Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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.
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...
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
http://www.mojomotors.com/blog...
http://www.autonews.com/articl...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand why this silliness isn't being slapped down by the feds.
Come on now, who among us does not regularly drive down the highway for 15 hours straight while pissing in a bottle?
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.
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.
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.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
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.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
1. 21 stops * 0.5 hours / stop != 17 hours /hour == 2.6 hours; 0.5 hours / 2.6 hours ~= 20% additional road time for the electric car, not 50%
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
I don't know much about cold winter days, but the efficiency of my hybrid drops significantly on hot summer days.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
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?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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 ;-)
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"