40's Need a Fix

40's Need a Fix

Lots of folks who've waited faithfully for a long time, and committed to an MVPA for a 40kWh car, and now are justifiably hurt to hear production is delayed again, while noob 85's get their cars quickly.

This gripe is legitimate - TM has made business decisions that have the effect of stringing along 40KW reservation holders. (Even if that wasn't the intent).

I think TM needs to mend fences with them. Here is my suggestion:

If you have a 40KW reservation and signed an MVPA, TM will refund your money on request, but grandfather in your option to purchase at the original price when the 40 starts production.

This would be a good faith gesture to credit supporters who've loaned them money. I think it would fix the problem and reaffirm folks' faith in the company's decency.

What do all of you think?

(Please note your res type in your post).

jat | 22 febbraio 2013

@davidslagle - do you believe that standard suspension cars will never be built? Or that red cars will never be built? Both of those have not happened yet, and have been delayed (admittedly not yet as much as the 40kWh cars), so by your logic you must assume they won't be.

davidslagle | 22 febbraio 2013

Unfortunately the 40kWh Tesla S has never been available and may never be. The price $57400 is a base price for something that only an upgrade was available in 2012 and to date in 2013. The base price for a Tesla S 40kWh is false advertising - proto type. Should have read $77400 for a 80kWh Tesla S and been reduced to $67400 when the 60kWh was made available(price does not include $2500 increase). That's the way other car makers do it. If its a proto type there can be no price. Reading why the 40kWh is not available is buying Tesla time to continue selling upgrades. Preorders may not have been as brisk. If Tesla decides the 40kWh Model will never be produced the sum of money Tesla has required customers to pay for an upgrade will be in legal question.

davidslagle | 22 febbraio 2013
Get real. The standard suspension has the air portion removed. Tesla had to start with standard suspension to add air suspension. Is red paint in shortage? I think not. Tesla is stalling by design. Dont be fooled by what you read. Your fighting a technician of 30 years in the auto repair field.

mbergman | 22 febbraio 2013

Until Tesla offers us an explanation for the delay, theories such as David's will be presented and then accepted by more and more people. Not unreasonable outcome in my opinion.

pilotSteve | 22 febbraio 2013

I think the genesis of the 40kW battery is (1) DOE loan required them to publicly commit to a price for that model, (2) hope that the meme of "price is under sixty thousand" to help deflect criticism the car is not affordable for many buyers except people like us (!), and (3) startups always are over optimistic about how fast the volume ramp up and cost curve will occur.

Bottom line for me: the 40 WILL end up in production because of (1) but they are forced to delay because of (3).

Traversing "the valley of death" is never easy.

dbalog | 22 febbraio 2013

I'm P364 (3/2009) and I'm not very happy about the latest delay.
My wife was absolutely furious last night when I told her,
she wants to call Elon and bend his ear. We gambled $5k on Tesla being able to produce
the Model S and our expected payoff was to be one of the first Model S owners.
We could have lost all our money, but we took the chance anyways.
Now I see people who made reservations in late Dec 2012 for 85kWh
getting VINs and delivery dates in the next 3 weeks! This is just torture.
I understand the talk about profit margins, but I took the risk and now I won't
get my reward for it.

Sorry for the rant. I'm very frustrated.


davidslagle | 22 febbraio 2013

Your my mirror image. High risk, no interest, no end reward. Best Tesla will offer is your money back(lol). Tesla is treating the very people that help them go to into production like dogs. How can we possibly deserve this inhuman treatment?

Brian10 | 22 febbraio 2013

dbalog +1. I'm P1399 and feel exactly the same way. Tesla should offer longer term 40kWh reservation holders something significant to restore goodwill; $1,500 off any upgrade on your 40kWh or a solid discount to upgrade to a 60kWh. Something like this would go a long way to restore my former enthusiasm for Tesla.

Chuck Lusin | 22 febbraio 2013

+1 for all of us 40's for still waiting!
+1 dbalog
+1 Brian10

G-Man | 22 febbraio 2013

I'm an early adopter - P1267. Made my reservation in October 2009. Configured and signed the paper work on 8/8/2012. I am a very patient person, but my patience has reached it's end. Am I really supposed to be patient and take delivery a year after I configured the car?
Tesla has the ability to manufacture the 40's. They just don't have the will. I get all the financials and manufacturing efficiencies - I am a shareholder so it's in my best interest for TM to be profitable. But it is absolutely insulting to be treated so shabbily by the company the I've been touting for the last 3+ years.
The wait isn't half as bad as the humiliation I feel every time a friend, family member or coworker asks when I'm getting my car. End of 2012 -- no wait, April -- uhhhh August???
I don't want a refund, I want my car - and some soap to wash the "dumb-ass" writing off my forehead.

