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

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#81

Post by ubernostrum »

AVTizzle wrote: post #69
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my comment was pretty clear: Incumbents in the automotive industry are trying to abuse existing laws to harm or extract rents from Tesla, but should and probably will ultimately fail to do that, because the purpose of those laws is orthogonal to what Tesla is doing. Incumbents in the taxi/livery business are wielding their regulations against Uber. But their claims are not as specious. They are encumbered by…

"...the purpose of those laws is orthogonal..." "...their claims are not as specious..." Those claims aren't yours to make. How legitimate or illegitimate any given law is in a given circumstance is arguable and subjective. Thus the court system, lawyers, and the entire judicial branch. Eric's point - that these cases are all part of the same phenomenon - makes complete sense. Incumbents trying to leverage power to s…

It's simple enough, I don't even see what there is to argue.

What there is to argue is that there are industries where regulation serves no purpose other than to stifle competition, and there are industries where regulation serves the purpose of actually protecting people.

Taxi licensing is an example of the latter.

And in general, as much as HN loves the narrative of "plucky disruptive hackers vs. evil entrenched interests", it is fundamentally not right for a company to "disrupt" by skirting laws and regulations that competitors are required to obey. It is also unsurprising that competitors raise an unholy stink when that happens, and you would do exactly the same if placed in that situation.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#82

Post by r00fus »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #75
run4yourlives wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually afford a Tesla? Honestly? And if the answer is no, would you want someone you pay good money to spending time with someone that doesn't have the means to actually buy the product instead of a person who does?

I'm a Model S reservation holder and a TSLA stock owner. I'm perfectly fine with TSLA charging for test drives.

It's the honest approach, really. Having numerous dealers compete for my business just offends my sense of fairness - sure, I could get a test drive from one, then accept a lowball from another dealer - but is that really sustainable? At what point was that "lowball deal" really just the actual price you should have paid whereas the competing higher priced dealer was inflating their price so they could spend an hour or two showing you the car?

To this extent, I even rent the car I'm going to buy (go to service dept at dealership, ask for the specific model). This way I can tell about all those ity-bitties like oh, whether the car will fit comfortably in the garage, how it feels on the way up the mountains, etc.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#83

Post by tlb »

Musk says, "It is impossible for [dealers] to explain the advantages of going electric without simultaneously undermining their traditional business." But every other technology introduced, from the electric starter in the 1910s to hybrids in the 2000s, has gone through the same process. Chevrolet dealers have explained the advantages of and sold 24000 Volts in the US.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#84

Post by ChuckMcM »

howeyc wrote: post #78
ChuckMcM wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on: C - full-electric is the rage, every brand has one and Tesla remains the 'premium' brand ? My thinking is that the new vehicle market is quite large, and Tesla, as an early mover, has a great advantage relative to the other manufacturers. Their disadvantage is that they aren't as well capitalized. Their lack of working capital will kill them if they have to pivot very far from their current…

> Further if they start today it will be 24 months before they can launch something. You are assuming other companies have not yet started building electric cars. This is extremely false. I was at the Detroit Auto Show in Jan 2011 and saw Ford driving a fully-electric Fusion around the showroom floor. Tesla certainly appears to be ahead publicly, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

Actually I was looking at the auto show data. One of the fastest 'show to road' cars was the Toyota Land Rover at 18 months but the electrics have taken longer (at least the Volt and Leaf did). The steps I saw at the San Jose show were tentative at best.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#85

Post by qu4z-2 »

wmf wrote: post #42
salimmadjd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Althiugh agree with the visionary status of Musk. But, your comment speaks to my point directly regarding the differing customer acquisition models. Apple's growth comes from entering an emerging market. Very different than the car industry. The emerging market of the car industry started with another visionary, Henry Ford.

Ah yes. "If smartphones turn out to be the future, people will probably just buy them from existing phone brands that they trust, like Nokia or Motorola." — a lot of people in 2007

For what it's worth, I have a Motorola smartphone, and I certainly wouldn't trade it in for an iPhone.

The point I'm trying to make is that that the prediction is correct assuming "people" refers mostly to the people making the predictions. Or... people tend to project their ways of thinking, and likes and dislikes, onto other people.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#86

Post by run4yourlives »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #75
run4yourlives wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually afford a Tesla? Honestly? And if the answer is no, would you want someone you pay good money to spending time with someone that doesn't have the means to actually buy the product instead of a person who does?

I'm a Model S reservation holder and a TSLA stock owner. I'm perfectly fine with TSLA charging for test drives.

Just to be clear: I'm supportive of Tesla's current practice of "vetting" people and charging for test drives (or just denying them completely ) if warranted. I see no reason for them to waste their time.

What I don't think they should do is charge for test drives as a matter of practice, because that doesn't help them court their target clientele that are getting free rides (as vetted customers) at the competition.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#87

Post by run4yourlives »

enraged_camel wrote: post #54
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 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 potenti…

I agree with you.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#88

Post by krschultz »

fijal wrote: post #77
rikf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont forget that even traditional gas stations make most of their profit from convenience store/restaurants.

I would actually be very interested in a citation for this.

It's 100% true. My uncle owns a fairly large gas/service station. The profit from gas sales effectively paid the rent for the service station. He paid all of his employees (and himself) with money coming from the car repair business. The gas pumps were irrelevant to his own profit, but required a lot of hassle/wasted time.

About 2 or 3 years ago he bought a larger building, hired more mechanics, and didn't build gas pumps. They're just not worth the hassle.

For perspective, the credit card companies made more money per gallon than he did as the gas station owner.

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#89

Post by lumberjack »

marshallp wrote: post #35
salimmadjd wrote: post #26

I admire Musk and tesla. However, I see two paths for them and none are good. A - fully-electric cars are still too early and will get crushed by hybrids or more efficient diesel/fossil fuel cars. Tesla becomes irrelevent. B - fully-electric is all the rage, and every brand will have one. Tesla will become the victims of their own success. I'm going to assume many of you are going to disagree with me. Mainly because…

Tesla are the Apple of cars. Elon Musk is the new Steve Jobs. The other car companies will have non-tech retards as ceo's and will always be playing catch-up. Tesla only has to fear techie's like google or apple itself entering the space.

>The other car companies will have non-tech retards as ceo's and will always be playing catch-up.

This is false. Most car companies have been researching electric vehicles since the 60's or 70's when the first oil crises happened. And as for technology, Tesla is not actually ahead, in neither range nor charge up speed.

As an example, this is also a "Startup" thing. An electric bus, that gets better range (everything considered) and faster recharge times:

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/proterra-ecoliner-electr...

Re: The Tesla Approach to Distributing and Servicing Cars

#90

Post by w1ntermute »

brk wrote: post #36
w1ntermute wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't see how Tesla can expect to afford free supercharger stations forever though. Because they sell more power back into the grid than they use up. I'm guessing they'll just add more solar panels (a fixed cost) as the number of charging stations at a given Supercharger goes up.

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…

Musk has a startup (SolarCity) that specifically deals with solar panels and is providing the panels for the Tesla supercharging stations, so he has deep knowledge of the field. He's clearly managed to make the numbers work out, or he wouldn't have made it free to charge.
Post reply on HN