Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

An anonymous reader writes As many expected, Michigan Governor Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill that bans Tesla Motors from selling cars directly to buyers online in the state. When asked what Tesla's next step will be, Diarmuid O'Connell, vice president of business development, said it was unclear if the company would file a lawsuit. "We do take at their word the representations from the governor that he supports a robust debate in the upcoming session," O'Connell said. "We've entered an era where you can buy products and services with much greater value than a car by going online."

Comments

Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

Reinforcing an already existing ban was to make sure foreign markets don't try to muscle in and sell direct.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[TWX]

It's a lot more likely that foreign auto makers would use a dealer network than sell direct though, as there are more storage concerns with the importation of vehicles compared to when they're produced domestically, plus the nature of international trade might require an American holding company to do business more easily.

I think this is more an auto-industry trying to screw with the very nature of the market itself with protectionist practices than it is anything else. American automakers have never happily sold non-petroleum-fuelled vehicles in any real quantity, and while Tesla's cars so far have been luxury, they're looking to ramp up economy of scale and pricing for mid-line products that could really threaten the status quo. Teslas might be more expensive to purchase initially, but their lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs make them attractive to those drivers that don't need to go more than a couple-hundred miles a day and plan to keep their cars for more than a few years.

I can state, definitively, that if a $30,000 electric car with a 150 mile range on a single charge became a thing I'd have to consider it. That's plenty for commuting and errands for my household, and since we already have a four door sedan with low miles as the out-of-town trip car, we wouldn't need extended range on something in the city. Having relatively clean maintenance would also be a plus.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

I can't justify two cars, and if I own a car, it has to be able to drive 1000 miles in a day. Until that's true, an electric is off the table for me unless it's cheap enough that I can justify the electric and renting a conventional for the road trips. Sadly, $30K is well above that line, MAYBE if it were $15K, and safe (boring is fine) I would consider it.

But then my operating costs are almost zero anyway.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Harlequin80]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you at this stage. I have done enough super high mileage trips that it would require a second car permanently on stand by. That means double insurance, tax, storage and depreciation.

An average year sees our main car do c45,000km the trips are often 200km+ and to be skirting that close to the range limit that often puts me off.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[starless]

I can't justify two cars, and if I own a car, it has to be able to drive 1000 miles in a day.

If you routinely have to drive so far then an electric wouldn't work for you.
However, if driving long distances is rare then an electric plus occasional rental (e.g. zip) ought to work.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, they could have used wording like "Domestic" and "Foreign". But they didn't so this argument is bunk.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

About 25% of the time I drive 800 miles in a day. I almost never drive at all; if I'm going to own a car, cost of operation is negligible for anything, unless I'm badly overlooking something. Logically my best move would be to not own a car at all, but I'm not quite ready for that step.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

A typical year for me sees my car doing about 5000 miles, with most of that being a few long trips. If it were a completely rational thing I would simply rent a car for those trips, but I dislike the idea of not having ready personal transportation a few steps away. In case of zombies, you know.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[LordKronos]

It'll get to that point eventually. Tesla's currently installing superchargers across the country. You can get a half charge in 170 mile charge in 30 minutes (and it's free)

http://www.teslamotors.com/sup...

That's not too bad. Having to stop for 30 minutes every couple hours is a bit less than desirable, but that's a significant improvement. If you plan your bathroom breaks and dinner around charging time, then several of those stops won't be so bad.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't justify two cars, and if I own a car, it has to be able to drive 1000 miles in a day.

I can. As a married commuter, I share two vehicles with my spouse, each of which typically get driven 85mi per day. I take huge road trips all the time, but I can plan which car I use. If I want the option of driving 250+ miles without stopping, I can use the dinosaur-juice vehicle.

A Tesla (or leaf, volt, etc) is becoming a much more serious option for me.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

Rent a car for those trips. You can get a car for $100-$150 a week. That is a car you don't have to worry about at all. I have 9 cars. I take trips to Charlotte from DC for work and I still rent a car. My company pays for miles on those trips (or would pay air fare which is normally much higher) and it about evens out for what I rent the car + gas for. State Farm and my AMEX cover any additional insurance. If I get a flat tire, get locked out, it breaks down or whatever, no sweat off my balls, one phone call and 30 minutes later and I am in a different car and on my way.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[mattack2]

I can state, definitively, that if a $30,000 electric car with a 150 mile range on a single charge became a thing I'd have to consider it.

Why do you need THAT much range, daily? The lowest end electric cars already beat your price (by a long shot if you count tax rebates), and are close to 2/3 of your range "requirement".

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[mattack2]

My smart electric net cost was about exactly $16500, after rebates, including sales tax.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Type44Q]

it has to be able to drive 1000 miles in a day

That's perfectly reasonable; you'd only need to drive at 65mph for nearly fifteen and a half fucking hours without ever stopping to get gas or take a piss. :p

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that if your are really doing that for any commercial cause, you are violating at least one of a number of laws. There is a limit on how long someone is legally able to drive in a single day, and 800 goes over that limit. If an employer is making you do this directly or indirectly, it might help to bring that up. If it is just for you, well it is still not legal, but it probably won't ever come up.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Snotnose]

My 9 year old car has 62k miles on it. Half those are long trips (vegas, sacramento, yellowstone, etc). During the week I mostly get around on a bicycle, the car is used when I either need to go 10+ miles or carry stuff.

So yeah, unless the car has a 400 mile range (or a 5 minute recharge), electric won't work for me.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[savuporo]

As soon as an electric car drives a 1000 miles in a day, you'll move the bar to a 1005.

Besides, your 1000 miles has already repeatedly broken,

http://www.popsci.com/cars/art...
http://gas2.org/2012/06/14/ren...

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[s0nicfreak]

Come on now, who among us does not regularly drive down the highway for 15 hours straight while pissing in a bottle?

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

That's really not very realistic. A couple of thousand mile trips a year would overshadow the cost savings an electric would bring. If you add in the half dozen or so trips in the 300 mile range that *might* be in the range of an electric but would be dicey, then it's really not very practical.

It also assumes that each trip has lots of lead time to arrange a rental. This would mostly be true for the very long trips, but rarely true for the short ones.

I'm always amazed by people who say "Sure, get an electric car, you can rent if you need to go further." In what world does that make economic sense?

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

geez o flip!

i drove across country this summer in 2 days during june, so daylight the whole way. if i
had had to stop every 170 miles (like 21 times), that would have added 17hrs (50%) to
my trip.

nope, not going to win with this argument.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont disagree with your comments. The only problem is Tesla should file complaints with regulators because to me this is a direct violation of the consumer protections laws, and file lawsuits based on violating said laws. Why in the world would Tesla believe in "open and productive dialog" with morons that are bought-and-paid for politicians. Its pretty clear the brainless politicians dont give a shit about consumers rights and "free market". And in an oxy-moron spin, I believe that state is Prepubican (no I didn't misspell that) controlled so it only shows any of their "were here to protect our citizens, and preserve your rights" propaganda when it comes to election time is laughable. Of course few notice how both sides talk out their ass and then do everything opposite behind closed doors.

Of course the Republican Party was the one that opened pandora's box with the patriot act, and country wide domestic spying. And the go around blaming everyone else but won't man up and said they screwed over privacy. Which by the way I believe is still in the constitution at least if your not in government, but apparently once you work for government somehow the constitution disappears.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

70 miles/hr * 15 hrs = 1152 miles. this is pretty reasonable in june out west.
leave at 6:00am, drive until 9:00pm. this gives 152/70 ~ 2 hrs for breaks.

i've done it. it's not hard.

captcha: anorexia. well, sort of right in an eliza sort of way.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

If you're not carrying a logbook, then there are no legal limits on how far you can drive, at least not anywhere I've ever been. As far as that goes, if you *are* carrying a logbook, the limitation is on hours, not miles, but you're right that 800 miles would bust that limit.

I'm pretty sure this is true even if you are driving as an employee. As a wireline engineer there were no legal limits on how far or long I could drive, because I drove a passenger car. My truck crew were DOT drivers and they *did* have legal limits.

It's been 25 years, so it's possible details have changed, but I doubt the basic rules have changed that much.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

A 40 mile range, daily would do me.

But it wouldn't cover the days when I need 7 or 800 miles.

A Tesla with 300 mile range and charging stations properly placed for cross-country trips would be great. I'd jump on that in a minute, if it were $30k.

20 - 30 minute breaks for charging and meals would be fine by me.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[easyTree]

I doubt the zombies will leave their dealerships. You're probably safe.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

I'm certainly no fan of the Republican Party, but the PATRIOT Act and all its progeny were bipartisan.

And the surveillance state got out of hand under the Republicans, but it didn't get any better under the Democrats, so I'm not seeing any partisan moral high ground here.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[LordKronos]

Apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite there. Did I say we've arrived at the panacea? No, I didn't even say anything remotely like that. What I was saying is that it's a lot better than it was before.

And I don't think your math is quite there either. 170 miles * 21 stops = 3570 miles. Over 2 days, that's 1785 miles per day. Even on the summer solstice, you have only 16 hours of daylight (unless you are up in northern canada). So even if we don't count time to eat, use the bathroom, and get gas, you must have been driving 111 MPH continuously. Even if I grant you the hour before sunrise and after sunset, that's still 99 MPH with no stops.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

Not at all. I drive to see family several times a year, and that drive is almost 1000 miles one way. Most of the distance I cover in my car is on those drives. The rest of the time I walk to work, my groceries are delivered, and everything I want is also within walking distance except for maybe once every 3-6 weeks. What is my overwhelming reason to have an electric car? It's not going to save me much money and it's not going to be able to handle most of my driving. Complete and utter fail until they can cover at least 350 miles on a charge and be charged in less than 15 minutes.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

No, I get gas, and piss. Then I continue. I didn't say 1000 miles without stopping, I said 1000 miles in a DAY.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

My current actual drive is almost exactly 800 miles but 1000 is almost as far as I've ever driven, and honestly after about 1000 it's really no fun.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

Great, where do I put the car seat and woman? When I was alone I looked for a Smart Electric but they were not in America yet; I wasn't aware they were now. In any case, my 2012 sedan is paid for now and I can't see any compelling reason to switch; the electric wouldn't cover most of my miles and my daily drive is zero - I walk or telecommute. My annual mileage is around 5K with the vast majority being 2-3 1600 mile round trips to see family.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

It's closer, but my actual 2-3 times a year trip to see family is 800 miles one way; As it sits I stop twice due to the combination of range, uncertainty, and distribution of filling stations, and each stop is less than 10 minutes.

I could manage an added 20 or even 30 minutes in added stops but that's as much as I can put up with. If an electric could do say, 600 miles and charge in 30 minutes, then it would be doable; I could either stop a couple times for partial charges or once for 20+ minutes, since in reality no one will want to drain a battery any more than we run a tank dry.

But we're not there yet, not even close really. Maybe close in time until it's possible, but not close in capability now.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Harlequin80]

Where as I live in a semi-rural area on acreage. It is 7km to my local store and I have two young kids. This means that I do lots of middle distance drives - 20-30km multiple times a day and then longer ones multiple times a week. It's the price of where I live, but you make those decisions. Also I am on the road a lot for work so the drive to the office, plug in, drive home, plug in model doesn't work.

I would happily (well kinda happily anyway) sit at a charging station for 10 minutes if that gave me half decent range. But that said, when deciding on which particular model car I was going to buy recently the range of 1100km on a tank was a HUGE selling point.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[TWX]

I want 150 miles based on the size of the (sub)urban area in which I live. My commute is 20 miles round-trip. My wife's is 40 miles round-trip. I want to be able to at least reach downtown after work and back home again. It's also not uncommon to do things on the weekends that are much further away than work.

I don't think that 150 miles is unreasonable. That's half of the range of a gasoline powered car on a single tank of fuel. I'd love it if a car could get a 300-mile range for $30,000, but I know we're not there yet.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

In what world does that make economic sense?

In most people's worlds. You are not average. The average person in America commutes less than 50 miles each way to work and back, and rarely goes further than that. Electric is a massive (at least for now) cost savings in fuel. Whether or not that cost savings is a net benefit to the added cost is of course debatable, but not everyone is only doing things for price reasons. There are many areas of the US where you can basically get paid to charge your car at night sometimes when demand is low, it happens to me infrequently.

An electric car works great for me, and I also rarely drive. Basically I go to the airport and back - maybe the grocery store if I've been lazy and forgotten to put my order in for delivery on time. The 1000 mile trips people talk about here just blow my mind - why would you want to waste your time and attention on that bullshit? I understand if it's for a specific need, or into bumblefuck. But between cities? If it's over 300 miles I'm flying. Period.

It all comes down to needs. If electric doesn't work for you, don't buy it! It will never (at least for a long while) fit the needs for people taking long trips on a regular basis. That's fine - we can eventually get to the point where electric is the norm, and there is a tiny fraction of fossil fueled vehicles owned by those that need them. That's a net win for everyone, including those driving those vehicles.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[AaronW]

I have a single car that's electric, now granted it is a Tesla model S. I don't have any issue if I have to drive from the Bay Area to LA. I was planning to drive up to Seattle though sadly I couldn't get the time off of work. The rate they're building superchargers makes it easier and easier for long distance travel. If I need to go on a long trip that isn't covered, renting a car for the few times I need to is still cheaper than all the gas I'd be burning otherwise. I kept my old car for about six months but I never drove it so I ended up selling it. The only trip I've taken where I couldn't take my Tesla is one where I wouldn't take my Tesla anyway since it involved a lot of bumpy dirt roads. In general long trips have not been a problem. While I do have to stop every few hours I find I'm more relaxed when I get to my destination.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you drive 800 miles? Is your time worthless to you?

I mean, I can understand you preferring that. But to me that is as much insanity as electric cars are apparently to you. I'd rather stab myself with ice picks than be stuck driving a car for 14 hours. I can get halfway across the world in that time in an aircraft.

Just know your needs are in no way indicative of the average trip taken in a vehicle in America. You don't need electric cars to replace every possible niche current fossil fueled vehicles fill. You also forget the average household in america has more than one vehicle - if I were in that situation, I'd buy one electric and one gasoline just to have around in the case of those trips. At least then I'm still supporting an industry that needs to boot-strap, as well as realizing the cost savings for one of our commutes - while still retaining all the flexibility of having a gasoline powered vehicle available for those exceedingly rare trips that need it.

Basically different vehicles exist for different needs. You're not buying a 6 wheel panel truck because you move twice a decade. That is about how often (if that) I'd be taking the length of trips you'd be talking about.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

That's great that it works for you, however there is no "all the gas I'd burn otherwise" for me, and for what I do there is certainly no economic incentive to buy a car that costs more than my VW and is less capable. I can't remember exactly when I filled up last, but I think it's been maybe 5 or maybe 8 weeks ago. Last time I had to have the car (couple weeks back) the tank was full but I had to air up the tires.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[AaronW]

You must not drive much. I drive 40-50 miles every day. I have a tremendous amount of storage and it's certainly fun to drive. I also never have to set foot in a gas station. I spend 5 seconds plugging in at night and 5 seconds unplugging in the morning to a full battery (or whatever level of charge I choose). I don't have to stand out in the weather and wait in line for fuel nor has the range been much of an issue. It's also a somewhat different driving experience with how smooth and quiet and responsive the car is. There is no lag.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

I walk or telecommute, and most things I need are delivered to me. Sometimes I have to run an out of the routine errand, but those are not long (typically less than 5 miles, certainly less than 30) and they are infrequent. Then 2-3 times a year I drive 1600 miles round trip to see family. That's it, about 5K or a little more a year, with most of it being a long road trip that I couldn't use an electric for anyway. So not at all typical, but electrics are not yet suitable for me.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[savuporo]

Sir ( or fraulein ) , you might think if you want to have a car at all, and just fly and/or rent if and when needed. It will save you time and money and probably make a bunch of people generally safer around you.
I wouldn't call ABBA a complete and utter fail if disco has just never been my thing.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[stealth_finger]

Reinforcing an already existing ban was to make sure foreign markets don't try to muscle in and sell direct.

What happened to the American mantra of competition is good? capitalism forever and all that. Or is it now we can compete against you but you can't compete against us?

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

70 * 15 = 1050

Do they have special math in your state?

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

You drive for 53 hours in a 2 day period? (170/70*22)

That's not safe dude. Or possible.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Talderas]

A commercial vehicle is any vehicle owned by company or used to transport passengers. The limitations only apply to vehicles with a GVW over 10,000 lbs. BNSF, Union Pacific, and Norfolk Sourthern all have hundred of commercial vehicles in their fleet but only a fraction of that number require log books. Every pickup truck you see with their logo is a commercial vehicle that probably has a GVW between 9,000 and 9,500.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't justify two cars, and if I own a car, it has to be able to drive 1000 miles in a day.

Optimize for the common case/s: driving to work and grocery shopping.

If you buy an 'e-car' that can do that, you'll probably save a lot of money, and some of that can be used to rent a combustion car for the long trips.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[drinkypoo]

I have done enough super high mileage trips that it would require a second car permanently on stand by. That means double insurance, tax, storage and depreciation.

it means none of those things but storage cost. The insurance for the second vehicle is reduced, and often the insurance on your primary vehicle is reduced when you add another vehicle to your policy, even if you don't decrease the primary vehicle's mileage. And you get an older vehicle for the second car, and it costs you less to buy, less in depreciation, etc.

It still might not work out, but it doesn't cost twice as much.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[quetwo]

It was more than just reinforcing an existing ban. It also prohibited Tesla from doing a showroom or direct advertising in Michigan as well.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[BVis]

Then clearly the Smart isn't meeting your needs. That's fine. A Honda Fit can't do the same job as an Odyssey.

It really sounds like you might be better off renting for those big trips, if your insurance is relatively expensive. Or, flying, it's an 800 mile trip.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[BVis]

That's great that it works for you, however there is no "all the gas I'd burn otherwise" for me, and for what I do there is certainly no economic incentive to buy a car that costs more than my VW and is less capable.

Then don't buy one. Why are you even here? The story was about government restricting a business model, not "OMG everyone should buy an electric car because you're a bad person if you don't". Clearly your use case isn't a good one for an electric car. Not everyone's is. Lots of people's are (including mine, if the Model 3 hits the market for under $30k, it's worth the extra $5-10K as opposed to the equivalent gas-powered car for me never having to set foot in a car dealership).

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[BVis]

Why in the world would Tesla believe in "open and productive dialog" with morons that are bought-and-paid for politicians.

PR. If they go to the pols (in a public forum) and ask the uncomfortable questions (as in, who owns your vote today, Senator), and they get stonewalled, they look like the victims (which, in fairness, they are in this case). People already hate politicians so much that making them look like assholes is like shooting fish in a barrel.. with an RPG. Also, they'll probably get overpaid PR flacks from the legacy automotive industry to demonstrate how out of touch they are when it comes to just how much their customers hate dealing with dealerships; this is useful in swaying public opinion away from the bullshit "local business that supports little league teams" argument that dealers like to make.

So, between making the pols look like unreasonable assholes, and making the dealers look like lying bumblefucks (neither of which is difficult), they're well on their way to winning in the court of public opinion, and could potentially have referendums on a ballot that would override what the bought-and-paid-for pols want to do.

Of course the Republican Party was the one that opened pandora's box with the patriot act, and country wide domestic spying.

Stay on topic, please. There are plenty of places to talk about privacy politics elsewhere on the net.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of vehicles wouldn't be suitable for a lot of different people. That doesn't mean that they aren't perfectly suitable for a lot of other people. I don't even know what people are arguing here anymore.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

He's accounting for time dilation at those relativistic speeds.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[aviators99]

Reinforcing an already existing ban was to make sure foreign markets don't try to muscle in and sell direct.

The last minute change to the law was to change one word; the word that caused Massachusetts to lose the case against Tesla. This had nothing to do with foreign cars.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[NetNed]

At 200 miles a day, a tesla would not be a good choice unless you like a added level of stress in your day. I know what the number and stats are for range, but those are akin to the MPG ratings on gas vehicles. If you are in the perfect environment where access to charging isn't an issue, you'd be ok, but that's few and far between in most parts of the country. Add in cold/heat effects on range to the equation too. With the price of teslas right now, if you spent that then ended up being stressed about range issues, I am pretty certain it would be the last tesla you would buy. And for that matter, who would spend this much on a car and be doing their own maintenance on it? Not many. I think the maintenance argument is weak at best. If you do regular oil changes (3000 to 5000 miles, maybe more depending on car and driving style) and don't drive a vehicle in to the ground so to speak (never clean it, never maintain it, drive it like you stole it) non-regular maintenance would be pretty much the same between the two. Plus tesla's main argument for not having private owned dealers is that the cars are "too technically advanced" for private dealerships to work on. Does that mean I would have to send my car to California to have issue serviced? I am sure they have some awesome service program that takes good care of the owners in these events, but I am also pretty certain that this is more about control then it is it being "too advanced". I'd say the Volt, Leaf and others have as much or even more technology and dealers can work on them just fine.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

Electric is a slight cost savings in fuel if you live in California and pay Tier 3 or Tier 4 prices (which you do if you live in the Central Valley.) If I could afford to put solar panels on my roof that might very well change the equation, and prices for that are coming down, so I'm going to revisit that issue at some point.

My commute is far under what you cite as the average -- I drive about 6 miles each way. For most of my daily use (assuming I can bring the cost of electricity down) an electric would be fine.

Once every month or two I make a 200-300 mile day trip (round trip.) Once or twice a year I make a 2 to 3000 mile round trip. Flying could be an option, but not a very good one. It would still involve a decently long drive -- the local municipal airport would mean an expensive shuttle flight each direction. Overall, that's quite a bit more expensive and only a little shorter time-wise. Plus it would mean renting a car at the destination.

But I'm suspicious of what your notion of the "average American" does. I've never lived in a place where putting in a grocery order for delivery was an option. I've never lived in a place where most of the people I knew didn't make occasional trips out of town. I've never lived in a place where "I rarely drive" was an option.

Perhaps you live in a very big city or a *very* small town, but is that really the "average?"

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[MachineShedFred]

You CAN afford to put solar on your roof. There are several companies that do solar installs based on a "Power Purchase Agreement" rather than an outright purchase, or will finance the panels at a price that still has you saving money per month over what you are paying for electricity now.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[MachineShedFred]

Unless the charging station already has every charging cable being used - then you are stopping for 30 + n minutes.

When all pumps at a fuel station are being used, it's only a few minute wait. Tesla is doing what it can to mitigate this issue, but it's still a big issue.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[MachineShedFred]

How do you multiply one integer that ends in zero with one that ends in five and get a last digit of 2?

Go back to the third grade, you missed something.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[ultranova]

But we're not there yet, not even close really. Maybe close in time until it's possible, but not close in capability now.

Sure it's possible, it just requires a larger percentage of vehicle weight to be made of batteries. But it's pointless to lug these extra batteries around day-to-day. So, put them into a battery trailer. You could make these rentable and swap them along the way, or perhaps use the batteries on the trailer first, leave it to charge as you continue with just the car, and pick it up on your way back.

You could also extend the idea to freight carriers, since trailers spend considerable time sitting at the depot waiting for a pickup. Why not use that time to fill onboard batteries? True, you lose some weight capacity, but you save on fuel, many cargoes are limited by size rather than weight, and logistics warehouses tend to be large, flat-rooted structures - ideal for solar panels, which become cost-effective when combined with large storage capacity.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

The rational thing would be to rent, but I'm not comfortable not having personal transportation at hand just yet.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

Flying takes just as long really (there is no local airport at the other end) and insurance for my low mileage ownership is pretty reasonable. The car is paid for but it is a depreciating asset; logically and practically I would be better off with taxis and rentals, but city life is not how I grew up and I'm just not comfortable without a car in the garage yet.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

That's great that it works for you, however there is no "all the gas I'd burn otherwise" for me, and for what I do there is certainly no economic incentive to buy a car that costs more than my VW and is less capable.

Then don't buy one. Why are you even here?

I was replying to this:

I can state, definitively, that if a $30,000 electric car with a 150 mile range on a single charge became a thing I'd have to consider it. That's plenty for commuting and errands for my household, and since we already have a four door sedan with low miles as the out-of-town trip car, we wouldn't need extended range on something in the city. Having relatively clean maintenance would also be a plus.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

The battery trailer would actually work, I like it. A decent sized trailer would probably extend the range to exceed that of almost any driver, so maybe no need to even drop or swap; just hook it up for the long trips, and if it's a multi-day trip you can charge the whole assembly overnight. Ungainly but seems practical. Too bad there's no standard for that connection.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

Why would you drive 800 miles? Is your time worthless to you?

I mean, I can understand you preferring that. But to me that is as much insanity as electric cars are apparently to you. I'd rather stab myself with ice picks than be stuck driving a car for 14 hours. I can get halfway across the world in that time in an aircraft.

Yes, when I travel outside the Pacific NW I fly, however let's work an example.

Suppose I want to travel my typical route by air (I have done this, it is more relaxing), what does that look like? Well, My day starts around 8am, so giving a little time for the taxi to the airport and the required packing time, the typical departure time for the flight will be around 11am. The destination is my parents house, which is pretty rural, and there is no direct flight near there, so I have a choice of arriving 270 miles from their place around 2pm by the time I exit the airport, forcing them to drive (they are old, so not super cool) or rent, and placing my arrival around 5pm at their doorstep. Additionally I had to do the typical TSA dance where I can't carry my pocket knife unless I have checked luggage and I can't practically transport any bulky or otherwise non-TSA-friendly gifts and so on with me. During my stay, I won't have a car unless I rented for the whole week so I will have to borrow or ride with someone.

The other option is to wait in the remote big city airport 3-4 hours until a shuttle flight, which would bring me a mere 90 minutes away from the ancestral homestead, and I arrive around 8pm, still no pocket knife or whiskey.

Driving, I can load up the car for the most part the evening before, and walk out around 8am with a dufflebag in hand, fire it up and drive away. Some time around 8:30pm I will pull into the destination driveway with boxes of goodies for nieces and parents, and if I wanted to do something like bring a gun for some recreational shooting (these things happen) I didn't have to have TSA x-ray my genitals for the privilege.


If the trip were appreciably longer (this is why I set a limit at 1000 miles) I would and do fly unless the drive is the whole point, but for me and my endurance level and so on this is an easily doable drive and the alternatives are not compelling.

Just know your needs are in no way indicative of the average trip taken in a vehicle in America.

That would be why I said it won't work for me.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[rjstanford]

Sounds like you'd be a poor customer - don't buy one.

Thankfully for the electric car business, you're also an outlier - the vast majority of drivers daily needs can actually be satisfied by the electric cars currently on the market.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

If I didn't already OWN a car I would, however since I *do* own a car, what is my incentive to go electric and then force myself to rent for most of the miles I drive?

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[rjstanford]

Do you often fill your gas tank up every two days?

The electric is completely full every morning; your wife's a 40 mile round-trip plus a 30 mile jaunt downtown (seems like an excessive estimate, it assumes that she works 20 miles away from downtown and you also live 30 miles outside of downtown in the same direction) is still only 100 miles.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[steveg]

Well, prices have come down, and will probably come down more. Once I get the new AC paid off (*that* brought my electric bills down) I'll have free money to consider solar.

But given that the hardware price is coming down, I don't see much upside for "Power Purchase Agreements."

But I don't lease cars either. :)

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Anonymous Coward]

...............Literally the only example where you wouldn''t need this in America is if you live in NYC where there is a subway system.

In Houston, you'll be driving at least 160 miles a day if you live in the suburbs (which you do if you live in Houston unless you're too poor for a Tesla anyway) and you feel like running around town and DOING things without paying for a cab or the metro. If you live out in the country, there's no excuse not to have that much of a range - who knows what you might end up doing.

Some people actually, you know, drive their cars. And they need to go home and stop, forever, but that's a different story.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[luther349]

you can go as far as you like in your Tesla supercharging stations are everywhere these days.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[luther349]

well that's a half charge say you pull off go sit down and eat etc you can get a full charge witch is like 260 miles on the 85kw model.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[chuckugly]

Sure, if I want a 30 minute timeout every couple hours along the few routes they service. Hope you didn't want to drive through Yellowstone.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[RockDoctor]

It's been 25 years, so it's possible details have changed, but I doubt the basic rules have changed that much.

The rules haven't changed much. People work to get around them as much as possible, but it gets increasingly difficult. And, to be honest, when I'm witnessing wireline jobs onshore, one of the things that I'm required to do by the (oil company) operations geologist is to audit the driving behaviour of the wireline crew, if they're not staying on site. (If you're the only wireline crew in the country, and 300 miles / 2 days drive from the rigsite, and there's no accommodation within 3 hours drive of the rigsite, you might ass well have them stay in the camp.)

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[Harlequin80]

Maybe where you are. For me registration cost is exactly the same for the 1st or the 100th car. Insurance as well seems to make no difference. You get usage discounts definitely but the insurance cost on a car always has a base line minimum and that amount is higher than the discount for low usage, by an order of magnitude.

Depreciation is more dependent on age than anything else, of course if your car is already old then you have worn most of the depreciation already. But you don't see huge cost differences between a 3 year old car with 30,0000 and one with 50,000 and, maybe wrongly, but I would prefer a newer car for safety, especially for long trips. Finally servicing is done on both mileage and age. You don't want to leave oil sitting in your engine for long periods of time as it turns acidic. Also fuel goes off and can gum things like injectors, plugs, filters and pumps. Which means no matter what you will be increasing your servicing costs.

Re:Tesla wasn't the target, it was China

[drinkypoo]

Maybe where you are. For me registration cost is exactly the same for the 1st or the 100th car.

You didn't even mention registration cost. Moving the goalposts.

Insurance as well seems to make no difference

get a better insurer.

a car always has a base line minimum

No, no it does not. The number is different for everyone. They basically invent them, that's why they won't share their formulas. It's not because of competitive advantage. They're all fucking people in the same ways. It's to hide the fucking.

But you don't see huge cost differences between a 3 year old car with 30,0000 and one with 50,000 and, maybe wrongly, but I would prefer a newer car for safety, especially for long trips.

As long as it's new enough to have side curtain airbags, it doesn't really matter.

You don't want to leave oil sitting in your engine for long periods of time as it turns acidic.

Synthetics have less problem with this, the more synthetic they are the less problem. Run Schaeffer's or AMSOIL, because the other supposedly "full" synthetics have been tested as low as 24%. Mobil 1 was actually downranked a full grade it's such bullshit.

Also fuel goes off and can gum things like injectors, plugs, filters and pumps.

Fuel stabilizers are readily available, and will easily let gasoline keep for a year.

Which means no matter what you will be increasing your servicing costs.

Again, your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. I said the costs don't double.

Of Course it did

[Archangel Michael]

Direct sales, when no franchise has been offered, is no business of the state to regulate. Great Job everyone on voting for idiots who like to control everything.

Vote Libertarian in two weeks.

Re:Of Course it did

[Archangel Michael]

Queue up the "Somalia" thread here ...

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

bbbbbut libertarians won't feed my kids, force my employer to pay me more than I am worth, or subsidize my phone bill.

they WILL stick up for me when my kid gets killed attacking cops, which is nice.

Re:Of Course it did

[steelfood]

You're looking at it wrong. You're looking at things from an ideological perspective.

Most voters are looking at things from an economic perspective. If keeping these people in power are going to keep them their jobs, they're going to vote that way. Even if they end up losing their job ten years later due to a collapse in their entire industry, money in the pocket now trumps any imaginary gains ten years in the future.

Sorry, that's just how the world works.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Libertarian

tee hee! oh, tee hee hee hee!

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Because employers being forced to pay more than someone is worth is a big problem in present-day America...

Re:Of Course it did

[Teancum]

This is a classic situation where there is a very narrow constituency who wants to have a particular law or program in place, but no comparable counter group opposed to the idea. Corn subsidies is another really good example.

Just watch this video to see if it makes sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8JDx7FwdHk

Or if you want something less dramatic but still more of the same... and tries to explain why this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGOj8kBpsD4

The same thing that got Coca-Cola to make their products out of corn syrup is what got this legislation passed to prohibit Tesla from direct sales.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Libertarians are too young to vote.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian? The pro-drug, anti-union, pro-business movement that doesn't care if people get hurt? Why would anyone vote for them?

We're in a system where all the choices suck, even the third parties.

Regards,

Charles

Re:Of Course it did

[Frankie70]

Who decides what someone is worth?

If there is a minimum wage law, it means employers may be forced to pay someone more than what they think that person is worth.

If there is a maximum wage law, it means employers may be forced to pay someone less than what they think that person is worth.

Re:Of Course it did

[Jawnn]

Because employers being forced to pay more than someone is worth is a big problem in present-day America...

I see what you did there. Almost got me, with your uber-subtle sarcasm. Nicely done, sir.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides what someone is worth?

The country as a whole, on behalf of the entire economic system - which is the governments job to regulate, on behalf of its citizens.

Any other answer leads to slavery, because that's in the minorities interest.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

+100. Thanks for making my day.

Re:Of Course it did

[ultranova]

Queue up the "Somalia" thread here ...

Rather than being bitter that people keep bringing up the flaws of your favorite ideology, why don't you think up ways to fix those flaws? We all got a rather thorough lesson about what happens when ideological purity trumps reality with Soviet Union, and are currently getting a repeat lesson with neoconservatives. Surely you don't want your ideology moving from "questionable" to "inherently evil" category in the annals of history?

Then again, an untested ideology is perfect. It could solve all the world's problems if only people adopted it. Just like a lot of people dream of a perfect book (or game, or movie, or whatever) they'll write one day, but never will, because then it would be subject to actual criticism. So I wonder if libertarians actually want people to vote libertarian, at which point they could no longer dismiss criticism with comments like yours without it backfiring horribly, or if they'd rather just stay in the margins where they can build their utopia in the safety of castles in the sky?

Re:Of Course it did

[temcat]

Yeah, because direct Tesla sales would seriously hurt people. We even know who those people are.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarianism is neutral on all three of the topics you just mentioned. It's the corrupt alternatives to libertarianism (the ones that the "vote libertarian" advice is trying to get you to overthrow), who advocate that government forcefully take sides on those issues.

If you're going to "criticize" something, at least learn WTF you're talking about.

Libertarianism isn't pro-drug. Some libertarians are into drugs and some would rather not. The one thing they agree on, is that when someone points a gun at you and says "no drugs or else" then that person is a vastly greater threat to society than any drug ever will be.

Libertarianism isn't anti-union. Some libertarians would join (or assign greater weight to, when negotiating with) a union, and some (most, I think) wouldn't. The one thing they'd agree on, though, is that the union shouldn't have any special rights/privileges that the people within the union don't have. People are number one.

Libertarianism aren't p-- .. ok, you got me, I've never heard of a libertarian who isn't pro-business. But then there isn't really anyone (not even Republicans or Democrats or Communists) who claims to not be pro-business. If pro-business is a problem for you, then you are probably the first voter in American history to feel that way. And yet, even then, libertarian policy would take a far less pro-business approach by government. Libertarians don't think there should be laws that encourage or protect business for business' sake (it's more like: if you're a person and want to run a business, then the government shouldn't try to stop you).

Now compare that version of "pro-business" to what the Republicrats in Michigan just did. Tell me exactly what the foundation of your anti-business ideology is, and I bet you'll find libertarianism is more compatible with you, than Republicratism is. Maybe not the best; in this regard, maybe you can do better than voting libertarian. But I bet you anything, that voting for libertarians instead of Republicrats, gets you closer to what you want.

The real problem with libertarianism is that they hardly ever run for office, so you can't vote libertarian (unless you have the guts to step up and be That Guy, and I sure as hell don't have quite that level of civic spirit). (I think presidential ballots are the only place I've ever seen 'em, where I live.)

Re:Of Course it did

[jdmuskrat]

i am so happy the republicans are protecting free enterprise for all.

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a classic situation where there is a very narrow constituency who wants to have a particular law or program in place, but no comparable counter group opposed to the idea. Corn subsidies is another really good example.

This is a classic situation where some lazy ass decides that complaining about it on Slashdot constitutes "doing something about it", rather than actually going out and forming a comparable counter group.

If I only had a nickel for every time I heard someone complain about corn subsidies . . .

Re:Of Course it did

[Teancum]

And you think I'm doing nothing politically?

Re:Of Course it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

SLASHDOT BANS FIRST POSTS

[Anonymous Coward]

OR NOT!

Great Job

[plazman30]

America always talks about how the Free Market help keep prices down and innovation high. It's clear from this that we have not had a free market in a long time. New business models come along to compete with old ones, and people pass stupid laws to prevent innovation. Sigh.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

America always talks about how the Free Market help keep prices down and innovation high. It's clear from this that we have not had a free market in a long time. New business models come along to compete with old ones, and people pass stupid laws to prevent innovation. Sigh.

So America has become the land of the brave, not so free, spied upon and (sometimes) corrupt, what else is new?

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave? Hardly. America has become the land of cowards who like to hide behind advanced technology and try to bully the rest of the world.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

New business models come along to compete with old ones

What old business model? The franchise system isn't a `business' model. It's a creation of government. Back in the day car manufacturers would have been happy to sell direct, but your government thought better of it because evil corporations and stuff. Now we have the magical Tesla golden boy corporation that wants to be special and forego a century of laws and sell direct.

Either dismantle the franchise LAWS or ban Tesla direct sales. All other options are banana republic bullshit. Until GM can sell Volts and GMC diesels the same way Tesla wants to sell their Model S Telsa can fuck off.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Has become?

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite true: American BUSINESS loves to talk about the free market
until it bites them on the ass
then they want a bailout.

Re:Great Job

[KiloByte]

If America was brave, terror wouldn't be the primary focus of the government.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses being free to collude and 'make donations' to politicians as 'free speech' - this is a logical outcome of capitalism. Stop pretending it's some sort of aberration. The faith of libertarians borders on religion.

Re:Great Job

[fnj]

Lunatic. American business is run by a bunch of socialist thugs.

Re:Great Job

[Sqr(twg)]

On the contrary: This is the ultimate free market. Even the politicians are for sale. All Tesla motors need to do is raise some money, buy half the legislature, and ban the sale of non-electric cars. A kickstarter campaign would probably do it.

Re:Great Job

[khallow]

Stop pretending it's some sort of aberration.

When you stop pretending your straw man represents some actual point of view. Libertarianism isn't entirely realistic, but then neither are the imaginary misrepresentations of it.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that they don't care about other people, which means that it isn't socialism.

American business is run by a bunch of fascist thugs.

Re:Great Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace that "socialist" with feudal, and I agree...

There is nothing "socialist" about an bunch of rich people that block the so-called free market with bribery.

Re:Great Job

[drinkypoo]

Lunatic. American business is run by a bunch of socialist thugs.

HAHAHAHAHA

It's not socialism, it's oligarchy. Socialism is where the wealth is redistributed to serve the people. The wealth is being redistributed upward in this system, there's nothing socialist about that.

why change?

[Anonymous Coward]

the old way of doing things is the only way to do things, right?

Re:why change?

[Anonymous Coward]

the old way of doing things is the only way to do things, right?

I want to do Apollo Again.

Re:why change?

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont care

So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem to me that Tesla could re-write their warranty to cover cars after they are re-sold. And if you have a neighboring state that decides to allow flexible temporary titling policies for a modest fee you could buy the car in a neighboring state, pay the neighboring state off and then title the car in Michigan. Traditional car dealerships provide almost no added value in the current market -- everybody builds their virtual car online and then hunts something close. About all a dealer is worth is allowing you to physically check the fit of the seats and the sightlines from the command module.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Anonymous Coward]

what sorry? everybody builds their virtual car online and then hunts something close? are you talking about the 1%, or something?

dealers are not for the smart people who know what they want and are trying to find get the best deal. they are for the average joes, of which there is perhaps 90% of the population.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Mr D from 63]

To be fair, dealers provide maintenance, repair, and recall services. That's a bigger factor in the history of these laws than the sales part. The other was price fixing, which is no longer a real threat.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[ShanghaiBill]

To be fair, dealers provide maintenance, repair, and recall services.

Those services are also provided by independent garages, usually at much lower prices.

That's a bigger factor in the history of these laws than the sales part.

No it wasn't. These laws were never, even in theory, about protecting the customer. They were about protecting existing dealer networks. Since Tesla never had a dealer network, these laws shouldn't apply to them.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Mr D from 63]

Those services are also provided by independent garages, usually at much lower prices.

Not when the garages are not privy to manufacturer information or parts. To this day, there are some things that small garages have limited ability to perform that dealers can.

These laws were never, even in theory, about protecting the customer. They were about protecting existing dealer networks.

In theory, they were also about the consumer. In practice, not so much. What good is a warranty with no service location nearby to perform the work? At one time, the choices of cars were a lot more limited, consumers were stuck with a few manufactures. Things have evolved over time, so those issues are no longer as big a deal as they were.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional car dealerships provide almost no added value in the current market -- everybody builds their virtual car online and then hunts something close. About all a dealer is worth is allowing you to physically check the fit of the seats and the sightlines from the command module.

You, sir, are going to have some severe disappointments if that is how you buy cars. Handling, braking, road noise & acceleration are real things.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[J053]

The original impetus for franchise agreements was to enable the manufacturers to just produce vehicles, while pushing the task of finding buyers for them off onto the dealers. When some manufacturers later wanted to start direct sales, the franchised dealers, who are often socially or politically connected and powerful, fought for the exclusionary laws.

Re:So can I buy it in the next state over?

[Anonymous Coward]

And fair prices. There's a reason the little shops call dealerships stealerships.

Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not bigger government! It was already banned, we're just making sure!"

Re:Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[lgw]

It's more like "is there anything else we can try to save Detroit from the evil non-Detroit manufacturers". Sadly, there's no saving Detroit.

Re:Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially not when you get confused about who has been hurting Detroit.

It is the big corporations. There is a reason why the urban core is surrounded by wealthy exurbs.

It works for them.

Re: Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Anonymous Coward]

And now that GM is controlled by the UAW, whose fault is it?

Re:Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Stuarticus]

Wouldn't it benefit the Detroit manufacturers if they could sell directly to customers rather than giving away a vast cut to incompetent middle men all over the country?

Re: Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[drinkypoo]

And now that GM is controlled by the UAW, whose fault is it?

It's GM's fault that they only have two or three cars worth buying, and that they're not selling an EV.

Re:Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[rally2xs]

Detroit can be saved quite simply by repealing the income taxes. American industry will come roaring back to dominate the world, and Detroit will be one of the richest cities on the planet if we do that. JFK said about the income taxes:

"“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 "

Income taxes suppress industry. Removing them entirely will make the USA the manufacturing center of the world again.

Re: Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[dl_sledding]

Can't believe that some troll hasn't yet replied, "VOLT!"

Re: Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[chuckugly]

I would have bought a Volt if it didn't come inextricably linked to that legendary GM level of quality. If VW or BMW made the Volt it'd be in my garage already. A car that can cover 30 miles on battery and then has a fuel tank to make it go another 400 is ideal for me, but it has to be a car, not a Prius.

Re:Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Straif]

Online sales favor small manufactures with limited choices but in most cases dealerships help offload a lot of manufacturers cost and reduce their risk. In either case the government shouldn't be the deciding factor in determining which option your company chooses and it should never have been involved in the first place. These laws were originally meant to protect dealers from having to directly compete with manufactures who might decide to muscle them out of a profitable area by opening up a competing lot. That's all well and good but should never have been put into law, that's a contract condition, not a legal one.

Dealers add to the system by paying for the physical storefronts, paying franchise fees and a lot of local promotional costs. In return they get to profit off of the few buyers who can't haggle in the slightest but generally make real profits on the service side. It's worth it to sell a $30,000 car for just a $500 profit if you can get a person to come back to you for $60 oil changes once or twice a year, plus $500 in new tires every couple years, plus whatever other maintenance charges they can come up with.

At present, it makes sense for most manufacturers to use dealerships (or at least some sort of parking lot style sales system). Just the vast array of options available means a person is more likely to need to see the physical vehicle before making a purchasing decision. Chevy, for example, has 19 vehicles currently available for sale and each of those has several models with a vast array of trim and performance levels. Tesla, by comparison, has 2 and while they offer some variances in trim, you're still getting essentially the same car no matter what you choose. For Tesla having a dealership full of 50-100 identical cars is just a waste of money. If you want a Tesla you want a Tesla and having one available for viewing in a small mall storefront would generally suffice. You should then be able to then go online and customize you trim level and order away without any government interference but the guy buying the Chevy is still most likely want to see all his options in the flesh.

Re: Cue party of hypocrites supporters

[Anonymous Coward]

The kock brothers have asked that you wipe your chin when you move from one to the other. They hate it when u leave cum there.

turn about is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to ban Michigan from any sort of innovation based business.

Re:turn about is fair play

[Snufu]

Time for California to ban Ford, Chrysler and GM sales in the largest car market in the country.

Already illegal

[detritus.]

Except direct sales of new vehicles was already banned before this was enacted.

If some law passed that allowed direct manufacturer to consumer sales, it would be labeled by politicians as a job killing measure that would kill small businesses. Typical election politics.

Re:Already illegal

[King_TJ]

Bans on direct sales of vehicles are nonsense, regardless!

The idea that forcing a "middleman" to exist, by the sake of legislation requiring it (because you know.... creates jobs!), is utterly flawed.
Manufacturers would, most likely, encourage (to the point of helping fund) local distributors/dealers regardless of any laws demanding it. When you sell enough volume of a product - it starts making sense to get other entities to help sell it for you.

Tesla Motors helps illustrate the need to REPEAL any existing law preventing them from doing direct sales!

They don't (yet) do enough volume to find it beneficial to sell through a dealer network. So why not accept that at face value, and let them do business the way they believe is most beneficial? Chances are, if they sell enough vehicles, they'll eventually WANT to work with established dealers to carry their brand. Teslas will eventually start showing up in appreciable numbers on the used car lots of existing dealerships anyway.

Re:Already illegal

[camperdave]

I don't get why this would be illegal.

Re:Already illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' jobs are more important than actual freedom.

Re:Already illegal

[Teancum]

The question that should be raised here is not demanding a repeal of this law, but to question why the government thinks it has authority or purpose for regulating this activity in the first place? In the federal government, Article I, Section 8 explicitly states what Congress has the authority to regulate or control (like setting up laws for copyright, regulations for the military, controlling immigration policy, etc.) and the implication is if Congress doesn't have that authority explicitly granted by the Constitution, they are exceeding their authority to act. Not like that stops Congress from pushing boundaries on those limits in a huge way to absurd directions, but that is at least the original theory.

State legislatures similarly have defined limits on their authority according to their respective state constitutions. That state legislatures often exceed that authority may be true as well, but the voters in Michigan sure can question why they have that authority to act in the first place. It really makes no sense at all.

Re:Already illegal

[detritus.]

Article I Section 8 gives also gives them the right to regulate interstate commerce. Tesla is trading from California to Michigan. Even beyond that, the 10th amendment puts the power into the states to handle things not enumerated to the federal government. Michigan chose to regulate this for better or worse, so it's out of the rights of the people. And yes, Michigan citizens can and should question why these protectionist regulations exist.

Re:Already illegal

[Teancum]

You miss the whole point of Article I, Section 8 in your reply. It is there to tell the federal government to stay out of making these kind of regulations in the first place.

I won't go into the argument about what the interstate commerce clause actually says and what the Federal Papers said it was supposed to do, because that is pointless so far as to fan a whole major sub-thread on that topic alone. At least you acknowledge there is something that the federal government might be able to do to Michigan so far as to smack them down with constitutional authority when Michigan refuses to register a Tesla automobile sold to one of its residents.

Still, who gave the Michigan state legislature the authority to make this law prohibiting the sales of Tesla automobiles in the first place? I assert it is something claimed by the Michigan state legislature, with about the same level of credibility as if they were trying to regulate the value of pi through legislation.

Re:Already illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of business regulation that republicans like. When the GOP takes control of the Senate expect more.

Re:Already illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. It would, of course, happen in Michigan as if the auto industry even still existed in Detroit or Flint or any other town, considering GM makes their cars in Mexico.

I still fail to see how they can get away with or even enforce this. What are they going to do, set up a border patrol fort alongside the state line on EVERY highway that goes into the state from every direction AND get their own coast guard? Intervene in the state's internet service and block the website or any proxy attempts?

Wouldn't surprise me in the surveillance states of america.

Re:Already illegal

[InvisiBill]

http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--339774--,00.html

“This bill does not, as some have claimed, prevent auto manufacturers from selling automobiles directly to consumers at retail in Michigan – because this is already prohibited under Michigan law,” Snyder said in a letter to lawmakers that accompanies the signed bill.

I think it's stupid, but at least it sounds like existing stupidity rather than additional stupidity. For me, the Volt I just bought is a better fit (pure EV for common driving, but the ability to run off gasoline for longer trips), but I'd love to see Tesla gain popularity. I think it will spur innovation from multiple manufacturers and help get a better charging infrastructure built up (hopefully they standardize on a universal charger setup).

Here you go:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nissanusa.com/elect...

Re:Here you go:

[sexconker]

http://www.nissanusa.com/elect...

Not only is 126/101 city/highway not the 150 he specified, it's not range of the car - it's the approximate gasoline efficiency rating ("MPGe"). The range is 84 miles.

With an average range of 84 miles, the Nissan LEAF® takes you 2½ times that distance on a single charge.

Re:Here you go:

[The New Guy 2.0]

Looks like Telsa's behind the 8 ball... there's only 3 states plus DC where they're unencumbered.

Re:Here you go:

[Moof123]

84 average, when new, at 70 degrees, and don't drive over 55 or the range drops quickly. On cold winter days chop a good 20-30% off that range. Expect 20-30% further degradation after 3-5 years of normal usage. There are a fair number of 3-4 year old Leafs that are under 66% capacity and getting replacement batteries (mostly under warranty), and those Leafs are mostly 2011's and 2012's that only started life with a 73 mile EPA range. It is a great little car with real limitations that should be soberly considered.

I expect that any car labeled a 150 mile car will be more reasonably a 100 mile car after a few years of aging and in non-southern winters. A buyer should count that degradation in if they plan on keeping the car for a decade or two. Thankfully battery prices are coming down, so a battery replacement after 5-10 years will be less daunting of an expense than originally feared.

Re:Here you go:

[steveg]

I don't know much about cold winter days, but the efficiency of my hybrid drops significantly on hot summer days.

Re:Here you go:

[TWX]

Sorry, forgot to add, I hate the looks of the Leaf. I'd be fine with an electric car that looks like a normal car, but I don't want a Prius or a Leaf or a Volt, I want something that looks normal.

I've considered converting an old pickup with batteries under the bed, but lead-acid would be the most likely battery, and the truck still runs too well to do that to it right now.

Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[Brannon]

It's awesome.

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons who can't distinguish anarchy from liberty. They're multiplying.

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[kenshin33]

anarchy and chaos are different things too. Just saying.

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely correct. Anarchy (a lack of authority) naturally devolves into a tribal authoritarian society. Chaos is the state during the reorganization.

None of it results in a "libertarian paradise". After all, with no authority, you can't expect everyone to be peaches and sweetness. That's just not how humans act when completely unconstrained. You do get the Middle East though.

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[kenshin33]

and you;re absolutely right, int that we're not ready for anything like that. But that's shouldn't be an obstacle to evolve in that direction!
the middle east has nothing to do with though (the situation has a lot of explanation, the lack of authority is not one of them).

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolve? Toward a tribal authoritarian society? You are one screwed up motherfucker.

Please learn to read. And kill yourself. Or just kill yourself and save the effort.

Re:Libertarian paradise...have you been?

[kenshin33]

Again, tribal and authoritarian are not exactly the same thing (meaning if they were 2 sets they are different sets). There may be a correlation though. What was that thing about correlation and the other thing called cause/effect?

dumbass governors

[jsepeta]

There will be one state, or three, which will allow the sales of Tesla products. These states will reap the tax benefits. And I laugh heartedly at the Governor of Michigan, with broke-ass Detroit, turning away from what could be a spigot full of tax income.

Re:dumbass governors

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be one state, or three, which will allow Fracking. These states will reap the tax benefits. And I laugh heartedly at the Governor of Michigan, with broke-ass Detroit, turning away from what could be a spigot full of tax income.

Still feel the same way?

Re:dumbass governors

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, yeah. Because fracking is the same as selling cars directly to consumers.

Re:dumbass governors

[Anonymous Coward]

One of them is actually good. The other involves piece of shit cars.

Re:dumbass governors

[Zynder]

0/10. Fail troll is fail

Re:dumbass governors

[Teancum]

As a matter of fact, those states allowing fracking have reaped huge tax benefits and for the most part has helped out ordinary citizens of those states too.

If only it was as simple as you suggest... and perhaps Detroit might not be so broke as it currently is. If only Detroit could become a major oil producing region of America, as it might do them some good.

I'm not saying there are so consequences to the practice that needs to happen as well, where the economic costs of the practice certainly need to be examined beyond the straight extraction of oil, but your illustration here only backfires and reinforces the GP post even more.

Re:dumbass governors

[drinkypoo]

As a matter of fact, those states allowing fracking have reaped huge tax benefits and for the most part has helped out ordinary citizens of those states too.

in the short term, sure. But injecting refinery wastes into the ground was illegal before fracking for a reason, and that reason is that it's toxic waste.

Scary

[mtrachtenberg]

I don't know... the idea of buying a car from a company with a reputation for high quality seems awfully scary compared with going in to chat with a high school dropout who knows how to schmooze and is on commission. Personally, I'm grateful for the government's protection.

Map please...

[The New Guy 2.0]

Could somebody please draw a map showing where Telsa's direct sales model has been banned? Seems like this story is on its way to running 50 times...

Testla meets Free Market

[Mister Liberty]

The US has 'socialized' markets; most everything innovative is state subsidized (i.e. socialized: paid with your tax money) and state-protected (aerospace, oil, pharma, bio). Everything that's truly innovative, as in the "High Praise the US of A Land of Opportunity" (sure...), --achieved by personal struggle and personal enterprise--, that's who that famous Free Market is for.

Tesla should just wait and be embraced by GM, so they, GM, could either obtain heavy subsidies for it, or kill it off, whichever suits them best. Or, Tesla might move elsewhere, where the market operates similarly, but they don't lie about it calling it 'Free'.

Re:Testla meets Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

If Tesla can't legally sell cars, then that will drive their value down and let one of the big car companies pick them up for cheap.

How convenient it must be to be so big and powerful that governments fall over themselves to protect your interests!

Tesla faces a catch 22

[mark-t]

Tesla can't form its own dealerships in a growing number of states, and existing dealerships don't want to sell Teslas because the market is too narrow for them to reasonably make a profit (case in point: every Tesla ever manufactured is already sold).

Re:Tesla faces a catch 22

[Teancum]

On the contrary. There are several dealerships (especially the mega auto mall groups in major cities) who want to sell Teslas. A couple of them have even been blunt to Elon Musk basically saying that he can't sell a Tesla without cutting them in for a piece of the action.

That is all that is happening here, where these dealerships in the big cities (it was a dealer in Boston who threatened Musk) just want to get a cut of all of the sales... including the on-line sales where the dealer doesn't have to do a damn thing except collect the royalty checks for a company he neither invested in nor even bothers promoting. Oh yeah, he even expected Tesla to pay him for the privilege of selling Tesla cars on-line in Massachusetts with an annual dealership fee.

Profit margins can certainly be derived from the whole endeavor, which isn't the real problem. I do think Elon Musk's assertion that by going to these dealers who also own sales distribution rights for other manufacturers will sideline the sales of Tesla vehicles by shoving a couple Model S cars in a corner and only use them to get customers in the door for sales of other vehicles. It would ultimately hurt Tesla sales to use these dealers in the first place.

Re:Tesla faces a catch 22

[mark-t]

Even then, the thing here is that the only reason that the laws that prohibit manufacturers from selling directly to consumers even exists is because dealerships have actually *PAID* those manufacturers for franchising rights to be authorized distributors for that manufacturer, and if the manufacturer goes and sells directly to the consumer, then that is anti-competitive behavior.

Because there are no dealership franchises for Tesla, there is no actual reason that it should really be illegal... this ruling is a bad interpretation of the law, unless there is also some explicit law that requires that automobile manufacturers must offer dealerships franchises in the state

Here you go:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mojomotors.com/blog...

http://www.autonews.com/articl...

So buy it online in another state...

[pubwvj]

So buy the car and have it delivered to you in another state. Then move it to Michigan. Standard Operating Procedure. People buy cars all the time and then move from one state to another. People go to another state and buy cars. This Michigan law is merely fanfare, not a real issue.

Re:So buy it online in another state...

[JackieBrown]

Do banks offer loans to support this?

I'm not sure how many people pay cash for a car.

Translation

[JustNiz]

"Mr. Musk is a brilliant man, and Tesla is an innovative company. We can all respect that," says Jim Appleton, the president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automobile Retails. "But he doesnâ(TM)t get what it takes to do business in New Jersey."

Translation: Musk won't pay off all the useless parasites represented by Jim Appleton and all the corrupt government officials like Governor Rick Snyder the required under-the-table money to do business in their state.

Re:Translation

[Tokolosh]

Listen, if you are not even allowed to pump your own gas, your state deserves to be the pits.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

inb4 the fool who puts the burden of proof on a guy asserting anonymous transactions are taking place

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with everything else. But I get cheaper gas in NJ than in NY or CT, and it's pumped for me. What's to complain?

Re:Translation

[JustNiz]

Having to wait for someone to serve you?

Umm, like I have an idea?

[BringsApples]

Tesla, open a dealership, complete with a repair and body shop. You can even finance your own vehicles. This can be done in every state. Your prices will go up a little bit.

Re: Umm, like I have an idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws state that the car manufacturer cannot own the dealership, so your idea won't work.

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is that you aren't allowed to own your own dealerships or repair shops. They must be "independent."

Re: Umm, like I have an idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws state that the car manufacturer can own dealerships or it can license franchises but they can't do both.

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[Teancum]

Tesla is opening up stores and has repair shops in many of them (where it can legally be done). They just don't see the point of paying somebody else for the privilege of opening such a store that they will also have to pay to have constructed that will get a cut of the profits simply because they are an existing businessman in that state (ordinary citizens need not apply BTW.... you need to already possess the dealership license or pay a huge deposit to the state government that mere mortals need not bother with).

What advantage is there again for a dealership?

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[BringsApples]

What advantage is there again for a dealership?

I get what you're saying, and you're right. But judging by the hundreds of dealerships around town here, I guess the point is to sell cars? As long as there are dealerships to sell the cars, who cares? GM isn't "to big to fail" because the dealership market is killing them. They're "to big to fail" because they sell a shit-ton of cars. Tesla's cars are great (I guess, never driven one myself), but they're fucking expensive. They're so expensive that they know that once they jump into the "normal" car market (independent dealerships), it jacks the price up even more, probably out of the price range of many potential clients.

If Tesla can do this, then so will Ford and GM, and then you just killed a very large job market, seeing as how many dealerships employ 50+ employees.

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Tesla can do this, then so will Ford and GM, and then you just killed a very large job market, seeing as how many dealerships employ 50+ employees.

Good riddance. If they can't exist by providing value to the transaction, they should go the hell away. You can tell they are propped up by laws by how shitty the average dealership actually is. They have largely become parasitic in nature.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Also Tesla already does exactly what you originally said for them to do. They simply *own* the showroom+repair center in the states that allow them to. That is their preferred method of doing business. They are banned from doing it in many states, which is why this is even a discussion. I would also tell the government to go fuck itself if they told me I had to license a third party to sell and service my product.

It's ridiculous any free-thinking person can even entertain the idea that a business has a right to exist by government mandate. Especially one that exists to be a middle man adding a tax to the transaction. If they are great businesses providing value to the consumer, they will stay in business because people will continue to patronize them.

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[Imagix]

If Tesla can do this, then so will Ford and GM, and then you just killed a very large job market, seeing as how many dealerships employ 50+ employees

And if the demand existed for the cars, those 50 jobs would still exist. Just instead of being employed by "Joe's Car Emporium", they'd be employed by Tesla (for Ford, or GM).

Re:Umm, like I have an idea?

[Cajun Hell]

If Tesla can do this, then so will Ford and GM, and then you just killed a very large job market, seeing as how many dealerships employ 50+ employees.

Wouldn't that be to everyone's advantage? Those people could be doing something. Imagine 50 people contributing to the economy rather than being dead weight. Multiply that by the number of dealerships. You just gave the American economy a shitload of "new" resources, for free.

Has become?

[NotQuiteReal]

Yeah... starting sometime after the 1940's

Re:Has become?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The United States has long had a policy to have the best-trained, best-equipped troops. Let the nations of the Continent throw human waves against each other.

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, you haven't done your homework."

So much for a free market

[Lucas123]

These outdated statues were originally designed to protect little dealerships from the threat of big auto opening their own dealerships if one of their indirect dealers refused to carry their lemons. So dealers under pressure from Detroit were forced to sell the crappy next to the good cars.

Today, prohibiting direct sales protects only the dealerships and harms the consumer. There’s no reason to prohibit a consumer from buying directly from the manufacturer.

Re:So much for a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd sing a different tune if you went for a test ride. The "Ford/GM/whatever domestic shit they're peddling these days" dealerships are shitting bricks because their wares are junk. Nobody would buy a Corvette, Camaro or Charger if they could afford a Tesla, and those Teslas are coming down in price. Factor in the near-zero maintenance costs and the dealers who thrive on overcharging for service and it all makes sense.

Re:So much for a free market

[lexman098]

It sounds like it was always protecting the dealership and harming the consumer. Why would I want to look at lemons? Why would the dealer care if the manufacturer opened their own dealership to sell the lemons?

The Force is weak in this one

[Zynder]

To my knowledge (and I'm sure you'll "correct" me), no one is forced to pay anything over minimum wage, which clearly does not fall into "more than I'm worth". Any other idea you may have about being forced, say by a Union, is no force at all. The company came to an agreement with the Union on pay rates of their own volition. If you want to trot out government pay scales, those are budgeted by our own Congress (or a subcommittee) and therefore cannot be counted as forced either. Who's being forced to pay "more than someone is worth" hmmm?

Re:The Force is weak in this one

[fnj]

Nonsense. Many people are not worth minimum wage. They are not worth anything at all as workers.

Re:The Force is weak in this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Many people are not worth minimum wage. They are not worth anything at all as workers. So they deserve to starve.

TFTFY.

Re:The Force is weak in this one

[silentcoder]

If they aren't worth anything, then why are they employed ?
Or are you suggesting that we should bring back slavery because some workers are, according to you, only worth having for free ?

Re:The Force is weak in this one

[drinkypoo]

Nonsense. Many people are not worth minimum wage. They are not worth anything at all as workers.

If you cannot find workers who are worth something as workers who will work for the wage that you're paying, then you're not paying enough. You don't need to pay less, you need to pay more.

Re:The Force is weak in this one

[Zynder]

The Compassion is weak in this one....

Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

It was my understanding that many states will not allow you to title a vehicle in the state if you do not have a physical address. If that is the case, any of the banned states could refuse to title one that does not already have an existing title which makes your end run scenario ineffective. By the time I get around to buying one, they'll be antiques anyway, so it probably won't matter :(

For instance, in Tennessee, from the DMV website:
In the case of an individual, Tenn. Code Ann. Sections 55-3-103(a) and 55-4-101(c) require a person seeking to register a vehicle in Tennessee to have a bona fide residence in Tennessee. The use of the term "bona fide residence" simply means that a person is living at a physical location in the state of Tennessee.

Re:Maybe you can't

[binarylarry]

Title and registration are two different things. Have you ever owned a car before?

Re:Maybe you can't

[PPH]

Title and registration are two different things.

This.

You go out of state*, buy your Tesla and receive the title. You then either get a temporary operating permit to drive it home. Or load it on a truck. When you arrive in Michigan, you register the vehicle with the title documents in your possession.

*All done virtually. You do the paperwork wherever you want (in the Tesla showroom) but it is effective in whatever state you and Tesla agree on.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

I've owned probably more cars than you have, thanks. Granted they were all garbage so don't think I'm bragging. I did interchange the terms, I'll concede that point, but what I quoted was the relevant part. A title doesn't mean squat if they won't allow you to register it in the state. You are assuming, quite wrongly, that if the state's legislation, who have already been legislating douchebaggery, won't see your loophole and legislate it away, you are living on a planet not inhabited by humans. So let me fix that for me:

any of the banned states could refuse to register one that does not already have an existing registration which makes your end run scenario ineffective.

So, tell me now, why am I still wrong?

Re:Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

I responded to Larry. Go read that. What do you do though when they've legislated that cars not bought in the state or that are on some blacklist can't get registered? Your title is useless. Your car, without a plate, becomes a fancy yard ornament, that's what.

Re:Maybe you can't

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Title and registration are two different things. Have you ever owned a car before?

Can you explain the difference for those of us who don't live in the US?

Re:Maybe you can't

[Rockoon]

What do you do though when they've legislated that cars not bought in the state or that are on some blacklist can't get registered?

You start shooting politicians until the problem is solved.

Re:Maybe you can't

[binarylarry]

Title implies ownership. If you're listed on the title as an owner, you have all legal rights to the vehicle. This does NOT imply the right to drive the vehicle on roads, just that you own the property and can sell it, modify it, give it away, whatever.

Registration means the vehicle has been registered with the state and you have the right to drive it (as long as all other requirements like driver licensing and insurance are met). When you register the vehicle, you usually get a license plate and a sticker to put on it, which allows the vehicle to be identified and for police to know the registration is current.

You can own vehicles without registering them for driving on the streets. In this case, you could buy the vehicle and have the title signed over to you and then have it put on a truck and shipped back to michigan. The DMV in michigan will be able to take your out of state title and convert it into a Michigan title. Once that's done, you can register the vehicle and drive it.

In the US, all of this varies from state to state, as driving and automobiles aren't under federal powers. However, they all work similarly.

Re:Maybe you can't

[binarylarry]

A title means you own the car and the registration means it's registered for driving in the state.

You don't need a registration to ship a vehicle you own out of state and registration is never required to have a title signed over to you. I've never heard anyone say "Before I can sell you this car and sign the title over I need you to go register the car!" Usually you need the title in your name (proof of ownership) before the DMV will let you register it in your name.

Re:Maybe you can't

[drinkypoo]

What do you do though when they've legislated that cars not bought in the state or that are on some blacklist can't get registered?

Then they definitely get smacked down for dicking with interstate commerce.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Title says you own the car. In a way, it's like your receipt, but it doesn't get you any plates, so you can't drive it yet.

Registration is an extra form that gets you a license plate. You don't have to register a car to own it, but you have to do so in order to drive it.

Re:Maybe you can't

[quetwo]

In Michigan (and all the other states nearby, including Tennessee), you are permitted to drive a vehicle for the purposes of TRANSPORT and/or registration after a recent sale. In Michigan, a title dated within 3 days is all you need to be road legal (including driving without a license plate). Indiana and Ohio are 5 days, and Illinois is 7 days. The purpose of the law is so you can legally transport your newly purchased car without issues.

Re:Maybe you can't

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Interesting. Here (Ontario), we get a two piece registration document, which you are required to carry with you when driving. One half is the "vehicle portion" and the other is the "plate portion". Unless you are leasing, you will always have the ownership (vehicle portion) in your name. There is no separate "title document" that is held back. A lender will register a lien against the vehicle, but it's up to the buyer to check for one before handing over their money. There is a "used vehicle information package" that a private seller is supposed to get and provide to the buyer, which shows any liens, ownership history, etc, but not everyone does. An informed buyer will avoid those people. :)

Re:Maybe you can't

[PPH]

Or people do something similar to what many do in my state (Washington). They register them in a low tax state (Oregon). Of course, state law says one must register a vehicle in WA state when one resides there. But this asumes a cooperative DMV. If they turned people away, the cars would continue to be registered out of state.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Title is a certificate of ownership.

Registration is a tax certificate that says you have paid the state road taxes for this vehicle to be allowed to drive it, it also registers the title and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) with the state so if the vehicle is found stolen or used in a crime they know who to look for to either return it or question about the crime.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC here with additional info.

Title is permanent until you sell the vehicle, registration is annual although some states will allow you (at least in some cases) to get a multi-year registration but you must pay the taxes for the entire registration term up front. Registration is (at least in my state) done on a county by county basis with the check made out to the tax assessor for the county. Registration fees are roughly based on the value of the car with a minimum and maximum limit.

Re:Maybe you can't

[redlemming]

Title means you own the car.

Registration means you rent it from the government each year.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

And I conceded that point. It doesn't matter if you own a car. What matters is if you can use it and that's where the state gets to play gatekeeper with the registration. They have already been legislating things no one would have ever thought possible so adding a vehicle to a blacklist isn't that far fetched of an idea. That is what the end game would be if they got tired of your crossing-state-lines loophole game. Either that or giving up and capitulating to our desires. You know good and well though, that there is always totalitarian-style punishments and policies long before the government ever just gives up.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

Aww man. I made all of that fuss about hauling back a junker Toyota last month for no reason then. Thanks for the heads up.

Re:Maybe you can't

[Zynder]

What a deliciously pessimistic way to describe registration! I'm gonna use that one, thanks!

Re:Maybe you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC, and obviously (based on the first AC) a different state:

Strictly speaking, a title and registration is only necessary if you intend to drive the vehicle on public roads; the bill of sale is the initial proof that you own the vehicle so that you can obtain a title. Of course, that is how nearly every vehicle is used, so skipping title & registration is rare. The most common use case for non-registered/titled vehicles is a "farm truck", meaning it's used only on the farm (presumably private land) and never touches public roads. Some states might require titling the vehicle for the purpose of enforcing property taxes (exactly as it sounds: taxes levied simply for owning things, typically just real estate, vehicles, and livestock, but increasingly business property such as computers, desks, drill presses, and so on are being added by cash-strapped localities). AFAIK, even in those states, registration is not necessary for a "farm truck" or the like.

The state in which I live now provides the option of a two-year registration if the calendar year matches the evenness/oddness of the vehicle year. No taxes are paid at the time of registration renewal, only a renewal fee (with a small late fee starting five days after expiration), but property tax (except on used vehicles) and sales tax are due at initial registration for a new/changed owner (with exceptions for transfer of title between spouses). Vehicular (and livestock) property tax is owed in full on 31 Dec if you owned the vehicle (livestock) on 01 Jan; it doesn't matter if you sold it on 02 Jan, and there is no pro-rating. Proof of full payment of prior year non-real-estate property taxes is required to register a vehicle, as well as a bi-annual safety inspection. That includes non-vehicle property taxes, so if you haven't paid for your horses and cows, you cannot register your car; real estate is accounted separately, so it's possible to register a vehicle without having paid the prior year's real estate taxes.

The state in which I lived before levied a "road tax" and "excise tax" at vehicle registration renewal time. Those were supposed to go toward road maintenance and alcohol enforcement (along the lines of problems with drunk driving), respectively. Since the proceeds went into the "general fund", who knows how that money was actually spent.

On a tangent, the rules for vehicular inspections vary wildly from state to state - some states don't even require them. In some states, they are strictly about safety (brakes work, wipers work, tires have a minimum of tread, etc.), but in others, or in specific cities/counties, they can include things like emissions testing. Sometimes, there can be a little social engineering involved: Pennsylvania used to have (maybe still does) an inspection rule which was essentially "no visible body rust", presumably intended to get rid of "junkers" (or fuck over the poor, if you're prone to cynicism). In practice, people would just acquire cheap spray paint (which included CFCs at the time) and cover up any rust just before taking the vehicle for inspection, leading to much waste and nonsense (and extra ozone damage from the CFCs which wouldn't have otherwise been released).

America can be a weird place.

- T

Sumbitch

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell can a state tell a consumer what they can buy online?

Land of the free, as long as you stay home watching television.

The REAL NJ translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for coming to see me today, Mr Musk. Have a seat. That's a fine lookin automobeel you have there. It'd be a shame if sumthin happened to it, what with the lack of dealerships in this state. Perhaps you should think about opening a few here just in case, ya know for hail or falling pianos. You wanna cannoli?

Hypocrisy but not that

[Roger W Moore]

Actually if that is the reason for doing it then the hypocrisy has more to do with free trade and innovation than big government. The US keeps wanting to setup free trade agreements which export its IP laws "to protect US innovations" and (allegedly) promote free trade. At the same it is passing internal laws to exclude foreign competition and is so hell bent to do so it doesn't care if it damages some highly innovative US companies in the process. Mind you I'm not sure whether this is a case of double hypocrisy or just shooting yourself in the foot, twice.

interstate commerce?

[markhahn]

I don't understand why this silliness isn't being slapped down by the feds.

Re:interstate commerce?

[Anonymous Coward]

States RIgHTS!!@#!11! Vote Libertarian :)

What's needed is convenient proxy addresses

[presidenteloco]

I mean virtual "physical home" addresses that you can rent, along with the suitable internet proxy server to make you appear to be from that state. Combine this with a "we will deliver your purchased goods to your real address for a nominal fee" service, wrap that all up in a bow, and voila: shiny new car !

What do they mean...

[Grizzley9]

What is meant by "direct sales". Is it like in NJ where they can have a rep tell you about it but cant discuss price? In order to buy you have to go to Teslamotors.com and order it yourself? Or do they mean you can't even do the latter and get it delivered to your house or won't give you tags in that state?

If you have a job that involves math, please quit.

[Brannon]

1. 21 stops * 0.5 hours / stop != 17 hours
2. 170 miles * 21 == 3570 miles. 3570 miles / 65 miles / hour ~= 55 hours (which is > 2days even if you drove straight).
3. 170 miles / 65 miles /hour == 2.6 hours; 0.5 hours / 2.6 hours ~= 20% additional road time for the electric car, not 50%

Great Job

[AaronW]

The problem is that you now have the big players writing the laws to stifle competition. In this case, it's not the auto manufacturers, but the dealerships. The dealerships are not the mom and pop dealerships but the huge conglomerates. For example, the 5th largest which Warren Buffet just bought, the Van Tuyl Group does $8 billion in annual revenue. In my area there are a huge number of dealerships under the Del Grande Dealer Group. These are the guys who are paying off the politicians.

To get an idea of why car dealerships are generally so unpleasant to deal with This American Life has a good podcast showing why car salesmen are the lying scum they are. Some of the auto manufacturers would like to ditch the dealerships but they can't due to the laws. Most states have laws that prevent manufacturers from competing against dealerships but those don't apply if there are no dealerships as in Tesla's case.

The dealerships like to make the argument that they add protection to the consumer. This is pure BS. I know someone who bought a Fisker Karma. When Fisker went bankrupt, so did the warranty even for those who paid for it. Most dealerships dropped all support for the car like a hot potato leaving the owners in a lurch or get support from a couple of ex-Fisker employees who do the support on their own and paying for all service and repairs out of pocket.

Ha-haa

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans have the best politicians money can buy.

Legal Ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a funny feeling Tesla will try in every single state before bringing any counter legal action.

A story similar to TUCKER :-(

[olahaye74]

This story looks similar to TUCKER adventure in the past century where Ford and other wone at shutting down the company.

Hopefully, this Tesla story will not end in the same way.

In France we're happy that Tesla is boosting this technology. Eventhough France is far from being perfect at hosting companies, Tesla is welcome to move here ;-)

Welcome to the land of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

USA prides itself on it's free market economy, and freedom to buy anything legal ... Execpt if it's a car apparently ...

The People's Republic of Failure

[gelfling]

Albeit they have a GOP governor, Michigan is the bluest of blue states. Let's all watch the fucking ship sink beneath the waves together.

Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

[lippydude]

Msg to Tesla, pay more in 'political' donations ..

Wrong ism

[Tenebrousedge]

Socialized does not mean paid with by tax money. Socialized means that the workers or public collectively own the means of production.

You're talking about fascism, which Mussolini was fond of describing as "the union of the Corporation with the State."

Does not ban direct sales

[Anonymous Coward]

It simply requires a business presence and that the seller of a new vehicle also provide warranty service at the point of sale.

Tesla is perfectly free to sell cars direct to consumers in Michigan provided they also provide service and repair for those vehicles at the point of sale.

Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

This law is a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution. Its hard to imagine a more flagrant and direct violation than businesses in one state blocking competition from a business in another state from doing business in that state.

Re:Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

The law does nothing to prevent Tesla or any other car manufacturer selling cars in Michigan. The summary is patently false.

Bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

Because our federal government is hopelessly corrupt, and has been giving inferior auto manufacturers preferential treatment for decades in the form of subsidies and bailouts. This is caused by:
A) Trusting a small group of people to make nationwide decisions
B) It's cheaper to bribe a small group than everyone, and
C) There is no effective way to prevent or catch even overt bribes, let alone campaign contributions and favors.

It's a real dilly of a pickle because the people in power now have no incentive to fix it, and the public will never be as rational as the market for bribes. I fear this may be a fatal flaw in representative democracy, and will force us to either pure democracy or market anarchism.

Ignore the unjust law...

[Anonymous Coward]

N/T

Re:If you have a job that involves math, please qu

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving 105 miles an hour and counting an extra 15-20 minutes for each stop to get to the charging station (you are right, it should be an extra 20-30 at least, as even if they are on the interstate there will be a wait for one of the high speed chargers, plus time to get everything hooked up/unhooked each time) then the match checks out fine.

Drop the speed to 80 miles/hour and estimate an hour for each full charge (30 minute charge, average 10 minutes wait, and 10 minutes each way from the interstate to the charging station) and we are looking at exactly 50% extra time.

newsflash

[Anonymous Coward]

It was ALREADY illegal. The bill just made the legal language clearer supposedly in an attempt to circumvent frivolous legal challenges, thereby costing the state money.

Personally, I wouldn't mind being able to just order a Jeep, GMC, Ford online but that's not gonna happen even if it were legal probably for a VERY long time if ever given the existing mfgs incestuous relationships with their dealers. Not to mention even IF it did happen dealers would probably make life hell trying to get service on a vehicle.

Don't give rat's behind about tesla as they're simply not practical in any way shape or form, and even worse here in the north with further degraded batt perf during winter(or about half the year).

Money To Burn

[JimSadler]

After wasting tax dollars passing such nonsense into law the people of Michigan can now look forward to a huge waste of tax dollars as they have these laws struck down in Federal courts. What Tesla has done is designed a car that does not need dealerships at all. The Teslas can be repaired in any small garage and the parts are handled through parts store chains. The car dealers are freaking out as they can not compete. But they need to get the real message of capitalism. If you can not compete close down. You do not restrain trade of competitors to keep your company floating. That is illegal. Why is it that Ford, GM and Chrysler did not field an even better electric car than Tesla? The meat heads in these companies did not want to change and now they face oblivion. They earned their down fall.

Link to law

[lamber45]

1981 version

2014 version

Difference in clause (i):
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than
-through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
+through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This
-subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to
-a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new
-motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell
-new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers.
+subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information
+to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of
+new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to
+sell new motor vehicles through franchised new motor vehicle dealers
+that sell and service new motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

Re:Link to law

[chuckugly]

Seems pretty minor - but both versions are shitty and examples of things government has no business mandating.

Everyone claims to vote libertarian . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . but I find it funny that they can't seem to get voted into office. Howzat work?

Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

This ban has always existed, the bill only updates a few terms and had nearly full support from both parties in the state congress; which explains why he signed it.

Rick Snyder: Governor of New Jersey?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was Fred Flintstone

Talk about wrong use of power

[rhyous]

Look, there is no justification for this law whatsoever. The governor is pretty clueless here.

This law cannot stand up in a court. This is an unconstitutional ban and it won't last. You cannot prevent a person from buying a product online if that product is legal to buy.

Also, what determines "online from Michigan?" What if I remote desktop to a machine in a different state and open the browser on that system and buy. Did I just break the law? Or since the system that did the ordering was in a remote state, wouldn't it be legal.

Can I buy it and have it shipped to my brother who lives in a different state and pick it up there?

Can I choose it online, and then fax or call in or is faxing and calling considered "On line". What if I get a downloaded PDF that I mail in? That definitely is not an order online.

Tesla should sue, but so should the state where Tesla has its headquarters.

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that shit can even still be banned in America, corporate or public, is fucking absurd.

Really? Banning a business from doing online business with an entire state? How is that even legal?

I know a Tesla owner in Michigan...

[InvisiBill]

It's a bit ironic, actually. Dick DeVos Yes, that Dick DeVos, the Republican gubernatorial candidate before Snyder was elected.

Maybe it's precisely because he's got a Tesla, but there are no public J1772 charging stations in Ada, MI, in case anyone was wondering.

Carrying capacity

[tepples]

Some people believe the planet is already over its long-term carrying capacity and some humans will end up starving anyway.

Re:Carrying capacity

[Zynder]

But do we have to help rush it along? I don't believe we do.

No honest politician would support the ban

[davidkessler]

This ban on the sale of cars by the manufacturers serves no legitimate purpose. From this it may be inferred that no honest politician would support a ban on the direct sale of cars by the manufacturers. Therefore the politicians who voted in favour of this ban are crooks.