Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 As you all know, I'm pretty upset about what I feel was misleading advertising by Tesla for their 160 Model S. A forum member sent me a link to an archived version of Tesla's website, pre-option pricing. The link to the archived page is here: http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/models/ I don't know how old the archived page is, but it is a good example of what I'm talking about. I haven't had a chance to review their Model S pamphlet from two months ago, but at this point do I really need to?
I've attached three images. I had to crop them to remove my email header and didn't have time to make them prettier, sorry about that. However, you can clearly see that Tesla marketed the $49,900 Model S as having a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds and a 45-minute Quick Charge. One page indicates, correctly, that the range is 'Up to 300 Miles', while the other simply states '300 mile range'. On every page, the price is listed at $49,900.
But wait, you say, there is an asterisk next to the price! Obviously that indicates that these specs apply only to the more expensive models? Nope. If you look at the last picture, I included the note pertaining to the asterisk: That the $49,900 price was after a federal tax credit. Wow, nice of them to let us know!
If Tesla did not deliver on these claims, it wouldn't be too big an issue. However, they did deliver. They just delivered it for the higher-end Model S. I find it very hard to believe that they have technical limitations which prevented them from delivering QC to the 160, and I find it equally hard to imagine they wouldn't know that the 0-60 performance wouldn't apply to the 160. Even posters here state that they knew the battery size would limit the 160 from achieving that 0-60 time. If forum posters familiar w/ EVs understood that, Tesla must have.
Again, the issue is that Tesla misrepresented their product to reservation holders like myself. There may even be non-reservation holders who heard about the performance and filed it in their mental archives for the day that the vehicle actually comes out. When they hear that the car is out and meets those specs, they'll excitedly head right on down to a Tesla store and ask to see it...only to be shown the more expensive models.
"But I thought it was only $49k?" Oh yeah, well we have that model but it doesn't meet those specs.
"So you're telling me that you did indeed meet those specs, but they're only for the more expensive car? Yes sir, very good sir!
"But that's kinda shady, ain't it?
And before someone says, 'But you don't know, maybe they will offer a 45-minute Quick Charge!', let me preempt you with a question:
If they do not offer it, then will you agree that they misrepresented it?�
Dec 22, 2011
Lloyd Jim, Right now the charge time to 50% is one hour with the 2nd onboard charger, and you can do it at home without finding a supercharger and waiting in line. This allows you charging to 20kw. Not that much different from the quick charge claimed above.�
Dec 22, 2011
Dennisf I understand that you are upset. But at the same time we didn't get the 1 minute battery swap (that would have been awesome). And it does say base price 49,900. So with that in mind I see the site pictures you posted more as something to give us an idea what to expect. To be honest, the car looks a lot different too..
But that 1 minute battery swap....�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow Surely it's 100% different?�
Dec 22, 2011
AnOutsider I also looked at the flyer I got from Tesla at the Model S event back in 2009. It also says "Base Price", which I think is more than enough to illustrate (as most car manufacturers do) that the car starts at $X and can be optioned up from there. It would also lead me to believe that the options and specs shown may or may not be included in the base car.�
Dec 22, 2011
Lloyd Just order two Big Macs instead of one while you are waiting!
If they allow Chademo connection there will be no difference.�
Dec 22, 2011
widodh In the beginning the Tesla website also stated that the Model S could charge from 480V, that is where I assumed it would charge with 3-phase power.. That disappeared as well.
Anyway, I don't think there is a technical limitation with the 40kWh pack, you simply charge it with ~40kW of power instead of 90kW and it will also charge in 45 min to a 80% SoC.
I do get the point why Jim feels mislead.�
Dec 22, 2011
NigelM Let's also be fair...
That webarchive is from 2008/9 and it is amazing that Tesla stayed with a base price of $49,900 (after tax credit). If you want to get pedantic, then it's also fair to look at the FAQ's page:
�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending But lets face it. They certainly knew even then that the 40 kWh and 60 kWh would not go from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. And they also probably knew that the 40 kWh would not be offered with Supercharge capability. Yet they made the decision not to disclose that information up front. They intentionally withheld limitations of the base models in an effort to drum up more down-payments. Remember, this is a company that needed all the money it could just to stay afloat.�
Dec 22, 2011
AnOutsider I remember a post where someone said they were under the impression the pano roof was standard (I never was) as well, and right there it says it's an option. On the charging, it says it can charge up to 80% of its capacity in as little as 45 minutes... The "in as little as" is important.
Also, wasn't the Supercharger thing a RECENT announcement (i.e. this year)? So surely people who have been holding long deposits didn't assume they would get access to Tesla's recently-announced super chargers?
*edit* not sure if this is the best link, but:
That was 11/4/2011. Nothing about it being standard or anything, though it also doesn't say anything about it being discriminatory either.�
Dec 22, 2011
richkae Could the website have been more clear that the base model may not hit all those bullets? Yes.
Could the website have been more clear that the car is not yet fully designed and that those are targets? Yes.
Were you baited and switched? No, your deposit is refundable at any time.
Did you buy anything? No
Did you give them a refundable deposit to let you have the option to buy this not yet fully designed or priced car ahead of others? Yes
Did they give you updated more accurate information about the car more than 6 months before you could expect delivery so you could make a better decision? Yes
Its fine to be disappointed that the base model doesn't have all the features you wanted. But I think being upset at being misled is silly.�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp I completely agree on the acceleration part (there was no hint from Tesla at all that the different pack sizes will have different acceleration and they didn't use any term like "up to" that would indicate that).
Not really on the 300 mile range part, because of the "up to" term and because if you looked at the second page it makes it clear there are the 160, 230, 300 pack options. No serious buyer would miss that.
As for quick charge, that also is under the "up to" term. Just like how the base model doesn't have the 20kW onboard charger, but rather the 10kW version (a fact no one felt was deal-breaking), there wasn't any guarantee the 160 pack would support 45 minute (although most people assumed it would, including me). At this point it's still entirely possible for the 160 pack to support 45 minute charging (and not the 90kW "supercharger"). Again, this is from the ambiguity of the definition of "supercharger" and charging speeds (refering to time between SOC or refering to actual power in kW).
And in the VERY early stages (March 2009) TEG got the indication (don't remember from where) that only the 300 pack would support 45 minute charges:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2497-45-Minute-quick-charge�
Dec 22, 2011
NigelM Just looked through the brochure from 2 months ago and also that from early this year. There's nothing in there that contradicts the latest options and pricing announcements. You could argue that Tesla is no better than any other auto maker in that they talk about high-end features without stating explicitly that they are upgrade options, but they are no certainly no worse than any other auto maker either. That said, we all want a perfect world and I understand that it is frustrating when everything isn't perfect.
P.S. Afterthought: I don't want to sound like a Tesla apologist, but I do think that some of the criticism in various threads is based on some unrealistic expectations; equally some things such as the UK/EU needs are perfectly understandable.
P.P.S. I don't see anyone cheering that the battery warranty actually increased versus the expected life stated in those old webpages.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow So, weasle words. It is in the section that applies to all versions.
The supercharger thing being Tesla proprietary was recent, but Tesla always said they would have 100kW class charging. We just assumed it would be based on the open SAE standard back in the day.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Sure, it was clear that things were not carved in stone and that things may change. That's to be understood with a product that was a work in progress. I fully expected to pay for virtually any additive feature (pano roof, navigation, etc.).
