fact, as long as production is saturated the lower the percentage of 40 kWh buyers the better.

I think you're speaking purely from Tesla's perspective. I'm talking broader view. More Model S's on the street = more heads turning (almost everyone thinks the exterior is eye-catching), more people asking questions, more people buying EVs, more infrastructure, and faster EV adoption.

 

[brianman]

I think you're speaking purely from Tesla's perspective. I'm talking broader view. More Model S's on the street = more heads turning (almost everyone thinks the exterior is eye-catching), more people asking questions, more people buying EVs, more infrastructure, and faster EV adoption.

My point was that saturating the production queue is success, regardless of the distribution of battery pack sizes. I have confidence that Tesla has priced the options such that 1000x 85 kWh (Signature) and 19000x 40 kWh (all the rest) keeps them afloat in 2012 rather than sinks them. Fewer sales of the 40 kWh just improves that story.

As long as they saturate the production queue, there isn't a way to have more model S's on the street... well actually, there kind of is. The larger the battery the more likely the cars will be on the road rather than parked at a charging location. Which further supports my point.

 

[qwk]

Woah, hold up a minute. Since Tesla made a similar mistake with the Roadster, it doesn't get any easier than learning from their mistake.

As for your other cheap shot comment, you obviously are very gullible, and cry like a baby when things don't go your way. An example would be the fit you threw over the sig price.

So, Tesla is suppose to work towards creating a car and then say "Yea, but we can't tell you what it's going to cost. No, not even if you give us a reservation deposit. Sorry." That's your view? Tesla hasn't said much of anything except vague statements about cost the entire time except for the base price, which they kept (with whatever debates about whether it's a good price).


Nice. Preemptively disregards anyone that disagrees with you by classifying them as biased. Between this and your "Government secretly controls our minds" bit...it's hard to debate anything with you in something resembling good faith.