It may be time to Lawyer Up.

sftesla | 22 febbraio 2013

Here's my idea for Tesla:

If there are really so few reservations for 40s, go ahead and ship cars to those people with the 60kWh battery, but flip a switch in the firmware that only lets those cars charge up the capacity of a 40kWh battery. That way, the 60kWh car owners don't feel like they paid extra for something that the 40s got for free, and the 40s get the performance (but not capacity) of of 60kWh battery in exchange for their patience.

Then Tesla could just stop allowing any new reservations for 40s since it's probably not worth the trouble to make that battery anyway.

As an added bonus for the 40s, Tesla could allow the option for them to "upgrade" to the 60kWh battery at any time for 10K. My guess is that the majority of the 40s would exercise that option within the first two years of owning the car.

Zelaza | 22 febbraio 2013

There is a simple solution to the 40 kWh Tesla problem. The next several cars on the assembly line should go to the long suffering 40 kWh reservation holders no matter what; whether they are 60 kWh or even 85 kWh, and at the original agreed to 40 kWH price. An alternate of reducing the price by a measurable amount ($10,000) only makes sense if they actually build the car. Challenging the faithful Tesla buyers to just walk away is the worst thing to do. The difference in cost is trivial chump change but the damage to Tesla's credibility is enormous.
A reputable manufacturer will replace a discontinued item, or one that is severely delayed in production, with the next closest version that was of at least the same grade.

Mark K | 22 febbraio 2013

Guys, these folks are not whiners, they are the faithful who feel mistreated.

The company is being smart about financial strategy but insensitive about unintended consequences.

As with the supercharger resolution:

1. Acknowledge the issue

2. Make a good faith material change to fix it.

3. Be definite, be quick, and move on.

Remember that the affected parties are price-sensitive buyers so do something that makes a meaningful difference for them.

The longer you delay communicating your plan, the less you will like what you hear, and their escalating demands.

You've been through this before, and you know what worked. It wasnt a big deal, and it ended up building rather than bleeding trust. Doing right has never failed you.

All problems are opportunities.

Brian10 | 22 febbraio 2013

Mark K +1. Tesla needs to communication directly to the 40kWh reservation holders, not hide bad news in an investor letter.

EcLectric | 22 febbraio 2013

sftesla: +1

murraypetera | 22 febbraio 2013

Mark K ++1

If the 40 is not selling, drop it and offer a heavy discount to us 40 reservation holders that we could not possibly refuse to move up to the 60. As Mark K stated we are picking the 40 due to $ constraints so due us right but please stop punting us.

Tesla you have a chance to really shine here.

cloroxbb | 22 febbraio 2013

I really dont think giving huge discounts to people who have waited "longer" than others is the right answer. Im sure there is a better way to resolve the issue, but putting losing Tesla money isnt an option IMO.

I cant even imagine how you guys feel, to have reserved something 2-3 years ago, and the release keeps getting pushed back. I would be dissapointed as well.

I just think a more "realistic" solution is in order.

N8Tyler | 22 febbraio 2013

Elon said that 40kwh account for only 10% of all sales to date. It would not hurt Tesla's bottom line to make and deliver these cars on the timeline they gave. If Tesla is going to be so hurt by making and delivering the 40kwh cars then they need to do away with it and just have the 2 battery options.

GoTeslaChicago | 22 febbraio 2013

I have my Model S, but I understand the pain and frustration of 40 kWh reservationists. Tesla should do something, starting with better communication about the cause of the delay, and a realistic time frame for deliveries. Better communication coupled with some concrete gesture is necessary.

However, I think everyone jumping to the conclusion that the delay is only because of the need to maximize short term revenue may be wrong. My bet is that there is a different reason for the latest delay. If so, it makes better communication all the more necessary.

Crow | 22 febbraio 2013

All this talk sounds like a repeat from the delayed Sigs owners last Oct - November (I was one of the complainers). Now it's a distant memory and I am glad that I didn't back out. Waiting is the hardest part.

defmonk | 22 febbraio 2013

+1 Mark K.!!!!!

Mark K | 22 febbraio 2013

Crow - very true. They will love the car after they get it.