However, it's clear they knew that the lower end models would not go from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds all along if they had nailed down the acceleration on the 85 kWh model that long ago. Do you think it's ethical to intentionally withhold these limitations of the base models, knowing that it only serves the purpose of enticing more people to make a down-payment? That's open for debate. But if the only information we had to go by was that the Model S would go from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, and they most certainly knew that only the 300-mi range model would be capable of that, then how else are we supposed to feel when they conveniently decide to finally disclose that bit of information when the pricing was announced? That my friend is pretty much the very definition of being misled.�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp That's a pretty serious allegation. I'm pretty sure it's simply because it's wasn't finalized (until now). If you looked at the early specs, there was only a few concrete numbers (and even those numbers were rough and not exact). Heck, even the car's design and looks (both interior and exterior) was not even close to finished (it's still not finished at this point either). I mean pretty much 99% of the information we know from the options page was unknown up to this point. Nothing was really cut in stone back then.�
Dec 22, 2011
AnOutsider Are "up to 300 miles" weasel words too?
At the end of the day, like someone else said, they released this information more than 6 months ahead of delivery and no one is "locked in". So even if people were misled by earlier statements, how else could they have made it right other than releasing more solid information well ahead of purchase time? By just going "oh, did you think the pano roof was standard and that all models would get 5.6s 0-60? My bad guys, we'll just throw it in then."?�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending No, Tesla could be considered worse than other auto-makers when it comes to the 0-60 times. Fully agreed that they are no worse on any extra options, as I fully expect to pay for additional features. But no one considers the 0-60 time an extra feature. They would consider it a baseline feature. Imagine BMW came out with three different M5's each with a different sized gas tank and upfront led you to believe that the 0-60 time was 4.5 seconds. But then two years later they conveniently tell you that in order to get the 4.5 second 0-60 time, you need to opt for the larger gas tank model. That would be absurd, but that's essentially what Tesla did by intentionally decided not to divulge those details upfront. That's far from commendable.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Not a serious allegation by the least bit. They certainly nailed the 5.6 second 0-60 time of the 85 kWh option well in advance didn't they? As an electrical engineer, I can say with near certainty that these are the types of things they calculated, and the were accurate with their estimate of the 85 kWh optoin. They had already decided on the three different battery pack options at that time and knew of the implications they would each have on the 0-60 times, but decided not to divulge that. I'm sorry, but to think otherwise would be naive.�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp That might very well be true (and they didn't really use weasel words in regards to acceleration), but that's the only spec that I agree Tesla may have mislead people on. But it seems most people don't really care about the acceleration part (probably because it doesn't really affect daily driving); the 45 minute charging is a much bigger sticking point.�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow No because on point 2 of that datasheet it clearly states what the batteries are. In fact IMHO it just makes it worse that then on point 3 it doesn't state 45m / 80% doesn't apply across the board.
Incidentally they also say standard charging ranges from 3-5 hours, implying that 20kW was the default back then.�
Dec 22, 2011
smorgasbord That's a mighty big leap, and does not match my experience with Tesla as a company, nor its employees.
1) Tesla does not advertise or even push gathering deposits on the Model S. If you walk into a Tesla store and ask questions about the car, they'll answer them. If you ask when they'll be available, they'll say starting next summer. If you ask how you can get in line, only then will they tell you about the reservation program. I've been in Tesla stores enough to see firsthand that Tesla employees intentionally do not bring up the reservation program, even if the discussion leads them towards an opening. You have to specifically tell them you want to get one or that you want one as soon as possible and ask them how.
2) We all know that Base Models don't do everything fully equipped models do. To think that we know what the real technical and production reasons really are such that we can then ascribe motives to how Tesla decides what is available in the Base model is ludicrous.
3) Finally, remember this was an early adopter reservation program. By putting a deposit down early, you were saying that in order to be one of the first to get your Model S, you were taking a chance that the car would not end up being what you wanted it to be. How could you not realize that?
Now you know why more prudent people who were interested in the Model S did not put down a reservation deposit before now. Some wanted to see options and pricing. Some probably are going to continue to wait until they see production versions. Some will wait until they get to test drive it themselves. And some will wait until they can touch the actual vehicle they want to drive home that night. It appears you didn't match your level of risk tolerance to your actions.
That said, it's more than fair to tell Tesla that you don't like certain configuration limitations or pricing. Tesla employees I've spoken with want to hear what people like and don't like about the options. You should call/email/visit a Tesla store and tell them. Explain why. If enough people tell them, they may reconsider if they can. But to be honest, the vitriol and accusations leveled by some members here are simply not, in my view, appropriate. All you will end up achieving is that Tesla will be even less likely to talk about future models for fear of this kind backlash. Is a more closed Tesla that doesn't share info about models in development what you want?�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp I'm saying a combination of the allegations is pretty serious (esp. assuming that Tesla is intentionally doing it for those purposes). If it's only the 0-60 part, that's only a minor point. That's because Tesla wouldn't be the first one to change their 0-60 claims (I know Fisker did so only shortly before they released their car! Tesla is giving a 6 month + notice.).�
Dec 22, 2011
richkae It is far more complicated than that. You want to know a secret? The 40kW pack can totally hit the 5.6 second 0-60 time. It might only able to do it once. How many times can it do that and last 8 years? Thats a much harder question, to assume they knew the answer to that question a year ago is totally unfounded. They weren't even sure which battery chemistry they were going to use.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending I agree. I don't feel misled by anything else, though I was anticipating all models having Supercharge capabilities so it's a bit of a disappointment. The pricing of all other options is more than reasonable to me, even the Technology package which I'm surprised so many others were up in arms about.�
Dec 22, 2011
NigelM The comparison makes no sense. But if BMW offered three different engine sizes then you equally wouldn't expect to get the same performance out of each one would you?�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Right, but they calculated the 5.6 second 0-60 using a 85 kWh accurately using safe assumptions about the limitation of how much current draw these batteries could support. I'm sure they applied these same safe assumptions (without taxing the smaller capacities anymore than the large 85 kWh capacity) and came up with the sort of 0-60 times that were just announced. Don't kid yourself. They knew, that all things being equal, and the only variable being the battery capacities that there would be implications on the 0-60 times and probably had a very accurate estimate for all capacities just as they did with the 85 kWh.
And I knew putting down a reservation 2 years in advance that things were fluid. In fact, if Tesla said that all models were $5000 more than previously announced, I wouldn't be that shocked or terribly upset. I was well prepared for that. Unrelated to that, it's simply my contention that Tesla knew well in advance that the smaller battery packs would have slower acceleration and deliberately choose not to share this information. Assuming that this is the case, it's open for debate whether or not that's acceptable business practice.�
Dec 22, 2011
stopcrazypp That's why analogies between ICE and EVs don't work that well. For the same cells, battery power scales directly with battery capacity. That's why some people advocate describing the battery as the "engine" to lay people. It's all from most people being ignorant about the characteristics of EVs (something that will hopefully change in the near future as more EVs come out).
