I made a $5000 reservation for the Model S long before it was available, and they told me a number that was my place in line, and that they'd contact me when it's my turn. I chose the color and everything.

It's funny because they still haven't contacted me, nor did they contact anyone else I know who placed the reservation. Worked out fine for me, I've been mostly in Japan, and now that I'll be back in Seattle I'm planning to contact them and really curious what they say.

Everyone else got their car eventually but had to call and check multiple times. To each person they apologized and said it must be an oversight.

The whole thing leaves a really bad impression of the company. I wonder how they account for the money on their books over the past four years.

They've been sitting on $5k of your money for four years, and you haven't contacted them for it back?

Look at the man's profile. He has quite a bit of money, I speculate.

That's an awfully nice interest rate on that loan he made to Tesla (from Tesla's perspective)

Tesla also makes a tidy profit on each car sold.

The Model S has been out for a long time now, it looks as if that's a pretty bad way to deal with downpayments.

Here in nl the law is pretty strict about downpayments, if you accept a downpayment you have to keep the item in reserve for that particular customer. That's easy enough to check with a vehicle (they have a VIN after all).

At a minimum you should get some compensation for financing them to the tune of $5K over a longer period of time.

Tens of thousands of people have successfully used Tesla's reservation system.

I'd bet that if Tesla took reservations in NL at all that they complied with the local law. For example, in the US it doesn't turn into a firm order until you go through the final feature pick right before production. Before that either side can cancel for any reason. That might make it not a downpayment in NL.

Is it a down payment? Or an option?

Cars they don't exist yet funny have Vin yet

That's bizarre. I put my 5k in around the end of 2011 and got my car at the end of 2012. I didn't have any weird trouble. they must have lost your money. when you log in at tesla motors.com and look at your account, what does it say?

Almost assuredly it's a liability on their books, meaning they haven't recognized it as an income or asset.

Just a quick technicality note: they would have it on their books as both an asset and a liability. The cash they received would be the asset, and the money owed back as a liability.

Have to keep "assets = liabilities + equity" balanced!

Thanks, been a long time since accounting classes.

To gauge the interest in the Model 3. The 1000$ is a large enough sum to dissuade non-serious buyers and thus get an accurate assessment.

The sooner you reserve, the sooner you get your car. If you don't like the terms then you can wait, but you'll get you car after the people willing to put money down right away.

Part of op's point is that they explicitly don't guarantee that the sooner you reserve the sooner you get your car.

Reminds me of paying more for faster internet, yet the contract states they have to provide UP TO what ever speed. You can technically get less speed while paying more. Just another way companies write the contracts in their favor.

It wouldn't surprise me if this becomes the norm in any 'place in line' list with high value items. Companies would love the ability to offer the chance to consumers to put a down payment for a place in line while at the same time removing any liability in case they have to break that agreement.

Are there preorders where this isn't the norm? Whether you're camped out for the latest iPhone or preordering some hot new game, it's always understood that your place in line is a major factor in when you get your product but it's not a guarantee and the ordering isn't strict.

I'm baffled at why anyone would think it should be otherwise. Guaranteeing a strict order would be essentially impossible, and it would mean that a problem with a single unit would delay the entire group of people behind it.

They want a list of people who've got cash to burn and who don't read the fine print?

I know. My point is that even if it's not guaranteed, it still works that way for the most part.

That is how it should work and people generally believe that's how it works. But if that is the case, why are they saying it might not be? And further up in this thread someone is saying that it was most definitely not how "it worked" with the model S.

Because they want flexibility, for example to push a VIP to the front of the line, or prioritize deliveries based on proximity to the factory, or to avoid holding up the line if you suddenly decide to sail around the world solo at the time your delivery is due.

Since this flexibility goes both ways (you can cancel at any time for any reason and get a refund), I don't see what's so weird or upsetting about this.

Well in the original Model S reservations they moved up folks who had bought the high margin ones to the front of the line so that they could show a profitable quarter early on. If you looked at their build orders for that first quarter or so it was waaaay slanted towards the more exotic versions. I would expect them to do the same for the Model 3. While it frontloads the profit, that can bootstrap the rest of the system.

They're doing the same for the Model X. P90DLs got priority, then P90Ds, and now I believe the 90Ds are starting to show up. 70D orders will probably be waiting until the second half of this year.

Grouping builds based on common configuration I don't see as being terribly odd - reduces the chance of errors and increases efficiencies.

But that said - there's been 70Ds been showing up for a while, so I suspect it was just just done for the initial rush of orders.

Do you mean S 70Ds? According to modelxtracker.com, no X 70Ds have been delivered yet. That's not a comprehensive list, but I'd expect to see some there if they've been making deliveries.

Ah, apologies - misread that as the Model S.

I'd imagine they're just leaving legal wiggle room for "we bumped you down a spot so we could give the next car to a VIP".

Or more likely "we bumped you down a spot (or removed you entirely) because you criticized us or our CEO on twitter."

Anyone ordering this has to be careful what they say online about Tesla using their real name. Tesla has historically gone after critics pretty heavily (both professionals, and random members of the public).

In particular if it is delayed and you call them out, expect to be removed.

As far as I know, they canceled exactly one person's reservation like this. Are there other instances, or are you extrapolating a bit too much?

They also tried to sue Top Gear for criticising them, and had a massive battle with the New York Times, because the NYT instead of publishing a puff piece published an article critical of Tesla's Model S.

It is just a company (and a CEO) that doesn't like criticism and doesn't handle it at all well. They overreact and you don't want to be on the receiving end of that.

And let's talk about the specific case: Tesla started an event either 1.5 hours late or 1 hour late (depending on who you believe), didn't apologise, and then when someone criticizes them for it the CEO cancelled their pre-order and "banned" them from owning a Tesla.

All of the Tesla fans love to blame all of this stuff on everyone else (the person who got banned, Top Gear, NYT, etc) but ultimately the point still stands that Tesla actively goes after people who offend them. My only point was that it could happen to YOU or ME if we're not careful.

> They also tried to sue Top Gear for criticising them

Considering Top Gear[1] scripted it out to make the car seem shitty why would you be surprised that they tried to sue?

> had a massive battle with the New York Times, because the NYT instead of publishing a puff piece published an article critical of Tesla's Model S.

Um, yeah, the review wasn't good from a review-standing-on-its-own standpoint. There was much back and forth but ultimately the review was inaccurate / imprecise in many areas[2].

> All of the Tesla fans love to blame all of this stuff on everyone else (the person who got banned, Top Gear, NYT, etc) but ultimately the point still stands that Tesla actively goes after people who offend them. My only point was that it could happen to YOU or ME if we're not careful.

Yup, fair enough. But also keep in mind that, as an owner of a company, you have the right to "fire the customer". After working in retail there were plenty of times when a customer, even rightly so, criticized things you do but ultimately you can't just keep them around because they're disrupting others (one reason among many, many reasons). I'm not sure if there was ever more to the story than was published or not (I've seen plenty of people tell a completely different story after leaving our store to other people). It didn't seem like a nice thing to do but I also don't care that much that Musk did it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_controversies#Tesla_R...

[2] http://www.poynter.org/2013/elon-musk-on-new-york-times-tesl...

> Considering Top Gear scripted it out to make the car seem shitty why would you be surprised that they tried to sue?

Top Gear is a scripted comedy show. Tesla thought (and you seem to think) that Top Gear is a serious car review program, it hasn't been that for at least twenty years.

Of course Top Gear are going to make a joke about an electric car running out of juice, that's the obvious go to joke to make. You cannot sue someone because you don't find them funny.

It just comes across as petty or out of touch on Tesla's part.

> Um, yeah, the review wasn't good from a review-standing-on-its-own standpoint. There was much back and forth but ultimately the review was inaccurate / imprecise in many areas[2].

There was a lot of back and forth, follow up articles, a rebuttal, a Tesla piece. But even after all of that a lot of the issues still remain. The way Tesla reacted to the article was completely over the top however, that was more the issue, they could have issued a rebuttal but instead they went nuclear right out of the gate.

> It didn't seem like a nice thing to do but I also don't care that much that Musk did it.

I don't care either, I just don't like what it represents. Tesla does something wrong (which even they admit they did), someone criticizes them, and they're banned from buying a Tesla.

You can argue there is more to the story, but Musk/Tesla never said there was and the blogger directly said there wasn't. They just said they got a call notifying them to the ban/cancellation out of the blue. Boom, done. Musk hasn't gone on record saying he was rude on the call, or whatever, people just make that up to justify why Tesla/Musk is right.

It's obvious that Top Gear has some intentionally funny parts, but it's not obvious that they actually lie in order to support that. I didn't realize it until this Tesla thing blew up. Top Gear certainly doesn't broadcast that fact. I think it's reasonably misleading.

Have you looked at the NTY piece? They flat out lied about a ton of things(which is why Tesla added logging after the TopGear incident).

> Have you looked at the NTY piece?

Yes, and the rebuttal, and the follow up. Have you?

> They flat out lied about a ton of things(which is why Tesla added logging after the TopGear incident).

I suggest you go back and look at it. It isn't as black and white as you seem to believe. Tesla muddied the water, in particular as few read the rebuttal or follow up, but ultimately the original article is still an interesting look at what owning a Tesla was like in 2013.

Plus the Top Gear thing was OBVIOUSLY comical. Since Top Gear is a comedy show after all. Tesla just had an incredibly thin skin about it or didn't understand what Top Gear was, the segment was entirely predictable.

> Plus the Top Gear thing was OBVIOUSLY comical. Since Top Gear is a comedy show after all.

This is not obvious to a casual viewer of the show. I've watched a few episodes from time to time and it seemed like a show about reviewing cars to me.

> I suggest you go back and look at it. It isn't as black and white as you seem to believe. Tesla muddied the water, in particular as few read the rebuttal or follow up, but ultimately the original article is still an interesting look at what owning a Tesla was like in 2013.

According to the NYT themselves they were imprecise and made mistakes[1]. Considering that I don't know why a flawed review from 2013 would be a good indicator of anything.

[1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...

I am talking about Tesla's behaviour. Some of the original NYT article's claims did get knocked down, but many remained. Tesla went full on nuclear against the NYT for the original article calling it "fake" and the writer a "liar" when ultimately most of the article turned out to be largely true and factual.

It is the classical "let me nitpit tiny details and then claim your entire point is wrong" arguing technique. Go look at the original NYT article, then read this rebuttal, and tell me that most of the major complaints in the NYT article don't stand.

Yup, I've read both. He failed to charge multiple times and then even tried to kill the car when it showed zero miles remaining.

There's a huge difference between 60,70 and 80 mph when it comes to efficiency. I can drop from 60-70 and see a 30% increase in my range due to v^2.

I was specifically addressing this: "In particular if it is delayed and you call them out, expect to be removed."

Again, as far as I know that happened exactly once. Are there more examples, or not?

There's an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Tesla gets criticised and Tesla attacks the critics instead of the argument.

That has happened more than once, yes.

Attacking public figures who criticize them is so far removed from canceling the reservations of ordinary customers that I see no reasonable way to make the inference that you can "expect to be removed" if HN readers criticize them publicly.

So what you're saying is that the ONLY difference between Tesla acting right or wrong in that case is if we classify the victim as a "public figure" or not?

First off, they're not a public figure, they were privately buying a Tesla vehicle for private use and posted on a personal Twitter account.

Secondly, that's a really weak line. Why is there even one rule for mistreating "public figures" and another line for everyone else? Why do you assume someone with less social power will be treated better?

Honestly all you just did was admit that Tesla was in the wrong. Claiming they are allowed to act badly because "public figure something something" is nonsensical.

I'm not talking about right or wrong here, that's you. I'm just talking about the possibility that Tesla will cancel your reservation for being critical of the company, which you claim is high, and which I believe is essentially zero.

It's pretty obvious from the conversation here that you don't really care about Tesla canceling reservations, you just have an axe to grind, and saw the cancelled reservation as a wedge you could use to insert yourself into the conversation. You posted under the guise of warning people not to be critical in public, but you don't care about that, you just want to point out Tesla's bad behavior towards the New York Times and Top Gear.

Note: I'm not defending Tesla's behavior towards NYT and Top Gear. I just don't see any justification for your claim that it's "more likely" you'll lose your spot because of public criticism on Twitter, and that you should "expect to be removed" if you complain about delays.

