They could start by including exclusive options on the Sig like they promised. Then there is the 3 phase discussion that seems to pop up in every thread, and maybe a QC option for the base pack.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
I agree with all of your points. Tesla's best off if all of their sales are for the car with the highest profit margin (probably 300 sig performance, fully loaded). The key is, as you said, to sell as many as they can. But they obviously don't want to hurt 40kWh sales to the point where it would drop them below their maximum production capacity.
jimbakker666
Member
Honestly, that is going to be very difficult to do. I feel that they purposely marketed a $49k car to people that is in fact $80k. They cited the quick 0-60 performance, charging within an hour, and estimated range at 60 mph (instead of what I've now learned is the standard 55mph). The 60 mph estimation was still up as late as last night, until it was changed to 55 mph to match the options list. The 0-60 performance is still cited, but with a newly-added added disclaimer that it applies only to the 85kWh model. If this vehicle were already in its second year of production and they advertised in that manner, I believe it would be against the law. Because the vehicle hasn't yet been produced, it isn't. Does that make it right?
I took the '160s get delivered last' information like a champ. I don't care that much, but in retrospect it does seem to be a slap in the face since it implies that my money is not as important as the other guys. That's true from a business standpoint, but it seems rather arrogant to do that to customers who have given you the same deposit as the other guys (Sigs getting first dibs is fine with me because of the heftier deposit). Will those who opt for leather seats also take delivery before those without? I mean, at what point is that not acceptable?
I suppose at this point, it's a principal thing with me and I would need a damn good explanation as to why there is no supercharging access for the 160. They're in a bit of a quandary with me though. If they suddenly supported SC, that would not completely redeem them in my eyes because they shouldn't have needed this to be pointed out in the first place. They are the ones who touted charging the 'Model S' in an hour (I'd have to look at a cached version of their site to see exactly how they presented it). That, combined with their misleading 0-60 performance and range estimates wrt the 160, lead me to think that they've known all along what they we're doing. After all, it is their car. So, are we playing a big game here where I and others have to figure out what Tesla's words really mean, or are we going to be on the up-and-up from now on? Because I know when I pay $50k+ for a car, that money is gone. I better believe that what I've been sold is legit.
With Tesla's stated goal of having 'every car on the road an EV', I imagine an upper-middle class non-EV owner like myself would be exactly who they want buying cars from them. The rich will always be there to buy, and current EV owners both represent a small demographic and may already have all the EVs they need for now. If they hook me, why would I ever have a reason to buy elsewhere again? I'm the guy driving to work every day and parking in a lot full of 200+ coworkers. If I rave about my car, they're guaranteed to get more buyers of all the S variants (not just the 160).
Now, I'm the guy who just overbilled this vehicle. I used my own reputation to speak for the vehicle Tesla told me about, and now I find out that it's a phantom. $49k will not get me the performance, mileage and charging potential that I told people about. A little pricier? Fine. Late delivery? Fine. No leather? No problem! But to find that Tesla pushed $49k while speaking of '160 @ 60mph', 'charge in an hour' and '0-60 in 5.6 sec', that is a big problem. Imagine myself, the guy buying the Tesla, having to face my people to announce that what I told them is not true...for no reason other than the fact that Tesla chose to mislead for the short gain. It's embarassing.
I feel like a dude who goes on a date with a woman, only to find out later that she didn't really care for me in the first place...it was my richer, more handsome brother she wanted.
I should take a little trip down memory lane and look at the Model S pamphlet I got from my local Tesla store a couple months ago to see how they presented the Model S, then compare it to the reality of today. I do not recall any qualifiers in that pamphlet, nothing suggesting that the estimated charge time and acceleration would not apply to the 160. But I sure as hell saw that entry-level price.
If I had a billion dollars in my bank account, I would still question buyng a Tesla vehicle at this point out of the principal of the thing. There's a fine line between advertising and deception, and I think they've crossed it. What do they need to do to win me over again? I don't know...would they even care to if? Some of the comments seem to allude to the fact that the 160 is a loser for them...I'd hate to cut into their bottom line.
