SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Friday March 14 2014, @11:10AM
from the won't-someone-please-think-of-the-dealerships dept.
from the won't-someone-please-think-of-the-dealerships dept.
einar writes:
"New Jersey's governor Christie has decided that all new motor vehicles must be sold through middlemen. This blocks Tesla from directly selling cars, without traditional car sellers. Although, New Jersey decided so this week, they are in good company: 48 states in the US ban or restrict direct car sales."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tesla Direct Sales Blocked by Law in New Jersey
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 77 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Friday March 14 2014, @12:06PM
Even though Teslas don't do it for me personally, I think their business model is the right way forward. I was optimistic that they were starting to break down the traditional laws and whatnot around direct manufacturer sales. So sad that my home state here has cowed to political pressure to revoke the Telsa dealer licenses -- can't say that I'm surprised, I assume some large amounts of money under the guise of "political contributions" are at play here. Par for the course for NJ, really.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Common Joe on Friday March 14 2014, @01:24PM
I have mixed feelings. Having middle men does serve a purpose. Today, that purpose has been severely perverted and the car industry is an excellent example.
(Warning. Rant ahead.)
In theory, the middle man should be able to fix your car without intervention of the car manufacturer. That is very theoretical because in today's world, a shop needs to buy specialized machines from the manufacturer that cost tons of money just so they can read the computer in your car to find out what is wrong. In my opinion, this should not happen. The car manufacturer should produce documentation so that companies can read and fix the car. This encourages competition and prevents it from becoming so monopolistic. Otherwise, once you buy a car, it puts all the power in the hands of the car manufacturer until you buy a new car. After just a few years, you're basically screwed into buying a new car unless you make your own parts.
Interestingly, Tesla has not only that problem, but the opposite problem too. They didn't like what the traditional car market is like and thought they had a better way to sell cars. Indeed, if I owned a car manufacturing business, I wouldn't want to deal with those asshole dealerships either. The dealerships fleece the customer every chance they get. (There's a reason I was a part of the Saturn cult for a long time.) So, if those traditional franchises won't sell their cars properly, who will? That shafts Tesla pretty good.
This law that NJ passed is awful. There should be no stipulations that say large a showroom should be to sell cars. Minimum 1000 square feet? [thewire.com] If I own a business, no one in government should be telling me how big my store needs to be. It smells rotten.
With that said, it's kind of hard to have middlemen on the Internet, although Amazon seems to be doing pretty good. (Too good in my opinion. They need more competition.)
This may leave you wondering: What am I for? I'm for the consumer. The more choice for the consumer, the better. Companies have too much power over us. See Google analytics and ISPs for more examples of that.
Ok. I'll get off my soap box. End of rant.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JeanCroix on Friday March 14 2014, @01:42PM
This didn't used to be the case. Anyone (or company) could reverse engineer the mechanics of a car and use that knowledge to manufacture and sell spare parts for it. Or specialized tool to fix it. But that right to reverse engineer stops when it comes to software or firmware, if I understand things correctly. Is it the DMCA which the manufacturers are using to create this state of affairs, kind of like Lexmark?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Common Joe on Friday March 14 2014, @03:12PM
It's certainly being used that way. I don't like to write something negative without something positive, but I ranted this time and didn't leave a positive solution. I wish I had one. I feel if a company is making something physical (like a car), then they should not be legally be allowed to write software. Another company should. I reality, I know this is hard because there are so many electronics today with lots of firmware. Where is the line drawn? I don't know. I do know that as a customer, we're getting screwed and that ain't good. They are taking power away from me concerning my car.
I'd like to see cars be more plugin-like. You buy a car and you can choose your radio from a variety of sources. Tires too. Even the engine could be completely different. I want to be able to make those choices. Granted, that would make for a lot of choices for the average consumer but I think companies could spring up around that idea and create a few popular "models" based on a specific radio, set of tires, and engine. Again, reality rears its ugly head. It is not easy to make a car both efficient and plug-in like. (Radios and tires, yes. Engine? Not so much.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14 2014, @10:05PM
I would like to point out that you're completely free (At least in the USA, which is the area we're discussing) to build your OWN car. Forget just engine/radio/tires - you can have the chassis designed the way you want, in materials you want (Space frame aluminum? carbonfiber monocoque? classic steel H-frame?), engine/transmission combination (Turbo Hayabusa setup? Ford ecoboost with an 8speed auto? 6 speed manual?) engine configuration, differential configuration and gearing, suspension setup, interior options and lighting, etc. (you get the point.)
Normally this is a process that takes an individual years to complete, however it IS completable. Often times in the past Kit-Cars were more popular, however there are still a few manufacturers that are in business (Factory5 racing comes to mind.)
You can even PAY someone to build it FOR you, However you want it. Simply because you refuse to look beyond the major manufacturers does not mean that other options do not exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14 2014, @10:08PM
Same A/C here, there is also an open-source alternative to the engine management systems that are used, called Megasquirt/Microsquirt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Common Joe on Saturday March 15 2014, @03:41AM
Not really true. If you want a car to be street legal (which is the kind of car we're talking about), then that car needs to have certain things and those requirements vary from state to state: emissions, seat belts, etc. Also, if you build a car, get into an accident, and its found to be lacking certain features (like brakes), you'll be held liable for the accident. Also based on my experiences with auto insurance, insurance would be impossible to get which is also required for driving around on the streets.
I suppose if you have billions of dollars and lots of time, then yes, you can have a car designed, engineered, and built just for you. We're talking about common consumers, though.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Saturday March 15 2014, @06:30PM
Err, what? I guess you're not familiar with the kit car you can buy and assemble in your backyard (see example) [factoryfive.com]. They're not exactly dune buggies with shantytown body paneling and lights.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday March 14 2014, @04:34PM
I'd say it must happen. If people are willing to pay premium prices then someone will clone the part and put it up for sale. Hopefully not labeled as a genuine part though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Friday March 14 2014, @04:50PM
My first car was a Saturn. Fantastic purchasing experience. The car started falling apart at 100K miles. But along the way the sales staff were always friendly when I stopped over to get it fixed. Just politely waving from where they were. Never bothering me (or even talking to me unless I went to them first).
My second and third cars were BMWs. Quite well built. Some haggling on purchase but not too bad because I knew I was being fleeced. Service was hell, however. My wife complained every time she had to take it in for me, and I finally am giving up.
My next car is a Tesla. They spent all the time I needed to answer any questions I had and made sure I wasn't buying options I didn't need (and recommended I not get the extended service plan!).
Dropping off the BMW and picking up my Tesla next week. We'll see how it goes, but so far so good.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Friday March 14 2014, @04:52PM
And just to get back on topic: As someone who considers themselves a Reagan Democrat, I was considering voting for Christie if he ran in the next election.
This, however, is a sign that he would easily go against his word and even against the people of his state. I'll probably contribute money in whoever runs against him. My wife liked him as well, but she's fed up between this and his recent bridge scandal.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 14 2014, @03:42PM
I just had a horrible experience at a new-car dealership (Hyundai) where they tried to steal my deposit money while I was buying a used car from them (the police were even involved!). Do the manufacturers police their dealerships at all? At this point, I've written off Hyundai cars altogether because of that one experience.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 14 2014, @08:46PM
While I agree with the sentiment, and I think this law might not stand up to an Illegal restraint of trade lawsuit, let me go out on a limb and point out a couple instances where the state might have SOME reasons to require a formal support structure.
1) Safety issues: The state might have an interest to make sure all cars are maintained in a safe condition, that the steering, brakes, etc are reliable and maintained. That maintenance or recall items are being handled. Having to deal with any issues that arise in this area, in another state can present problems. Being able to shut down one or all dealerships in the state provides a lot more leverage.
2) Cars need maintenance. Don't care if its all electric, they need to be serviced, CV joints greased, bearings checked, brakes checked, tires rotated, alignment checked, wiper blades, etc. Tesla offers service plans [teslamotors.com], including home visits. (Yearly service prices seems expensive considering what I pay for dealer maintenance on my gas powered car).
3) State mandated inspections. (Dono, this seems a bit of a stretch).
4) Historical reasons. There were real abuses in the past when manufacturers were able to directly sell cars without dealers. So much has changed in the legal landscape that I doubt any of these issues apply any more. But its still an issue.
5) Reduced State Tax Revenue. I suspect this may be illusionary, but its I don't know.
Other than those, the whole law seems only to fatten someone's wallet, and probably doesn't survive the first federal court challenge. I suspect worst case, Tesla converts their showrooms to legal dealerships via paperwork and a hands-off-third-party company, and still freezes out local car dealers.
When you look at the dealerships in your area and see the mountain of inventory sitting on their lot year in and year out, you have to come to the conclusion that its a pretty inefficient way to manufacture and distribute.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.