2023 Tesla Model 3 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why can't Tesla sell directly to consumers wherever it wants?

Our friends at Engadget, tech-obsessed sister site of Autoblog, have taken an in-depth look at the reason why it's so difficult for Tesla to sell its cars directly to consumers, the same way that Apple, for instance, can sell you an iPad at an Apple Store. As you're probably aware, the whole sordid affair can be traced back to dealer franchise laws, which vary dramatically state to state, all with the stated goal of protecting your local neighborhood car dealers from unfair competition. What sort of unfair competition, you ask? And from whom? Well, that's the heart of the matter, and it seemingly makes very little sense to the average consumer. Engadget puts it pretty bluntly: It's not really about Tesla, or electric cars. It's about money. It's an argument against competition that may or may not even manifest in reality. It's also a complicated issue, and one that doesn't have a simple solution. To wit, just as it seems unfair to keep Tesla from selling directly to consumers, it's also unfair, not to mention illegal, to shrug off and ignore rules and regulations that were concocted, debated and put into law as a protection to dealership owners, many of whom have been operating under said rules themselves for decades. Adding another wrinkle is the fact that nothing is preventing Tesla from using the established franchise-dealer model that every other automaker in the US also uses. Nothing, that is, other than Tesla itself. Want to know more? We can't promise that you'll really understand all the behind-the-scenes minutia and political wrangling that's gotten us to where we are now, but you will, at the very least, have an understanding of the issues at play after reading the article here. And when you're done, feel free to come on back and let us know what you think in the Comments.

Tesla staring down California dealer ad probe request

Months after the confusing announcement of Tesla's lease-like financing program, the electric vehicle maker could face an advertisement probe that has been requested by the California New Car Dealers Association, Automotive News reports, which claims that consumers are being mislead by advertised monthly payments that are lower than what most people would experience.
The ordeal can be traced back to April 2, when Tesla made an announcement specifying tiered monthly payments for the three versions of the Model S assuming a 66-month term. But then Tesla revised the numbers upward overnight because, it claimed, it meant to say it offered a 63-month finance term, not a 66-month term. The automaker also claimed that factoring in the "true cost of ownership" of a Model S compared to a conventional fuel-burning car could drive monthly costs to below $500.
In May, it added an available finance term of 72 months, which, factoring in only gasoline savings, the company said could lower monthly payments to $580. But the underlying issue at hand is that the means which can potentially lower monthly payments from $1,000+ dollars (depending on the model) to under $600 can't be realized by the majority of Americans, the CNCDA says.

Is Tesla Motors becoming a Republican darling?

The general political attitudes taken by the left and right in the US are, sadly, divided on the issue of fuel efficient vehicles. Broadly speaking, Republicans dislike the whole idea (even going to absurd extremes like Newt Gingrich saying that inflating your tires helps Big Oil) while Democrats are in favor. The stereotype even gets in the way of people thinking that the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program is an Obama Administration creation. It's not, and was started under President Bush in 2008. The political divide has been particularly strong when it came to Tesla Motors. Most readers probably remember when Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney attacked the automaker during a debate with President Obama. New Jersey governor Chris Christie has been fighting Tesla's moves in his state as well. But, wait, is there a change in the air? The San Francisco Chronicle's David Baker has written an interesting story that looks at some positive statements from prominent Republicans recently, for example when Bill O'Reilly said everyone should get behind Tesla or when Texas governor Rick Perry said he supports the EV automaker selling directly to customers. Baker has an interesting take on this shift and what it might mean for upcoming elections. We recommend you head over to SFGate to read the whole thing. Here's a teaser: Some Democrats doubt, however, that the GOP as a whole will embrace Tesla and clean tech anytime soon. Wade Randlett, a Silicon Valley executive and major Democratic fundraiser, noted the Republican Party's deep ties to the oil industry - the companies most threatened by electric cars. Read the whole article.