Want a Cybertruck? You're stuck with it for a year, says Tesla Thinking about buying a Cybertruck? Well, be sure you want it: Tesla is threatening to sue anyone who tries to sell theirs within the first year of purchase. Tesla updated its terms and conditions [PDF] ahead of the Cybertruck's currently planned release date at the end of this month to add several restrictions for new owners …
Is Tesla's restrictions on selling the vehicle within one year illegal?
That depends on the jurisdiction. IANAL but believe where I live, it might be an illegal condition. That means, you can sign it and do not need to adhere to because it wouldn't be enforceable. Tesla might still be in the right not wanting to sell you another car though. But I'm not sure if this is actually a bad thing...
I'm curious where and why you think this kind of clause in a contract between two voluntary parties in a private transaction would be illegal. A contract to rent a residence frequently has stipulations on your behavior and use of the property that can cause you to lose money if they are broken, is that an illegal condition where you live?
I am truly curious, please explain.
I don't know about this particular clause, but it's common for contracts to want to remove a right that you have and for laws to be written so that they can't. The tricky part comes when you try to list those rights you are allowed to sign away and ones where, no matter what the contract says, it's still illegal. The specific list is usually very dependent on your location, including local law in federal countries.
If everything could be removed by putting a clause in a contract, then every manufacturer would simply require every customer to opt out of consumer protection law, but they aren't able to do that to the extent they'd like. I'm not convinced that this would automatically extend to other similar regulations, but it might in some places.
Hmm,
In most jurisdictions you can’t contract anything illegal. Just because the rental agreement says ‘no black people’ or ‘murders can be carried out only on Tuesdays’ doesn’t make it legal. For example it is now illegal is some Australian jurisdiction (such as the ACT) so say ‘no pets’ on rental agreements. Your choice is to accept pets - or not rent your property. Don’t know if Teslas clause would be legal *everywhere* but I guess they only care about the US anyway.
First, I find those Ts & Cs appalling and would never buy a Cybertruck and by extension now, will never buy a Tesla - there's better electric cars on the market anyway.
Now that's out of the way, not being a lawyer myself, I don't see anything illegal about that. You buy a vehicle and the sales contract includes those terms, you accept them. They don't violate any constitutional rights or anything like that. Buying a vehicle is a free market act, and there are other alternatives. I would never agree to terms that I cannot resale and if I do I have to give money back to the seller, that's just lame, thus I will use the free market to make another choice.
This announcement from Tesla just affirms my decisions when I go electric, it's not going to be a Tesla.
First, I find those Ts & Cs appalling and would never buy a Cybertruck and by extension now, will never buy a Tesla - there's better electric cars on the market anyway.
I don't think Tesla much cares.
If such a clause is actually needed then they must be confident of selling more than they can make, so your custom is irrelevant.
Could they do more to make people not want to buy one?
Insurers might help. WSJ has an article about EVs saying firefighters might have to let them burn. If so, presumably insurance claims could get a lot higher, if those include damage to road surfaces or delays. Or, depending on how well armoured the underbelly and battery protection is, fires started when people try off-roading in forests. Insurance premiums already seem to be higher for EVs, and climbing. Some of that may change, ie current difficulty in repairing them, or more risks may be discovered.
"That was a tanker truck carrying 8,500 gallons of petrol. Imagine what would have happened had a truckload of EV batteries gone up in a similar situation."
Not a lot - the energy density of lithium batteries in general service is around 1-2% of that of petrol or diesel. You get spectacular looking, sometimes difficult to extinguish fires from batteries (that can then ignite further combustible materials), but that actual energy released is trivial compared to petrol. If that truck had been carrying even 28 tons of lithium batteries, the probability of them going up would be a fraction of the probability of petrol igniting, and even if it had the truck driver would almost certainly still be alive and the overpass still intact.
Lest that seems an advert for EVs, I'd note that the number one problem for EVs is the same thing that makes their batteries safe - crap energy density, whether on a volumetric or mass basis. If battery technology evolves to give order-of-magnitude-plus improvements in battery energy density, then the risks will be higher.
"I'd note that the number one problem for EVs is the same thing that makes their batteries safe - crap energy density, whether on a volumetric or mass basis."
If you want to roll the safety dial all the way to safe side, energy density can go to crap. Engineering is often finding a balance between all of the variables. Safety isn't something to be discarded, but absolute battery safety is not a good move either. We have to hope that politicians don't get involved as they have no understanding of these sorts of things. People also have to understand that an EV isn't a 100% drop in replacement for a petrol car. But, if you don't need 400 miles of range on one charge and don't often drive 900 miles in a day, they can be perfectly fine. This can mean that a mean range of 250 miles can be more than adequate which could leave plenty of room to have safer batteries. Trying to shoe horn in 600 miles of range, which can translate to ~10 hours between stops for food and comfort breaks, will need compromises that can include less safe battery chemistries.
"Better than paying $350M for a dead-dinosaur fire = US I-95 collapse"
There was recently a fire under a freeway in Los Angeles that was fed by load of wooden pallets. The cause may have been homeless people either starting the fire deliberately or by having a camp fire get out of control. One might think that a bit of fire isn't an issue for a large concrete structure, but as of today, I think that section of freeway is still closed while repairs are made and they continue doing inspections. Hopefully they take a hint and extend what happened to how much worse it could be if instead of pallets it was a nose to tail collection of EV's the homeless people set on fire.
Insurance is already going to be horrific on any Tesla (and most new vehicles) because of the huge amount of tech and safety integration driving up the cost of repairs, and in Tesla's case, the fact that they force you to use their repair shops and have high parts costs for even the most basic bits.
"Insurance is already going to be horrific on any Tesla"
But that's not stopping people buying or more commonly leasing them. Like him or not, Musk has in Tesla a brand with considerable market power. The Tesla online shop demonstrates that he can sell anything branded with the name for a wildly inflated price. I think we can be sure he won't care about the negative comments here, because there's sufficient people willing to dig deep on Musk's behalf.
The fall will come for Tesla, but it isn't going to come anytime soon.
"Insurers might help. WSJ has an article about EVs saying firefighters might have to let them burn."
In cases where the battery pack is well involved, the end result is a melted down lump of metal regardless. Fire brigades don't have the equipment to effectively fight a battery fire. The only leg of the fire triangle that will work is removing heat, but just pouring water on the car isn't going to be effective if it just runs off as something very hot will create an insulation layer of steam in that case. They need to be able to contain water around the car so it has a chance at cooling. Submerging the car makes it a total write off but there could be some salvage. Another tool for fire fighters will be a grappling hook so they can drag the car out of a garage or just to someplace where it won't do as much damage as it burns.
"Could they do more to make people not want to buy one?"
The fact that you could be the second, third, fourth or even fifth owner of a Tesla vehicle and you will have to go to them and pay full price for replacement of the entire battery pack should it have any issues (no alternatives, it's the whole pack or nothing), as well as their ability to arbitrarily remotely disable and lock you out of your vehicle for whatever reason whenever they feel like it, means that you'd be a complete idiot to consider buying one. You've paid for a vehicle but the critical parts are permanently controlled by a company run by a capricious and vain lunatic. Caveat Emptor.
"you will have to go to them and pay full price for replacement of the entire battery pack should it have any issues"
I find this line of argument a bit suspect. EV battery packs come with an 8-10 year warranty so unless YOU do something really stupid, the manufacturer will replace it if it has issues. The prices quoted are to buy a pack today for a car that's just been delivered. If you bought a new Corvette today and wanted to also buy a spare engine, that engine will be very expensive. Some of this is due to there not being a used market. The early Model S's that are now out of warranty probably aren't worth putting a new battery in as the packs are very modular and all sorts want those modules for EV conversions and DIY projects. I expect a few modules are being bought by people repairing an old Model S, but not in great numbers. If you look at the Prius, there are all sorts of options for battery packs that range from used to refurbished to brand new Li that replaces the NiMh batteries they came with. Independent shops as well as large third party parts suppliers will sell you something so the prices are much less than if you took your car and high limit credit card to a Toyota dealership. With Tesla and the issues with getting parts from them and the lack of service documentation, they have to be regarded separately. Way back, Rich Benoit (Rich Rebuilds) looked at what you could get from Tesla when they said they opened up parts sales to regular people. He took an example of a somewhat minor front end accident and found that while you could buy the exterior front piece, they wouldn't sell a non-certified shop the next few layers of pieces inward. Useless.
I suspect, at least for some potential customers, this kind of artificial scarcity just adds to their perception of the great deal they're getting. Plus, it keeps Tesla in the headlines, which is essential for the direct to customer sales model.
The real risk is customers turning their backs on what will be largely out of date and inappropriate technology by the time they get they're vehicles.
Apparently you can make some real road legal Mad Max contraptions in the US (I believe it depends on which State you're in).
I once ended up in a discussion with a guy defending lug nut spikes. Yes, really. And he was convinced banning those was childish and government overreach.
Bless the people at NHTSA trying to enforce common sense.
"Hopefully it supports the 240 watt USB-PD option so a full charge takes less than a month"
You still wouldn't get there. Tesla's have a high parasitic power draw when charging. As much as 1kW. US owners have been very frustrated when they try to charge using a granny charger on 120V where they wind up with a couple of hundred watts making its way into the battery pack.
"Despite the fact that Musk was praising European sales of his vehicles the other day, he's cut the entire market out of this product purely because he wants his toddler-sketch pedestrian slicer."
And if he tried to, it would almost certainly fail the "unfair contract" test. IANAL, but I don;t think you can put those sort re-sale restriction on products on the right-side of the pond.
On the other hand, I can sort of see his point. He doesn't want "scalpers" selling them on at inflated prices and "stealing his profits" LOL
I saw a video the other day of an unladen Cybertruck struggling to climb a slope - not the most shallow of inclines, to be fair, but still something that your typical 4x4 flatbed would ascend with far less effort. The bed is small for a vehicle that size, and based on photos also looks far shoddier than the promotional materials. I think it's more likely that Musk doesn't want people selling on their Cybertrucks as soon as they arrive because it will make potential buyers realise that they're a crappy product. I mean, if the fanboys don't want them then why should anyone else?
"I mean, if the fanboys don't want them then why should anyone else?"
Many of the first publicly available Model 3's were driving straight to the port, loaded in a container and sent off to other countries for examination. The same thing will happen with CT and some entities might be willing to pay somebody with a place in line a premium to get one straight away to take to bits. For a person, the initial prices will be crazy money, but for a company getting one for "research", it's just a cost of doing business and they'll be spending much more for the labor to do the analysis so an additional $20k isn't a big deal.
"And it'll never sell in Europe because it can't pass EuroNCAP tests."
****This is not me defending Elon Musk***
Elon did make a good point when he explained why FSD wasn't being developed for use outside of the US. The big reason is he would have to work with regulators before it could be used on public roads and he won't put up with people telling him what he can and can't do. He went on to say that it was also easier to get it to work in one place before going on to make it meet requirements in other places rather than trying to do it all at once. Since there are a large number of reservations for Cybertruck in the US that will take them years to fulfill if even half the people go forward with an order and plonk down a deposit (a reservation is not a deposit. It's just a place in line) there is little point in developing models for export. Tesla can't even yet produce enough 48600 battery cells to support a small percentage of what they say they will produce. Maybe that's why Model Y's coming out of Giga-Berlin are fitted with BYD Blade cells, so 48600 production can be aimed entirely at CT.
It's almost as if they think that once new owners work out it's a pile of crap that can barely manage to pull 5 tonnes, they'll be selling them off at half price and their own sales will tank.
I'm not sure what market they're aiming at, the kind of muppet who wants an apocalypse proof vehicle isn't buying lefty woke EVs that won't work when society collapses and the lights go out, but then Musk seems to be doing his damnedest to put off the market who wouldn't want to tow 5 tons but would buy an EV with his continual rightward lurches.
And on top of that, the thing is fuckugly.
Electrics are far more likely to work in the apocalypse - they're mechanically simpler, but more importantly, don't depend on liquid fuels that deteriorate in storage. The trope of zombie apocalypse survivors finding a running car for months or even years after the event is complete fiction.
Sure, the original diesel engines were designed to run on nut oils, but what's easier to run - a solid state solar panel, or uncle Jimmy's peanut farm and fuel refinery?
Sure, the original diesel engines were designed to run on nut oils, but what's easier to run - a solid state solar panel, or uncle Jimmy's peanut farm and fuel refinery?
What's easier to make, a solid state solar panel, or a wood gasifier out of a couple of barrels and a bit of bent pipe? Failing that, there's always steampunk. EV's are absolutely the worst option for the apocalypse given you'd need an advanced manufacturing base to make wear parts like batteries. Or an awful lot of patience to trickle charge an EV battery from a couple of solar panels. And that's assuming you don't have insolation problems from any nuclear winter.
"Or an awful lot of patience to trickle charge an EV battery from a couple of solar panels. And that's assuming you don't have insolation problems from any nuclear winter."
In a post-apocalyptic world, there'll probably be a lot less need to travel too, unless you are running/hiding from other survivor envious of what you have :-)
In a post-apocalyptic world, there'll probably be a lot less need to travel too, unless you are running/hiding from other survivor envious of what you have :-)
Yep, it's one of those fun what if things around a potential apocalypse? Do you try to hide, homestead and be self-sufficient? Then could you defend that? Or try and stay mobile, and be a potentially juicy target carrying all your worldly possessions? Plus the off-road performance of the Cyberduck doesn't look that great, so would be easy to immobilise. Then the battery pack would probably be more useful in a fixed base than trying to keep it mobile. Being rather overweight, and with deteriorating roads, it's tyres and shocks probably wouldn't last long anyway.
History shows us the solution. Most stay put, farm and attempt to defend their wealth. Others travel around and steel the wealth from those who stay put. There are also the fringe bands that travel to stay close to moving resources such as migrating animals. In time those that raided tend to join in with the subset of the stay-putters that defended the farms and offer to 'protect' the farming communities from their neighbors. Thus are kings and nations born. The nomads never get a look in. Best not to have an apocalypse as none of it sounds fun.
《EV's are absolutely the worst option for the apocalypse》
Any tech isn't going fare too well. Personally I would stick with a donkey (indestructible and long lived if a bit gloomy.) You can not eat a cybertruck but donkey should be edible - I think donkey sausages were a specially of Arles pre WWI.
I think a decent collection of manual hand tools hammers, saws, wood planes, chisels etc an anvil, vice, files etc, rope, twine and steel wire would be more useful than any C20th tech. A wheelbarrow is of far greater use today than any of Musk's wares and much more in PostApocalypsia.
No mention of firearms. I would guess that lying low early on while the gun loonies eradicate each other and exhaust any remaining ammunition might be a better strategy. Thereafter a halberd or assegai is pretty low tech weapon. Even a compound bow isn't going to last forever.
The real secret to surviving the Apocalypse is to be part of cohesive, self sufficient community with sustainable environmental practices and employing appropriate technology. Of course if we were already then the Apocalypse would not eventuate.
Thereafter a halberd or assegai is pretty low tech weapon
Especially when combined with a spear-chucker (can't remember the formal name - a long stick with a bend at the end and a notch to put the spear butt in - basically making your throwing arm a lot longer. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the halberd..)
Especially when combined with a spear-chucker (can't remember the formal name..
Atlatl. I don't think I've seen these as a weapons choice on any XBox or PS game though, so the yoof of today may be at a disadvantage given I independently discovered these as a kid.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to the halberd..
But it could! This would be the next Arms Race, and part of wot the Romans did for us. Notice Tesla never demonstrated ballista resistance? Also scavs that can find leaf springs from !Teslas may become a nascent superpower long before EV drivers. Oh, and probably best NOT to try raiding Todd's Workshop..
"Any tech isn't going fare too well. Personally I would stick with a donkey (indestructible and long lived if a bit gloomy.) You can not eat a cybertruck but donkey should be edible - I think donkey sausages were a specially of Arles pre WWI."
Keeping donkeys just in case doesn't sound like a great use of resources. While any sort of EV might not be a long term solution, it could be a good tool to bootstrap into something better before it's unserviceable. That could be longer than something that runs on petrol. Diesel could be a good intermediate solution as it can use more things as fuel including used motor oil and transmission fluid scavenged from dead vehicles.
Or, y'know, you could actually run a good old fashioned IC engine, diesel or gasoline, diesels for example will run well enough on almost any oil that's thin enough, cooking oil peanut oil, kerosene, heating oil etc.
Gas/petrol engines will run on benzene, ethanol, plenty of different industrial hydrocarbons, heck they'll even run on gas, as in propane, butane, LPG, methane, you have a huge range of options.
Good luck finding enough working solar capacity that's small enough to tow behind your EV but large enough to charge it in any reasonable length of time.
External combustion Stirling engines would be great, but they're really hard to come by.
Imagine a small engine for your bicycle, canoe, or campside generator that is as quiet as a sewing machine. Its exhaust flue gases are nonpoisonous, nonpolluting and practically odorless. It starts easily, and should run without repair for many hundreds of hours, burning less than one-half liter of kerosene per hour.Such an engine was developed 40 years ago and incorporated into a small generator set by the Philips company of Holland; it is the modern stirling air engine.
Unfortunately, only about 100 of these units were made before Philips suspended production, having concluded the 200 watt output was inadequate for commercial success in the world market at that time.
Source: MakingStirlingEngines.pdf, by Andy Ross, download link here
"Good luck finding enough working solar capacity that's small enough to tow behind your EV but large enough to charge it in any reasonable length of time."
If you intend to drive all day every day, yes, you would be correct. If you plan to only drive periodically to go on salvage trips, solar can work just fine and the EV becomes an energy storage device as well as transportation.
"Gas/petrol engines will run on benzene, ethanol, plenty of different industrial hydrocarbons, heck they'll even run on gas, as in propane, butane, LPG, methane, you have a huge range of options."
All of those options have long supply chains and will also be first targets. While you can run a petrol engine on LPG, Butane, natural gas, etc, they won't work without some extensive modifications to the top end of the engine and EMU programming. A diesel engine can be happy with lots of things with no modifications. I know somebody that owns a military "Deuce and a Half" that he runs exclusively on filtered used motor oil (off-road mainly). It works just fine though it's still a bit harder on the fuel filters as he doesn't do a great job prepping the oil first. Using alcohol in a petrol engine will work as long as the seals are made for that (Viton). Vehicles that aren't "flex-fuel" often have standard Buna-N seals that don't have good alcohol resistance and will dissolve. The ECU units in modern cars will adjust fuel/air mix, idle speeds, etc with no problem.
don't depend on liquid fuels that deteriorate in storage. The trope of zombie apocalypse survivors finding a running car for months or even years after the event is complete fiction.
Liquid fuels are easy, just grow soybeans or corn, depending on which fuel you need. They'll become less efficient, but they'll run. Diesel stores for a very long time. I have cars with gasoline that is a year old. The ethanol is more problematic than age of the gas. And if no one is around to check emissions, both engine types could be simplified considerably.
Liquid fuels are easy, just grow soybeans or corn, depending on which fuel you need
Meanwhile the family has starved to death because you decided to use your 8 litre (correct spelling thank you very much) piece of crap to go get a single fish on a "hunting" expedition.
Meanwhile the family has starved to death because you decided to use your 8 litre (correct spelling thank you very much) piece of crap to go get a single fish on a "hunting" expedition.
Can't fix stupid. If that is how you choose to act, Darwin will be happy. BTW, my diesels are 2.8l, 6.6l, and 6.7l. And one of those I can live in.
"Liquid fuels are easy, just grow soybeans or corn,"
The only reason you see that being done today is government subsidies/guarantees. A S-ton of diesel is being used to grow those crops so if your entire fuel cycle is based on biofuels, how many more acres do you need to grow and process to be at a point where you are generating enough capacity to use for transportation? One bad crop and you could be sunk if you run too close to the edge assuming you can be net fuel positive at all.
All of that will require a lot of infrastructure in a fixed place. If your SHTF scenario is based on a natural disaster, will you lose that location in such a case. If you plan to build what you need after something happens, will you have the resources to get it done? In winter? Under fire?
Remember, the whole scenario was SHTF. How much fuel are you going to need? There isn't going to be anywhere to go. Making fuel for your diesel is as simple as pressing the oil out of soy beans. You can feed the remains after pressing to cattle or eat it yourself. For gasoline, you ferment corn. And again, you use the remains to feed livestock. Both plants are relatively easy to grow as long as you get enough rain, and in a scenario like this you don't need mechanization to plant/harvest because you aren't trying to grow billions of pounds to feed the world. Just yourself. For me, I'd be stripping the egr and dpf off of my diesels and becoming a farmer.
Compare that to the original assertion that keeping their computerized, electric car charged was the simplest plan.... And do we know, will a Tesla continue to operate if it can't phone home over a long period of time?
"And do we know, will a Tesla continue to operate if it can't phone home over a long period of time?"
I put Tesla in its own separate circle on the diagram. I'd never own one (not for very long if I was given one) so it's unlikely that would be my daily driver when Yellowstone erupts. You point out of the reasons why, phoning home. I'd really like to start a company that modifies EV's to not phone home and to become forgetful if they log destinations and other private data. I expect there are plenty of customers for something like that and more as time goes by. Much higher rates for express service if one is worried their wife is on to them.
One of the reasons I'm invested in an amateur solar setup is that it's not dependent on a utility.
Every month, I'm "required" to overpay a company for electricity that I know I haven't used. Then I can claim it back later. What I do, every time I point out that their estimates are pants and have no basis in mathematics or reality, is refund that overpaid money and spend it on solar (panels, batteries, etc.). So the next month, I use even less electricity, and have even less reliance on the power company. I rode out a 4-hour power outage the other day and that's just the beginning.
In an apocalyptic example, fuel is going to be gone quick. And solar panels will die about 10 years later and we probably won't have the tech to make any more. Even batteries will be dead 10-15 years later. But generating *electricity* in any form will still be viable - stick a waterwheel on an old washing machine motor and drop it half in a river... hey presto, electricity! And generating some form of battery will be viable.
And there, an electric vehicle (suitably modified) may well be the most sensible way of getting around because maintaining and fuelling an ICE will be next to impossible after a few years.
It's one of the reasons I bought a particular house recently (not a zombie apocalypse, I'm not a nutter!)... it was small, all-electric, nice roofspace, etc. It's my retirement house, 20 years from now. By which time I hope to be relatively independent of utilities. And the basis of it all was electricity:
- Make your own electricity
- Store your own electricity
- Convert your own electricity
- Have a house, appliances and vehicle that only really need electricity.
I don't expect to have to Heath-Robinson a river water wheel, but it means I can use anything to make electricity that will power everything.
I can fall back to the grid. I can use my solar. I can even just hook up a small generator and power the lot (and I have my eye on an LPG / petrol dual-fuel generator, and already have a solar inverter that can accept an outside power input and let it override the solar).
Hell, I was looking at a £1000 box that store / pump / filter / treat rainwater to work as greywater in the house, and even an incinerator toilet that can burn your waste leaving nothing but sterile ash that you can put on the garden. And that's powered by... electricity (it's basically an automated electric kiln).
We have strayed away from a universal, easily transported, easily stored, versatile form of energy - even the first cars were mostly electric - and now we have the battery technology to get back where we should have been.
Gas boilers are now being banned in the UK. ICE cars will be banned. Soon it'll be gas cookers, etc. Heating is moving to heat pumps (electrical), etc.
Electrics are a much better option, but not because solar will keep working forever. Because you can generate it in a dozen different ways and use it in a dozen different ways and supply almost all your needs with it.
Electrics are a much better option, but not because solar will keep working forever. Because you can generate it in a dozen different ways and use it in a dozen different ways and supply almost all your needs with it.
But still not for EVs. They'd be much better cannibalised and turned into more useful things, eg repurposing batteries and motors. You'd still be limited by your charging infrastructure, and it'd be easy to follow vehicle tracks back to that. If you have a gasifier or steam engine, you're just limited by load capacity and fuel/water availability. Plus with a lower tech base, it'd also be a lot easier to go back to traditional wheel making, and voila, you've reinvented the good'ol steam traction engine. Drive it somewhere, hook up a generator and you've got transportable power that's far, far simpler to build and maintain than an EV.
"Every month, I'm "required" to overpay a company for electricity that I know I haven't used."
There's your problem. If you are paying an estimated bill every month and only getting evened up once a quarter, semi-annually, annually, you want to get away from that so you aren't overpaying. I'd be in the face of the utility if they put me on that sort of regime but my last usage report shows me being close to half the usage of the most efficient neighbors. I'm working to widen that gap AND be using more power as time goes by. I want my home to be warming in winter and cooler in summer and be able to run power tools in the shop a lot more. I'm economizing now to have the money to build out the means to lower my bills even more or keep them same in better comfort.
"Sure, the original diesel engines were designed to run on nut oils, but what's easier to run - a solid state solar panel, or uncle Jimmy's peanut farm and fuel refinery?"
An argument in favor of EV's is they are generation agnostic and don't care how the electricity is made. If you can whomp up a waterwheel connected to a generator, you could charge an EV (yes, lots of details ignored). It would be far more complex to have to keep making liquid fuels and the apparatus would be larger and more complicated. A fixed fuel station would be too much of a target in a SHTF situation such as Yellowstone going bang, or Toba, Deccan traps..... There would be competition to control it. OTOH, a modest stack of solar panels could be set up, taken down and transported much easier.
I have one of those Chinese 296cc small diesel engines on my list and I've been storing up my used motor oil and transmission fluid to run it on. The power doesn't go out that often, but it has been out for some hours on occasion. The city I live in is at the end of a longish transmission line (one) so having a small backup is good insurance against the power company needing time to make repairs.
An argument in favor of EV's is they are generation agnostic and don't care how the electricity is made.
Let's clarify here, when you are talking EVs, you are NOT talking about a Tesla or ANY commercially marketed EV. It's going to need to be home grown or it's not going to last very long because commercial EVs are insanely complex with their computer systems. And there will be no replacing the battery packs when a group of cells dies. There are videos opening Tesla battery packs on Youtube. You aren't going to be able to repair one without a lot of high tech equipment. And lets not get into what deteriorating infrastructure is going to do to them.
Tell me how you're going to roll up your own low voltage, low amperage charger or generate minimum 120v, 30 amp power to run a COTS charger. (and most of those are going to want 240v, 30+ amp)
It would be far more complex to have to keep making liquid fuels and the apparatus would be larger and more complicated.
A simple cold press to make vegetable oil for diesels. And we have been making alcohol far longer than we have had cars. I'll bet there are more than a few here that understand garage fermenting their preferred refreshment.
"Tell me how you're going to roll up your own low voltage, low amperage charger or generate minimum 120v, 30 amp power to run a COTS charger. (and most of those are going to want 240v, 30+ amp)"
EVSE's can be set for many different maximum charging powers. If I wasn't going to work M-F and commuting tens of miles each way, I wouldn't need high charging rates if I could come up with steady power availability that can slow charge a car which is also used as what it is, a big battery on wheels.
As to servicing an EV, yes, the simpler the better and I would never own a Tesla. Even so, I'm not daunted by the possiblity of needing to prize open a pack to make repairs. Fortunately, I have the background to do that sort of work. The only thing I lack is a car lift to make the work easier than anyway I can think of to do it without one.
To use alcohol in a petrol car, it must be "flex-fuel" designated or you will eat the seals out of it. Cold pressing soy beans (by hand) could take ages to create enough oil to moisten the bottom of a fuel tank. Out of the two, I'd go with the diesel and source fuel from derelict petrol cars in the form of oils and transmission fluid. Using anything edible for fuel just takes it off the plate (see what I did there) for use as food.
WHy do Americans always tell you stories about how they need to move or tow stuff and yet their trucks are always empty ?
Given America is the land of bullshit from Google and their advertising and Hollywood and its stories how everyone is a billonaire its hardly a shock.
WHy do Americans always tell you stories about how they need to move or tow stuff and yet their trucks are always empty ?
It's much like people driving Chelsea Tractors in the UK. In rural America, they're very useful, especially if you've got land or livestock, ie throwing a few sacks of feed in the back and calling it good. Which probably includes feed for families with a big shop at a superstore. Plus with the US's crumbling infrastructure, you can off-road on-road and mebbe worry a bit less about flattened low profile tires, broken suspensions and broken bodywork. Then if you're one of the decreasing number of active Americans, load up a few bikes, camping supplies and head off for a break.
If you're a city dweller who just gets their food from uber eats, then nope, they don't really make much sense.
Call me a parochial brit, but my experience is that you can chuck feed-sacks in the boot and get over a lot of farm tracks in a Ford Fiesta. You have to fold the seats down for fence posts, and a tarp is useful to stop hay getting in everything, but you can get a more done around a farm with a regular car than most people expect.
...you can get a more done around a farm with a regular car than most people expect.
Yep, my grandfather's farm truck was a Cavalier. Good'ol Volvo estates were also popular. The US pickup never really caught on here because I guess for a lot of farmers, if it wouldn't fit in the car, it was just time to hitch a trailer to a tractor.
Citreon Berlingo / Peugeot Partner are an OK family car that doubles up for moving pretty large quatities of stuff. (I used to prefer the Renault Kangoo, but for reasons unknown, they stopped selling the short wheelbase version as a passenger vehicle in the UK....)
Just yesterday, I went to the store to buy: 10 pieces of 16 ft lumber, 4 tons of crushed rock, and 100 ft of drainage pipe. All bought in one trip (truck+trailer). This is for a drainage project in my back yard. I want to see you get that in your Fiesta.
A few weeks ago: 75 bags of concrete mix. Before that: 110 concrete blocks. Ford Fiesta?
I'm not a contractor or builder. All of these things are for landscaping projects around the house. Some of us actually USE our trucks.
One large load yesterday, one large load a few weeks ago, another an unspecified time before that.
Even assuming that you keep up that size of project around the house all year round (!) that is, what, 10 or 15 trips in a year when you actually use the load capacity of your truck?
Probably cheaper to run the Ford Fiesta and just pay for delivery.
> ust yesterday, I went to the store to buy: 10 pieces of 16 ft lumber, 4 tons of crushed rock, and 100 ft of drainage pipe. All bought in one trip (truck+trailer). This is for a drainage project in my back yard. I want to see you get that in your Fiesta.
How many times would you buy that amount of stuff in a 10 year period ?
So you pay double the gas, and thousands extra to drive a truck ... so you can save a few hundred to get it delivered at most twice every 10 years ?
> A few weeks ago: 75 bags of concrete mix. Before that: 110 concrete blocks. Ford Fiesta?
Home delivery ?
I once fitted an entire 12 foot shed into a standard hatchback Mondeo, I moved house entirely with a Mondeo (lots of trips, and a roof rack, and a car full of stuff, but took double-beds, sofas, bookcases, etc. no problem at all), and I put a 9ft live Christmas tree in one every year (saves me buying pine-scented air freshener...).
" once fitted an entire 12 foot shed into a standard hatchback Mondeo, I moved house entirely with a Mondeo (lots of trips, and a roof rack, and a car full of stuff, but took double-beds, sofas, bookcases, etc. no problem at all), and I put a 9ft live Christmas tree in one every year (saves me buying pine-scented air freshener...)."
I did something like that before and it taught me that it's cheaper to hire a proper moving van and do the move in as few trips as possible. It's a lot easier to get enough mates to help with the move for a single day than an entire weekend or off and on over a whole week. If you are ready to move and aren't faffing about with packing stuff at the last minute, the cost of a moving van plus fuel, insurance and squeeze isn't that much if you can get the job done in one day. It's also only one round of beer and pizza.
The farming population is a fraction of a percentage point, most people have absolutely nothing to do with farming.
So why do people need trucks ? TV, movies, news, YT etc etc showing america and roads and driving ALWAYS shows at least 90% of all trucks being empty ...
What animals are all those trucks in the cities of America moving ?
IANAL and all that, but doesn't the first sale doctrine (in the US, I assume Blighty and the EU have something comparable) basically say that once you sell a physical good to someone you have no control over what they do with it after they take possession? I mean, if I wanted to buy a Tesla for the express purpose of wrapping it around a tree, I can do that. If I want to harvest the batteries from it and use them for something else, I can do that. If I want to pay someone to make some after-market modifications, I can do that. Once money changes hands, it's mine to do with whatever I please.
Except like all Teslas it is a computer on wheels. The computer runs software and without that the vehicle won't run. Hence won't you be subject to any software licensing rules? Goodness me even IBM/RH are restricting the passing on of open source stuff. Tesla don't even have to sue - they can just disable your vehicle in the garage with an OTA update. Job done you naughty boy.
So I can't decompile the software, but the physical hardware is still another story. And just reselling the car doesn't require me to touch the software in any way.
Either way, I suspect that Telsa would have a... ahem... uphill battle in court trying to enforce this new provision. Take any other car maker, and there's nothing stopping me from going to Dealership A, buying 5-10 cars, and then starting my own used car lot. The only real restriction would be I couldn't sell the cars as new, even if they had literally been transported from the dealership to my lot via some kind of Star Trek-like matter transporter. There are people who do this sort of thing in other areas as well. I've heard stories about people who buy clothes at a Good Will or Salvation Army type place, then turn around and sell them on ebay for a profit. The party opposite Tesla would have no shortage of examples to trot in front of a judge or jury of where this sort of thing is perfectly legal and acceptable, and then Tesla would have to explain why they're so special they deserve their own carve out to this established tradition. That's a tough sell.
Except, if you knowingly sign a contract between yourself and the 'supplier' where you 'agree' not to re-sell your 'child's toy' within a year, on pain of payment of an amount of money, then you are contractually bound, regardless of what everyone else usually does/doesn't do.
All you can do then is pay lots more money to 'lawyers' to comb through the contract to see if there is a loop-hole, or if the contract is somehow legally void through 'illegal' drafting.
You can put whatever you want into a contact, it doesn't make it enforceable. Say you have an incurable terminal illness that will be a very messy and painful death, so you want to pay me to kill you. Just because you signed a contract of your own free will doesn't mean I'm not going to be staring down the barrel of Murder 1 charges. If any provision of a contract is contrary to the law, local, state, or federal, that part of the contact is unenforceable. The end. Do not pass go; do not collect $200.
This provision will likely only "stand" until someone files a lawsuit challenging it.
"You can put whatever you want into a contact, it doesn't make it enforceable."
A contract is supposed to be balanced between the parties. If Tesla wants to have a clause that says you can't sell the car for a year, they'd need to give something back in exchange for that. It would be great if that could mean Tesla has to buy the truck back at fair market value and it can be shown that they'd owe the buyer thousands more than the purchase price as early on, a fair-market price could be much more that the purchase price do to limited availability. You have to also consider that Tesla won't be selling these in other countries for some time so somebody in the Emirates with stacks of cash that wants one may be willing to offer somebody who gets one quite a premium further increasing the fair market price. Aussie reservation holders were given back their money. There might be some laws where Tesla can't retain the money without a reasonable delivery date for the product.
"Funny thing is knowing Musk, Tesla will just brick the Cybertrucks who are sold early or cut them from computer services."
That could fall afoul of computer tampering laws. Since it would not be an update for the benefit of the vehicle owner, an argument could be made that it's no different than somebody logging into the network of a former employer and causing things to go wrong.
The car may be physical, but a significant amount of the software package is not actually run on the cars computers, theres a lot of interaction with Tesla servers where every they may be.
One day the car will not be functional without a constant server connection, so yes the car is yours, but it wont actually do anything except sit there.
"And once Tesla servers shutdown, a brick on wheels..."
They'll still go, but the best additional features stop working. No "App", no map updates and dynamic information, no Supercharger access (billing is via the charger reading the VIN and the customer having an account set up with Tesla). I expect loads more. That's the problem with opting out of their Telematics so they don't collect data on you, all of those handy features won't function.
If there is pent up demand*, and limited supply, then those who got in early enough to reserve one can make a nice profit by selling it to someone keen to get hold of one and with deeper pockets. Tesla obviously think it's worth the reputational damage** by trying to control that secondary market - or else take a slice for themselves.
* I do have to wonder who it is that buys them, but it appears that plenty do
** Do they have anything left to damage ?
Of course, over on our (eastern) side of the pond, good luck trying to enforce such a contract. Also, even for those unfortunate to live where you have the best laws money can buy, I would have thought that a contract change AFTER you've put down your deposit (which constitutes a contract for them to sell and you to buy) would be void anyway.
What I don't see is any mention of dirty tricks like "any vehicle bought in the second hand market without our permission gets bricked by a remote firmware update" - with a hefty "fine" to have operation restored. But again, something courts over this side fo the pond would take a rather dim view of.
I would have thought that a contract change AFTER you've put down your deposit (which constitutes a contract for them to sell and you to buy) would be void anyway.
There was a court case a few decades ago about a car which was announced with a certain specification after which buyers put down deposits. Once the cars starting coming off the produciton line with different specifications to what was announced (which included a different engine!) buyers tried to back out of the contract. The courts decided that the change in specification wasn't sufficient grounds to void the contract.
(My search engine skills are failing me so I can't mention the make/model. Sorry. It's too early)
Remember when the phrase "negative equity" first entered normal conversation?
One of the problems the XJ220 had (IIRC) was that the recession of the early 90s happened in the time between buyers stumping up a deposit and the production line getting started.
Yes, it would depend on how big a change it was. If it's a different engine but otherwise of very similar performance then I couls see a court ruling that way.
But turning round and after the fact imposing controls on what you can do with it (such as selling it) would not be a trivial change and I would hope that a court would rule the other way.
"The courts decided that the change in specification wasn't sufficient grounds to void the contract."
IIRC, the specs weren't made part of the contract so the company was able to weasel out or there was some clause about the specs being subject to change. Caveat Emptor. If you enter into a contract, make sure it's very specific about what you get and what it will cost you. I expect that very few of the people involved had their attorney review the contract before signing. I'm a huge cynic so I look at contracts closely to find the loopholes since there will be plenty and it's a matter of whether I'm willing to risk it or not. I've walked away from plenty when the other side wouldn't budge.
The specification would be an implied part of the contract - and in the case of cars would have been whatever the sales brochure said. A "can change anything at any time" clause is something that can, and does, get declared invalid by courts - especially in business-consumer contracts. Small changes that don't fundamentally change the nature of the product would be permitted, but significant changes would create problems for the vendor if challenged.
"The specification would be an implied part of the contract"
Attorneys love to argue "implied" all day long. It adds all sorts of billable hours to their invoice. There are plenty of cases where the "subject to change" clause is upheld when it has been determined to be rational. An engine might have to be modified so it meets emission standards that have gone into effect between the order date and delivery date. My advice is to always make sure that whatever your biggest wants are, they are very clearly spelled out in the contract. If the company winds up not being able to deliver, you are on solid ground to break the agreement without putting all of your retirement money on the line for an attorney to argue "implied".
"I would have thought that a contract change AFTER you've put down your deposit (which constitutes a contract for them to sell and you to buy) would be void anyway."
Somebody that's only given Tesla $100 has a reservation that secures a place in line to be allowed to purchase the CT. They haven't made a deposit on a firm order yet. In the past, Tesla has required a non-refundable deposit of $2,500 for a Model 3 at configuration/order. The yet to be produced Roadster 2.0 required a $50k deposit (which might be called a reservation) and those wanting an early "Founder's Model" have had to pony up $250k in advance. Companies that got suckered into reserving a Semi had to put down $125k each (can't recall what version, but Tesla may have dropped the 300 mile range version).
My guess is that given how difficult production is they can't produce very many, and want to reduce the size of the waiting list - undoubtedly some people figured that for a small deposit they could get a place in line and maybe sell it for a profit if it is in shortage. Regardless of having a good reason, there's no way a "you can't sell it for a year" would be allowed in the US, or I assume the EU.
In the UK Liquidated damages can be put into a contract but they have to relate to genuine damage - i.e. some sort of loss made and those costs usually have to be defined in advance if you don't want to end up in court arguing about them. Typically they apply to delays in deliveries or milestones that can be quantified and the contract would have, say, £/day, or something, up to a limit specified in the contract.
The only way I can think that Musk could consider that LDs apply in this case would be that demand outstrips supply, thereby creating a grey market where buyers sell immediately at a premium thereby "depriving" Tesla of a sale and they would consider this to be damage. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there'd be an argument that the "damage" is self inflicted either by Tesla taking orders for stuff they can't deliver or by not making stuff fast enough.
It depends, of course, how the contract's written and how much money you've got to challenge the richest bloke in the world in court. In the UK it might be considered unfair under the "significant imbalance" rules but it would still need someone to go to court.
Production isnt difficult, the problem is Elon and his mates cant do maths. They quoted one price boasting they could do it for that cheap but the reality is it costs them significantly more to make it. So of course theres a delay, they dont and cant afford to make a sale where every CyberTruck loses them tens of thousands.
"Production isnt difficult,"
It is for Tesla as they haven't sorted out how they can make these at a profit in sufficient quantities. It's been pointed out in many places that they haven't figured out how to press the stainless panels consistently so they line up properly when installed. The entire premise behind the assembly line is based on interchangeable parts. If every vehicle requires a bunch of test fitting to get things to align correctly, that's a show stopper. They have admitted that they can't produce the preferred battery cells in enough quantity to support volume production.
I've only seen this sort of thing from automakers of limited production supercars. It's meant to keep the very wealthy inside their formal or informal buyers programmes, where members are expected to spend a certain amount per year or purchase less desirable models in order to get on the lists for the good stuff.
That certainly doesn't apply here. This is a mass market car by a mass market car maker. So we can only conclude that Tesla suspects either that resale values will be well under their asking price, the demand for the truck will be limited enough that used sales will directly affect new car sales, or both.
It is clearly a rule to prevent Speculation: like what happens for the immediate resale of tickets before a game or concert, or famous shoes or also very new tech product of a well known company.
It is a sign of due respect for those who put 100$ dollars for booking many years ago and are still waiting.
It is very "strange" that only the audience of the register does not understand this, the Authors of Register should carefully think about this issue.
That sounds like speculation in itself. Cracking down on scalpers is possible, but it's also possible that Musk doesn't want the secondhand market to reveal a crash in cybertruck resale prices as people get fed up with the POS, or it's possible that it's pure control-freakery. 'Due respect' which takes the form of imposing unwanted conditions on those supposedly respected is a curious idea too.
"That sounds like speculation in itself. Cracking down on scalpers is possible,"
The "problem" with scalpers is that the venue/artist aren't getting the money instead. The scalpers have to risk that they won't be able to sell the tickets they've bought or can't sell them at a profit. The solution is to auction tickets for large shows that are expected to sell out or come close. They can even start prices for the nose bleed seats at a $1, £1 or whatever nominal price and even if they only sell for that, they make money on parking, concessions and the artist plays to a full house which is always nice. People with means can sit in the first 10 rows and pay out the ... for the privilege. Nice things cost money, life's a Biatch, get over it. Artist makes money (more people to buy merch) and the venue gets more via their percentage cut. Everybody happy, no need to waste resources going after scalpers.
"Prices for batteries have been going down but obviously not enough and Elon doesnt want to sell numbers of them where they lose tens of thousands on every sale."
The average price for Lithium batteries per kWh has been going down, but Tesla (and Panasonic) aren't having a lot of success with the 46800's getting through QC. There's been a lot of concern by investors about the percentage of scrap from Tesla's Austin battery line(s). On the last earnings call, a spokesman said they've seen a 40% improvement, but no details about numbers or over what time period. The number of cells in the Cybertruck is estimated at around 1,232. For an initial annual run of 125,000, it will require 154 millions cells. This is just a smidge more than the 20 million piece total (good and bad) that they've been able to produce to date.
What happens after the manufacturer (or dealer) sells it isn't anything to do with them.
If people are able to flip a purchase for a good profit, then it's the manufacturer that's screwed up - they either should have made more, or they should have charged more themselves. With something like this, they could probably have got away with charging more, and managing the demand that way - and at the same time not created the scope for flipping at a profit.
" they either should have made more, or they should have charged more themselves. With something like this, they could probably have got away with charging more"
Perhaps Tesla should have started with the first hand built units being sold via auction. Put them on eBay with a reserve and see what the market will put forth to get one. They'd have to pay eBay a chunk of money, but might be able to wangle a fixed fee or a lower percentage/cap. Anybody willing to go 6 figures would enrich Tesla rather than somebody selling on the one they bought.
"But how much is the ebay percentage on the sale ?"
For common household stuff, it's around 15% all in (payment fees included). With vehicles it can vary and I believe there is a cap. Payments aren't handled through eBay so that's a 3% fee that won't be assessed. I don't think any manufacturer has put a new model up for multi-unit auction so who knows if eBay would be willing to agree to some lower rate for the advertising value if Elon called them up and asked. Whatever the fee is, it just gets put into the reserve price.
Isn't there always?
I see this debacle as yet another misfire from Elon that is very unlikely to have been reviewed by the Board or Tesla's legal department. Elon does this sort of thing all of the time. He comes up with some drug-induced plan, puts it out (typically on Xitter) and has to walk it back a day or two later. His latest rantings have lost advertising money from IBM in the last couple of days and a small drop in Tesla stock price. I get the feeling that there's nobody around him he respects that will tell him an idea is stupid/illegal/in poor taste. He's well known for firing employees that criticize him. He's a circuit with lots of power (money) and no negative feedback. The bets are on for when there's a bang and lots of magic smoke getting let out.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
