Tesla Product Announcement at noon

[Garlan Garner]

I like conversation. I think what is sometimes overlooked by myself and others is that a feature that benefits current ownership is the feature that either draws a new buyer in off the street or pillages them from the sale of another car brand without that feature. I think those are the features that Tesla should prioritize. And I would say they do for the most part, albeit slowly at times.

Absolutely....agreed.

 

[supratachophobia]

What's not quite kosher is to say "I won't sell you a new 2016 V6 (yes with 50 more HP) to install in your car, unless you give me your perfectly good 2014 engine - and no I won't pay you anything for the old one. And no you can't sell the old one to anybody else.". That's all despite the fact that the mounts & external connections are exactly the same.

If I want, I'm quite sure I can hire a GM shop to replace the base engine in my car with a higher end one - assuming it's compatible. Yes I will pay for all of the parts and labour. And then I can turn around and sell that engine to anybody I please for whatever the market will bear.

I don't blame Tesla for trying to control this. Heck I'd do the same. But I don't think it will stand indefinitely. They should plan for it.

Excellent analogy.

 

[Garlan Garner]

That will never ever happen unfortunately. Keep in mind that Tesla's needs to keep pricing these items up because if they don't, they dilute resale value of current cars. It's not the best option, to be sure. But it's the only one that does the least amount of damage. They still have lower priced options at the bottom end of the product line, and then of course, model 3.

I agree, however I'm going to hold firm to the fact that "right now" Tesla is using the MS and MX to fund the M3.

Other car companies have removed and birthed new models once a particular model exhausted its purpose.

I could see Tesla doing the same thing. In other words...lets say....The M3 goes on sale and gets 1 million orders and the orders for the MS and MX drops to 10 orders per year. I could see Tesla canceling the MS and MX line. It would be just ludicrous for Tesla to keep a line going for such small orders. Roadster - It exhausted it's purpose. It was designed to get funding to startup the MS and MX. They don't make it anymore.

Although I'm exaggerating for the purpose of the discussion....I can see this.

 

[bonnie]

I agree, however I'm going to hold firm to the fact that "right now" Tesla is using the MS and MX to fund the M3.

Other car companies have removed and birthed new models once a particular model exhausted its purpose.

I could see Tesla doing the same thing. In other words...lets say....The M3 goes on sale and gets 1 million orders and the orders for the MS and MX drops to 10 orders per year. I could see Tesla canceling the MS and MX line. It would be just ludicrous for Tesla to keep a line going for such small orders. Roadster - It exhausted it's purpose. It was designed to get funding to startup the MS and MX. They don't make it anymore.

Although I'm exaggerating for the purpose of the discussion....I can see this.

They stopped manufacturing the Roadster because they had a limited contract for gliders from Lotus (I believe a total of 2500) - and no possibility of manufacturing more. I'm not saying they would have discontinued anyway, but the fact is they always knew the Roadster would be a limited run.

There was a multi-month period between Roadster production ending and Model S orders beginning. No company would stop all revenue in anticipation of a future product, unless production was just not possible. That would be like stopping Model S today in anticipation of Model 3 sales in the future.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree about your projections regarding future plans. But facts matter in the discussion. The Roadster did fund the company. However, production stopped on the Roadster because of a contractual issue, not because of Model S sales. Model S sales were a hope for the future, not a reality when Roadster production ended.

 

[ohmman]

But facts matter

Around here? Are you certain?

 

[-=buzz=-]

What's not quite kosher is to say "I won't sell you a new 2016 V6 (yes with 50 more HP) to install in your car, unless you give me your perfectly good 2014 engine - and no I won't pay you anything for it. And no you can't sell it to anybody else.". That's all despite the fact that the mounts & external connections are exactly the same.

If I want, I'm quite sure I can hire a GM shop to replace the base engine in my car with a higher end one - assuming it's compatible. Yes I will pay for all of the parts and labour. And then I can turn around and sell the old engine to anybody I please for whatever the market will bear.

I don't blame Tesla for trying to control this. Heck I'd do the same. But I don't think it will stand indefinitely. They should plan for it.

But Tesla isn't in the business of selling battery packs for cars and denying you as a customer.
They're in the business of selling cars.

As a courtesy they provide a capacity upgrade for your car at the price of "$20k + your current pack" you can accept that price or you don't.

 

[bonnie]

Around here? Are you certain?

Oh, you got me there. That's a fact.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

What's not quite kosher is to say "I won't sell you a new 2016 V6 (yes with 50 more HP) to install in your car, unless you give me your perfectly good 2014 engine - and no I won't pay you anything for it. And no you can't sell it to anybody else.". That's all despite the fact that the mounts & external connections are exactly the same.

If I want, I'm quite sure I can hire a GM shop to replace the base engine in my car with a higher end one - assuming it's compatible. Yes I will pay for all of the parts and labour. And then I can turn around and sell the old engine to anybody I please for whatever the market will bear.

I don't blame Tesla for trying to control this. Heck I'd do the same. But I don't think it will stand indefinitely. They should plan for it.

Yeh But....when I need my radiator fixed, or my brake calipers refurbished, or lead-acid battery replaced - there is a core charge. If I don't give them my used part, the cost of the new part goes up. Actually, last time I tried to do this, there was no negotiation...just gimme the core.

So who owns the ICE car part that conveys the core-charge requirement? I don't see any fundamental reason why Tesla can't keep their "used" batteries - and either repackage them into Powerwalls, use them as spare parts in CPO refurbishment. It is THEIR property, you just rented it for awhile. True?

 

[ohmman]

So who owns the ICE car part that conveys the core-charge requirement? I don't see any fundamental reason why Tesla can't keep their "used" batteries - and either repackage them into Powerwalls, use them as spare parts in CPO refurbishment. It is THEIR property, you just rented it for awhile. True?

I think that's a misinterpretation of how the core charge works. I believe there's just intrinsic value to the used part (for refurbishing purposes), which is why you pay more if you keep it. You've always owned the part. A more common example might be the overly priced ink cartridges for printers. Even when empty, they have a residual value that most retailers will use to offset the cost of a new cartridge.

Tesla doesn't own the used battery. The $10k vs. $20k price represents the difference in Tesla building two packs (someone's existing 90 that they want to trade in, and the 100 that they want to receive) and Tesla building one pack (delivering a new vehicle with a 100). There is a single exception to this - cars in transit are going to be delivered and only be charged the $10k fee, despite having two packs in the mix. But I think the line is pretty clear.

 

[CuriousG]

I think that's a misinterpretation of how the core charge works. I believe there's just intrinsic value to the used part (for refurbishing purposes), which is why you pay more if you keep it. You've always owned the part. A more common example might be the overly priced ink cartridges for printers. Even when empty, they have a residual value that most retailers will use to offset the cost of a new cartridge.

But in your analogy, the ink cartridge has only used up 2-3% of it's toner and not empty. Not only that, you can keep reusing that toner cartridge and refill it for pennies.

 

[Garlan Garner]

They stopped manufacturing the Roadster because they had a limited contract for gliders from Lotus (I believe a total of 2500) - and no possibility of manufacturing more. I'm not saying they would have discontinued anyway, but the fact is they always knew the Roadster would be a limited run.

There was a multi-month period between Roadster production ending and Model S orders beginning. No company would stop all revenue in anticipation of a future product, unless production was just not possible. That would be like stopping Model S today in anticipation of Model 3 sales in the future.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree about your projections regarding future plans. But facts matter in the discussion. The Roadster did fund the company. However, production stopped on the Roadster because of a contractual issue, not because of Model S sales. Model S sales were a hope for the future, not a reality when Roadster production ended.

I think Elon must have been generalizing when "he" said that the roadster paid for the MS and the MS will pay for the M3.

 

[bonnie]

I think Elon must have been generalizing when "he" said that the roadster paid for the MS and the MS will pay for the M3.

No, he was correct.

I think you missed my point - I was saying that the Roadster was not phased out because of Model S sales. That's all. Your post was stating that the Roadster was retired because of new models available.

 

[bonaire]

Lotus Enthusiast » Lotus to end production of Tesla Roadster in 2011

 

[CuriousG]

@bonnie so is @bonaire your mini-me or minion? Posts are 4 minutes apart.....hmmmm

 

[bonnie]

@bonnie so is @bonaire your mini-me or minion? Posts are 4 minutes apart.....hmmmm

Perhaps you might look at both our posting histories. I suspect you won't find much commonality, outside of the first three letters of our usernames.

 

[CuriousG]

Perhaps you might look at both our posting histories. I suspect you won't find much commonality, outside of the first three letters of our usernames.

So you don't deny you have minions?

 

[roblab]

A point that I think some might be missing: The battery is part of the motor, not part of the gas tank. Increasing the size of a gas tank does nothing for performance. Changing the battery structure and power directly affect (sorry, not a fan of "impact") the acceleration of the car. Changing the cooling makes it able to run farther at high speed. Incidently, it affects range, but not like building a larger gas tank. Just making the car dual motor instead of single increased the power and range.

In essence, the gas car analogies are weak. They may be familiar, but they are not quite correct. Core charges don't quite apply, either. Tesla can, and does, charge, whether anyone likes it or not.

 

[CuriousG]

Changing the type of gasoline you use can affect performance too.

 

[SageBrush]

I agree, and I rather suspect that everybody on the forum does as well. Unfortunately it's not us that you have to convince!!! I suspect that, at some point, Tesla will have to allow this. What they're doing isn't really quite kosher and at some point some regulatory agency will have something to say about it, I'm certain.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that the issue is Tesla's rather extreme market segmentation and pricing strategy. If you can buy a 2 year old used 90kwh battery for 10K and put it into a new 60D, why pay the huge price difference between a 60D and 90D? They're exactly the same car after all. This issue will go away as the product line matures. Tesla needs to further differentiate the high and low end - with clear visual cues and features that only exist on the higher end vehicles. In the meantime they're doing what they can to protect their margins, dicey though it may be.

You have the POV of a marketeer playing in a ~ zero sum game environment. You may be right but I think it is much more an issue of warranty.

 

[bonnie]

So you don't deny you have minions?

They would need to self-identify.