As a side note, it's entirely possible for Tesla to choose cells with higher max C-rate (like A123 for example) and still have the same acceleration among all three packs (none of us know what cells they chose for the 160 and 230 packs; we only know the NCR18650A will be used in the 300 pack and that the cells in the 160/230 packs will be different). It'll just cost more per kWh and likely weigh more.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Of course not. But we're not talking about an ICE here. As long as the motor responsible for turning the wheels is provided enough current to maintain the same acceleration across all pack sizes, there was no reason to believe otherwise. No consumer has been conditioned to equate car battery pack size with varying rates of acceleration. Tesla would have had you believe the only difference was strictly the capacity or range of the battery. Had these limitations been shared up front, then I'd have nobody but myself to fault for expecting otherwise.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending Or similarly, it's possible to work towards the lowest common denominator. It certainly wouldn't be ideal, but they could obviously have all battery pack options accelerate at 6.5 seconds. Obviously at full load, I expect the larger capacity batteries to supply more current. But when 5.6s was stated as the 0-60 time, I could have just as much assumed that the 40 kWh battery could supply enough current to provide that sort of acceleration, and that the larger capacity batteries would naturally be operating at less than full load to provide the same 0-60 time, but have the advantage of greater mileage range. Again, without given any information to challenge the thought that all cars would not do 5.6s, how could people be expected to think otherwise? It's just disappointing, since these limitations were likely known by Tesla and not shared. And that's my beef with this whole thing
�
Dec 22, 2011
Tommy I've been following Tesla's progress on the Model S for about two years now; Tesla has changed their web pages several times, presumable to reflect how Tesla envisioned the model S at that moment in time. I've seen numerous exterior changes (front grill, charge port location ,side vents to name a few) as well as changes in the actual specs. One of those early specs was the car would do 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds. Although I don't have a photo to prove the web page existed there are bloggers who noted that fact, here is a link to one of them: A life more ordinary - Part 2 Model S info near the bottom of page.
This particular blogger makes good reading because he has no illusions that the base model price fully configured will significantly increase in price.
So, the fact there have been changes to the Model S, mostly in a positive way and also some shortcomings should not reflect on the character of the company to such a negative extent that is being portrayed in the different threads on this forum IMO.
I am sure Tesla wants to earn our business and a clarification from Tesla on concerns about QC and 0-60 times is warranted. However, if the prospective buyer still doesn't trust Tesla's clarification and truly feels Tesla is being less than honest with them, than the only logical recourse is to not do business with them.�
Dec 22, 2011
Doug_G I have to say some of this is starting to sound like whingeing to me.
First of all, Tesla was offering fully refundable reservations for a vehicle that was not designed yet. They made it clear that there was some risk in that "investment". I'm sure they did not set out to intentionally misrepresent anything to anyone. It's not at all surprising that they would be confronted by a combination of technical and financial realities, which culminated in the differences between the various product levels. I for one am rather impressed that they managed to keep their promises on the basic price points.
Secondly, the deposits total something in the 80 million range. It's a substantial amount of money, BUT it is small compared to the initial investments + public floatation + DOE loans. Tesla had no motivation to mislead to try and get incrementally more deposits. Oh, and did I mention that they're fully refundable?
Finally, the deposit is refundable. If you decide you don't like the offerings, then get your money back.�
Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 So if Model S production vehicles were available today, and rather than place a deposit I had instead walked into a Tesla dealership to place an order based on the information provided to me, would that be a bait and switch?
If you believe that Tesla could have been more clear, and the only reason you aren't calling it deception is because they were only accepting refundable deposits, I believe you are unfairly placing the burden on me for some odd reason. Whether Tesla is accepting refundable deposits or full-on purchase orders doesn't change the nature of their advertising. With your acknowledgment that Tesla could have been more clear, you're letting Tesla slide on a technicality. Can we agree that the advertising in place would be illegal if cars were available now?
On those pages where it was stated '300 mile range', they also stated on the same page that it was 'up to 300 mile range'. No weasel words, just a weasel move. We all know that these are two different statements, and I'm confident when reading it that my $49k probably doesn't apply to that range. However, can you not see the inconsistency in message there? Why mix the statement 'up to 300 range' with '300 mile range', if not to confuse? Can we agree that an honest man would have said 'up to 300 mile range' each time?
As a reply to others who have said that the 160 will reap only a negligible profit or even a loss for Tesla, and their real audience are those who can afford the 230 and above, I ask: If that is the case, then why did they push $49k over and over and over again? I understand the desire to get publicity, but I believe the method used was dishonest. If they never intended on taking me to the dance, then why'd they keep telling me they wanted to go? I would have longed for the Model S regardless.
I agree with the poster who called the allegation that Tesla intentionally mislead about the $49k Model S a serious one. It is serious, that's why it concerns me so. I'm sure they understand, 100%, that they can't do that when vehicles are actually in production, because then it would be a crime. The fact that I'm merely a reservation holder does not magically absolve them of guilt. The key point here, of course, is whether they knew the specs cited wouldn't apply to the 160. People here with EV knowledge claim to have known through common sense...so wouldn't Tesla have known too?
Do I want Tesla to be less open about their next vehicle? No, I just want them to be more honest. If they can't figure out a way to do that with future endeavors, then that speaks very poorly about their marketing team.
BTW, I emailed them two nights ago, tactfully inquiring about the lack of 160 quick-charging and suggesting that it is a big issue for myself and others. I've yet to hear a response, so now I guess I'll just call.�
Dec 22, 2011
Arnold Panz I understand that some people are frustrated/angry with Tesla about the 160 mi base Model S not having quick charge, slower acceleration etc. I would only note that when I talked to people over the past few years about the car, I would say that the base price was $57k, but that would be a bare bones car that you could probably only use around your neighborhood, like a Leaf. I always said that you'd probably have to spend at least $70k to get one with the options and range etc. that you'd want from a car of that caliber.
FWIW, I was always under the impression that the $57k car was going to be stripped, but for those who could only afford that and really wanted an S it would be available. I have been focused on the higher end of the range because I always knew I wanted the 300 mi version, but Tesla must have laid some groundwork in their announcements and other publicity because I was not the least bit surprised that certain "basic" options weren't available on the 160 mi car. That's not to say they couldn't have been more up front about it, but as someone who has followed this stuff pretty closely since 2008 on the Model S, the 160 mi car was pretty much exactly as I thought it would be.�
Dec 22, 2011
onlinespending The $49,900* base model is also available because they can say it is. If that makes sense�
Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 Hi Arnold,
The issue for me is that 0-60 performance and stated charge times were not listed as optional. They were presented as part of the $49k model, in fact the price was listed together with those specs. If Tesla knew those specs applied or likely applied to the more expensive variants, they simply could have quoted those estimated prices instead. They could have provided a simple matrix showing the target specs per model, then no harm no foul. If they really cared, the even could have stated that 'all specs are subject to change'. Nobody criticizes honesty.�
Dec 22, 2011
WhiteKnight Base Price, Base Price, Base Price
Everything Tesla promised they delivered. Nothing was promised at the Base Price. Base Price means Base Price. You want 0-60 in 5.6 seconds you can get it but not at the Base Price. In fact, you can get 0-60 in 4.4 seconds!�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 Jimbaker666: If you're this angry now, I doubt you're going to have a good relation with the company or enjoy your car. This is a new company making their first car (on their own) so there are bound to be more PR missteps and other issues. You've made it very clear your think Tesla purposely misled you/lied in an attempt to bait and switch you. Most other people and especially people who have dealt with the company for years disagree.�
Dec 22, 2011
brianman "I feel deceived that they are delivering a 5.6. They should throttle mine back to match the early specs."
