Are reservations transferable?

[howabout2]

I have not yet had an opportunity to fully process the recently-released pricing and option details for the Model S. I am disappointed with the revised specifications that show decreased performance for any battery pack smaller than 85KWh. To that point, I find it amusing that the materials still refer to a "5.6 second 0-60," but that is now quite arbitrarily referring to the 85KWh non-performance model specifically. Taken as a blank slate where we stand today, if you're going to quote the performance of the best model as a blanket specification for the line-up, you might as well say the 0-60 time is 4.4 seconds.

For those of you already planning on a 300-mile vehicle who are left scratching your heads over the modest outpouring of frustration among 160-milers, consider how you would feel had the tables been turned. Say, for the sake of argument, Tesla had said, "Well, you get 5.6 seconds with the 160 mile version, but all of the additional batteries we used in the 300-mile version add weight and that one does 6.5 seconds." You'd be saying, "Hey wait a second, you guys said 5.6!" I know the engineers here were anticipating the real outcome, but any defense the 300-milers provide is at least partially tainted by their knowledge that their particular vehicle choice was not affected by the announcement.

I'm also disappointed by the $3,750 nobody-will-ever-delete-this package. Oh, you want your mid-segment luxury sedan to have halogen headlights, no navigation, and no keyless entry? Well, I guess you can delete the technology package. That's the sort of package that, if this were a Toyota, would be absent in no more than zero vehicles in actual dealer inventories.

The other options are sensible and come as no surprise. Nicer wheels, nicer interior materials, deluxe paint, sunroof options, etc.

I had vowed to never buy another car with an internal combustion engine because ICE is outdated and boring technology. So I have two reservations and had been planning to purchase two 160-mile vehicles, one each for my wife and myself. We live in Los Angeles and 99.5% of our driving would easily fit very conservatively into that range. Our daily usage would average below 25 miles for each vehicle.

So I am pondering my options.

1. I accept the reality and roll with it. Upside: I enjoy two nice vehicles. Downside: I feel a little burned and disappointed. This may taint my overall enjoyment of the experience of having two Teslas.
2. I refund one reservation and go with only one 160-mile vehicle to "test the water" and see what happens in another couple years. Upside: This is a safe option and potentially has a nice future upside of enjoying whatever innovations a mid-cycle refresh has in store. Maybe they will eventually use batteries of the same efficiency as the 85KWh in the 40KWh model, which presumably would decrease its weight and perhaps improve performance. Downside: I need to retain an ICE vehicle. Argh!
3. I refund one reservation and use my remaining reservation for a model with a 300-mile range, perhaps even the performance model. Upside: Performance, woohoo! Downside: What a waste having so much unnecessary battery capacity. And of money, frankly. But luxuries are what they are.

With either of the later two options, I am left wondering if it's possible to transfer reservations. I read the brief 1-pager Tesla had us sign and it doesn't say anything about transfers. If it were possible, I would consider the option of selling my ~1700 position in the general production queue.

If not transferable, I am also beginning to wonder what sort of initial resale market the Model S would enjoy. Are any other 160-milers considering this? Consider the possibility that those of us with relatively low reservation numbers are well-situated to satiate the demand of someone who has not yet reserved but cannot resist the latest trendy toys. Living in Los Angeles as I do, I am surrounded by this kind of person. Who knows, but it's something to think about if you have a reservation and are debating exiting the queue.

[AnOutsider]

I don't have an answer, but yes, I concede your point that I'd be miffed if the 300 pack got lower performance because of weight. Mainly because it's a "logical" thing that I couldn't necessarily argue against and just had to swallow.

On your decision though, I might settle in the middle with the 230 pack.

[dsm363]

I don't believe they are transferable. That's a tough decision. Would the 60kWh car with tech package work better? The difference between the 5.6 and 5.9 seconds would feel minimal (similar to the Roadster vs. Roadster sport). You could always take delivery, make sure you're happy then place an order for the 40 kWh pack car down the road in a year or two. That way you'd have one car to take longer trips with at least. I agree the tech package should have been standard (at least nav). Anyway, good luck with your decision.

[smorgasbord]

Assuming reservations are not transferrable, the remaining option is to work a deal with someone in which your order the car they want, and then sell it to them. The problem with this arrangement is that you have to pay the sales tax, and then the person buying from you also has to pay tax. And, neither of you get the Fed Tax Credit (IRS says you can't have acquired the car for resale purposes). So, now the new purchaser has to pay full price plus sales tax with no $7500 rebate, has to pay his own transfer tax, and has to pay you for your trouble. That's going to be a might steep premium.

