Dec 21, 2011
qwk Ok, so now that I've had some time to read and think through all of the info that has come out in the last 24 hours, I'm getting concerned about Tesla selling 20k cars a year.
Now, before anyone gets butthurt, I'm a huge fan of Tesla and their tech, and I want this company to succeed more than anyone I know. I think what concerns me the most after seeing the option/price list is that Elon's ego is too big for his own good. What I mean by that is, when selling something in this price range, you cannot *sugar* on ANY customers. By making the base Pack car so unnatractive that the demand will be almost 0, Tesla is going to alianate many customers. It's very obvious their goal is to upsell customers to a bigger battery.
The sad thing is, all the 160 pack car would need is a QC port(even at reduced power), and a little better get up and go. While 6.5 seconds 0-60 is ok for a mediocre EV like the leaf, it is pathetic for a Tesla that costs $60k.
For me it's either a base pack car or a sport, no inbetweens. I don't need the range, but I'm definately not driving a $60+k slug. The problem for me is, after reading all of the negative feedback from people that want a base pack, I'm not 100 sure I want to plop down $100k for a car from a company with a shady future.
I'm writing this thread in the hopes that Tesla reconsiders their choice with the direction of the base pack car. I know that if they do, they will sell a whole lot more cars. I would buy a base car and a sport model.�
Dec 21, 2011
jkirkebo Uh, the Leaf is nowhere near 6.5 seconds ? 0-100kph (0-62mph) is quoted as 11 seconds over here, which I find plenty fast enough. I might replace it with a Model S if they announce a CHAdeMO adapter, but I would be perfectly happy with the same performance as the Leaf (which I think is a brilliant car).�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Yeah, I know, but the leaf is only going to get better. I guess I should have worded that differently.�
Dec 21, 2011
VolkerP I like to reply with the answer that JB Straubel gave to Eberhard regarding the lack of 3 phase support in Tesla's charge port architecture: "There's the DC port. Do it yourself." So far they've been adamant to any enthusiast input requesting Tesla to extend their architecture.
If you want to charge the 40kWh Model S with > 20kW, you need an external DC source and Straubel basically says, go for it alone. Perhaps crimping a CHAdeMO receptable to a Tesla connector.
Tesla announces additional information regarding charging adapters for begin of next year. Possibly this includes a CHAdeMO->Tesla plug adapter.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk That is a very good point. Now we can only go by what we know, but no 3 phase and no DC port will mean a sure flop in Europe. Hopefully Tesla is smarter than that. That is just common business sense.�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider Plus the base fisker karma is more than the most expensive model s and it's 0-60 is even slower. Sorry, I'm not buying the whole doom and gloom for tesla because the base car will take 30 minutes more to charge.
As for performance, look at all manufacturers. Most models do not have the same performance throughout the product line, and this isn't even tesla being nasty, it's a technical limitation. As far as Elon's ego? I think it's more the negative attitude of others on display here than Tesla.�
Dec 21, 2011
Citizen-T You can't compare today's Model S with some unknown future iteration of the Leaf. I hate when people do that. I hear it all the time from iPhone lovers. "Yea, well, the iPhone doesn't have 4G still...but the iPhone 5 is rumored to have 10Gs!"
On a more serious note. I have always planned on getting a 160mi Model S, and I don't think my plans have changed. The lack of Supercharging doesn't really bother me because I never really intended to take it on long trips. You'd have to stop every hour and a half to recharge. I was a little bummed by the 6.5s 0-60, but I knew it wasn't going to be 5.6s. I was hoping for 6s, but honestly, if you put me in a 6s car then in a 6.5s car, I'm not sure I would be able to tell the difference.
I've said this elsewhere, but the biggest disappointment for me is that you have to buy a $3,500 package just to get a camera. As a customer, that is kind of annoying, but as an investor, that makes me think that very few cars are going to leave the factory without that extra package. Which is good for the margins.
So, I don't know how representative I am of the 160mi pack market, but for me at least, the official pricing hasn't changed anything.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Fisker is pretty much history. They will not be able to sell as many cars as they need at their price points. Not a valid comparison.
As for performance, there are not many $60+k cars that are that pathetic, and if they are, they have other luxury features that make up for it. A base Tesla S is very far from a luxury optioned car. Yes, it's electric, and enthusiasts will go for it, but not an average bmw/mb buyer. Therein lies the problem.�
Dec 21, 2011
Zextraterrestrial 160
I think the 160 isn't that bad if you do a lot of city / commute driving and live in a city, Especially if you have another car for long trips. The 0-60 time isn't that bad for a 'big' sedan. We have a 2002 Lexus Ls430 and the 6.5s 0-60 that it has feels pretty good. I'd imagine that is about what the test rides were pulling at the factory since there were 5 people in the car.
Full disclosure...I plan on spending way more than I really ever wanted to spend on a car, so probably the 300 sport, and I recently picked up this bad expensive electric toy hobby(RC helicopters). The electronics have improved amazingly over the past few years, and the battery charge/discharge rates provide some insane power if you can keep stuff cool! And they are Clean!
I think Tesla has an awesome product even at the high price for the base w/ a few upgrades, so long as all of the car details are done to perfection.�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider I think the average BMW/Mercedes buyer will likely be going for the 300 mile (or 260 at worst) pack anyway. Go configure one, the pricing levels end up fairly similar. Tesla sort of pushed things by offering something at the lower end of the range (I think on average the Model S should be about a 75-79k car), but it comes with disadvantages. Let's keep in mind that the Model S isn't Bluestar.
Anywho, even in luxury brands, 0-60 is usually lower in the base models than the higher models (due to the engines and tuning).�
Dec 21, 2011
Citizen-T Also, I don't think Tesla wants to sell a lot of 160mi cars. Elon has always said that that pack would make up the smallest percentage of cars leaving the factory. If they are production constrained, it makes the most sense that they would want to sell the highest priced cars first. That's the theory behind the Signature Series, but considering that they only need to sell 45,000 to 65,000 cars before they get to BlueStar, if there is enough demand to do it in the 80k range, then they should.
I'm sure the 25% margin that they are targeting assumes a very small percentage of 160mi packs.�
Dec 21, 2011
bint2k we all just have to rob a bank or two and then we can all drive the 300+ model s =)�
Dec 21, 2011
Mycroft If there is any margin on the $50,000 40kWh car, it's VERY slim. Look at the price difference between the Chevy Volt and the Cruze or between the Nissan Leaf and a similar ICE car. We're still at early days with this technology and marketing hype aside, comparing these cars to BMW and Mercedes luxury cars is tenuous at best.