Kidding. Jim, don't kill me.�
Dec 22, 2011
brianman Yes. And the courts would probably back you on that.
If they list specs, you put down money, and you don't get what you were promised when you paid... Yes.
If they list specs, you put down money, and they contact you with updated information giving you the option to get your money back without penalty... No.
I assume editorial failure here rather than negative intent. But yes, that's just my opinion.�
Dec 22, 2011
Doug_G I should point out that the Model S includes some thing important we didn't expect. The Roadster came with only a 110V plug. Adding NEMA 14-50 cost $2000 more. Adding J1772 cost $750 more. Both of those are included with the Model S, no extra charge. A very pleasant surprise!�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 Exactly. I think it has more to do with a new company with many moving parts (marketing, engineering, management..etc) that weren't always on the same page during development. I'm surprised at the level of anger and complaining by some here. I totally understand why some people may feel disappointed but as has been said many times, it is a fully refundable deposit and probably 10 months before the 40 kWh pack cars will be delivered so plenty of time to give Tesla time to explain and cancel your reservation if you're unhappy. Maybe I should start an 'I'm happy with Tesla' thread.�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 jimbakker666: The first image you're using as proof to complain about their deceit says 'up to 300 miles' a few images to the right on the same page! Was it potenially confusing? Sure but not proof Tesla was out to get you. This certainly didn't require it's own thread. You've made your outrage well know in other places.�
Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 I know. Was it optionally confusing on Tesla's part? I don't know, why did they say two different things in the same place?
Was the 0-60 time optionally confusing? The 45-minute charge time?
BTW, what price was noted, consistently, with all of that information? I certainly wasn't confused as to how much all that performance cost!
Sorry that I dare criticize Tesla, but that's what I do when I see things which I believe to be improper, and I would much rather be wrong in criticism than right in blissful ignorance. In the face of excess criticism, a company or person will take extra care in what they do to avoid problems. In the face of yes men, that same company or person will take advantage to the full extent allowed, ahem, by law.
You should check out the Tesla forums, there are others complaining of the same issues (and Sig reservation holders as well). I am by no means the only person raising issues. In fact, some of them have considered canceling based on the very same thing I've cited, principal. They've also pointed out their confusion over the charging time and 0-60 performance. How can so many have gotten it wrong?
Give Tesla a pass all you want on these things, but if they begin turning people off in large numbers, they will not have a company. If you have reserved a vehicle, then it is in your best interest to fix Tesla's issues, not ignore them. As a shareholder, it is in my best interest as well.
If you don't like my posts, than don't read them. Instead of here, would you prefer I write an article outlining my thoughts for an auto magazine website? Make my criticism of Tesla's marketing practices and lack of functionality in their $50k luxury vehicle available to the public at large? I would rather not, as I want Tesla to succeed. I want them to do so honestly though, placing customers before shareholders.
BTW, no need for the snide remark. I'm not criticizing you, I'm criticizing Tesla.�
Dec 22, 2011
AnOutsider I would note that most of the blogs so far on the released pricing have been very positive.�
Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 I'm okay with the pricing too. The tech package might be a little overpriced but overall it seems reasonable to me and if everything else was straight, there'd be no complaints from me.�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 What I said wasn't snide but that's how you interpreted it. How does their $50k car lack functionality? Will it take at minimum 2 hours to fully charge instead of 45min to an hour? Yes but the car can still drive. Did you ever consider that they changed things in the last few months due to warranty concerns with the smaller pack instead of a desire to cheat you?
No one is arguing with you that their earlier marketing material wasn't potentially (I corrected this a minute later) confusing, just with your description of their motives. I"m not blissfully ignorant of that fact.
See Todd's post. Very well written and right on point.
Putting Everything into Perspective
All of my favorite features (keyless entry, iPhone app to remotely cool car, 17in touch screen, backup camera) are in the base model as well with the tech package. I'll probably rarely use super charging anyway (largely because it will take many years to get to Texas).�
Dec 22, 2011
jimbakker666 Asking me 'Was it optionally confusing?' sounds snide to me, but regardless I see that you've changed this word to potentially which is entirely different. Cool.
Isn't it four hours to recharge, unless I opt for the extra charger upsell? There's a big difference between an hour at Denny's to recharge and 4 hours at Denny's to recharge. I'm not sure I'd be capable of re-entering my vehicle after 4 hours stuffing my face in that place. Reaching full charge in two hours for an upsell? Not cool man.
Yes, I did. I haven't heard any communication from them on this front though, but if this is the case, I'd surely sign a waiver accepting a diminished battery warranty in order to have the ability to quick-charge (depending on the new warranty mileage of course). The response from Tesla on the quick-charge issue has, unfortunately, been crickets. Considering that they want to upsell me on an extra charger, I don't imagine they'd be keen on letting me get away with that whole quick-charge thing for free. But I'll listen to what they have they say, whenever they get around to saying it.�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 Yes. That was a typo, sorry. I'm not even sure what optionally confusing means myself=)
Yes, you're correct on the 4 hours with only one 10kW charger. Most people I feel will rarely need the second 10kW charger for home charging but I can see how it would be nice for traveling (assuming you can find a J1772 80A charger which is rare). That's actually the rate I charge my Roadster at (40A) and it's more than enough for home. It's traveling where it gets tricky. I totally understand how you may feel mislead about the super charging but I honestly don't think Tesla set out to lie to anyone. They may have handled it poorly and their PR needs some work but I think that's the extent. I've never worked for an auto maker so I can only imagine what goes into launching a new car.
Give them some time to come up with a response on the super charging. As a public company, I'm sure they have to go through many channels to formulate a response. How often do you think you'd need to charge in 45 min? I've seen a few Nissan Leafs here in Texas I can't find a single quick charger.�
Dec 22, 2011
smorgasbord I'm just wondering when you expect the first Denny's to install a Tesla Supercharger will be.
I'm also thinking the second charger costs less than we thought the UMC & J1772 adapter would cost.�
Dec 22, 2011
brianman I think it means you have to pay extra to be confused.�
Dec 22, 2011
AnOutsider They've said nothing about this the while 2.5 years they've had my money!�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 At this point, depending on any sort of quick or super charging (unless you happen to live somewhere where you know they're putting one) and buying an EV based on it's ability to quick/super charge is a mistake I think. You want to pick the battery pack that you can make a trip there and back without having to recharge for a large majority of your trips. You can still make trips with the public charging infrastructure (usually 30A) but you have to be very patient. No one said picking up a new technology and running with it would be easy. It will take time for the infrastructure to be built out to where gas stations are today (almost every corner and at most highway exits).�
Dec 22, 2011
Arnold Panz I understand your frustration. My only point is that as a disinterested observer (I followed all the news carefully but had no skin in the game on what happened with the base car), I wasn't the least bit surprised that the stripped, base car is missing some basic functions that otherwise had been implied to be "standard" with all S cars. Maybe I'm overly cynical/skeptical and attuned to corporate double-speak, but it was always pretty apparent to me, reading between the lines, that some basics were going to be unavailable in the base car.
