Tesla recalls 2m cars

Danno said:
I would guess that Tesla doesn't need the $7500 to be competitive in selling their product and make money. As it stands right now most traditional manufactures building EVs need this $7500 to incent buyers and they are still in a loss position for every EV they sell.
..
Click to expand...
@Danno
Your guess is wrong, As it stands right now Tesla buyers get $7,500 of taxpayer money and the only reason they are turning a profit in the USA. Where are you guys getting your information? :whistle:
https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/tesla-model-3-y-full-ev-tax-credit/
 
Last edited:
Nick1994 said:
I must have missed how the $7,500 rebate benefits the wealthy? There’s a $150k income limit.
Click to expand...
Considering the median household income is $75,000 which means half the households in America make $75,000 or less.
$150,000 might be a lot of money to them.

Another possibility.
To play devils advocate (by the way I do get your point)
A car can also be purchased under a child’s name, I guess 18 years old and later transferred.
Possibly a stay at home spouse or work at home spouse that makes sense are $150,000 and file separately on their taxes.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html

Actually, it’s worse than I thought.
Looks like

IMG_6275.jpeg
 
Last edited:
If you offer a feature and call it "Autopilot" and then go on to offer what you call "FSD" for a substantial additional charge, then you'd better be able to deliver that experience.
These Tesla cars don't, just as my Accord doesn't nor do those from any other manufacturer. FSD will exist if and only if we build smart highways and mandate a common intercar communication a common protocol.
Tesla can fix this with no more than an OTA software update and can remotely brick any car whose owner rejects it, as they will have to do.
Meanwhile, Tesla will continue as the largest producer of EVs in the world, tax credit or not, despite some of the Debbie Downer doubters in this thread.
 
alarmguy said:
How would you think it should be labelled in the automotive world?
I dont agree with you, software update doesnt sound serious in a car or a home or any device. Since an automobile can kill you, literally even in this case.

Recall is certainly more urgent sounding and alerts the public to a defect in which at least 17 people have been killed in this recall.
The word over the air software update doesnt exactly convey that.

BTW - the "recall in the news" is not to "rile people up", it is the news media reporting the exact word the US Government used = "recall"
Click to expand...
😂

Probably the wrong thing to laugh at but what I'm actually laughing about is anyone that used this system that actually considered it a safety device. No other manufacturer does this. Even Tesla uses this disclaimer about intervening if the car does something unsafe, but no, we need to make it a "recall" at this point because people aren't smart enough to know they shouldn't have trusted the absolutely BS named full self driving. I just can't with this stuff. It's ridiculous that it gets this much weight because people are so inattentive that stuff happens. Reaction time is exponentially slower when you're passively driving as opposed to actively driving. I'm itchy about using the radar cruise because of the phantom braking. I sure as heck wouldn't trust the car to drive me anywhere.

It's a stupid update for a stupid system that should have never been trusted in the first place. I like the cars but the software is a crazy rambling of a snake oil salesman.
 
hemioiler said:
I'm not that familiar with Tesla's, do they ever (temporarily) brick the car? GM has been doing this lately as well and the new Colorado has had issues where a failed update causes the battery to run down leaving you stranded. Hopefully just teething pain, as a guy who writes software for a living I half worry and half look forward to this type of thing in the future, it all depends on the implementation.
Click to expand...
@John Galt here's how updates are installed.

OTA updates seem to take about 20 minutes; I'm sure they could take longer if necessary. You will get the notification on your cell phone app and on the car screen. You can manually start whenever it or schedule it.
The car cannot be operated during the update and you cannot cancel the update once it has started.

I have never timed an update, but the duration is pretty short.
I have never heard of one, but there could conceivably be an urgent update that requires immediate installation; it's certainly possible.
I don't think you can refuse to take an update. I have not heard of anyone doing so.
 
alarmguy said:
Considering the median household income is $75,000 which means half the households in America make $75,000 or less.
$150,000 might be a lot of money to them.