I think the 300 mile Model S doesn't compare so well to the Audi A7 unless you account for the EV premium. That said, I do think the $100,000 Performance version compares very favorably to the $100k Porsche Panamera. Only gearheads who lust after the engine noise would prefer the Porsche.
I don't think Tesla will have a problem selling 20,000 cars a year. And the technology is going to improve exponentially. In five years, it'll be a whole 'nother ball game!�
Dec 21, 2011
NigelM IMO the thread title makes no sense. Some people will love the Model S no matter what, some will be sensitive to this or that option, some to how much it costs. I don't think that questions Tesla's viability as a company; they are currently producing a niche product, albeit a niche that many of think will grow in the coming years, and they are looking like they might just be good at it. We all have our points of view and the truth is that all of our input is going towards designing what I hope will be one of the best cars ever made; however, Tesla will not be able to make everyone happy all of the time on all aspects, options and details. Which auto-maker can?�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston The Mercedes E350 has 0-60 of 6.5 seconds, as well, and costs $50,490 -- slightly more than the base Model S. Each of the options is slightly cheaper from Tesla than from MB: paint, leather, technology ($6450 to match Tesla's $3750+950). The pano roof is cheaper from MB, but it's also a lot smaller.
The chief issue with the 40kWh pack that I see is the charging options. We begin to see why Elon said that he thought that the majority of buyers would choose the 60kWh pack; without access to the DC supercharger, the 40kWh cars are clearly targeting the "around town" segment.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk I already posted that I should have worded it differently. I wasn't comparing it to any future Leaf, as obviously a Leaf with that kind of performance most likely isn't going to happen. I meant that kind of a performance might be ok for a cheaper EV(Leaf is the only other EV at this point that isn't a micro car), but not for a $60k+ EV.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Let's hope so. I really hope you are right.�
Dec 21, 2011
NigelM And with a Model S you going to save the world for future generations.�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae qwk: with all due respect your complaint about the 40kW car 0-60 is totally crazy.
The 40kW car is very competitive in terms of performance with cars in its price range.
The Lexus ES350 has a 7 second 0-60, the BMW 528i is about 6.6 seconds, the Mercedes C350 is 6.5 seconds.
The Model S competes with ICE cars that cost $10000 less because you will make up that money in just 3 or 4 years if you drive 12000+ miles per year.
The totally valid complaint about the 40kW Model S is the lack of quick charging.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Let me ask the question this way. Does the QC port on the 40kWh model work ? If it does - but somehow is barred from using the supercharger - it is even more bizarre than I thought. For someone who can build the whole car - making the supercharger work at lower wattage is child's play.
With Leaf, SV doesn't even come with the CHAdeMO port. So, Nissan actually saves $$ by not putting the QC port on the lower model. To get a trim with QC is only $3k more.
To gauge how important QC is - you have to just look at the SV/SL split. IIRC, 80% of the people have SL, with QC.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Let's face it, while enthusiasts like me and you can afford a loaded 100k Model S, the base model will be a stretch for the majority of people who at this point in time are interested in the Model S. Some of you guys are forgetting that we are near a depression, and for somebody that is/was on the fence a 160 mile pack S will not make sense. While you do save quite a bit of money on gas, for anyone that lives any distance away from a Tesla Service Center, that will be offset by $1 per mile in ranger fees every year. On top of that, the people who buy the S for it being a green car will look silly when the ranger drives 600 miles in a GM van that gets 8mpg to service their Tesla. I'm just being VERY realistic here, and bringing up very valid concerns non-enthusiasts will have.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk What about ranger fees for the annual service? BTW a Lexus ES350 is about $15-20k less. I don't mind having a discussion, but at least state facts instead of make up prices.�
Dec 21, 2011
NigelM I respect that, I just don't see the leap to questioning Tesla's viability.
BTW, if Tesla is really smart the Rangers will be driving hybrids as a minimum or ideally EV trucks in the not too distant future.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk This is very serious. It's also more ammo for idiots like Romney, who have a ****-on for companies that got government loans after the Solyndra fallout. I hope that Tesla reconsiders at least the 3-phase thing in Europe, and the DC charging in the US.�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae All of those people bought the CHAdeMO port but almost none of them can use it yet.
They don't really *need* it clearly beause they can't use it yet.
It is largely a mental safety net - having it makes you feel safe with your purchase and the capabilities of the car, even if you never use it.
It is possible that Tesla is still gauging the necessity of CHAdeMO.
I want it. I will be very disappointed without it, and I plan on getting the 85kW Supercharger capable car.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Are you talking about the leaf? If so, maybe you need to take a gander on the Leaf forums.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Are you seriously trying to say BlueStar won't have QC - and will be competitive ?
I can understand if the higher model S's have a better 0-60, but some very basic features like QC that make EVs practicle should be in every model, atleast as an option. Infact, the lower range model needs QC even more than the highest range model.
At this point, I don't see how the 160 miler competes well with Infiniti EV - with 130 mile range (vs 160), QC and $10K less. Infiniti EV will catch everyone for whom the base S was already a stretch.
Given this - I seriously doubt Tesla can sell 20K model S's a year ( I also doubt Chevy can sell 40K Volts a year @ 32K). Tesla needs to sell a lot of 160 milers in order to get the volume up - and make most of the profits on options and on higher range models. This is what most car companies do.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel Has enough definitive information about the Infiniti EV been released to really make that statement?�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Yes, this is somewhat of the point I was trying to make. I think that Tesla underestimates the number of base pack cars that people are interested in. I would bet that after the early adopter enthusiast sales dry up, it's mostly going to be the 160 milers that they will sell. Looking at the reservation numbers and the polls here, and assuming most want the bigger packs is amateurish at best.�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston Two unrelated facts:
TSLA stock has dropped 5% ($1.44/share) at this point, presumably in response to the pricing sheet. Not a positive market reaction, but not a "run to the doors" reaction either.
Collectively, MB, Audi, BMW, and Lexus sell over a million E-class, A6/A7, 5-series, and L-class sedans annually. If this is the "market" for the Model S, 20,000 cars/year is a very manageable market share.�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider You misread my post. By "Let's keep in mind that the Model S isn't Bluestar.", what I meant is, people expecting to get a well-equipped car for cheap(ish) should be looking to Bluestar, NOT Model S. Model S has always been (in my mind anyway) the mid-to-highend luxury vehicle (above bluestar, but below the Roadster). I made the comment because it sounds like a lot of people were planning on buying the bare minimum vehicle but expecting capabilities of the mid-range Model S. For those folks, it sounds like Bluestar is what they should be after.
