Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#101

Post by qb45 »

batgaijin wrote: post #74
dvanduzer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery. It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave…

Uh... I don't really get this. Why not lower the price for everyone and get a better rep among customers? I mean if Tesla wants to have lifelong customers that's where you start. But then again they seem to be going into the marketing of their tech so maybe not.

Because this is the price required to make the profit they wanted to make on the 60kWh option.

The fact that some cheap low performance version turned out to be infeasible because customers prefer expensive high performance version doesn't mean that you should (or could) reduce price of the expensive version.

Furthermore, some owners of crippled 60kWh units will probably end up paying for "upgrade" to 60kWh. In the end these units will sell for full 60kWh price even though the buyers initially wanted 45kWh version.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#102

Post by prawn »

marshray wrote: post #89
jlgreco wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many of the actual customers are as disturbed by this as you.

I wonder too. What I would expect is that 4% of their customers will be reminded that their car is artificially limited whenever they need to travel more than 160 miles (260 km) and have to pull over early to recharge a battery that is actually capable of 230 miles (370 km).

Isn't that shorter range what they pre-ordered/paid for?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#103

Post by prawn »

iEricAllen wrote: post #25

I've never believed that Tesla had a viable product. In fact, Electric vehicles make very little sense and are far less "green" than most consumers perceive them to be. It's sad that people tend to believe whatever marketers tell them... Check out this article... By far the most comprehensive analysis on "green" cars so far. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412850457834...

Consumer interest in decent but imperfect early-generation electric vehicles will motivate further investment and ultimately better technology in future generations.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#104

Post by relix »

jotux wrote: post #90
relix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

>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.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#105

Post by jacquesm »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #88
kragen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It was called the "487SX", and was billed as a floating-point coprocessor, but it was actually a 486DX with a lower pricetag and a different pinout. When you installed it, the motherboard disabled your 486SX and just used the "coprocessor" for everything. What's the relationship to Tesla's crippleware strategy here? I'm not seeing it.

Oh, it was worse than that: the 486SXs themselves were actually 486DXs with a disabled FPU. So not only were you buying a 486DX to "upgrade" your CPU, it was basically the same CPU!

'Disabled' sounds like there might have been some way to re-enable them, but iirc there was a whole bunch of traces that were zapped with a laser, making the disabling a rather permanent affair.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#106

Post by anonymfus »

monitron wrote: post #67
ryderm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not too different from adding an exhaust or new stereo. Not really the same as in-app payments.

It is different because in this case, the upgraded "parts" are already present in the car!

For example, there are already many cars with ESP, software limited to ABS.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#107

Post by jacquesm »

skriticos2 wrote: post #83
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.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option: * you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big) * you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not * you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your comm…

I've restored an old car from the ground up. That was lots of fun. One day someone will do it to a model 'S'.

Working on old vehicles is interesting because you get to be creative because of a lack of manufacturer supplied parts. Welcome to the aftermarket, where nothing is too crazy.

Want to slap a 160 HP engine into your classic mini? That's possible:

http://jamesfawcett.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&#...

Then you go through road approval just like everybody else and you insure it.

One day every car driven today will be out of warranty, you are always liable for your vehicle, that's why you insure it and you make sure you pass the road approval tests, you can always be injured or killed when you are driving, software or hardware doesn't matter much.

Forgot the safety on one of your steering rods? Too bad!

This is 'hacker news', modifying stuff and finding the edges of what you can do with ordinary household items (such as cars) is one of the things we do here. The fact that life is risky is fairly well known but as far as I know it hasn't stopped anybody from sticking their fingers in places where they don't belong.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#108

Post by alan_cx »

jlgreco wrote: post #71
marshray wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. CPU cores are basically software, whereas battery weight is generally proportional to its capacity and would seem to have a big effect on the efficiency of an electric vehicle.

I wonder how many of the actual customers are as disturbed by this as you.

They should be. What is the point of supporting and paying a premium for green, if you are going to carry dead weight around in the car? Given that we are told that carrying a spare wheel around is significant, unused battery capacity must also be a problem.

I also assume tesla went to some trouble to reduce the weight of the car too. With makes unused battery capacity even more nuts.

If you are going green, you do not want un-utilised or dead weight. End of. There is literally no argument there.

So "Actual customers", who presumably know something of the subject, should be interested and question this set up.

Or is this the knee jerk we love Musk thread there no one is allowed to point out potential flaws or silliness, and if any one does say anything critical, then any old excuse will do? Must we really exaggerate with words like "disturbed"?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#109

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jacquesm wrote: post #105
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it was worse than that: the 486SXs themselves were actually 486DXs with a disabled FPU. So not only were you buying a 486DX to "upgrade" your CPU, it was basically the same CPU!

'Disabled' sounds like there might have been some way to re-enable them, but iirc there was a whole bunch of traces that were zapped with a laser, making the disabling a rather permanent affair.

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

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#110

Post by taligent »

peteforde wrote: post #52
taligent wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ? For 2012 they had revenue of $413 million at a loss of $396 million.

The reoccurring theme in your comments amounts to: "Tesla sucks!" What's your beef? Seriously curious.

I think Tesla is great apart from Musk's childish overreactions (which many people don't like).

But I was just wondering where this nonsense 1.5 billion revenue came from ?

Post reply on HN