> I'm not defending Tesla's behavior towards NYT and Top Gear. I just don't see any justification for your claim that it's "more likely" you'll lose your spot because of public criticism on Twitter, and that you should "expect to be removed" if you complain about delays.

I do. They have previously done exactly that. That's my only point, Tesla has a history of attacking critics including cancelling pre-orders.

My only "axe to grind" is for Tesla to stop attacking critics and to instead go after their argument. If Tesla disagrees with a negative review/experience, that's fine, but don't try to punish people for raising issues.

They don't have a history of cancelling pre-orders. They have a history of cancelling pre-order, singular.

I get your overall point, I just think you're going too far with it and being rather disingenuous when you warn people that their reservations will be cancelled if they complain.

In summary, you are extrapolating from one invent involving a celebrity.

I think you are treating tesla unfairly, or you are perhaps carrying a grudge against them. the nyt piece was really slanted against them - not charging in the night when its freezing, the battery will go down. there are plenty of reasonable things to argue against them (availability of shop manuals, huge delays from when they are supposed to start delivering cars). but that nyt piece was not fair. I and many other tesla owners had great experiences buying, owning, and dealing with the company.

What random member of the public have they gone after?

Stewart Alsop.

They were acting as a private individual who turned up at a Tesla event, it started late, they complained and got banned.

Their job happens to be venture capitalist but they weren't acting in that capacity. The vehicle was private purchase for private use, and they complained on a personal twitter account.

And the guy has a history of being a douchebag. BMW did the same thing to him.

> BMW did the same thing to him.

Do you have a source on that? Considering how many BMW dealerships there are I am highly skeptical.

For those like me who didn't realize you could get to the reservation agreement by clicking to see the currency amount, it's accessible here: https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/model_3...

I imagine that even with of the possibility of cancellations, the number of reservations is still a good proxy for interest. Using that they can set up their production lines without worrying too much about over- or under-investing in tooling. It'll probably be an even better metric this time since they can use the data from Model S and X cancellations.

I think its fair and clever that the order is non-binding and the deposit fully refundable. But requiring the deposit to place an order prevents or at least reduces any "fun" ordering or ordering for resale on ebay. Anyone seriously wanting to buy a Model3 should have little problem with the deposit.

It is like a car rental reservation.

No rental car reservations (in the US)(that I know of) require a deposit...

I think they do. They place a hold in your credit card. Years ago I got rejected at Hertz because the total amount + hold was greater my credit limit

It's called an "authorization hold" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_hold

Right, that's once you have the car.... but not when you're making the reservation.

Most rental car companies (Budget, Enterprise, Thrifty, etc) require a deposit which is held against your credit/debit card. It's typically >=$200, but they usually require a larger deposit if you use a debit card. I've been required to put down $400 in the past. They often don't make this deposit obvious, but you will definitely see it reflected in your card's account activity.

Would genuinely love to hear about companies that don't require this deposit.

What you said is true after you rent the car.

No rental car reservations in the US require a deposit while reserving a car.

To get in line and reserve a car.

> what is the point of the $1000 reservation?

If you want a Model 3 the $1000 deposit is the fastest way to accomplish that goal.

Not exactly: "[...] the fastest way to buy a Model 3 is to buy a Model S or Model X."

Existing customers will get priority. I have to say, I did lol when reading that but it makes sense to give a little goodie to your existing customers.

Not exactly either. Tesla says that they'll roll out in US first (west coast to east), then EU & the rest of the world; priority will be given to more expensive configurations first and existing customers will only get priority within given price tier.

Therefore, the fastest way to buy a Model S is to live in the US, immigrating as necessary, buy a Model S and order the most expensive Model 3 you can configure ;)

Yes, but you will still need to make the $1000 deposit...

if you have a Model S or Model X $1000 is probably nothing

I wouldn't say "nothing" and it's less clear-cut when you lease, but if you have a Model S/X and want to buy Model 3 presumably as the 2nd car, yeah, pretty much.

Whats the point of signing a contract with Comcast? You can't sue, you are not guaranteed a service level, ...

But in 95% of cases, it works out such that you have a slow but working internet connection. So even though you are not guaranteed a spot, chances are you will still get it sooner than someone who didn't reserve at all.

Model S and Model X have/had the same terms.