But a year is a tad longer than the 8 week hit Sigs took, and a business decision about delivery order is not equal to the unavoidable heavy lifting of launching production. TM worked very hard, flat-out to overcome bugs and make a great car. Everyone knew that they had to be patient and let them finish.

This is not the same. Trying to convince folks that the rocket scientists couldn't figure out how to make a pack that was half what they're already shipping is a fool's game. They will mistrust you if you offer up a technical excuse. (Despite the reality that cost engineering does take time).

TM made a choice, likely a smart and necessary one financially, but these folks got roughed up as a consequence. It reads as not just insensitivity, but outright indifference to their interests.

Morally, that's what bothers them. They feel their faith is being brushed aside for a business calculus. This thing is a festering PR hairball that is giving a needless black eye to a great company.

Keep it simple George, but please get on with it, and communicate your plan quickly.

Response latency is a defining dimension for turning this around. An unfortunate and unintended problem can and should be turned into an opportunity to affirm who Tesla is.

Brian H | 23 febbraio 2013

Please disclose where, besides your hindquarters, you acquired the certain knowledge that TM can make the 40kWh batteries right now, without further development work.

mbergman | 23 febbraio 2013

Appreciate your efforts, Mark K., but please don't presume to speak for all the 40's as to what we believe, why we are pissed off, or why we opted for the 40 in the first place. In my case, you are wrong on every count.

ChasF | 23 febbraio 2013

Thanks Mark K. You are pretty spot on wrt my feelings and ideals. Even though the financial aspect was more of a value decision for me, it is a financial constraint just the same.

Mark K | 23 febbraio 2013

Mbergman - of course no one can speak for you but you. Clearly though, what remains true is that you too have expressed unhappiness, and you have asked for action to resolve it.

My purpose is to see that 40 buyers also end up as happy ambassadors for TM's mission, and TM is spared the brand hit from the misstep.

BTW - There are certainly many buyers for 40's that can afford a P85, but whose lifestyle makes the 40 a right-sized fit.

glennk | 23 febbraio 2013

This is disappointing news. Back-loading the delivery of 40's to make margin numbers look good is a bad idea. You may look great for one quarter, but if all of sudden Tesla makes 1500 40Kw's in a quarter it's going to skew the margin numbers down.

If anything Tesla needs to produce a steady stream of 40's to minimize its impact on margin.

They make the RAV4 battery which is was advertised as 40kw, but I read it's actually closer to 50kw. It's not like they haven't done any testing on a sub 60kw pack.

Crow | 23 febbraio 2013

@Mark K - I understand but my point was that the emotional reaction is the same. You see others with their cars, having fun. Anxiety, envy, impatience, and imaginations running wild. It's a rollercoaster. The only solution is the settle in and be patient.

ChasF | 23 febbraio 2013

@Crow - Nope. That is not the only solution. That's not the solution the 60's settled on when they felt wronged with the supercharger HW "enabler fee" debacle.
Regardless of the emotions involved, this is in no way a fair situation. Me and my fellow early adopters got in early at risk with the promise of, at the very least, the reward of being one of the first guys on the block with a car that very few people have ever seen. Regardless of how petty that may sound, it is real in that it was supposed to have been a perk (and an enjoyable one) of being the spotlight for a brief moment. Now we are at risk of being robbed of even that. I can't speak for everyone else here, but I need some justice and I won't stop until there is at least an acknowledgement of our sacrifice.

Mark K | 23 febbraio 2013

Chasf points to the essence.

TM took their money with a promise of getting it early. The way things worked out, they did not perform.

Usually, when you screw up, you feel an obligation to mitigate the harm done.

Especially when it was because of a choice, rather than a calamity.

I don't think it will be practical for TM to continually change their production plans, but there are certainly things TM can do to acknowledge their mistake, and make the wait more palatable.

I don't see the issue going away, and the longer it goes with official silence, the more damage control TM will ultimately have to do.

A deal's a deal. Everyone is watching to see if TM lives by this.

Pungoteague_Dave | 23 febbraio 2013

I don't think this has anything to do with profits or margins. It is a technology and product development problem. Those of you who think this is intentional and related to meeting margin targets have no evidence to back up that speculation.

Reposting my comments from the other "spurned 40" thread:

I think that TM is trying to figure out how to get out of building the 40 kw cars. They don't want to be embarrassed but may have concluded that a 40 kw battery just isn't enough. The S turns out to be way too big and heavy to get the hoped range in normal use. It turns out the 60 is more like the original range hopes for the 40, and the 85 is behaving like they had hoped the 60 would.

We are all learning how these cars function in real life, including TM. It would be nice if TM communicated better, but they are in a tight spot with the 40 kw pre-orders. Elon Musk has made clear comments in recent interviews that he would not order a car without (1) air suspension, and (2) a battery bigger than 40 kw. He appears to believe these are inferior cars and below his high personal standards, using words like "it is really worth the upgrade." On the one hand, this seems unfair and capricious treatment to the 40 kw reservation holders. On the other hand, TM doesn't want to disappoint or alienate anyone at this sensitive point in their public relations history.

TM and the 40 kw reservation holders need a graceful way out of this bind, and the best result is probably to offer the 60 kw upgrade at a substantial discount, and abandon the commuter car version of the S. As an alternative, TM could offer deferral to Gen III. This may seem like rough treatment to people with longstanding deposits, but isn't intentional, so mitigation is the way to go.

ChasF | 23 febbraio 2013

Just so I'm clear, I'm not pissed just that production has been delayed because of business decisions, I'm pissed that it's only impacting the smallest segment of customers. I feel like I'm being picked on and overlooked because I'm one of the minority. If the 85's were up in arms over an issue, they yield enough financial clout to force Tesla to respond, but the 40's are apparently small potatoes and have no leverage. That's what's infuriating.

EcLectric | 23 febbraio 2013

I think Tesla will step up, at least with some communication to those who have been waiting all this time. I don't think shipping the 40's is a 'no brainier' as it may seem. Fresh off this NYT story, how eager do you think they are to start shipping the car with the least range? I think they are being careful before they ship the first one. It's not just a matter of just putting fewer cells in the car. There are likely any number of additional factors that pose technical risks.

cloroxbb | 23 febbraio 2013


Exactly how do you justify upgrading to 60 with a substantial discount? I just dont see how that is an applicable resolution.

ChasF | 23 febbraio 2013

Actually, offering a discounted upgrade to the 60 with the discount on a sliding scale relative to the number of months/years the reservation has been held seems to be a fair mitigation to me.

cloroxbb | 23 febbraio 2013

and how do you come to that conclusion? In business terms, how does that help Tesla in the long run?

I think a more realistic solution would be for Tesla to offer either:

1. Allow an upgrade to 60 or 85kwh battery and allow IMMEDIATE queue into production line

2. Allow them to continue waiting for Tesla to manufacture the 40kwh

3. Allow a switch to Model X 60kwh and take first spot(s) in the queue for production

4. Flip money already paid into reservation into Tesla stock and cancel the 40kwh Model S

or they can always just cancel.

I think any of those are more sufficient than screwing current 60kwh reservations/owners that paid full price and cutting Tesla profits. Just my opinion though.

Dwdnjck@ca | 23 febbraio 2013

Are 60's being delivered without superchargers? A 60 without supercharger would also be a commuter car. It seems to me that Tesla must have a lot of margin in the $2500 supercharger option. I have a red 40 on order and I would like to know it Tesla really wants to build it. I would have no big problem upgrading. I just wanted to pay for a car that satisfies 98 per cent of my needs. I am patient at this time,but I do not want to wait for ever.

Superliner | 23 febbraio 2013

@ ChasF

Eventually the 40kw crowd will have the upper hand "so to speak". Remember there are many more potential 40kw or GenIII buyers sitting out there than there are $75-100k car buyers. All they need to come on board is 85kw type range in a 40kw price point.

If Tesla wants to expand upon their market share they will have to move down market or they will be forced to be merely a niche car company building playthings for the wealthy. That said being a niche car maker catering to high end crowds can be a successful business model if sized to your market, but Elon seems to want more than that at least "for now".

Things should indeed be getting more interesting later this summer when the fecal matter hits the fan and the 40kw rez holders (for which they are still accepting more of) are still waiting for their cars or answers as to why not.

Mark K | 23 febbraio 2013

Until they speak, we won't know for sure why they're delaying it.

Here is my rationale for believing that it's not technical troubles:

1. They solidly hit their predictions on the 60. The EPA numbers scaled perfectly.

2. These guys are conservative engineers. They didn't hip-shoot the 40's projected performance. They did detailed analysis, and would have built and characterized test mules long ago.

3. The Leaf, while no beauty, is a workable city car with a 23kWh pack. The S 40 is nearly twice that.

4. Their S architecture is designed for scalability. The 40 is one of the configurations for their platform contemplated from the very beginning.