By the way, I sent an email to Tesla customer service last night inquiring about the supercharging issue (while also inquiring about the process to refund my deposit). I've heard nothing since...maybe 160s are answered last?
**Thank god for the auto-save on this forum...would you believe that my computer became unplugged while I was typing this, lol?
Last edited:
I honestly hope Tesla gives you guys the quick charge and three phase as you guys wanted. It doenst seem like a very expensive thing for them to do, such as the faster acceleration, is it just tweeking the software and minor hardware changes? Just for the sake of keeping customers happy, I hope they do it as long as its not like a technical limitation or something like that. Maybe lower the price on the tech option and voice navigation. I do want them to make money though so they can invest it back to EV development and make the 3rd gen more cost effective (better range, performance, at better prices).
Norbert
TSLA will win
Wasn't that up there only for a day or so? I noticed it but immediately thought it was a typo, and that the "60" came from the 0-60 line next to it.
jimbakker666: I don't think I ever saw the mileage with the mph qualifier before the 55mph statement. Like EPA rating of an ICE, most understood that the range estimates weren't very realistic. I'm happy they are actually saying that the mileage is at a certain speed. This gives people more realistic expectations. I agree with you that they should have been more specific from the start but I'm sure car development is a moving target and they were vague until they were able to pin down all suppliers and finalize the design. I don't think this was a bait and switch the way you're saying it is. All of my interactions with Tesla as a Roadster owner have been positive. Early Roadster owners had a less positive experience but most of them seem to be happy from what I can tell.
I agree with you that they should have been more vague and had more qualifiers in their pamphlets too but it's possible they weren't certain about what they could deliver and at what price point until this year. Could they have been more clear and notified people sooner? Sure but I don't think they set out on an active campaign to deceive people. The October event would have been a good time to start this transition to more realistic numbers in range and acceleration but they weren't ready to do that I guess.
I agree with you that they should have been more vague and had more qualifiers in their pamphlets too but it's possible they weren't certain about what they could deliver and at what price point until this year. Could they have been more clear and notified people sooner? Sure but I don't think they set out on an active campaign to deceive people. The October event would have been a good time to start this transition to more realistic numbers in range and acceleration but they weren't ready to do that I guess.
Last edited:
I don't know if it was mentioned yet but the ability to use a Tesla Superchargers is only standard on the 85 kWh (aka 300 miles) pack. It is optional on the 60 kWh (aka 230 miles) pack with a price TBD (bottom of the options list). Granted I'm not an electrical engineer but I think I understand the basic principals behind QC. The bulk of the cost lies in the charger which converts AC to DC and with QC, this is external to the car. All that is needed on the car is way to communicate to the "supercharger" and heavy gauge wires for the higher current. Cooling should already be sufficient since the car will draw more current during full acceleration than while charging. If the 85 kWh pack can replenish 160 miles in 30 minutes then the 40 kWh pack should be able to replenish 80 miles in 30 minutes (at least). I can't see any technical reason why the 40 kWh pack can't be quick charged when the 23 kWh Leaf or 16 kWh Mitsubishi i can.
In my opinion, Tesla is making a MAJOR mistake not making QC (quick charging) standard on ALL models. Remember, Tesla's "supercharger" is proprietary. Nissan has (and probably always will have) more EVs on the road than Tesla and there are still very few Chademo QCs installed in North America. How will Tesla convince businesses to host their proprietary QCs when not even all Tesla vehicles will be able to use them. I thought it was a mistake that Nissan didn't make QC standard on all Leafs but I think it's an even bigger mistake on Tesla's part since in order to be able to get the QC option it will cost an extra 10 grand. Major fail!
In my opinion, Tesla is making a MAJOR mistake not making QC (quick charging) standard on ALL models. Remember, Tesla's "supercharger" is proprietary. Nissan has (and probably always will have) more EVs on the road than Tesla and there are still very few Chademo QCs installed in North America. How will Tesla convince businesses to host their proprietary QCs when not even all Tesla vehicles will be able to use them. I thought it was a mistake that Nissan didn't make QC standard on all Leafs but I think it's an even bigger mistake on Tesla's part since in order to be able to get the QC option it will cost an extra 10 grand. Major fail!
