Tesla wants to sell you a used Model S(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Tesla wants to sell you a used Model S
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/06/tesla-wants-to-sell-you-a-used-model-s/
6 comments
> Is it the technology, the disruption or just Elon Musk's involvement?
Yes, yes and yes.
Yes, yes and yes.
Well except that this article has nothing to do about technology or disruption ( that is a recognised business model used as noted by the article Tesla direct competitors ), and indirectly about Musk.
That is so banal, AFAIK almost all brand have some sort of certified second hand channel, that I don't even know what sort of on-topic discussion it is supposed to bring.
The article itself has nothing else to offer either - no idea on the pricing or what happens to your access to the supercharger network with a second hand Tesla.
Very weak for a HN article.
That is so banal, AFAIK almost all brand have some sort of certified second hand channel, that I don't even know what sort of on-topic discussion it is supposed to bring.
The article itself has nothing else to offer either - no idea on the pricing or what happens to your access to the supercharger network with a second hand Tesla.
Very weak for a HN article.
I actually did not up-vote the article (for all the reasons you stated), but I do think the general "obsession with anything Tesla related" is warranted.
In increasing order of importance to HN'ers, I think.
I really can't stand Elon Musk, I mean, awesome guy, for sure, I'd love for him to be my boss. But 9/10 times he's doing an interview and he's just rehashing the same story. He has a way of telling the 'reason from first principles' story and jamming it into the interview despite nobody asking any question for which this answer would be relevant, I've heard it a dozen times now.
So no, for me it's definitely not Musk. Cool guy, but you can only hear Martin Luther King have a speech so many times before you're like 'I agree, but I'm getting sleepy.'
For me it's really just the tech and disruption. The things Tesla and SpaceX and SolarCity are doing really are very cool, and they sit at the heart of some of the biggest problems and challenges of the 21st century. An inevitable shift to green energy and the final frontier. For Tesla it's just a cool startup with a slick product, some ballsy moves, frequent run-ins with local/state competition and media clickbait journalists, and a product that for me is a bit like the iphone: not the very first smartphone, touchscreen, mobile os, app store, not the thing the average western consumer will have let alone the average person on the planet, not the cheapest or the most inclusive, but a frontrunner with a huge and lasting impact that will drive everyone else, a company that sets a bar. That's exciting.
And for SpaceX, well, that's just really exciting. This notion we're regularly shipping all kinds of stuff to a freaking permanent space station and returning safely and making multiple trips with the same vehicle over and over, is insane. A one-time planned crash on the moon and on the earth is one thing, but we seem to start to really grasp real control in space, where we can comfortably do lots of different things at an accelerated pace, cheaper and cheaper, and renew the interest, investments and plans in space that laid dormant for a few decades. SpaceX being a part of that, as a private startup company that again is making ballsy moves, is a hugely compelling story.
SolarCity is the least exciting for me personally, but I think it's also hugely important. Generally sits in the top 3 solar companies in the US, doing cool work, like building the biggest ever US solar farm. Creating a solar security, solar leasing options and retrofits (a not so sexy but very important part of our energy discussion). I don't follow the company too much, oil prices have been low recently and shale gas has exploded on the scene, so I expect it to be the most difficult company to run as it's hard to get it cheaper than coal/gas. As solar only has a 'moral' benefit to consumers, and the average customer isn't willing to pay a large premium for something that's moral (because green) especially with all the rhetoric on climate denial, the company is in many ways limited to the growth in the industry. While Tesla and SpaceX can outpace competition, SolarCity probably can't very much.
So no, for me it's definitely not Musk. Cool guy, but you can only hear Martin Luther King have a speech so many times before you're like 'I agree, but I'm getting sleepy.'
For me it's really just the tech and disruption. The things Tesla and SpaceX and SolarCity are doing really are very cool, and they sit at the heart of some of the biggest problems and challenges of the 21st century. An inevitable shift to green energy and the final frontier. For Tesla it's just a cool startup with a slick product, some ballsy moves, frequent run-ins with local/state competition and media clickbait journalists, and a product that for me is a bit like the iphone: not the very first smartphone, touchscreen, mobile os, app store, not the thing the average western consumer will have let alone the average person on the planet, not the cheapest or the most inclusive, but a frontrunner with a huge and lasting impact that will drive everyone else, a company that sets a bar. That's exciting.
And for SpaceX, well, that's just really exciting. This notion we're regularly shipping all kinds of stuff to a freaking permanent space station and returning safely and making multiple trips with the same vehicle over and over, is insane. A one-time planned crash on the moon and on the earth is one thing, but we seem to start to really grasp real control in space, where we can comfortably do lots of different things at an accelerated pace, cheaper and cheaper, and renew the interest, investments and plans in space that laid dormant for a few decades. SpaceX being a part of that, as a private startup company that again is making ballsy moves, is a hugely compelling story.
SolarCity is the least exciting for me personally, but I think it's also hugely important. Generally sits in the top 3 solar companies in the US, doing cool work, like building the biggest ever US solar farm. Creating a solar security, solar leasing options and retrofits (a not so sexy but very important part of our energy discussion). I don't follow the company too much, oil prices have been low recently and shale gas has exploded on the scene, so I expect it to be the most difficult company to run as it's hard to get it cheaper than coal/gas. As solar only has a 'moral' benefit to consumers, and the average customer isn't willing to pay a large premium for something that's moral (because green) especially with all the rhetoric on climate denial, the company is in many ways limited to the growth in the industry. While Tesla and SpaceX can outpace competition, SolarCity probably can't very much.
I'm excited for the advancements in battery technology. Personally, I upvoted this one because it could put it in my price range
Affordable to buy, but to maintain? It's not like you can go to the first mechanic around the corner to fix something in Tesla, and I'm quite sure original parts are ridiculously expensive. It's the same thing as with luxury, old cars - you can buy, for example, an old Porsche 911 quite cheap, but you will pay twice the price for repairs.
Tesla has an 8 year, infinite mile warranty on the power train (not sure what the rest of the vehicle is covered by). It also requires very little, if any, maintenance (tire rotations every 5K miles, brakes every 100K miles, battery replacement every 150-200K miles). For battery replacements, they just drop the pack and lift a new one in. For motor replacements, they just lift the 80 lbs motor out and drop a new one in.
Model S has been around for 2 years, it's their first model (not counting the Roadster, which was rather exotic, not mass produced) and you assume nothing will ever brake? There are so many little things that are not covered by warranty and may be really expensive to fix - and just like any other car, things will brake with time. Let's be honest, Model S, new or used, is a luxury car for the rich - I would rather wait for a new model targeted at the middle class.
Why would their "new model targeted at the middle class" be cheaper to fix? Tesla/Elon has shown that they'll make good on vehicle upgrades/substandard parts if needed (battery shield and debris bar upgrades at no charge).
>Why would their "new model targeted at the middle class" be cheaper to fix? Tesla/Elon has shown that they'll make good on vehicle upgrades/substandard parts if needed (battery shield and debris bar upgrades at no charge).
Generally speaking, how much a car costs to fix correlates with what the car costs new. Part of this is parts cost; I mean, if you compare a 3-5 year old bmw 3 series to a new honda civic, you are getting a car of about the same size for about the same price... but the BMW rotors, for instance, are beefier to begin with, and they wear faster - even if you are just paying for the metal, you are paying more for bmw rotors. (with brakes and tires, there is usually a trade-off between performance and longevity, to some extent. Softer tires/softer rotors do the job better, but don't last as long.)
On an electric car, I would expect this to be dominated by the cost of battery replacement, which I would assume would dominate the cost of electric car maintenance. A smaller electric car is going to have a smaller (in both size and power) battery pack, and a smaller battery pack is going to cost you less to replace when it wears out.
The other part of it is price discrimination. Service and parts for the bmw are priced, you know, for people that can afford a bmw. If you have a bmw, the mechanic is going to charge you the "premium service" because it's a good indicator that you are willing to spend more on a car than the person that drives a civic.
Generally speaking, how much a car costs to fix correlates with what the car costs new. Part of this is parts cost; I mean, if you compare a 3-5 year old bmw 3 series to a new honda civic, you are getting a car of about the same size for about the same price... but the BMW rotors, for instance, are beefier to begin with, and they wear faster - even if you are just paying for the metal, you are paying more for bmw rotors. (with brakes and tires, there is usually a trade-off between performance and longevity, to some extent. Softer tires/softer rotors do the job better, but don't last as long.)
On an electric car, I would expect this to be dominated by the cost of battery replacement, which I would assume would dominate the cost of electric car maintenance. A smaller electric car is going to have a smaller (in both size and power) battery pack, and a smaller battery pack is going to cost you less to replace when it wears out.
The other part of it is price discrimination. Service and parts for the bmw are priced, you know, for people that can afford a bmw. If you have a bmw, the mechanic is going to charge you the "premium service" because it's a good indicator that you are willing to spend more on a car than the person that drives a civic.
Electric cars have far fewer moving parts than gasoline cars. Electric motors are also more or less bomb-proof, they rev to a high enough range that gears aren't needed, so pretty much the only thing that can go wrong on a Tesla is the battery/electric system.
And of course the usual tire/brake maintenance...
And of course the usual tire/brake maintenance...
There's very little that can go wrong in an electric vehicle. The only thing which can go terribly wrong is the battery pack; any damage there would mean a write off anyway.
Which would be awesome if it were true.
They are mechanically far more simple. We can quibble about the electronics until the cows come home, but ICE powered cars have electronics, too; so they aren't immune from problems.
Yes I understand that. I'm not saying that. The parent to my comment made it sound like there really can't ever be any problems (not verbatim, just the tone I read it with) with the cars, and let's be honest, that just isn't exactly true. I have nothing against Tesla - shit, if I had $100k I'd have the Tesla Model S I want.
Didn't really feel like I should be downvoted for my comment up-stream either.
Didn't really feel like I should be downvoted for my comment up-stream either.
Firmware errors. Loose wiring. Rotor overheating + damage. Brake sensors and control units. Steering component damage (e.g. from bumping up against a curb too violently.) Fried caps, just like everyone else. Damaged charging control units from poorly behaving charging stations. Distortions in the touch screens from heat. Damage to switches and doors from de-icing fluid. Damage to the underbody from road salt. Rusted connections in tail light fixtures. Damaged and/or leaking suspension seals. Air conditioning unit leaks/damage.
Dog hair, child puke, vomit entering electrical panels, jamming seatbelt mechanisms.
Light collision damage.
Etc.
Dog hair, child puke, vomit entering electrical panels, jamming seatbelt mechanisms.
Light collision damage.
Etc.
Right. Now compare that list to the list of stuff that can go wrong with an ICE or hybrid car. You'll quickly find that it is significantly shorter.
I was refuting that electric cars had nothing that could go wrong, not that the were less reliable than a hybrid car.
On a new Porsche 911 (had two of them recently) snow tires cost me $1800 [1] (it actually does a nice job in the snow with them) and the first oil change was something like $400 or so at the dealer. I sold the second one recently (got a Porsche Suv) and it actually retained a fair amount of it's value after 2 years of use. I was surprised.
On a model that I sold I was able to get $450 approx for the snow tires. That said I didn't drive it much if I did I would have hit other maintenance windows.
Personally I would never keep a luxury or high performance car past warranty.
[1] Not only that but they are so large only certain places can even change them because of the width. Since the Porsche dealer is about an hour away I had to go to the BMW dealer to swap the summer tires at the end of the season. (There was a company that had a tire changing service that comes to you but they went out of business that was the best convenience.)
On a model that I sold I was able to get $450 approx for the snow tires. That said I didn't drive it much if I did I would have hit other maintenance windows.
Personally I would never keep a luxury or high performance car past warranty.
[1] Not only that but they are so large only certain places can even change them because of the width. Since the Porsche dealer is about an hour away I had to go to the BMW dealer to swap the summer tires at the end of the season. (There was a company that had a tire changing service that comes to you but they went out of business that was the best convenience.)
You had to spend a lot on them because they are wide, which is because the 911 is a high-performance car. It would have been the same with any Corvette, Camaro, or Charger.
Complaining about expensive tires on a fast sports car is like complaining about the poor battery life on your 19" 4GHz laptop with discrete graphics.
Complaining about expensive tires on a fast sports car is like complaining about the poor battery life on your 19" 4GHz laptop with discrete graphics.
Where did I say or why did you get the impression that I was "complaining"?
Well, you go on about tires and then you say
Personally I would never keep a luxury or high performance car past warranty.
Which suggests you mean, because of the tires which is an odd thing to say.
Now maybe you didn't mean because of the tires, but then (to me) your post reads like a jumble of unrelated thoughts.
Personally I would never keep a luxury or high performance car past warranty.
Which suggests you mean, because of the tires which is an odd thing to say.
Now maybe you didn't mean because of the tires, but then (to me) your post reads like a jumble of unrelated thoughts.
OT, but, I have a 2001 (996) 911 which I bought used for ~$20k in 2009. It's been hassle-free since then and the largest expense has been tires.
I'm excited for the battery technology as well as their AC Induction Motors.
I genuinely believe everything Musk is currently involved in (Tesla, Space X, Solar City, Hyperloop) is changing the world.
...hyperloop?
hahhahahahahahahaha
hahhahahahahahahaha
Someone will build one sooner or later.
Or we could build a train, which we've had hundreds of years of experience with, using proven technologies we understand, without squeezing people into a tiny pod.
The hyperloop is a distraction from actually building useful infrastructure, and one that is half-baked at best. It's what a billionaire doodled on a napkin one day and decided to publish to get free publicity for his other, more legitimate businesses.
What bothers me most is that he's building spaceships, for heaven's sake. He understands what engineering problems and solutions look like, and he knows this isn't one.
The hyperloop is a distraction from actually building useful infrastructure, and one that is half-baked at best. It's what a billionaire doodled on a napkin one day and decided to publish to get free publicity for his other, more legitimate businesses.
What bothers me most is that he's building spaceships, for heaven's sake. He understands what engineering problems and solutions look like, and he knows this isn't one.
You know, people said the same things when the first automobile was made, when the first train was made and when the first plane was made.
The hyperloop is a major, major step up from a train (even a "high speed train" so it's not acceptable to just say "stick with the old tech".
The hyperloop is a major, major step up from a train (even a "high speed train" so it's not acceptable to just say "stick with the old tech".
The company that changes one of the oldest and most established industries.
People were hating them and here is change.
Old companies protected by government just for a reason that there is no alternative got in people nerves.
People were hating them and here is change.
Old companies protected by government just for a reason that there is no alternative got in people nerves.
People were hating them and here is change.
The financial system very efficiently bankrupted the Auto industry, no problem.
The financial system very efficiently bankrupted the Auto industry, no problem.
The Nissan Leaf came out a year or two before. They somehow managed to galvanize public support better than Nissan
Great car, great company, lots of good publicity lately, obviously tech related.
If I had a downvote button I would.
I think the main reason is that people think the mere fact of associating themselves and reading anything Tesla and anything Elon Musk related makes them feel cool and modern. It's basically like a cult. How people who know "music" will always disparage pop music and think this random indie alternative band is the best.
I think the main reason is that people think the mere fact of associating themselves and reading anything Tesla and anything Elon Musk related makes them feel cool and modern. It's basically like a cult. How people who know "music" will always disparage pop music and think this random indie alternative band is the best.
>who want to forgo gas and buy a Tesla but cannot afford the high price of a new Model S
I love the idea of someone concerned about costs and prices buying a $50,000 used luxury vehicle with an unproven long-term reliability track record.
Edit: Wow, downvoted twice before I could even fix my typos. What a community.
I love the idea of someone concerned about costs and prices buying a $50,000 used luxury vehicle with an unproven long-term reliability track record.
Edit: Wow, downvoted twice before I could even fix my typos. What a community.
"Elon Musk previously guaranteed the resale value of the Model S. Announced in April 2013, those who financed a Model S are allowed to return the vehicle after three years for 43 to 50 percent of its sticker price — just in time to buy a new Tesla vehicle."
I wonder why those numbers are so low. For reference, I recently leased a 2015 Mercedes C400, and the residual (programmed into the lease) is 61% after 3 years. When you're looking at a $70,000+ car, the difference between 43% and 61% is pretty dramatic.
I'm wondering if Musk/Tesla believes that the technology will change so much that in 3 years no one will want the older Teslas, or just that people who want to buy a Tesla will not care about residual value. Perhaps both?
I wonder why those numbers are so low. For reference, I recently leased a 2015 Mercedes C400, and the residual (programmed into the lease) is 61% after 3 years. When you're looking at a $70,000+ car, the difference between 43% and 61% is pretty dramatic.
I'm wondering if Musk/Tesla believes that the technology will change so much that in 3 years no one will want the older Teslas, or just that people who want to buy a Tesla will not care about residual value. Perhaps both?
Not sure why you're comparing a lease residual to a Tesla buyback.
The lease residual is a price for the buyer to buy the car outright.
The Tesla resale guarantee is a price for the buyer to sell the car.
I wouldn't expect those % figures to be the same. I would expect the buy-to-own price to be higher than the sell-back price. Same concept as trading in an old car to the dealer for one price while the same dealer turns around and sells that used car to another buyer for a higher price.
Btw, when I turned in my car after a 36-month lease, the leasing company immediately offered to ignore the lease residual specified in the contract in an effort to entice me to buy the car. They immediately lowered the price because the leasing company didn't want the car back!
The lease residual is a price for the buyer to buy the car outright.
The Tesla resale guarantee is a price for the buyer to sell the car.
I wouldn't expect those % figures to be the same. I would expect the buy-to-own price to be higher than the sell-back price. Same concept as trading in an old car to the dealer for one price while the same dealer turns around and sells that used car to another buyer for a higher price.
Btw, when I turned in my car after a 36-month lease, the leasing company immediately offered to ignore the lease residual specified in the contract in an effort to entice me to buy the car. They immediately lowered the price because the leasing company didn't want the car back!
From a buyer's perspective though, a guaranteed 43% retention in value vs a gamble on 61% seems like a logical trade-off.
>I wonder why those numbers are so low.
The difference is probably battery degradation.
The difference is probably battery degradation.
I wonder what the effects are of buying a luxury car cheaply. Surely at least some portion of buyers are buying it because it's cool to have a Tesla. I guess it matters how big a portion.
Same with every brand ever... Look at Apple, extremely strong second-hand market that retain value for years, coupled with an extremely strong tendency of customers wanting the 'latest one', whatever it is. It works really well.
It's not like a high fashion item that goes out of style once everyone has it. And Tesla sells very, very few cars, to be honest. It'd be a great benefit I think to see an order of magnitude more of them before they even come close to 'going out of style' because everyone has one. And frankly, when you've gotten there, you pretty much already won, anyway.
It's not like a high fashion item that goes out of style once everyone has it. And Tesla sells very, very few cars, to be honest. It'd be a great benefit I think to see an order of magnitude more of them before they even come close to 'going out of style' because everyone has one. And frankly, when you've gotten there, you pretty much already won, anyway.
What are the effects of buying a used BMW or Mercedes-Benz? I'm not aware of that having any detrimental effect on those brands.
In fact I've heard BMW commercials that tout their cars' ability to retain resale value better than anyone else.
What I wonder is why people are turning in their leases/selling their cars so soon?
What are the ratios of, gets a new car every couple years, more car than they could realistically afford, wasn't meeting their needs (range, passenger, luggage, person capacity), etc. etc.
What are the ratios of, gets a new car every couple years, more car than they could realistically afford, wasn't meeting their needs (range, passenger, luggage, person capacity), etc. etc.
I have some friends that only lease cars because they want a new one every two years. It doesn't matter if the car is perfectly OK and in great shape, they want a new car. They'll even lease the same car again.
I imagine car companies love them :).
I imagine car companies love them :).
Is there some tax-favorability to leasing cars?
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-loophole-on-luxury-cars-2...
http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-loophole-on-luxury-cars-2...
Not usually. In fact where I live (NH) the taxes work against it. Your annual fees are based on cars value. I was previosly doing a new lease vehicle every year (two vehicles on 2-year lease terms with staggered renewal years).
Now we buy and hold vehicles for 5-10 years.
Now we buy and hold vehicles for 5-10 years.
It's pretty surprising to me, too. It's not much like a smartphone which quadruples in performance and efficiency at higher resolutions, with a better camera while being thinner and lighter every two years. And I'd imagine that cars stay quite fashionable for at least a decade before a layman could recognize the car as being from a wholly different generation of cars cosmetically.
I mean if range (battery life) and repair requirements suddenly spiked down and up respectively, sure.
But from what I've heard, range stays pretty good, financially you're better off just replacing the battery than buying a new car every 2 years (ditching a $70k car at 50% value means you're paying about $1400 a month for your car on just depreciation costs!) and cars are much more reliable over time these days (with obvious exceptions recently).
I mean if range (battery life) and repair requirements suddenly spiked down and up respectively, sure.
But from what I've heard, range stays pretty good, financially you're better off just replacing the battery than buying a new car every 2 years (ditching a $70k car at 50% value means you're paying about $1400 a month for your car on just depreciation costs!) and cars are much more reliable over time these days (with obvious exceptions recently).
Lots of 2-3 year leases while consumers felt out the product?
The Model S was released in mid-2012. So, the timing is right to ramp up the certified program by mid-2015 to catch vehicles that were leased for 3 years.
In the DC region, there are TONS of 2-3 year old vehicles for sale as certified, many of them off-lease. 3 of my last 4 vehicles have been bought that way. With the 30-40% discount from new and the 100k mile warranties, it works out pretty well.
The Model S was released in mid-2012. So, the timing is right to ramp up the certified program by mid-2015 to catch vehicles that were leased for 3 years.
In the DC region, there are TONS of 2-3 year old vehicles for sale as certified, many of them off-lease. 3 of my last 4 vehicles have been bought that way. With the 30-40% discount from new and the 100k mile warranties, it works out pretty well.
[deleted]
I understand articles appear that get upvoted I'm just wondering why this type of news would get upvoted.