Prior to 9 months ago I had never really heard about Tesla cars. It seems to be an ideal car to a particular sub-population of people. I'm not a car buff. Did a celebrity endorse this in some way (MTV, NBA)? What did I miss?
Prior to 9 months ago I had never really heard about Tesla cars. It seems to be an ideal car to a particular sub-population of people. I'm not a car buff. Did a celebrity endorse this in some way (MTV, NBA)? What did I miss?
Motor Trends Car of the year a year or so ago. I lived in the Bay Area and checked them out, the car is quite simply awesome. You can even get two rear seats for kids in the trunk. The car has so much storage space it probably could hold more stuff than most SUV's front trunk and rear trunk bc there is no engine!
The ingenuity is what stands out to me.... All the little details everything is purposeful and sophisticated, (door handles retract and pop out when you touch them). Seats are top notch, ton of legroom in the back, infotainment System is really second to none, luge massive touch screen angled towards the driver.... Thing with go 200 + miles on a charge?
And on top of that they are actually quite quick, base model s goes 0-60 5.2ish that's quick.
sarcastic a-hole wrote:
Prior to 9 months ago I had never really heard about Tesla cars. It seems to be an ideal car to a particular sub-population of people. I'm not a car buff. Did a celebrity endorse this in some way (MTV, NBA)? What did I miss?
It's a usable electric car unlike the somewhat impractical Nissan Leaf. Disclaimer: the Leaf is fine if you live in a temperate environment (i.e. so you don't have to run the A/C or heat which quickly drains the battery) and don't have to drive more than one or two hours a day.
The Tesla is spacious, somewhat quick, made with quality materials, and you have the benefit of quick-charging as well as a much larger battery with longer range (than the Leaf). You pay a premium for this convenience; however, Tesla Motors is coming out with both cheaper and more luxurious options in the coming years.
Teslas are not, "somewhat" quick. The 0-60 ranges from 3.2-6.0 seconds, with instant torque. This all for a car that can seat up to seven and gets about 95 mpg equivalent.
will we have to change the term from limousine liberal to tesla liberal?
Al Gore told the Global Warming crowd that Tesla is a good car to drive.
Author: carryoverwood
Message: will we have to change the term from limousine liberal to tesla liberal?
pickup-truck republican and pickup-truck conservative will live forever
jhjkhkjhkh wrote:
Teslas are not, "somewhat" quick. The 0-60 ranges from 3.2-6.0 seconds, with instant torque. This all for a car that can seat up to seven and gets about 95 mpg equivalent.
Fair enough, but the Tesla D that does 3.2 0-60 is 1) new and 2) very expensive ($120-140,000).
6 seconds is not supercar territory by any means, and a v6 Honda Accord will beat it all day. Still--like you say, it's not bad.
I think you're missing the point. Limousine liberal is a label that was applied to huge hypocrit liberal politicians that despite running as anti-capitalism/anti-rich and pro-global warming agenda, they still were driven around in giant SUVs, owned several huge houses, flew on private jets all around the world, etc. So, the whole point is they don't practice what they preach.The ironic thing about liberals suddenly being huge Tesla fans (despite the company being around since 2003- car guy here), is that the company doesn't support a union workforce or the traditional dealership structure. Both of which, of course, are Democratic strongholds. So just the simplistic, knee-jerk view that Tesla is "clean" (battery technology isn't actually clean at all, but that's another thread) takes priority over what the party is supposed to stand for.Republicans and Libertarians should be behind Tesla's efforts 100% in my opinion.
pik up truk wrote:
Author: carryoverwood
Message: will we have to change the term from limousine liberal to tesla liberal?
pickup-truck republican and pickup-truck conservative will live forever
When I read the TESLA's CEO Musk's letter to the people of NJ I wanted to buy one on the spot.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/people-new-jersey
March 14, 2014
To the People of New Jersey
By Elon Musk, Chairman, Product Architect & CEO
On Tuesday, under pressure from the New Jersey auto dealer lobby to protect its monopoly, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state. Governor Christie had promised that this would be put to a vote of the elected state legislature, which is the appropriate way to change the law. When it became apparent to the auto dealer lobby that this approach would not succeed, they cut a backroom deal with the Governor to circumvent the legislative process and pass a regulation that is fundamentally contrary to the intent of the law.
It is worth examining the history of these laws to understand why they exist, as the auto dealer franchise laws were originally put in place for a just cause and are now being twisted to an unjust purpose. Many decades ago, the incumbent auto manufacturers sold franchises to generate capital and gain a salesforce. The franchisees then further invested a lot of their money and time in building up the dealerships. That’s a fair deal and it should not be broken. However, some of the big auto companies later engaged in pressure tactics to get the franchisees to sell their dealerships back at a low price. The franchisees rightly sought protection from their state legislatures, which resulted in the laws on the books today throughout the United States (these laws are not present anywhere else in the world).
The intent was simply to prevent a fair and longstanding deal between an existing auto company and its dealers from being broken, not to prevent a new company that has no franchisees from selling directly to consumers. In most states, the laws are reasonable and clear. In a handful of states, the laws were written in an overzealous or ambiguous manner. When all auto companies sold through franchises, this didn’t really matter. However, when Tesla came along as a new company with no existing franchisees, the auto dealers, who possess vastly more resources and influence than Tesla, nonetheless sought to force us to sell through them.
The reason that we did not choose to do this is that the auto dealers have a fundamental conflict of interest between promoting gasoline cars, which constitute virtually all of their revenue, and electric cars, which constitute virtually none. Moreover, it is much harder to sell a new technology car from a new company when people are so used to the old. Inevitably, they revert to selling what’s easy and it is game over for the new company.
The evidence is clear: when has an American startup auto company ever succeeded by selling through auto dealers? The last successful American car company was Chrysler, which was founded almost a century ago, and even they went bankrupt a few years ago, along with General Motors. Since the founding of Chrysler, there have been dozens of failures, Tucker and DeLorean being simply the most well-known. In recent years, electric car startups, such as Fisker, Coda, and many others, attempted to use auto dealers and all failed.
An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service, but electric cars require much less service than gasoline cars. There are no oil, spark plug or fuel filter changes, no tune-ups and no smog checks needed for an electric car. Also, all Tesla Model S vehicles are capable of over-the-air updates to upgrade the software, just like your phone or computer, so no visit to the service center is required for that either.
Going a step further, I have made it a principle within Tesla that we should never attempt to make servicing a profit center. It does not seem right to me that companies try to make a profit off customers when their product breaks. Overcharging people for unneeded servicing (often not even fixing the original problem) is rampant within the industry and happened to me personally on several occasions when I drove gasoline cars. I resolved that we would endeavor never to do such a thing at Tesla, as described in the Tesla service blog post I wrote last year.
Why Did They Claim That This Change Was Necessary?
The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures “consumer protection”. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of “protection”, this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer’s mind.
There are other ways to assess the premise that auto dealers take better care of customers than Tesla does. Consumer Reports conducts an annual survey of 1.1 million subscribers, which factors in quality, reliability and consumer satisfaction. The Tesla Model S was the top overall pick of any vehicle in the world, scoring 99 out of 100. This is the highest score any car has ever received. By comparison, in the industry report card, Ford, which sells their cars through franchise dealers, received a score of 50. BMW, which makes competing premium sedans, received a score of 66.
Consumers across the country have also voiced their opinion on the sales model they prefer. In North Carolina, a Triangle Business Journal poll found that 97 percent of people polled said Tesla should be allowed to sell cars directly. A poll by the Austin Business Journal showed that 86 percent of respondents were in favor of direct sales, and in a Los Angeles Times poll 99 percent of respondents came to the same conclusion. These aren’t polls that we commissioned and there are many more like them. We have not seen a single poll that didn’t result in an overwhelming majority saying they preferred the direct model to the traditional dealer model. Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people. When a politician acts in a manner so radically opposed to the will of the people who elected him, the only explanation is that there are other factors at play.
Going Forward
Some reassurances are also in order. Until at least April 1, everything is business as usual for Tesla in New Jersey. It should also be noted that this regulation deals only with sales, so our service centers will not be affected. Our stores will transition to being galleries, where you can see the car and ask questions of our staff, but we will not be able to discuss price or complete a sale in the store. However, that can still be done at our Manhattan store just over the river in Chelsea or our King of Prussia store near Philadelphia.
Most importantly, even after April 1, you will still be able to order vehicles from New Jersey for delivery in New Jersey on our TeslaMotors.com website.
We are evaluating judicial remedies to correct the situation. Also, if you believe that your right to buy direct at a Tesla store should be restored, please contact your state senator & assemblyman:
www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/districtnumbers.asp
.
Finally, we would like to thank the many people who showed up in Trenton on Tuesday to support Tesla and speak out against the MVC’s back-door tactics in passing this regulation change without public consultation or due process. It was an amazing response at very short notice and much appreciated.
Elon
Telsas are great cars, but they are basically loss leaders right now. Tesla is a technology company that attracts investment because they are hoping to revolutionize battery technology and license the technology for big bucks. Telsa has a long way to go to becoming a profitable auto manufacturer.
Elon Musk is generally full of crap in his letter. The franchised auto industry invested billions in dealerships in reliance on the promise that the manufacturers would never be allowed to open competing stores. The manufacturer has deeper pockets than dealerships and could wipe them out if allowed to open competing manufacturer owned dealerships.
Musk just wants to be able to control the retail price for his vehicles by monopolizing the retail sale. All of his complaints about service costs (not the largest revenue stream for dealerships--finance and insurance is) and sales practices (largely a thing of the past thanks to manufacturer's emphasis on customer satisfaction index and consumer protection regulators) have nothing to do with whether manufacturers should be allowed to open company stores. Manufacturers have a great amount of control over the operation of dealerships. Tesla just wants to be able to control prices by not having dealerships competing with each other.
After the outright theft that Tesla pulled on the people of Nevada for that battery factory deal (and all the other states that put there offer in the hat), I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth.
vivalarepublica wrote:
After the outright theft that Tesla pulled on the people of Nevada for that battery factory deal (and all the other states that put there offer in the hat), I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth.
Yeah, he sure duped all 5 states that were clamoring to have the gigafactory built there.
Most of the tax incentives are contingent upon milestones hit by the factory or on investments by Telsa in the state of Nevada. The factory will pay the state back several times over. 6,500 jobs in the factory alone, and 15,000+ supporting jobs in the area from the creation of the factory.
Top Gear (BBC America) tested it in 2008. They hate electric cars and got sued for the review.
During episode seven of series twelve, Clarkson presented a segment featuring the Tesla Roadster, including a test drive.
The segment showed the car's provided batteries running flat after 88.5 kilometres (55.0 mi), with Clarkson claiming that the recharge would take 16 hours. Following this, he claimed that the car then broke down.
Tesla Motors spokesperson stated that the cars provided never reached less than 20% charge, none needed to be pushed off the track at any point, the recharge time was 3.5 hours, and the brake failure shown in the segment was actually a blown fuse.
The BBC responded to these claims with a statement saying, "The tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge. Top Gear stands by the findings in this film and is content that it offers a fair representation of the Tesla's performance on the day it was tested", without addressing the other concerns.
The comments were made following Clarkson showing a limp windmill, and complaining that it would take countless hours to refuel the car, using such a source of electricity. A BBC spokeswoman said several times in an interview that Top Gear was "an entertainment programme, and should not be taken seriously."
After several weeks, Clarkson wrote a blog for The Times, acknowledging that "the film we had shot was a bit of a mess", but defending the film's claims. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, wrote in a blog on 13 February 2013 that while delivering the vehicle the Tesla team found on a table a prepared script for the segment, demonstrating this was never a fair test. In March 2011 Tesla Motors filed a suit accusing the BBC of libel.
In court Tesla Motors lost a major part of its high court libel claim on 19 October 2011. Mr Justice Tugendhat said that no Top Gear viewer would have reasonably compared the car's performance on the show's airfield track to its likely performance on a public road. On 28 October 2011 the carmaker looked set to lose the remaining malicious falsehood claim, Mr Justice Tugendhat saying "I shall strike out the claim in this action unless the plea of damage is amended by agreement between the parties, or with the permission of the court."
For affluent white males over age of 52 only.
No thanks.
vivalarepublica wrote:
After the outright theft that Tesla pulled on the people of Nevada for that battery factory deal (and all the other states that put there offer in the hat), I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth.
A significant part of that package are 20 year(?) exemptions for property and sales tax. It's a reduction in operating expense, not a hand-over of $$$. Folks that got screwed include the NV film industry and insurance industries who had their existing tax subsidies cannibalized by this new deal.
Precious Roy wrote:
Musk just wants to be able to control the retail price for his vehicles by monopolizing the retail sale. All of his complaints about service costs (not the largest revenue stream for dealerships--finance and insurance is) and sales practices (largely a thing of the past thanks to manufacturer's emphasis on customer satisfaction index and consumer protection regulators) have nothing to do with whether manufacturers should be allowed to open company stores. Manufacturers have a great amount of control over the operation of dealerships. Tesla just wants to be able to control prices by not having dealerships competing with each other.
Curious how you know all of this. Do you have a background in the industry or is it from research? Genuinely curious.
business2.0 wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:Musk just wants to be able to control the retail price for his vehicles by monopolizing the retail sale. All of his complaints about service costs (not the largest revenue stream for dealerships--finance and insurance is) and sales practices (largely a thing of the past thanks to manufacturer's emphasis on customer satisfaction index and consumer protection regulators) have nothing to do with whether manufacturers should be allowed to open company stores. Manufacturers have a great amount of control over the operation of dealerships. Tesla just wants to be able to control prices by not having dealerships competing with each other.
Curious how you know all of this. Do you have a background in the industry or is it from research? Genuinely curious.
I have a background in the industry. Looking back at the post, I should clarify that finance and insurance is generally the largest profit center for the dealership. Service can generate a lot of revenue, but the costs are significant and margins are tighter. By contrast, finance and insurance is just a guy sitting at a computer with no worries about inventory (insurance products only come into existence when they are sold and do not sit on the shelf in the parts department). Mark up is general 100%.
Clash of ckans
business2.0 wrote:
vivalarepublica wrote:After the outright theft that Tesla pulled on the people of Nevada for that battery factory deal (and all the other states that put there offer in the hat), I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of Elon Musk's mouth.
A significant part of that package are 20 year(?) exemptions for property and sales tax. It's a reduction in operating expense, not a hand-over of $$$. Folks that got screwed include the NV film industry and insurance industries who had their existing tax subsidies cannibalized by this new deal.
That's the silent theft, in my view. The infrastructure, local government and schools will not receive any funding from this company that will bring in all these people stressing the existing resources, and requiring the construction of more infrastructure. Yes, I understand that these new residents will be paying taxes, but don't you think the company should contribute to resources they are stressing?
I'm not some sort of screaming liberal, I just hate these sweetheart deals that give away a bunch of stuff to a company that has over blown projections of growth.