Another possibility.
To play devils advocate (by the way I do get your point)
A car can also be purchased under a child’s name, I guess 18 years old and later transferred.
Possibly a stay at home spouse or work at home spouse that makes sense are $150,000 and file separately on their taxes.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html

Actually, it’s worse than I thought.
Looks like

View attachment 192861
Click to expand...
Is that per household or individual?
 
Back to the original thread topic: question to those with a legal background or have been down this road - Is a second owner of the Tesla legally bound to continue accepting software updates? Let’s suppose there existed an agreement in the sales contract between the original purchaser and Tesla to that he/she will accept/install all software updates?
 
Danno said:
I would guess that Tesla doesn't need the $7500 to be competitive in selling their product and make money. As it stands right now most traditional manufactures building EVs need this $7500 to incent buyers and they are still in a loss position for every EV they sell.

Interesting note on the retail EV situation. Have a close by Ford dealer listing a 2022 Mach E for list $80k+ while I had a hard time selling a 2022 Mach E for just over $50k, similar miles (
Click to expand...
Even Tesla is seeing slowdowns in sales. In 2018 96% of Tesla owners would purchase another Tesla. In 2023 it's roughly 68% and falling would purchase another Tesla.
 
John Galt said:
Back to the original thread topic: question to those with a legal background or have been down this road - Is a second owner of the Tesla legally bound to continue accepting software updates? Let’s suppose there existed an agreement in the sales contract between the original purchaser and Tesla to that he/she will accept/install all software updates?
Click to expand...
I am not sure about the legal aspect, but updates are part of the Tesla ownership model. The cars continually get changes, both fixes and improvements and you don't have to take it in to your dealership. Legacy automakers make many of these changes annually with new cars; the Tesla model is the vehicle year is not as important.

Some examples are navigation (common), charging and range improvements (predictive charger availability), visualizations (common), alternate routes, automatic 911 calls after accident and faster blinkers, language support, dog mode, car wash mode; the list goes on.

Again, this may be a deal breaker; these cars are different.
 
JeffKeryk said:
I am not sure about the legal aspect, but updates are part of the Tesla ownership model. The cars continually get changes, both fixes and improvements and you don't have to take it in to your dealership. Legacy automakers make many of these changes annually with new cars; the Tesla model is the vehicle year is not as important.

Some examples are navigation (common), charging and range improvements (predictive charger availability), visualizations (common), alternate routes, automatic 911 calls after accident and faster blinkers, language support, dog mode, car wash mode; the list goes on.

Again, this may be a deal breaker; these cars are different.
Click to expand...
Actually I like the concept and if it worked for my needs I would consider one. I’m anal about keeping all my Apple technology up to date and I would do the same here. Unlike many on this site I like the increased safety that modern features like lane keeping assist, radar cruise control, rain sensing wipers etc give. I give kudos to Tesla for rolling out safety improvements to the cars and not just reacting to recalls. They seem to care about the customer experience.

But I can’t unsee that puckered Tesla front “grill” indent design. It’s like the car just ate a lemon, really a turn off! Probably great in the air flow chamber but ugly.
 
JeffKeryk said:
Not sure I agree. To an extent, it increases demand, but that does not mean it is the only reason Tesla is profitable.
Click to expand...
For sure it's not the "only" reason for Tesla's profitability but it's still a price subsidy. We all know their golden goose has been the sale of carbon credits (Q3 YoY increase of 94%). It's kind of funny when you look at Q3 and see they earned $1.78B in carbon credits and their net income was $1.85B.
 
alarmguy said:
Taken right from the US census report link I posted, it uses the word "household". I know it seems low but I think many of us in here live in a different world from the majority. We have 350 million people in these stats.
"median household income is $75,000"
Click to expand...

For some reason the hyperlink wasn't working for me. I assumed it was household.
 
97prizm said:
Even Tesla is seeing slowdowns in sales. In 2018 96% of Tesla owners would purchase another Tesla. In 2023 it's roughly 68% and falling would purchase another Tesla.
Click to expand...
We are missing the fact that Tesla has been slashing prices/ profit margins to move cars. Take away that $7,500 gift and they would have to slash more or close down plants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom