Thứ Bảy, 24 tháng 12, 2016

Supercharging option pricing/60 kWh pack fee discussion part 2

  • Sep 29, 2012
    Tempus
    No question, this is very much an early adopter problem.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Beavis
    George, you cannot possibly keep the folks on this site from coming up with inaccurate speculation and wild conspiracy theories. We come up with some good ones. You aren't selling cars to very stable people. If we were stable, we would be buying a $15,000 econo box.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    dsm363
    Well said. Anything over the price of a Jetta is a luxury. We should try and get the best value for that extra money though and I'm hoping people are as happy with their car once they get it as I am. There are things still to work out but I'm hopeful Tesla follows through with the promised updates.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    aviators99
    My questions are out of curiosity and my tendency to act as an advocate, since they don't impact me...

    This is true, and I don't think this terminology was used at all. But that includes the 85kwh battery, as well. Are you saying that you could also have decided that there would be an access fee for the 85 battery too? Would you expect that would have been acceptable? If not, why do you think there would be a difference in people's expectations, considering the fact that it was never promised for we 85ers either?

    Also, what about people who were planning to get 60kwh batteries who have received their configuration e-mail but have not finalized? Your configuration specialists have been VERY CLEAR that there would be no penalty for waiting the full 30 days to finalize. It seems to me that those who waited too long might be penalized $1,000 if that wait included yesterday. The answer to this might be very simple: that nobody is currently in that 30 day window right now?

    I particularly appreciate the mention of some of the other issues (connectivity, etc.). Please keep that communication line open, even with partial information. I would love to see something addressing the door handles, and whether it will be possible for them to extend without touch; another issue that's constantly debated here, based on mixed messages from your team members.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    bonnie
    There was apprehension on this forum as people waiting to hear what the business model would be. Endless discussion on if it would be a fee per use, maybe free for Sigs for one year, etc. I don't recall any assumptions that it would be free forever for any battery configuration. So I think it's fair to say that yes, Tesla could have decided on an access fee for the 85 kwh battery also. Again, forum posts before the supercharger announcement clearly were NOT in the camp of 'it all better be free'. (Would you have preferred fee per use over a one time charge?)

    We're not only forgetting that ... we're forgetting how utterly AWESOME it is that there is a new business model in place making FREE charging available to a very large number of people. It's game-changing. And I'm still excited about it.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    chmod a+wrx
    This is absurd.....Tesla official has to post in a forum to calm the waters.....


    Forum....calm down! ! ! !

    Tesla....communicate better! ! ! !
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    qwk
    Yes, free is great, BUT one has to remember that not every customer gets to use a supercharger as of right now. The promise of more supercharges is just that, a promise.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    pekap
    If the design site supercharger option had simply remained "TBD" then I think this announcement would be a non-issue. What I can't swallow is that it was changed to "included," yet now it seems Tesla is trying to recover some costs of capital and operations at the Supercharger sites by charging for Supercharger hardware, software, etc. on 60kWh models. I was really stretching the budget to reach the 60kWh model as the 40 kWh doesn't have the range for frequent trips to the beach and mountains. Sadly, I will be requesting my deposit back, given costs for the maintenance contract and Supercharger. I understand these are early-adopter issues, but somehow communication between Tesla and potential customers needs to be improved. I read these forums every day and want nothing more than for Tesla to succeed. I will certainly plunk down a deposit on a GenIII as soon as it's possible, but the Model S is simply out of my reach now.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    gg_got_a_tesla
    George addressed the situation for such folks as well.

    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    jerry33
    I was kind of hoping they would have them in more places than just California on the initial rollout (even if it was only three--NY, TX, CA). Far too many products and services are California first and end up being California only. Now I'm hoping that the two-year rollout will mostly done the first year rather than mostly at the end of the second.

    Like Bonnie, I'm excited about this and would like it to come about before the excitement fades.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    heems
    While I appreciate GB's post and do not doubt its honesty, I don't think this way of dealing with issues within Tesla is correct. They are putting themselves in a position where they have to back out of time after time. It's perhaps an Elon 101 and shame on us for not heeding the warnings. Case in point, watch the Revenge of the Electric Car. Elon has a bit after the price of the Roadster was increased on exiting reservation holders. He says they (the reservation holders) feel there was a bait and switch, and goes onto say in typical Elon honesty mode "and you know what, there was a bait and switch".

    The past is the best indicator of performance in the future. The same is happening and will happen given the man on top. The truth (as i see it) is a rapidly changing platform with wide ranging financial implications and inadequate modeling (or man power to model that change) and its impact. Add the hesitation to communicate openly and you get into these corners where you have to back out using methods such as splitting hairs. E.g. They are now splitting SC to hardware/software/testing/calibrating. That is juvenile. You know SC doesn't work with a single part missing. As a consumer I want to know the feature, not its constituents, I am paying for. Given this method, Tesla can easily add other pieces and ask for money. "Oh, we forgot to tell you, you need a code as well - it's $1300. We didn't know the code generation algorithm back in July, but we didn't want to take away people's choices. So in every 85K car we put in a quantum computer (at our cost) so that when the 85k buyers decided to use the "included" SC they would have the option with the code generation logic downloaded to the computer in future - for $1300.

    I jest of course, but I hope you see that we are in another bait and switch. Plain and simple. And this won't be the last. It'll be the same with the data plan and every other unknown you can think of.

    None of this "dancing" would be necessary if they simply had told everyone SC for 60k is TBD until it ain't. Is that so bad? That would have delayed people committing to the 60k and Tesla lose on much needed cash. I get it. Is that better or all the ill will from people going through a bait and switch. I hope the money they generated (and hold people hostage to) is worth it.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    aviators99
    If I were a 60kwh reservation holder, yes, I would have preferred to have that as an option.

    Since you're responding to my post in particular, I should point out that I haven't forgotten any of those things.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Beavis
    I have no dog in this fight but I wouldn't characterize this as a bait and switch. It has been my understanding that there would always be a fee for supercharger use. I never understood it to be free. So the fee is $1,000 if you already configured and $2,000 for those who haven't for unlimited use over the lifetime of your vehicle. Like the maintenance fee furor, this is a question of perceived value for the amount paid. If you only take occasional road trips, the fee does not support the value. But if you take frequent trips (and the SC's are where you want to go) the fee is a good deal. Look at your circumstances and decide but I would not characterize it as a bait and switch.
    I think the open issues/questions are why this can't be configured at a later date and where are the SC's going to be.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    jerry33
    I can understand that if the hardware isn't there, it isn't there and retrofitting won't happen. I'm not really sure why you couldn't have the hardware installed (for the first $1000) but not install the software (for the second $1000) until the time comes for you start to using the supercharger network. Particularly if you are in the five year area rather than the two year area.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Beavis
    Absolutely. The difficulty of the decision, if I had to make one, would be when the SC's are going to be where I need them. Without that data point, it is difficult to make a decision so the solution should be that you can get the hardware now and enable access later.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    vfx

    Great point. There will be those in the 2ndary market actively looking for that feature. One that cannot just be added like snazzy rims or Carbon Fiber bits.


    Reminds me of the $1500 that was added to the price of a used Prius here in CA when it sported a set of HOV stickers.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    chmod a+wrx
    Paying up front for the software is easily explained.....Tesla needs the money.....
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    spatterso911
    Not even sure that keeping the TBD status would have staved off the conspiracy theory hounds. The next comment after announcing that "TBD" = $2000 is that Tesla may as well have charged $10000 and that this was a trap to get those that committed to paying for a 60 kWh battery to essentially pay more, or to wring every dollar out of unsuspecting people who just want to drive electric. C'mon people! Despite my commitment to an 85 kWh battery, I'm not at all surprised that the charges are what they are. I am very pleased that the costs at the pump, so to speak, are completely simplifies, no codes, no cards, no passwords. Thats a big win for the Tesla planners, and a big win for us potential owners. I have been aware every step of the way that for those buying the 60 kWh battery, there WOULD be some charge, but not what the charge would be. So no real surprise here. I am surprised that Tesla decided to discount those that have already committed to the mid-battery (60 kWh) and its a pleasant surprise.

    Not all kudos for Tesla, though. I don't think that Tesla worked out the best way to communicate issues to those with reservations, and I think the store consultants could be better utilized WRT contacting reservation holders in their "assigned areas" and filling them in via email on what is developing. Prices, options, production delays (releasing information to an extent that it doesn't harm the company). Perhaps that would please some of the masses. Some will find a fly in every ointment. Some don't really care and just want a well-engineered car that is fun to drive and electric.

    I get that some people are stretching thin to buy this car. To them, I say, "you signed up to early!" With no clear sight picture, no clear target, you took your shot and fired the gun. Now you're mad that you've missed your target! Better to wait a year and see exactly what the costs will be, defined out for you if a $500 here or $1000 there price difference will mean yay or nay in getting the car. That is just too narrow of a window of opportunity for you, if the price changes completely knock you out of the market for this car, given that the price at this stage is a bit of a moving target...as expected. There are still prices for things that are as yet to be defined...

    1. Cost of the connectivity. I fully expect conspiracy theories and disgust at that price announcement as people become enraged at having to pay "X" amount for 3G instead of LTE, or that they don't have to availability to use their favorite provider, or that the chosen provider doesn't work well in their area or provide family share plans or the like.

    2. Cost of upgrades and improvements. Wanna see a thunderstorm? Wait for the announcement on how much ACC, opportunity consoles, retractable mirrors, proximity sensors, levitation, and warp hyperdrive will cost. Some will insist that it should all be free since their previous car came with it. Others won't really care, just glad the stuff is finally in production and can be retrofitted to their cars, if at all possible.

    3. Cost of extended warranty plans and battery replacement warranties. Fun times ahead here, too.

    I recommend that people operating on such narrow margins just wait on reserving, defer if you've reserved, or realize that the car you really want will cost more than you think at this point in the game.

    We all have to query the logic that Tesla uses in their decision making. We equally must query the logic to our responses and decide if we are throwing the baby out with the bath water with every announcement.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    dpeilow
    Right. I don't buy the 'calibration' stuff at all. What happens when you do a battery swap?
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    sublimaze1
    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    I was originally going to do the 40 and after the test drive, I switched to the 85. (I also switched to the pano roof and the active suspension):

    Why 85? It would (theoretically) get me from my house to my sister's house (Dallas to Houston)
    Why pano? Taller men / people can sit in the back more comfortably and it gives me four hardpoints on the roof
    Why active? Without it, I was not going to get my car until March or April.

    So one could consider the Dallas Test drive a bait and switch for me (to some extent). But it also begs one to consider that with each change in this fledgeling company, are some of their decisions made internally for their own success, and others for ours? That is, if the value of the car with or without a certain accoutrement (e.g. SC ready, wifi, etc.) allows them to market better, then should they do it gratis, do it with a prepaid fee, or charge you later? It is a toss up for them.

    I don't know about you, but I have never started a car company, so I don't know how it works. I am not in business, so I don't profess to understand that whole shootin' match.

    2 cents lighter,
    WJ
    McKinney TX
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    v12 to 12v
    I have a Sig on order. Even with a Sig I never would have imagined that access to the supercharger network would be free. Nor did I expect free power.
    Sure, I anticipated the ability to use the network but I ultimately expected it to become a way for Tesla to create a continuous revenue stream and a means to continue building the infrastructure.

    Getting the option to access a nationwide network with some serious infrastructure for $1000 to $2000 sounded spectacular and generous to me. It increases the value of the car tremendously by enhancing its usability and flexibility beyond anything previously imagined.

    At the same, time I would want the option to re-configure my vehicle post-announcement without any disruption of the delivery queue if I ordered the 60kWh. I'm not intending to dismiss anyone's concerns or angst. I'm just offering up a different perspective and sharing my own reaction to the announcements.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    heems
    I would still argue it's a bait and switch because the prices are changing retro-actively. Here is how I would have done it different: Since decision was made to say "included" (without splitting hairs) back in July, then in the 9/24 SC event announce the final details and raise prices in the future. Announce SC was included for 60k but as of Oct 1, 2012 it will be $2000. I think people will swallow a future price increase much better than one retro-actively. This way Tesla would honor their prior commitment while at the same time show they have their act together (i.e. must make money).

    Ps: I read in earlier posts people justifying the SC as always being only hardware, or not including access, or missing software activation, etc. Well the MVPA does not explicitly state access to the 17'' display software. Sure the car has the hardware and software, but nowhere does it explicitly say its activated. OMG! I hope one day Tesla charges all those people who have locked in their MVPA an access fee to the 17'' display software. Only then you'll understand the nature of what Tesla is doing with its SC feature.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    kevincwelch
    Reminds me about the line in A Few Good Men about the mess hall not being in the Marine Corps manual.

    Although it was never explicitly stated, there was an awful lot of implication that SC access would be there for 60 kWh owners when the website started showing that the hardware and software was included.

    As I look at each fee Tesla has levied on buyers, no single one seems to be a burden. However, add them up, and it's substantial. Considering many fees were added after people locked in makes me view Tesla as bordering shady.

    On the other hand, maybe this is all a marketing ploy. I have started considering the 85 kWh version over the last couple of days. Good job, Tesla! (Start hearing about more fees and glitches in the car, I'll be getting the 0 kWh version.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't profess to know much about calibration and how this plays a role. Maybe they really do need to do it at the time of installation. I suspect, however, given that it is software, this could be done later in the game. Here's where we try to find out from Founders or early Sig owners if all this was already included and "calibrated" before delivery or if they have to go back to get the software installed. If the latter, shame on Tesla. If Founders need to go back to get hardware installed, well, shame on Tesla for suggesting otherwise.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    ahimberg
    Tesla also really needs to answer the question of if CHAdeMO or SAE J1772 DC adapters will be made available for the car. (and if they will require supercharger hardware, or some different option). If we knew today that one of those adapters was coming and its price, the SC question for many 60s would be easily answered.

    I don't need nationwide SC access, but access to some DC would be nice for a longer trip where you have the range to get somewhere, but not to get back. If I'm stuck on a standard outlet waiting 50+ hours to charge (+more if there a GFI faults), vs stopping for a couple hours at a DC station is better...

    For those that do try nationwide on a 60 battery, the other concern I have is when the 60 battery ages, not being able to make it all the way between SC spots, being able to stop for 30 minutes at a different DC stop would make that possible for less money but a bit more time without going up to the 85 battery.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Babylonfive
    For those who have ordered 60kwh model, its not about how much it is, but that we werent told before we signed. my contract says that its free, and for those that signed the mvna before the clarification it should be free.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    ModelS1079
    AV99, can you take a moment to clarify what problems you mean? Wondering what issues have come up - thanks.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Beavis
    I hear what you're saying, just disagree with the perspective that they changed the price of the car because Tesla never said access was free. Whether they enable access and charge a per use fee or require an up front payment for unlimited access and how much those fees are was always the question. The price for the car didn't change, the amount charged for access was finally announced. Obviously, some people think it's too much and everyone has their opinion based on their personal circumstances.
    I just think they should let owners enable access at a later date because a lot can change in 2-5 years. People move, sell cars, SC locations are announced, etc....
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    kevincwelch
    Correct me if I am wrong, but would CHAdeMO more or less compete with the Tesla Supercharger? Methinks the Tesla one would have more capacity given the announcement, and even though the Tesla charger might be faster, one could conceive of foregoing the Tesla SC fee and using CHAdeMO instead, albeit at a slower rate.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    ModelS1079
    Can someone please upgrade George from Junior Member?

    Wayne Gretsky as Water-boy?
    Keith Richards as Roadie?
    Steve Jobs at the Genius Bar?
    Tom Hanks as Understudy?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Are you kidding me? And you are still mulling it over? Less Mulling and make the call before the refrigerator breaks. You married well, Tempus.


    I upgraded to the 85. Heck, suddenly it only costs $9K more :wink:
    Less for me as I will also drop the twin charger (can install this later if "needed"), HPWC, and cost of 100Amp line installation. The 85 will cost me about 5K more with these changes.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    The biggest run I see here is the fact that Tesla has been saying that supercharging capability would be included with 65 and 75 kw versions, and now telling the 65kw reservation holders that they have 10 days to agree to an extra $1k charge or they lose the ability to supercharge forever cannot be added later. If I have this straight then this seems to be very wrong.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    "Run" should be "rub". And 75 kw should be 85kw. All thumbs on my phone today!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    ModelS1079
    Some points. Feedback welcome but the last point feels just right:

    1. I posted in August (think it was my first post, actually) that I spoke w Tesla and they clearly noted there would be an activation fee for the 60kWh. Tesla would have done better to note the activation fee was still TBD. That is too bad, but:

    2. I felt the same when I received my email last night, but after reflecting, I have come to feel it is abundantly fair that an activation fee is required for Supercharge use. I never imagined it would be free - I figured (and from the forum notes from just ten days ago - we all figured) there would EITHER be an upfront one time fee or site-of-use charges. I can't find a post where it is stated one of us expected Tesla to just set up a nationwide network of dedicated DC chargers and just...give it away free, forever.

    3. But they did. You can buy an 85 or activate your 60 - your choice, reduced cost, in fact - and then it is free. For life. Transferable. Follows with you on your next battery. Cross country. Pack a cooler, tell your college friends you are coming, and leave our wallet at home. But bring your license because this is one fast car.

    4. Finally, consider this, please - really imagine for a moment our reaction if Tesla had announced what we may have expected - that Supercharging is available to all 85 and 60kWh battery owners for a one-time, up front fee of $1000 - for all owners (85 and 60). We would now be discussing (you geeks would be calculating for us semi-morons) whether it is WORTH the fee, not whether the fee is FAIR. I have found from reviewing this thread, and my own postings (which I know earlier contradicted what I now believe), that it is the fee being exclusively for 60kWh owners that is boiling the blood. With no fee at the charging site [free. for life.] we simply can have no axe to grind.

    Yes it costs more to Supercharge, but it is then Free. Nowhere did we expect that the Ultimate Juice Bar would be [free for life.]. College friends this is your alert: We're heading your way.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    PRJIM

    The part about not being able to upgrade the software/access once the car is built seems to be a marketing ploy by Tesla. For a car built around software, something does not smell right. Tesla is giving some customers 10 days to decide if they want this option; eerily similar to a high pressure sales model used by franchised car dealerships?

    I would be curious to see the legalese for the "lifetime access" to superchargers. I am sure there will be some restrictions that may exclude certain vehicles from utilizing Superchargers (i.e. salvage, non-tesla maintained etc). Does anyone have this document?
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Mike_Schlechter
    I'm a pretty big fan of Tesla, and generally accepting of the little bumps in the process as part of being an early adopter. Also, I'm getting the 85kWh battery, so am not personally affected here.

    That said, this sucks. I get that they weren't ready to announce in July, and had to make a touch call. as a result I think they should then agree that those 60kWh reservation holders who configured can have it for free or a reduced rate due to the timing and perception impact. The rest go in knowing full well the cost implications.

    Tesla is known, and prides itself, on being not just another car company. I hope they step up and show it in this case. Admit fault, fix it and move on.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    stephenpace
    I wouldn't pay a penny more than $1,000,000 for warp hyperdrive, but it would probably be a good value since you could do asteroid mining. Lots of room in the frunk for storage when you find a gold one. If people were annoyed about driving with the air conditioning off, though, wait until they find out they have to wear space suits.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    AnOutsider
    They did exactly that. They're giving it to those who have already locked in for 1k instead of the 2k it'll cost from now on.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    jerry33
    Just don't open the pano roof and you should be okay.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    aviators99
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    Looks to me like a lot of posts here are missing the key point. This isn't about whether 65kw owners have to pay to use the SCs, but rather that they have to agree within 10 days to an extra $1k charge or forever lose the ability. This is coming after Tesla said Supercharging capability was included. I'm getting the 85kw performance version. But if if I were getting the 65kw version I would be pretty upset. My 2 cents as a huge Tesla fan.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    smorgasbord
    I don't know if this will help anyone with their decision, but QuickCharging (using the inferior Chademo connector and protocol) is a $700 option on the Leaf. In the US, 350Green has some Chademo chargers (including one at the Stanford mall), and appears to be charging $7/session.

    For those that have already configured a 60kWh car, that $300 difference is made up with 43 charges. For those that haven't, you're looking at 185 sessions. There's a resale value aspect to SC access as well, but that's hard to predict at this stage - most car options do not affect resale significantly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Just to stop any rumors that might appear - the middle battery size is 60kWh, not 65kWh, and not 65kW.
    The small is 40 kWh.
    The large is 85 kWh.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    Thanks for fixing that. Darn phone soft keys.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Robert.Boston
    The existence of an access charge for 60kWh cars was discussed on this forum on August 11. Admittedly, user reports aren't exactly the best way for Tesla to communicate.

    I don't agree that there has been any material misrepresentation by Tesla. My MVPA says that the supercharger hardware is included. No mention of the access cost. When Musk announced the pricing, he explicitly said that there would be a charge for access for 60kWh packs. Frankly, I was expecting a subscription charge (possibly waived for Signature holders), so I was delighted that the subscription charge is waived for all 85kWh cars.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    rlawson4
    I think there has simply been way too much complaining on the forum. Between the tires, to offering the grey wheels, to the order of delivery, to the cost of service, and now this issue. Tesla is a start up. We all lose if they fail. They need every possible dollar to succeed. This bitching has taken place in the same week it has been reported that they are forced to both re-negotiate their loan payment with the federal government (and delay an interest payment until February) and issue 130 M USD in stock at a price below current market.

    So, they are in trouble. We ALL LOSE IF THEY FAIL. So everyone needs to relax and hope for the company to succeed. If you don't want the car, don't buy it. I, for one, am really pleased they are planning to put fast charging stations all over the place. I am also pleased I will have a service center near me. These things cost money. I hope they really do it. I also hope that the company succeeds. And, by the way, I don't work for Tesla and own zero stock. I have ordered a car and hope they will be around to support it.

    People on this forum as acting like babies. The biggest babies are the ones the are crying because the value of their car is less because they have offered the same color wheel to someone else. Please be serous. If they can sell so more wheels, ITS GOOD FOR THE COMPANY AND GOOD FOR THEIR FUTURE EXISTENCE AND YOUR FUTURE ABILITY TO SERVICE YOUR CAR.

    If they don't earn a profit they cannot invest in infrastructure and cannot service and support your car. I cannot stand to listen to grown men and women complain about nothing. The wheel issue is the worst I have ever seen. Listen carefully people, Tesla is in trouble. They are doing their best. GM was in business a hundred years and still went bankrupt. Starting a car company is hard.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    clindsay
    They can�t even stay on message about about what the cost is for. George says it costs a lot to do this and I buy that, but the letter that was sent out flat out lies to customers with this line: �Supercharger hardware and software must be calibrated and tested during installation, so it must be done during production of your car. We cannot add Supercharging to your car after you take delivery.�

    The line is straight from the high pressure sales playbook.

    Make an offer that requires the purchaser to buy now or they lose out forever, make the offer time limited, offer to �discount� the item so it is more attractive and make the item offered appear so useful and exclusive that only a fool would decline.

    I was thinking the model S was an advanced car. So even though the 60KW cars are identical and the hardware and software is already in the car, there is some magic �calibration� that can only happen at the factory, not the service center. Oh, by the way, you have just 10 days to decide.

    Well, So much for living in a world of precision engineering. Apparently there is a smithy who lives near the Fremont factory and when he is not making axes, barrel bands and horse shoes, he is hammering out the equipment for the most advanced electric cars in the world.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    ahimberg
    Sure it competes, but we've heard that the SAE DC standard is electrically compatible with something tesla does with DC charging.
    Personally I care more about finding out about SAE DC support than CHAdeMO. The questions are if they are coming, and how much. Every couple months are we going to get new option for another 1-2k? Lets just get it out there so people are not over buying -- no one (other than home high speed chargers) would get twin chargers if SAE DC or CHAdeMO support was an option.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    This post is way out of line in my opinion. I'm getting a P85, I'm a Tesla stockholder and a big Tesla fan. But I believe it does no favor to Tesla to belittle their early supporters that have signed on for one of the largest purchases in their life, and are feeling like the game is being changed them after the game has started. I personally think forums like this that provide a place for them to express their feelings serve a healthy purpose for Tesla in the long run. So I think you are the one that needs to back off!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    aviators99
    Yes, they screwed up--over and over again. As you point out, they self-reported that they screwed up. They have management problems. We all lose if they fail. Guess what? I'm not in the bailout business. I'm not affected by the S60 because I am getting an S85, but I'm really angry over this. I have no idea what fee that's strictly-speaking allowed by the contract will be coming up for *me* next. I live by my agreements, and I expect the same in return. Having said that, if they can find loopholes in their contracts ("access" vs "hardware" or whatever), that's their right. They can certainly extort more money from me after they've already committed to an agreement. But they are going to hear from people about it. In another thread someone was complaining about some wording in either the warranty or the MVPA and someone said, "Oh, don't worry about that! It's standard language!". In law, you MUST worry about things like that, for the reasons we see now.

    Did you actually think this statement would be effective when you typed it?

    I'm sure you'll also be fine with it if they *don't* end up erecting a single fast charging station outside of California, since they need every dollar they can get and they must succeed or we all fail. Or if the 2 year targets become 5 years, even though the S60s outside of California will have essentially lent an additional $2,000 to Tesla, it will be perfectly fine with you, because they must succeed.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Your entire post was a whine. It's almost comical that it is calling other people babies. Also note that it probably violates the T&Cs of the site when you call an individual an "idiot".

    Starting a car company is hard: true. Many have failed. Tesla might be another failure, but we all hope it succeeds. They have a lot going against them. But I'm not going to "shut up" (as you demand), when they mistreat their best customers, attempt to fly in the face of consumer protection regulation, and walk the extortion line, just because I want them to succeed.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    PRJIM
    This is a great post +1
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    kevincwelch
    I think you're doing a disservice to the TMC community by saying this. You're not a stockholder, so your speculation about the financial status of Tesla is unfounded. I would leave it up to the shareholders in this forum to speculate about Tesla's finances.

    I've said it before and I will say it again: People are entitled to their opinions. One opinion is just as valid as the next. For Sigs, maybe they should get something for plunking down $40k 3 years ago. So, if they're unhappy that P8995 (me) can get grey wheels, fine. Just as AnOutsider proposed: What is the value of a Signature Series Model S? At this point, doesn't seem like much. I'd be pissed as well.

    For those with modest incomes, consider this: Tesla should consider themselves lucky they're even capturing this group of customers, for they are the ones that would ordinarily by $30,000 cars, not $65,000 cars. Tesla should be thanking profusely every 40 kWh buyer (they should be thanking us all, but my point is made).

    So, give us a break. We're here to discuss and have a rant or two.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    sublimaze1
    Mods?
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Tommy
    I am reminded of the wry saying "No good deed goes unpunished" regarding Tesla's SC announcement and their pricing structure. Neither reservationists for the 85Kwh or 60Kwh battery should have been surprised or disillusioned if Tesla had charged a fee to SC. The fact that Tesla was able to provide free charging at all should have been reason to congratulate this accomplishment by all Tesla enthusiasts. Sadly, we have a group of folks feeling they got shafted by Tesla because Tesla's "good deed" didn't extend to them and that's not Tesla's fault.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    doug
    Folks, lets keep it civil. All facts and honest opinions are welcome. Just check the tone. We don't care for whining nor name calling.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Johan
    Ok so I'm getting the 85, in Europe, where we might never see a Supercharger for all I know. But come on Tesla, this is just dumb. Look at the following part of the e-mail FAQ:

    SUPERCHARGING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE WAS INCLUDED IN MY PURCHASE AGREEMENT. DO I NEED TO ADD THIS OPTION?
    You only need to add this option if you would like to have access to the Supercharger network. The current price to install, configure and test the hardware and software required to enable Supercharging is $2,000. Because we have included this hardware in your car at no additional cost, you only need to pay $1,000 to configure, enable and test the Supercharger components. This does not mean you have to enable this option. We planned the hardware into your car to give you a choice when pricing became available. Just because we've planned to install hardware in your car does not mean you have to order the option. Please use the buttons above to indicate whether you would like this option added to your Model S or would prefer to decline it.

    Talk about changing the rules as you go! In the bold letters they have more or less said it: it was included! But you still have to pay for ACCESS. Not for some "extensive testing, installning, finetuning" and so on...
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    rlawson4
    i was wrong to say idiot and edited that comment. I went too far.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    teslasguy
    Again, this is missing the point of people's complaint I think. I don't think the charging of a fee is the issue. The issue is that 60kw res. holders were told that the supercharging hardware was "included", just as those of us getting 85kw version. Now they're being told that if they don't agree to an extra $1k fee in the next 10 days they will NEVER be able to use the superchargers. Again, I'm getting a P85, but this behavior by Tesla sounds very disingenious to put it mildly. And this is after some that had reservations for 40kw cars upgraded to 60kw in order to get the ability to use the superchargers. I can easily see how they must feel more than a little arm twisting going on. Seems to me this could be easily remedied by simply stating that for the early reservations they can get unlimited free supercharging access by agreeing to an extra $1k fee no later than 60 days within shipment of their car, or else pay $2k to get the "activation" later on if they want it.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Discoducky
    I still find it amazing that TM decided to charge the early adopters the 1K since it will only raise about 1 to 3M (assuming there are 1K to 3K 60kWh MVPA signed reservation holders who received the email) cash and that money/decision could potentially be debated by professionals at a later date. Why go through that process for such a small pittance? Why not celebrate those that already signed MVPA as opposed to putting them through what feels like to me an emotional rollercoaster. I'm already going through that as a stock holder...

    At the end of the day I'm still getting SC and 60kWh since I live on the west coast and will realize the benefit of the chargers already in place and it appears that my Model S will reap the benefits of SCing even if another owner, battery or drivetrain is installed by TM at some later date. Thanks to GB for clarifying that detail! I'm assuming that the re-tuning cost of SCing will be built into the cost of the replacement battery.

    I would call out that there is a risk to those outside of the west coast if the other SC stations are delayed, changed or not deployed for whatever reason. If I was not on the west coast I would find this risk something to cause pause and hope that TM would somehow make amends if such delays occurred.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    onlinespending
    I don't know, but Tesla sure seems to be making a habit out of withholding important information/pricing until the very end (if not beyond the time people had already made decisions). They need to stop shooting themselves in the foot and be a bit more forthright and transparent. They did this to early Roadster owners, and they did this to the early Model S reservation holders (never did they mention that the smaller battery packs would have reduced 0-60 times, despite the fact that they must have clearly known this to be the case long before they announced pricing. They always advertised a 5.6s 0-60 time regardless of pack size). They did this most recently with the service plan costs, and now with the Supercharger costs. Tesla has to do a better job of announcing things in a more immediate and direct fashion. The PR hit they're taking from this continued habit of keeping its customers in the dark cannot be good.

    I have witnessed a definitive change in mood on this forum over the past 2 months, and we are the most ardent supporters and evangelists of this company. Even those that I considered the biggest Telsa apologists have started to turn on the company and have voiced their skepticism and displeasure with some of their actions. Tesla, wake up and learn from your mistakes.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    loganss
    It is always interesting to see the wildly different view points that spill out when a major announcment is made by Tesla. Clearly no one individual is right or wrong in their interrpretation of how a situation could have been handled so any attempts to silence groups with a viewpoint different from yours goes no where.

    I've always been aiming for the 60kWh pack so this SC pricing impacts me but my general assumption regardless of if there was trickery with wording about hw vs sw being included was that I would be paying some sort of fee in the range of $700 to $1500 range. For the maintenance fee I assumed a price of up to $600/yr since that's what the roadster owners pay. Internet connectivity I'm assuming $30 to $80/mo based on cell phone plans. When I read posts some people make extremly low assumptions as far as what they need to pay for then get disappointed when their assumption is proven wrong. Providing a service for free in most instances is counter-intuitive for a company trying to make a profit, except if that free serveice results in indirectly creating extra revenue. Tesla could have easily just charged 60 and 85kWh packs but didn't. I'm grateful for that.

    I've budgeted a certain amount of money to buy this car and there will be several options I want but in the grand scheme of things I can afford what I can afford. If some cool option comes on the table another might go on the chopping block to fit withing my budget. As many have stated you have the option to say no to an option if you don't feel the price is right.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    Discoducky
    unless you're already under contract
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    MikeK
    Frankly, I think Tesla screwed the pooch here strictly in messaging. If they had just left it as "TBD" and said (as they did) that that once the details were announced, those of us who had selected 60kWh would have the option to either buy Supercharger access for our cars or change our configuration to the 85kWh if we didn't like the price, then I doubt very much that we'd have the complaining we're seeing now.

    Let's not forget that while Supercharger capability has been promised as included for the 85kWh for a long time, there was never an expectation that it would be free forever. That's amazing. It's awesome. It's doubly wonderful that I could gain the same lifetime access for the 60kWh car for a fraction of the price difference of jumping to the 85kWh.

    As for me, I'm going to run the numbers this weekend and decide whether to stick with 60kWh or go to 85 with the effective $1000 discount.
    �
  • Sep 29, 2012
    spatterso911
    +1 Well said.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    agileone
    This would make so much more sense. This keeps all options open, and doesn't require me to go on another leap of faith, this one for $2000.

    As a Canadian, the likelihood that I get to USE a supercharger in the next 2-3 years in almost zero. If I were in California, I would gladly pay 2k now. It has intrinsic value now.

    But they are asking me to basically lend another 2k to Tesla, without any guarantee, I will ever see a live SC within 200 miles of home base ...
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    ModelS1079
  • Sep 30, 2012
    loganss
    All I have to go on with that is the following thread where someone posted a MVPA
    A Real MVPA

    The person's MVPA in the thread above is for a 85kWh pack. Is the wording exactly the same for the 60kWh pack? If so the MVPA only talks about the SC hardware being included in the price and doesn't mention cost of software or fees associated with charging off of the SC network

    Even the following text in the MVPA doesn't exclude Tesla from offering an additional option like the Paint Armor that would change the price:
    The ability to use the SC network is not included in the MVPA. Techhnically they also don't say that the SC software is include. It's implied by saying SC hardware is included at no extra fee.

    Does a 60kWh person that already signed their MVPA want to upload theirs like the thread i linked in the beginning of this post

    For some reason I think of OnStar. GM can give you the hardware/software for it at a particular price then also give you a year free of using the service but then charge you after that year period.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Todd Burch
    I've had a reservation for almost 3 years and have been on this site nearly daily for as long. I have never once thought that the supercharging would be free, for *anyone*. Especially for the 60 kWh version. And yes, I've parsed through every word of every version of the Tesla website. Don't forget, we're all on the absolute forefront of an entirely new technology and a new transportation paradigm. Tesla has made cross-country travel in an electric vehicle realistic. Nobody else has ever done that. Ever.

    Tesla has not been great at communicating openly and clearly with its customers, I agree. That is an area they can improve in. But I also believe that what they've offered here for 60 kWh customers is fair. If you like the deal and can afford it, get it. If not, don't. It's as simple as that. No bait and switch, no conspiracy theories--just part of the early adoption process.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Chas F
    True..but it just seems such a shame for Tesla because, in my case, the $2k is not worth the future and only occasional use of the SC and has made the 60Kw version no longer an attractive option for me, so I'm dropping to the 40kw. Reaching for the additional $2K has cost Tesla the additional $10K from me (minus the cost of the SC HW). So a total loss of $9K of potential revenue from one customer. Seems this is going in the wrong direction for them.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    mulder1231
    On the flip side, there will be others who will make the jump to a 85 kWh pack because the price difference is now only $8K if you must have Supercharging. So that gives them additional revenue and will cancel out the effect of people like you downgrading to 40 kWh.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It's not a matter of simply activating. Supercharger hardware and software must be calibrated and tested during installation, so it must be done during production of your car. Tesla cannot add Supercharging to your car after you take delivery.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    mitch672
    I can see no one is happy about the additional fee to enable SC in the 60KW model, but consider what GeorgeB said, and that all of us know who are aware of "demand charges" from electric utilities:

    For each SuperCharger site that Tesla deploys, the first time EACH month the SuperCharger is used at that site, Tesla will be required to not only pay for the electricity consumed during that charge, but all the "demand" fees per KW, which could be anywhere from $5/KW to $25/KW depending on the utility. If the peak usage is limited to only 90KW, there is a one time per month charge of $450 to $2,250 per month, per location.

    You can clearly see these charges adding up over time as more and more SuperCharger sites are brought online, and even if only a single Model S charges at that site that month, they are still billed for the demand charge.

    they are providing free charges for life, yet could be committing to $225K per month, $2.7 million/year with 100 SuperCharger sites, and that's without actual usage charges added in, and the cost to deploy the SC sites as well. I think that's a pretty big leap of faith and goodwill they are showing, maybe we can cut them some slack on the $1,000 fee to enable SC access on the 60KW Model S.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    That is probably true today because the calibration equipment exists only at the factory. In the future there could be calibration units at the service centres. In fact, there will have to be when new batteries get installed, unless Tesla is saying "Once calibrated the battery installed makes no difference". In which case there are questions, "What does the calibration actually do?" and "Does the calibration change over time?". A lot of unknowns here.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    J in MN
    Teslaspeak: �Supercharger hardware and software must be calibrated and tested during installation, so it must be done during production of your car.�

    English: "We are so bad at managing our vendors and meeting quality standards that there is just no way that we can stay in business, let alone maintain 25% gross margin, so we must keep on finding more and more ways to wring every last dollar out of your hands."
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Johan
    Ok that's a little over the top? I think it's reasonable with a fee to enable SC, especially if it's optional to build in the the hardware or not, and the 1k/2k fee is OK IMO. What I react to is that they are charging the 1k to those 60kW buyers who have already finalized their purchase/contract under the impression that both software and hardware were included - I would understand that as the car is SC ready. Then Tesla saying that the 1k is for some technical mumbo-jumbo when in fact it is a fee to allow you to access the SC network - call a spade a spade!
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Eberhard
    I am really wonder. for $1000/$2000 lifetime free power for my Model S? How much would you expect to pay for gas next 10-20years?
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    I see your point.

    However, the analogy isn't exactly parallel if you consider that most people will be paying $30,000 more for the Model S than they would for a conventional ICE. Therefore, 10-20 years of gas (at least in the USA) at 300 miles per tank and filling up 2x/mo amounts to less than the additional price most people are paying for the Model S. So, the extra expense of a life time of SC isn't necessarily a no brainer, especially since most people will be charging at home on a regular basis, which isn't free.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
    While Tesla may have said hardware and software was included, did they ever say Supercharger access would be free for both 60 and 85 kWh packs?
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    The thing is that many are justifying a Model S purchase by saying the difference they pay for the car is really like prepaying for gas. Every bit added on reduces the value of that kind of justification (or adds to the time you have to keep the car to break even).
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    bonnie
    Right, but all the calculations I've seen assume about a quarter the cost of gasoline, not free.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    cinergi
    Although the difference is low-cost fuel (home charging) vs. *free* fuel (supercharging).

    Edit: Bonnie wins :smile:
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    That's certainly true, although in my case it's almost exactly half the price rather than a quarter.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Eberhard
    but you are paying for charging at home - on long-distance at SC you get it for free.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    mulder1231
    I figure if the calibration has to do with the cabling it is not an easy thing to do. Who knows, it may involve placing magnets at specific locations to contain electromagnetic fields. I'm not an expert but trust Tesla that they can't easily do a retrofit after the car has left the factory.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    Yes, but only after the network is in place. Unless you live in California and restrict your trips to California it may be some time before you get any use out of the SC network. If Tesla can actually install the SCs within their stated timeframes it will be an industry first. At the Leaf dog and pony show in the spring of 2011 EvGo said they would have over thirty chargers in place by September in the Dallas area. To date there are thirteen.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    Of course. But in Chicago, for example, how long before Tesla *really* gets a SC out here? I could pay $2000 for this access and it may take 2, 3 or 4 years before it's up and running. Furthermore, let's say I did live in California right in the middle of the current SCs. How often would I be using them? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? 1-2x/year?

    I agree that free supercharging is, well, free. And free is great.

    What I am questioning is not whether it should be free to 85 kWh people, 60 kWh people, or 40 kWh people. Rather, what is the value of the free supercharging relative to the price I will have to pay? For me, I don't think it will be worth it. I'm not sure it will make a big difference in resale either. I could be wrong, of course.

    But since I did mention it, what is the fundamental difference between 85 kWh versions and 60 kWh versions that anyone buying an 85 kWh model gets the hardware/software for free? It would seem to me that the same hardware and software needs to be installed and "calibrated." Your garden variety 85 kWh model isn't a Signature series. So, what sets it apart other than price? Prior to last week an 85 kWh model was $10,000 more than a 60 kWh model; why is it suddenly only $8000 more? Prices seem a little fluid with Tesla, and if the car is the same in every other way except the battery, why the "free" SC? If you're an 85 kWh holder in Maine, do you not have to wait potentially the same amount of time for SC?
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    stopcrazypp
    I don't get where people get the impression that SC was going to be included in the price of the 60kWh. Except for a short period recently, it was always TBD or optional. That gives me the impression that the hardware/software was optional and/or there would be an access fee.

    It seems they have decided to combine both (using a "life-time" access fee).
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dmunjal
    Look at this way. How much more will a a supercharger enabled 60kw Model S be worth in 5 years compared to one without? I'm sure it would be at least $1000. So, it sounds like a good choice.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Todd Burch
    In my mind the $1000 supercharger fee is way more worth it than paying extra for a second onboard charger.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
    You're banking on Tesla not following through with the Supercharger network if you don't get it I think. If you don't want and need it then certainly don't get it but for resale value, and if Tesla actually builds out their 5 year plan, then I think it would be worth it even if you only used it a few times a year.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Doug_G
    Uh, no, you can't contain electromagnetic fields by placing magnets. And they wouldn't be an issue anyway.

    Honestly I have no idea what "calibration" they are referring to. It could be balancing the current on the various strings, but that would change over time so that doesn't make sense either.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Chas F
    I considered that but concluded that the primary reason anyone buying a 60KW with SC is not automatically upgrading to the 85kw is because they can't afford it. The 85kw is still the same price as it was before so nothing has really changed for those who can afford it. I would assume that would mean there would be many more downgrades than upgrades but I guess we will see.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    The Froq
    When are we ready with this? Tesla made a mistake, they know that by now!

    Telsa make the SC work for free for 2 years for the p60. After that, pay 2k or not.

    Simple, out! And know,please focus on the production.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Chas F
    Agree with jerry33. I live in Florida and it could be several years before I see any SC usage. Additionally, my road trips are typically 500-600 miles each and only 1 - 2 times a year. That means (assuming $200/trip gas equivalent) it could take me as much as 10 years before I break even...starting 2-3 years from now!

    I plan to keep my car for at least 10 years. Considering we don't really know where battery tech could be in 10 years, SC could be irrelevant (think 1000 mile range) and it's relation to resale value no longer a factor.

    I don't know but there seem to be too many unknowns for me to bank on SC for that long.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Right_Said_Fred
    To add to that: until one week ago the costs of supercharging for 60 kWh-cars could have been $10-20 per full charge. But Tesla chose to make it free, for ever! In most cases that totally unexpected gesture completely makes up for the $1000 (or $2000) Tesla charges for the supercharging-capability.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Todd Burch
    Simple. The 85 kWh version is $10k ($8k, depending on how you look at it) more than the 60kWh. So the free supercharger is an added bonus for getting the top-of-the-line battery.

    We all seem to be forgetting that Tesla is a business, not a charity--a business that has to make money to survive. So it wants to sell the highest margin car it can, and that means the 85kWh version.

    I work at a company that sells software (as do many here). We commonly throw in free perks to encourage customers to upgrade to our highest cost licensing option, because that's where the most profit is. There's absolutely no difference here. It all boils down to your own analysis, as you mention. Make the decision to buy the option based on whether it's worth it to you.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    stopcrazypp
    Apparently they need to do a software calibration (and there's also the hardware which is NOT included in 60kWh for later orders). So it's not possible to offer it for free as it's not simply an access fee that can be tacked on later.

    The car either comes out of the factory with or without supercharging capability. It's can't be added afterwards.

    Personally, like most people, I'm curious what the software calibration involves.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    +1 I don't think anyone really has a problem with the price, only the way it was presented. There are ways to do this kind of thing--and the way Tesla did it isn't one of them.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    markb1
    No. But I had expected to pay a per charge fee. This $1000 dollars to enable the supercharging hardware is a lot if you expect to make infrequent use of the superchargers.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    sublimaze1
    Thank you. Perfectly worded. Now I don't have to post it ... :frown:
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    Possibly right. It's not that I think Tesla will not follow through. For me, it's a matter of when and in what capacity. I can be convinced that it will increase the resale value, but I personally don't believe one should buy a car because of its potential resale value. For me, a car is not an investment. It's a utility.

    Anyway, I am probably going to get the SC, either as a 60 kWh option or with the 85 kWh. Still considering. Either way, I don't know if it's going to be worth it to me in the end.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
    I agree. You can buy things with resell value in mind but you shouldn't bank on it. Things are always be worth much less than you thought you a feature you get that you think will increase the resell value doesn't do that at all.

    I'd say it's probably worth it. Maybe not from a purely financial sense but in that it could potentially make travel much easier if Tesla does indeed build out the network.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    No...I don't think most people here are thinking that; that statement is a bit presumptuous. Rather, most people who are vocalizing against Tesla's recent announcements has to do with how Tesla does business. In my mind, there's a difference. I think there could have been better ways for Tesla to option out the service plans and the SC'ing.

    But, you're right re: whether to buy it based on whether it is a value for you.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    digitaltim
    I forget the exact Peter Drucker quote, but it goes something like this: businesses only exist to have profitable customers - customers only pay for good/services that they perceive have value and to that end the only functions that matter are marketing and innovation - everything else is costs.

    If you don't believe the 60kWH charging option has value, don't buy it. That said, the marketing has been unclear about what is included versus additional.

    I can live with all the confusion as an early adopter - that is price we pay...or maybe we are really innovators and expected to have an even higher tolerance for failure. I have to go read up on the Tarde/Rogers definitions.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Lloyd
    +1..... I expect some of this. Give them a break. Consider what they are accomplishing is a short time compared to the majors. Nuf said....
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Todd Burch
    I don't think there's any question that Tesla's communication (or lack of it) has caused problems. That's part of what we pay by being early adopters. There's obviously not an existing large customer base from whose experiences we can benefit. I don't see this as a symptom of "how Tesla does business"...I think it's just an unfortunate result of a business trying to get on their feet and pushing an entire industry far beyond the established envelope. It SHOULD be simple to fix: just communicate better with customers. But for one reason or another, that goal so far has been elusive for Tesla. Hopefully GeorgeB will come up with a plan and get that resolved, but many people here seem to just assume that Tesla's goal is to rip off its customers. I don't believe that at all. They know better than anyone that they can't do that and expect to survive. I think what we're seeing here is growing pains.

    But at the same time, there are a lot of people (not directing this at you, Kevin) that--based on the wording of the website, assumed that there would be no cost for 60 kWh customers. Yes, it may have said that hardware was included. It also may have said that software was included. But there was no indication from Tesla, as far as I can tell, that it was ever announced to be free. This is a case of reservation holders making an assumption, and then feeling conned or misled when the assumption was not correct. From what I've read in these forums and seen on this site ever since the pricing announcement for the Model S, there's always been a planned additional cost for 60kWh supercharging...we just didn't know what it was until now.

    Mods: there's a parallel thread on this in the Model S forum...perhaps they ought to be merged?
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Todd Burch
  • Sep 30, 2012
    mulder1231
    And fix my typo in the thread title :wink:
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
    I merged the two threads. Hope they still make sense together.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    huntjo
    I remember reading that the Supercharger hardware would be included for 85's and possible as an option for 60's.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    markb1
    Since I've got the first post in this thread now-merged thread, I went back and added links to GeorgeB's posts to make them easier to find.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    dsm363
    Thank you. That helps clarify things.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    No argument there, Todd.

    Being an early adopter has its advantages and disadvantages, of course. Hopefully Tesla will be a little less vague with future announcements and leave what is not confirmed open or TBD until it definitely is confirmed. This has to involve reps and those manning the phones. Lord knows that if I talk to a rep locally, I'll get a difference answer elsewhere.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    ckessel
    I'm sure it's been said earlier in the mass of posts, but I think this really gives the 60kwh the short end of the stick. I'd be looking at the 60kwh for distance reasons rather than day to day driving and the supercharger is very important for distance trips. The number of people that need 60kwh for daily usage vs. the 40kwh would seem small, so the supercharger seems like an a must buy (not to even mention resale issues if you don't get SC).

    This pricing makes the 40->60 upgrade basically 50% more expensive than the 60->85 (12k vs 8k). I'd feel like a bit of a chump paying for the SC with a 60, paying a premium for extra range compared to the range bump going to the 85. But the 85 is beyond someone that was stretching for the 60. That would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

    From a purely financial point of view, I'm skeptical this benefits Tesla. How many customers will drop to 40 or drop entirely vs. how many they convince to bump to the 85? Were I previously getting the 60 I'd drop it down to 40 and use the savings for alternative long trip transportation.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    agileone
    Exactly my feelings. It sure seems Tesla is discouraging buying anything but the 85kW version.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    jerry33
    That appears to be the super-secret master plan.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    Babylonfive
    How many times do we have to say it... no one has a problem balancing the cost of SC against electricity, or gasoline - they have a problem with changing the rules of the game AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED and forcing existing contract holders to decide to modify their contracts within 10 days (high-pressure tactic). The contract and the web site together say that it's FREE, all of it together. Check out this recent statement from the Design Studio:

    supercharging screenshot.PNG

    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    kevincwelch
    I distinctly remember this as well.

    It was clearly stated hardware and software were included in the 60 kWh versions. So, as far as I see it, people have 1 or 2 issues with Tesla. The first, and obvious, is that 60 kWh customers now have to pay for the hardware and software when it was told to them that they didn't have to. Secondly, nothing was ever said about access to the superchargers. I think this was implied by the Tesla website, but it was never specifically stated that you would have access. A little back-handed, but in Tesla's defense, they never said you would have access. One could then argue that the $2000 was for the access, but then that would go against the "free supercharging" theme. If you double back and say the $2000 was for the hardware and software, then Tesla screwed up. One could take it even further: you haven't signed your MVPA yet, so you weren't cheated out of anything. (Personally, I think everyone who signed an MVPA under the assumption that SC was included for the 60 kWh prior to the event last week should get it for free, not $1000. Tesla should throw these folks a bone.)

    Either way, supercharging is a $2000 extra for 60 kWh customers. Take it or leave it. Tesla's not going to reverse its stand at this point. Nor do I suspect they'll apologize for the confusion.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    teslasguy
    I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record, but I still say that the real issue here is that 60kw Clients are being told now that they must agree to the extra $1k charge in 10 days or forever forfeit supercharger access. This just makes no sense to me. At least give them the option of activating it later for the $2k fee later clients must pay. The only reason I can see why this wouldn't be offered is that Tesla doesn't really plan on installing the SC hardware for those not taking the $1k fee option. But that would seem to be a contract breach. Are they really willing to risk that to save a few bucks by not installing the SC hardware/software they committed to? I'd love to see a clarification on this question from George B. as to why those bypassing the $1k option can't get in later by paying the $2k fee. The explanation that it is because of calibration and testing that cannot be done later just doesn't pass the cred test for me. As I've said before i have been a big Tesla fan and on board for a P85 and own a lot of Tesla stock. Tesla please do the right thing here. I'm really tiring of spending so much time and energy defending Tesla from an ever growing number of basic screw ups like this. if you want the reputation you profess to want then the quality of your business practices have to be as good as the quality of the car.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    daxz
    I've been analyzing my regular long distance routes and they are doable in a 60kWh car at a slower pace. In addition to going slower to get to next charger, it would always be filled in a range mode (> 85%) to get to next charger. It also adds 43% more time to the trip ( 50.2 Hrs vs 35 hrs round trip in ICE car vs 40hrs 85kWh pack (1 range mode per direction) ) from Denver to Chicago. Taking into account battery degradation, it makes the situation more bleak for a 60kWh pack for any long distance cross country SC user.

    If you have one local SC scheduled that you know you'd use then it may be a different story. My short tips to ski slopes would benefit from a SC in Summit county area as planed.


    So those considering getting SuperCharger access with 60kWh batter should really look what potential chargers they would use and is it worth the additional time and slower (perhaps not as safe) speed if it is hitting multiple charges in one day. The Folsom to Coalinga trip stated in NYTimes article said they were advised to say at 70mph or less with 85kWh pack.

    By way I was emailed September 5 @ P 5679 and have not finlized yet. I was intending to go with a 60kWh pack partially because the supercharger hardware cost's "TBD" changed to "included" for 60kWh pack (+ acceleration). I did not get a 1K discount letter.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    heems

    +++1 GB wonders why people take their announcements and dissect it a 100 ways. Well GB look in the mirror for the answer - Tesla's setup of information is minimalistic (like their interior). The site could have easily said "Equipment - Included / Access - TBD" prior to 9/24. I think that's what you meant, but the information is conveyed incompletely leaving room for misinterpretation. How wonderful would it have been if the design studio had a line for Service Contract (again TBD prior to pricing announcement/details). Or how wonderful it'd be it the design studio was updated right now to include a section for the data plan (again with a TBD price). You get the gist. Paint the WHOLE picture even if the pricing/details hasn't all been worked out. Maybe then Tesls's customers won't feel so slighted or mistrust the information being conveyed.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    CapitalistOppressor
    I've already proven the Riemann Hypothesis. No need for GeorgeB to waste his time . . .

    - - - Updated - - -

    Personally, I expected to pay a fee for the electricity. Tesla is not the government or a regulated utility. It seems absurd to expect free electricity.
    �
  • Sep 30, 2012
    bonnie
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)