I hadn't seen any actual options and pricing on the Infiniti EV yet. Do you have a link?
*shrug* I don't know if they can or can't, I just know I'm a little annoyed with all the folks spelling doom, gloom, and falling skies for the company just because they didn't get what they felt they deserved. It just feels like there's more emotion than objectivity flying around.�
Dec 21, 2011
ibcs I see this as a temporary stock drop. In fact, I purchased and sold once already today due to the drop.�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae Lexus ES350 base $36725, nicely equipped $42000 accel: 0-60 in 7 seconds
BMW 528i base $46700, nicely equipped $54900 accel: 0-60 in 6.6 seconds
Mercedes C350 $40575, nicely equipped $49800 accel: 0-60 in 6.5 seconds
Model S 40kW: $49900, nicely equipped $55150 accel: 0-60 in 6.5 seconds
So I'll give you $13200 less for the 0.5 second slower ES350, so $3200 less after you factor in $10000 of gas savings over 4 years.
( Those numbers from motortrend.com )�
Dec 21, 2011
Arnold Panz This to me is the most important key point -- Tesla needs to sell relatively few Model S compared to the luxury car market as a whole in order to hit their sales targets. From what I've always inferred from Tesla's statements, the intention with the 160 pack is that for those who couldn't ordinarily afford a more expensive car, this is a way to get the awesome touchscreen, all electric car without spending an arm and a leg (relatively). There's also the added benefit of the much lower cost of maintenance and electricity v. gas that makes the car much more affordable over the life of the car relative to its ICE cousins.
As for the quick-charging, I'm sure that's disappointing, but if someone is getting the 160 mi. pack, I would think that's generally for daily commuting, which would entail overnight charging. At a 31 mph charging rate if the battery were completely depleted the car is fully charged in about 5.5 hours. I have a friend who has a deposit down for an S who was planning to get the 230 pack. He doesn't ever expect to take long drives with the car, and is totally fine not having the quick charge even on the 230 pack given how he plans to use it (daily commuter).
Frankly, I found the pricing to be very much in line with what Tesla has been saying all along, which is that you can get one of these cars for $50k, but it's not going to have any of the bells and whistles (rear camera etc.), and it will be around $100k for a top of the line version. This is very similar to Mercedes E, Audi A6, BMW 5 etc. My biggest disappointment as a Signature holder is that we're essentially paying a premium to have the Signature. I was sort of hoping that getting a no-choice fully loaded car and giving Tesla $40k interest free for two years (or more) would perhaps result in a slight discount off of a fully loaded non-Sig S. I'm not overly surprised, just a little disappointed on that point, but otherwise the pricing is basically exactly what I expected it to be across the board.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow QC is not a mid range capability - it is a bare necessity. Afterall a econobox like Honda Fit has a higher range - so any EV that wants to compete in the marketplace needs a QC.
Well, we didn't have one for S before yesterday, either. But, I'm 100% sure it will have QC.
In any case, given that Infiniti EV is only a few months away from 160 miler S, it becomes a competitor even if no details of Infiniti EV are announced now.
Well, OP isn't buying the 160 miler. Infact it seems most of the people "defending" Tesla on this decision seem to be the ones not affected by this decision.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel I'm not sure why you think Infiniti can produce and sell a competitive EV for less than Tesla. I can understand saying the 160 miler won't be competitive with ICE's on price, but what do you think Infiniti brings to the table with their EV in terms of cost of scale or other areas that give it that advantage over Tesla?�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae I don't think this is relevant. If you don't want to pay them don't buy the car if you live far away from a Tesla location.
I have confidence that Tesla could sell all 20,000 cars to customers within 100 miles of a Tesla store.
I stand by my statement that the valid complaint is the lack of quick charging.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow I'm going by what people heard in a focus group conducted by Infiniti. It also compares well with BMW i3 which BMW has said will price around $45k.
And yes, I'm sure Infiniti can sell the car for less than Tesla, given their very deep pocket, complete vertical integration and cost sharing with Leaf.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow And all of them have Quick Charge ;-)�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Who buys cars at MSRP? Do you? lol�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Well you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that you will save on gasoline, and then say that the ranger service visit fees don't count, especially since they will eat up the money you just saved on gasoline.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel If that's truly the case, then presumably you believe Tesla is a dead company at this point?�
Dec 21, 2011
surfingslovak I completely agree with this view, and wanted to raise it in the other thread as well. What Tesla does with the 40kWh trim suggests to me that they don't want larger sales volume, for whatever reason. Perhaps they are not ready for it. While it's foolish to read too much into daily stock price moves, today's drop would indicate that there are at least a few others that share this view, and are less bullish on the company as a result.�
Dec 21, 2011
smorgasbord I'll need to go back and review my footage of talking with the relevant engineers, but my recollection from the October Factory event was that Tesla has no plans to support CHAdeMo at this time.
Welcome to the world of FUD, where a real car that thousands of people have ridden in, with real pricing and a real schedule for deliveries is compared to a couple of sketches and a named model year.
But, that doesn't seem to be Tesla's plan. Between aggressive pricing per kWh on the larger batteries ($445/kWh!), better warranties on the larger batteries, and availability of QC on the larger batteries, Tesla apparently wants to sell more longer range cars initially.
If you think about it, people considering 160 milers and using Quick Charging frequently would be better off with the 230 miler instead. When you factor in how long it'll take Tesla to build its QC infrastructure, they're going to be spaced much further apart than the 160 milers can count on reaching. In years to come, when there are more QC stations closer together, then it may be practical to have a smaller battery car with QC, but I think it would just lead to frustration by today's owners, and that's not something Tesla wants since they're in it for the long haul.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow No - I'm fairly sure (as I said elsewhere) that Tesla will change the decision on the QC once they figure out they can't make their sales target without a sizable 160 miler sales.
For the record, I think Tesla is not viable as an independant company in the long run. It will be taken over my another OEM and become their EV brand. Question is - will it be taken over in a strong position or near bankruptcy.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow It would be "FUD" if this was not backed by $5 Billion investment Nissan is making. You should be rather insulated from EV news from around the world if you think Infiniti EV is vaporware.
Ofcourse, Tesla wants to sell more of the larger range models. Every salesman dreams about upselling all the time. That doesn't mean you can survive by greatly handicapping your most advertised $50k model.�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 Well said. Even if there isn't a strong technical reason for not including quick charging in the 40 kWh pack, it could be a business decision. Maybe the added hardware needed for quick charging eats into the margin of the 40 kWh car too much.�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston The Lexus ES and Mercedes C-class are not the right comparators from those companies. The Lexus LS and Mercedes E-class are the cars that most closely match the Model S. LS460 MSRP is $67,360-$75,480; E-class is $49,800-$64,800 (again, according to Motortrend.com)�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider Sums up my feelings nicely. It doesn't seem like logical and reasonable discussion is being had. There's no countering of points, just spinning of facts to suit the views. You're comparing the base S to a car no one has any real details on?
No one is "defending" Tesla. I don't know if it's a technical or a business decision to exclude QC capability, but I AM of the opinion that if range is an issue you would likely be in a higher pack anyway (which I've done), and if cost is an issue AND you want range, then perhaps wait for Bluestar. Tesla is selling a BMW/Mercedes/Audi competitor, not a Nissan or Toyota competitor. The prices are out, buy the car that suits your needs and your budget. If the car doesn't suit your needs and budget, then don't buy it.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Seriously, this is your "logical", "reasonable" post ?
I'm comparing the base S to an upgraded Leaf (which is what Infiniti EV will be).�
Dec 21, 2011
brianman Preorders/reserves typically pay at or above MSRP, do they not?�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 Why would you compare the base Model S to the Leaf other than they are both EVs? They are two different cars and are going after two different price points.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel It seems like a fair comparison to me. A decked out Leaf is going to be in the same range as a bottom end Model S. If I've got $50k to spend, I'm certainly going to compare them. I did a similar things with houses: big houses in not great locations, smaller houses where I wanted them, newer vs. older, etc.
It was all about weighing what I could get vs. what I wanted for a particular budget. I can see folks preferring the highest end of a Leaf rather than the lowest end of a Tesla.�
Dec 21, 2011
Cobos Sure and not buying it has been very much something I'm considering. It's not that I mind the prices as shown, it's the prices as shown with the added 20-40% markup for Norwegian models which is pricing me out of the Model S.
I would have made a very good customer advocate for Tesla but the way this is heading that looks less and less likely. The total luxury sedan market is what, maybe 1%-2% of the car market here in Norway where the MiEV has alone about 2% of the total car market. Add inn the C-Zero and Ion and we are talking 3% of the total market this year. A competitively priced Model S could realistically grab maybe 5-10% of the total car market here in Norway, at least the first years. The way the prices are heading and with a very unattractive sedan shape instead of a station wagon shape I'm guessing 0,5 to 1% of the market. THAT's what I believe is the big loss.
Car sales in general is trending down in Europe, EV sales even more so. Luxury car sales in China is usually aiming for wastefull cars as a statement, and EVs don't sell very well there either.
Still 20k cars isn't much so in spite of what lagging Roadster sales in Europe and Asia tells us selling 20k cars shouldn't be that hard.
Cobos�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 That makes sense. For me it's more about comparing the size of the car. If I was looking at a small Leaf vs. Jetta vs. Focus...etc sized car, I wouldn't be comparing it against a full sized sedan.�
Dec 21, 2011
Cobos If I'm buying any new car it's going to be an EV. Currently that looks like Leaf, MiEV, Model S or FocusEV in Norway. So I'm comparing wildly different cars as long as they are EVs. I'm probably not the only one thinking like that.
Cobos�
Dec 21, 2011
smorgasbord Have you ridden in a prototype Infiniti EV?
Have you sat in or even touched a prototype Infiniti EV?
Have you seen a prototype Infiniti EV?
Have you seen the specs for the Infiniti EV?
Have you seen a actual concept car version of the Infiniti EV?
Have you seen a photo of the concept version of the Infiniti EV?
All we've seen are sketches. A whole 2 of them. That's the very definition of vaporware in my dictionary. We'll have to wait until the 2012 Geneva Motor Show to see something more. Oh, and Nissan is not investing $5 Billion in this particular model.
Right now, it looks like Tesla will have at least 2 years of Model S sales under its belt before the first Infiniti EV hits the streets - unless you can point to a faster concept car to production car timeline that actually happened for an EV.
Well, it's not "greatly handicapping" to many people, who will not even a half hour "refill time" to go another 80 miles unreasonable. They'll more likely pass or get the larger model anyway. You're trying to make spending time a viable alternative to spending money, but I think Tesla believes the upscale market for the Model S considers their time very valuable. They believe their customers will not want to sit on the side of the road for 30 minutes every 90 minutes on longer drives.
But, again, the true handicap is not the lack of QC, it's the lack of QC infrastructure to have enough chargers spaced closely enough to enable an effective 135 mile range vehicle to go longer distances reasonably. Tesla is better off in the long run not disappointing their early customers.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk Absolutely. That only lasts so long, that's why I made this thread.�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 This is the important point I think. Tesla would need to install a quick charger every 100 miles instead of every 150 miles which would greatly increase the roll out cost. I think they'll phase out the 40 kWh pack in a few years anyway as costs come down. Maybe they'll allow you to upgrade your pack and add in whatever hardware is needed for fast charging.�
Dec 21, 2011
smorgasbord Um, it doesn't look like an upgraded Leaf to me:
And when you consider the low-end Model S has twice the real range of the Leaf, a 17" touchscreen display, seating for 5+2, larger cargo capacity, etc., the low-end Model S is quite compelling against a swoopy Leaf with QC.�
Dec 21, 2011
brianman An interesting endpoint you reached on this one...
Some people are upset today about the announcements yesterday, and are out zero dollars. Better to upset them now -- as potential customers -- than later, after shipment as actual/realized customers.
A good argument that they should have originally introduced supercharging as a 85kWh-only feature to set conservative expectations initially.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Nissan/Infiniti doesn't operate the same way Tesla does. Afterall they don't need to raise money on the capital market just to survive. From reveal to delivery of Leaf was 1 1/2 years. So, you may want to revise your dictionary.
If the 160 miler comes in end 2012/early 2013 - and Infiniti EV in 2013 end, we will have a year of separation. BMW i3 is coming in Sep 2013. It makes a lot of sense for Nissan to be bringing this out as the first Leafs lease end.
Well, actually, we should care more about a CHAdeMO adopter than purely SuperCharging. That is what will be availble in large numbers (atleast on the west coast).�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston Exactly. This may be the first time Tesla has over-promised and under-delivered. Was the "promise" in writing? No, but yesterday was the first time that anyone had a clue that the fastest charging option for the base model would be its on-board 10kW charger. The $1,500 up-charge for 20kW charging isn't too big an add-on, but the $10k to the next battery size is -- and even then, Tesla's being cagey about whether even that pack can be supercharged.�
Dec 21, 2011
qwk And, don't forget that Nissan could and doees sell the Leaf at a loss. Tesla cannot.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow I didn't say it will have the same body.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow True - Model S is a E segment car. But a lot of us have already been saying it is too large - so a lot of people would be perfectly happy in a C/D segment EV.
