5 ms·

the media seems intent on sinking Tesla. While I agree with the conclusion that they should stick to car instead of loan technology, the tagline under the 500$

the media seems intent on sinking Tesla. While I agree with the conclusion that they should stick to car instead of loan technology, the tagline under the 500$ seems enough to me to indicate it is a cost of ownership figure. These practices are certainly not more deceptive than what is seen elsewhere in the auto industry

niggler 14y ago
Many of the complaints are absolutely legitimate and have nothing to do with sinking tesla. For example: " the fuel savings calculator nestled among these references to the buyback program defaults to driving 15,000 miles per year. Nowhere on the page does Tesla mention that the buyback program explicitly limits mileage to 12,000 per year, and that any miles in excess are charged at $0.25 apiece ... they’d have to pay an additional $2250 in mileage penalties." This is the type of thing you expect from a scummy used car dealer.
twoodfin 14y ago
It's not a cost of ownership figure. By definition, if you're paying Tesla or Wells-Fargo $1,200 a month for your car, your cost of ownership is at least $1,200 a month.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- guiambros 14y ago
  If you're saving $250 on gas, then your total cost of ownership is $950 per month. Also, if the resell value after 3 years is higher than your other option, then the TCO is reduced even further when analyzed over that time period.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > If you're saving $250 on gas, then your total cost of ownership is $950 per month. Of course it doesn't. It means the total cost of ownership of the other vehicle is $250 higher.
  - Someone 14y ago
    Rent one from me for $1500 a month. That will save you the $1200 you otherwise would pay to Tesla, so your total cost of ownership is only $300 per month. In other words: your logic does not make sense to me.
potatolicious 14y ago
This is silly and borders on conspiracy theory. It would be suspicious if Tesla is being attacked over technicalities or falsehoods, but all of the criticism in this article is true, representative, and on the money. It's not just Car & Driver, there have been recently discussions on HN also where it's been shown many times over that the $500 figure is straight out to lunch and grossly misleading. Why is it that some of us here feel the need to constantly worship at the feet of demigod Musk, He Who Does No Wrong, and anything negative said about him is dismissed as slanderous propaganda by Big Automobile? What is this, the USSR? I appreciate what Elon Musk is doing to advance electric cars and wean us off of oil, but he is a shrewd businessman subject to the fallibilities of all shrewd businessmen. He is neither a messiah nor a saint.
- pg 14y ago
  "he is a shrewd businessman subject to the fallibilities of all shrewd businessmen." Rather a broad generalization, don't you think? Like most fields, business turns out to have more variation than outsiders think. "Businessmen" range from pure money grubbers who will do whatever makes the most, to people who are in business simply because the thing they want to build can only be embodied as a business. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that Elon Musk is toward the latter end of the spectrum.
  - bravura 14y ago
    "Rather a broad generalization, don't you think?" In fact, it was gratuitously restrictive, as you noted in the subsequent sentence.
  - jcr 14y ago
    > "the thing they want to build can only be embodied as a business." I agree completely. It's easy to see how improving the state of electric vehicles requires significant capital, so without a business, there's no viable way to make the desired advancements. Some of the backlash against Elon Musk seems to be caused by some people having extremely high expectations for everything he does. Those expectations are occasionally unrealistic, and blaming him personally for every misgiving of the entire Tesla company is entirely unfair. Most car sales/lease terms are horribly and intentionally confusing and complicated, but someone in marketing at Tesla made a serious mistake. The mistake wasn't using industry norm of difficult to comprehend claims and terms, instead, the mistake was failing to live up to expectations of something better, namely, clear and direct terms with fair and easy comparisons. As a business, Tesla must compete with all of the entrenched businesses but by using the "best practices" of the industry in terms of marketing, they missed an opportunity and failed to meet expectations. There are few people on the planet who have set expectations so high as to get blamed personally for failing to innovate absolutely everywhere, but it seems Elon Musk is one of them. The world would be a better place if more people had his problems. ;-)

niggler 14y ago

Many of the complaints are absolutely legitimate and have nothing to do with sinking tesla. For example: " the fuel savings calculator nestled among these references to the buyback program defaults to driving 15,000 miles per year. Nowhere on the page does Tesla mention that the buyback program explicitly limits mileage to 12,000 per year, and that any miles in excess are charged at $0.25 apiece ... they’d have to pay an additional $2250 in mileage penalties." This is the type of thing you expect from a scummy used car dealer.

twoodfin 14y ago

It's not a cost of ownership figure. By definition, if you're paying Tesla or Wells-Fargo $1,200 a month for your car, your cost of ownership is at least $1,200 a month.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
guiambros 14y ago
If you're saving $250 on gas, then your total cost of ownership is $950 per month. Also, if the resell value after 3 years is higher than your other option, then the TCO is reduced even further when analyzed over that time period.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > If you're saving $250 on gas, then your total cost of ownership is $950 per month. Of course it doesn't. It means the total cost of ownership of the other vehicle is $250 higher.
- Someone 14y ago
  Rent one from me for $1500 a month. That will save you the $1200 you otherwise would pay to Tesla, so your total cost of ownership is only $300 per month. In other words: your logic does not make sense to me.

potatolicious 14y ago

This is silly and borders on conspiracy theory. It would be suspicious if Tesla is being attacked over technicalities or falsehoods, but all of the criticism in this article is true, representative, and on the money. It's not just Car & Driver, there have been recently discussions on HN also where it's been shown many times over that the $500 figure is straight out to lunch and grossly misleading. Why is it that some of us here feel the need to constantly worship at the feet of demigod Musk, He Who Does No Wrong, and anything negative said about him is dismissed as slanderous propaganda by Big Automobile? What is this, the USSR? I appreciate what Elon Musk is doing to advance electric cars and wean us off of oil, but he is a shrewd businessman subject to the fallibilities of all shrewd businessmen. He is neither a messiah nor a saint.

pg 14y ago
"he is a shrewd businessman subject to the fallibilities of all shrewd businessmen." Rather a broad generalization, don't you think? Like most fields, business turns out to have more variation than outsiders think. "Businessmen" range from pure money grubbers who will do whatever makes the most, to people who are in business simply because the thing they want to build can only be embodied as a business. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that Elon Musk is toward the latter end of the spectrum.
- bravura 14y ago
  "Rather a broad generalization, don't you think?" In fact, it was gratuitously restrictive, as you noted in the subsequent sentence.
- jcr 14y ago
  > "the thing they want to build can only be embodied as a business." I agree completely. It's easy to see how improving the state of electric vehicles requires significant capital, so without a business, there's no viable way to make the desired advancements. Some of the backlash against Elon Musk seems to be caused by some people having extremely high expectations for everything he does. Those expectations are occasionally unrealistic, and blaming him personally for every misgiving of the entire Tesla company is entirely unfair. Most car sales/lease terms are horribly and intentionally confusing and complicated, but someone in marketing at Tesla made a serious mistake. The mistake wasn't using industry norm of difficult to comprehend claims and terms, instead, the mistake was failing to live up to expectations of something better, namely, clear and direct terms with fair and easy comparisons. As a business, Tesla must compete with all of the entrenched businesses but by using the "best practices" of the industry in terms of marketing, they missed an opportunity and failed to meet expectations. There are few people on the planet who have set expectations so high as to get blamed personally for failing to innovate absolutely everywhere, but it seems Elon Musk is one of them. The world would be a better place if more people had his problems. ;-)