The 40 won't be a road trip car, but it will be a very serviceable daily driver. Some folks want that at a lower price.

I haven't read the DOE loan docs, but I believe part of the covenants related to price point. The 40 is part of meeting that. (Fisker blew their milestones and their loan was pulled).

The marketing dynamic with each successive model of this car is complicated. They are trying to navigate the transition intelligently, and I think they are succeeding. But some people will get affected in the process, and they need to find ways to accommodate them.

The road to new technology is "bumpy", as Steve Jobs put it. But if you do right, it works out.

mbergman | 23 febbraio 2013

The mvpa that I signed specified delivery of my car in December 2012/January 2013 barring circumstances beyond Tesla's control, etc. etc. I am aware of others that specified a November/December delivery.

This agreement was signed by two parties - the reservation holder and Tesla. To suggest, as some have, that Tesla can or should just refund deposits and walk away from their committments is absurd. At the minimum, some reservation holders have already invested in upgrading their home's electrical system and they should be reimbursed for that as well. In my case, and I'm sure in others, I've spent money to upgrade two homes.

For Tesla to say we changed our mind and are not going to fulfill our part of the agreement, but we'll return your non-refundable deposit is no more reasonable than a 60 or 85 reservation holder with a signed mvpa asking for the return of their non-refundable deposit in exchange for Tesla not having to build a car for them.

Seems to me Tesla is not starting production of 40wkw cars in March, as last promised, for one of two reasons. (Note that their specs page still has Spring 2013 as production start date, and I'm willing to bet that you can still make a reservation and give them a deposit based on that apparently inaccurate information.)

One reason would be financial, and I can't imagine that any reasonable person thinks that not meeting their committments because it would be more profitable for them not to would be acceptable.

The other reason is technical. Either Tesla did not know that they could produce a 40kwh car with the specified ideal range of 160 miles, or they were convinced that they could but were wrong.

If they did sign those agreements without knowing that they could fulfill them, that would be inexcusable.

If they erred and really believed they could produce the cars, but later determined that they couldn't within the time frame they committed to, then it is still their responsibility to provide a car of equal or greater value to those with whom they have a signed agreement.

Among reservation holders, I am sure there is a range of opinions as to what would be acceptable, from waiting patiently until the Tesla gods deem it appropriate for them to get their car to demanding a car in March at the price agreed upon. I personally would probably find something between those two extremes acceptable, but that's just me.

I do know that the more time that goes by without an official statement from Tesla, the less acommodating I will feel.

For those who say that it is a great car and we should be patient, well, it is not a great car for us because we don't have it. And Tesla is, as of now, at least two months late in delivering cars to some reservation holders. If "later this summer" indeed means "late this summer", which I think is a reasonable assumption, then those reservation holders will have waited at least nine months after the agreed upon date. (Remember summer doesn't end until late September.) At what point would you say the delay becomes unreasonable? One year? Two?

There is another thread in which somebody is unhappy because production of his car has been delayed 2 weeks. Funny stuff.

Mark K | 23 febbraio 2013

While 40's should certainly now be given the right to exit, mbergman's point is valid that for most who want their cars, it is ultimately unsatisfying after such a long wait. It also would drive some to cancel out of sheer frustration.

There should be some material consideration for TM promising dates to get MVPA signatures, and then choosing not to make good on them.

I don't think you should fix one problem by making another. 60's paid full price, so free upgrades from 40's to 60's seems really inappropriate.

TM might instead give folks a choice to receive some extra equipment at no cost, or some credit toward the cost of switching to a 60.

That would show genuine some empathy and good faith, and goes to the spirit of setting his right.

Vawlkus | 24 febbraio 2013

Based on Musk, what he's done before, his statements, and stated beliefs, I am of the opinion that Tesla has hit a technological flaw that is preventing them from bringing the 40 kwh battery to production as fast as they expected too. This does NOT mean they AREN'T going to do it. As I understand, and as others have noted, their DOE loans REQUIRE them to be able to supply the 40 as part of their available lineup.

Make no mistake, Elon WILL find a way to deliver. He has in the past, and he will do so now. As the saying goes "Rome was not built in a day". I have faith that Elon will find a way. I think others should as well, but if you find that you can't, I suggest you cancel your reservation, and walk away.

Your choices are clear; choose, and act.

Mark K | 24 febbraio 2013

Vawlkus - Their architecture scales very nicely. I very much doubt they hit a technical snag, and I am very confident they will produce the 40.

