Tesla's continuing viability as a company thread.

[jimbakker666]

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

Exactly, except for the expectation part. Our expectations came from Tesla, and as far as I've seen, they've lived up to all of them....except the 160. This tells me that Tesla didn't need to temper our expectations because they were able to deliver the goods all along, they only needed to be honest in what they said.

They haven't just disappointed reservation holders aiming for the 160, they've turned them off. I wouldn't be pissed off at if I had known this when Tesla knew this. Instead, they mixed their $49k Model S with their quick charge time, mixed $49k with 0-60 times. That's misleading, and I don't appreciate it.

I'm not sure when it became acceptable for a company to obscure the facts and mislead people, but it's not to me.

 

[ckessel]

jimbakker666, you're being really unreasonable in your expectations.

Many cars advertise a 0-60 that's great, then when you get in it's only if you get the V8 instead of the V6.

Quick Charge wasn't ever, to my knowledge, something Tesla had said they were giving away. The release of the options pricing is the first I'd heard about it. Not that it wasn't mentioned before, but it certainly wasn't advertised.

Normal ICE cars never get the supposed MPG ratings they advertise and certainly not at 75 mph! Yet you're expecting full mileage going 75 mph.

All of these missed expectations are because you had completely unrealistic expectations. You're holding Tesla to expectations that you're not holding other cars to.

 

[ckessel]

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.

That'd be incorrect, the deposits were part of Tesla's working capital. I asked them specifically on this when I deposited.

 

[dpeilow]

I'm think the thread title is a little sensationalist but I do think that this keeps them more in the low volume / high end space much more than they think. I expected the 160 mile car to be bare-bones to meet the price point but the lack of quick charge is a serious mistake. It must be on the 230 mile car. It's bad enough that they went proprietary with the quick charger but to not have it as standard is a huge deal breaker. I would be prepared to seek out CHAdeMO chargers and take slightly longer on a road trip for the one or two times a year I would make one, but even that is now not an option.

If they are taking such shortcuts to hit the $50k price point now, do we really expect a <$40k Bluestar in 3 years with all the bells and whistles that people talk about? I don't.

I felt things were going this way about 6 months ago, so as soon as the Ampera started getting good reviews that's where my deposit went. I took my EVangelist hat off for a minute and put on my engineering hat and worked out just how many EV miles I would be doing with that car. The 90+% was enough to take the pragmatic decision.

This just reaffirms my finding that PHEV will be the dominant EV technology for the majority of people for a good while yet. Shame.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I need about 130 miles of claimed range though 160 miles is better, ....

Then you need the 60kWh pack. Even if the 40kWh pack can achieve 160 miles under reasonable driving conditions, its performance will degrade with time and with cycles. It will degrade even faster if you are using extended range mode frequently.

I've been thinking about the battery decision in this light: how far should I expect to be able to drive without using Range mode on the battery, after the battery is 4-5 years old and has degraded to 75% of its maximum charge level? That means looking at 60% (= 80% * 75%) of the claimed ideal miles, which gives you 96 miles on the 40kWh pack, 138 miles on the 60kWh pack, and 180 miles on the 85kWh pack. Since I drive about 175 miles twice a week half the year, I need the 85kWh pack. If you need 130 miles on a charge, you should be looking at the 60kWh pack.

 

[jimbakker666]

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"

I hear you nleggatt and while I'm upset, I'm not trying to mud fling either. But the problem wrt mileage is not that the EPA actuals are lower, it's that Tesla presented it incorrectly. Just yesterday, I posted a link to Tesla's website which listed the mileage at 60mph. Now that's changed, as of this morning, to 55mph. Tesla also previously used verbiage to the effect of 'typical driving conditions'. In the state where Tesla makes their vehicles, 55 mph is not typical. 65 mph is typical.

I ask, if you guys who are more educated about EVs understand that EPA mileage estimates are wrt 55mph, then why did Tesla ever list it at 60mph? Was that because they could stretch to the upper range of the estimate and still be 'truthful'? This is the issue more than anything, the fact that Tesla mislead about the 160 model.

At their website, you can still see the 0-60 performance listed...but now they've attributed it to the top-end model. They could have done this months ago and we'd still be all good. They didn't. Why is that?

 

[Cobos]

I'm think the thread title is a little sensationalist but I do think that this keeps them more in the low volume / high end space much more than they think. I expected the 160 mile car to be bare-bones to meet the price point but the lack of quick charge is a serious mistake. It must be on the 230 mile car. It's bad enough that they went proprietary with the quick charger but to not have it as standard is a huge deal breaker. I would be prepared to seek out CHAdeMO chargers and take slightly longer on a road trip for the one or two times a year I would make one, but even that is now not an option.

