Tesla Cyber Truck (Most Hideous Truck/Tank Ever)

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The Hummer is the perfect EV truck/SUV because no one actually used them for hauling or anything; they all got 22” Dubs.

plus you couldnt possibly get worse gas mileage than the gasoline GM hummers!

The EV could possibly triple or quadruiple the fuel economy!

[ScoobsMcGee]

In other Tesla related news, the stock appears to be pulling a bitcoin this week.

[Leonardo]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by ScoobsMcGee

In other Tesla related news, the stock appears to be pulling a bitcoin this week.

I'm interested to see (now that he actually turned a minor profit for a quarter) what the P/E ratio is going to be. $AMZN is 87x earnings and I think that's crazy. 87 YEARS until it makes what the price is. I guess as long as they grow like crazy those numbers mean nothing but I like low P/E stocks generally.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by ROFL it's Waffle

It would be pretty humorous if Elon had this sense of humor (which I think he does), but the automotive industry has a funny way of showing awesome concept cars, then the production model is like "hold up, this isn't what I was waiting for... what is this crap??" Maybe this fugly truck is the "production model" and the "concept" will finally be available for consumer purchase.

LOL, just imagine all the people that paid the $100 for their reservations for triangle thing with wheels...

"Do I get my $100 back or am I a true fanboi?"

[ROFL it's Waffle]

Originally Posted by Tomm

LOL, just imagine all the people that paid the $100 for their reservations for triangle thing with wheels...

"Do I get my $100 back or am I a true fanboi?"

Guess that's the risk early adopters take LOL. It reminds me when Cards Against Humanity sold cow shet just to prove the following:

"There was no big secret to Cards Against Humanity creator Max Temkin's ploy to sell 30,000 boxes of actual bull feces on Black Friday. His game simply has a lot of fans, and some of those fans will evidently buy literally anything he sells."

https://gawker.com/how-cards-against...0-s-1672817508

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopni...1841472617/amp

Tesla Remotely Removes Autopilot Features From Customer's Used Tesla Without Any Notice

Well this is going to hurt their sales. I’m sure someone on Twitter will tweet this to Musk. Interesting to see where this goes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Actually, it is hard to tell if the audit resulted in Tesla discovering that the original car owner never purchased that feature, yet the car had it, so they removed it, or if the new owner didn’t pay for it, so they removed it. If it is the former then Tesla sold a car under false pretenses. If it is the later then there has got to be some fine print somewhere that says that certain features are not transferable to new owners like manufacturers do for some warranties or services, and again, Tesla sold the car under false pretenses for having features it didn’t have.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Actually, it is hard to tell if the audit resulted in Tesla discovering that the original car owner never purchased that feature, yet the car had it, so they removed it, or if the new owner didn’t pay for it, so they removed it. If it is the former then Tesla sold a car under false pretenses..

It was on the window sticker for the car, at least according to the article. Seems to me someone paid for it unless they can show the original purchaser didn't pay the sticker price for the car.

This is why I'll never own a Tesla, or any other car with remote "feature updates" than can include "feature removal".

[p1l0t]

If the car is a subscription service it better be always under warranty..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

If the car is a subscription service it better be always under warranty..

That's the thing, this feature isn't a subscription service like OnStar, it's a one-time fee at the original purchase of the vehicle. I suppose there could be language in the original purchase agreement that says this is for the "duration of your ownership" of the car, but if so that means the vehicle is immediately worth $8,000 less (or whatever the cost is) than what you paid for it.

The other thing that hacks me off about this type of sales tactic is that means you really have paid for the feature at least partially in the price of the car. There is a LOT of hardware associated with flipping this switch. You can't put that into every car without taking it into account in the price of each vehicle, activated or not.

I suppose you could do some type of calculation saying "well, we believe we will have a 50% take rate on this option, so we will price the option for those 50% to cover the cost of the equipment in all cars". So now if I'm stupid enough to pay for feature I'm paying for someone else to be riding around with the equipment in their car just in case they decide to activate it.

[ROFL it's Waffle]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopni...1841472617/amp

Well this is going to hurt their sales. I’m sure someone on Twitter will tweet this to Musk. Interesting to see where this goes.

I think Tesla will continue to thrive regardless of this fly in the ointment.


Takes all kinds of people. Many people I'm sure are honest and try to do the right thing. Some people try to get away with whatever they can and flat out lie to get their way. I generally give people credit at first, but when I start to see a trend that suggests otherwise <cough> @Payload <cough>, I'll side with their opposition.


If this autopilot feature can be simply turned on and off "without notice", what's to say a hacker can't mine their way into the settings and race to be the first with a jailbreak-Tesla. Good for Tesla for doing their audit.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ROFL it's Waffle

If this autopilot feature can be simply turned on and off "without notice", what's to say a hacker can't mine their way into the settings and race to be the first with a jailbreak-Tesla. Good for Tesla for doing their audit.

I'm not sure I'm following you. In this case the car was originally sold with the feature added to it, at least according to the window sticker. The car was then resold at auction by Tesla with that feature active. That, on the surface at least, is different than the feature having been inadvertently given away for free with the original purchase and then removed based on the audit.

Frankly, the "right" thing for Tesla to have done was admit their mistake (assuming there was one) and let the car retain the feature.

If you bought a Corvette, let's say, and Chevrolet inadvertently sold it to you with the Z51 package for a base price because they had stickered it wrong, would you expect Chevrolet to be able to come back later and say "oops, we need those parts back, or another $5,000". Nope, didn't think so.

[ROFL it's Waffle]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not sure I'm following you. In this case the car was originally sold with the feature added to it, at least according to the window sticker. The car was then resold at auction by Tesla with that feature active. That, on the surface at least, is different than the feature having been inadvertently given away for free with the original purchase and then removed based on the audit.

Frankly, the "right" thing for Tesla to have done was admit their mistake (assuming there was one) and let the car retain the feature.

If you bought a Corvette, let's say, and Chevrolet inadvertently sold it to you with the Z51 package for a base price because they had stickered it wrong, would you expect Chevrolet to be able to come back later and say "oops, we need those parts back, or another $5,000". Nope, didn't think so.

I felt the article made it seem like Tesla is just randomly stripping people of their "paid-for" features if Tesla has any shadow of a doubt that the service was paid for or not, regardless of second-hand ownership or not. I think it was a legitimate mistake, and it just happened to someone who was irate enough to blast the car maker publicly for it.

I really do like your example of the Corvette Z51 package. The obvious reaction is also my reaction if that happened to me. I think it's an interesting situation however...

For this scenario, I'll just refer to the Z51 package as a hardware upgrade. The Full Self Driving Capability (FSD) is a software upgrade. The Vette needs said hardware physically installed, where the Model S hardware is already capable, just a matter of checking the invoice box "Paid". If any company had the ability to correct an audit finding remotely vs requiring the customer to actively (and willingly) come to the dealership and "give back what we accidentally gave you," they would opt for remote every time. Remote is exponentially more cost effective, and it solves the problem right away. If it's a legitimate mistake, a dispute can resolve the correction. If it's still a valid argument, then Tesla doesn't have to waste time chasing the person down.

Yes, even though the article says they bought it once, they shouldn't need to worry about transferring ownership of the options, THAT is just ridiculous. Now, if that's what is actually in question, then Tesla can eat a satchel of Richards.