- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Tesla will sue you for $50,000 if you try to resell your Cybertruck in the first year::Tesla may agree to buy the truck back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven” and any damages and repairs.
You must log in or register to comment.
Good grief, I have Hyundai Ioniq 5 and feels like it is better although my Ioniq is far cheaper than Tesla.
From what I read, Musk’s insistence on the stainless steel design as well as his overriding his design engineers on multiple aspects of the program are forcing the first set of trucks to ship to have a significant amount of hand assembly, pushing the unit cost towards $200k.
I’m going off of memory here, but the low end version of the truck was supposed to be in the $40-50k range. While they can bump those prices (I assume - I’m guessing the reservations people got let Tesla change the price), they’re going to see a lot of people dropping it.
I can’t look at it without remembering the Simpson’s episode where Homer says “In the 80s, this is what the future looked like!”
This is, surprisingly, not that unusual for vehicles in high demand. It’s to prevent flipping.
GM does it on certain vehicles as well:
(the C8 Corvette Z06, GMC Hummer EV, and Cadillac Escalade-V if you want to know without clicking the link.)
Ford notoriously sued John Cena for exactly that reason with his Ford GT
It really is to protect consumers from scalpers.
If you want to avoid scalpers, limit how many units a single person can buy, and have very specific contracts with third party vendors. That’s it.
You can’t prevent me from selling my own property, and it’s bizarre to even suggest such a limitation would be in my best interest
There’s nothing to stop anyone from buying a single unit and scalping it
It’s not “bizarre” in the slightest unless you’ve never heard of the concept of scalping.
There’s nothing to stop anyone from buying a single unit and scalping it
Except, you know, the economic principles of supply and demand
Except, you know, supply and demand are flipped on their fucking heads. That’s why this clause exists in the first place?
How
Presumably there’s going to be very few Cybertrucks. Supercar manufactures, with their very low production rates, generally have some kind of wait list, Ferrari goes to extremes and won’t even consider selling you most stuff if you’re not already driving a more entry-level Ferrari.
It’s not really about the money, though: If a Sheikh comes along and wants your car, he’s just going to add double the penalty amount to his offer. It’s more about getting shitbinned by the manufacturer.
Dealerships are the biggest scalpers.
Not really. I don’t particularly like them, but they don’t contribute much to the cost of cars. They barely make anything selling the car. That’s why they are always pushing extended warranties, accessories and trying to get you back in for service. Most of these guys are just hustling and getting as bad a deal as the rest of us.
The dealers are under huge pressure from the manufacturers to move cars. They are given sales targets they have to hit or they don’t get paid. That’s why they end up selling a car for like $500 profit or even break even. There’s a good episode of This American Life called “Cars”.
Of course, none of this applies to high-demand cars that sell themselves. They will mark those up like crazy to survive because the manufacturer doesn’t pay a bonus for those and barely gives them any inventory.
…forreal? You do realize dealership markups in the past few years have jumped as high as 40%?
They barely make anything selling the car.
If you’re as much of a snake as they are, maybe. For the rest of us, not so much.
deleted by creator
Dealerships suck and everyone except the dealers themselves will be over the moon once they’re gone, manufacturers most of all.
Kinda curious why the company doesn’t raise their prices to fit demand then, since clearly, demand exists that allows those products to be sold for more (else the scalpers couldn’t profit). Not saying they should charge more, I’m just curious why an entirely profit-driven entity like a company wouldn’t charge as much for something as demand would allow for, it seems out of character?
Part of it is allowing the dealers to profit. If they price too high, there’s no wiggle room and incentive for the dealers to order the car.
Tesla has no dealers. They sell directly, which is why they cannot sell vehicles in some states. Some states require vehicles to be sold through dealers.
Oh, yeah, I know, I was talking about the GM cars.
GM wasn’t harsh enough IMHO. They should have black listed people who immediately flipped base C8s for significantly more than MSRP. Base C8s (not Z51) going for over 100k, with miles on them, was fucking ridiculous.
I’ll say it now: car dealers are useless dinosaurs and there is no point to having them anymore. I don’t need a dealer to tell me what options I want on my car. I can select those on a webpage after I’ve reviewed the available options. I need a place to take my car for service if it’s a factory failure / warranty work. I can do the rest myself or pay another focused professional to do the work.
Agreed, but I absolutely need somewhere to test drive the car as well before purchasing. There’s no way I would buy a car without it.
I would agree with that. I had a car shipped by an online sales company and when I showed up to test drive & but it, I didn’t actually fit in the car properly, so I didn’t end up buying it. Such is the life of being tall.
I’m just shy of 6 feet so not excessively tall by any means, but I test drove the Fiat 500 some years ago, and found there is no way for me to be comfortable in it. Interestingly the Mini Cooper was very comfortable, and could have easily accommodated someone taller - as long as anybody sitting behind you didn’t have legs.
Yeah the Fiat is VERY small and I concur on the Mini. I’m a bit over 6’ and I found regular Minis to be very comfortable with headroom with the countryman’s being a bit better on the backseat situation 😂
I really like your second paragraph!
Yeah, pretty much every Hummer EV I saw was at a dealership lot, used, and marked up $100k
Shame though. Would absolutely love to see a guy with a garage full of these things because he couldn’t find enough crypto bros to gouge.
I imagined them stacked on top of each other haphazardly, piled up in a garage with a sad white 30ish year old guy standing in the driveway looking sad.
Same with Ford F150 Lighting when it came out. Not sure if it still stands.
I’m no fan of flipping/scalping but the choice of the degradation of ownership is much worse. If they really own the car then they aught to be able to resell it.
Prediction; this will extend beyond just high end cars.
Like with other manufacturers with similar limitations, the limitation for resale is only for the first year. It literally is just to try and prevent people buying and flipping the car for a profit. If you don’t like the vehicle you can sell it back to Tesla outside the normal return window. Or wait a year and sell it to someone else.
The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers. Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.
The reduction in ownership rights is worse than scalpers.
I suppose it depends: would you like to at least have the item or be able to buy it only at a 3x price, if ever ?
Other high brand cars have even more stringent clauses (like, you cannot repaint the car in a certain color to not ridicule the brand). People are even perpetually banned from buying from the brand in some cases.Not sure why you assume this is pure benevolence instead of companies making more money via their control of property you paid for.
It is not benevolence, it is a try to solve a real problem that they think it could arise.
I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.
If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.
If they wanted to solve the problem they could make more cars to meet demand (without the needless use of microchips, if that is still the bottleneck).
I think it is not in anyone’s best interests to lessen their ownerships rights to maybe save money. Their choice is also bad for me in that it shows companies they can to it too and could become the norm.
While yours are valid concerns, that type of restriction works only on specific items. I don’t see a car manufacturer pull the same stunt on a mass production car (or any other mass production item for the matter) because the problem this try to solve does not exist in the first place, maybe Tesla just think (true or false that it can be or based on the data they have) that the Cybertruck will be some sort of “status symbol” which would attract scalpers or the like of them.
In the end this is a battle Musk cannot win: he will be damned if he do (to ban resell in the first year) and he will be damned if he don’t (and thus allowing scalpers). He can only choose why he will be damned so he choose a way that maybe is more friendly (or less enemy from your point of view) to the consumer.
If a manufacture has a good reason to not sell to someone that would be fine but it is none of their business what colour I paint my car, or who I can resell it too.
I can agree with you, but the fact that the manufacturer put these restrictions and people still buy their cars means that maybe it does not really matter to the buyers since having the car is much more important that being able to repaint it pink, in their view.
People often choose what isn’t in their best interests but that doesn’t invalidate the criticism. I am unsure if this should/could simple be illegal but I will argue social stigma should be applied to people who don’t care about themselves or others.
My concern is companies will do it anyway for their own gain, regardless of if it was actually a cure to the issue of scalping, because users will let them.
Musk’s has enough variety of questionable choices but I’ll damn him here for needlessly making low supply, the cause of scalping in the first place.
I feel like if they want to prevent flipping for profit, make the agreement that you can’t sell it for more than you bought it for, but still allow the sale. Otherwise you’re not policing the right thing.
It’s not possible to track how much it was sold for in a private transaction
Only for the first year is bs. I bought an object, I own it and I decide when to put it on sale for whatever reason I want, because you know, I own it.
If Tesla doesn’t like that they can stop selling vehicles to the public. Or they can come up with something creative like renting them, or only selling one of this trucks to someone who has proven to be a fan boy and have already brought 1 or 2 Tesla’s before
Or… Get this… You can just not buy the fucking car if you don’t like the terms. You’re not forced to buy a Cybertruck at launch.
Once production increases I’m sure this restriction will be removed just like most other vehicle resale restrictions from other manufacturers. Not all though, Ferrari has limitations even on things like paint color and wraps, Deadmau5 completely got rid of his wrapped Purrari because of that bullshit once Ferrari started trying to enforce it.
But none of you people will be in comments talking about the resale restrictions being removed once production is ramped, just complaining now about hypotheticals for a vehicle you never intend on purchasing to begin with because you either don’t like Tesla or Musk specifically.