There is much technical evidence supporting this conclusion.

The engineers at TM are as good as they come, and the 40 will not humble this crew who so artfully executed the far more challenging P85.

Vawlkus | 24 febbraio 2013

You'd be surprised Mark. I only have to deal with 4 different power systems at work, and each one is scaled form one of the others, and each one can give some REALLY irritating problems with appalling ease.

I do agree that Tesla is a good group, but we need more info before we can make any assumptions here.

Mark K | 24 febbraio 2013

Vawlkus - Anything is possible, but by that logic the 60 would be riddled with unique bugs. It is not.

TM's architecture is meticulously designed, and scale-dependent bugs are not manifest nor would I expect them to be.

This is about matching the product mix to market demand in real time. It is hard. Any skilled executives in their shoes would have to face it. They have, and I think pretty wisely.

What remains is the matter of those affected, and how they are treated.

And that defines a different dimension of TM's performance.

The progeny of this current play will be either -

a. 1500 people who are chronically embittered, hypercritical of any flaw, and very vocal about it, or

b. 1500 additional staunch advocates who are de facto field sales agents, and defend the company they trust.

That is what's at stake, and its every bit as important as smarter charger science, or the number of stores opened per quarter.

If you make something, a car ... or anything, this is the other place the rubber meets the road.

Don't skid guys.

Brian H | 24 febbraio 2013

I was with you till this legalistic nonsense: "If they erred and really believed they could produce the cars, but later determined that they couldn't within the time frame they committed to, then it is still their responsibility to provide a car of equal or greater value to those with whom they have a signed agreement." What car would that be, exactly? A 60 kWh with no options? They are not VW or GM with umpty-two models to make deals with.

All things considered, the Occam's Razor simplest explanation includes none of the conspiracy speculations, and accepts a technical problem warrants suffering the abuse that a delay would cause (is causing) in order to avoid patches and fixes and worse complaints down the road.

mbergman | 24 febbraio 2013

Am not going to get into any silly back and forth sniping with anybody, but on the assumption that Vawklus was responding to my previous post, it would seem that he missed the major point, which is that both signers of a agreement have an obligation to fulfill that agreement and that neither should be able to walk away from it without some sort of consequences. And of course our choices are not clear since we don't have any facts pertaining to this delay, so it would be rather premature to "choose and act".

And Brian, I wll agree that that phrase did seem a bit legalistic, which was not my intention. Note that I did not say they have a legal obligation, I said they have a responsibility. I have not now and never have been an attorney, nor have I played one on tv. But yes, some (not me, at least not yet) might feel that a no charge upgrade to a 60 would be appropriate, and I could see their point, which was my point.

danielccc | 24 febbraio 2013

+1 sftesla

I think that a firmware limited 60 running as a 40 is brilliant, at least for the pre 2012 reservation holders (2011 and earlier). I don't think it would cost that much extra, because I totally agree that most owners would pay for the upgrade within the first two or three years.

Or Tesla could simply offer these 40 kWh reservation holders a fully working 60, but with special 0% financing for the extra 20 kWh (maybe you pay 2K per year over five years, starting a year after delivery). This way, Tesla's books look better, and I think most customers would choose the option.

That said, I believe the 40 will be produced, and will eventually be more popular than it is now.

Longhorn92 | 24 febbraio 2013

Vawlkus: "Your choices are clear; choose, and act."

See this is the problem. Our choices are not clear at all since they have not communicated with us. They have neither confirmed what the Q4 shareholder letter statement means for expected 40 kWh production nor have they told us our options at this point. Can we really walk away now with refund of the $5,000 even though we have a contract locking it in? Maybe so, but they haven't told us that, plus in order to make that decision, I personally would need to know what their current production plans are. If no refund, I will obviously have a harder decision, but it would still be based on their current production plans.

Tesla: please communicate your current 40 kWh production plans and give us our options, then we can all make our choices and go forward. A few days ago, I emailed (actually PM on TMC) this exact request to George B.

fishtank | 24 febbraio 2013

The fact that the 40 is not even offered in Europe I think is a strong indicator: It will never leave the factory. As a European reservation holder I too am dissapointed about the entry level being a 100.000 USD bare bone 60 kWh. I think not offering the 40 in Europe will keep away a lot of potential buyers. Maybe even long time reservation holders waiting for a 40. If TM really could build the 40 I see no reason why the sub 100.000 usd segment should not be a target segment in europe.