This is a long one, but I'll try to offer a constructive response.
1. I don't feel that this is the case. Whenever reading any upcoming technology description, cars/computers/etc. I always assume they are talking about the maxed out configuration. It's both boring and not comprehensive to talk about what the base model offers.
2. I agree with you on this one. I'm, so far at least, willing to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt that this was an editorial snafu rather than intended deception. Perhaps mental wires were crossed in the editors when writing up the 0-60 text while writing the estimated range text.
3. Apples and oranges. The reserve was for a not fully specified product. There is no fee for getting your reserve back. There's no legal or ethical issue here as I see it.
4. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It's unfortunate from a PR and unhappy potential customer perspective.
5. I don't read it that way. It's a business decision that may be a key choice for Tesla's financial survival.
6. From the outside, you could argue that it's arbitrary which "premium" (300, leather) or at least "non-base" (230) features put you earlier in the production queue. That doesn't make it wrong or bad.
7. As noted in some of my recent posts, I think they messed up the PR on this one. I believe that some combination of the theorized technical, logistical, financial, and marketing aspects are involved here. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see, for example, a formal discussion at some point of the formal meaning of Supercharging vs. Quick Charging. Or, for example, a simplification of the supercharging station -- for technical reasons or financial agreements -- to only support a minimum rate that the 40 kWh vehicle can't handle. Again, we don't have *any* information that says QC won't be supported for 40 kWh.
8. You're jumping to malice or bad intent from incomplete information. For such a strong advocate, it's surprising to flip to a negative outlook in light of shallow information. It seems like an emotional response more than a rational one. Not a dig, just an opinion. Support and investment-via-reserve in Tesla is somewhat emotional, so that's justified -- just not constructive.
9. Being an advocate of technology that isn't final is a personal choice. If you billed the preliminary information (especially when coupled with your interpretations of intentionally incomplete or vague information) as final information, that was a mistake. If instead you described it as preliminary information that is subject to change but you're "optimistic it won't stray far off path", then you're fine -- no embarrassment to worry about.
10. Again, I don't know if makes me more of a pessimist than a realist but when I see "entry-level price" I assume that it probably doesn't include power windows or even a lock for the trunk. Having such an outlook rarely disappoints me, and sometimes results in happy surprise.
11. I don't think that's the case. But it's definitely not the showcase vehicle they'll have in showrooms or on tours.
12. Good. That approach should be far more productive than forum commentary for getting concerns addresssed. "Here's my reserve number. You know how long you've had my money and support. This issue is making me rethink my faith in the company. Can you give me some crisper and deeper information on ____ to address my concerns?" If that doesn't wake up Tesla Reps and yield a useful response, then Tesla has a problem with the family.
13. I recommend making sure you use language that sounds less like a threat, and more like "I'd like the information on the process for getting the reserve back, because I'm worried I may be forced to go that route." It's a tone thing that sometimes pulls more useful information, rather than forcing a defensive official response from the company.
14. I hope this is humor rather than frustration showing here.
Ok, you're the second person to say this. Can you quote the portion that uses the word "optional" on this topic? Thanks.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Yes, I think that's a good step. Information was very general until this point, and as far as I can tell they have found good ways to be more specific now. Probably it took a lot of testing with betas which were close enough to the production cars, to get to the point where they can now be more specific about everything. I also think that they worked very much on the Supercharger plans lately, and the more specific announcement for that is still coming up. That again maybe a pleasant surprise for some, and have negative disappointments for others. The decision not to have Supercharger access on the 40 kWh model may have to do with those plans which apparently aren't complete yet.
From announcements of completely new products that I have seen (in different countries and product categories), it is not uncommon in my experience that it turns out that specific features are available only on the more expensive versions. Or not available in the beginning etc. Or only as an expensive option. Of course that hurts when that makes it too expensive, but it has happened many times to me that I eventually did not buy a product because advertised features where available only in specific configurations. Sometimes I simply didn't buy a new product just because a critical feature was available only in combination with another feature that I didn't like (I remember audio equipment as one example, and cameras as another).
A "problem" here is that Tesla started taking reservations before all features were specified. However that was years ago and everyone knew that things could and would and even had to change during that long time.
It sounds like some people felt things were set in stone. I understand that with the way Tesla's website stated the 0-60 in 5.6 seconds but the information is out there now and people can accept it and proceed or ask for their money back I guess. I hope Tesla finds a way to make as many people as possible happy while maximizing their profit and succeeding as a company.
benji4
Roadster 2.5 #0476
I hope you really don't feel that bad, woman problems are generally much more painful than car problems. Anyway, although your feelings are completely understandable and perhaps justified, I don't think Tesla created this situation purposely or to rip anyone off as you imply. Tesla is doing things that no other car company has done or has been able to do up until this point, and if you want to be on the cutting edge sometimes there are compromises. Look back at the history of the Roadster -- they are doing much better with this time on all fronts really. Not perfect by any means, but given the circumstances pretty damn good overall. Comparing them to Fisker might help provide a bit of perspective. Thank God you didn't reserve a Karma or this would be looking something like World War III! I think rather than wasting your time feeling horrible about this that you should just go ahead and ask for your refund and move on to a Leaf.
tdelta1000
Active Member
I too found it a little weak that turn by turn would not be available on any version of the Model S.... And the 0 to 60 time is better than some of the others but less desirable by the TM faithful. I think TM should use the base Model S specs for it mass market car.
It seems that TM has something up it's sleeve
jimbakker666
Member
I appreciate your taking the time to reply, brianman.
I'm not talking about the reserve, I'm talking about what got me to and sustained me after the reserve.
When the Model S is in full production, if Tesla advertised the 'Model S' as going 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and recharging in an hour, but does not qualify that it applies only to the high-end model, you don't think they'd be in trouble if they also included the $49k price in that advertisement?
From Wiki:
"Bait and Switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are "switched" to a costlier product."
Tesla gets around this because the vehicle is not yet in production. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt here and saying that they weren't malicious in their advertising, for what reason do you feel there is nothing wrong with this? Do you think they really didn't know that the 0-60 specs didn't apply to the 160? Do you think they didn't know the 160 wouldn't be super-charge capable?
Where did Tesla tell me this was preliminary information? Where did they say 'this info is vague so don't go chatting it up'? It's not my job to try and determine what Tesla means when they quote specs, it's their job to qualify what they mean. By that reasoning, maybe these option prices will change too and it will be our fault for not understanding that they are, after all, still preliminary at this point?
Of course. I moderate as necessary to achieve the desired result.
Lol, of course. I sound serious here, and I am serious, but sometimes it's easier to get my points across with humor. Again I appreciate your response, and I am trying to consider the things you've mentioned.
Then why allow them to mix the base model price with the max model performance? Had they simply been clear about what the "$49k Model S" offers, there would be no issue at all. None.
I'm not talking about the reserve, I'm talking about what got me to and sustained me after the reserve.
When the Model S is in full production, if Tesla advertised the 'Model S' as going 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and recharging in an hour, but does not qualify that it applies only to the high-end model, you don't think they'd be in trouble if they also included the $49k price in that advertisement?
From Wiki:
"Bait and Switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are "switched" to a costlier product."
Tesla gets around this because the vehicle is not yet in production. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt here and saying that they weren't malicious in their advertising, for what reason do you feel there is nothing wrong with this? Do you think they really didn't know that the 0-60 specs didn't apply to the 160? Do you think they didn't know the 160 wouldn't be super-charge capable?
I imagine the same could be said for crippling the 160's viability by prohibiting supercharging so that the company gets the biggest bang for it's buck (if that is the case based on speculation here). Good in the short-term, but what about the future?
But it's not arbitary with respect to the 160. It's a decision made by the company to place the less important customers at the back of the line. If a decision were made by the company to place 300s or people with the most expensive possible 300 (non-sig) at the back of the line, I'm sure those people would be pretty upset by it.
Where did Tesla tell me this was preliminary information? Where did they say 'this info is vague so don't go chatting it up'? It's not my job to try and determine what Tesla means when they quote specs, it's their job to qualify what they mean. By that reasoning, maybe these option prices will change too and it will be our fault for not understanding that they are, after all, still preliminary at this point?
I agree, but we're not talking about power windows or trunk locks. We're talking about performance specs that we're intertwined with that entry-level price. And when we talk EVs, the fundamental issue is performance, right? We all want 'range anxiety' alleviated, and it surely was. It just doesn't apply to the car with the entry-level price that was so liberally thrown around.
And if a 300 ends up as the showcase vehicle, but there's a big sign at the door shouting, "$49k!", would that be an acceptable advertising strategy from Tesla?
Of course. I moderate as necessary to achieve the desired result.
14. I hope this is humor rather than frustration showing here.
Lol, of course. I sound serious here, and I am serious, but sometimes it's easier to get my points across with humor. Again I appreciate your response, and I am trying to consider the things you've mentioned.
Last edited:
Hey guys, don't forget that the 160 mile range at 55 mph is almost certainly done on a "range-mode" charge.
Just like the Roadster where you get about 190 miles on a standard charge instead of 240 on a range mode charge, that 160 miles at 55 mph is really probably ~130 miles at 55 mph on a standard charge and ~90 miles if you are doing 70 mph on the freeway.
Anyone think otherwise? Keep the flames coming. :wink:
Just like the Roadster where you get about 190 miles on a standard charge instead of 240 on a range mode charge, that 160 miles at 55 mph is really probably ~130 miles at 55 mph on a standard charge and ~90 miles if you are doing 70 mph on the freeway.
Anyone think otherwise? Keep the flames coming. :wink:
Nobody has purchased a car yet, you made a refundable deposit for a chance to purchase an unknown car ahead of everyone else who may want one when they go on sale.
When you decide you don't want that advantage, you take your deposit back.
When you gave that deposit, you didn't know exactly what the car was or what it would cost - neither did Tesla.
Tesla didn't know exactly what they could make, nor did they know exactly what it would cost them to make it,
Now they think they know enough about both to provide better information on what they will make and what it will cost.
Now you can give them feedback on whether that is something you want to buy and possibly change their minds on what to offer.
I don't believe that Tesla ever represented that the car would have all the possible features and specs at the $49900 price point, I certainly never believed it would.
When you decide you don't want that advantage, you take your deposit back.
When you gave that deposit, you didn't know exactly what the car was or what it would cost - neither did Tesla.
Tesla didn't know exactly what they could make, nor did they know exactly what it would cost them to make it,
Now they think they know enough about both to provide better information on what they will make and what it will cost.
Now you can give them feedback on whether that is something you want to buy and possibly change their minds on what to offer.
I don't believe that Tesla ever represented that the car would have all the possible features and specs at the $49900 price point, I certainly never believed it would.
I was quite disappointed to find out that the $50k model reaches 0 to 60 in 6.5 sec.
Back when I placed my reservation, I remember the model S was mentioned as an alternative to the bmw 5 series (i.e., mid-sized luxury performance sedan). At that time, the 5.6 sec was listed without mentioning that it would be limited to the $70k model. Hence, I compared the 535i (which can hit 0 to 60 in 5.5 sec and has an Edmunds TMV of $46.4k) to the model S at $50k. I rationalized that the $3-4k additional would be ok given that the model S would be more unique, cool and green. Now I'm finding out that the correct comparison for 5.6 sec is model S at $70k vs bmw 535i at $46.4k. The difference of $23.6k is just too large for me. I'm sorry to say that the uniqueness, coolness or greeness is not worth $23.6k to me.
Back when I placed my reservation, I remember the model S was mentioned as an alternative to the bmw 5 series (i.e., mid-sized luxury performance sedan). At that time, the 5.6 sec was listed without mentioning that it would be limited to the $70k model. Hence, I compared the 535i (which can hit 0 to 60 in 5.5 sec and has an Edmunds TMV of $46.4k) to the model S at $50k. I rationalized that the $3-4k additional would be ok given that the model S would be more unique, cool and green. Now I'm finding out that the correct comparison for 5.6 sec is model S at $70k vs bmw 535i at $46.4k. The difference of $23.6k is just too large for me. I'm sorry to say that the uniqueness, coolness or greeness is not worth $23.6k to me.
Similar threads
- Locked