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

The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 139 posts

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#51

Post by tptacek »

ericdykstra wrote: post #14

Of course vested interests in old industries will do whatever they can to block innovation. We're seeing it with all major industry disruptions. It used to be enough for the vested interests to write laws to block out, limit, or otherwise hinder additional traditional competitors (taxi medallions, ridiculous license requirements for florists[1], etc). Now we're seeing these same groups try to initiate and bring in ne…

It's an amusing sleight of hand to equate Tesla's run-in with franchise law to Uber's run-in with taxi licensing.

Franchise laws are the product of decades of overlapping private/public enforcement of contractual issues between dealers and manufacturers. It seems clear on the face of it that Tesla should in no way be encumbered by the arrangements made between General Motors and its dealers, because Tesla never had dealers to pull the rug out from under. And this is notwithstanding the fact that encoding and enforcing agreements between dealers and manufacturers should have been the province of contract law, not statutes.

Taxi regulations serve legitimate purposes beyond enforcing agreements. For instance: in many states, it's difficult to get a job driving taxis or even black cars with a suspension on your record, because the licenses are held by parent companies who are liable to lose them if a driver causes an incident.

Loud arguments declaiming the insanity of applying taxi regulations to a service as excellent as Uber also tend not to engage with the real argument, which is, "what do we do when there are 10 Ubers, and drivers can hop between them?"

You can believe that there are valid reasons to regulate cabs and black cars, or you can not believe that. But it's intellectually dishonest to lump that question in with franchise laws and licenses for florists.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#52

Post by tptacek »

aeturnum wrote: post #50
enraged_camel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense. They probably get a lot of people who pretend to be buyers just to be able to test-drive a Tesla. Since such people don't end up buying one (as they cannot afford it), letting them test-drive serves no purpose other than wasting the dealer's time, and setting a $300 fee helps weed them out. Note that most high-end car dealers do this. Another way to think about it is this: if you were a serious buyer, i.…

I think this view is misguided. Apple would be foolish to make you prove that you could buy an iPad before letting you play with one, and the same holds true for Tesla. They need to overcome widespread skepticism about purely electric cars, and a large part of that is exposing everyone they can to their cars. Sure, give preferencial treatment to people who have the money to buy one, but let everyone try them out.

It is so much less expensive for Apple to let a prospect try out an iPad than it is for Tesla to arrange a test drive that these two things are effectively apples and oranges.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#53

Post by tptacek »

run4yourlives wrote: post #47
tocomment wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if the fee is just a filter, they could refund your money if you buy any car in the next say 6 months. That way it's less of an obstacle for potential buyers but still filters out non-buyers.

That's silly. If I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Maserati or a Tesla, and you tell me I need to pay you $300 for the Tesla just to test drive it , I can tell you that I'm buying the Maserati, since they've already figured out that I'm a potential buyer. Tesla is smart to size up the people that walk into their stores so that they don't offend the ones that actually can buy their cars. If they offend non-custome…

If you're really deciding between a Maserati and a Tesla, I'd be willing to bet that Tesla isn't actually going to charge you $300 to drive one.

If you walked off the street into a Maserati dealership dressed like a hacker, refused to provide any information qualifying yourself as a prospect, and demanded a test drive, you might not be allowed to drive one at all.

Of course, if you wanted a Maserati, you could probably have one next week. Tesla is back-ordered to forever. So whatever they're doing seems to be working OK.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#54

Post by enraged_camel »

run4yourlives wrote: post #47
tocomment wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if the fee is just a filter, they could refund your money if you buy any car in the next say 6 months. That way it's less of an obstacle for potential buyers but still filters out non-buyers.

That's silly. If I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Maserati or a Tesla, and you tell me I need to pay you $300 for the Tesla just to test drive it , I can tell you that I'm buying the Maserati, since they've already figured out that I'm a potential buyer. Tesla is smart to size up the people that walk into their stores so that they don't offend the ones that actually can buy their cars. If they offend non-custome…

If you give similar answers to the Maserati sales rep, they will also charge you a fee for test-driving, or maybe not even let you test-drive.

Like I said, any high-end car sales rep is trained to quickly profile potential buyers. They judge everything from your looks to your body language and profession. When you're talking about really expensive cars, it's better to err on the side of caution and lose a few potential sales than let just any loser off the street test-drive one.

I had a friend back in college whose dad was the owner of a local Mercedes dealer. After interning there for a summer, he cryptically told me that he "cracked the code." From there on, his favorite hobby became dressing up in nice suits, walking into a high-end car dealership, and convincing (with 95% success) the sales rep to let him drive one of their cars. I accompanied him for one of his trips and got to test-drive for free a Lexus convertible, a Ferrari, and a Nissan 350Z back when it was new.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#55

Post by run4yourlives »

tptacek wrote: post #53
run4yourlives wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. If I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Maserati or a Tesla, and you tell me I need to pay you $300 for the Tesla just to test drive it , I can tell you that I'm buying the Maserati, since they've already figured out that I'm a potential buyer. Tesla is smart to size up the people that walk into their stores so that they don't offend the ones that actually can buy their cars. If they offend non-custome…

If you're really deciding between a Maserati and a Tesla, I'd be willing to bet that Tesla isn't actually going to charge you $300 to drive one. If you walked off the street into a Maserati dealership dressed like a hacker, refused to provide any information qualifying yourself as a prospect, and demanded a test drive, you might not be allowed to drive one at all. Of course, if you wanted a Maserati, you could probab…

Well yes, that's exactly my point. OP was arguing that the $300 fee should be mandatory.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#56

Post by sbierwagen »

wmf wrote: post #29
sbierwagen wrote: post #23

In case your eye skipped over the “for free” part, I would like to emphasize that again – owning a Supercharger enabled Model S really does mean free long distance travel forever on our high speed charging network. I really wish they'd stop saying this. They're essentially committing to building a nationwide electric car charging infrastructure for $nodollars, and never charging customers to use it, ever. Which means…

"Free long distance travel" obviously means B. It's not like this is a secret.

It's tapdancing on the line between "creative wording" and "outright deception". They frontload the FREE CHARGING FOREVER part, then lightly skip over the fact that a Model S owner is still going to be spending a whole lot of money on power. (Gasoline is going to get more expensive. So is electricity! Until we figure out how to paint solar cells on flat surfaces, energy will never again be as cheap as it is right now.)

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#57

Post by tryitnow »

tadfisher wrote: post #49
tocomment wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if the fee is just a filter, they could refund your money if you buy any car in the next say 6 months. That way it's less of an obstacle for potential buyers but still filters out non-buyers.

What if you, by some affliction unimaginable, actually don't like the car? Is it worth $300 to determine that?

If you're willing to spend more than $100K on a car, then yes it probably is.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#58

Post by sbierwagen »

aeturnum wrote: post #50
enraged_camel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense. They probably get a lot of people who pretend to be buyers just to be able to test-drive a Tesla. Since such people don't end up buying one (as they cannot afford it), letting them test-drive serves no purpose other than wasting the dealer's time, and setting a $300 fee helps weed them out. Note that most high-end car dealers do this. Another way to think about it is this: if you were a serious buyer, i.…

I think this view is misguided. Apple would be foolish to make you prove that you could buy an iPad before letting you play with one, and the same holds true for Tesla. They need to overcome widespread skepticism about purely electric cars, and a large part of that is exposing everyone they can to their cars. Sure, give preferencial treatment to people who have the money to buy one, but let everyone try them out.

An iPad costs a couple hundred bucks, and is tiny. A Tesla Roadster costs tens of thousands, requires a full-time employee to babysit it during a test-drive, has to be insured, and fills a room.

You're not comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a paper airplane to a 747.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#59

Post by sbierwagen »

gknoy wrote: post #40
brk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they sell more power back into the grid than they use up. That doesn't make sense. The breakeven point for a solar panel is around 10 years (assuming you're using it solely for your own power generation purposes, that is how long it takes for the panel to "pay for itself" in offset electricity costs). The charging stations are there to charge vehicles. To keep them breakeven on power (forget about land/rent/t…

There are more ways to generate solar power than with solar panels. Presumably, they could invest in solar power plants. Heck, the highly illuminated towers of a solar power plant can be seen for miles, and could even be used for publicity: "Free power beacons on the road for Tesla cars..."

Solar concentrating thermal plants only work in direct sunlight, and their mirrors don't like to be dirty. They're not terribly commercially attractive outside the Mojave.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#60

Post by ericdykstra »

tptacek wrote: post #51
ericdykstra wrote: post #14

Of course vested interests in old industries will do whatever they can to block innovation. We're seeing it with all major industry disruptions. It used to be enough for the vested interests to write laws to block out, limit, or otherwise hinder additional traditional competitors (taxi medallions, ridiculous license requirements for florists[1], etc). Now we're seeing these same groups try to initiate and bring in ne…

It's an amusing sleight of hand to equate Tesla's run-in with franchise law to Uber's run-in with taxi licensing. Franchise laws are the product of decades of overlapping private/public enforcement of contractual issues between dealers and manufacturers. It seems clear on the face of it that Tesla should in no way be encumbered by the arrangements made between General Motors and its dealers, because Tesla never had d…

The point of my post wasn't to say that types of laws that companies are using to litigate against Uber and Tesla are equal in every way, and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm intentionally misleading people.

My overall point is that vested interests in many industries are using old laws and regulations to litigate against disruptive companies in their respective industries with the intention of stopping the disruptive company, and where those laws aren't sufficient, they are trying to pass new ones. And that despite this effort from vested interests (often times, government included), I believe that the true innovators will persevere.

Is there something about that you disagree with? I'm not sure what the point of your reply is.

Post reply on HN