Those who want Model X - would definitely not settle for a smaller car. That is where size is very important.�
Dec 21, 2011
Cobos Leaf range is 100 miles, EPA range is 73 miles.
Model S 40kWh is 160 miles EPA range should be 112 miles, not exactly double I dare say.
I might add that the Model S has seating for 5. +2 is an $1500 option.
The Model S has a much better 17'' touchscreen than the Leaf. Though true navigation is free with the Leaf, another $3750 option for the lowend Model S.
The Model S has much much better cargo space. Though the Leaf is a lot easier to park in the city, and since we seem to be comparing two city cars that might be toss-up.
The fact of the matter is for someone like me which is very concerned with both costs AND value the 40kWh Model S seems to have a lot lower value than the Leaf. The problem I have is that Tesla seems to see no value in upselling me FROM the Leaf to the 40kWh Model S, only to try to upsell me further to the 60kWh.
Cobos�
Dec 21, 2011
smorgasbord By reveal, do you mean seeing an actual Concept Car? Because, again, the Infiniti EV is not yet at that stage. It truly is vaporware right now.�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 Also, the Model S will have nationwide availability from day one. The Leaf still isn't available in all 50 states (although it looks like they'll start taking orders for all states in March).�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae Post actual prices for those vehicles then.
My claim is that you can compare cars that cost $10000 less to the Model S because of the money you save on fuel within 4 years.
I also claim that 6.5 second 0-60 is very competitive in that range.�
Dec 21, 2011
EVNow Right. See the timeline here.
My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - History of Nissan EV from 2006
I expect Infiniti EV concept to be shown sometime next year - with reservations in Apr '13 (just like they did with Leaf).�
Dec 21, 2011
richkae Yes I can. The majority of customers will be within service range of the Tesla location. None of them will pay Ranger fees. Anyone outside that range can choose not to buy and I said I am confident that Tesla could sell all the cars to people within range if nobody outside of that range chose to buy.�
Dec 21, 2011
smorgasbord I think you'll find the EPA range for the Model S will be substantially more than 112 miles. Tesla's been very good about range ratings claims. More importantly, I personally expect the real world Model S range to be about twice the real world Leaf range.
Well, if doubling the range isn't worth the extra money, nor the increase in seating/cargo capacity, nor the styling, then the Model S isn't for you. The Model S isn't intended to be a better Leaf, it's meant to be an alternative to ICEs from BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.. I think that's an important point - Tesla isn't interested in stealing sales from other EVs, they're interested in stealing sales from ICE vehicles. At any rate, it's not reasonable to expect Tesla to be able to satisfy everyone with one vehicle, and Tesla doesn't need to do that to be successful.�
Dec 21, 2011
Citizen-T TSLA stock has almost completely recovered from this morning's drop, as expected. So, let's stop citing that as validation from the market. Looks like the market simply shook out the weak hands and more confident investors took the opportunity to add to our holdings.�
Dec 21, 2011
Cobos I expect it to be a lot better than the Leaf yes, though I'm not sure about double.
Well that's the point. I need about 130 miles of claimed range though 160 miles is better, that's the reason I put down a deposit on the Model S and didn't just buy the Leaf. I do not really need the extra cargo space comparing the Leaf and Model S. Though obviously I much prefer the looks of the Model S compared to the Leaf, and in many ways the Model S is a lot better fit than the Leaf. Still this is obviously stretching my budget pretty far and I intend to keep the Model S for a long time, so I want to make sure it has the capabilites I need now and further on. One of those would be QC for the 40kWh.
I newer said they needed to satisfy everyone, but someone that has given Tesla a free loan for $5000 for about 2 years isn't really everyone is he.
Cobos�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 I don't think people buying the 160 are in it strictly as a commuter. My feeling was that the 160 would be for commuting, but also would provide for taking small road trips with pit stops at the end of my range to quickly recharge. I live in So Cal. I can't go to Las Vegas in this vehicle w/out QC. I can't even go to San Diego, a nice 120 mile day trip, without stopping somewhere to sit and watch my luxury vehicle charge for 4 hours.
The people buying the 160 are probably like me, unwilling to upgrade because they're already agreeing to pay more than they've ever considered for a vehicle. We do that because we like the concept behind Tesla, we like giving the finger to the oil companies, and we want to support a company that feels the same way. The way things have turned out though, it seems Tesla is giving the finger to us. "Thanks for telling all your friends about our car...oh, and sorry that we mixed the $49k price with the 0-60 spec and fast-charge times which don't actually apply to that vehicle. We never really wanted to sell it to you anyway, we just wanted you to get the word out for us."
Quick-charging ability is not a bell and whistle, it's a necessity for an EV. If the 300 had no quick-charge, and you lived more than 150 miles away from every day trip locale, you would feel *some* of our pain. To really feel all of it, you'd have to then learn that:
1) 300 miles is at 55mph, not 60 (as was conveniently noted up until this morning) on their website...hope you like driving in the slow lane for hours on end.
2) The 400 mile version is the one that can be quick-charged...and that one costs more, $100k w/out options.
Oh, one other thing. The 300 version actually goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. The 400 is the quick one
If Tesla had made all of this open in the early stages, they'd still have goodwill from potential owners. Maybe we'd even strive for the 230. But, at least in my case, I feel Tesla has burned me real good with this one. No quick-charge available in my vehicle...thank you for that Tesla. I appreciate your honesty.
Gee, I wonder what tricks they'll pull with the Model X? I should do a write-up of everything they're promising, then poke holes where I see them based on my experience with the 160. That would be honest, right?�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider What wasn't logical or reasonable about what you quoted? Are your arguments about the Model S and Tesla failing against a car you have zero concrete info on more logical?
As for the Leaf, again, if we're talking purely EV buyers, that's one thing, they have little to choose from. If we're talking about car buyers in general, Nissan is NOT a luxury brand, therefore the Model S pricing should be compared more to Audi/BMW/Mercedes than a Nissan or Toyota for example.
At this point, I don't even know what that point was in regards to because you flit from one thing to another to support your view. I guess we'll just let the market decide as consumers vote with their wallets.�
Dec 21, 2011
AnOutsider That goes back to my argument re: Bluestar. For folks like you describe (I think someone said they don't typically pay more than 5k for a car), then it sounds like the eventual Bluestar is where to look. You (meaning people in general can't get mad at the cost of a car that's aimed at the luxury market just because it's more than they're used to spending. If that's the case, then wait for the lower-priced option.�
Dec 21, 2011
eledille Very well put. What makes me question Tesla's continuing viability as a company is that they have completely missed how Europe is addressing this issue: Lots of 11, 22 and 44 kW three phase charge points everywhere you're likely to stop, and DC later on, along the highways.
It seems to me that Tesla intends to build a Tesla-specific charging infrastructure in Europe. Otherwise there is no point in the Tesla supercharger, and as without 3-phase it will usually be limited to only 3.7 kW, a supercharger network is certainly going to be needed. They are actually proposing to ignore the who-knows-how-many billions of euro that the EU is going to spend on EV infrastructure and build their own parallel, incompatible version. The Germans alone have spent close to a billion already, just on finding out how to go about this monumental task. Every European EV plug proposal supports three phase, it's not just the Germans.
Are they serious?!
Government support is needed to make this work, and no government except possibly the US is going to spend public money to help Tesla specifically. The EU has a long history of fiercely protecting its own business interests.
JB Straubel may be as cocky as he wants to, but he's going to have to eat his words about three phase support one way or the other. Being cocky does not in itself indicate failure, but if you're cocky you had better be right - you can't be like Apple and tell the customer that what he really wants isn't what he thought when your solution simply does not work where he lives. This guy hasn't understood the most basic features of he market he's trying to enter, and he's ignoring everything that's going on there too.�
Dec 21, 2011
nleggatt I dont want to get into a mud flinging fight with anyone, so please take this in good spirit and let's remember a few things about Tesla and our deposits.
1. Tesla motors has been a concept car for a long time. Its been a-lot of speculation and "we want it to be's" but its been an ideal that we all hope to one day have.
2. Based on that point, we decided to put money down for an opportunity to be one of the first people to get one these cars, but knowing how uncertain so many things were, Tesla recognized that things would/may change and made the deposit fully refundable.
3. Everyone was longing for the options and price list to come out to see what we were really getting etc, if we already knew we wouldn't have had such high levels of anticipation. Nothing we ever in stone, even today people say, "we'll see what the actual EPA numbers come in at..." so, in that case again, if they come in lower will people say, "how day they advertise x" or will they say "ok, that's what the EPA is, now I can make my decision"
4. If I recall correctly, (read the contract), the deposit is not an interest free loan. The money is in a trust that the company cannot touch and gains no benefit from. Sure, you lost out on interest, but don't feel they used your money for anything more than a feather in their hat at the number of deposits they had.�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 Exactly, except for the expectation part. Our expectations came from Tesla, and as far as I've seen, they've lived up to all of them....except the 160. This tells me that Tesla didn't need to temper our expectations because they were able to deliver the goods all along, they only needed to be honest in what they said.
They haven't just disappointed reservation holders aiming for the 160, they've turned them off. I wouldn't be pissed off at if I had known this when Tesla knew this. Instead, they mixed their $49k Model S with their quick charge time, mixed $49k with 0-60 times. That's misleading, and I don't appreciate it.
I'm not sure when it became acceptable for a company to obscure the facts and mislead people, but it's not to me.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel jimbakker666, you're being really unreasonable in your expectations.
Many cars advertise a 0-60 that's great, then when you get in it's only if you get the V8 instead of the V6.
Quick Charge wasn't ever, to my knowledge, something Tesla had said they were giving away. The release of the options pricing is the first I'd heard about it. Not that it wasn't mentioned before, but it certainly wasn't advertised.
Normal ICE cars never get the supposed MPG ratings they advertise and certainly not at 75 mph! Yet you're expecting full mileage going 75 mph.
All of these missed expectations are because you had completely unrealistic expectations. You're holding Tesla to expectations that you're not holding other cars to.�
Dec 21, 2011
ckessel That'd be incorrect, the deposits were part of Tesla's working capital. I asked them specifically on this when I deposited.�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow I'm think the thread title is a little sensationalist but I do think that this keeps them more in the low volume / high end space much more than they think. I expected the 160 mile car to be bare-bones to meet the price point but the lack of quick charge is a serious mistake. It must be on the 230 mile car. It's bad enough that they went proprietary with the quick charger but to not have it as standard is a huge deal breaker. I would be prepared to seek out CHAdeMO chargers and take slightly longer on a road trip for the one or two times a year I would make one, but even that is now not an option.
If they are taking such shortcuts to hit the $50k price point now, do we really expect a <$40k Bluestar in 3 years with all the bells and whistles that people talk about? I don't.
I felt things were going this way about 6 months ago, so as soon as the Ampera started getting good reviews that's where my deposit went. I took my EVangelist hat off for a minute and put on my engineering hat and worked out just how many EV miles I would be doing with that car. The 90+% was enough to take the pragmatic decision.
This just reaffirms my finding that PHEV will be the dominant EV technology for the majority of people for a good while yet. Shame.�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston Then you need the 60kWh pack. Even if the 40kWh pack can achieve 160 miles under reasonable driving conditions, its performance will degrade with time and with cycles. It will degrade even faster if you are using extended range mode frequently.
I've been thinking about the battery decision in this light: how far should I expect to be able to drive without using Range mode on the battery, after the battery is 4-5 years old and has degraded to 75% of its maximum charge level? That means looking at 60% (= 80% * 75%) of the claimed ideal miles, which gives you 96 miles on the 40kWh pack, 138 miles on the 60kWh pack, and 180 miles on the 85kWh pack. Since I drive about 175 miles twice a week half the year, I need the 85kWh pack. If you need 130 miles on a charge, you should be looking at the 60kWh pack.�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 I hear you nleggatt and while I'm upset, I'm not trying to mud fling either. But the problem wrt mileage is not that the EPA actuals are lower, it's that Tesla presented it incorrectly. Just yesterday, I posted a link to Tesla's website which listed the mileage at 60mph. Now that's changed, as of this morning, to 55mph. Tesla also previously used verbiage to the effect of 'typical driving conditions'. In the state where Tesla makes their vehicles, 55 mph is not typical. 65 mph is typical.
I ask, if you guys who are more educated about EVs understand that EPA mileage estimates are wrt 55mph, then why did Tesla ever list it at 60mph? Was that because they could stretch to the upper range of the estimate and still be 'truthful'? This is the issue more than anything, the fact that Tesla mislead about the 160 model.
At their website, you can still see the 0-60 performance listed...but now they've attributed it to the top-end model. They could have done this months ago and we'd still be all good. They didn't. Why is that?�
Dec 21, 2011
Cobos Thank you David for saying much more eloquently what I've been trying to say in all my posts. " this keeps them more in the low volume / high end space much more than they think". I especially think this is relevant for Europe and this is a sign of thinks to come with pricing in Geneva in march, hence my frustration.
Cobos�
Dec 21, 2011
NigelM That's a UK-centric view (absolutely no criticism intended, I'm a brit too!) as in the UK 160 miles is a road trip. It may be a valid argument for other parts of Europe also. I think the key for Tesla will in understanding different market requirements.�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 Actually, I was expecting full mileage, give or take some miles within reason, going at 60mph. That's what Tesla had on their website up until this morning.
I've never seen a car advertised at the lowest possible price with specs for the high-end model, unless a disclaimer was present.�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston Jim, I agree with you -- I'm not nearly as upset as you are, but Tesla really dropped the ball on managing expectations here. This is a downside to the extreme -- really, unprecedented -- openness of Tesla through the development phase. I don't think they've been intentionally misleading anyone, at least not when remarks were made initially. But to drop this bomb about the lack of access to the Supercharger network in this way, that's just broken faith with customers.
Put differently: suppose Tesla had never discussed anything other than a 300-mile car, with a price point of $69,900. Now suppose that yesterday, they unveiled several cheaper price points that had compromises on range, acceleration, and charging capabilities. The reaction would be all positives! Of course, the reaction to the initial car would not have been nearly as enthusiastic.�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert I kind of feel with you, but allow me to point out it is still 12 months until the delivery of the 40 kWh version, and for new technology like this it is not uncommon for product plans to change. At least there is still an option at this price. Others often simply have to raise prices. My impression, from various remarks, is that these things changed in the last few months, and it probably took them a while to make these decisions final. Perhaps that is one reason why Tesla became so silent in the last few weeks: that's when they may have realized that they had to make these decisions in order to have a valid product palette which allows them to go forward in a way that delivered features will be well-received.�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow You seem to have misunderstood my comment by 180 degrees here.
I'd be quite happy with 160 miles and 20kW charging for the majority of trips (which realistically doesn't even get me to Birmingham, by the way), but there are a few trips a year when I have to head north and I would be happy to make those trips with the burgeoning CHAdeMO or "supercharger" network and synchronised meal breaks. Now I can't even do that. It makes the idea of a �50k car that can't do that (and I'm assuming that it will be a $=� conversion) into more Top Gear fodder.�
Dec 21, 2011
VolkerP Tesla has not presented a solution to quick charging the 40kWh base model but that does not imply they made it impossible. The options just state that the 40kWh equipped char will not have "supercharger access". With Tesla's battery pack architecture, using laptop cells build for slow charge/discharge rates, I understand that supercharging with 90kW is not feasible since it would bring heavy lifetime penalty to the cells.
I guess the 40kWh base mode will lack the software that communicates with the super charger to establish the DC charging protocol and it will lack the wiring capable to deliver +200A to the pack.
As was pointed out by others, the Tesla supercharger can and will deliver <90kW to every car while charging near top SOC. So here is question why the base 40kWh model was excluded from that option. It seems like an act of arbitrariness by Tesla but such can be deemed the whole proprietary charge port architecture which denies 3 phase support. A good point in my view was speculation about required supercharger density (~100 miles spaced apart).
But NOONE says that the 40kWh cannot be quick charged! It's just that Tesla denies responsibility for that solution. That seems like a subtle difference, as these customers still are hosed - until appearance of CHAdeMO adapters.�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 Agree with you 100% Robert. $70k for a car like that? Sure it'll cost extra with options, but I might just have to save up my pennies anyways! But as it stands now, I feel like a jilted lover. Actually, I feel more like a pawn who was used to spread the word about Tesla's $49k Model S.
I sent them an email suggesting that the lack of QC on the 160 is a deal-breaker for a lot of people and that it should be communicated up the chain. I also asked about the process of getting my deposit refunded to me. That was last night, no response yet.�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow As others have said, they don't expect CHAdeMO adapters to come.
If they supported it, then Tesla's customers would get a rapid charge network by default, as in the UK Nissan is expected to deploy a minimum of 65 CHAdeMO chargers in public locations for all EVs to use. I believe it is the same across Europe.�
Dec 21, 2011
surfingslovak Yes, I support this view as well, and I'm surprised to hear that so many people expect to see adapters. CHAdeMO is a bit more complicated than J1772, at least from what I gleaned, and the plug itself is quite expensive. It would be great if Tesla proved us wrong on this, but I personally don't see CHAdeMO adapters either. Sorry.�
Dec 21, 2011
Norbert They may or may not offer a CHAdeMO adapter, but the take-home point from this announcement is that the feature they want to offer as "Supercharging" is high-power fast charging with long range batteries, without too many compromises. That appears to be the reality as of today. Call it a marketing decision if you want.
Tesla isn't Nissan, and it will show more and more.�
Dec 21, 2011
dpeilow But the car is compromised in that it won't be able to use what is already a useful 50kW rapid charge network over here. This is not "Nissan's" network in that it is reserved for their customers - it is Nissan seeding the market so that they and as an aside many others can benefit.
Tesla was supposed to be about no compromises. What they want to offer and what the market wants are seemingly two different things. Given that (as has repeatedly been pointed out) DC reduces the on board complexity, why not offer it even as an option?�
Dec 21, 2011
Robert.Boston A real test will be whether Tesla releases the specs for its new charger and openly invites other car manufacturers to use them.�
Dec 21, 2011
Lloyd Jimbakker,
In doing a little trip planning the 40 kw battery from So. California to Las Vegas would be problematic even with quick charging. It's 153 miles from downtown Los Angeles to Baker which would be the likely spot for a quick charge, and about 300 miles one way. I believe there is and HPC in Baker. You would be going over several mountain ranges and likely not make Baker with the 40 kw battery. You would need to make two charge stops to get to Vegas, then charge in Vegas and then two charge stops for the return trip. There is not much betweeen Baker and Las Vegas! With the 60 kw battery you can 1. QC 2. make the trip with three charges 2 enroute and one in vegas vs 5. In this part I believe that your expectations were not in line with distance driving with this car.
I beleive that anything other than a local commuter needs a 60 kw battery + in order to be viable. You would likely suffer from personal weight gain from all the fast food that you would be eating while waiting for your multiple charges!�
Dec 21, 2011
TEG How would people feel if they provided a way for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, but no way for cars like LEAF to charge from a Tesla Supercharger?