If they are taking such shortcuts to hit the $50k price point now, do we really expect a <$40k Bluestar in 3 years with all the bells and whistles that people talk about? I don't.

I felt things were going this way about 6 months ago, so as soon as the Ampera started getting good reviews that's where my deposit went. I took my EVangelist hat off for a minute and put on my engineering hat and worked out just how many EV miles I would be doing with that car. The 90+% was enough to take the pragmatic decision.

This just reaffirms my finding that PHEV will be the dominant EV technology for the majority of people for a good while yet. Shame.

Thank you David for saying much more eloquently what I've been trying to say in all my posts. " this keeps them more in the low volume / high end space much more than they think". I especially think this is relevant for Europe and this is a sign of thinks to come with pricing in Geneva in march, hence my frustration.

Cobos

 

[NigelM]

I expected the 160 mile car to be bare-bones to meet the price point but the lack of quick charge is a serious mistake.

That's a UK-centric view (absolutely no criticism intended, I'm a brit too!) as in the UK 160 miles is a road trip. It may be a valid argument for other parts of Europe also. I think the key for Tesla will in understanding different market requirements.

 

[jimbakker666]

Normal ICE cars never get the supposed MPG ratings they advertise and certainly not at 75 mph! Yet you're expecting full mileage going 75 mph.

Actually, I was expecting full mileage, give or take some miles within reason, going at 60mph. That's what Tesla had on their website up until this morning.

I've never seen a car advertised at the lowest possible price with specs for the high-end model, unless a disclaimer was present.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Exactly, except for the expectation part. Our expectations came from Tesla, and as far as I've seen, they've lived up to all of them....except the 160. This tells me that Tesla didn't need to temper our expectations because they were able to deliver the goods all along, they only needed to be honest in what they said.

They haven't just disappointed reservation holders aiming for the 160, they've turned them off. I wouldn't be pissed off at if I had known this when Tesla knew this. Instead, they mixed their $49k Model S with their quick charge time, mixed $49k with 0-60 times. That's misleading, and I don't appreciate it.

I'm not sure when it became acceptable for a company to obscure the facts and mislead people, but it's not to me.

Jim, I agree with you -- I'm not nearly as upset as you are, but Tesla really dropped the ball on managing expectations here. This is a downside to the extreme -- really, unprecedented -- openness of Tesla through the development phase. I don't think they've been intentionally misleading anyone, at least not when remarks were made initially. But to drop this bomb about the lack of access to the Supercharger network in this way, that's just broken faith with customers.

Put differently: suppose Tesla had never discussed anything other than a 300-mile car, with a price point of $69,900. Now suppose that yesterday, they unveiled several cheaper price points that had compromises on range, acceleration, and charging capabilities. The reaction would be all positives! Of course, the reaction to the initial car would not have been nearly as enthusiastic.

 

[Norbert]

If Tesla had made all of this open in the early stages, they'd still have goodwill from potential owners.

I kind of feel with you, but allow me to point out it is still 12 months until the delivery of the 40 kWh version, and for new technology like this it is not uncommon for product plans to change. At least there is still an option at this price. Others often simply have to raise prices. My impression, from various remarks, is that these things changed in the last few months, and it probably took them a while to make these decisions final. Perhaps that is one reason why Tesla became so silent in the last few weeks: that's when they may have realized that they had to make these decisions in order to have a valid product palette which allows them to go forward in a way that delivered features will be well-received.

 

[dpeilow]

That's a UK-centric view (absolutely no criticism intended, I'm a brit too!) as in the UK 160 miles is a road trip. It may be a valid argument for other parts of Europe also. I think the key for Tesla will in understanding different market requirements.

You seem to have misunderstood my comment by 180 degrees here.

I'd be quite happy with 160 miles and 20kW charging for the majority of trips (which realistically doesn't even get me to Birmingham, by the way), but there are a few trips a year when I have to head north and I would be happy to make those trips with the burgeoning CHAdeMO or "supercharger" network and synchronised meal breaks. Now I can't even do that. It makes the idea of a £50k car that can't do that (and I'm assuming that it will be a $=£ conversion) into more Top Gear fodder.

 

[VolkerP]

Tesla has not presented a solution to quick charging the 40kWh base model but that does not imply they made it impossible. The options just state that the 40kWh equipped char will not have "supercharger access". With Tesla's battery pack architecture, using laptop cells build for slow charge/discharge rates, I understand that supercharging with 90kW is not feasible since it would bring heavy lifetime penalty to the cells.
I guess the 40kWh base mode will lack the software that communicates with the super charger to establish the DC charging protocol and it will lack the wiring capable to deliver +200A to the pack.
As was pointed out by others, the Tesla supercharger can and will deliver <90kW to every car while charging near top SOC. So here is question why the base 40kWh model was excluded from that option. It seems like an act of arbitrariness by Tesla but such can be deemed the whole proprietary charge port architecture which denies 3 phase support. A good point in my view was speculation about required supercharger density (~100 miles spaced apart).

But NOONE says that the 40kWh cannot be quick charged! It's just that Tesla denies responsibility for that solution. That seems like a subtle difference, as these customers still are hosed - until appearance of CHAdeMO adapters.

 

[jimbakker666]

Put differently: suppose Tesla had never discussed anything other than a 300-mile car, with a price point of $69,900. Now suppose that yesterday, they unveiled several cheaper price points that had compromises on range, acceleration, and charging capabilities. The reaction would be all positives! Of course, the reaction to the initial car would not have been nearly as enthusiastic.

Agree with you 100% Robert. $70k for a car like that? Sure it'll cost extra with options, but I might just have to save up my pennies anyways! But as it stands now, I feel like a jilted lover. Actually, I feel more like a pawn who was used to spread the word about Tesla's $49k Model S.

I sent them an email suggesting that the lack of QC on the 160 is a deal-breaker for a lot of people and that it should be communicated up the chain. I also asked about the process of getting my deposit refunded to me. That was last night, no response yet.

 

[dpeilow]

It seems like an act of arbitrariness by Tesla but such can be deemed the whole proprietary charge port architecture which denies 3 phase support. A good point in my view was speculation about required supercharger density (~100 miles spaced apart).

But NOONE says that the 40kWh cannot be quick charged! It's just that Tesla denies responsibility for that solution. That seems like a subtle difference, as these customers still are hosed - until appearance of CHAdeMO adapters.

As others have said, they don't expect CHAdeMO adapters to come.

If they supported it, then Tesla's customers would get a rapid charge network by default, as in the UK Nissan is expected to deploy a minimum of 65 CHAdeMO chargers in public locations for all EVs to use. I believe it is the same across Europe.

 

[surfingslovak]

As others have said, they don't expect CHAdeMO adapters to come.

Yes, I support this view as well, and I'm surprised to hear that so many people expect to see adapters. CHAdeMO is a bit more complicated than J1772, at least from what I gleaned, and the plug itself is quite expensive. It would be great if Tesla proved us wrong on this, but I personally don't see CHAdeMO adapters either. Sorry.

 

[Norbert]

As others have said, they don't expect CHAdeMO adapters to come.

If they supported it, then Tesla's customers would get a rapid charge network by default, as in the UK Nissan is expected to deploy a minimum of 65 CHAdeMO chargers in public locations for all EVs to use. I believe it is the same across Europe.

They may or may not offer a CHAdeMO adapter, but the take-home point from this announcement is that the feature they want to offer as "Supercharging" is high-power fast charging with long range batteries, without too many compromises. That appears to be the reality as of today. Call it a marketing decision if you want.

Tesla isn't Nissan, and it will show more and more.

 

[dpeilow]

But the car is compromised in that it won't be able to use what is already a useful 50kW rapid charge network over here. This is not "Nissan's" network in that it is reserved for their customers - it is Nissan seeding the market so that they and as an aside many others can benefit.

Tesla was supposed to be about no compromises. What they want to offer and what the market wants are seemingly two different things. Given that (as has repeatedly been pointed out) DC reduces the on board complexity, why not offer it even as an option?

 

[Robert.Boston]

A real test will be whether Tesla releases the specs for its new charger and openly invites other car manufacturers to use them.

 

[Lloyd]

Jimbakker,

In doing a little trip planning the 40 kw battery from So. California to Las Vegas would be problematic even with quick charging. It's 153 miles from downtown Los Angeles to Baker which would be the likely spot for a quick charge, and about 300 miles one way. I believe there is and HPC in Baker. You would be going over several mountain ranges and likely not make Baker with the 40 kw battery. You would need to make two charge stops to get to Vegas, then charge in Vegas and then two charge stops for the return trip. There is not much betweeen Baker and Las Vegas! With the 60 kw battery you can 1. QC 2. make the trip with three charges 2 enroute and one in vegas vs 5. In this part I believe that your expectations were not in line with distance driving with this car.

I beleive that anything other than a local commuter needs a 60 kw battery + in order to be viable. You would likely suffer from personal weight gain from all the fast food that you would be eating while waiting for your multiple charges!