Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#141

Post by StavrosK » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:39 PM UTC

relix wrote: post #104

jotux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It could mean you can disable safety measures How is this any different from being able to open the hood on a conventional car? Or having a screw driver and socket wrench that fit the nuts/bots/screws on a conventional car?

It's not, but I'm pretty sure it's also illegal to disable your brakes and then drive your car on a public road.

And thus, when it comes to software modification, the only reasonable course of action is make the equivalent of opening the hood illegal?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#142

Post by marvin » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:39 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #64

revelation wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default, the Tesla Model S will never fully charge the battery, no matter what the capacity. You can tell it do this by doing a "range charge", but Tesla warns that doing this regularly will negatively impact the longevity of the pack. Full charge also has other problem, e.g. regen doesn't work anymore since the battery is too full. If I'm to believe reports from 60kWh and 85kWh owners, the cars weigh essentially…

What it says to me as a consumer is that the vendor doesn't value the product, and so I shouldn't either. For example, a pet shop: "Sorry, someone else already adopted that three-legged dog we advertised on discount to a good home. But we can give you one of our regular puppies at the same price. Of course, we'll have to 'adjust' it first ..." Yes, it's a perfectly rational decision of the kind which gives MBAs a bad…

You are being incredibly mean to Tesla here. It says right in the article that producing the 40kWh pack didn't turn out to be economically viable due to investment costs.

Your view gives two possibilities:

1) Lose money on the 40kWh model by investing millions in production equipment for a product that almost no one wants

2) Lose money on the 60kWh model by selling it for less than it costs to produce

None of these are viable. As far as I can tell, Tesla has chosen the best option here (given that they want to keep the 40kWh model on the market, which for marketing purposes I am pretty sure that they will).

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#143

Post by goatforce5 » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:40 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26

nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

> ... and can be upgraded to the range of the 60 kWh upon request by the original or a future owner. Does anyone remember Intel's co-processor "upgrade" for turning a 486SX into a 486DX?

How about IBM's "Golden Screwdriver"?

http://www.sdsusa.com/dictionary/index.htm?g#golden

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#144

Post by marvin » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:44 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #45

jhenkens wrote: post #9

I would love to know how many Model S have been sold within 25 miles of Palo Alto, CA. Driving around Menlo Park/Palo Alto/Atherton/Woodside, one can easily see 10 Model S within an hour - it is truly unreal. It's almost at the point where buying a Model S is no longer trend setting, but instead following a trend.

They're becoming really popular in Norway too, in large part because of how incredibly cheap it is compared to the equivalent gasoline/diesel cars. In the US the Model S is a quite expensive car, but here in Norway the taxes on gasoline/diesel cars are so high that the Model S actually is really cheap for its class. In the US the Model S have often been compared to the BMW M5, but in Norway the BMW costs 3x what the…

Have Tesla deliveries to Norway started? Have you seen a Model S in Oslo yet?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#145

Post by timdorr » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:49 PM UTC

And as big as this is, it's apparently not as important as whatever Elon is announcing tomorrow:

    To be clear, Tesla is in California, so it is not April Fool's yet! 
    Also, some may differ, but imo the Tues news is arguably more important.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/318588682070269952

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#146

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:52 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #33

ptomato wrote: post #24

Just think how many they could've sold if the mean journalist hadn't said all those bad things about them.

Not a single car more, since they are production constrained.

They probably even managed to get rid of a few customers that would have ended up disappointed with the performance characteristics of the vehicle.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#147

Post by jimzvz » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:52 PM UTC

tiziano88 wrote: post #123

jimzvz wrote: post #121

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. > ...all 60 kWh cars have been and will be built with Supercharger hardware included. Tesla is taking a slight cost risk that ultimately all customers will want to buy the Supercharger upgrade and receive unlimited, free long distance travel for life. I am assuming that the supercharger hardware…

I don't see why. Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? I see this as a great plus, if you are not interested in a feature, do not pay for it, if you later are, you can enable it without buying an entire new car. Also if you sell it, the new owner can decide if and when to enable those features. It seems a clear win-win to me, and a very clever strategy from Tesla.

>Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other?

Yes.

I can't bear the thought of driving around a bigger battery and charging hardware that I cannot use. They have already built it, given it to me and it will cost them close to nothing to activate it but I cannot use it because of their pricing structure and I have to use my own money to transport this hardware that I am not allowed to use. If someone can afford to give me something, they should be able to afford me using it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#148

Post by zanny » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:54 PM UTC

rurounijones wrote: post #56

jpxxx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that'd require hauling in 200 vehicles to replace a $10,000 battery pack while tying up maintenance bays, disrupting production to source and ship 60kWh packs, and incur a multi-million dollar charge on a company that is barely breaking even. (edit: Also, rich people tend to be of a type that go absolutely apeshit when they feel they've been cheated, meta-cheated, vapor-cheated or insufficiently cheated by ha…

Based on comments below, no 40kWh models have shipped which eliminates the first point. Second point still stands but I reckon it would still be worth it.

The logical business decision seems to be "there was not enough demand for this product, so we are not going to release it, and everyone that ordered one can upgrade or get a refund"

Sure, they lose sales, but at least they are honest. This move is only going to generate huge bad press for being anti-feature dicks.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#149

Post by jusben1369 » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 12:55 PM UTC

"Tesla Motors announced today that sales of its Model S vehicle exceeded the target provided in the mid-February shareholder letter" - So that means they had a great last 6 weeks of the quarter. That means sales actually went up substantially after the NY Times huff foo. That means it made tremendous sense to continually go after the NY Times as it must have been apparent sales were rising on a week over week basis since the story broke?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#150

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 1:01 PM UTC

brk wrote: post #125

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rumor has it there were a few people who were good enough with a soldering iron to re-enable them.

Huh? The traces were buried inside the ceramic chipset. And even at the scale of technology in that era the soldering was usually done with vibration, not heat. I find this statement rather implausible. It would take far too much time and equipment to make it worthwhile vs. just upgrading your CPU "over the counter".

I think that was a joke and I think it went over your head :)

I do know a guy that can solder scary small stuff (SMT, angel hair and other incredible feats of steady handedness) but I think that re-bonding zapped chips is even beyond his soldering capabilities. If only because you first have to get access.

I did once re-solder a pin on a 386 which had broken off and I was pretty proud of that but for the most part once you get to the package boundary it is game over.