Slashdot Mirror


Car Dealers Complain To DMV About Tesla's Website

cartechboy writes "State and national car dealer groups have been battling Tesla Motors for years, trying to stop them from selling its electric cars directly to buyers. Most of the time, the dealers work behind the scenes to change state laws and and force Tesla to conduct its sales through 'independently-owned third parties' which are... well, car dealers. But in California, Tesla's operations are legal, so that tactic won't work. So dealers there are taking an interesting new tack — complaining to the DMV about Tesla's website."

364 comments

  1. Sour Grapes by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The dealers have a few good points, but EVERYONE knows this is just sour grapes because the dealerships can't fleece potential buyers out of some more money off the top.

    Fucking scum.

    1. Re:Sour Grapes by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah.. I am personally rather happy to see something finally taking a crack at their pattern. I hate hate HATE dealer and have worked hard over the years to never have to deal with one. The idea that they write laws forcing themselves as the only business options really annoys me.

    2. Re:Sour Grapes by Delarth799 · · Score: 2

      Won't someone think if our mone.... err um the consumer's money!!!!

    3. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did just that in Texas.

      It is ilelgal to buy a Telsa there as the dealers bought laws and plan to buy congress to make sure no Americans will ever drive them whether you want them or not.

    4. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not illegal to buy the car in Texas. It's illegal for Tesla to sell them directly. You have to buy one from Tesla in Arizona or California, have it delivered, and register it with the state on your own (something the dealership usually does). All in all, it's not really a hard thing to do. More of a pain in the ass than just going to the show room and buying one, of course... But in my mind, worth it to stick it to the car dealer scum.

      Tesla also cannot do warranty service on the car directly. They must use third party, but factory approved subcontractors.

    5. Re:Sour Grapes by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Indeed.
      This is yet another dead business model which is not willing to admit it's time is past.

    6. Re:Sour Grapes by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      This is right up there with the laws the liquor distributors have rammed through in MA to keep their middleman system going.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:Sour Grapes by rossz · · Score: 2

      Just last week a co-worker used their website tool to figure out his monthly payment. Pretty standard stuff that most car websites provide. What Tesla didn't do was make it obvious that they were subtracting the estimated fuel cost from the amount. It was dishonest.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    8. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to buy one from Tesla in Arizona or California, have it delivered, and register it with the state on your own

      The Texas dealers are trying to get the law changed to prevent that.

    9. Re: Sour Grapes by delphipro · · Score: 1

      They also list the purchase price after tax rebates, it's pretty deceptive.

    10. Re:Sour Grapes by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the constitutionality of that is.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re:Sour Grapes by Redmancometh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Forcing someone to use a middle man by law is pants-on-head retarded. If your model can't compete you're going to lose. This sounds an awful lot like RIAA/MPAA crap.

      It's not like tesla is going to impact their bottom line heavily - hybrids and electrics are disliked by a lot of people. Not to mention most people don't have that kind of money to drop on a car.

      This is just ridiculous. I hate people that bitch about "the corporations" at every possible chance, but this is almost certainly a result of our corporate overlords.
      So these dealers are entitled BY LAW to make money off someone's product? And you wonder why conservatives bitch about market regulation (even if they do hypocritically regulate the market anyways) well here's why. Regulation is good, but this isn't regulation this is bribery of our elected officials.

      I would give so much to be able to catch these corrupt fucks in the act of accepting a bribe.

    12. Re:Sour Grapes by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      I meant to say this is bribery of our elected officials in the guise of market regulation.

    13. Re:Sour Grapes by Redmancometh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Texan I am absolutely disguisted by this. So having a conservative state legislature is bad for a lot of reasons. However, supposedly one of the benefits is keeping the government out of things it has no business in. So what the living fuck happened.

    14. Re:Sour Grapes by Imagix · · Score: 2

      Really? I just popped over to their website. Clicked over to Order a Model S, and it starts with value shown as "$601 / mo. Effective Monthly Cost", and a "calculate link" under it. Two things popped to mind. The word "effective" changes the meaning of the phrase, and so I wondered about what the effective really meant, so clicked the calculate. That showed me the estimated monthly payment ($980/mo), how much remaining incentive payments effectively (there's that word again) bring down your payment ($80/mo), gas savings ($261/mo), "guaranteed resale value" (read the website for details) ($39/mo), plus you can add in a few other intangibles. And if you don't like their assumptions, you can change them (Like maybe your electricity costs $0.13/kWh instead of $0.11. Makes it $609/mo, BTW.)

    15. Re:Sour Grapes by Jappus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Texan I am absolutely disguisted by this. So having a conservative state legislature is bad for a lot of reasons. However, supposedly one of the benefits is keeping the government out of things it has no business in. So what the living fuck happened.

      To be a cynic:
      The voters got exactly what they wanted: Private enterprises buying their own law with no government in sight to stop them. That's what privilege means in its pure form: Private Law.

      After all, remember that a democracy needs at least three pillars to survive: A strong executive (government), a strong legislative (parliament) and a strong judicative (courts).
      Weaken one of them, and you open up the chance for people to abuse the disproportional strength of the other two (or even one).

      Strong executive/legislative with a weak judicative leads to a police state, where the due-process of law is abandonded.
      Strong legislative/judicative with a weak executive leads to corporatism with a nice load of loophole abuse and unfair privileges -- which is what you see above.
      Strong executive/judicative with a weak legislative leads to a static, reactionary state, where a small elite forms a wall against any change.

      Do note that countries that lose yet another pillar are usually civil-war-torn dysfunctional messes or dictatorships of the worst calibre.

      So, why do you want a weak executive again? Or, if you interpret "small government" to include both legislative and executive, why are you so crazy to want that?

    16. Re: Sour Grapes by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It's the same thing that Nissan and GM do for their Electric cars.

    17. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened is that "keeping the government out of things it has no business in." is simply the lie that the conservatives sold you to try to convince you to keep voting for them.

      What they meant was "stopping the government from regulating business so that it can't fuck over individual people", not "stopping the government from regulating so our business has a commercial advantage".

    18. Re:Sour Grapes by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      "To be a cynic:
      The voters got exactly what they wanted: Private enterprises buying their own law with no government in sight to stop them. That's what privilege means in its pure form: Private Law."

      Lobbying is a double-edged sword, and it's arguable whether it causes more harm than good. It DOES serve as a fantastic way for say privacy and rights advocates to have their voice heard. Sometimes "little guy lobbying" is even effective. Sometimes.

      So you're saying we can regulate away corruption? I don't think that has worked out well in other nations. Scrutiny and enforcement are (at least in my opinion) the answer to get rid of the corruption. It's always going to exist, but it can hopefully be minimized. Again, just opinion.

      "So, why do you want a weak executive again? Or, if you interpret "small government" to include both legislative and executive, why are you so crazy to want that?"

      Literally the only thing my post said is that the government has no business forcing a business model. I was bitching that one of the few benefits of a conservative congress is supposed to be an unregulated market.

      But while we're here:
      Why the hell would you want MORE? None of what you said matters in the status quo (not saying this scathingly.) Let's look at the reality of the situation: The 3 pillars have never been balanced, and at the moment the judicial branch is literally a trump card. In addition the executive branch since Bush has been breaking United States law, and violating the constitution with impunity. While the legislative branch has been passing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. They are all 3 extremely powerful right now...funny how they are each just lashing out in different directions instead of getting in each others' (they are intended to block each other) paths...almost as if they are all on the same "side."

      I really have no problem with government, even fairly large government. I do however have problems with nonsensical laws (see texting at redlight laws), what I would perceive as "nanny state laws" (see NY soda ban, pot laws), and ill-defined or broadly defined laws.

      A huge part of the problems that bother me is lack of accountability. There should be punishment (fairly minor for once or twice, people make mistakes) if a congressmen votes against the constituents in his district...Since we have a realID system being implemented let's use it in a product way..direct polling of a district's constituents handled by the rep's office in whatever way they deem fit.

      Further, if you manage to just up and lose 100s of millions of dollars you should not only be fired, but thrown in prison. If you are a major architect in implementing a program to spy on the citizens you're supposed to serve you should be thrown in prison.

      Sorry if this rant seems sort of nonsensicle it's 4:22a..

    19. Re: Sour Grapes by delphipro · · Score: 1

      I just bought a volt, the listed price was full msrp. The site may state an after rebate price, but I've not seen it listed as the price in the configuration tool.

    20. Re:Sour Grapes by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      What is this kWh you speak of? Surely you good honest-to-god Texans measure energy in foot-pounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feet-pound-force) rather than in the "SI" blasphemy units?

    21. Re:Sour Grapes by ultranova · · Score: 1

      kWh is not an SI unit. Ws, also known as a joule, is; 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of the children. What? Doesn't that argument work....?

    23. Re:Sour Grapes by flyneye · · Score: 1

      The dealers ARE JUST AS BAD, they just aren't set up online, the same way. Believe ,their websites contain just as much BULLSHIT.
      I misspent two weeks of my life training to be a car dealer and was so disillusioned by the amount of outright LYING I would have to do, that I quit.
      Fuck car dealers, they don't deserve to draw breath , let alone face fair competition. Let them bitch, fuck 'em.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    24. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is right up there with the laws the liquor distributors have rammed through in MA to keep their middleman system going.

      At least it isn't like in Oregon where the Oregon Liquor Licensing Commission regulates the bars, is the liquor distributor for the state and sets prices for the liquor stores which it controls the licensing for as well. (They also have decreed a need for 80%-85% white clientele in Northwest Portland many times in meetings with business owners and hate hip hop clubs.)

    25. Re:Sour Grapes by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      kWh is not an SI unit.

      While h is not technically SI, it is officially sanctioned for use as a multiplier with SI. So saying that kWh is not SI is more of a half truth.

    26. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I buy a car in Europe, they sell it for one price. Same if in the US if I want to buy most goods.

      However, if I want an honest price for a vehicle, I have to either go through a fleet sales person at an insurance company like USAA or buy a bottle of whatever alcoholic beverage for a friend who has an employee discount at the car make I want, and order it that way. Any other route, I end up farting mayonnaise after the dealer, manager, finance person, and used vehicle appraiser are done.

      RVs are even worse. There, there is no list price so dealers can make up MSRP numbers, and dealers don't have to honor the manufacturer's warranty if they don't want to, so someone who buys at dealer "A" and needs repairs, dealer "B" will tell them to pay up or shut up. Of course, most RVs (travel trailers especially) in the US are built like shit in a manner that will guarantee water damage after 2-3 years so will rot, delaminate, and self-destruct, making the used market pointless.

      So, if Tesla can get rid of the slick guy who you know lies because their lips move, good.

      Of course, I live in TX where I live within pushing distance of a Tesla service depot, but of course, I have to go out of state to get one of their models. However, what can one expect from a state where owning more than five sex toys is a felony and bestiality is legal.

    27. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case it's mostly about the dealers. While they probably are incorporated, it's not the big multinational type. Instead, they have outsized power in local and state politics because dealerships require large amounts of land, which pretty much automatically gives them a big property tax bill. So even without other lobbying, they've got a big chunk of change in the pot they can use to influence things.

    28. Re:Sour Grapes by cbope · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful, where are my mod points when I need them.

    29. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that the dealers do not care about Tesla for the reasons you suggested, but in fact they see the writing on the wall for what the other car manufactures would do. Think about GM, Ford, etc having "Showrooms" all over the country with no stock. Just cars to look at and test drive. All vehicles could be built to spec and delivered to the show room in say 2 weeks (could be longer or shorter based on demand). Mercedes already does this with it S line of cars, they are all made to spec in one plant in Germany.

      With everyone looking at stuff online to start these days, it would be the natural progression. Also this is doable these days with the advances of computers that might not have been viable 20 years ago on the production line. The manufacture would have limited to zero waste as it only builds what is needed and it would be able to see the pipeline for the next few days/weeks.

    30. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forcing someone to use a middle man by law is pants-on-head retarded. If your model can't compete you're going to lose. This sounds an awful lot like RIAA/MPAA crap.

      ...This is just ridiculous. I hate people that bitch about "the corporations" at every possible chance, but this is almost certainly a result of our corporate overlords.
      So these dealers are entitled BY LAW to make money off someone's product?...

      One company comes to mind that breaks away from that paradigm, BMW. Yes, they are still expensive, but all dealerships are part of the BMW corporate umbrella. So yes, they follow by the letter of the law that the consumer must purchase from a dealership (as utterly petarded as that sounds). Technically though, all consumers are still working with the same company, not some franchised entity who only serves as the middleman to inflate prices. If the dealers still cry fowl, Tesla can hire a single body, sit them in a rent-a-office (or they can work from home) and let local consumers work that way. Hell, that person can just be a hired face, the office could have a dumb terminal to their website. They'd still have to do whatever local business registration and whatnot, but they certainly don't have to buy a couple acres, put up some big fancy building, etc...

    31. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are valid reasons why car salesdroids are found with kongresskritters at the bottom of lists of occupations that are respected, etc: they are human-shaped piles of shit... (i guess those are the two career paths for sociopaths: politician or salesdroid)

      having run the gauntlet to get new vehicles in the last couple years, they are -in fact- SCUM... *thought* i could eliminate some of the contact with the slime when i did a lot of the pre-sales stuff online, but it was still the same old 'make'em wait until they will sign anything' routine when we went into the dealership...

      *STRONGLY* suspect one dealer (honda) was messing with their wifi availability while we were in the dealership negotiating and attempting to look up prices online... then they both lied to us, and fucked us over on an install of an aftermarket bluetooth phone capability...

      when we run out of lawyers, salesdroids will be great for filling in sinkholes...
      dog damn, i hate those bastards...

    32. Re:Sour Grapes by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      It's not like tesla is going to impact their bottom line heavily

      Yes, it is. Otherwise, they wouldn't be complaining. In fact, Tesla outsold all of their high-end competitors in California by quite a bit, and it's not just "electric car" it's "well-made electric car with true innovation going on." Lazy has-been competitors are just being lazy has-beens, whining instead of working on catching up.

      hybrids and electrics are disliked by a lot of people

      Wow, what an incredibly stupid statement. I'm sure some dumb-fucks have a dumb-fuck political reason for disliking them, but that's probably due to stupidity. Other than that, what's to dislike? Better fuel efficiency? Again, I'm sure some dumb-fucks have a dumb-fuck reason, but sane, rational consumers are looking for a good deal.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    33. Re:Sour Grapes by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

      So what the living fuck happened

      Well, you have to recognize that "conservatives" aren't anymore, they are con-artists. The "conservative" movement has been sabotaged by a pack of slimy con-men who are out to loot the public's treasure wherever they can get their hands on it. That is all they are about anymore, and the sooner people wake up to this, the better.

      "Small government" is just small for the con-artists, whose scams are now being legalized so that the maximum number of people can be fleeced.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    34. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Texan I am absolutely disguisted by this. So having a conservative state legislature is bad for a lot of reasons. However, supposedly one of the benefits is keeping the government out of things it has no business in. So what the living fuck happened.

      That's how they sell the soap, son!

      Suckers believe what they are told - instead of judging by actions. Words instead of deeds.

      The Texas Ledge is about as "Conservative" as Bozo the Clown. They are mostly authoritarian, pro-bizness, anti-federalist radicals wholly owned by oil companies. True conservatives don't want to destroy government or deny it funding, they just want it to run lean and mean.

      For example real conservatives wouldn't ever give corporate tax breaks to anybody, they'd just penalize bad actors with extra fees and fines (for pollution, misuse of scarce resources, etc.). The difference is profound; pro-business radicals always give tax breaks to their cronies which diminishes the public coffers. Real conservatives can be trusted to be cheapskates.

    35. Re:Sour Grapes by Megane · · Score: 2

      What happened is that most career politicians know the value of keeping the oligarchs happy. You can have all the free trade you want as long as it doesn't affect my buddy over there who donated $20,000 to my campaign last year and who I play golf with monthly. The ones who don't know the value of it are generally beaten in the next election by the buddy of the guy who donated $20,000 to his campaign and plays golf with him monthly.

      It's sort of like evolution, except it's driven by the guys who throw money around so that they can keep making more money to throw around.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    36. Re:Sour Grapes by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The thing is that most people are familiar with kilowatt-hours as that is how energy is measured in most homes.... even in Europe and elsewhere. It is also an easy to understand unit of energy, as you comprehend that a kilowatt-hour is literally running ten 100 watt lightbulbs for an hour (or just one of those for ten hours).

      It really isn't all that bastardized of a unit as things go, and it is in the realm of human experience, while megajoules simply aren't something people can grasp from typical experience.

      It sure isn't an imperial unit, which would be BTUs instead.

    37. Re:Sour Grapes by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      People forget that the reason these laws exist is that when cars were "new" there were many manufactures that were here today and gone tomorrow. Cars were considered equipment and machinery. Having to buy from a local dealer meant that there was somebody local to service it and to hold accountable if there were problems with it. In addition, at a time when most cars were made in Michigan, there were many disputes in the courts that had to be settled in Michigan, because that is where the sale officially took place. Back in the 1900s, it was not practical for somebody to travel 1000 miles to go to Detroit to file a claim against the auto company. Dealership laws changed all of that as the sales were now local sales.

      Using Tesla as an example, if you were in Texas, where there are no dealers and you purchased direct, and had a problem, how would you get the problem resolved and under the laws of which state? Dealership laws were created to protect the purchaser, not the company.

    38. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see how allowing laws that control how people conduct their business can even be considered private law, since it applies generally and not to those that come under contract in that judicial sphere. Under private law Tesla and their costumers would be in no way forced to comply with the law of the dealers unless they voluntarily came bound under contract by it.

      You seem to think that if private law was applied it would be like todays public law, free market also applies to branches of governance my dear fellow. Also a small government is only small if it weakens all three branches.

    39. Re:Sour Grapes by jcgam69 · · Score: 2

      If Tesla survives (which is looking pretty likely at this point) I vow to never buy another car from a dealer ever again.

    40. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Texan I am absolutely disguisted by this. So having a conservative state legislature is bad for a lot of reasons. However, supposedly one of the benefits is keeping the government out of things it has no business in. So what the living fuck happened.

      Since when have Texas conservatives been for small government? Not long ago, the Republican Party platform called for jailing people who have gay sex. They stand for low taxes on income (huge taxes on everything else). They stand for massive law enforcement and jails (full of minorities). They're currently trying to make it harder to vote, but can't find any evidence of voter fraud to justify it. Sure, they don't like environmental laws. Oh, and there's Lamar Smith.

    41. Re:Sour Grapes by Teancum · · Score: 1

      What is being done in both Texas and Massachusetts is that there are auto dealers who are in fact trying to force Tesla in to accepting their companies as distributors of Tesla products... a relationship that Tesla simply doesn't want to have. Tesla is willing to work with local governments in terms of having company owned assets that conform to local laws, but what it is fighting is having those governments force an unwanted business relationship onto them that amounts to be a tax lining the pockets of a well connected local businessman in those areas.

      The situation that really caused the problem is that Tesla has been going to strip malls and botique outlets to set up a store rather than the traditional 10 acre dealership lot as well. Some of this is also an attempt to force Tesla to buy that fancy real estate and huge buildings.

    42. Re:Sour Grapes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I don't see why Tesla can't pull up a trust suit for anticompetitive practice.

    43. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The kilowatt-hour (kWh) is an amalgamated unit comprising energy consumption over time. Just as the "kilometer per hour" is an amalgamated unit comprising distance over time.

      2) Your equation of an amalgamated unit and a solitary one is slightly disingenuous in that it conflates two separate measurements -- that is to say you are equating amounts-of-energy-used-over-a-period-of-time with a fixed-amount-of-energy. While calculations can bear out that they're effectively equivalent, what you're doing is like looking at a pump and equating it's flow-rate to a fixed volume of stuff that it can pump: i.e. 5 gallons-per-minute versus 300gallons (the number of gallons that said pump could move in an hour). -- You would never look at a 5 gal/min pump and call it a "300 gallon pump" and doing so would be just as technically incorrect as saying "1kWh is the same as 3.6MJ"

      -AC

    44. Re:Sour Grapes by Jappus · · Score: 1

      Private law (privileges) do not mean that they only apply to yourself. It means that the law is your own law.

      For example, a privilege of kings in times past was to hunt in the royal woods (i.e. all woods owned by the king; under strong feudalism that meant all woods). Only the king and his men were allowed to hunt. If you were caught "poaching", that was usually punished quite draconically.

      As such, the law was private in so far as that it applied to, or benefited a select few; not private in so far as that only the king was beholden to it.

      Another form of private law is when you enact a general law that ostensibly applies to everyone, but only benefits specific individuals. One such law was the three-class voting system of 17th-19th century Europe.
      For example, in the German Empire (1871-1918), every free man over 25 was allowed to vote. But the vote was not equal (aside from excluding ~70% of the population to begin with).

      You see, the parliament was split into three categories of seats: 1/3rd of the seats were elected by the general populace. 1/3rd by the clerus (church) and the last 1/3rd by the landed aristocracy.
      Which meant that 90% of the voting populace was represented by the first third; the 8% working for the church got the next third and the last third was voted in by a paltry 2% of the voting populace (~0.5% of the general population). Three guesses how the parliament usually voted...

      This law applied to everyone, and by becoming filthy rich enough to buy yourself into either the church or into landed aristocracy, you could increase the effect of your own vote. But still, this law was in effect a private law, as it applied to different people differently -- in other words: it granted a privilege.

      Some private laws are unavoidable or sensible -- like withholding the right to vote from significantly mentally disabled or ill persons; or from children whose vote would be no more than either white noise or the vote of their parents.

      But most private laws are just this: plainly unjust.

    45. Re:Sour Grapes by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Your equation of an amalgamated unit and a solitary one is slightly disingenuous in that it conflates two separate measurements -- that is to say you are equating amounts-of-energy-used-over-a-period-of-time with a fixed-amount-of-energy. While calculations can bear out that they're effectively equivalent, what you're doing is like looking at a pump and equating it's flow-rate to a fixed volume of stuff that it can pump: i.e. 5 gallons-per-minute versus 300gallons (the number of gallons that said pump could move in an hour). -- You would never look at a 5 gal/min pump and call it a "300 gallon pump" and doing so would be just as technically incorrect as saying "1kWh is the same as 3.6MJ"

      A joule is "kilogram-meter per second per second". In other words, a joule is the minimum energy needed to accelerate a one-kilogram weight from standstill to the speed of one meter per second. A more powerful engine can deliver this energy in a shorter time than a less powerfull one, which then gives rise to watt, which is joules per second. And that, in turn, leads us to why watt-hour is just another way of saying "3.6 MJ" : a watt is joules per second; an hour has 3600 seconds; 1000 joules per second times 3600 seconds is 3,600,000 joules; 3,600,000 joules is 3.6 megajoules.

      They aren't "effectively equivalent" (what would that even mean?), they're the same thing. In exactly the same way as the volume of stuff a pump with a fixed flow rate can pump over a fixed time is not "effectively equivalent" to a volume, it is a volume.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:Sour Grapes by drkoemans · · Score: 1

      Forcing someone to use a middle man by law is pants-on-head retarded.

      To be fair, politicians prefer to be be known as mentally challenged.

    47. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And every one of the hypocrites votes republican to keep the "guberment" outta their business. Fucking scum. just about covers it.

    48. Re:Sour Grapes by arobustus · · Score: 1

      Owners of Auto Dealerships are the biggest conservative rock-ribbed Republicans going. This is THEIR regulation, so well that's different. You'll hear them go on about how they are pillars of the community, support little league teams, etc. etc. If the government is going to subsidize little league teams then just do it up front.

    49. Re:Sour Grapes by hawk · · Score: 1

      three-tier laws in most states were not to protect the distributors, but to protect against out of state manufacturers controlling the industry.

      Still a protection of local interests, but not quite the one it looks like . . .

      doc hawk

    50. Re:Sour Grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if your model can't compete you're going to lose"? I assume you mean if it can't compete in some fantasy free market which never existed and probably never will. Because in the market as it exists now, it can certainly win, if it can get laws written giving it advantages; if it can borrow more money than its competitors and buy it out; if it can exploit copyright or patent law to burden its competitors; or any of a vast number of other ways that I'm not smart enough to figure out.

  2. how amusing by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Telsa's claims might be misleading, but if you want a pathological lying sack of shit, look no further than your local car dealer.

    1. Re:how amusing by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tesla's claims ARE misleading.

      They need to be clear about your out-of-pocket costs - your actual payment to Tesla's finance company.

      ALSO, dealerships exist only to fuck customers out of useless middleman money by skimming off the top and providing overpriced service.

    2. Re:how amusing by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tesla's claims ARE misleading.

      They need to be clear about your out-of-pocket costs - your actual payment to Tesla's finance company.

      ALSO, dealerships exist only to fuck customers out of useless middleman money by skimming off the top and providing overpriced service.

      If you actually buy the car, the payment is quite clear on the paperwork... But really, If someone buying a $70,000 car can't float the $7500 tax refund until next year when he gets it back from taxes, then he shouldn't be buying a $70,000 car.

    3. Re:how amusing by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, however.... dealerships aren't particularly up front about that information either. You can calculate it yourself easily enough... but the figure that they advertise cars for is in my experience substantially less than what you'll actually end up forking out after all is said and done.

    4. Re:how amusing by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      You may have stumbled onto why Tesla cars are so popular amongst the people who've bought them despite all the saber-rattling the dealerships are doing.

    5. Re:how amusing by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Telsa's claims might be misleading, but if you want a pathological lying sack of shit, look no further than your local car dealer.

      Or it's the guy in back doing the actual financing. He makes sure he makes money on the front AND back end of the deals. I worked delivering new cars for a dealership for a time, and got to overhear some of the shenanigans that get pulled, including forging the customer's names to paperwork. (Leases are usually never good deals for the buyer, but the dealerships always make money on them.)

    6. Re:how amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it wasn't Shakespeare, but it wasn't Offtopic either, so +1 Underated to you sir.

    7. Re:how amusing by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that is the problem. These practices are so common that if Tesla did not do them, people wouldn't look a them and go 'oh, how honest!', they will look at the prices and think they are oddly more expensive. When everyone in an industry is dishonest in the same way consumers tend to compensate, even if they do not realize it.

    8. Re:how amusing by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Whaaa! I can't cheat and lie and obfuscate the truth. Whaaa!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:how amusing by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      But then again, most makers that sell both direct and thru distributers/wholesalers/dealers will typically price their in-house sales to the public at full retail price (hey, lets call that the MSRP!) and heavily discount to the distributers/wholesalers/dealers, which lets the second tier dealer charge the same or less and still make $.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    10. Re:how amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Several months ago I priced out a Model S, and grew increasingly frustrated with their pricing "shenanigans" based on assumptions about my driving habits, rebates, phase of the moon, etc. It seemed like they were 'reaching' for the payback to make it appear as a lower payment. It's MBA's in action. I did not like it one bit. Just give me the price, or give me a true monthly payment rate, no BS shenanigans of how much my payment might appear to be. If I'm writing a check for $1100/month, don't show me that my payment is $700. So in that respect, I agree with the dealers. For everything else though, let capitalism take its course. If Tesla is doing a good job selling cars online - let them sell them. Dealers need to adapt their business model. That's what's so great about innovation - it pushes the edge.

    11. Re:how amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can go to any car dealership, price out a car with my current credit score (a great one, I should add), and get a $300 a month payment. By the time I'm signing papers, the payment WILL go up to ~$500-600. I've never even heard of someone not having this experience.

    12. Re:how amusing by drkim · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...dealerships exist only to fuck customers out of useless middleman money by skimming off the top and providing overpriced service.

      I believe the term for this is, PIMP

    13. Re:how amusing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But most auto dealers make a business out of being unclear about out-of-pocket costs. Tesla's playing the same game all the dealers do, only without being in the club.

    14. Re:how amusing by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Tesla's claims ARE misleading.

      How are Tesla's claims misleading? It lists "EFFECTIVE MONTHLY COST" and "ESTIMATED PAYMENT" The effective monthly cost is calculated based on data and numbers you provide... What is misleading?

    15. Re:how amusing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I bought a car a couple years ago, first time from a traditional dealer (previously it had been a no-haggle Saturn and paid for without financing). It was a big surprise the difference between the cost listed on the window and the actual final cost, even without the undercoating.

    16. Re:how amusing by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      My first new car was Saturn, with the no-haggle price up front. So when I bought it and ended up at the finance guy I told him I was paying in cash, and the sparkle left his eyes so fast I thought the lights had gone out. Nothing like being forced to do some paperwork without getting a commission to ruin a dealer's day.

    17. Re:how amusing by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      They are just giving Tesla free press in the end, and public sympathy. They are building up competition that will eventually be able to sell directly (so I hope since most people seem to be against it) to people, and eventually have a lower cost car that competes.

      They helped get Tesla off the ground, and I think soon, Tesla is gonna mess their bottom line up quite a bit.

    18. Re:how amusing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's the same thing that Nissan and GM do for their Electric cars. So why no complaints about them?

    19. Re:how amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telsa's claims might be misleading, but if you want a pathological lying sack of shit, look no further than your local car dealer.

      <old joke>
      A rich uncle asked his nephew what he wanted for Christmas. The boy answered "A cowboy outfit".
      So the uncle bought him a car dealership.
      </old joke>

    20. Re:how amusing by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      They put that tru-coat on at the factory, there's nothing I can do about it.

    21. Re:how amusing by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      ... but if you want a pathological lying sack of shit, look no further than your local car dealer.

      Damn! I desparately needed one yesterday.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    22. Re:how amusing by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      You'll have to excuse the oil industry trolls who are making as much concern as they can. Their business model is about to evaporate completely and they don't know what to do, so spread FUD and confusion!

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    23. Re:how amusing by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Why do you think most dealships don't have online pricing and ordering?

      Face-to-smarmy-face "negotiation" leaves very little evidence. A website remains out there to pick apart, criticise, and even level formal charges of false advertising.

      Tesla needs to suck it up and aspire to be more ethical than their competition. It's not as if their ridiculous and misleading pricing calculator ever tipped a sale decision. People who are buying a Tesla are buying it regardless of cost.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    24. Re:how amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the advertised MSRP is for a base model with nothing it, which no dealer has on the lot. This is why the price is always more than advertised.

  3. But at least their EPA estimates are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After 30 years of automakers blatantly providing theoretical and incredibly optimistic EPA estimates for gas mileage, you'd think that dealers would be willing to give a little on another car maker fudging some other numbers on their site.

    1. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the measurements in a windless, perfectly flat indoor area after maintenence at 55mph isn't realistic?

    2. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Certainly they would - *IF* Tesla were letting them take a nice cut of the profits instead of marketing direct to consumers and cutting them out of the picture. Bad precedent my friend. Bad precedent. Just thing of the horrors that could be unleashed if other manufacturers started following suite and cut the mostly-useless parasitic dealerships out of the loop.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by turkeyfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dealerships aren't entirely parasitic. That is an overstatement of reality. There is a benefit to having a local dealership to go to when things go wrong as they always do. Murphy makes sure of that.

      I really don't see the route to complaining to the DMV is going to do dealerships much good as the effort only serves to widen awareness of the economic issues involved and these are trending toward Tesla's favor. If dealers are really concerned about Tesla, they would do better to insist that the car manufacturers they buy from have a better electric car than does Tesla. Once battery swap stations become more widely available for Tesla's new 400 mile per charge battery, they better have some other alternatives or they are going to quickly start to loose business quickly. Dealerships that branch out to provide battery swaps may well be those that survive, because the 2-4000 dollars per year you can save if you don't have to buy gas is a big incentive over the life of a car becomes increasingly attractive to those with slimmer wallets, especially if lower overall maintenance costs go with it.

    4. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      After 30 years of automakers blatantly providing theoretical and incredibly optimistic EPA estimates for gas mileage, you'd think that dealers would be willing to give a little on another car maker fudging some other numbers on their site.

      The blame for that lies with the EPA, not the automakers. You should also blame the EPA for letting the automakers make totally irrelevant mpg claims for plug-in hybrids.

    5. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or they are going to quickly start to loose business quickly.

      10 Words You Need to Stop Misspelling.

    6. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The government regulations *are* set by the automakers.

    7. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is a benefit to having a local dealership to go to when things go wrong as they always do.

      Only because manufacturers make it so hard for your local mechanic to diagnose and fix issues, and won't deal with them for warranty problems or for buying parts directly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      EPA estimates are done by a standardized government test. The high number is literally start the car and run at freeway speed with some minimal starting and stopping. It's designed to be the upper limit that you probably won't reach. That said, I have exceeded it in my car when I filled with gas and then immediately drove from Southern California to Las Vegas. There wasn't much traffic so my cruise stayed at 75 the whole time. The top EPA on my car was 31 but that day I got 32. Some hypermilers get as much as 41 on my car.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    9. Re:But at least their EPA estimates are right. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Yes, getting raped by absurd repair fees and crappy service from the dealer is totally worth all the other stupid crap they do.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  4. If you cant beat em... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

    bitch about it.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  5. Both black. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the pot meets the kettle...

    1. Re:Both black. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's not turn this into a race thing.

    2. Re:Both black. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a show on sales techniques once that filmed as two hot chicks go in car dealerships and see how the salesmen performed...the fat bald white guy who wacks off to too much porn started getting all sweaty and creepy while the black dude was smooth as fuck and got the sale.

  6. let's all shed a tear for car dealers by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there's a reason why they call it disruptive technology, scumbags

    we don't need you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:let's all shed a tear for car dealers by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Hey, car dealers!!!

      I've got a buggy whip business I'm willing to franchise out to you!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:let's all shed a tear for car dealers by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Being in the process of buying a car myself (ordered it Monday) that I have been researching for months online, I actually popped by the dealer last night on my way home and asked a couple questions. He had answers to them immediately and I haven't been able to find out myself. Dealers do serve a purpose, even if we don't want to admit it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:let's all shed a tear for car dealers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should make a movie about scumbag zombies. That would be great.

  7. no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure car dealers will have no troubles rallying massive grassroots support to put a stop to this menace to a cherished American institution.

    1. Re:no problem by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am sure they will find a way. If not directly, they will try it indirectly like associating Tesla with political movements that make them sound socialist or otherwise un-american... or they will associate them with the _wrong_ elites (i.e. not the rich sexy people who deserve all they have and are better then us, but the wrong rich people who do not deserve their wealth and think they are better then us)... stuff like that. More then one way to convince consumers to screw themselves as long as you can tie your business needs to some pre-existing social narrative.

    2. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure car dealers will have no troubles rallying massive grassroots support to put a stop to this menace to a cherished American institution.

      Yeah, from politicians.

    3. Re:no problem by schlachter · · Score: 1

      what's the point of a car dealer anyhow. i'd rather buy directly from the manufacturer.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    4. Re:no problem by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If not directly, they will try it indirectly like associating Tesla with political movements that make them sound socialist or otherwise un-american...

      Didn't Al Gore invent the electric car? Isn't that all you need to know?

      But seriously, this is clearly "sour grapes". Can there really be any reasonable reason why a consumer products company should not sell their product to anyone who wants to buy it?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:no problem by LMariachi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The manufacturers generally don’t want the hassle of owning and managing a nation-wide network of storefronts. As with any large retail franchise, having independent dealers provides them with a buffer of sorts: If the manufacturer’s much-hyped new model turns out to be a lemon, it’s the dealers who are stuck with the inventory. If a dealership goes out of business for whatever reason, it’s no skin off the company’s teeth.

      Dealerships exist for the convenience of the manufacturers, not the customers.

    6. Re:no problem by blindseer · · Score: 2

      If the dealers are a convenience for the manufacturers then would not Tesla also take advantage of this? I understand your point but if private dealers are such a benefit then Tesla would not bother with direct sales.

      I believe that economies of scale come into play here, for very large auto makers independent dealers are advantageous. For small auto makers direct sales are advantageous. Should Tesla do well and sell many more cars there may come a time where direct sales do not grant them an advantage. That's just a theory.

      Another theory. Existing large auto makers have to deal with a lot of legal and economic inertia that keeps them from direct sales. Tesla is free from this and may prove independent dealers to be a poor means of selling cars in the near future.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dealers dont get stuck with anything. The cars on the dealer lot are not paid for. If the dealer goes out of business the manufacterer eats it all. The cars are financed to the dealer through a credit agency owned by the manufacterer on a no money down, no interest, net 45 day till sale arrangement.

    8. Re:no problem by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Someone mod the AC up: manufacturers are basically responsible for the car until it moves off of the dealer's lot. That's why a lemon tanks a manufacturer's stock and balance sheet, and dealerships basically keep on trucking.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a law passed during the Reagan years. That is why you just can't pick a Honda as you imagined it on their website. You'd wind up going to the dealership for a close approximation with bundled sport package C that resembles the options you had wanted.

    10. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the manufacturer’s much-hyped new model turns out to be a lemon, it’s the dealers who are stuck with the inventory.

      Yes! This is exactly why certain models of vehicles get recalled and the manufacturer has to deal with the lemons they put out. Did you even apply any semblance of thought to your knee-jerk reactionary post, or are you just a shill for car dealerships?

    11. Re:no problem by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      I didn’t mean lemon as in defective, I meant lemon as in unpopular.

    12. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dealerships exist for the convenience of the manufacturers, not the customers.

      Ironic, considering that dealerships (and the dealer franchise laws) were created in the first place over the objections of the car manufacturers for the benefit of customers.

      The basic idea was that manufacturers would sell to dealers for relatively consistent prices, who would then sell to customers for a fair price, insulated from the manufacturers' shenanigans. This was decades before the "window sticker" or manufacturer-owned financing companies, the latter existing really only to bypass the rule that manufacturers can't sell directly to consumers.

    13. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true. Some dealerships do buy the cars though not always outright. Giving them a huge advantage in pricing(they receive it through a rebate program so there invoiced the same) but also assuming more risk. If you shop around for your dealer and you find one willing to sell lower then anyone else, he probably owns the cars. In my experience these dealers tend to a little more honest. Small independent dealers who buy their cars are getting really hard to find.

    14. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand your point but if private dealers are such a benefit then Tesla would not bother with direct sales.

      Tesla's also not selling a million cars per year. If/when the volume reaches a certain level, then I would expect them to start incorporating dealers into their plans.

    15. Re:no problem by Megane · · Score: 1

      No, you silly person, Al Gore invented the Internet. The electric car was invented by Ed Begley Jr.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    16. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dealers dont get stuck with anything. The cars on the dealer lot are not paid for. If the dealer goes out of business the manufacterer eats it all. The cars are financed to the dealer through a credit agency owned by the manufacterer on a no money down, no interest, net 45 day till sale arrangement.

      Incorrect. The vehicles are not on consignment or similar. They are purchased by the dealer. The Manufacturers Statement (or Certificate) of Origin clearly indicates that they were purchased. Yes, most dealers use a flooring agent who is many times the financing arm of the manufacturer. Ally bank is currently the largest flooring agent and they do not manufacture any cars. If the dealer knows he is going to go under, he would be wise to dump his inventory at net to any other franchise owner or owners. If he doesn't, the bank seizes all assets, then takes them to auction, then sues the dealer for the rebates and difference in invoice vs sale.

      You are confusing floor plan allowances with sales. If a dealer sold his entire stock in a day he would be out of business the next day because the floor plan has to be paid within three days. Banks typically fund contracts within three to five days up to two weeks for special (subprime) finance. Rebates get paid in 4-6 weeks. If a dealer is floor planned he doesn't have enough money to pay for his inventory and would be unable to pay for it cash when its due. Ally is particularly unfavorable to dealers that went out of trust (over the credit limit from assets being sold and not paid)

      That is why cash for clunkers destroyed many dealers. They sold too much too quickly.

  8. Free Enterprise! by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ain't free enterprise great in America? You can do anything, as long as you cut the vested interests in for a piece of the action. Thankfully though we're not a bunch of economically ignorant Neanderthals that would do something stupid like put a nickel tariff on a pair of socks. That would be interfering in commerce!

    1. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the reason we don't do heavy tariffs anymore is because it's already known that they only serve to damage the local economy. Sure you might save the sock salesman's job, but it'll have a much greater cost elsewhere in the economy that isn't immediately obvious.

      Say we put that nickel tariff on socks, does that make Canada (or any country for that matter) find our socks more attractive than China's? Nope, in fact they're now less attractive because they cost more here. In Canada the sock prices will go down, but ours will be more likely to remain higher (That's the whole point right? Otherwise why bother with this tariff?) Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks here than Canada might pay (because they don't have said tariff.) Since Canada now pays less for socks, they also now have more money to spend on other things than we do. So in the end, we've crippled our own economy relative to theirs by sticking that tariff on there.

      Historically this holds true - imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. If you add that tariff to slow those imports, you're guaranteed to not only reduce exports, but you're also going to kill local jobs.

      Go have a look at the effect of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. That was the cause of the great depression. It is the ultimate lesson to be learned about tariffs and why mercantilism is flat out wrong on so many levels.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQon4tjlSA

      Personally I think we should get rid of all tariffs. Corporations love tariffs by the way - and so do unions. They want tariffs so that they can protect themselves against competition and raise prices instead of competing proper. They do this at the expense of somebody else's job somewhere else, not really giving a fuck about them.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:Free Enterprise! by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "the" cause huh?

      Sorry, but such a complex historical event can not be simplified to a single 'cause'. Then again, your entire argument reeks of simplification. A good tax strategy requires careful balancing of multiple types since they ALL have consequences. Tarrifs benefit some segments and hurt others, same with personal income, sales, property, license, and pretty much any other tax type. All of them try to take a cut of economic movement, but if you cut too deeply into one type or another it just moves elsewhere or breaks down.

    3. Re:Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks here than Canada might pay (because they don't have said tariff.) ...

      Have you been shopping in Canada? I live in USA near the border and with very few exceptions everything costs more in Canada. The Canuks come here to shop, and save money.

    4. Re:Free Enterprise! by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      You helped prove my point. The whole issue of unnecessary rent seeking middle men like car dealerships, and how they get their cozy little businesses locked in by law, passes you by without comment. Meanwhile, a nickel tariff on socks merits a treatise on the wonders of "free trade". Hint 1: a nickel on a pair of socks ain't Smoot-Hawley. Hint 2: the political lock-in of car dealerships costs you a lot more than a nickel on a pair of imported socks would. That was kinda my point.

    5. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Either that or somebody else may have said something on the matter that I already agreed with, and I didn't feel the need to add anything about it.

      Just maybe.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:Free Enterprise! by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that anyone advocating free enterprise supports these rent-seeking middlemen?

      I think you will find that we are against tariffs *and* these fucking car dealers/real estate agents/funeral home directors/alcohol distributors/whoever else gets their goddamn business model made mandatory by the government. I mean, coercing someone to use your services by force of law is the antithesis of free enterprise.

      So, were you deliberately trying to use a strawman fallacy to mischaracterize free enterprise supporters, or was your comment intended to be a satirical, "scummy politicians who enable crony capitalism are scum" implication? The latter I can certainly agree with.

      You helped prove my point. The whole issue of unnecessary rent seeking middle men like car dealerships, and how they get their cozy little businesses locked in by law, passes you by without comment. Meanwhile, a nickel tariff on socks merits a treatise on the wonders of "free trade".

      Ah, okay, then it's probably strawman. To illustrate your fallacy, I refer you to the cliched joke:

      Hitler walks up to Stalin and says, "I will kill six million Jews and one clown!"
      Stalin says, "Why are you going to kill one clown?"
      Hitler turns to Himmler and says, "See? I told you no one cares about the Jews!"

      You infer too much from the absence of specific commentary. I mean, god damn, no one likes middle men. Hm, except if they call themselves "union", then apparently those are good & righteous according to certain political bents.

    7. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      Of course it benefits some segments, I don't think anybody will argue against that one.

      Just it benefits them at an even bigger cost to somebody else, which is a rather dick move. I often get accused of being a cold hearted libertarian, yet the people who make those accusations seem to think that having the government protect your job while kicking somebody else to the curb is such a nice benevolent thing to do.

      It's not just jobs that this impacts though. I mean the sugar sellers love not having to compete, which is partly why in America our traditional meals always include high fructose corn syrup. Also keep in mind that this isn't quite the same as a tax - strictly speaking, a tax is designed to collect revenue, whereas a tariff is designed to protect a market against competition. Does it collect revenue? Yeah, but it's discriminatory with the explicit intention of lowering sales.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    8. Re:Free Enterprise! by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "Since Canada now pays less for socks, they also now have more money to spend on other things than we do. So in the end, we've crippled our own economy relative to theirs by sticking that tariff on there."

      Uh, I'm not sure that's the whole picture. If I pay an extra nickel for socks, it's not like that nickel disappears into a black hole. The nickel then becomes part of the economy. My payment is your salary, and a nickel paid in taxes is a nickel spent again in the economy.

      The point of tariffs is to encourage a broad local economy (protectionism). Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost tobe "worth it" for other reasons. National security is an obvious example: we don't want to buy our nuclear bombs from North Korea, even if they could provide them cheaper than we can build them on our own.

    9. Re:Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh....

    10. Re:Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...we don't do heavy tariffs anymore..."

      What planet do you live on? Is the weather nice there?

      Tarrifs are alive and well, we just call them by a different name...subsidies.

      If I raise the import price by a $1 for an imported item (tarrif) or a lower the price of a domestic item by $1 (subsidy),

      that dollar still comes out of your pocket either way.

      Both are evil but at least the tariffs are honest.

    11. Re:Free Enterprise! by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I watched that video, and Smoot-Hawley most certainly did _not_ cause the great depression, nor did Sowell say that. Most economists seem to agree that the act helped prolong the great depression, but that is a far cry from the cause. The economy doesn't heal from black tuesday after a few months and then suddenly get taken down by an overzealous tariff. Next you'll say that the cash for clunkers caused the recent recession.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    12. Re:Free Enterprise! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but such a complex historical event can not be simplified to a single 'cause'.

      Indeed. No less of a free trade advocate than Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had only a minor effect on the Great Depression.

      Then again, your entire argument reeks of simplification. A good tax strategy requires careful balancing of multiple types since they ALL have consequences.

      Uh, oh. Sounds like you took Econ 102. Don't you know that you're supposed to stop at Econ 101 and learn to parrot "free trade good", regardless of circumstances, other concerns, or economic issues that are more important at a given time.

    13. Re:Free Enterprise! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that we

      There's a monolithic "we"? Sounds like an episode called "The Borg take Econ 101".

      Ah, okay, then it's probably strawman.

      It would be a strawman to say that being opposed to one policy precludes being opposed to the other, but that's clearly not what I said (is creating a strawman argument about a supposed strawman argument a strawman squared?). My point was about relative emphasis. You can say you're opposed to two different policies, but if you barely acknowledge one problem, and then only when specifically asked about it, but scream from the rooftops if the second policy is so much as mentioned in a passing quip, it's clear that you have no sense of perspective.

      To illustrate your fallacy, I refer you to the cliched joke

      Why not cite what Stalin actually said, which says far more than a mediocre joke. "One death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic." Which, much as I'm not a big fan of Ol' Joe, illustrates my point about relative emphasis.

    14. Re:Free Enterprise! by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The Chicken Tax is still alive and well, adding a 25% tarriff to commercial vehicles built overseas. There's a reason all those Ford Transit Connects come from Turkey with windows and seats, which are shredded and the windows replaced with sheet metal when they arrive in the US. It is far more cost effective to build in Turkey, ship it to the US, destroy brand new seats and windows, and put in sheet metal plugs than it is to build it here. And the cost? well, that just gets passed on to the consumer.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    15. Re:Free Enterprise! by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I think the reason we don't do heavy tariffs anymore is because it's already known that they only serve to damage the local economy. Sure you might save the sock salesman's job, but it'll have a much greater cost elsewhere in the economy that isn't immediately obvious.

      Say we put that nickel tariff on socks, does that make Canada (or any country for that matter) find our socks more attractive than China's? Nope, in fact they're now less attractive because they cost more here. In Canada the sock prices will go down, but ours will be more likely to remain higher (That's the whole point right? Otherwise why bother with this tariff?) Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks here than Canada might pay (because they don't have said tariff.) Since Canada now pays less for socks, they also now have more money to spend on other things than we do. So in the end, we've crippled our own economy relative to theirs by sticking that tariff on there.

      Historically this holds true - imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. If you add that tariff to slow those imports, you're guaranteed to not only reduce exports, but you're also going to kill local jobs.

      Go have a look at the effect of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act. That was the cause of the great depression. It is the ultimate lesson to be learned about tariffs and why mercantilism is flat out wrong on so many levels.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQon4tjlSA

      Personally I think we should get rid of all tariffs. Corporations love tariffs by the way - and so do unions. They want tariffs so that they can protect themselves against competition and raise prices instead of competing proper. They do this at the expense of somebody else's job somewhere else, not really giving a fuck about them.

      I don't see anything wrong with minimal (less than 7% or so) duties. The US has no federal sales tax or VAT, so a small duty compensates for this. A duty this small also ensures that companies aren't shifting jobs overseas to save "just a penny". There has to be real savings (not just net 0) to consider importing. Plus the government gets some guaranteed, undodgable income from corporations, which are increasingly finding more and more clever ways to avoid paying any tax at all.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    16. Re:Free Enterprise! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Say we put that nickel tariff on socks, does that make Canada (or any country for that matter) find our socks more attractive than China's? Nope, in fact they're now less attractive because they cost more here. In Canada the sock prices will go down, but ours will be more likely to remain higher (That's the whole point right? Otherwise why bother with this tariff?) Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks here than Canada might pay (because they don't have said tariff.)

      Now wait, a tariff is an import or export duty, you're talking about a tax. If you place an import-only tariff then you do none of the things you're talking about. You still help local industry remain competitive and you do not raise the price of your exports at all. The price of locally-produced socks does not increase at all, and if it's already at the rock-bottom that can be supported with fair labor laws, then permitting the import of socks at competitive rates from countries with slave labor is only encouraging slavery. It doesn't matter where in the world it's happening. If you're buying goods produced with slave labor then you're enslaving people, or at least, assisting in their enslavement. You cannot pretend to oppose slavery while supporting it. We support slavery at the national level; we merely support it going on in other countries. And then there's our border policy, which promotes virtual slavery. It's actually economically more beneficial than slavery, because you can deport your workers when you are done with them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What removing tariffs does sometimes is move the profits from labour to capital:

      http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2013-fall-elsby-labor-share

    18. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      No I wouldn't say that, however cash for clunkers was a horrible idea and a flat out waste. It literally destroyed wealth and capital for pretty much no good reason - several environmentalists even got together and did the math, and they found that cash for clunkers probably saved about an hour worth of carbon emissions per year, with several of them being upset because the costs of that program could have been better spent elsewhere to much greater effect.

      Besides that, the program cost the taxpayers about $24,000 per car sold, however the cost to the economy itself was much greater due to the destruction of capital (the program itself required that the cars weren't too old and had to work at least somewhat decently in order to qualify for destruction.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

      Obama has done a lot of dumb things during his term, and this is by far one of the dumbest. And I'm going to say that anybody who thinks it is a good idea is also dumb.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    19. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Since the price of socks are now more expensive, people also buy less of them. In addition to that, your purchasing power has gone down, which by the way has a worse impact on the poor than inflation and unemployment.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    20. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      You strike me as somebody who gets into fights often over what somebody doesn't say.

      Look guy, the whole topic is about rent seekers, and many people had already said things that I would have said. So I didn't repeat them, otherwise that would be redundant.

      What did you expect me to do, say "Rabble rabble, let's get out our pitchforks and torches and get those rent seekers!" in addition to what I already said? Why bother? Yet I didn't say anything, so you then assume that clearly I'm on their side or that I don't care about them?

      That's a rather stupid and asinine assumption to make, and it says a lot about your character.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    21. Re:Free Enterprise! by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Maybe your purchasing power has gone down by a nickel but the purchasing power of the economy is the same, maybe greater. If you would have put that nickel into your coin jar to languish, then the tariff increased the economy by five cents. That nickel is still there, now in the pocket of a sockmaker or a tax enforcer or a recipient of government services.

      I just don't think it's true that "it's already known that tariffs only serve to damage the local economy". If that were true then there would be no tariffs anywhere in the world because nobody would have an incentive to have one. Every local economy would maximize itself by eliminating tariffs, but that isn't so, so I don't think the premise is right.

      And, again, even if there were an overall cost to the economy all that means is that a preferred policy had a cost. Yeah, things that we want have costs, so the question is whether the cost is worth it.

    22. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Maybe your purchasing power has gone down by a nickel but the purchasing power of the economy is the same, maybe greater. If you would have put that nickel into your coin jar to languish, then the tariff increased the economy by five cents. That nickel is still there, now in the pocket of a sockmaker or a tax enforcer or a recipient of government services.

      No, it does not, namely because it reduces sales. That is what the purpose of a tariff is - to reduce sales of foreign goods. In the process, it also reduces the sales of domestic goods for the same reason that it reduces the sales of foreign goods. It doesn't suddenly make the domestic goods more attractive, rather the domestic goods tend to rise to about the same price level of the foreign goods after the tariff is added. Thus we end up with this:

      - The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls.
      - Since fewer people buy socks, fewer people are spending money.
      - Fewer people spending money means that e.g. distributors, retailers, shippers (well, the whole supply chain really) now have less money to spend.
      - This ripples across the rest of the economy, though in ways that are difficult to quantify or realize.

      Other things to consider are the following:

      - Socks are a form of wealth (money is NOT wealth) and since fewer people have them, they are less wealthy.
      - Generally that nickel means a lot more to a poor person than a rich person, so the rich are only marginally affected.

      I just don't think it's true that "it's already known that tariffs only serve to damage the local economy". If that were true then there would be no tariffs anywhere in the world because nobody would have an incentive to have one. Every local economy would maximize itself by eliminating tariffs, but that isn't so, so I don't think the premise is right.

      You'd think that, but people don't realize that, hence we have them. Case in point: Your first paragraph. Have a look here:

      The essay on Free Trade at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics looks at the issue of international trade policy. In the essay, Alan Blinder states that "one study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry."

      In the year 2000 President Bush raised tariffs on imported steel goods between 8 and 30 percent. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy cites a study which indicates that the tariff will reduce U.S. national income by between 0.5 to 1.4 billion dollars. The study estimates that less than 10,000 jobs in the steel industry will be saved by the measure at a cost of over $400,000 per job saved. For every job saved by this measure, 8 will be lost.

      The cost of protecting these jobs is not unique to the steel industry or to the United States. The National Center For Policy Analysis estimates that in 1994 tariffs cost the U.S. economy 32.3 billion dollars or $170,000 for every job saved. Tariffs in Europe cost European consumers $70,000 per job saved while Japanese consumers lost $600,000 per job saved through Japanese tariffs.

      http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm

      When somebody sees an industry threatened by foreign competition, a tariff is the first idea that comes to their mind. Most people don't actually realize that the US is still by far the largest exporter of goods, and is second only to China in manufacturing. They also don't realize that we don't depend on tariffs to be this way, nor will tariffs ever help us maintain it. Some people subscribe to this idea that the US is completely self sustaining an

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    23. Re:Free Enterprise! by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your cites and your dedication to swaying me. I am listening to what you are saying; I'm not closed minded on this issue. I'm not convinced but I've thought about it and I will continue to do so. Here's my original point which you didn't address:

      "Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost to be 'worth it' for other reasons."

      Policies have costs and give benefits and they are worth it when the benefits are greater than the costs, which might be subjective.

      You also said these pair of statements which aren't exactly oppositional but do lessen each other:

      * Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks
      * The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls

      A current example I'm aware of is tires: apparently we recently put a tariff on Chinese tires and there were stories about poor people struggling to pay for tires -- just like you said. The cost is the increased price of tires and the attendant decreased purchases of other goods [which should be net zero dollars spent in the economy, right?]; the benefits are higher profits for tire manufacturers, jobs in that sector, etc. So is that a tariff that worked out or didn't work out? I don't know but even considering your quite reasonable and complete argument, I don't think it's plain that the answer is that it didn't work out.

    24. Re:Free Enterprise! by volmtech · · Score: 1

      How did all those workers on Henry Ford's assembly lines have jobs in the 20s without foreign competition to not tariff? How could Americans afford to buy Ford cars without a single Toyata around to force the prices down? All those Philco and RCA televisions Americans bought without a single Japanese set to drive the price down? With 100% tariffs no Americans work? All those iPhones and HDTVs we bought from China do not seem to have created too many jobs here.

      Explain how buying Korean cars, made with Korean steel, and removing all those dollars from the American economy, is good for America. The government borrows a trillion dollars a year, a good bit of it from China. From where did China get so many dollars? And what is the real unemployment rate?

      Of course unions love tariffs. You think it's a good thing that your union worker neighbor looses his job? You love competition? You want your neighbors to make the same wage as a Chinese or Indian worker? Would you like no limits on H1B workers?

    25. Re:Free Enterprise! by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      You also said these pair of statements which aren't exactly oppositional but do lessen each other:

      * Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks
      * The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls

      These rules depend on the individual good, depending on available substitutes and other issues, which goes to effect price elasticity. Socks do work both ways on this one, at least in my experience anyways. I like to keep a fair bit of extra socks, and apparently so do other people. However they may keep fewer socks around if they cost more, and at the same time they may hang on to worn out socks longer, etc.

      So is that a tariff that worked out or didn't work out? I don't know but even considering your quite reasonable and complete argument, I don't think it's plain that the answer is that it didn't work out.

      I don't know the math on that particular issue, but every time I have looked into the actual figures, it has always ended up to the tune of the tariff having a net cost on the economy much higher than the salary that would have otherwise been paid to each job that was supposedly saved. In addition to that, remember that the poor are affected by these marginal price increases worse than anybody else.

      What a lot of people also don't realize is that money isn't wealth. Wealth is material goods that you own. I myself have income below the federal poverty level, so by government standards I'm poor. Yet I own a nice car, 5 TV's that are larger than 40", a smartphone with an unlimited everything plan, a house, a nice gaming computer, access to all of the tv shows and movies I want, and plenty of food to eat. I don't feel poor at all (back in the 80's you didn't own a big screen TV, a portable phone, and a personal computer unless you were pretty damn well off.) But, I'm yet another number on a spreadsheet that socialist groups use as justification for saying "see, we need income redistribution." We don't need that to solve the "poor" problem, what we need are cheaper material goods. Tariffs take that away. Tariffs are basically the government saying "you must be at least this rich to have nice things." (When I say rich, I am referring to money, btw.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    26. Re:Free Enterprise! by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The only academic recognition Sowell has is in the form of awards from conservative institutes.

      And checking his wiki page has this nice sentence: "Sowell compared President Barack Obama's actions to Adolf Hitler's in a June 2010 editorial for Investor's Business Daily titled "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?""

      I would find any analysis of economics (or any field) highly suspect, either from a liberal or a conservative, who compared the opposite party's President to Hitler....

    27. Re:Free Enterprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good tax strategy requires careful balancing of multiple types since they ALL have consequences. Tarrifs benefit some segments and hurt others, same with personal income, sales, property, license, and pretty much any other tax type. All of them try to take a cut of economic movement, but if you cut too deeply into one type or another it just moves elsewhere or breaks down.

      Unfortunately, having multiple tax types leads to an unnecessarily complicated legal system, which over the long run will create huge problems from a legal ethics perspective. After all, once you allow lots of complexity in the tax code, it creates a precedent in a fundamental and highly visible area of law that makes it easier to justify and to have a similar level of complexity in other -- less well known but still important -- areas of law. Creating an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals is never a good idea, and the long term economic consequences of creating a legal environment where the legal profession gets to determine the nature, scope, and form of the legal system to its benefit will far outweigh any economic benefits to be obtained from a mixed tax strategy (not to mention the negative consequences for civil liberties).

      The Slashdot community is starting to see some of the negative consequences associated with the legal ethics problem in the abuse of patent and copyright law so prevalent today. Excessive complexity in the legal system also permits abuse of fundamental rights by government agencies such as the NSA, by providing a shield under which those abuses can be disguised.

      Also, having multiple tax types makes it extremely difficult to tell who is actually paying for the services government provides, and how much is being spent. In practice, we end up with all kinds of hidden taxes that are imposed on businesses. These in turn get passed on to consumers without the consumers realizing they're really funding the government above and beyond any income and sales taxes they may be paying. The actual amount of taxes US citizens pay is considerably higher than what gets taken on April 14th.

      The best thing to do, if one values ethical practice of law, and public oversight over government, is to only have one tax type, to make that tax as simple as possible (even when doing so means losing some "potential" income: nothing human beings do is perfect), and to simply accept any negative economic consequences that come from that choice (those consequences, over the long run, can be expected to be fair less painful than the consequences of allowing the legal profession to run amok or the consequences of having lots of hidden taxes).

      A simple tax doesn't have to be a flat tax, but it should be something that can be described in a paragraph or two, easily understandable by any educated adult and it shouldn't be changed very often.

  9. I have a Tesla S by technical_maven · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a stupendous car, the ordering and delivery process was a dream, and the customer support after the sale has been flawless. The other dealers can simply go pound sand! Rather than bitching, try doing everything right like Tesla!

    1. Re:I have a Tesla S by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Let me begin by saying I Hate You. Don't worry, it's entirely due to jealousy. If you had the roadster, I'd probably be coming after you with a knife. :^D

      That said, I'm somewhat curious what happens when you have mechanical problems with your car? I'm not defending the dealer network but are there "Tesla Certified" car-repair places? It's kind of pricey to ship it back to Fremont. I'm sure there's a way to deal with it--I'm just curious what it is.

    2. Re:I have a Tesla S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      God, you people...

      If that guy had been saying great things about Microsoft everyone would have looked at the high UID mention he's a paid shill. Now this guy... this guy has only commented on stories about Tesla. And he gets modded +5 informative! Bias much?

  10. Ford Vs Musk by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Henry Ford fought the cartel of car manufacturers called American Motor Manufacturers Association which claimed patent rights to the automobile and demanded royalty payment for all car makers. Ford defied them, fought them all the way to the Supreme Court and won back in 1900s. Hope Musk fights the dealers, their cartels and their political shenanigans and win. As soon as I can afford it, I will buy a Tesla.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Ford Vs Musk by dk20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to troll, but i wonder what would happen in the "IP" era of the US economy? If Ford tried this today would he still win or would the "patent holders"?

    2. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember the Tucker automobile. No? They were run out by the cartels in the 40's. Seems like a similar situation. Far from being a bastion of free market enterprise Big Business does not want competition they want monopoly. They want to tell the consumer what to buy and they will use any dirty trick they can to ensure their fiefdoms remain secure. Big Business and lawyers have done more to destroy the USian dream than anything else. Far from encouraging innovation and free enterprise they systematically stiffle it at every turn. I am a conservative (not a republican). and hate what our system has become.

    3. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Round wheels for an automobile would be patented and so would using 4 of them and a wheel to steer etc.

      They would file an injunction taking Ford out of the market claiming he had to use square wheels only and a rope and yore to steer. Ford would go out of business while appealing and would loose.

    4. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the Tucker automobile. No? They were run out by the cartels in the 40's.

      I know this is a common belief about Tucker, but it was a shitty car. Tucker was a car salesman, not an engineer.

    5. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      This type of protectionism (like the Texas law) would seem to be a direct violation of the commerce clause of the US constitution. Some industries do seem to have this sort of protectionism in place - particularly alcohol sales where most states have distributorship monopolies and prevent direct marketing to consumers from out of state wineries and distilleries.

      Still, it would appear that there is some hope. Earlier this year a federal court struck down a similar law in Louisiana that prevented direct-to-consumer sales of coffins. There is some ambiguity as this case was decided on the nonsensical and arbitrary nature of the regulations - but the court did indicate that they also would have struck it down on interstate commerce grounds.

    6. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Shompol · · Score: 1

      That's not what Wikipedia thinks

    7. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The one thing that might impact what happens in California though (as opposed to Texas, Massachusetts, or other states) is that Tesla is a California corporation with a California manufacturing plant and California-based network servers. In other words, it could be considered an intrastate matter and something not even under the jurisdiction of a federal court, but rather just the state court system. Of course they also can appeal to the state constitution of California as well, which in many ways offers even more protection in terms of individual liberties than does the federal version and is certainly a two edged sword in a matter like this.

    8. Re:Ford Vs Musk by houghi · · Score: 1

      The company with the most money would win.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >it could be considered an intrastate matter
      HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

      Wow. That's some prime grade ignorance right there.

      Did you know that it's illegal for me to distill alcohol and drink it myself (at least without a lot of permits)? Do you know what power lets Congress (yes, this is federal) make that illegal? Interstate Commerce. Because I *might* sell it out of state. Tesla *does* sell out of state. It *will* fall under interstate commerce and Federal law. It's that simple.

    10. Re:Ford Vs Musk by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to troll, but i wonder what would happen in the "IP" era of the US economy? If Ford tried this today would he still win or would the "patent holders"?

      Only people unfamiliar with history would call today the IP era. The period from the late 1800's through the early 1900's had vastly more corporate, patent, IP and such shenanigans going on. Today is almost comically tame compared to then.

    11. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Do you know what power lets Congress (yes, this is federal) make that illegal? Interstate Commerce. Because I *might* sell it out of state. Tesla *does* sell out of state. It *will* fall under interstate commerce and Federal law. It's that simple.

      No, the power that Congress has to regulate the production and sales of alcoholic beverages is contained in the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, not even the interstate commerce clause.

      I dare say it is you who is utterly ignorant on this matter and doesn't understand that interstate commerce is that commerce which actually crosses state lines. While I will agree that federal law does apply here so far as what Tesla does in Texas and elsewhere, this can be seen as a completely internal matter. Yes, there is Wickard v. Filburn that seems to indicate that the federal government effectively has universal authority over commerce anywhere over anything in America. That isn't what the authors of the U.S. Constitution intended, but at this point that particular side argument is irrelevant.

      What you are also missing in your previous analysis that completely missed the mark is that these dealer associations could also use the state court systems to force an unfavorable (to Tesla) outcome that could completely bypass any precedent used on the federal level. It would be the dealers, not Tesla, that would argue that any federal court jurisdiction on this matter would be inappropriate and outside of that court's jurisdiction. California itself is a sovereign entity unto itself.

    12. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia thinks I have an 18 inch cock and shit strawberries. It may not be 100% reliable.

    13. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I can spend 5 minutes to read a Wikipedia article vs spending 5 months at the Library of Congress searching ancient newspapers, which *SURPRISE!* are even more biased. Anyways, if you disagree with the above article you are free to dispute it here or at Wikipedia, but your cock is not a valid argument.

    14. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is more to it than that. Take a look at Wickard and Raich, the two supreme court cases he was probably alluding to.

      The cases in question say that under the commerce clause the federal government can prevent you from growing your own food on your own land for you own consumption (in the case of Wickard v. Filburn) because if you hadn't grown the food (wheat in this case) you would have had to buy it in the marketplace, which thereby affects the market (because you didn't buy something you would have bought).

      In Raich they extended this logic to marijuana. Growing a plant in your closet that you are only going to use for yourself is interstate commerce because if you hadn't grown it you would have to have bought it.... and even if you bought it from a local supplier, they would have had to buy it over state lines if they didn't grow it themselves locally. Ta-da! Everything that could be bought or sold is now interstate commerce.

    15. Re:Ford Vs Musk by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Auuugh! My browser glitched on the second half of your comment until after I posted. Weird... probably because even firefox knows that Wickard is an abomination.

  11. America: land of the middlemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We haven't had a successful direct-to-consumer manufacturing relationship since the 1900s.

    1. Re:America: land of the middlemen by jythie · · Score: 1

      Middlemen stuff is where the money is, and were there is profit to be made people push into the segment and make it as difficult as possible to avoid them.

  12. Oh, the paragons of virtue! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    From the article:

    It recently blasted Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA] by accusing it of deceptive marketing and pricing practices in the information it shows on its website.

    The "It" in this quote is the auto dealers, a very well known group to be the paragons of virtue and personification of integrity when it comes to selling automobiles and providing accurate information.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  13. Please. Stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's official, NetCraft confirms it: The conventional heat engine is dying.

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered conventional heat engine community when IDC confirmed that conventional car maker market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of all car sales. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that conventional heat engines have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The conventional car market is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Motor Trend comprehensive car test."

    Seriously, I don't think Microsoft even astroturfed this much when Apache gave IIS the reach-around. You know what would be nice? A moratorium on Tesla posts for a while. There is no new information in any of them.

    1. Re:Please. Stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't click them, stupid.

  14. And of course we *ALL* know how misleading... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... auto manufacturers can be about real-world gas consumption of their vehicles.

    I'd call it even, personally.

    1. Re:And of course we *ALL* know how misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk should counter the dealers by financing a class-action lawsuit against their own deceptive marketing practices. Give 'em a taste of their own medicine.

    2. Re:And of course we *ALL* know how misleading... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ... auto manufacturers can be about real-world gas consumption of their vehicles.

      I'd call it even, personally.

      But the complaint was made by car dealers, not car manufacturers.

      The best dealer makes the worst manufacturer look like the paragon of truth and honesty.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:And of course we *ALL* know how misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The car dealers don't care about lying on what cars do when they get to get a cut of the action, as they do with those car dealers lying about gas mileage, but not with Tesla lying about cost of product.

      This shows how the dealers are absolutely NOT paragons of truth and honesty unless you mean that soot black is whiter than graphite black.

  15. You know it's the future... by wjcofkc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when companies are fighting it.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:You know it's the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess we're past the ignoring and laughing phases.

    2. Re:You know it's the future... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  16. Dealers Have Much Worse Ads! by Webcommando · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the fine article:

    Tesla fails to provide required information and shatters the notion of comparison finance shopping by including the potential availability of incentives, gas savings, and tax savings into final payment quotes for prospective customers.

    So the beef is that Tesla isn't being clear about everything and that upsets the dealers. hmm..

    In my local paper, the dealers have ads in every Sunday that advertise a low price. As it was a few weeks ago, I was looking to buy a minivan for the family (I'm not completely domesticate, I still have my convertible). Great price of $22k for a Town and Country...pretty amazing actually. Way at the bottom of the ad were the caveats--includes first car buyer discount, veteran discount, bonus trade-in amount, etc.

    Looking at the discounts there was no way you could be eligible for all of them at the same time. In my case, none of them. Yeah, those Tesla guys are devious and misleading.

    --
    I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
    1. Re:Dealers Have Much Worse Ads! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure car dealer ads are bad, but I'm annoyed how slashdot has turned into an ongoing commercial for Tesla. It's ridiculous how many stories they run on a niche, expensive vehicle. Just get it over with and make a section dedicated to them, so I can ignore it.

    2. Re:Dealers Have Much Worse Ads! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you get both a first car buyer discount AND a trade-in bonus?

    3. Re: Dealers Have Much Worse Ads! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first car I bought, I traded in the car my parents gave me when I got my drivers license.

    4. Re:Dealers Have Much Worse Ads! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Funny

      How could you get both a first car buyer discount AND a trade-in bonus?

      Simple: trade in a car that you didn't buy. I believe GTA5 can provide you with a tutorial for procuring such a vehicle.

  17. Those poor car dealers by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just trying to make an honest livi---

    wait

    1. Re:Those poor car dealers by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Well, if you call that living...

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  18. If you're not with us, you're against us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is it written that we have to pick exactly one "good guy" and one "bad guy" in every conflict, cheering one blindly and booing the other mercilessly?

    Does fact that car dealerships are mounting a buggy-whip-industry-protection campaign mean that Tesla earns a free pass on what really is some pretty deceptive marketing practices?

    A plague on both their houses. If you want honestly, you're not getting it from anyone associated with the auto industry.

  19. CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by sk999 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is really shameful that Tesla is misleading customers with deceptive advertising about its electric cars. Here is a part of the complaint:

    "... the Association says that purchase prices on Tesla's website routinely include a $7,500 federal TAX CREDIT, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office states that only 20 percent of shoppers qualify for the alternative vehicle credit."

    None of the members of the California New Car Dealer's Association would ever stoop so low. Especially GENERAL MOTORS dealers. Especially since, according to this report: http://cncda.org/resources/10-20-08_CNCDA_Ltr-GMAC_CEO_Alvaro_deMolina.pdf GENERAL MOTORS dealers represent over 25% of CDCDA's members. Surely none of them would ...

    Oh wait.

    http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html

    "Chevrolet 2014 Volt"
    "Net price shown includes the FULL $7,500 TAX CREDIT"

    Never mind, move along, nothing to see.

    1. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by retchdog · · Score: 1

      When the system is to try and make as much money as possible, how many Fair-Handed Champions of Equality and Justice do you expect? Of course people are only going to complain about the competition. The point is that the competition will do the same. If competition is too brittle to function in this padded jungle gym, then an entire free market would be a complete non-starter.

      btw, the chevy site gives only a pricing guideline since they're not selling the vehicle; the dealer is. Tesla is the actual dealer. Whether or not this is a Real Difference to you depends on how much you read between the lines, but legally it is an important distinction.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Not sure why you're picking on the Volt as your example vs. any of the other EVs. GM has nothing to do with this lawsuit, or any control over the California dealer association. GM dealers (not GM) may make up 25% of that association - so who are the other 75? Toyota? Go piss on the Prius.

      2) You just so happened to leave off the last 2 characters from your quote of the Chevrolet website.

                Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit*1

                Foot Note:
                1. Each individual's tax situation is unique. Consult your tax professional prior to claiming any credits to confirm the vehicle tax benefits for which you may be eligible. Must be applied by the owner after the purchase of a new Chevrolet Volt.

      The Tesla website has no such explanation. It just says:

      "Electric vehicle incentives range from $7,500 to $15,000 depending on your state and offset your down payment."

    3. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back here in NY state, Mercedes/smart dealers are doing the same thing -- the smart electric is advertized including the full federal tax credit. Not all smart car buyers are going to be in the top tax bracket...

      Note to anyone looking for a smart electric -- I just visited a dealer (who was very friendly, not smarmy like the usual car sales person) and found out they are offering ~$5000 rebates on the last 2013 models. Including the tax credit the bottom line is like $15K, very low price for a new electric car (less than half a Nissan Leaf?). 2014 smart electrics are due in a few weeks.

      My guess is Mercedes have to move a certain number of these tiny electric cars to balance out their high gas consumption big cars, or else face gas guzzler penalties. Or in other words, the smart e rebate is tacked onto the price of the S-class.

    4. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheater. you read the article.

    5. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by aviators99 · · Score: 1

      From TFA:
      "... the Association says that purchase prices on Tesla's website routinely include a $7,500 federal TAX CREDIT, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office states that only 20 percent of shoppers qualify for the alternative vehicle credit."

      The only "qualifications" necessary are:
      1) You would otherwise be paying at least $7,500 in taxes for the year. (For those not informed about such things, this includes what is withheld from your paycheck)

      2) You buy the car new

      3) You keep the car for a year

      I profer:
      1) 99% of those spending this much money on a car has a $7,500 tax bill

      2) The other 1% are just cash-rich and it won't bother them that the final bill will be $7,500 higher

      I assume that when the Congressional Budget Office states that "only 20 percent of *shoppers*" qualify, they are talking about shoppers for Electric Vehicles in general; not specifically Teslas.

    6. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by swillden · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you're picking on the Volt as your example vs. any of the other EVs. GM has nothing to do with this lawsuit, or any control over the California dealer association.

      If the dealer association were also complaining about GM's web site, you'd have a point.

      The Tesla website has no such explanation.

      I suppose there may be someone, somewhere, who would buy a $70K car but not have enough federal income tax liability to recover the full $7500, but I doubt it. The Volt is fairly pricey, but in a different class, one in which it may be more of an issue.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:CNCDA - Pure as Driven Snow by bentcd · · Score: 1

      "... the Association says that purchase prices on Tesla's website routinely include a $7,500 federal TAX CREDIT, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office states that only 20 percent of shoppers qualify for the alternative vehicle credit."

      "Shoppers"? I would take this to mean shoppers in general, 90% of whom would never be able to afford a Tesla anyway.

      Absent evidence to the contrary I'll go out on a limb and categorically state that 98% of people who shop for a Tesla do qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit. And the 2% who do not don't because all their income is hidden away in tax havens.

      I'd say Tesla is writing for their target audience here, and in this context their calculation is pretty much spot on.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
  20. Ah, yes. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Remember this next time some businessman says he shouldn't be regulated because competition will sort everything out.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition does sort everything out. This is simply "extreme competition" - buying influence to remove competitors by alternative means is a perfectly legitimate technique when competing to the death. Sometimes that means buying lawmakers, sometimes it means buying mercenaries. Welcome to true global competition.

  21. Re:hot grits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    hey bro you should check out the novel Bleeding Edge by Thomas Pynchon that just came out last week...it might not have any hot grits in it but it has a lot of other great dotcom nostalgia and enough conspiracy kook shit to be a slashdot must read...kinda surprised they didn't post an article on it actually...

  22. That's exactly it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to force Tesla to sell through them so they can jack up the prices on a product in demand.

  23. Missing Point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I agree - it does seem to be sour grapes but they do have some good points. However they do seem to miss one. Tesla claim that you save money on petrol. While true if you factor in the cost of the wear on the battery per km driven then cost of an electric car's fuel is actually far higher than a petrol car. With the cost of petrol continuously increasing and battery lifetimes increasing at some point electric cars will win but any fair comparison of the fuel costs must include the battery wear cost.

    1. Re:Missing Point by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Battery costs will likely go down significantly in the future, although electricity costs will likely go up at least slightly.

    2. Re:Missing Point by Shompol · · Score: 5, Informative

      the fuel costs must include the battery wear cost

      That would fall under normal wear and tear, not fuel costs. And before you argue that battery is a costly component that gasoline cars lack: it is more than offset by much simplier car design with fewer moving parts. In fact, what I heard was that the dealers do not want Tesla's business because they would lose out on those fat maintenance cash flows.

    3. Re:Missing Point by turkeyfish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. Dealerships make most their money in repairs, not in selling cars. Over the life of a car, the 5-20% profit they make on the sale is a small fraction of what they can make on repairs and maintenance.

      If Telsa has the audacity to create a product that requires significantly less repairs, it puts dealerships at a competitive disadvantage, which is exactly where they should be in a truly free and open market.

      Many in the fossil fuels business like to downplay the savings gained from small fuel costs for battery technology, but they don't want to address the larger costs associated with maintenance issues inherent in internal combustion technology because they know it makes electric car technology even more attractive financially.

    4. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is not true with Tesla. What is being found with the roadster is that it is the number of recharge cycles that slowly decay the batteries. Basically, when the roadster has driven some 120K miles, there will be over 90% charge in the batteries. Considering that the average American drives 12K miles/year, that means roadster will need a new battery around 15-20 years out. The same is true on the model S. Even now, Tesla is pre-charging for batteries available after 8 years, at only $12K. However, in 15-20 years, it is thought that the batteries will only cost around $3K for the 85KWH version. And that is about how much my wife pays for a years worth of gas right now in a highlander.

    5. Re:Missing Point by xQx · · Score: 1

      This is a moot point if you subscribe to Tesla's battery-swap program, because you drive your Model S with an old battery up to any 'swap station' and drive away with a brand new (or at least 'in service') battery.

      You do take the risk & hope that Telsa are checking and cycling out decrepit batteries from their swap stations, and I recognise this doesn't eliminate the environmental problem, but it transfers the economic problem of replacing batteries back onto Tesla.

    6. Re:Missing Point by sd4f · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They won't have significantly less repairs though. Maybe people erroneously think that because the most frequent, yet simplest oil and filter changes are gone, but it won't be the case of all maintenance. Most of the components that require critical safety maintenance are still there such as steering, suspension, tyres and to a lesser extent friction brakes due to regenerative braking.

    7. Re:Missing Point by Kleen13 · · Score: 2

      Cycling the used battery will tell the vendor the capacity and viability of the battery core. Refurbishing the battery with new cells isn't really a big deal if they've designed it right, the plastics and charge circuity should have a definable service life. Cell prices go down exponentially in volume, so with automated assembly process I can see that "refurbished" battery modules can be totally viable, until you start buying them on Ebay from China..... As for core disposal, there are established services like Toxco that every VAR and assembler I've ever hard of use.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    8. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      As an owner of a Tesla, I must correct you. Maintenance costs are FAR lower than in my old BMW. I've driven it for almost a year now, and spent 10x overall than I did with a BMW or Mercedes. Do you forget that gas powered luxury cars have all those same features that require just as much (if not more) maintenance than an electric luxury car does? And no more $5-6 a gallon premium gasoline! The savings are astronomical. I know this from experience.

    9. Re:Missing Point by drkim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While true if you factor in the cost of the wear on the battery per km driven then cost of an electric car's fuel is actually far higher than a petrol car.

      Interesting point - but wouldn't that mean that petrol car dealers should be adding the costs of, "carburetor wear and tear; carburetor cleaning; air filter replacement; gas tank wear and tear; etc." to their fuel costs; all those costs that electric cars don't incur.

    10. Re:Missing Point by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Technically even if you spent twice as much on batteries you're still saving 'on petrol'. Maybe they mean your saving more petrol for everyone else.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    11. Re:Missing Point by felipekk · · Score: 1

      While true if you factor in the cost of the wear on the battery per km driven then cost of an electric car's fuel is actually far higher than a petrol car.

      Got any numbers/sources to back that up?

    12. Re:Missing Point by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I doubt a Tesla vehicle will require less repairs. It has plenty of things that could go wrong, break, or be subject to periodic servicing. I bet Tesla will be more than happy to fleece drivers as readily as any dealer would. Furthermore, due to the nature of the vehicle, people would be compelled to take them authorised service centers for all but the simplest of maintenance.

      Anyway I assume Tesla would have to build out servicing centers and most probably they would be franchises. I see no reason that existing motor dealerships couldn't operate these centers.

    13. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Steering typical maintenance intervals: 6 months for alignment, 10-20 years for major overhaul.
      Suspension: 10-20 years
      Tyres: a consumable, 6-months to 3 years.
      Brakes: pads every 1-5 years (regenerative braking and driving style); fluid 2 years, rotors 3-10 years.

      Not required:
      Oil & filter (6 months to 1 year)
      Power steering fluid (5 years)
      transmission fluid (10 years)
      Cambelt! (60k miles)
      Sundry engine sensors.
      Exhaust components (salty climates 100-200k miles /road salt 50-100k miles)

      Looks like a lot less to me.

    14. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you factor in the cost of the wear on the battery per km driven then cost of an electric car's fuel is actually far higher than a petrol car.

      Some electric cars are sold with the battery as a separate item that you pay a monthly rental for.

      Last time I checked, a Renault electric car in the UK was a similar price to other regular-fuel cars on the market, but you then pay an extra £70 a month for battery rental.

      For an average commuter, the total electricty cost is probably under £10 a month.

      My point here is that this kind of scheme nicely deals with your point about battery wear: that monthly cost is intended to cover the wear, so you can consider that price plus the £10 electricity as being the total cost of running the car equivalent to the fuel you might have used. The commuters I know in the UK with regular fuel cars are spending about £150 - £250 a month on petrol, so the takeaway message is that you are saving yourself quite a bit even with battery wear taken into account.

      On top of that, electric cars have fewer moving parts than a car with a petrol or diesel engine, so should (hopefully) be more reliable. So you can factor lower maintenance costs into the equation as well. Oh, and in the UK at least, there's zero road tax on electric cars, so that's another £200 you've saved.

      (figures in GBP; probably wildly different in USD)

    15. Re:Missing Point by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I'm interested in what sort of maintenance requirements you expect from any car in its first few years?

      All new cars I have owned (in the UK) have had precisely no mantenance requirements in the first four or five years other than additional oil, coolant (just water) etc. I use the annual service as a health check, but nothing has ever been required.

      The British motoring authorities even recognise this as they do to require a certificate of roadworthyness for the first three years of a cars life.

    16. Re:Missing Point by hughk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Quite simply, a Tesla (or any all electric car) has significantly less moving parts. Faults will occur, but susbstantially less often than with an ICE. Some of those faults though will require very specialist knowledge to fix though.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    17. Re:Missing Point by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You do realise you are supposed to go back and collect your old battery again, otherwise you will get charged the price for the new pack, right? It's not a cheap way to get a newer battery pack,it's a temporary top up.

    18. Re:Missing Point by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0

      Which would make the type specific costs for my petrol car over 19 years of service a total of ... About $80, for air filters. No carburettor changes, never cleaned, no issues with the fuel tank and a nice 300,000 on the clock. Can a Tesla do that?

    19. Re: Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kilomile. noice.

    20. Re:Missing Point by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Dealers don't replace tyres, and nobody works on steering and suspension, unless a car is on its last legs.

    21. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BMW , Mercedes... vs the cars most Americans drive... My buddy has a BMW and a Mercedes, plus a BMW bike. He drives loaners most of the time. Those cars cost him more in maintenance in a year than I've paid for my Honda ever. He's always quoting thousands in repair costs when I've paid maybe 3 thousand in 10 years including a wreck.

    22. Re:Missing Point by drkim · · Score: 1

      Which would make the type specific costs for my petrol car over 19 years of service a total of ... About $80, for air filters. No carburettor changes, never cleaned, no issues with the fuel tank and a nice 300,000 on the clock. Can a Tesla do that?

      Hey, that's great!
      I just think it's a tad unfair to call battery "wear-and-tear" part of "fuel costs."

      If you want to say that Teslas have a higher "wear-and-tear" cost than a petrol car, that's fine; but it's kind of a "no-true-Scotsman" argument to say that "wear-and-tear" on a Tesla is one thing; but "wear-and-tear" on a petrol car is something else.
      Did they count brake pad "wear-and-tear" on a petrol car as part of "fuel costs" (as opposed to regenerative braking?)
      Does your car use a 1-speed fixed gear transmission like the Tesla?
      Would there be a "wear-and-tear" difference there?

    23. Re:Missing Point by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Elon Musk stated that his goal is for Tesla to not make a profit out of service. My experience when I broke something on my car (so it wasn't handled by warranty) was that their repair cost was a fraction of what the local Toyota dealership would have charged me to make a similar repair.

      There really is a lot less to go wrong.

      No oil and filter changes. No spark plugs. The coolant should last a lot longer. No belts to replace. No fuel pumps to die, exhaust leaks or oil leaks to deal with. No gaskets to be replaced or leak. No smog and related components like catalytic converters to deal with. No transmission fluid to change or clutches to wear out. The brake pads should last a lot longer since most braking is regenerative. The car is very well engineered. They did not cut corners to reduce costs in terms of suspension and drive train. According to a friend of mine who works there (an engineer on the drive train) they significantly over engineered things since they had to get it right the first time.

      While I have had some things fixed under service, those things typically fall under creaks and rattles which are understandable given that my car has a VIN a little over 5000. They've addressed most if not all of the issues in later VIN numbers.

      A gasoline engine has far more mechanical parts and things to go wrong, a lot more pumps and hoses, parts rubbing against each other, etc.

      As for the battery, from my research the cells should be good for at least 3000 full charge discharge cycles. If I'm extremely conservative in estimating 200 miles of range per charge (I get significantly more) that works out to 600,000 miles.

      There are some things that may wear out faster, such as the pop-out door handles (the early versions had problems). The electric motor, as opposed to an internal combustion engine, has no friction points other than the bearings, and it has a lot less than a gasoline engine.

      One of the issues I had was the 12V battery dying. They got a bad batch of lead acid batteries and I ended up with one of them. They called me up when they detected the problem in the logs to schedule its replacement.

      As for software issues, they regularly update it to fix bugs and add new features. They do this over the air and allow me to choose if and when to install an update.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    24. Re:Missing Point by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I took much of the money I would spend on the $12K replacement and bought a bunch of their stock at $35. It's the best investment I ever made. I don't think I'll need to replace the battery after 8 years.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    25. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, my friend has a Subaru WRX and he gets all of his work done by the dealer, including tire replacement. The same goes for my roommate who has a Volkswagon GTI with 50 series tires on it. But then again they have cars built for sporty performance (but aren't very expensive) and having the work done by the dealer preserves their warranty, guarantees quality and actually is cheaper.

      But anyway, I do think the dealers have a some validity to their point here and on the other side of the coin they do the exact same damn things when selling their hybrid cars. Or how about when they put an ad in the paper for a car sale and the fine print says they only have 2 cars at that price?

    26. Re:Missing Point by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't change the oil in your car? You've never had to replace a belt? Do you just let your car sit in a garage all the time?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    27. Re:Missing Point by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Car dealers aren't honest people who have good points. They are lying pricks who want to sell Teslas off their lots and fuck you over , just as if you had bought a Ford or Toyota, etc. The root of their concern lies in not being able to fullfill a hot selling demographic with a car that would pay wonderful commission. If you take this kind of news on its face, please don't vote until you are less coy. Believe, they didn't miss anything about the Tesla, they just don't say everything they think. They know the major companies hybrids are crap compared to Tesla and they want some of that pie. It isn't about forcing Tesla to compete the same way, so much as, it is about adding a Tesla line to their lot. Profitable for dealers, less profitable than now for Tesla.
      Poor car dealers, makes a tear run right down my leg.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    28. Re:Missing Point by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Points are smoke and mirrors in this article. Dealers want to sell an electric car, superior to the garbage put out by mainstream mfg. That is ALL that this article is about. You just need to be able to translate Lying Shit Car Dealer language into proper English. More crap going on in this article than a presidential election campaign.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:Missing Point by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      At 10k miles per annum you can get monthly electric recharging costs to about £9 - 10, on the cheapest overnight tarrifs, double that on more expensive tarrifs.

      Compared to a diesel managing 50mpg costing about £80 per month in fuel

    30. Re:Missing Point by dywolf · · Score: 0

      yeah....no.
      none of what you said is true.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    31. Re:Missing Point by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Cars haven't had carburetors since 1990 when fuel injection became the standard. After that was just one or two models that still had it for another couple years, the very last being the Isuzu truck in 1994.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    32. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an owner of a Leaf (much cheaper than a Tesla), I too must correct you.

      To keep the warranty valid, on a Leaf you must:
        - come in annually for a battery check (free the first 2 years)

      The manual recommends:
          Tire rotation every 6K miles
          Change the wiper blades as needed

      There are some other things required at 60K or so, but since I have a 3 year lease I don't care/remember.

      I received an email from the dealer after a year telling me I was due for my 12,000 mile service and listed all of the typical BS things a dealer wants to do (except oil change, they finally removed that). I called and asked what was REQUIRED to keep the warranty active and got the above response.

      They did "highly recommend" changing the brake fluid. Since the braking is mainly regenerative I saw no reason to even consider it.

    33. Re:Missing Point by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I'd say for normal users, brake fluid can easily last 2 years or more. As an enthusiast driver I replace my DD once a year and my toy car at least 6 times a year (sometimes twice a weekend if I am really having fun).

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    34. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head. Dealerships make most their money in repairs, not in selling cars. Over the life of a car, the 5-20% profit they make on the sale is a small fraction of what they can make on repairs and maintenance.

      If Telsa has the audacity to create a product that requires significantly less repairs, it puts dealerships at a competitive disadvantage, which is exactly where they should be in a truly free and open market.

      Many in the fossil fuels business like to downplay the savings gained from small fuel costs for battery technology, but they don't want to address the larger costs associated with maintenance issues inherent in internal combustion technology because they know it makes electric car technology even more attractive financially.

      Are you claiming a Tesla or other electric car is maintenance free? Even my heat pump at home, which is all electric needs to be maintained. Add to that all the other mechanical wear and tear on a vehicle it would seem that there still is a lot of maintenance to be done. True, the dealer will lose out on that $19.95 oil change ever 5,000 miles, so $60/yr, but for most dealers, that's a loss leader anyway.

      Then there is a huge deferred maintenance charge that nobody thinks about with electric cars and that is when the battery pack needs replaced. Hopefully, you save up as you go for that, or you unload the car before that point, but it is a major expense.

    35. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an owner of a Tesla, I must correct you. Maintenance costs are FAR lower than in my old BMW. I've driven it for almost a year now, and spent 10x overall than I did with a BMW or Mercedes.

      A BMW has no maintenance costs in the first 4 years. Even brake jobs are covered. I don't know about Mercedes, as I've never owned one.

    36. Re:Missing Point by cbope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same here in Finland. My last two cars (VW, Audi) did not even require routine service until they hit 30,000 km (19k mi). With my daily commute that's about 2 years. In between, just top off fluids, if needed. The routine service is little more than a simple oil change, checking the brakes, tires, etc.

      I completely support Tesla's idea of selling direct, even if I'm not an owner (yet). I hope that they someday find a solution for batteries in Nordic climes, so it's a viable car here as well. After all, we already use the grid to keep our cars warm and start-able in the winter.

      I find it appalling that some states, including my own home state, are using legal means to try and block Tesla from entering the market. Whatever happened to the so-called free market in the US? This sounds decidedly less free market.

    37. Re:Missing Point by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Do you run DOT 4, or DOT 5?

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    38. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quite simply, a Tesla (or any all electric car) has significantly less moving parts. Faults will occur, but susbstantially less often than with an ICE. Some of those faults though will require very specialist knowledge to fix though.

      The Wankel rotary engine also had significantly fewer moving parts than a standard internal combustion engine, but a Mazda RX-7 was just as costly to maintain as any other car. Why? Because, it's not the moving parts in the engine that cause most of the maintenance costs, it's all the rest of them, like suspension, steering, brakes, air compressors, and the like.

      So, you will need to get your oil changed less often, like not at all versus once a year, so you save $19.95 at the dealer, but all the other regular maintenance stuff is still there and then some since the Tesla is a specialized vehicle, one can expect it's parts and labor to be more costly. And unlike a regular automobile, you have to also maintain the charging/battery system, the dynamic braking, and a several other components that only an electric car will have.

      Arguing that an electric car will save because of maintenance is probably not a valid argument. Arguing on fuel costs, possibly. But in reality, the argument should be on the total cost of ownership over say, 100,000 or 200,000 miles. The reason you don't see TCO figures for electric cars in those ranges is that the battery packs need to be replaced before then and when you figure in that cost, the savings disappear.

      So, if you have an electric car and plan on keeping it, all the money you save on fuel, you should set aside to replace the battery pack when that time comes. Of course, you could just trade it in before then, but if the battery pack is shot, well, so will be the trade in value.

    39. Re:Missing Point by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      Dealerships definitely do tires. Whenever I take one of our vehicles in for the regular maintance they let us know what the tread depth is like and push us to get new tires through them when they get worn.

      Steering I half agree with you since I only ever have the alignment checked when the tires seem to be wearing funny or the car doesn't drive straight on it's own. In the last decade and a half the only cars I had which needed an alignment were in pretty bad shape. And I'm not really sure how people mess up the alingments on their cars anyways. I had a small sports car that I drove hard and actually slide into a curb hard enough to take a large chunk out of the rim, but when I had it checked the alignment was still good.

      Suspension is a little iffy. It really depends on what you are doing with the vehicle. How often you push it's load limit and what kind of roads it gets driven on. And a lot of people won't even recognize when they need new shocks, though I suppose that could be used as evidence that they don't actually "need" the shocks.

    40. Re:Missing Point by SlippyToad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Years ago, I remember reading in my Time-Life books, which were an amazing series that I re-bought for my own kids, about how cars were manufactured.

      There was a Time-Life book on almost every topic of the modern world. This one talked about how early transport was done, and when they talked about cars they SPECIFICALLY mentioned how engineers would put the car on a machine to simulate use, and deliberately weaken parts that lasted longer than the "designed" life of the car.

      There was no whispered conspiratorial tone to this; it was stated matter-of-factly in that matter-of-fact tone of voice you do not find in modern media. So, basically, it's not a myth or a conspiracy that our modern conveniences have been deliberately and intentionally made to fall apart at a certain rate in order to ensure profitability for the parts manufacturers.

      Kudos to Elon Musk for his willingness to break this absurd paradigm.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    41. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      As for the battery, from my research the cells should be good for at least 3000 full charge discharge cycles. If I'm extremely conservative in estimating 200 miles of range per charge (I get significantly more) that works out to 600,000 miles.

      Tesla claims a battery pack should last 1,200 cycles, so that would bring you to a max of 240,000 miles. Now, it is unlikely that you will be fully draining the batteries and recharging them, so you will further reduce the overall range. Most experts estimate that the battery packs will need to be replaced around 100,000 miles. Depending on one's driving habits (trip lengths) that could vary anywhere from 90,000 to 120,000 miles.

      As long as replacing the battery pack (parts and labor) is less than $13,000, you come out better than a gasoline engine that gets around 30mpg city and highway (assuming gas is $4/gallon). Many people will probably sell their car before that point, trying to save the replacement cost, but in reality, it is built into the trade in value, so they still pay it one way or another.

      As for other maintenance costs, you won't need an oil change every year, but your suspension, steering, brakes, a/c and electrical systems will need just as much maintenance as any other vehicle.

    42. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      While true if you factor in the cost of the wear on the battery per km driven then cost of an electric car's fuel is actually far higher than a petrol car.

      Interesting point - but wouldn't that mean that petrol car dealers should be adding the costs of, "carburetor wear and tear; carburetor cleaning; air filter replacement; gas tank wear and tear; etc." to their fuel costs; all those costs that electric cars don't incur.

      No. Besides that modern cars are fuel injected. Having the injectors cleaned at either 60,000 or 100,000 miles is already a scheduled maintenance item, but it isn't a fuel cost. OTOH, the electricity in the battery is the fuel for the Tesla and if it isn't able to provide it, then the car doesn't go. But even if you include the cost of cleaning the injectors, a $3.50 bottle of injector cleaner once a year vs a $10,000 battery pack every five years are the costs you are talking about.

      Also, speaking of fuel costs, one should also include in the cost of the Tesla the cost to provide the additional wiring in one's home for a 70amp 220V circuit to charge the car. Most homes don't have that capability.

      In reality, all this talk is meaningless. Whether fully electric, hybrid or combustion, the only valid cost numbers people should look at is TCO. And TCO over 100,000 miles shows there is an advantage to an all electric, in theory, but not practice (because the purchase price is so high to start with). TCO for combustion engines over 100,000 miles shows a TDI diesel is more economical than a hybrid or gas combustion and that it is a tossup between the gas combustion and the hybrid.

      Unless you are comparing TCO, any comparison is meaningless. Now, if they could make an all electric, with a decent range for under $30,000, that would send the TCO numbers off the chart. But, as of yet, nobody has been able or willing to do it.

    43. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's great!
      I just think it's a tad unfair to call battery "wear-and-tear" part of "fuel costs."

      If I developed an engine that could convert air to energy and you needed to purchase a $50,000 catalyst in the form of a pellet every 100,000 miles, would you say the fuel was free because it ran on air or the fuel was $0.50/mile because without the catalyst the car won't run? Likewise, with an all electric. If the battery pack must be replaced every 100,000 miles and costs $X to replace it, then that cost is part of the fuel cost.

    44. Re:Missing Point by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The OP is factoring in the $10,000 to replace the battery pack after 100,000 miles, which would add another $125/month to the cost if you drive 15,000 miles per year.

    45. Re:Missing Point by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Over engineered in what way? Complexity, or tolerance limits (e.g: using a stronger metal (overly strong) to ensure reliability) ?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    46. Re:Missing Point by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      I'm sure making more money selling parts isn't a horrible thought. The actual reason they would make a part weaker if it lasted way longer than the car is to make the part cheaper. If the parts are cheaper then the car will cost less and more people can buy it. Plus, there is more room for profit when you can make things cheaper. If you go too far at making things cheap you will lose out on your reputation for quality.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    47. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've owned two Toyota's for over 10 years each (a Camry and a Corolla) and between the two of them, there has been exactly one non-routine maintenance in close to 150,000 miles of driving. (The repair was a water pump,which would have been done anyway if I'd bothered to have the timing belt changed at the recommended interval.) If I bought a car that required something other than oil, coolant or tires in the first three years, that would my last from that manufacturer.

    48. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god... you are so full of shit.

      You've driven 300,000 miles without changing the oil? Without changing the oil filter? Without changing the fuel filter? Without changing transmission fluid?

      And yet you changed the air filter?

      BULLSHIT.

      1) There is no internal combustion engine on the planet that would survive that level of neglect.

      2) Why the fuck would you change an air filter and never change your oil?

    49. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, but you have to include the costs of replacing the air filter, fuel filter, catalytic converter, oxygen sensor, muffler, oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, transmission fluid filter, spark plugs, spark plug wires, electronic ignition system, alternator and all the other things that a combustion engine driven car requires to the fuel cost of gas powered cars.

    50. Re:Missing Point by ttucker · · Score: 1

      BMW is well known for absurdly high parts and maintenance costs. They are even significantly more expensive than the other German cars. For this purposes of this discussion it is a poor example, and might even be disingenuous.

    51. Re:Missing Point by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In fact, what I heard was that the dealers do not want Tesla's business because they would lose out on those fat maintenance cash flows.

      It goes deeper than the dealers, although they are obviously concerned. But the automakers themselves turn a tidy profit by selling OE replacement parts at outrageous prices to people dumb enough to buy them... or people forced to buy them because their vehicle is failing before there's a stock of reman parts. The automakers' relationship with the dealers permits them to force down competition, so it's become a symbiotic relationship of parasites both feeding from the same host. But in any case, here is a supporting citation from before the bailouts. I read it in a counterman's mag while waiting for some work to be done, tires I think. I do most of my own work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Missing Point by mmell · · Score: 1

      Battery costs almost certainly will go down over time - but the vehicle which is sold today will use (and require) a battery designed and built for today. You'll need to upgrade or replace your vehicle to take advantage of the advances in battery technology (you don't think even the noble and munificent Tesla will miss an opportunity and just let you swap out the batteries, do you?)

    53. Re:Missing Point by mmell · · Score: 1

      Sorry, friend - we haven't had the so called "free enterprise" system here since the middle of the last century. We went off the gold standard a long time ago.

    54. Re:Missing Point by mmell · · Score: 0

      My truck has tires, not tyres. *Sheesh*

    55. Re:Missing Point by torkus · · Score: 1

      Maintain the charging system? That's like saying you need to maintain your computer's motherboard.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    56. Re:Missing Point by hughk · · Score: 2

      it's not the moving parts in the engine that cause most of the maintenance costs, it's all the rest of them, like suspension, steering, brakes, air compressors,

      All EVs will require most of the above (but remember, the only air compressor is on the a/c). There is no clutch and no conventional auto-transmission. Braking though is partly friction but is also electric (regenerative), this should lengthen the life considerably.

      I know what you are getting at but internal combustion engines certainly do need additional maintenance. The issue is at the moment is that we know very little about the total lifespan. I know someone who bought a Tesla Roadster and is very happy with it. It has received no unplanned maintenance but then it is just a couple of years old. No modern car should have a problem that early. Five or ten years on may be another story.

      One of the interesting tendancies is that to balance the weight of the batteries, many manufacturers have chosen much more modern materials, so we see aluminium in the Tesla and carbon fibre in say the BMW i3/8. This costs more, but has long term benefits.

      I would agree that the battery is and remains the most critical element and this has to be accounted for in any TCO calculation. Again, we do lack information, particularly on the realistic trade in possibilities for a battery. For example, whether it can be reconditioned rather than completely remanufactured? These questions will be answered over the next few years and lets be honest, not everyone is going to rush out and get an all electric vehicle and for many, it isn't even that practical. For all the indentations being made particularly by Tesla, there are many more ICE vehicles. Over time, though there will be further cost reductions and more people may decide to switch.

      As more EVs are on the road, there will be an increasing need for a dealer network to provide the necessary downstream support. At the moment, we are talking niche, so to require dealers when there is such a low volume seems impractical.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    57. Re:Missing Point by mmell · · Score: 1

      The phrase you're looking for is "planned obsolescence".

    58. Re:Missing Point by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I did the math, and the costs seem to be roughly even assuming worst-case. It's about $8000 for a 100,000 mile battery or 8 cents per mile. At 25mpg, you're talking $2/gal; Tesla's power consumption is 16 cents per gallon equivalent, roughly. You need to hit 40mpg in petrol to make today's gas prices match Tesla's.

    59. Re:Missing Point by uncqual · · Score: 1

      What is this "carburetor" you speak of?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    60. Re:Missing Point by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Transmission. Engine parts. Seals, gaskets. Spark plugs. Vacuum lines.

    61. Re:Missing Point by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Charge cycles don't work that way. If you start at 80%, come down to 30%, then charge back to 80%... twice... that's one charge cycle, not two.

    62. Re:Missing Point by Pope · · Score: 1

      The Wankel rotary engine also had significantly fewer moving parts than a standard internal combustion engine, but a Mazda RX-7 was just as costly to maintain as any other car. Why? Because, it's not the moving parts in the engine that cause most of the maintenance costs, it's all the rest of them, like suspension, steering, brakes, air compressors, and the like.

      Two words: apex seals.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    63. Re:Missing Point by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      DOT 4... No one uses DOT5 in their street car unless they really love pain.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    64. Re:Missing Point by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      I hope that they someday find a solution for batteries in Nordic climes, so it's a viable car here as well. After all, we already use the grid to keep our cars warm and start-able in the winter.

      Got to wonder; if they put solar panels on the roof and attached them to battery warmers, would that work for at least daytime parking? I know it's just the sitting time that's a problem. Even on a cloudy day, solar panels can still produce SOME power... maybe not quite as much but it might be just enough to stop the cold battery problem. Once the car's moving, I know the batteries generate enough heat in themselves that keeping them warm while running isn't a problem.

      Night-time parking... well I expect that'd be much the same as the engine warmers you use now.

    65. Re:Missing Point by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Well, you had better give the engineers at Tesla a call. Because they're under the mistaken impression that the battery pack will last about 100,000 miles. Clearly, you need to set them straight.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    66. Re:Missing Point by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change the details of what a charge cycle is versus what you tried to explain. Here's a good explanation of Lithium battery life.

    67. Re:Missing Point by AaronW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tesla offers a plan where for $12,000 you will get a new battery pack after 8 years. For every additional year you wait they knock off $1000. In my case I took a good chunk of that and bought a bunch of Tesla stock at $35. It's hovering around $185/share right now.

      The A/C should need a lot less maintenance since unlike mode ICE cars the compressor is electric and is completely sealed. Since no hoses are needed to go to an ICE that vibrates and moves, leaks should be less likely. There's no clutch to wear out either. As far as electrical systems, I have never had a problem with any of my cars, my last being a 2007 Prius, which has a lot of electrical systems. In some ways Tesla is simpler. It lacks many of the sensors an ICE car has, i.e. knock sensors, mass air flow sensors, throttle controls, oxygen sensors, oil pressure, fuel gauge, etc.

      What sensors it does have tend to be temperature sensors, voltage and current sensors. The model S does have a number of valves and pumps for coolant since the cooling system is more complex, cooling the motor, inverter, charging units and battery as well as tying into the A/C system. It changes the flow depending on conditions and whether it's warming or cooling the battery and the climate control system. This is one of the main reasons the Model S does not suffer the problems the Leaf does. There have not been reports of any significant loss of range in hot climates and the cooling system was tested in Death Valley.

      To help the battery last longer typically it is not charged to 100%. While it is possible it is not recommended to do it all the time. The only time I do a range charge is if I know I'm going on a long trip, otherwise I let it charge to 80%. Also unlike the Leaf, there are no issues doing rapid charges at the Superchargers. The Leaf's battery suffers when using the high output Chademo chargers.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    68. Re:Missing Point by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Tolerance limits, making it overly strong.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    69. Re:Missing Point by AaronW · · Score: 1

      While I don't believe 600,000 miles I do believe there should be no problems getting at least 200,000 miles. Even then, the degradation is gradual so it's not like it suddenly fails and you have a sudden unexpected huge expense.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    70. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BMW is a bad comparision. Most people I know cringe in horror when they have to takes their car in. The BMW prices are always higher for the same parts and service.

    71. Re:Missing Point by drkim · · Score: 1

      In reality, all this talk is meaningless. Whether fully electric, hybrid or combustion, the only valid cost numbers people should look at is TCO.

      Thank you, yes. You've made my point far more eloquently than I have.

      Instead of saying, "Well, THIS is a fuel cost, but THAT is wear-and -tear" let's just line up the cars side-by-side and see which costs more overall.

      I was just getting irritated by the petrol car folks "slicing the pie" in their own favour.

    72. Re:Missing Point by olau · · Score: 1

      I hope that they someday find a solution for batteries in Nordic climes, so it's a viable car here as well.

      Are you aware that one of their biggest market at the moment is Norway? I believe your battery information is outdated.

    73. Re:Missing Point by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Dealers would actually be happy if the electric car went away. The electric motor should be much more reliable/lower-maintenance than a car engine. Their service departments will lose a ton of cash, because replacing an electric moter is a lot less hours to charge than rebuilding an engine.

    74. Re:Missing Point by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Nah, they just do lubes, tire rotations and blah, blah to keep you in warrantee and you will. The major shit won't go wrong till the bank loan is gone like the warrantee and then you'll hit the aftermarket parts industry anyway, because dealer parts are now expensive to you. The meat and potatoes is selling infernal machines.
      What salesman wouldn't love to get commission on a now-marked-up Tesla that you can't buy from the manufacturer without paying noted-middleman-salesman/dealership his/their fair share for being a carnival barker/ pickpocket? I can't imagine a world without car salesmen can you? We certainly owe them a living, don't we?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    75. Re:Missing Point by Bandraginus · · Score: 1

      The Wankel rotary engine also had significantly fewer moving parts than a standard internal combustion engine, but a Mazda RX-7 was just as costly to maintain as any other car. Why? Because, it's not the moving parts in the engine that cause most of the maintenance costs, it's all the rest of them, like suspension, steering, brakes, air compressors, and the like.

      I owned an RX7 (FD) for a number of years and beg to differ. All the maintenance costs were on the engine or ancillary systems.

      I owned the car from 90k kms till about 150k kms. In that time I had an engine rebuild, replaced water pump, replaced all vacuum hoses (causing boost issues), multiple fuel filters (a pain in the ass to change because it sits above the rear axle).

      Nothing else went wrong with the car. Ran like clockwork otherwise.

    76. Re:Missing Point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Good point - but then this should be included. I suppose what I would argue for is a "total cost of ownership" per km to be given. As a customer I don't really care whether I am spending the money on wear and tear or on fuel - I want to know how much I am spending. If the maintenance costs are so much lower than a petrol car that they offset the currently incredibly expensive batteries they should use this as a selling point. The fact that they have not done this suggests that the battery costs far outweigh the saving in maintenance and fuel costs.

    77. Re:Missing Point by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That is purely a taxes thing since an electric car is way cheaper than a gasoline car in Norway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    78. Re:Missing Point by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is dangerous not to change DOT regularly, it attracts water like a magnet so after a while the brake fluid not only becomes corrosive due to all the water in it, that water can also start to boil when braking a lot and you definitely don't want that - steam is compressible.

      That is why I only use mineral oil brakes in my bikes - no need to bleed these ever.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    79. Re:Missing Point by dywolf · · Score: 1

      the mod stalker strikes again! stating something factual is not trolling. car dealers DO work on all those things, in fact it's where they make most of their money.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    80. Re: Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in an apartment building how are you supposed to recharge an electric car? There is no way to plug them in.

    81. Re:Missing Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the little old lady from Pasadena.

    82. Re:Missing Point by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      That's really good to hear. Tell you friend he's doing a great job and to keep up the good work.

      Elon is quite a character and I believe he really wants to make the world a better place (rather than just in it for the cash). I hope he continues and if anything goes even further to ensure maintenance is kept to a minimum for the benefit of everyone as a whole.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    83. Re: Missing Point by hughk · · Score: 1

      A good point. Some appartment buildings have communal garages underneath them and power can be available there.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  24. Car dealers in the same bunch by Stumbles · · Score: 2

    Car dealers are in the same boat as the media industry. Totally clueless how to adapt to the information age. Maybe at one time it made sense but not any more.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  25. pot.. meet kettle.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kettle.. meet pot.

    car dealers have been using "deceptive marketing and pricing practices" for decades.

    the car dealers association must be about as brain dead as other industry 'associations'.. the DMV has no jurisdiction here... try the state attorney's office --- or are they afraid that the state a.g. would turn around and investigate its members (the dealers), too.

  26. And why would the DMV enforce this complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DMV is not the proper authority to worry about fair business practices.

    Perhaps the auto dealers should next complain to every state organization...

  27. The DMV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooooh, the Division of Motor Vehicles!
    They'll take care of it!
    I heard that when national and state car dealership associations took a number, it was 3503.
    MV is now serving number 12.
    Read a magazine, boys.

  28. Dear US car dealerships... by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You guys used to serve a valuable purpose. Yes, you've always screwed us as hard as you could get away with, but hey, can't fault you for following the American Way to the American Dream.

    But now? Congratulations, the internet has made you nothing more than the place I go to test drive your products before I let the nearest 50 of you bid against each other for my next buy (and don't think I won't buy from the other side of the country if someone there has a good enough sale going on to cover the cost of shipping the damned thing to me).

    You had a good run. Congratulations. Now cash out before you run out of cash. Simple as that.

    Please, go down gracefully. Don't let this turn into yet another "when you can't compete, legislate" disaster. That just never goes well for the "legacy" side of the battle.

  29. Rent seeking by brianerst · · Score: 2

    Of course, we'll get a bunch of comments on how this proves that business men are hypocrites because they are against regulation accept where it benefits them and how stupid the libertarians are.

    But this is precisely the libertarian argument - if government becomes (overly) involved in business, rent seeking behavior is the natural result. Capitalism is a cruel mistress and businesses routinely fail, so they look for any edge they can get.

    In a lightly regulated market with low barriers to entry, they have to compete on service, price, convenience, etc. In a more heavily regulated market, first movers and existing and heavily capitalized businesses look to create new barriers to entry to prevent competition and create artificial scarcity to keep prices high. This can be via licensing (taxis and beauticians), regulations that have high fixed costs but low per unit/worker costs, monopoly/captive markets like dealerships and liquor distribution, and other regulatory structures that that favor fewer, larger firms to more, smaller firms.

    Ironically, the dealership structure began as a true capitalist trade-off - dealership networks allowed automobile companies to become large, centralized and efficient by helping to limit their capital costs - as inventory was created, it was immediately purchased and distributed across the country to local sources of capital. Car manufacturers got less money per vehicle but could concentrate their capital on plants, raw goods, workforces, etc. That dealership network absorbed a huge amount of the capital costs of the vehicles themselves. Once a lot of the manufacturers' fixed costs were paid off, the dealers saw the writing on the wall and used their local political connections to modify state laws everywhere to fix the existing model in place.

    Playing devil's advocate for one minute, the summary is misleading when it says dealers are "working behind the scenes to change state laws". In fact, they are working in the open to preserve the existing state laws - Tesla was the company attempting to have various laws changed to their benefit (in the Texas case, to their sole benefit as it was very narrowly written). That said, I would prefer a more broadly written version of the "Tesla law" to prevail.

    1. Re:Rent seeking by runeghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, bullshit. In any "lightly regulated market" that has enough total cash flow to make skimming worthwhile, a few big players will band together to exploit their customers by any means possible. The only demonstrated historical countermeasures the public can take are 1) government regulation (of varying effectiveness) and 2) lynch the bastards. Since option number two is basically anarchy, which has other unpleasant consequences, humanity usually opts for some flavor of option number one. The American flavor of Libertarians consists entirely of idiots who can't understand this simple truth, or near-sociopaths who are convinced they'd come out on top.

    2. Re:Rent seeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in "any" - if the barrier to entry is low and requires little-to-no capital, the monopolization is futile.

    3. Re:Rent seeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if government becomes (overly) involved in business, rent seeking behavior is the natural result." Bullshit. The original rent seekers were nobles with nobody regulating them. Rest seeking is to be expected any time it's possible. Human nature being what it is, most people would like to be rent seekers if they could. Why bust your balls working when you can get someone else to do it for you?

  30. You're welcome... by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

    If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit? Shouldn't it stand on its own without tax payers subsidizing the purchase? I have a coworker that just bought the P85 and says the same thing about the company and experience. The car is cool as hell and it's unusual to see a car without a tailpipe. I just don't think its reasonable for tax payers to fund this obvious luxury purchase. Not only that...he's no longer paying for gas or the gas taxes that pay for the roads he drives it on.

    1. Re:You're welcome... by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Air pollution and the relative lack thereof, duh.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re: You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell have you been for the past, I don't know, 50 years?

      ALL new advancing technology implemented into society gets a tax break or business subsidy.

      Look at solar cells now. The 5 years ago. Then 10-15 years ago.

      It's nothing more than government motivating buyers to try new things, and jump start new industry. If it's something other than that, I'd sure like to know.

      And before you bring corn ethanol into the argument, lobbying is the curse bound to that clusterfuck.

    3. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calculate the total tax subsidy of avg gas car then get back to us. Starting with the cost of oil wars averaged over gas consumed by the avg car over it's lifetime.

    4. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but most electric cars do pollute the air. You think they are all charged by solar cells, nuclear reactors, and hydroelectric dams? Oops.

    5. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't think its reasonable for tax payers to fund this obvious luxury purchase.

      If his luxury purchase means cleaner air for me, I'm happy to subsidize it.

    6. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you. why did hummers get at $100,000.00 tax credit? can they stand on their own merits? sheesh.

    7. Re:You're welcome... by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit?

      It's a mere pittance compared to the decades-old infrastructure that a fossil-fuel powered car gets for "free" because we essentially subsidize the entire petroleum fuel supply chain at a federal level [1] to the tune of $10s of billions of dollars. Yes, that's for mega-corporations who are making record profits every quarter [2].

      So 200k models qualify for the credit at $7500 a piece. That's a neat $1.5M for each car manufacturer - how does that compare to the $Billions in yearly subsidies that the petro infrastructure gets that's passed on to each gas/diesel guzzling car/truck on the road?

      Quit whining about the tiny tax credit. Instead start complaining about how the big three auto manufacturers and Big oil are bending us over a barrel.

      [1] http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
      [2] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503955&page=1

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    8. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit?
      Why do you think those are logically linked?

    9. Re:You're welcome... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The tax credit was asked for by GM and Ford, and granted to them (and everyone else). The roads are there for military and freight, and cars are an afterthought. The wear on roads by cars is negligible (something like 1/1000th the wear caused by a loaded big-rig).

    10. Re:You're welcome... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The electric car doesn't pollute, the electric company does. Move everything to electric and the total pollution will be less. A few centralized polluters are easier to clean and manage than 100,000,000 distributed polluters.

    11. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit? Shouldn't it stand on its own without tax payers subsidizing the purchase? I have a coworker that just bought the P85 and says the same thing about the company and experience. The car is cool as hell and it's unusual to see a car without a tailpipe. I just don't think its reasonable for tax payers to fund this obvious luxury purchase. Not only that...he's no longer paying for gas or the gas taxes that pay for the roads he drives it on.

      Given that most "taxpayers" consume vastly more government resources than they contribute, I -- for one -- don't care in the least what they think. Odds are it wasn't YOUR taxes paying that $7500. I paid almost a quarter million dollars in federal and state taxes last year. Its *my* $7500 that is paying for that. (And *my* $7500 I got back when I took the credit.) And if we're going to talk about where the dollars the *real* taxpayers are paying are going, I -- for one -- would vastly prefer to see it going to subsidizing something that is good for the planet than providing more tax credits to families craking out the next overlarge generation of people who will continue to consume more than they contribute.

    12. Re:You're welcome... by bentcd · · Score: 2

      If they were doing everything right then why the need for the tax credit?

      The tax credit is necessary because every single one of the other EV manufacturers out there is completely incapable of building a compelling EV that people actually want to buy, so they need to be bribed into buying it. Tesla gets to have its cake and eat it too by both building a car people actually want and simultaneously cashing in on the incompetence of its competition by partaking of the tax credit.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    13. Re:You're welcome... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The tax credit was asked for by GM and Ford, and granted to them (and everyone else). The roads are there for military and freight, and cars are an afterthought. The wear on roads by cars is negligible (something like 1/1000th the wear caused by a loaded big-rig).

      Is your argument that since cars cause minimal wear and tear on roads, therefore they should pay nothing?

      If the freight companies had to pay their fair share for use of the national roads, they would use rail instead. Time-sensitive freight would go by air. The national road system is for the benefit of personal cars. There are lots of trucks on the road, but only because freight companies abuse the system because it is heavily subsidized. If trucks had to pay their fair share, the number of trucks on the road would diminish dramatically.

      Trucks driving on public roads do provide benefits for consumers, but the majority of the road cost is still passed on to taxpayers and not really considered by shipping companies.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    14. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's certainly true that the wear on a road by a single automobile is much, much less than that caused by a single loaded semi.
      It is equally true that most of the wear on our roads are caused by automobiles, not semis.

      How is that possible? Simple. A car causes about 1-2% as much wear & tear as a semi, but there are thousands of cars on the road for every semi on the road.

    15. Re: You're welcome... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Darn, and I didn't know I could get a tax credit for my first pocket calculator, first PC, first VHS player, first DVD player, first flat screen LED television, or my first cell phone. I just hadn't realized that these things were successful due to tax breaks or subsidies rather than because consumers wanted them. I wonder if I can file an amended 1040 from the 70's and 80's to capture those tax breaks I missed...

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    16. Re:You're welcome... by andydouble07 · · Score: 1

      200,000 x $7,500 != $1.5M

    17. Re:You're welcome... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is your argument that since cars cause minimal wear and tear on roads, therefore they should pay nothing?

      No, my argument is that the portion of wear and tear on roads is minimal, so any complaint about them not paying their share is a flawed argument. I made no argument about what they should pay, just a condemnation of the previous poster.

      Your assumption that I don't like an argument means I'm affirmatively advocating the opposite is just plain wrong.

      If the freight companies had to pay their fair share for use of the national roads, they would use rail instead.

      Good. Rather than having cars subsidize trucks (with rules advocated by the trucking industry), causing inefficient use of resources, we should allocate costs more fairly, and let the market sort it out. Why are we sibsidizing trucks to keep them from using rail, then subsidizing rail because it's so lightly used? The chain of subsidization is silly and bankrupting the nation (not just this one, but we do it for so many industries).

    18. Re:You're welcome... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A car causes about 1-2% as much wear & tear as a semi, but there are thousands of cars on the road for every semi on the road.

      There are 2 million registered trucks and 250 million registered cars. Your numbers are wrong. Your statistics were made up anyway.

      You either guessed based on what you see in a urban area at rush hour daily (hint, the trucks avoid being on the roads that aren't moving), or you were just lying.

    19. Re:You're welcome... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      200,000 x $7,500 != $1.5M

      s/M/B/ but my point still stands. This is paltry compared to the money you and I are pouring into keeping the fossil fuel provider profits' still at record levels every new quarter. Think of the tax credit as a "catalyst" to get over the activation level so the reaction of new tech can more quickly lead us to a more efficient future. It's not even ongoing like oil subsidies.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    20. Re:You're welcome... by andydouble07 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      What's a few orders of magnitude between friends.

    21. Re:You're welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $7500 x 200k cars is $1.5B, not M.

  31. My Proposed Solution by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    I propose we round up all the individual dealers responsible for this reprehensible behavior, line them up, and one by one, deliver to them a good swift kick in the jimmies.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  32. Delissio... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Delissio wants to sell pizza in MY neigbourhood, then I want a slice!

  33. VP of Marketing by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Years ago I worked for a company that did a tiny bit of work for one of the big 3 US auto companies. Their VP of marketing told me that it was his dream to eliminate the dealer network. He basically blamed a huge amount of his company's woes on the dealers. His dream was that you could buy your car from a grocery store or by phone from a newspaper ad and maybe this whole new internet thing was just the key. It was his opinion that customers were growing to really hate the US car companies because the dealers were so sleazy. But it was his opinion that the car companies had grown to accommodate their sleaze. He thought that all the different models and features only served to confuse the customers.

    So wherever that guy is I am pretty sure he is cheering Tesla on. Plus based on what he said, I suspect the other manufacturers are watching and hoping but keeping quiet about it.

  34. Shooting from the hip here but... by dinther · · Score: 1

    A spectacular pile of legislation makes cost calculation very complex affair.
    Why is it Tesla's responsibility to accurately calculate the real cost of owning their car?

    If they advertise the lowest possible cost under ideal circumstances (Everyone else does that too) then it is up to the buyer to check and see how it applies to them.
    If the buyer finds that process too hard, then blame the overly complex legislation not Tesla.

    1. Re:Shooting from the hip here but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is another reason why america can't have nice things

  35. Tax Credit? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 0

    Actually, that tax refund is misleading also. The maximum tax credit is $7,500.00, but it adjusts on a sliding scale inversely proportional to your gross taxable earnings. In reality, anyone who can afford a $70,000.00 car will get a significantly smaller credit, like $1,500.00 or less.

    YMMV, and I am not a tax accountant, especially not your tax accountant. Run your own personal numbers through TurboTax or some such before buying any hybrid or other car that qualifies for such a credit.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Tax Credit? by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      The maximum tax credit is $7,500.00, but it adjusts on a sliding scale inversely proportional to your gross taxable earnings. In reality, anyone who can afford a $70,000.00 car will get a significantly smaller credit, like $1,500.00 or less.

      This isn't true. The tax credit is a pure credit, no sliding scale based on income. It's not a refundable credit, meaning that if your net federal income tax liability is less than $7500 then you'll only get a credit equal to the amount of your liability, but that's unlikely to be a problem for anyone who is buying a $70K car.

      There is a phase-out of the credit that begins to kick in once a manufacturer has sold at least 200,000 of the qualifying model, and the amount of the credit depends on vehicle battery capacity ($2500 for 5 kWh of capacity, plus $417 for each additional kWh, up to $7500), but the Tesla qualifies for the full amount, and Tesla hasn't yet sold 200K cars, so neither of those are an issue.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Tax Credit? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Right you are. I was confusing it with the older credit for hybrid vehicles.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Tax Credit? by drewsup · · Score: 1

      so what happens if Tesla decides to cap each models production to 199,999 vehicals, then just comes out with a slightly different model? It's a reality with a small car company

    4. Re:Tax Credit? by swillden · · Score: 2

      so what happens if Tesla decides to cap each models production to 199,999 vehicals, then just comes out with a slightly different model? It's a reality with a small car company

      I re-checked the IRS site and I was mistaken. It's not 200,000 per model, it's 200,000 qualifying vehicles per manufacturer. So they'd actually have to spin up a new company.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Tax Credit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It slides due to AMT. AMT reduces the amount of credit allowed. It happened to me when I got my Escape Hybrid in '06. Unless they fixed AMT, higher income people will get less credit. By AMT standards high income is not that high.

  36. Re:hot grits by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

    Too busy writing about xbox plugs (in both senses of the word).

  37. The fact that there are laws that require dealers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that there are laws that require car dealerships is ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as forcing people to pay car insurance or home insurance in some states. Insurance companies fought to force people to buy it and car dealerships fought to force people to go through them. It's all about greed, greed and more greed. Cut the middle-man, I want an Amazon for vehicles.

  38. Market Nachos by thexfile · · Score: 1

    Let the free market decide.

  39. Give me a break... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    On the last car I bought, "painted door handles" was listed as a "feature."

    And these guys are worried about deceptive marketing practices? There's the pot calling the kettle black...

  40. WTF is DMW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Editors ahoy........

  41. Any reason to doubt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is it because it's an electric car, it can't be good?

    The mechanism *that drives the frigging car* is a hell of a lot simpler. You know, that thing that needs a gearbox that runs at thousands of rpm and change gears between an engine going at thousands more to wheels going hundreds and changing many times?

    All gone.

    Do you think that the only thing that goes wrong in an ICE car is the engine? There are "plenty of things that could go wrong, break, or be subject to periodic servicing" in an ICE car that isn't the ICE.

    1. Re:Any reason to doubt? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Teslas still have a 'final drive', so the gearbox isn't 100% gone.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    2. Re:Any reason to doubt? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Or is it because it's an electric car, it can't be good?

      I didn't say that or even imply it. No need to be defensive. The simple fact is that a model S is like a distributed computer on wheels and without access to the diagnostics and other computer systems a mechanic's ability to do anything with the car is extremely limited. They might be able to change some parts of the drivetrain, but they couldn't calibrate them, test if they were working within operating parameters or anything else. Their ability to do anything to the car is probably limited to things like wheels, brakes, bulbs etc.

    3. Re:Any reason to doubt? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The gearbox is gone. That's a differential.

    4. Re:Any reason to doubt? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      The diff splits power between wheels. There's still a step-down gear before that.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  42. USA USA USA, oh i mean Soviet SA by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Have the communists really taken over usa?

    Lets apply the same laws to iPhones, and iApple stuff, and that Apple cannot do any warantee/services of their own products in Texas. Samsung would love that law.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:USA USA USA, oh i mean Soviet SA by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Especially since Samsung has some big fabs right in the middle of Texas...

  43. Australia has electric cars for $40k by cheekyboy · · Score: 1
    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Australia has electric cars for $40k by swillden · · Score: 1

      $40k http://www.nissan.com.au/Cars-Vehicles/LEAF/Overview for $85/week

      Yes, they're available in the US, too.

      Mine is the one on the right in this photo. :-)

      I actually didn't buy, though. Given the rapid pace of change in EV technology I opted for a two-year lease instead. I pay just over $200 per month to lease it, and virtually nothing else, since there's basically no maintenance other than new tires every couple of years and I do nearly all of my charging at work. I figure my net cost, after factoring in fuel savings, is about $70 per month.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  44. Complaints about deceptive costs? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

    WTF? Dealers complaining that Tesla may be deceiving customers about the true cost of their cars? Have they tried to purchase a car at their own dealerships?

    You're lucky you can get close to knowing what the final price will be before you start to waste hours in the salesperson "office" wondering why after all these decades they still perform the "Wizard of Oz" maneuver of having to ask the boss for a better price...

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  45. Tesla's model is bad for consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flame away, but in order to obtain warranty service, one must generally take their vehicle to a dealer with a shop that has the right tools for fixing the car.

    Tesla has no such capability. When a Tesla breaks, what then? I'm stuck until I can either ship my car to California, or Tesla can ship a mechanic to me, and hopefully find a place that will let them use their shop to fix it. That does not engender confidence.

    This is a terrible model for consumers. It is absolutely right to require there be a warranty service infrastructure available to them for the expedient, convenient, and dependable repair of their vehicles under warranty.

  46. The real issue for dealerships by jscotta44 · · Score: 1

    I didn't read every single posting so I might have missed one. However, the gist of the many that I did read related to maintenance costs or gripes about dealers. Both areas had posts that were accurate and both had posts that were either BS or typical /. anti-capitalism rants.

    Wellthe dealer rants are sort of right, in this case, but they are missing the real issue. Tesla's high-end luxury cars are not a threat to most dealers. The threat is that a car maker is selling cars without a dealer. This is a threat because, if they allow it, then the other car makers (Ford, GM, Chrysler,Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc.) will finally have some traction to get rid of the middleman dealers. For the high population areas, they would love to do that and keep more of the profit themselves. I believe that you would still see dealers in the low-population areas because the risk reward ratio isn't nearly as favorable to them.

    By the way, there has been and always will be a case for various dealers at different points in a market's life cycle. Calling them low-lifes just because they are dealers is childish and just wrong. They are no more wrong and crappy than a /.'er that thinks that everything they want in life should be free - just because they say so.

  47. In NC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The car dealers association is one of if not the biggest contributor to political campaigns. I assume it is the same in the rest of the country.

    So why should we expect the laws protecting them to change? But in NC they did, for Tesla. There was a grassroots campaign, Elon came and gave a test drive to the guv, and I assume a lot of campaign contributions were promised, and the law was changed to allow them, and only them, to sell direct.

    Baby steps, but we can win if we are persistent.

  48. Electric cars are a joke anyway by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    They just move the power generation to someone else's back yard.

    Why is there no hype around a CNG car that you can buy today?
    http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-sedan/civic-natural-gas.aspx

    It does not have any (large)(expensive) toxic batteries.
    It can be worked on buy a regular internal combustion mechanic with minimal special tools.
    You pay no gas tax.
    You do not have to pass emissions testing.
    It enjoys the same HOV/Clean Car status
    You fill it up in your garage. Never go to a gas station again.
    It has almost ZERO emissions (tail pipe).
    The infrastructure is already in place, hang a pump on the wall of your garage and plug the hose in when you park.
    The fuel cost is cents per gallon not dollars
    The performance is on par with gasoline.

    I'll tell you why, it doesn't have any exclusive patents (all expired) for corporate exploitation,
    or new technology to lock you into a brand.

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:Electric cars are a joke anyway by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The CNG hype is actually spinning up. Right now they're focusing on fleets. It's part of the fracking agenda.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Electric cars are a joke anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is only heavy truck fleets and they are doing it to get away from the expense, maintenance, and down time, of crappy Diesel Particulate Filter systems.

    3. Re:Electric cars are a joke anyway by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think it is only heavy truck fleets and they are doing it to get away from the expense, maintenance, and down time, of crappy Diesel Particulate Filter systems.

      It's only short-haul vehicles. Fleets that operate in a specific metro area are the poster child, which is why you mostly see CNG buses. It provides poor energy density compared to diesel fuel, and the engines are gasoline engines so they provide poor torque compared to diesel fuel as well unless you spend more on gearing.

      Since we have the technology to make biodiesel from algae and run that in our existing diesel fleets, that would be the "greenest" solution available with current technology. No fracking involved.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Putting the sock in socialism by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    That was one part of the equation, but a bank crisis, crop failures, and stock market collapse also created the conditions for the Great Depression. Unless you're saying that Smoot-Hawley Act was the cause of those as well, in which case you're ascribing magical powers to it.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  50. Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning to all Car Dealerships involved with such activity. We are Anonymous.

    Attempting to seie control of a free market, is no different than the bankers of wall street, forcing people to use their services. It's a form of theft and extortion, in what should be a free and open market. It infringes on freedom.

    If car dealerships would like to resell Tesla vehicles, they can apply to Tesla, and convince tesla to allow it. But attemting to force the situation, is not accepted.

    Any dealership involved with these activities may face the wrath of Anonymous.

    We do not forgive, we do not forget.

    Expect us.

  51. not just charge cycles by nten · · Score: 2

    Charge cycles are not a lithium ion batteries worst problem. Rather it is age. They lose 20% of their capacity every year in ideal temperatures. In Phoenix the nissan leaf was losing upwards of 50% of its capacity (read range) in the first year due to the heat. Also I wish the batteries weren't so heavy, I like tiny light cars, and the tesla roadster's battery pack was 450kg, the only reason they got the weight down to 2700lbs was all the carbon fiber. ICE + fuel tank still weighs less than electric motor + battery pack. I want an electric car, for the torque and the elegant simplicity, but the battery life is a deal breaker for me until my city has a recycling station for them, and the cost of swapping them once a year is even with the maintenance on an ICE car.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:not just charge cycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mention the Leaf which as example of battery performance (admittedly horrible in temperature extremes), but then cite the Tesla Roadsters weight. Why not the Tesla Roadsters history of battery performance? It has been better than expected with people having lost perhaps 10% over 5 years of driving.

    2. Re:not just charge cycles by torkus · · Score: 2

      Reality disagrees with your 20% claim. There are more than enough Tesla cars on the road to provide real world evidence of battery longevity despite what some naysayers keep preaching.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    3. Re:not just charge cycles by AaronW · · Score: 2

      The Leaf is an example of how not to do batteries. The Leaf does not have proper cooling of the battery pack. Tesla has much better battery management with active cooling as well as they use a different chemistry. The energy density of Tesla's batteries is also much higher than the Leaf.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re:not just charge cycles by ras · · Score: 1

      They loose 20% of their capacity - when they are fully charged or fully discharged. Quoting Wikipedia:

      Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 C (32 F), 20% at 25 C (77 F), and 35% at 40 C (104 F). When stored at 40%–60% charge level, the capacity loss is reduced to 2%, 4%, and 15%, respectively.

      And yes, that is real. On reading that 5 years ago I decided to store my laptop's battery in the backpack, at 50% charge, unless I planned to use it. It still has 2/3's of charge today.

      All that aside, again quoting Wikipedia on the ESS - the Tesla's battery system:

      The ESS is expected to retain 70% capacity after 5 years and 50,000 miles (80,000 km) of driving (10,000 miles (16,000 km) driven each year). However, a July 2013 study found that even after 100,000 miles, Roadster batteries still have 80%-85% capacity and the only significant factor is mileage (not temperature)

      As it happens, 80%-85% after 100,000 means 80%-85% after 500 cycles, which just happens to fit the characteristics of a LiMn battery. So there is nothing remarkable about the Telsa's performance. It's just today's battery technology done right. Granted, given it is almost always done wrong, this is a major achievement.

    5. Re:not just charge cycles by ngg · · Score: 2

      > They lose 20% of their capacity every year in ideal temperatures. In Phoenix the nissan leaf was losing upwards of 50% of its capacity (read range) in the first year due to the heat

      Yea, that's because Nissan was a little dopey and decided to put an air-cooled battery in first-generation Leafs (supposedly they are moving to a liquid cooling system in the next revision). Tesla uses a liquid cooling system for the battery for a reason, you know...

      Any your numbers are off, by the way. A survey of Roadster owners found less than 20% battery capacity loss after four years of ownership.

  52. Middlemen by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Any time middlemen are fighting for their existence, it's time to let them fail. I don't fundamentally need a car dealer. It's just the current method of acquiring new vehicles. The only real service they provide to a car-buyer is test-drives and a pick-up location. There are surely more cost-effective and straightforward ways to get past those obstacles.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  53. Another example of bad patents? by jrumney · · Score: 1

    So dealers there are taking an interesting new tack — complaining to the DMV about Tesla's website.

    Apparently the claim the dealers are making is that Tesla are misleading consumers about the actual cost of the vehicles they are selling.

    If only the US didn't recognize business method patents, like the rest of the world, the dealers wouldn't have a case.

  54. Car dealerships by Alioth · · Score: 1

    When I lived in the US there was nothing I dreaded more than going to the car dealership.

    There's no reason why buying a car should be any more complicated than buying a computer or a TV. It should have a sticker with the price on it and that's that. But instead you have to spend hours of unpleasantness haggling over price as if you were at some flea market in Marrakech or you get ripped off, and the embarrassing charade of the salesweasel having to go upstairs and ask the boss for "a better price" (i bet they just go up there, get a soda from the drinks machine, and then wander down a few minutes later as if they have been doing some hard bargaining). And the pricing dealers use is completely opaque.

    And when you go in knowing exactly what you want, the salesweasel puts on a high pressure sales act to try and get you to buy something more expensive. "Oh you don't want a truck with manual transmission, they don't come with leather seats blah blah blah". I don't care about leather seats, it's a pickup truck, it goes dirty places, and the last thing I want in a vehicle that will be going in the dirt are expensive leather seats.

  55. Just as slimy by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

    Nice to see that Tesla's just as slimy and deceptive as all the other dealers out there.

  56. Doge!!! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    "When the buying and selling are regulated, the first things bought and sold are the legislatures."

    Horror stories like these are the rule, not the exception. A quick look at the world shows massive corrupion, even in nominal democracies, where the purpose of going to work for government is the kickbacks. And not just as an elected official. The going rate in India for approving a new building is 1/10th the cost of the building.

    We are fools to think tbisn't a heavy lien in the US because the press is so gosh darned awesome at exposing things. How do you hink most congressmen become multimillionaires?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  57. Lets hope Musk doesn't get framed a for drug deal by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

    If Elon Musk gets busted for trying to make a big cocaine deal, then we know they have run out of new ideas at destroying a competitor.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  58. Re:The fact that there are laws that require deale by Megane · · Score: 1

    It's just as ridiculous as forcing people to pay car insurance or home insurance in some states.

    I'm not familiar with any home insurance requirements here in Texas, but I have a mortgage, I'm sure the finance company requires it, just like they require auto insurance to finance a vehicle. But states don't (to my knowledge) require insurance that pays you for your own fault accidents, only to pay someone else for your fault accidents.

    And while we're complaining about this, it's also just as ridiculous as forcing people to buy health insurance.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  59. Moving parts by phorm · · Score: 1

    While the engine isn't based on "timed explosions", I'm not sure how one avoids the need for lubricant (oil or something similar, a grease at the least) on key parts with high-RPM movement?

    1. Re:Moving parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Permanently lubricated electric motors have been 'a thing' for a few decades now. Ever since the invention of the brushless motor.

    2. Re:Moving parts by AaronW · · Score: 1

      One of the people I spoke with at the Tesla factory said that the motor is lubricated for 12 years. Presumably after 12 years they need to add more grease. In the Model S I believe it is fairly easy to remove the electric motor and drivetrain from the chassis. In a video it shows them installing it as a single module to the chassis in under 5 minutes. Granted it will take more time than when they install it in the factory, but it should be a lot easier than an ICE car.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgDcA1pZAM starting at around 40 minutes in.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  60. Percentage of shoppers? by SanDogWeps · · Score: 1

    "It also notes that Tesla's quoted new-car prices net out a $7,500 Federal income-tax credit for purchase of a plug-in electric car. According to the California dealers, just 20 percent of all car shoppers qualify for that credit--and the group attributes that statistic to the Congressional Budget Office..." says the industry that touts 0.9% APR financing (for well qualified buyers - suspect that number is a mite lower than 20%).

  61. Steve Jobs here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs here:
    As long as I don't have to get a license plate, I'm good.

  62. Re:Mineral Oil by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    The fact that it doesn't eat paint matters a lot on a bicycle. And FWIW, I find the feel of glycol crud on my hands is much more grotesque than Pentosin.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.