Problem is, the more manufacturers pull this kind of shit the more it becomes normal. At some point your entry level yaris has some kind of stupid rules like this and maybe it spills over other industries too. Again, how about we stick to my property is my property and I decide what to do with it, the way it should be.
How about the manufacturer builds enough stock so scalping makes no sense? I believe that if I buy a product I am entitled to do whatever I want with it as long as it doesn’t brake the law. I hate scalping too, no1 did anything when it happened to GPUs or consoles or toilet paper during covid, so why are cars special?
Stock does not just appear out of thin air. Manufacturing takes time to ramp up. So it’s often not possible to produce enough for a high demand product.
So maybe don’t release a model until you have at least a decent amount of units? Still doesn’t explain why cars are any different than other products that are scalped. Why are they not lobbying to create laws against such practices?
the limitation for resale is only for the first year.
I hate the “slippery slope” argument, but in this case…
What if the limitation was 2 or 5 years? What if the fine was $100,000 or a million? If they get away with lesser restrictions, why wouldn’t they? The point is, companies already have way too much power over what a private person does with things they legally bought (Right To Repair, anyone?) and this seems like an escalation of that…
Real estate and Ticketmaster: “Fuck yeah, flip that shit and inflate our markets to insanity!”
Auto industry: “Fuck you, we do the inflating around here. Pay me!”
Ticketmaster owns the resale sites too. And the venue.
It’s to prevent flipping scalping
Somehow I get this weird feeling that the cybertruck will flip all on its own. ;)
damn its ugly af
It is bizarre how much of a comic book villain Musk has turned in to.
What do you mean “Turned into” ?
He probably always was a bit of a right-wing loon, but everything about him over the last few years screams “cry for help”.
If he were a normal pleb, he’d have probably lost his job, or had a friend tell him that he needs to seek professional help. Because he’s a billionaire, I assume people just say he’s “eccentric” and laugh while people push him to do more crazy shit.
He doesn’t realise it, but people are laughing at him, not with him. He’s a performing monkey for the apathetic, and aspirational for the morally questionable.
It was always there. He just has the wealth not to care what anyone thinks now.
I don’t think any amount of money replaces human interaction, and because of his status, his perception of himself is probably so fucked up that I’d be shocked if he did anything but care.
I don’t want to infantise Musk, nor do I want to excuse what a total cunt he is, but if he were a child you’d basically call it a cry for attention or help. The primary difference between us and him is he can mask whatever mental health issues he’s got with money and social media…
He has the wealth, but not the ego.
I think he has an inkling of that now. Since he got booed off stage multiple times and locked himself in isolation for a while.
There was a time when he was like “watch this, I’m going to make the entire auto industry go electric to help save the planet.”
And he has pretty much done that. Great for him. But yeah other shit like his antisemitism and childish tweet wars have dialed up in recent years. Now he’s ruining Twitter itself because he doesn’t believe in content moderation or rules of engagement in a forum. Unless it’s tweeting already-public data about his plane transponder! Oh then it’s wrong! His pro-Texas bullshit and his anti-union bullshit has gotten stronger and stronger. He’s posting pictures of his gun now.
Yeah. The guy has changed. Maybe this is always who he was going to be. Maybe this was always who he wanted to be. But he wasn’t necessarily this guy, always, outwardly.
Apparently some people are okay with extreme racism so long as you convert it into money first.
I think the correct phrasing should be “turned out to be”
Makes me wanna buy one just to fucking destroy it put it in the fucking crusher and strap dynamite to it.
So, basically you can rent one of these pieces of shit for a whole year, for free, as long as you cover the gas and mileage fees? Cool cool. I personally wouldn’t take one if you paid me to, but that seems like a good deal for some people who may want to take advantage.
“ Given the subscription model of much of the software Tesla EVs use, resale can be complicated. The Full Self-Driving feature, which costs up to $199 per month, is not transferable to a new owner, Fast Company reported.”
Just another reason I’m never buying
$199 per month?! Fuck me that’s moronic.
They should make a discount for every person the self driving software hits. That shit would be basically free.
That’s just the new subscription cost. It is meant a san alternative to the full purchase cost.
As functionality has been added, the price has increased over the years, the current price is $12,000 for the FSD upgrade over basic Autopilot.
The subscription also lets you try it out and cancel if you don’t want it instead of having to make the decision up front for thousands of dollars.
For my region it’s one time fee 9k $ “only”.
It is hilarious given the fact you can’t legally use it so it turns into better break asistent 😅Especially when you realize how bad, unfinished, and dangerous it is. You’re literally paying to be a crash test dummy / AI trainer for them. They should pay YOU.
You don’t understand. It’s not like the self-driving feature is just software where they can price it at whatever they want. It’s physically consuming brain cells every month. And those aren’t free you know!
::: spoiler Do I really need a \s tag for this or does this tin foil hat make me look fat? :::
It actually came out that one of the self-driving companies has live operators watching every car and intervening in 2.5% of all decisions, so your intent may have been sarcastic but there is actually a reason to suspect there could be brain cells involved.
Wait so another owner can never have that or…?
It’s just that the license isn’t transferable. The second owner has to (re)license the software from Tesla. Irrespective of whether the seller has a “perpetual” license.
I guess if your license could be transferred to your new vehicle this would kinda make sense —- although frankly I’d expect a recurring revenue subscription model instead. Basically this feels like they’ve just been throwing shit at the wall while failing to deliver the feature.
When I sell you my PC, you don’t get all my software licenses, games, and my internet service for free with it. You have to get your own licenses / subscriptions to those.
I read it as the second owner would have to pay for it themselves to (re)unlock it. So Tesla would get paid twice for the feature in one car.
It is a monthly subscription. I am not sure what the problem is? the new owner can choose to pay it or not.
I must have misunderstood, because I know you have to pay $12,000-15,000 (seems the price has lowered) for the FSD to be available, then pay subscription on top of that. For some reason I thought they were saying the initial $12k+ “unlock” wouldn’t transfer.
You either pay for FSD via a monthly subscription OR the full price. So it’s either $200/mo or $12,000. It’s not both. The subscription option gives you an option to try it before purchasing, or to add and remove it when you want, like for long road trips or something like that.
It’s just two different options for people to pick from.
Thank you very much for clarifying. It makes sense if a subscription is not transferred but if someone does the outright payment that should be transferred. Asshole move if the one time unlock isn’t.
AFAIK the one time unlock stays with the car.
deleted by creator
I mean it’s not actual “full self drive” to begin with. It’s a lame impersonation of more advanced self driving vehicles that aren’t even being sold yet. That doesn’t matter to the elon fans though.
The lie that actually gets people killed, while also tainting the overall perception of autonomous vehicles. Thanks elon.
What If its shite I it’s past return and I don’t want it anymore
I can’t wait to make fun of one of these in the wild. What a stupid, ugly vehicle.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
They are usually seen grazing together with tech bros
It’s like he saw a
and was like “Ya that’s what I want, but uglier, and less useful.”
are we doing the jerk off motion? I think it’d be pretty neat if everywhere you drove one of these people did the jerk off motion at you
You need more meaningful things going on in your life.
I actually have developed a language of pure meaning, it’s communicated entirely via the jerk off motion
Hey, now… Don’t go tearing on people’s hobbies!
Implying they produce enough to sell any at all, anyone is dumb enough to buy one, anyone if dumb enough to buy it off another dummy who bought one.
This is just Tesla stirring up a story, and trying to make it seem like anyone wants one of these monstrosities, and that they can make them.
I have a friend who preordered a cybertruck. But then again he also bought a model 3 and model X.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tesla added a section titled “For Cybertruck Only” to its Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, which laid out the new rules.
But if a customer has a good reason to sell their Cybertruck, Tesla may agree to buy it back at the original price minus “$0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards.”
The Full Self-Driving feature, which costs up to $199 per month, is not transferable to a new owner, Fast Company reported.
First announced in 2019, the Cybertruck is Tesla’s first new product in years, and it is expected to shake up the electric pickup-truck market.
Tesla originally said the price of the truck would start at $39,900, but it’s likely to be much more expensive due to pricey building materials.
Elon Musk said in an earnings call earlier this year that it would take a year to 18 months before the EV truck can become a significant cash-flow contributor, adding that he hoped production of the Cybertruck would reach a quarter of a million annually by 2025.
The original article contains 331 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
is this even legal ?
Hopefully it gets challenged.
I do not believe it would be unless you had previously signed a contact agreeing to the conditions. If that doesn’t hold water I could see tesla arguing that you are allowed to sell the vehicle however you may not sell the software included in the vehicle as that’s their intellectual property and they only authorized you to use it. And since you can’t separate the software from the vehicle it would accomplish the same thing.
You can sue anyone anywhere anytime. If you have really good expensive lawyers you might just win.
it’s been done before by plenty of other auto companies. I remember Toyota had that for the LFA, Ford did it with the GT, etc.
Presumably, as a term of delivery, you’ll sign an agreement not to sell with 50K USD as the liquidated damages. So, yeah probably.
It probably is, a la Ferrari.
deleted by creator
Even on my remote island I see plenty of Rivians
The best solution to this problem is not to buy one in the first place.
