Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

wxyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#31

Post by mandeepj »

abtinf wrote: post #16
MCRed wrote: post #4

I believe that this law is in direct violation of the commerce clause[1]. The commerce clause was designed to prevent tarrifs from being placed on products from one state being sold in another state. They wanted to prevent inter-state trade wars. Being forced to go thru a dealer network that (theoretically) adds no value while extracting a cut of sales is a form of a tarrif (or at least, I think it is arguably one).…

Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer, regardless of their state, may sell direct to consumer." Thus, no commerce clause violation.

> Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer."

I think they took the safest approach

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#32

Post by baddox »

abcabc321321123 wrote: post #21
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wouldn't be a violation of the commerce clause per se. The commerce clause just says that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In other words, the US legislature could pass a law prohibiting these restrictions on Tesla sales, and that law would be constitutional.

> The commerce clause just says that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This is not completely correct. Let me expand a little bit even though it is not applicable here. There is something called the "dormant" commerce clause (also referred to as the "negative" commerce clause) doctrine. This doctrine basically prohibits states from favoring in state commercial actors at the exp…

Ah yes, I have read about that before, but had forgotten it. It basically seems like a shortcut whereby federal courts can rule against certain state laws without the need of a specific federal law. It seems in practice to be as if Congress, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, had passed some blanket law banning protectionist state laws.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#33

Post by manicdee »

beastman82 wrote: post #14
_acme wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that electricity is still needed to charge these cars, right, and that a lot of that energy comes from oil (or worse, coal).

or better, nuclear

Nuclear's only an option if we have breeder reactors that can reprocess all the waste into non-radioactive outputs. In the meantime you still have all that radioactive plumbing being replaced that needs to be handled, and I really don't want that being buried in my watershed, food bowl, or anywhere that might end up being a watershed or food bowl for people elsewhere in space and time.

So find a way to build a nuclear reactor with non-radioactive outputs, built with materials that do not corrode due to the radiation, and we have a deal!

Oh, and the final result needs to have a higher EROEI than current state-of-the-art solar panels.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#34

Post by baddox »

mikeash wrote: post #19
MCRed wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a kid, I saw the movie Logans Run (1970s). They made it to washington DC and found a car. They didn't know what it was, but they shined a light on it, and it started to activate and so they conclduded "maybe this thing is powered by the sun"... and it was. Well, it's been 40 years since that movie was made. Alas, a solar powered car may still be many years off... but the elegance of it is certainly extreme…

There just isn't enough surface area. A Model S has a roof area of around 9m^2. The sun provides about 1000W/m^2 on a clear day at high noon when directly overhead, so with 100% efficient solar cells on a perfect day, you'd get around 9kW of electricity. A Model S goes about 4 miles per kWh when it's doing well, so in this ideal situation you'd top out at around 36MPH. In the real world, the sun isn't directly overhe…

That illustrates the advantage of electric cars, even if the electricity is currently generated by fossil fuels.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#35

Post by adamfeldman »

gknoy wrote: post #30
abtinf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer, regardless of their state, may sell direct to consumer." Thus, no commerce clause violation.

What would stop Musk from making a company whose sole purpose was to be a Tesla dealership? It would buy cars from Tesla, sell to consumers, and sell Service Arrangements with Tesla, etc.

Usually the dealer laws prohibit manufacturer-owned dealerships

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#36

Post by the_ancient »

_acme wrote: post #7
mandeepj wrote: post #3

What is his problem? I think they are all trying every-possible-trick-under-their-belly to slow down the storm called TESLA. The day TESLA becomes mainstream the mafia of car dealers, oil rigs will go down the drain. NO MORE OIL.

You do understand that electricity is still needed to charge these cars, right, and that a lot of that energy comes from oil (or worse, coal).

Name one "oil" fired power plant?

Coal yes, nat gas sure, hyrdo (which is where alot of MI power comes from) you bet yea but I have not seen a oil powered electric plant.

further even is such a thing does exist, generating electricity has a much high efficiency then the IC engine which is by for one of the least efficient systems there is

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#37

Post by drivingmenuts »

abtinf wrote: post #16
MCRed wrote: post #4

I believe that this law is in direct violation of the commerce clause[1]. The commerce clause was designed to prevent tarrifs from being placed on products from one state being sold in another state. They wanted to prevent inter-state trade wars. Being forced to go thru a dealer network that (theoretically) adds no value while extracting a cut of sales is a form of a tarrif (or at least, I think it is arguably one).…

Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer, regardless of their state, may sell direct to consumer." Thus, no commerce clause violation.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/

Decent article summarizing why Tesla can't sell directly.

TLDR: Because auto dealers don't want to have to compete directly with manufacturers.

Which makes no sense, seeing as how Tesla doesn't have any dealers that would compete with them, selling their own cars.

I like the guy I bought my car from on one level, but if it saves me money on my next car purchase, well, so long dealerships.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#38

Post by toomuchtodo »

abtinf wrote: post #16
MCRed wrote: post #4

I believe that this law is in direct violation of the commerce clause[1]. The commerce clause was designed to prevent tarrifs from being placed on products from one state being sold in another state. They wanted to prevent inter-state trade wars. Being forced to go thru a dealer network that (theoretically) adds no value while extracting a cut of sales is a form of a tarrif (or at least, I think it is arguably one).…

Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer, regardless of their state, may sell direct to consumer." Thus, no commerce clause violation.

So Michigan could legislate that any business is not permitted to sell directly to consumers. Great state to live in.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#39

Post by andykellr »

dkrich wrote: post #27
duaneb wrote: post #5

How are these people justifying these changes to their constituents? It's pretty hard to justify mucking with the free markets except to protected vested interests. Most of the time, these vested interests have very little to do with the voters.

No justification is required because it's pretty much baked into the mentality of the Midwest. The auto industry is what drives the Michigan economy (at least its most populous areas). Therefore most constituents not only don't mind, but likely fervently support such laws. The same could be said for the United Auto Workers. Pretty much the opposite of the free market, yet most people in Michigan support it because ei…

Your generalizations about Michigan are misinformed.

There are many people in Michigan that think that companies that sell things should be able to sell them to people that want to buy them. There are also many people that can afford a Tesla.

Re: Governor Snyder signs a law to ban Tesla direct sales in Michigan

#40

Post by derekp7 »

MCRed wrote: post #11
_acme wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that electricity is still needed to charge these cars, right, and that a lot of that energy comes from oil (or worse, coal).

When I was a kid, I saw the movie Logans Run (1970s). They made it to washington DC and found a car. They didn't know what it was, but they shined a light on it, and it started to activate and so they conclduded "maybe this thing is powered by the sun"... and it was. Well, it's been 40 years since that movie was made. Alas, a solar powered car may still be many years off... but the elegance of it is certainly extreme…

My back-of-the-envelope calculation, if covering an entire car with solar panels... Assumptions: car width is 5 ft, hood is 5 ft, roof is 3 ft, and trunk is 4 ft makes 60 square feet for the whole car. (Note, this isn't the dimensions from a Tesla, but from the older cars that I remember). High output solar panels are 15 watts per sq ft. So 900 watts output max (lets round it off to 1 kilowatt to make the math easy).

Now taking the rated specs from a Model S, a 60 kWh battery gets you 200 miles. So .3 kWh per mile. Therefore, leaving you car to recharge in the sun for 8 hours while you are at work, will get you home if you live within 25 miles. Assuming maximum efficiency of course. Note, that you can't put 60 sq feet of solar panels on the Model S, due to the long slope of the front and back windows, and redesigning it so that it has the non-window surface areas of my old 85 Chevy would make it less aerodynamic. But this gives you a good upper bound if I did my math right.

Post reply on HN