There could be a perception of iniquity if reciprocity wasn't provided....�
Dec 21, 2011
Todd Burch I disagree. How is the car going to support battery swap then? I think the internals, as far as DC charging is concerned, are going to be the same on all cars.�
Dec 21, 2011
markwj Surely, Tesla would be responsible for providing the ability for Model S to charge from CHAdeMO, and Nissan would be responsible for providing the ability for Leaf to charge from Tesla Supercharger? Reciprocity.�
Dec 21, 2011
dsm363 If Tesla links the ability to charge to owning a Model S though, Leaf owners would be locked out. I hope Tesla opens the charger to all at some point but at the start, I think restricting it to Tesla owners makes sense until the infrastructure is there.�
Dec 21, 2011
shark2k Lloyd mentioned this in the Model S Specs Page:
Now, this might not be correct, as Lloyd clearly states it is his understanding from his conversations with Tesla. But, if this is the case (even though I believe it was QWK that replies saying that it was a bad idea) you guys could be blowing that out of proportion. Now I will say looking at the pricing and options page, I could see how what I quoted is doesn't fit with the wording they used, but it is still a slight possibility. I would say to see if this gets clarified before 100% condemning Tesla for not including QC for the 40 kWh battery.
Just my $0.02.
Edit: I just noticed in the Pricing/Option Aftermath: Still buying? thread, that smorgasbord mentioned in post #35 that he stopped at a Tesla store and they gave a reason for why QC was not available for the 40 kWh battery, so this post could more or less be annoyed.
-Shark2k�
Dec 21, 2011
jimbakker666 Thanks Lloyd, after reading this I agree with you that the 40kW wouldn't be able to make it Vegas, QC or not.
Fast food, bleh. I'd rather starve!�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow I'm sure they won't care if they are taking cash from the car driver, which is ultimately what these site owners will be allowed to do.
Besides, Tesla just guaranteed that finding a supercharger will be as rare as hens teeth as no site owner is going to install a charger for the top few percent of a rare car. They won't even dedicate a parking space to it.�
Dec 22, 2011
brianman I wouldn't bank on that just yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see the base model Bluestar support super-charging (advances in battery pricing and/or capacity).�
Dec 22, 2011
dpeilow Which is a few years out and an act of faith.
We are finding resistance from high traffic sites now, for CHAdeMO installations that would be provided free of charge. They don't want to lose the parking space. Justifying the same for a supercharger is going to be much more difficult.
Anyone else thinking that the 160 mile version was just a DOE loan play?�
Dec 22, 2011
Norbert Good description, Lloyd!�
Dec 22, 2011
dsm363 It possible I guess. Parking along major highways here is typically much easier in the places you'd need a quick charger so that's less of an issue.�
Dec 22, 2011
WhiteKnight I don't think it was for the DOE, I think it was so Tesla could do exactly what JB666 is so upset about, trumpet the $49,900 price.
I used to buy Hondas and they would have the DX model - did anyone buy this?
The difference between Tesla and Honda though is you can get every available option on the 40 kWh pack. No one at the Country Club will know if you're packing 40 kWh or 85 kWh. So if you accept the fact that the Model S today is not a good car for long road trips you should save the $10,000 or $20,000 get the 40 kWh for 90%+ of your needs and then buy plane tickets for the rest (that's my thinking).�
Dec 22, 2011
WhiteKnight Key to "Viability"
In order to be successful in the long-term, Tesla (IMO), must find a way to cut battery costs in half in 5-10 years.*
When they are selling cars with 320, 460 and 600 miles of range at $50K, $60K and $70K then they will take over the world.
Until they cut costs they will remain a niche player selling 20K to 40K vehicles per year.
*As an alternative they could slash supercharge times from 45 minutes to 4 minutes (in other words, switch to ultracapacitors) while maintaining the same ranges and prices today. I'm not sure which is more technologically daunting.�
Dec 22, 2011
vfx +1
Would not be surprised if Mercedes was the pricing model.
The slower acceleration on base is saddening though.�
Jan 17, 2013
Electric1 Anyone see this on Autoblog:
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/11/analyst-says-tesla-is-low-on-cash-dangerously-so/?
Coupled with the NY Times blog from Tuesday (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/category/auto-shows/2013-detroit-auto-show/) which said, in part
"Tesla Motors threw out a lot of numbers at its news conference Tuesday at the Detroit auto show � about new Supercharger locations, about store and service center openings � but it did not directly address production or delivery numbers for the Model S sedan, and it wasn�t saying very much about reported cash-flow problems as production of the car ramps up."
It's got to one thinking that they have to ramp up DELIVERIES to improve cash flow.�
Jan 17, 2013
gregincal Interesting to read this very old thread from the point of view of somebody who only started paying attention after cars were on the road.
People were exactly right that Tesla didn't make the 40kWh car very attractive, and I wouldn't be surprised if they drop it. However, they have a hit on their hands with the 85kWh, and the 60kWh serves the role of the lower volume lead in. At this stage being a successful niche player selling 20K to 40K vehicles per year is fine. The big thing that people didn't expect is that absolutely none of the major players would show any signs of releasing a car that competes in any significant way with Tesla.�
Jan 17, 2013
anticitizen13.7 This analyst says:, but this is an apples to oranges comparison with 2013. Tesla didn't start delivering Model S to customers until 2012 was almost half over, and production ramp up was initially slow. A high production and delivery rate today means that they probably won't "burn cash" like they in the first half of last year. Also, didn't Tesla have to spend a lot of money on robots and setting up production lines?
I haven't read that analyst's complete report, but the segment posted doesn't make sense to me.�
Jan 18, 2013
jerry33 The authors of these kind of articles always have an axe to grind, and they're not too picky about the details. Also, traditional Wall Street analysis doesn't work well with companies like Tesla, Apple, or Amazon because Wall Street only thinks about this quarter while the mentioned companies think long term.�
Jan 18, 2013
Norbert That specific article is based on Q3 results, and ignores that in the beginning of Q4, Tesla already raised additional cash. And it also ignores that up to that point, Tesla was investing in Model S manufacturing, and didn't sell Model S yet (except 250 in Q3), whereas from Q4 on, Tesla started selling Model S in serious numbers.
We also discussed it (or the underlying MarketWatch article) in the investor's thread.�
Jan 18, 2013
Zzzz... I do not think this is true. J.P. Morgan in Dec 2012 set price target for TSLA for Jan 2013(now) of $40. Ok, we are not at $40, but they did looked at whole year ahead performance(remember at that point Model S was not even in production). Furthermore, their analyses was based and took into account TM's 2013 and 2014 revenue projections.
Goldman Sachs at same time in Jan 2012 was posting $35 price target for Tesla, a year ago.
I would say that J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs are as QUOTE:"traditional Wall Street" as you could possibly get.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét