Tesla Increases Lobbying Efforts To Break Into Michigan

Lobbying costs money. Those palms don't grease themselves.

The Germans (VW group in particular) now have to push forward on electrics precisely because they no longer have any cred when it scones to diesel.

They're still behind, and they really have to spend marketing EVs while at the same time cleansing TDI.

And the missions E is the closest thing to a direct a Tesla competitor, but it's going to be a full 7 years late.

Not exactly a vehicle expected to do much.

There are other jurisdictions, such as regimes that the U.S. Federal government constantly pursues action against in the WTO for manipulating currency markets and unfair trade practices...

And yet Tesla has to contend with these same unfair rules at the state level.

Let the chips fall where they may, but I'm not going to hope that a Porsche beats a 7 year old car. It damn well better, especially since there is no indication of whether if it'll actually beat the Model S on price.

Lobbying costs money. Those palms don't grease themselves.

The Germans (VW group in particular) now have to push forward on electrics precisely because they no longer have any cred when it scones to diesel.

Who is spending more to lobby though? Tesla to get in or the others that are trying to keep them out though? 

Probably Option #2. But who cares? Either way, Tesla's wasting money.

Once again: I don't have a dog in the fight. I just look at who's doing what and why, and who has the means and motivation to get it done.

The Germans? The same pack of losers who cheat on emissions and whose vehicles boast electrical systems that barely last after the three year lease period?

Ooooooh scary.

He sounds like a frightened boy here.  Beating him widdle chest.

Probably Option #2. But who cares? Either way, Tesla's wasting money.

Once again: I don't have a dog in the fight. I just look at who's doing what and why, and who has the means and motivation to get it done.

And so are the D3 in trying to keep a company our of "their state" when they don't even have anything to compete with Tesla. To me, that says they're scared of Tesla. Why else pay millions upon millions to lobby to keep a company out of your state which you don't even compate with. Is somebody buying a Tesla going to turn down an F150 Platinum or Navigator(closest things price-wise to compete with a Model S). I could see GM a little more scared for reason because they have the new CT6 which will be right in the price range of the Model S. But other than that, they don't even compete with eachother so why does GM/Ford/FCA( I don't actually know other than GM because I heard they are "leading the efforts") even care about Tesla?

Competition is competition. You try and elbow all of them out. Doesn't matter if they're good or bad-if they're getting business it means someone else isn't. And that someone could be you.

Then maybe they should make something comparable to actually take business from Tesla. As of now.. It seems like pissing money away just for "pride", "home turf", "because they can".  

It isn't "Competition is competition" if you don't have anything that actually is cross shopped a Tesla.

So what you're saying is that people buy Teslas, or nothing?

Then it becomes a discretionary purchase-people buy it because it's a symbol, not a car. There is a time and place for that with most consumer goods. But when it comes to cars, not so much. Bugatti has only built 450 Veyrons the last decade or so. And Pagani Zondas probably only number in the dozens or low hundreds.

No-the Tesla needs to sell. And it needs to sell based on its merits as a car-the trendies will only be able to buy so many. See also: Dodge Viper.

Absolutely. Teslas or nothing. You got it.

You can honestly tell me that most drivers of Teslas even thought of a different vehicle instead of their Tesla? That's the kind of car that people either want or don't want it. There is no shopping around. People get in their minds that they want a Tesla and will buy one before even driving one.

Prius is also a status symbol now, It's still selling quite well for the absurd cost for such a small vehicle.

Viper is a terrible example as HAS COMPETITION and it is WORSE than its competition in everything other than strictly performance, interior, ride, overall handling package, manual only. Z06 does all of those better, just one example. Tesla as NO COMPETITION and the closest thing to a direct competitior will be out in another 5 years over at Porche.

*reads latest C/D*

*checks out Aaron Roninson's excellent piece on how he fears Tesla has bitten off more than they can chew*

*remembers the Lutz article*

...and for 132 grand you too can have a Tesla SUV with gullwing back doors.

Money. Wasted.

Tesla's in trouble. Discretionary purchases can't float a carmaker.

Glad we got to feel your thought process on how you established your opinion. lol

Well, I just don't pull stuff outta my cornhole (too often). Robinson in particular laid it out pretty clearly: he's rooting for Tesla to succeed, but he's been around the business long enough to see the stumblingblocks that can take you down. And he's seen the Model X and some of the engineering rabbit holes they've fallen down. Also, he brought up Department of Energy loans, but we've done that one to death in here

I won't even touch what Pete DeLorenzo has to say about Tesla. Suffice to say it ain't too positive.

As long as they continue to win praise from multiple automotive publications, it's pretty uniformed to say they lack great product.

And they're selling more vehicles than they can even produce. The backlog is immense.

They have no issue with sales or winning industry accolades. And they already paid their DOE loans, so whoever is saying they didn't is a liar.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

How is it prolonging the issue when they have paid it back? Isn't that the goal when one gets a loan?

Well, I just don't pull stuff outta my cornhole (too often). Robinson in particular laid it out pretty clearly: he's rooting for Tesla to succeed, but he's been around the business long enough to see the stumblingblocks that can take you down. And he's seen the Model X and some of the engineering rabbit holes they've fallen down. Also, he brought up Department of Energy loans, but we've done that one to death in here

I won't even touch what Pete DeLorenzo has to say about Tesla. Suffice to say it ain't too positive.

Given that DeLorenzo has no love for EV tech in general, anything he says will have a slant to it and certainly has to be taken with a grain of salt.

How loans with zero balance prolonging anything?

Lutz is a great product guy, but his greatness ends there in the automotive manufacturing world, and he has been extremely wrong on the subject of hybrids and EVs.   

Are there issues at Telsa?  Yes, but none that are insurmountable.  Tesla also has an interesting side bar in the energy business with PowerWall.  I think there is the potential for even more money than car building with PowerWall

Personally, I think Tesla is simply aiming to be bought up by another manufacturer ones their stock price normalizes.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

But you're only presenting one side of the argument. 

Did you actually do the due diligence to check counter-arguments?

I mean, I don't myself have the utmost time at this present moment. Pretty intense work and school stuff.

But it goes also with the issue of popular sources. There's inherent biases present.

Atleast by looking at their financials, and doing all the ratio analysis - you'd get to core measures of performance that can be tracjed and compared over time.

Do all that, then tell us what is more telling. If you can't, then you're not presenting the whole picture. This is kind of like a controversy...multiple sides, multiple viewpoints, different issues.

Yeah, let's have someone make an academic paper of sorts looking at Tesla's future. 

How loans with zero balance prolonging anything?

 

Lutz is a great product guy, but his greatness ends there in the automotive manufacturing world, and he has been extremely wrong on the subject of hybrids and EVs.   

 

Are there issues at Telsa?  Yes, but none that are insurmountable.  Tesla also has an interesting side bar in the energy business with PowerWall.  I think there is the potential for even more money than car building with PowerWall

 

Personally, I think Tesla is simply aiming to be bought up by another manufacturer ones their stock price normalizes.

This. Mostly.

Lutz had his issues ("let's bring this foreign jobbie over here! It'll sell GREAT!"). It's why I also look for other perspectives on this kinda thing. The adman and journo also have misgivings.

Logically, it would make the most sense for Tesla to be sold when the time is right, or maybe one of those "strategic partnership" things. But I don't think Elon is gonna roll that way.

The loans? Ok, ok, I see where y'all coming from.

Well....I got but one small link...Road and Track online.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a27567/two-thirds-of-early-tesla-model-s/

It really does not say much....just a couple of sentences that counter EL K's thought process, albeit with no further proof of why they feel this way...but it is a counter thought process...

From the link:

"By all accounts, Tesla has been a major success. It's sold nearly 100,000 units of its Model S sedan, has a Model X SUV ​on the way, and despite overblown reports that it loses money on every car sold, it shows no signs of going bankrupt any time soon. In the world of automotive startups, no other company has come close to that kind of success."

 

Keep in mind that the link is addressing  the first early production Model S'...

And Im sure the writers that wrote this took into consideration the amount of money it will take to repair these issues, and how Tesla does not hold anything back with their customers and Tesla actually gives them loaners...

Tesla "loses money on every car sold" because they are bringing production online for 3 vehicles plus the battery factory plus all of their R&D at the same time.  That is a HUGE amount of initial investment.  The legacy manufacturers hide those huge investments in gigantic volumes.... imagine if GM had to bring up 3 car lines simultaneously while only selling the Suburban (44k ytd).  Even at the Suburban's fantastic margins, they'd lose money on every car also. 

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at.

And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

But you're only presenting one side of the argument.

Did you actually do the due diligence to check counter-arguments?

I mean, I don't myself have the utmost time at this present moment. Pretty intense work and school stuff.

But it goes also with the issue of popular sources. There's inherent biases present.

Atleast by looking at their financials, and doing all the ratio analysis - you'd get to core measures of performance that can be tracjed and compared over time.

Do all that, then tell us what is more telling. If you can't, then you're not presenting the whole picture. This is kind of like a controversy...multiple sides, multiple viewpoints, different issues.

Yeah, let's have someone make an academic paper of sorts looking at Tesla's future.

But this means that I have the longer history of info to draw on when I put forth my opinions. The car biz has existed in its present form since 1907 and the Ford assembly line. The tech biz as we perceive it has only existed since, what, the 4004 processor in the mid-70s?

This means that the tech biz is now roughly where the car biz was in the 50s. And that means it's ambitious, powerful, arrogant, and about to butt heads with governments over what government's think it should be like. Also, they think the money will never run out and folks will always buy the latest and greatest. And none of that is necessarily bad.

But the reality is the reality here. The old boys are learning the tricks. And they already have the car-buying down pat, for the most part. It makes me chuckle when Fapper disses Cadillac over CUE yet folks will let body panel gaps and down-rent interiors slide in the Model S (and make no mistake, those issues exist).

As for research papers and stuff... there can be biased integrated into research. I remember a scandal involving East Anglia a few years ago that lit up the MT forums pretty good...

Tech industry?

No I was squarely talking about financial analysis. And Tesla is an automaker. Use information from the other defunct electric car makers.

Many of which they started around the same time the ICE powered carmakers did.

Again please proceed with a valid financial assessment, look at receivables, all kinds of ratios, analyze their stock price and stuff.

Check who's the ownership - Is Mush a shareholder with considerable influence? Like really based on available shares and what the company constitues a majority/influential shareholder?

C'mon don't just rely on people that have opinion that is not grounded on anything more that superficial facts.

Go do the entire analysis. 

You mean compare a 1909 Studebaker to a 1909 Model T? Well, why not include a Stanley so you have steam power included as well?

I don't think you can compare those examples to today, regardless of whether the propulsion methods are the same or not.

Well then I'll just say your argument is based off of selective and insufficient evidence. 

You can't just pick and choose like this. Because you said yourself, you have no horse.

By default you have to present the whole picture. If you're not willing to do it, you're not going anywhere with your ahem "analysis/discussion of the evidence presented"

Yeah, let's make a poll. All in favour - Ye or Ne. I'd make a poll, but anyone who has participated in this topic can vote thorough a post. Majority rules. Do we have a satisfactory quorum?

Should EL K write an academic paper about this topic?  

I vote YE

A pundit is a guy too lazy to do hard research.

I barely had enough motivation to do research when I HAD to do research. Now I just read what people write, get a handle on the people, and let 'er rip. There's a bit of IQ involved... But research is at a minimum.

A pundit is a guy too lazy to do hard research.

I barely had enough motivation to do research when I HAD to do research. Now I just read what people write, get a handle on the people, and let 'er rip. There's a bit of IQ involved... But research is at a minimum.

Then you have capitulated your....analysis because it's incomplete.

There is no capitulation of anything. I have stated my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. I'm quite comfortable standing beside my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. If I was the guy actually making the decisions at Tesla I'd give it a more thorough going-over, but even from where I stand I coulda told Musk that gullwing doors on an SUV was a moronic idea. Even Lambo will use conventional doors on the Urus.

Wasted. Money.

Yeah, the gull wings were dumb.

 

 

Then you have capitulated your....analysis because it's incomplete.

 

Im sorry guys...Im still on this Star Wars thing...

And yes Suave...I heard Darth's voice when I read your post...

Its very hard for me to get off of it...until I see Episode 7 I guess...

Continue on with this analysis paper...and I vote Ye...so, stop being lazy...use the force if you have to.

There is no capitulation of anything. I have stated my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. I'm quite comfortable standing beside my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. If I was the guy actually making the decisions at Tesla I'd give it a more thorough going-over, but even from where I stand I coulda told Musk that gullwing doors on an SUV was a moronic idea. Even Lambo will use conventional doors on the Urus.

Wasted. Money.

And I am not saying it's invalid to think that it was waste. Heck even I think it was too much bravado and not enough common sense - it probably delayed the X too much.

But again, not sufficient. 

But what does Gull-wing doors have to do with lobbying to sell vehicles in a state where the nearest competitors (they are selling cars after all) oppose to their sales model.

Insufficient, not invalid, remember?

 

 

 

Then you have capitulated your....analysis because it's incomplete.

 

Im sorry guys...Im still on this Star Wars thing...

And yes Suave...I heard Darth's voice when I read your post...

 

 

Its very hard for me to get off of it...until I see Episode 7 I guess...

 

Continue on with this analysis paper...and I vote Ye...so, stop being lazy...use the force if you have to.

 

 

 

 

Then you have capitulated your....analysis because it's incomplete.

 

Im sorry guys...Im still on this Star Wars thing...

And yes Suave...I heard Darth's voice when I read your post...

 

 

Its very hard for me to get off of it...until I see Episode 7 I guess...

 

Continue on with this analysis paper...and I vote Ye...so, stop being lazy...use the force if you have to.

 

I'm perfectly fine with people thinking I'm the evil empire in this kind of context - after all, I laugh like Charles Heston...

Goes without saying, is Tesla the Rebels?!!! Huh?! And the rest of industry the Empire?!

Oh my gawd such intense analysis and such.  

Yeah, the gull wings were dumb.

And based on what I've seen they admitted as much after the fact.

That's the thing though: you've got rookies building cars with limited funds. Mistakes will be costly, but rookies will inevitably make mistakes.

Rookies who've probably gotten gull-wing doors into lowest price point for a vehicle.

Think about it. In terms of real dollars, this is the cheapest SUV to get gullwing doors.

It's certainly advancement in design and engineering.

Probably not cost-effective solutions for the customer, but again, why should GM be afraid of an automaker that you think is making mistakes?

"This is the cheapest SUV to get gullwing doors" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. It's like the product planners all sat around and said "let's show the old guard how it's DONE!" Which is precisely the problem when you get down to it.

GM shouldn't fear Tesla. I strongly suspect they don't. But they definitely want their customers.

Also, the $135k price is for the top end Model X. The regular Model X is $80,000ish.  People drop that on similar sized SUVs all the time.

If the Model X comes equipped like the Escalade or whatever the Germans/British have at that level then it's a start. But I'm guessing it'll still lack range and the ability for backseat customers to get out in a crowded parking lot.

And let's not mince words: it looks hella weird.

Problem is though....the customers that want a Tesla, Model X included, these guys, they want nothing that GM offers...including Cadillac V Series cars and Corvettes and 'Slades...even the new CT6...hybrid

Meaning...GM may want Tesla's customers, Tesla's potential customers dont want GM...

PS: The Model X most certainly is hella weird, but...its a TESLA...and THAT is what counts...

Tesla has made itslef a name...GM wishes it had that name and that mojo me thinks...

GM wants the customers. So does everyone else. It's nothing personal on anyone's part, or at least I don't perceive any of that in what I read and see. Lutz and Robinson both like Elon, or at least the concept of what he's doing (DeLorenzo hates everybody just on principle).

And hey, a little mojo has taken Tesla a long way. I said that several pages ago. They've done a lot better than DeLorean or Tucker or Bricklin. But they're losing focus with the lobbying and product planning, and they're walking a fine line.

Oh...I know GM wants Tesla's customers...(and eveybody else for that matter, like you said), but GM is also lobbying...on the same issues as Tesla is lobbying...but on the other side of the issue as what Tesla is lobbying...

That kind of game is dirty...its business, I understand....its still dirty.

I heard a rumor that Ford, Chryco and GM had something to do with Tucker's demise....is GM trying to repeat history?

Losing focus Tesla is?

I wasnt aware of that....if gullwing doors on the Model X is one of these lack of focus dilemmas, it may not be so bad...because Tesla also has acknowledged a need in the market place for electric SUVs...hence the Model X to begin with....OK....gullwing doors may be a gimmick....everybody sells cars on gimmicks...

Mercedes Benz has LCD screens all over the place now and calls that luxury.

BMW is toying with Nintendo Wii ideologies with hand gestures in the air to change a radio station instead of just using a damned knob...

Ford has ecoboost...

I may not have anything on GM as gimmicky as I type this as Im drawing a blank for GM, which may be a good thing for GM if GM is producing and selling cars without the use of gimmicks, but it seems to me, like Delorenzo always rants about....it really should be about the product... 

Therefore...if GM truly is producing cars without gimmicks, then they will not have a problem selling cars in the near future and GM will soon have mojo of their own. So....there is no need for GM to be wanting Tesla's customers, in due time, they will have customers breaking down the doors for their products...

About those gullwing doors...why such a fuss over them?

And in my opinion, it has worked as many people are talking about them, for or against...

Its not as if this hasnt been done before...M-B, DMC, and to a certain degree (scissor doors)...Lambo. Nothing new or shocking.

Have those kinds of doors failed in the market place? Maybe for DMC...certainly not for M-B.

Remember, some sort of blingy gimmick is necessary...M-B is going all LCD screens for their interiors...its funny how we havent made pages and pages of denouncing M-Bs funny ideas...and in my honest opinion, Tesla has as much hoonage as M-B does.

Gullwing doors are expensive and impractical. That's why Benz got rid of them on the latest AMG coupe. The money saved by using conventional doors could have been better used elsewhere.

The general consensus is that Tucker ran out of money. A rear-mounted flat-six helicopter engine was an interesting idea, but only the Germans made that kind of configuration work. Kinda.

I kinda see the AMG coupe with no gullwings as an attempt to NOT confuse that car with the M-B's own SLS...and to NOT be seen as trying too hard to compete with Porsche in copying the shock and awe approach of Lambo...(sincere thought process)

Yes its complex...maybe Tesla wants to be seen with this as an engineering feat that they have mastered...

OK OK...my argument is falling apart here...not that Im trying to win it or anything...just shooting the shyte with you...(not so snicere thought process...like I said...just shooting the shyte)

That's about all I'm doing really. I'm just too jaded to root for someone because it's a good story.

But Gullwing doors were the rage in Demolition man. All the Cop cars had them!

Those cop cars were all based off a concept car.

Made by GM.

Well if that's the case then all automakers ought to be hounded for lobbying at all for the entirety of their history.

Because lobbying has nothing to do with building cars after all. 

Especially lobbying to fight CAFE...

Well if that's the case then all automakers ought to be hounded for lobbying at all for the entirety of their history.

 

Because lobbying has nothing to do with building cars after all. 

 

Especially lobbying to fight CAFE...

To add to that, their lobbying would not be so expensive if the others weren't trying so hard to keep them out.

Double standards.

They don't work as solid footing for an incomplete argument. Especially why you allow others to make an informed conclusion and yet they refuse.

For reasons as to which are held dearly close, because they're not rational.

I just saw a report earlier today saying two thirds of the model S cars need the drive trains replaced by 60k miles. That's not inspiring.