Tesla Model S waffling

[clyde]

Originally Posted by JST

In other words, whatever the proximate cause of the original impact, the car's post-crash behavior is a separate problem.

I think it is inextricably weaved into original problem: Can cars be trusted to kinda drive themselves in public today and are their manufacturers doing everything reasonably possible to protect the public from failures? The answer seems to be a clear no.

Imagine Tesla announced Autopilot by saying, "We're going to introduce technology that is unproven, experimental, and poses significant risk to the public if it fails or is misused, but does not incorporate any characteristics to mitigate those risks...and we're going to let anyone use it in public places if they give us enough money, and we'll just blame them when it goes wrong like we all know it will." Because that's what they did. They just described it differently.

The Reuters link I posted above describes a significant portion of the car's post-crash travels as off-road. How far did the car go on pavement where it could have been slowing and how far off road where it may have been a passenger on a physics experiment even if the car was trying to arrest itself? Maybe we'll know later.

What I find striking and very disturbing is that we're speculating after the fact of a foreseeable event instead of when it was a future possibility. This is a technology with very real and significant safety implications that was unilaterally unleashed on an unwilling and uninformed public with questionable planning, testing, or public debate about whether it should be allowed and, if so, under what circumstances and subject to what kind of restrictions?

[JST]

I mean, that's a huge question, and it actually goes to a huge philosophical debate that comes up all the time--should we allow innovation subject to retrospective penalties and regulation if it turns out to be dangerous, or should we only allow innovation once some fairly high threshold of safety has been reached (and demonstrated)?

The latter is generally called the "precautionary principle," and it's much more widely accepted in Europe than here. It seems appealing, but in practice it puts a huge drag on innovation--not only is it hard to prove the negative (i.e., something is safe), but if you prevent roll-out, you make it hard to gather the very data you need to show safety.

So. I do generally think that we should have a shoot first, ask questions later mentality for innovation, backed up with rigorous tort liability. I think that generally works well, and is far more beneficial than the "prove safety before jumping" model.

That said, when you market something that turns out to be dangerous, you have to pay the price.

[TD]

Re: used Tesla values- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-...-title-comment

[ZBB]

Originally Posted by TD

Re: used Tesla values- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-...-title-comment

Seems to be more of an argument that Tesla should use franchised dealers...

[TD]

Originally Posted by ZBB

Seems to be more of an argument that Tesla should use franchised dealers...

I sort of read it as there is going to be a window of time until a market value is established for used Tesla and, until then, there is a good bit of residual value risk.

[JST]

Originally Posted by TD

I sort of read it as there is going to be a window of time until a market value is established for used Tesla and, until then, there is a good bit of residual value risk.

Only on the wholesale side. The retail residuals are pretty easy to see.

Honestly, this is a problem from a "Tesla isn't playing like the rest of the industry is" standpoint more than anything. Can you easily trade a Tesla in on another brand of car? Eh, probably not. Would you want to? I doubt many Tesla owners are that concerned.

There is some fuckery going on at Tesla about their CPO program, which weirdly ebbs and flows I think in part to drive demand to new cars at strategic times. But while that's personally frustrating (all I want is a 2014 P85, goddamnit), it's not the end of the world.

[TD]

Originally Posted by JST

Only on the wholesale side. The retail residuals are pretty easy to see.

Honestly, this is a problem from a "Tesla isn't playing like the rest of the industry is" standpoint more than anything. Can you easily trade a Tesla in on another brand of car? Eh, probably not. Would you want to? I doubt many Tesla owners are that concerned.

There is some fuckery going on at Tesla about their CPO program, which weirdly ebbs and flows I think in part to drive demand to new cars at strategic times. But while that's personally frustrating (all I want is a 2014 P85, goddamnit), it's not the end of the world.

But to many, the idea that they can't just trade in their 3 year old Tesla at the BMW dealer - at least without taking a financial - bath is problematic. Most people who can afford a new Model S are not really inclined to sell their car via private sale.

[JST]

Originally Posted by TD

But to many, the idea that they can't just trade in their 3 year old Tesla at the BMW dealer - at least without taking a financial - bath is problematic. Most people who can afford a new Model S are not really inclined to sell their car via private sale.

True, but what that article didn't really emphasize is that the RVG was a stop-gap measure that was largely a substitute for leasing. Tesla back then didn't have a retail lease program. These days, they do offer leases. They're not subvented like BMW leases, so you won't get a super cheap Model S for the price of a 550, but if you're a buyer that wants certainty and likes to trade vehicles, that's the best way to go.

That's why they are getting rid of the RVG, I suspect.

I'm really not sure that any consumers are aware enough about the wholesale issues that Maryann Keller describes for it to influence their purchases.

[TD]

Originally Posted by JST

True, but what that article didn't really emphasize is that the RVG was a stop-gap measure that was largely a substitute for leasing. Tesla back then didn't have a retail lease program. These days, they do offer leases. They're not subvented like BMW leases, so you won't get a super cheap Model S for the price of a 550, but if you're a buyer that wants certainty and likes to trade vehicles, that's the best way to go.

That's why they are getting rid of the RVG, I suspect.

I'm really not sure that any consumers are aware enough about the wholesale issues that Maryann Keller describes for it to influence their purchases.

I am sure you are correct that the RVG was just a lease stop-gap and with a consumer lease program in place that there is no reason to continue it.

I'm also sure you are correct that the average Tesla buyer hasn't thought about what will happen when they decide it's time to move on. I just know I wouldn't be happy being in a position where I was looking to end my Tesla experience and not having a decent way to do so.

[robg]

Interesting. For this and many other reasons I think leasing is best way to "buy" a tesla. Even without subvented residuals. But it's hard to stomach the idea of paying 1k+/ month for a not even loaded model 70 (all in). Gas savings only takes you so far. That's 911 territory. The updated panamera looks good too and would probably even be a better deal lease wise even at a higher msrp. If it's gotta be a high performance electric luxury car they're the only game in town of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk