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."

36 of 364 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

  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 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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: 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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 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.

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

    ...when companies are fighting it.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  9. 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 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.

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

    Just trying to make an honest livi---

    wait

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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
  21. 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.