Tesla's continuing viability as a company thread.

[brianman]

Tesla is better off in the long run not disappointing their early customers.

An interesting endpoint you reached on this one...

Some people are upset today about the announcements yesterday, and are out zero dollars. Better to upset them now -- as potential customers -- than later, after shipment as actual/realized customers.

A good argument that they should have originally introduced supercharging as a 85kWh-only feature to set conservative expectations initially.

 

[EVNow]

All we've seen are sketches. A whole 2 of them. That's the very definition of vaporware in my dictionary. We'll have to wait until the 2012 Geneva Motor Show to see something more. Oh, and Nissan is not investing $5 Billion in this particular model.

Right now, it looks like Tesla will have at least 2 years of Model S sales under its belt before the first Infiniti EV hits the streets - unless you can point to a faster concept car to production car timeline that actually happened for an EV.

Nissan/Infiniti doesn't operate the same way Tesla does. Afterall they don't need to raise money on the capital market just to survive. From reveal to delivery of Leaf was 1 1/2 years. So, you may want to revise your dictionary.

If the 160 miler comes in end 2012/early 2013 - and Infiniti EV in 2013 end, we will have a year of separation. BMW i3 is coming in Sep 2013. It makes a lot of sense for Nissan to be bringing this out as the first Leafs lease end.

But, again, the true handicap is not the lack of QC, it's the lack of QC infrastructure to have enough chargers spaced closely enough to enable an effective 135 mile range vehicle to go longer distances reasonably. Tesla is better off in the long run not disappointing their early customers.

Well, actually, we should care more about a CHAdeMO adopter than purely SuperCharging. That is what will be availble in large numbers (atleast on the west coast).

 

[Robert.Boston]

A good argument that they should have originally introduced supercharging as a 85kWh-only feature to set conservative expectations initially.

Exactly. This may be the first time Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered. Was the "promise" in writing? No, but yesterday was the first time that anyone had a clue that the fastest charging option for the base model would be its on-board 10kW charger. The $1,500 up-charge for 20kW charging isn't too big an add-on, but the $10k to the next battery size is -- and even then, Tesla's being cagey about whether even that pack can be supercharged.

 

[qwk]

And, don't forget that Nissan could and doees sell the Leaf at a loss. Tesla cannot.

 

[EVNow]

Um, it doesn't look like an upgraded Leaf to me:

View attachment 3738

I didn't say it will have the same body.

 

[EVNow]

That makes sense. For me it's more about comparing the size of the car. If I was looking at a small Leaf vs. Jetta vs. Focus...etc sized car, I wouldn't be comparing it against a full sized sedan.

True - Model S is a E segment car. But a lot of us have already been saying it is too large - so a lot of people would be perfectly happy in a C/D segment EV.

Those who want Model X - would definitely not settle for a smaller car. That is where size is very important.

 

[Cobos]

Um, it doesn't look like an upgraded Leaf to me:

View attachment 3738

And when you consider the low-end Model S has twice the real range of the Leaf, a 17" touchscreen display, seating for 5+2, larger cargo capacity, etc., the low-end Model S is quite compelling against a swoopy Leaf with QC.

Leaf range is 100 miles, EPA range is 73 miles.
Model S 40kWh is 160 miles EPA range should be 112 miles, not exactly double I dare say.
I might add that the Model S has seating for 5. +2 is an $1500 option.
The Model S has a much better 17'' touchscreen than the Leaf. Though true navigation is free with the Leaf, another $3750 option for the lowend Model S.
The Model S has much much better cargo space. Though the Leaf is a lot easier to park in the city, and since we seem to be comparing two city cars that might be toss-up.

The fact of the matter is for someone like me which is very concerned with both costs AND value the 40kWh Model S seems to have a lot lower value than the Leaf. The problem I have is that Tesla seems to see no value in upselling me FROM the Leaf to the 40kWh Model S, only to try to upsell me further to the 60kWh.

Cobos

 

[smorgasbord]

From reveal to delivery of Leaf was 1 1/2 years. So, you may want to revise your dictionary.

By reveal, do you mean seeing an actual Concept Car? Because, again, the Infiniti EV is not yet at that stage. It truly is vaporware right now.

 

[dsm363]

Also, the Model S will have nationwide availability from day one. The Leaf still isn't available in all 50 states (although it looks like they'll start taking orders for all states in March).

 

[richkae]

Who buys cars at MSRP? Do you? lol

Post actual prices for those vehicles then.
My claim is that you can compare cars that cost $10000 less to the Model S because of the money you save on fuel within 4 years.
I also claim that 6.5 second 0-60 is very competitive in that range.

 

[EVNow]

By reveal, do you mean seeing an actual Concept Car? Because, again, the Infiniti EV is not yet at that stage. It truly is vaporware right now.

Right. See the timeline here.

My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - History of Nissan EV from 2006

I expect Infiniti EV concept to be shown sometime next year - with reservations in Apr '13 (just like they did with Leaf).

 

[richkae]

Well you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that you will save on gasoline, and then say that the ranger service visit fees don't count, especially since they will eat up the money you just saved on gasoline.

Yes I can. The majority of customers will be within service range of the Tesla location. None of them will pay Ranger fees. Anyone outside that range can choose not to buy and I said I am confident that Tesla could sell all the cars to people within range if nobody outside of that range chose to buy.

 

[smorgasbord]

Leaf range is 100 miles, EPA range is 73 miles.
Model S 40kWh is 160 miles EPA range should be 112 miles, not exactly double I dare say.

I think you'll find the EPA range for the Model S will be substantially more than 112 miles. Tesla's been very good about range ratings claims. More importantly, I personally expect the real world Model S range to be about twice the real world Leaf range.

The fact of the matter is for someone like me which is very concerned with both costs AND value the 40kWh Model S seems to have a lot lower value than the Leaf. The problem I have is that Tesla seems to see no value in upselling me FROM the Leaf to the 40kWh Model S, only to try to upsell me further to the 60kWh.

Well, if doubling the range isn't worth the extra money, nor the increase in seating/cargo capacity, nor the styling, then the Model S isn't for you. The Model S isn't intended to be a better Leaf, it's meant to be an alternative to ICEs from BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.. I think that's an important point - Tesla isn't interested in stealing sales from other EVs, they're interested in stealing sales from ICE vehicles. At any rate, it's not reasonable to expect Tesla to be able to satisfy everyone with one vehicle, and Tesla doesn't need to do that to be successful.

 

[Citizen-T]

TSLA stock has almost completely recovered from this morning's drop, as expected. So, let's stop citing that as validation from the market. Looks like the market simply shook out the weak hands and more confident investors took the opportunity to add to our holdings.

 

[Cobos]

I think you'll find the EPA range for the Model S will be substantially more than 112 miles. Tesla's been very good about range ratings claims. More importantly, I personally expect the real world Model S range to be about twice the real world Leaf range.

I expect it to be a lot better than the Leaf yes, though I'm not sure about double.

Well, if doubling the range isn't worth the extra money, nor the increase in seating/cargo capacity, nor the styling, then the Model S isn't for you. The Model S isn't intended to be a better Leaf, it's meant to be an alternative to ICEs from BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.. I think that's an important point - Tesla isn't interested in stealing sales from other EVs, they're interested in stealing sales from ICE vehicles. At any rate, it's not reasonable to expect Tesla to be able to satisfy everyone with one vehicle, and Tesla doesn't need to do that to be successful.

Well that's the point. I need about 130 miles of claimed range though 160 miles is better, that's the reason I put down a deposit on the Model S and didn't just buy the Leaf. I do not really need the extra cargo space comparing the Leaf and Model S. Though obviously I much prefer the looks of the Model S compared to the Leaf, and in many ways the Model S is a lot better fit than the Leaf. Still this is obviously stretching my budget pretty far and I intend to keep the Model S for a long time, so I want to make sure it has the capabilites I need now and further on. One of those would be QC for the 40kWh.
I newer said they needed to satisfy everyone, but someone that has given Tesla a free loan for $5000 for about 2 years isn't really everyone is he.

Cobos

 

[jimbakker666]

As for the quick-charging, I'm sure that's disappointing, but if someone is getting the 160 mi. pack, I would think that's generally for daily commuting, which would entail overnight charging.

I don't think people buying the 160 are in it strictly as a commuter. My feeling was that the 160 would be for commuting, but also would provide for taking small road trips with pit stops at the end of my range to quickly recharge. I live in So Cal. I can't go to Las Vegas in this vehicle w/out QC. I can't even go to San Diego, a nice 120 mile day trip, without stopping somewhere to sit and watch my luxury vehicle charge for 4 hours.

The people buying the 160 are probably like me, unwilling to upgrade because they're already agreeing to pay more than they've ever considered for a vehicle. We do that because we like the concept behind Tesla, we like giving the finger to the oil companies, and we want to support a company that feels the same way. The way things have turned out though, it seems Tesla is giving the finger to us. "Thanks for telling all your friends about our car...oh, and sorry that we mixed the $49k price with the 0-60 spec and fast-charge times which don't actually apply to that vehicle. We never really wanted to sell it to you anyway, we just wanted you to get the word out for us."

Frankly, I found the pricing to be very much in line with what Tesla has been saying all along, which is that you can get one of these cars for $50k, but it's not going to have any of the bells and whistles (rear camera etc.)

Quick-charging ability is not a bell and whistle, it's a necessity for an EV. If the 300 had no quick-charge, and you lived more than 150 miles away from every day trip locale, you would feel *some* of our pain. To really feel all of it, you'd have to then learn that:
1) 300 miles is at 55mph, not 60 (as was conveniently noted up until this morning) on their website...hope you like driving in the slow lane for hours on end.
2) The 400 mile version is the one that can be quick-charged...and that one costs more, $100k w/out options.

Oh, one other thing. The 300 version actually goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. The 400 is the quick one

If Tesla had made all of this open in the early stages, they'd still have goodwill from potential owners. Maybe we'd even strive for the 230. But, at least in my case, I feel Tesla has burned me real good with this one. No quick-charge available in my vehicle...thank you for that Tesla. I appreciate your honesty.

Gee, I wonder what tricks they'll pull with the Model X? I should do a write-up of everything they're promising, then poke holes where I see them based on my experience with the 160. That would be honest, right?

 

[AnOutsider]

Seriously, this is your "logical", "reasonable" post ?

I'm comparing the base S to an upgraded Leaf (which is what Infiniti EV will be).

What wasn't logical or reasonable about what you quoted? Are your arguments about the Model S and Tesla failing against a car you have zero concrete info on more logical?

As for the Leaf, again, if we're talking purely EV buyers, that's one thing, they have little to choose from. If we're talking about car buyers in general, Nissan is NOT a luxury brand, therefore the Model S pricing should be compared more to Audi/BMW/Mercedes than a Nissan or Toyota for example.

At this point, I don't even know what that point was in regards to because you flit from one thing to another to support your view. I guess we'll just let the market decide as consumers vote with their wallets.

 

[AnOutsider]

The people buying the 160 are probably like me, unwilling to upgrade because they're already agreeing to pay more than they've ever considered for a vehicle. We do that because we like the concept behind Tesla, we like giving the finger to the oil companies, and we want to support a company that feels the same way. The way things have turned out though, it seems Tesla is giving the finger to us. "Thanks for telling all your friends about our car...oh, and sorry that we mixed the $49k price with the 0-60 spec and fast-charge times which don't actually apply to that vehicle. We never really wanted to sell it to you anyway, we just wanted you to get the word out for us."

That goes back to my argument re: Bluestar. For folks like you describe (I think someone said they don't typically pay more than 5k for a car), then it sounds like the eventual Bluestar is where to look. You (meaning people in general can't get mad at the cost of a car that's aimed at the luxury market just because it's more than they're used to spending. If that's the case, then wait for the lower-priced option.

 

[eledille]

When you factor in how long it'll take Tesla to build its QC infrastructure, they're going to be spaced much further apart than the 160 milers can count on reaching. In years to come, when there are more QC stations closer together, then it may be practical to have a smaller battery car with QC, but I think it would just lead to frustration by today's owners, and that's not something Tesla wants since they're in it for the long haul.

Very well put. What makes me question Tesla's continuing viability as a company is that they have completely missed how Europe is addressing this issue: Lots of 11, 22 and 44 kW three phase charge points everywhere you're likely to stop, and DC later on, along the highways.

It seems to me that Tesla intends to build a Tesla-specific charging infrastructure in Europe. Otherwise there is no point in the Tesla supercharger, and as without 3-phase it will usually be limited to only 3.7 kW, a supercharger network is certainly going to be needed. They are actually proposing to ignore the who-knows-how-many billions of euro that the EU is going to spend on EV infrastructure and build their own parallel, incompatible version. The Germans alone have spent close to a billion already, just on finding out how to go about this monumental task. Every European EV plug proposal supports three phase, it's not just the Germans.

Are they serious?!

Government support is needed to make this work, and no government except possibly the US is going to spend public money to help Tesla specifically. The EU has a long history of fiercely protecting its own business interests.

JB Straubel may be as cocky as he wants to, but he's going to have to eat his words about three phase support one way or the other. Being cocky does not in itself indicate failure, but if you're cocky you had better be right - you can't be like Apple and tell the customer that what he really wants isn't what he thought when your solution simply does not work where he lives. This guy hasn't understood the most basic features of he market he's trying to enter, and he's ignoring everything that's going on there too.

 

[nleggatt]

I dont want to get into a mud flinging fight with anyone, so please take this in good spirit and let's remember a few things about Tesla and our deposits.

1. Tesla motors has been a concept car for a long time. Its been a-lot of speculation and "we want it to be's" but its been an ideal that we all hope to one day have.

2. Based on that point, we decided to put money down for an opportunity to be one of the first people to get one these cars, but knowing how uncertain so many things were, Tesla recognized that things would/may change and made the deposit fully refundable.

3. Everyone was longing for the options and price list to come out to see what we were really getting etc, if we already knew we wouldn't have had such high levels of anticipation. Nothing we ever in stone, even today people say, "we'll see what the actual EPA numbers come in at..." so, in that case again, if they come in lower will people say, "how day they advertise x" or will they say "ok, that's what the EPA is, now I can make my decision"

4. If I recall correctly, (read the contract), the deposit is not an interest free loan. The money is in a trust that the company cannot touch and gains no benefit from. Sure, you lost out on interest, but don't feel they used your money for anything more than a feather in their hat at the number of deposits they had.