Cheaper now for him to jump on the Signature bandwagon. I hear there are a few openings due to cancellations. ;^)

[VolkerP]

Without the tech package, you actually have Google navigation and keyless opening like in the Roadster. Press a button on the FOB.
From all the options bundled in the tech package, I have no desire except the Xenon lights but not enough to shell out $3750 + VAT for it.

IIRC the reservation agreement excludes transferability.

With a P-1700 spot I doubt the 40kWh package will be selectable when it's your turn to order. You possibly have to exercise your one-time deferral option granted in the reservation agreement. Alternatively you can go with the 230 mile pack, at least for one of your orders.

[onlinespending]

For those of you already planning on a 300-mile vehicle who are left scratching your heads over the modest outpouring of frustration among 160-milers, consider how you would feel had the tables been turned. Say, for the sake of argument, Tesla had said, "Well, you get 5.6 seconds with the 160 mile version, but all of the additional batteries we used in the 300-mile version add weight and that one does 6.5 seconds." You'd be saying, "Hey wait a second, you guys said 5.6!" I know the engineers here were anticipating the real outcome, but any defense the 300-milers provide is at least partially tainted by their knowledge that their particular vehicle choice was not affected by the announcement.

First of all, that was very well said and something I've felt since the pricing announcement. It's easy for those that were not planning on getting the 40 kWh option to view those of us that were as whining because we express some disappointment with the lack of communication of the 0-60 times and the lack of Supercharge. howabout2 is right that if the tables were turned, these same 85 kWh reservation holders that defend Tesla to no end would instead be crying foul.

As for the $3750 tech package. I do agree that a lot of the items in the package (xenon headlamps, keyless entry, etc.) may be virtually standard on many modern vehicles. However, the sum of all the parts of the package I believe are worth the cost. I'm more than OK with that package and price. And they could have easily included all of these features standard and simply set the base model at $53650, but that wouldn't do them much good (nor would it benefit you in anyway over separating it). They really wanted to hit that magical sub $50k price target. That's a big marketing tool that they can use to grab headlines and stir up more interest. I mean, they even charge $750 for choosing a non-black or white paint color.

[onlinespending]

With a P-1700 spot I doubt the 40kWh package will be selectable when it's your turn to order. You possibly have to exercise your one-time deferral option granted in the reservation agreement. Alternatively you can go with the 230 mile pack, at least for one of your orders.

Can you expand on this? Not sure what you mean by it not being selectable or the one-time deferral option. Being a ~P-2000 reservation holder myself, and one opting for the 40 kWh option, I'm curious.

[smorgasbord]

Can you expand on this? Not sure what you mean by it not being selectable or the one-time deferral option. Being a ~P-2000 reservation holder myself, and one opting for the 40 kWh option, I'm curious.

VolkerP is speculating that since the 40kWh battery version is being produced after the 85 & 60 versions, when they get to P-1700 they won't yet be at 40kWh battery production, so you'll be forced to use your one-time deferral to order your car.

Tesla hasn't said anything about being forced to use that deferral, only that they won't be producing 60 kWh versions until fall, and 40kWh versions until winter.

Considering past angst, we should be careful about what we assume Tesla will do.

However, I would expect that they would not force you to use a deferral, but that if you spec your car such that they're not ready to make it yet, they would "skip over" you and go to the next person in line. Once they do start producing that version, they would go to the beginning of the remaining queue (people who didn't get cars) and start working down it again.

[mnx]

For those of you already planning on a 300-mile vehicle who are left scratching your heads over the modest outpouring of frustration among 160-milers, consider how you would feel had the tables been turned. Say, for the sake of argument, Tesla had said, "Well, you get 5.6 seconds with the 160 mile version, but all of the additional batteries we used in the 300-mile version add weight and that one does 6.5 seconds." You'd be saying, "Hey wait a second, you guys said 5.6!" I know the engineers here were anticipating the real outcome, but any defense the 300-milers provide is at least partially tainted by their knowledge that their particular vehicle choice was not affected by the announcement.

If the tables were turned and the 85kWh pack had the slowest acceleration, I wouldn't be disappointed at all, I'd just set my sights on the 40kwH pack instead.

[onlinespending]

If the tables were turned and the 85kWh pack had the slowest acceleration, I wouldn't be disappointed at all, I'd just set my sights on the 40kwH pack instead.

haha...that's easy when the faster option would actually cost $20k less!