And I'm no apologist for Tesla on this, as my posts on the Sig have shown. But other than the Sig premium, I felt that all of the pricing basically matched my expectations, for better or worse. I certainly didn't sense any bait and switch, not even on the Sig pricing (although there was NO hint that was coming), but clearly on some of these issues, in hindsight, they could have done a better job of foretelling or implying what would be the likely options/pricing range. However, I totally chalk it up to a young company getting its sea legs and making rookie mistakes, not any intentional bait and switch or conspiracy to jack up the number of reservations.�
Dec 22, 2011
brianman Good point that I neglected to mention previously. This definitely factors into my interpretation of recent events.
If Fiskar behaved similarly, I would interpret it the same way. If Ford did it, I would interpret more harshly.�
Dec 22, 2011
richkae I viewed their webpages and brochures as "This is the car we hope to build, these are our goals. If we can make a car like this do you want one?"
Me: "Yes I do, in fact I'll give you a deposit so I can get one of the first ones and I sure hope you succeed."
Complete options, specs and pricing had not been announced, now they have. Now you judge success and decide if you still want one.
I see success, and I still want one.�
Dec 22, 2011
EVNow I don't even think it is just a young company thing. Nissan made a lot of mistakes too.
Here's the 21 page angry thread when we found out qc wouldn't be on sv and costs extra on sl.
My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - This just in : $ for L3 charging option.�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 If I can ask, what area of the country do you live in? If it's not California, Washington state, or the east coast along NY to DC then a Tesla Super Charger every 100 miles is a few years off. Until I see one every 100 miles along a major highway in Texas or along I80 in Iowa for example, then I wouldn't buy a car depending on Super Charger access if I lived in those areas.
Tesla isn't trying to upsell you an extra charger out of some unsavory plan, they're actually trying to make the car more affordable. By not including the second 10kw charger, they shaved maybe $1000 off the cost of the car. The Roadster can charge at up to 70A yet even the owners with the HPC rarely charge at 70A (even then it's only at home or at another Roadster owner's house also with an HPC). The only way you'd need a second 10kW charger was if you were planning on charging at over 40A at home or you had access to a Tesla HPC at 80A or knew of a J1772 charger at 80A. Do a search within 100 miles of your house and let us know if you can find a J1772 80A charger. I'd be amazed if they exist although it's possible. The only one I know of in the state was one I along with a Roadster owner talked a hotel in Texas into installing for their guests.
How about the 50kW Nissan DC fast chargers? Do you have one every 50 miles from your house? If not, this points out how long and difficult building out this kind of network is. It takes time and if you were counting on a Super Charging network to travel in either the 40, 60 or 85 kWh battery pack Model S, you'll likely be disappointed for a few years. Travel is still possible you just need to depend on nice Model S owners with a Tesla HPC or networks like mychargepoint.net (J1772 at 30A) or campgrounds that have 240V 50A NEMA 14-50 outlets.
My point is I understand you're upset but you have to put it all in context about if super charging was something you really need and were depending on to travel. If you're lucky enough to be able to keep an ICE around as a backup car or if you have one if your family to keep for longer trips then your problem is less of an issue. Not ideal and still a problem since you can't drive your Model S 100% of the time but not a show stopper. How many trips a year would you require charging while traveling? If the 40 kWh pack doesn't meet 95+% of your travel and a larger pack does, that might be the way to go if it's possible.�
Dec 23, 2011
mnx Excellent post dsm363! Thanks for putting the lack of super charging in perspective. A Tesla Supercharger is a bit of a unicorn at this point. So is ChaDeMo and J1772 at this point in my part of the world.
- mnx
�
Dec 23, 2011
onlinespending What if Tesla decided to remove Supercharging capabilities from all models, including your fully loaded Sig? How would you feel? The fact that DC quick-charging isn't available much at the moment is of little consolation for those that were led to believe it was a feature of the Model S (i.e. all battery pack options). The technology will come eventually and I think people that made reservations on the Model S (a rather expensive car) wanted the security in knowing that their car will support those technologies as they become more ubiquitous.�
Dec 23, 2011
AnOutsider Personally, I wouldn't care. I got the 300 mile pack because I wanted a car that could go the distances I needed to go (trips to NYC at the outset). Beyond that and I'm taking my gasser anyway. PA just announced they're putting chargers on the turnpike, and while cool, once again I sort of don't care because anywhere I planned to go using the Turnpike, I've got the range for it. Philly? Check. Poconos? Check (and even there I'd likely be going to a cabin so I can charge there).
so yeah, the Superchargers were a more recent announcement and they had zero bearing on my decision to order a Model S. If Tesla cancelled all plans for them today, I would not be personally affected.
Technically it can support it, if they choose to upgrade when those technologies come about.�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 I would be disappointed but I would still buy the car. I might not be able to get satellite radio unless I spend $1,500 for the panoramic roof too. I didn't even know about the Super Charging for the first 20 months my reservation was down. It was a pleasant surprise but I had no expectations that it would be common place for many, many years. If super charging was the one feature you can't live without, then the Model S might not be the car for you. It's disappointing I'm sure but for whatever reason, that's the direction Tesla decided to go. I wish they would find a way to add it back as an option at least on all the cars but that might not happen.
Telsa may provide a Chamdeo adapter (though it's unlikely) and they just announced their options. Maybe they'll be able to work something out with the 40kWh pack where you accept a reduced warranty (assuming there is no technical reason preventing super charger access).�
Dec 23, 2011
onlinespending I'm glad to hear that it would work out in your situation and that DC quick-charging was not in your expectations. But the fact remains that DC quick-charging has long been advertized as a feature of the Model S (it is an EV afterall), so it shouldn't come as a shocker, even for those not affected by Tesla's decision, that those opting for the 40 kWh battery pack are to be a bit disappointed. The point I was trying to illustrate was that many 85 kWh reservation holders would be quite disappointed if they took away Supercharging as an option from their car, even if it isn't a concern in your particular case. Rather than the "you should have known better", or the "Supercharging isn't even available, don't worry" messages, I would expect people to be understanding of the frustration felt by the 40 kWh camp.�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 I think most people understand but it's now at the point that people have to decide what to do now. For whatever reason, it seems Tesla isn't able to or isn't willing to add that feature to the 40 kWh car possibly without breaking the promise of the car at under $50,000. I'm sure there would be many people who were then angry at Tesla for lying about the base price in that scenario.�
Dec 23, 2011
Dennisf I think the problem can be easily solved when tesla just presents us with the standard equipment. Buyers who buy the standard car will stop looking at the things the don't get (or want to pay for) and start looking for al the kit that is included in their new car.
I'm not a marketing guy, but if you ask me the marketing department was not involved when they put the price and options list online. I bet they could have predicted everybody falling over each other about the things they don't get instead of looking what they are getting.
So my biggest question is: What is the standard equipment? I'm sure a lot of 40kw buyers will be very happy with what they are getting.�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 The standard equipment is a 10kw charger (three times the Leaf I think) allowing you to charge at 40A. Not great for travel but will still allow you to take full advantage of the public charging networks around at 30A. I know, it's not super charging but it's still should be a great car and the best EV on the planet even at the base price. I agree, people are laser focused on what it doesn't have.�
Dec 23, 2011
ChadS 10kW is indeed 3 times the rate of the Leaf's L2 charger.
However, the Leaf also has a 65kW CHAdeMO port (it was optional at first, but standard now). I think most people assumed the much more expensive Model S (even the 40kWh version) would at least match that. And it still may; Tesla hasn't announced their CHAdeMO plans. I hope Tesla just means that the 40kWh car can't do 90kW charging at a Supercharger, but is still allowed 65kW at a CHAdeMO station (or 40kW or whatever they want to put the limit at; the CHAdeMO chargers can scale down to whatever the car will take).�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 Good point. The Model S should at least match the Leaf in each category. The company is in a different position though in that they can't afford to take a loss on each car they sell for a year or two (I thought I read that about the Leaf) and I'm sure the 10kw charger costs more than the 3.3kw charger the Leaf has. Anyway, I really hope they at least allow CHAdeMO charging for the Model S as you said. Those will be much more common that the Super Charger to start anyway.�
Dec 23, 2011
onlinespending Exactly. Some form of DC quick-charging would be nice (and was to be expected given everything that Tesla has said all along and the fact that even the little Leaf supports it). It appears they haven't even worked out the kinks with Supercharging and the 60 kWh battery pack option, because it's a TBD priced option. I can't imagine they'll charge at the full 90 kW rate, but will be a scaled down amount. So too should the 40 kWh pack option have a scaled down DC quick-charging option. I'm somewhat hopeful Tesla is listening and will make something available for the 40 kWh option.�
Dec 23, 2011
dpeilow It's the fact that it's not on the options list that is the problem. If they have to make it an option to hit $50k, I think people would understand.�
Dec 23, 2011
dsm363 I agree. I wonder if that was a marketing/management decision based on offering the 8 year warranty? I don't know but I hope Tesla offers an explanation or figures out a way to add that as an option, even if it's expensive. I think it would make everyone happy that way. Tesla can still say they're delivering a car under $50,000 and everyone gets most of what they want.�
Dec 23, 2011
brianman If they dropped the Sig Perf cost by $1,500 by making Supercharging an option, I probably wouldn't take the option. Just another data point...�
Dec 23, 2011
onlinespending And if they made it a $1500 option to add to the 40 kWh model, I'd take it. Aren't options great?�
Dec 23, 2011
brianman Agreement!�
Dec 23, 2011
jkirkebo Yep. So please give us a CHAdeMO option too. I'm not buying the car without it. I don't care if it's an adapter or a socket in the frunk as long as I can use all the fast chargers. The Model S would be replacing our long-distance diesel car, without QC it can't do long-distance and would thus be of no use to us. I won't buy one just to replace our Leaf, it is way too large and expensive for just running errands around town and commuting. And I love the Leaf, no way I'm getting rid of it
If the CHAdeMO option was $5k it would still be acceptable.�
Dec 23, 2011
Norbert For the 60 kWh pack, they did figure out a way to make it an option, as that is what it is. And apparently they are still thinking about the subject since the price is still TBD. (On this list, the only TBD).
Whatever the chances are that Tesla might be able to change its mind about this, I'd guess the chances for a CHAdeMO adapter are higher. Though, for marketing reasons, it *might* be announced only after the 300 mile version has been launched, its use demonstrated in practice by actual customers, and reflected upon by the media. Certainly, the new webpage contains the sentence "Other adapters available for purchase", though that refers more likely to all the adapters available for the Roadster. But we heard someone saying they might be working on a CHAdeMO adapter without being sure whether it will become a product. It might be that with the 40 kWh chemistry and by Tesla's luxury quality standards, they might have to set the charging limit below 50 kW, which again wouldn't be the real thing and not the kind of thing Tesla would want to stand for. I think it will also have much to do with the question of how much Tesla wants to focus its own energy and attention, and that of potential customers and the media, on long range (200+ miles) + Supercharging. So they might consider it counterproductive to stretch themselves in that direction, but rather focus on making the 230 mile option in the future, and eventually Bluestar, more affordable.�
Dec 23, 2011
mscottring For what it's worth, I'm with you on this. I brought this up on another Tesla forum and was promptly shouted down by the fans. The fact is I believe Tesla knew from day one that the only way they could get this level of performance was with the 300 mile battery pack. They also happened to know that they needed to get reservations on the books, so they decided to keep some of those details to themselves. Lets face it, it would have been really easy to place clear and detailed information on their site stating, "0-60 time is with 300 mile battery pack only". But they didn't.
�
Dec 24, 2011
VolkerP Sorry, but Tesla decided to go mid-to-long range, high energy density, high safety, mid-to-low power density with their battery pack. You cannot have both high energy density and high power density in one chemistry.�
Dec 24, 2011
jcstp I think he only meant that he want the 40kw batterypack S also to have possibility for quickcharge! Same as the Leaf does!
At least CHADEMO speed. Not the full speed of supercharger�
Dec 24, 2011
heems I for one whole heartedly support Tesla. I think all this point by point comparisons and hanging on to single words like "base" and "up to" from documents from 3 years ago when the car was nothing but vaporware is silly. Time to grow up. If you can do better no one's stopping you. You don't like Tesla's effort, fine go buy another car but quit playing victim and poo-pooing those that have stuck their necks out there...�
Dec 24, 2011
efusco Completely agree with this POV. Every concept car goes though this and almost every car has a premium for anything above the base--and a special edition, you bet you're paying a premium. I understand that this is a lot of money, trust me, I really understand and am going to clearly have to make some compromises on the vehicle I want vs what I can stretch to afford. But all this other hair splitting is just silly.�
Dec 24, 2011
dsm363 Well said. While Tesla certainly could have been more clear when it became apparent to them the different performance specs for the 40 and 60 kWh packs (who knows if that was this summer or a year ago), people have to deal with what Tesla is providing now. Lobbying Tesla to include quick charging in the 40 kWh pack I think is worth it but no amount of hang wringing here will get that done. I agree with the the people about making quick charging avaliable in the 40 kWh pack (not super charging if that would damage the smaller pack) but Tesla may have combined these concerns with a business decision to push the larger packs.�
Dec 24, 2011
Trnsl8r +1
What I think many forget is that the car has been "under development" all this time. Easy confusion, since any other car company doesn't reveal anything about a model until they're done with the development and all facts are finalized (that, and that this is to some extents Tesla's "first rodeo", unlike other manufacturers who may be better at predicting). The reservation agreement (anybody read that?) even says that the all facts about the car are TBD and that the car may not even get made in the first place. I for one am impressed that Tesla came as close to predicting the future as they did.�
Dec 24, 2011
Norbert ...and to introduce new technology as a good solution at a higher price point, which in the beginning it requires to work well, and then to reduce the cost, as opposed to try start at a lower price point with not so good solutions. Due to the relatively higher stress on the 40 kWh pack during driving, QC might have to be reduced to maybe 35 kW, instead of the 42 kW which would be proportional to 90 kW for the 85 kWh pack. That wouldn't be a great solution compared to the Leaf's 50 kW. The Roadster didn't have fast charging at all (though almost 20 kW with the built-in charger), so obviously this is a first for Tesla (and, in a sense, for Panasonic). We shouldn't forget that Nissan is loosing money on the Leaf, due to its battery, aside from Tesla not (yet) having the same means as Nissan to be active around lower price points. So I don't think the base Model S would have to match every feature the Leaf has. You do get a luxury sedan with lots of unmatched features, and a larger range with home charging.�
Dec 24, 2011
brianman The tone here I have a little trouble with. There's a "cool off and consider" period that some will be going through for a bit (so until New Year's roughly). As supporter of Tesla, your energy should be directed at helping people through this phase as retained sales rather than pushing them away.
That said, I'm somewhat surprised at the folks that are jumping to adjust their reservation (or cancel it). The new information is less than a week old and it's a holiday period, so responses from Tesla are likely slowed. Making a move in your reservation before, say, January 6th is foolish IMO.�
Dec 24, 2011
EVNow Right.
Though, I wonder whether we are barking up the wrong tree. What we really need is a CHAdeMO adopter that works with the 160 miler as well.�
Dec 24, 2011
Robert.Boston +1
And Tesla can do this without backtracking on anything it's formally announced. Providing more interoperability with the charging infrastructure is a positive.�
Dec 24, 2011
richkae A CHAdeMO adapter that provides any level of charging will be useful, even if it is only 20kW. There will be more CHAdeMO outlets available than 20kW J1772s, or even Tesla Superchargers.
They may have chosen a chemistry that does not support 65kW charging or even 50kW charging, but surely it supports more than 20kW.
The question to Tesla should not be: "Will you provide a CHAdeMO adapter?" The question should be: "How much will the CHAdeMO adapter cost? And when I get my CHAdeMO adapater, what charge rate will the car support?"
Ask now. Ask often.�
Dec 24, 2011
rlawson4 People seem to miss the point that Tesla needs to turn a profit in order to succeed. Anyone that claims that Tesla should have known the production cost of the vehicle in 2009 or the performance specifications has a screw loose. I don't know the cost of a gallon of milk next week. It is admirable that they came in at the starting price point of 50K less the tax incentive. I fully expected that the car would have few standard features and many options. I expected the 17" screen to be an option. I think people would not be bitching about the tech package if it included the 17" inch screen while the base model would not have it. In fact, from a marketing perspective that would have worked better. People would see the tech package as a greater value if it had the screen. So, the only critique I have of Tesla is the should have stripped the base model more to make the tech package appear a better value. It's all in the marketing. I plan on a 85KW Battery vehicle with several options. I planned on spending 75-85K on the car when I ordered it. I will read the reviews of the completed vehicle and then make my final decision to buy. Since the deposit I have (and everyone else) is refundable, then if you don't like the price of the car get a refund and move on. Otherwise, shut up. No one is forcing you to buy it. If Tesla cannot make money at the price point sold, it will fail. Is that a better idea?�
Dec 24, 2011
brianman Seriously. Or butter.�
Dec 24, 2011
Doug_G One reason they didn't remove the 17" screen from the base units is that the techs will use it extensively during testing. Also they would have to massively redesign the dash, and would probably have to put a different screen in anyway.�
Dec 24, 2011
Norbert And it wouldn't really be a Model S anymore.
BTW, the turn-by-turn instructions include maps stored locally.�
Dec 24, 2011
shark2k Except that Tesla (Elon) has said from pretty much the beginning that the 17" screen would be available on all models of the Model S. Elon made it a pretty big point if I recall correctly.
-Shark2k�
Dec 24, 2011
rlawson4 My main point is that it was impossible to know in 2009 that cost of development and production of the vehicle. Advertising brochures are not legal offers of anything. Open up tomorrow's Sunday paper and you will see hundreds of car ads. Many promise vehicles at sale prices far below ordinary pricing. After reading the ads go to the car dealership of your choice and see if you can buy any of the vehicles at the advertised price. Advertising is not a legal offer to sell. That being said, Tesla did their best to bring the car to market at a similar price point plus options. I never understand why people complain about prices. The market sets the price. If they sell the vehicle at the prices they have presented, then those prices are what the market will bare. If they sell out the vehicle at those prices then they should raise the price. If they cannot sell enough vehicles at the prices presented then the price should go down. If the market price goes too low to make a profit, then Tesla goes out of business. So, if you are willing to pay 50-90K for your next electric car, then buy it. Otherwise, vote with your $ and do not buy it. Complaining is not how the market sets prices. Your decision to buy sets the market price. As I said before, stop bitching about it and vote with your dollars.�
Dec 24, 2011
Beavis I can understand the disappointment at the 0-60 times but they are giving everyone that has that issue 1 year notice in advance of the car's arrival. As for supercharging, it is a technical issue with the size of the battery pack. Kind of like trying to fill a glass of water with a fire hose.�
Dec 24, 2011
Mycroft They know about the technical reasons kroneal, they're angry because they feel Tesla misled them. Tesla should have said up front that the 160 mile battery couldn't accelerate to 60 at the same speed as the 300.�
Dec 24, 2011
Beavis Misled? Come on, they were warned one year in advance of production of their car.�
Dec 24, 2011
Mycroft No, because all the website said was that the Model S went from 0-60 in 5.6 secs. Also, at some point they had announced a supercharging system of some kind but didn't say that the 160 car would be inelligible.�
Dec 24, 2011
Beavis I still come back to one year in advance. If there was some intent to mislead in order to get someone's deposit, they would not have disclosed the 0-60 times until the cars were nearer to production. The idea that they are trying to mislead is a case of overreaction. They certainly could have done a better Job of managing expectations, though. I guess they should have had the legal department write some caviat language for the site.�
Dec 24, 2011
tnawara They also didn't say that it *would* be eligible.
Tesla has said all along that details could change and that as those details were released reservation holders would be given the option to change their minds. I understand that some of these details are not matching some people's utopian mental models of their Model S, but those people really need to take a deep breath.�
Dec 24, 2011
ckessel I wonder if the 40kWh battery could do 5.6, but the discharge rate would harm the batteries and so Tesla decided to limit acceleration to whatever discharge limit was non-damaging.�
Dec 25, 2011
Cobos Assuming Tesla can sell a car in Norway with charging faster than 3.0kW is not an utopian mental model. As an investor from Tesla second largest customer group I am worried that unless they get the charging handled properly here they will loose out on a LOT of sales.
We have one of the largest GNP per capita and due to egalitarian wages and expensive ICE cars there are a lot of potential customers for Tesla in Norway. They are competing on price with a higher spec Ford Fusion here, so to get customers cross-shopping between a Ford Fusion and a Model S they need the base-model to be capable enough. THAT includes sensible quick-charging.
Cobos�
Dec 25, 2011
EVNow Bad assumptions in this post. As I wrote elsewhere - the Tesla rep I talked to yesterday in the store said she had been telling everyone supercharger would be available on all models and was surprised to see the news.�
Dec 25, 2011
de704 So your being good to the planet with your Model S but bad to yourself with the Mickey Dees�
Dec 25, 2011
de704 Yah, In my experience the Model S sales people can be hit or miss on their knowledge. Which is funny, It's not like they're selling anything. They should have time to keep up with the specs.�
Dec 25, 2011
tnawara Agreed. An individual rep's word - although the only information we may have at a particular point in time - is not official word from Tesla.�
Dec 25, 2011
EVNow Wrong. Tesla employees salesreps in the stores are representing Tesla officially.
Ofcourse, we know all the sales reps make mistakes. So, that is not the point.
The point is that your claim that "some of these details are not matching some people's utopian mental models of their Model S" is totally bogus. Even the Tesla sales reps thought QC would be in all models - so hardly utopian mental model of some people.
As I've written elsewhere I don't really understand why a few who aren't planning to buy the 160 miler are so dismissive of the concerns of people who want to buy the 160 miler. Vey snobbish, IMHO.�
Dec 25, 2011
dsm363 How was anything tnawara said dismissive or snobbish? Are you really saying someone buying a $80,000 luxury sedan is looking down on someone buying a $50,000 luxury sedan? Please stop acting like you are being oppressed. People understand why you may be frustrated and upset but things are the way they are. Time to use your energy to contact Tesla and lobby for the changes you want.�
Dec 25, 2011
William13 Have you ever tried to order a car before? I think the Tesla employees have a very good grasp of their product especially when I compare other car dealers. Occasional lapses notwithstanding.
QC would fry the battery in the 40. Get the second charger and HPC and get a half charge in one hour. This is very similar to the QC giving half charge in 30 minutes. The time for a full fill is probably even closer percentage wise.�
Dec 25, 2011
cinergi I can see why those opting for 160 are feeling like those getting 300 don't get it (and even snobbish). I've been staying out of these threads because I'm getting a 300-miler and I'm having a hard time putting myself in 160-miler's shoes. While reading the posts of 160-milers vs. 300-milers, I do pick up on the tone EVNow's calling out. Clearly there's a lot of passion in this area, and 1) I hope Tesla's reading it (but tempering it with reality -- what percentage of people are truly upset? They can't please everyone AND run a business) and 2) folks take the time to voice their concerns directly to Tesla.
This is a new market, a new company, and new technology. It's not going to go perfectly.�
Dec 25, 2011
Zextraterrestrial I can only afford a 160, well really not even that one but I am planning on getting a 300 because I figure there is no reason to ever spend more that 30k on a car and if I'm going to spend over 50K then why not spend over 90K? If I still lived in the Bay area I would get a 160. Living in Humboldt though, there is no way I would be able to get out of the area safely w/ a 160 so 300 it is.
I still think the 160 is pretty sweet and If it is your commute car, perfect. If you need to go on a long trip, rent a car. You will also put less miles on your S and save plenty of money in the long run. Complaints about the acceleration are pretty weak. 6.5s is decent for a sedan. The QC shouldn't be necessary if this is a commute car & I think if your commute is more than 15 min/miles or so then there is a real problem with our society (duh)
my commute is 2.5 miles( 5 min) and If it wasn't wet for so much of the year I would make an electric trike (which I plan on doing anyways)
on another note, when I was asking questions about the roadster at Menlo the reps didn't have answers for most of my technical questions but at the factory there was quite a bit of knowledge since many engineers were there and they could direct you to an engineer/employee that had an area of expertise. I think they said the average employee age is 25yrs so many have some learning to do but it is no excuse for giving out mis-information about the options.�
Dec 25, 2011
dhrivnak I must say I was very pleasantly surprised with the overall pricing on the Model S. Having designed and built and EV and two plug-in hybrids, I really feel Tesla is very agressive on the pricing. Seriously try to find a quality glider and the components to even get a 7 second 0-60 and 100 mile range and I seriously doubt one could do so for $50,000.
I agree $3700 for the tech package while on the high side is no different than any other car I have purchased where I have though many options were overpriced. I wish the world was not that way but I also wish I could buy a loaf of bread for $1.
Following Tesla and owning a Roadster I have found Tesla to be as open an upfront as ANY other company and in my humble opinion Tesla has been much better than average and as I think about out I am not aware of any company that has been more open than Tesla.
Going back to the accleration limited on the 160 mile pack I do believe that is a technical limitation. On home built EV's the discharge current id directly proportional to the size of the pack. Where I can pull 300 maps from a 100 amp-hr pack I can pull 600 amps from a 200 amp-hr pack. One can complain all they want but that is the state of current batery technology.�
Dec 25, 2011
Zextraterrestrial ..Exactly why I am getting a Tesla instead of building my own EV. Price it all out and it is a killer deal + the company openness is awesome�
Dec 25, 2011
Norbert That's true, but perhaps not even the crucial point. Everyone knows batteries are expensive. Battery manufacturers need to find a balance between price, power/price, charge-rate/price, range/price, and life-time. Two years ago (or something like that), it wasn't clear whether Tesla would be able to offer a 300 mile range option in 2012. Things turned out to be the other way around: the difficult part seems to be at the other end of the scale.
So here is a bit of the other side of it: The Volt media debacle has shown that the mainstream media is *very* keen on exposing quality problems in EVs, imaginary or real. Tesla may have found that an 8-year warranty is needed, and compromises risky. While EV enthusiasts and DIY types might be willing to buy a new pack as soon as the next improved battery tech comes out, and bet on that, the Model S cannot only sell to EV enthusiasts. When the mainstream media would learn that the first packs would have degraded after n years (whatever the number is), the consequences could be, um, disadvantageous.�
Dec 25, 2011
Trnsl8r My personal theory (which I in no way can back up) is that Tesla meant to offer QC on the 160 all along, but only recently realized that they couldn't get it together for whatever technical reason. If I'm right, it must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow to publish those specs the other day, not to mention reading the forums. (It would also explain the surprised sales reps.) It's still in development after all, things may still change... maybe we'll get in late 2013?�
Dec 25, 2011
dmckinstry Personally, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if they said "0-60 mph times will vary between 5.6 and 6.5 s, depending on battery pack size." They should make that completely clear in further releases.
Of course, I've never had a car that came close to 6.5 s for 0-60. I guess most of you are used to much more powerful cars than I am.�
Dec 25, 2011
dmckinstry Perhaps so, but the supercharging system wasn't announced that long ago. And, they can probably still charge their 40kW-hr pack in no more time than it takes the Leaf to charge their 24kW-hr pack. They just won't be able to charge in less than half the time it takes for the 85kW-hr pack.�
Dec 25, 2011
Cobos I've seen several people say this, but that is wrong. Tesla has always talked about a quick charge in 45 minutes. That was part of the specs from the very first demonstration. They haven't shown the exact data and the details around their solution for how they were going to recharge in 45 minutes until recently, but that is not the same as announcing it.
Cobos�
Dec 25, 2011
brianman Why are people treating these terms as identical?
QC
Battery Chargers and Charging Methods
Quick Charge = 3 to 6 Hours charging at 0.3C rate
SC
Model S Options and Pricing | Tesla Motors
Supercharger .. replenish 160 miles of travel in about 30 minutes when applied to 85 kWh vehicle
Look out, Nissan Leaf: Tesla S will sell for under $50,000, run for 160 miles | ExtremeTech
car recharge to half-power in 30 minutes
These don't sound like the same rate to me. Am I missing something? My eyes gloss over for any of the C discussions so I've never really focused on it.�
Dec 26, 2011
dpeilow "Supercharge" is just some marketing guff that Tesla has come up with.
Cobos is right, they always talked of a 45 minute charge for the Model S. It was not recent news.
If you are going to comment on charge times then I suggest you learn about C rates. 1C is the current in A equaly to the capacity in Ah, such that the battery (theoretically) charges in one hour. 2C is double that current, so battery charges in 30 minutes. Half C charges in two hours. Etc.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét