Alternative Fuels & Propulsion RANDOM

[ccap41]

Just interesting information.

https://news.yahoo.com/really-costs-more-charging-ev-153301789.html

"Electric vehicles and gas cars have always come with a tradeoff. Fully electric vehicles are more expensive to buy, but they’re cheaper to own because they’re cheaper to fuel and maintain — and they produce zero emissions. Traditional cars cost less up front, but you pay more in the long run thanks to the high cost of dirty gas.

That dynamic is still widely accepted as true, but compelling new evidence reveals a disconnect between the metrics used to analyze fuel costs and the realities that EV drivers face on the ground.

So, are EVs really cheaper to power than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles? Well, that depends on the yardstick you use when measuring.

It’s Cheaper To Charge Than To Pump

In 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a study that was more comprehensive than those that had come before. Using a state-level assessment of EV charging costs, the study’s results were much more granular than what came out of previous studies, which assumed a singular value.

It found that the national average to charge an EV is $0.15 per kWh, which DOE determined translated into savings of as much as $14,500 over 15 years on fuel costs alone.

On top of that, EVs are cheaper to maintain — $0.04 cheaper per mile, according to the DOE — which adds another $8,000 in savings for EV drivers over the course of 200,000 miles.

The jury had returned a verdict.

Yes, EVs cost more to buy, but they paid their owners back for the difference and then some over the life of the car — plus the whole zero-emissions thing — and that’s not even counting state and federal tax credits and other incentives.

But a different study was about to get even more granular.

Study Reveals Different Findings

On Oct. 21, 2021, the Anderson Economic Group — a respected economic consulting firm with decades of auto industry experience — released the results of its own study, which was six months in the making. It was the first installation in a larger economic research series that is still being conducted.

Anderson parsed the costs of EV charging much more finely, going beyond just a state-by-state breakdown to examine rural/urban variations. The new methodology also separated vehicles by segment, use and cost.

Titled “Comparison: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles,” the report’s startling results were summarized in its official synopsis: “Electric vehicles can be more expensive to fuel than their internal combustion engine counterparts.”

There’s More to It Than Just Gas and Electricity

DOE says that the average cost of electricity for an EV is $0.04 per mile, which means it costs $9 to fully charge a battery with a 200-mile range. By comparison, it costs between $0.07 and $0.10 per mile to fuel a gas car, according to AAA.

The Anderson study, however, challenged the presumption that EVs are cheaper to drive — or even cheaper to fuel. It found that powering EVs comes with four hidden costs: the purchase of a home charger, the greatly inflated price of commercial charging at public stations, “deadhead miles” spent driving to find far-flung charging stations and registration taxes that states slap on EV drivers to make up for the fact that they don’t pay gas taxes. The study also factored in the cost of time spent searching for reliable charging stations, which — even when located — can take a half-hour for a charge of 20% to 80%.

Traditional research — like the industry standard provided by DOE — doesn’t take any of that into account. It also presumes a heavily lopsided reliance on cheap, at-home charging instead of expensive commercial charging.

Again, the new research is just the first installment in a larger series, but its results are undeniably head-turning. The study found that:

• Commercial charging rates are two to four times higher than residential rates.

• Level 1 chargers cost an average of $600 to install and can take 20 hours to fully charge an EV.

• Level 2 chargers are much faster but cost $1,600.

• “Full charge” is a misleading term because charging past 90% is slow, difficult and unadvised, which means you get far fewer miles than the advertised ranges would have you believe. Gas vehicles, on the other hand, are good for 300-400 miles per tank.

• Considering all of those factors, and presuming a greater reliance on commercial charging, it would cost $8.58 to fuel a mid-priced gas car that gets 33 mpg for 100 miles at $2.81 a gallon. Comparatively, a mid-priced EV — Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt — would cost $12.95 per 100 miles.

• Annually, presuming 12,000 miles driven, it would cost $1,030 to drive a gas car versus $1,554 for an EV."

 

[David]

13 hours ago, balthazar said:

That's 20 oil changes.

Be it 20 oil changes or the $1,500 for a 220V wall charger, both would be written off against the business as a business expense one would assume in optimizing the profits for your business / work. A moot point IMHO.

[David]

57 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Just interesting information.

https://news.yahoo.com/really-costs-more-charging-ev-153301789.html

"Electric vehicles and gas cars have always come with a tradeoff. Fully electric vehicles are more expensive to buy, but they’re cheaper to own because they’re cheaper to fuel and maintain — and they produce zero emissions. Traditional cars cost less up front, but you pay more in the long run thanks to the high cost of dirty gas.

That dynamic is still widely accepted as true, but compelling new evidence reveals a disconnect between the metrics used to analyze fuel costs and the realities that EV drivers face on the ground.

So, are EVs really cheaper to power than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles? Well, that depends on the yardstick you use when measuring.

It’s Cheaper To Charge Than To Pump

In 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) released a study that was more comprehensive than those that had come before. Using a state-level assessment of EV charging costs, the study’s results were much more granular than what came out of previous studies, which assumed a singular value.

It found that the national average to charge an EV is $0.15 per kWh, which DOE determined translated into savings of as much as $14,500 over 15 years on fuel costs alone.

On top of that, EVs are cheaper to maintain — $0.04 cheaper per mile, according to the DOE — which adds another $8,000 in savings for EV drivers over the course of 200,000 miles.

The jury had returned a verdict.

Yes, EVs cost more to buy, but they paid their owners back for the difference and then some over the life of the car — plus the whole zero-emissions thing — and that’s not even counting state and federal tax credits and other incentives.

But a different study was about to get even more granular.

Study Reveals Different Findings

On Oct. 21, 2021, the Anderson Economic Group — a respected economic consulting firm with decades of auto industry experience — released the results of its own study, which was six months in the making. It was the first installation in a larger economic research series that is still being conducted.

Anderson parsed the costs of EV charging much more finely, going beyond just a state-by-state breakdown to examine rural/urban variations. The new methodology also separated vehicles by segment, use and cost.

Titled “Comparison: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles,” the report’s startling results were summarized in its official synopsis: “Electric vehicles can be more expensive to fuel than their internal combustion engine counterparts.”

There’s More to It Than Just Gas and Electricity

DOE says that the average cost of electricity for an EV is $0.04 per mile, which means it costs $9 to fully charge a battery with a 200-mile range. By comparison, it costs between $0.07 and $0.10 per mile to fuel a gas car, according to AAA.

The Anderson study, however, challenged the presumption that EVs are cheaper to drive — or even cheaper to fuel. It found that powering EVs comes with four hidden costs: the purchase of a home charger, the greatly inflated price of commercial charging at public stations, “deadhead miles” spent driving to find far-flung charging stations and registration taxes that states slap on EV drivers to make up for the fact that they don’t pay gas taxes. The study also factored in the cost of time spent searching for reliable charging stations, which — even when located — can take a half-hour for a charge of 20% to 80%.

Traditional research — like the industry standard provided by DOE — doesn’t take any of that into account. It also presumes a heavily lopsided reliance on cheap, at-home charging instead of expensive commercial charging.

Again, the new research is just the first installment in a larger series, but its results are undeniably head-turning. The study found that:

• Commercial charging rates are two to four times higher than residential rates.

• Level 1 chargers cost an average of $600 to install and can take 20 hours to fully charge an EV.

• Level 2 chargers are much faster but cost $1,600.

• “Full charge” is a misleading term because charging past 90% is slow, difficult and unadvised, which means you get far fewer miles than the advertised ranges would have you believe. Gas vehicles, on the other hand, are good for 300-400 miles per tank.

• Considering all of those factors, and presuming a greater reliance on commercial charging, it would cost $8.58 to fuel a mid-priced gas car that gets 33 mpg for 100 miles at $2.81 a gallon. Comparatively, a mid-priced EV — Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt — would cost $12.95 per 100 miles.

• Annually, presuming 12,000 miles driven, it would cost $1,030 to drive a gas car versus $1,554 for an EV."

 

Reading the actual full study, one could come up with many questions about the facts that are stated in the full report.

Costs of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles (2021) (andersoneconomicgroup.com)

The biggest question I have is WHO REALLY PAID for the study as they do not state it, but their web site clearly states that they do these studies based on businesses paying for it. This seems to be to be a study based on what the OIL INDUSTRY is wanting to have sold to the public as they do the marketing of supporting green energy, but in reality, want to kill it since it is easier to keep drilling, destroying the environment and sell gas/oil than embrace changing over to green energy sources.

While they state this in their FAQ: 

4. Did oil companies, auto manufacturers, or other interest groups pay for this study?

In circumstances where an organization commissioned our work, we state that explicitly. In this case, the work was done independently. This study is the result of over 6 months of independent work by consultants at Anderson Economic Group. The company has over two decades of work for clients that include auto manufacturers, trade associations, auto dealers, labor unions, state governments, municipalities, colleges, and nonprofit organizations, including organizations that promote conservation and energy efficiency. No outside group provided support for this analysis, financial or otherwise.

EV Fueling Study FAQ – Anderson Economic Group

One does have to wonder what influence the OIL INDUSTRY had on this so-called independent study.

Real-World Electric Vehicle Fueling Costs May Surprise New EV Drivers – Anderson Economic Group

I do appreciate you posting this as it does touch on things that many will overlook, yet costs keep coming down and many states are now insisting on new homes having 220 outlets in the garage so anyone can plug in a 220V charger.

Yes, I get it that if you live in old neighborhoods, old homes usually do not have a 220V outlets in the garage unless they have the washer and dryer out there.

[ccap41]

I think it's a safe measure to say almost all homes are "old", built prior to 2020 or whenever these 220v garage requirements become standard. 

This was more getting to the point I mentioned yesterday in that public charging completely negates any fuel savings you'd have buying an EV. If you don't have a charger at home, you're not saving anything. There's only real potential for savings if you're charging at home. Which, that would be 99% of my charging. I'd only consider an EV if I can charge it at home for cheap. 

[balthazar]

14 minutes ago, David said:

One does have to wonder...

Of course one does, even if it specifically states the circumstances.

In other words; doubt every claim anyone makes.... unless it aligns with your preferences. Got it.

[Robert Hall]

I have no idea what it would take to update my 1967 home to support a 220v garage charger. It's a moot point, as I don't have a use case where an EV would make sense. If I had a predictable daily commute to an office it might make sense, but working out of the house, I  only drive on the weekends and the occasional short trip a couple times during the week. Sometimes I go two weeks without driving anywhere, esp. in cold weather. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Robert Hall

[David]

14 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I think it's a safe measure to say almost all homes are "old", built prior to 2020 or whenever these 220v garage requirements become standard. 

This was more getting to the point I mentioned yesterday in that public charging completely negates any fuel savings you'd have buying an EV. If you don't have a charger at home, you're not saving anything. There's only real potential for savings if you're charging at home. Which, that would be 99% of my charging. I'd only consider an EV if I can charge it at home for cheap. 

Washington state has required 220V outlets in the garage for chargers since 2015. With the tech boom here, many new home developments in the last 5 years have also included a 220V CCS charger. So, for me, it is probably far more common than most states I have to assume as to why it is so easy to see here.

Even with the cost of say $1,500 for a 220V install for charging, with federal and state rebates, many people can offset that cost and still come out ahead over ICE I believe.

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I have no idea what it would take to update my 1957 home to support a 220v garage charger. It's a moot point, as I don't have a use case where an EV would make sense. If I had a predictable daily commute to an office it might make sense, but working out of the house, I  only drive on the weekends and the occasional short trip a couple times during the week. Sometimes I go two weeks without driving anywhere, esp. in cold weather. 

I understand your point, I think EVs also have to work into your lifestyle. As an active outdoors person and in a state where Rivian and Tesla have made a point of installing along with Jeep now chargers at offroad parks, ski resorts, national and state parks to compliment what the state has installed, this has expanded the fast charge ability for people to live an outdoors active lifestyle and use emission free autos.

For me, especially when I go skiing on the weekends, not having the diesel smell or noise in the parking lots would be very nice IMHO.

[ccap41]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Washington state has required 220V outlets in the garage for chargers since 2015. With the tech boom here, many new home developments in the last 5 years have also included a 220V CCS charger. So, for me, it is probably far more common than most states I have to assume as to why it is so easy to see here.

Even with the cost of say $1,500 for a 220V install for charging, with federal and state rebates, many people can offset that cost and still come out ahead over ICE I believe.

So one state and only since 2015, that's SUCH a small percentage of homes. 

Federal and state rebates means we're still the ones paying for it. 

[Robert Hall]

13 minutes ago, David said:

 

For me, especially when I go skiing on the weekends, not having the diesel smell or noise in the parking lots would be very nice IMHO.

That would suck...I spend a lot of time at the national park, state parks, beaches, etc in nice weather..don't see the coal-roller diesel shit around thankfully.  

[David]

Seems Stellantis CEO has finally answered that they believe GM is the Loser since they are second in the EV truck race and that RAM will have an EV Truck out in 2024, so plan for seeing it this year some time, but others while RAM is riding HIGH on their trucks might see this as a failure and behind the other two big truck makers. Only time will tell.

For sure I can see RAM seeing what Ford and GM did and toping them. This is the way it has always played out. The Big Three leap frogging each other for the Top truck of the year.

Stellantis CEO: Ram 1500 electric truck being adjusted to boost specs (freep.com)

[Robert Hall]

It will be interesting to see what the EV truck market looks like in 5 years.

[surreal1272]

19 hours ago, balthazar said:

Still a HUGE gulf in costs to purchase the same truck as a BE.

Except it is not and I am not just talking about size and powertrain, when you consider what you get with each.

 

Honestly, the little SMK routine is tiring so unless you have some info. on a mid-size puck up with an 8 ft bed (your "original" gripe), I'm done with it.

[surreal1272]

Interesting. I’ve heard all this talk about dealerships and their “fair market” practices yet here is Ford jumping in to make sure they continue to be “fair”. I was under the assumption that this was an accepted practice by folks who constantly tout the need for dealerships. I mean why would Ford have to take preemptive action if these dealers were being so honest about their pricing as it relates to “fair market” values?
 

(sarcasm wholly intended here for those who want to take this a certain way)

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ford-threatens-dealers-wont-send-171821933.html

[oldshurst442]

39 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Interesting.

Interesting indeed.

39 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I’ve heard all this talk about dealerships and their “fair market”

Nobody defending these upcharges are calling these tactics as "fair market".  

The people are saying, me especially, that this kind of practice is good 'ole fashioned capitalism.   (Said with Jackie Gleeson's Sheriff Buford T. Justice's voice)  

 

Nobody said its fair market.  Its FREE MARKET ECONOMY.   ]

NOBODY wants to pay more than he/she needs to.  EVERYONE looks at the bottom line and wants to pay as less as they have to.  ESPECIALLY when its blatant price gouging.  

39 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I mean why would Ford have to take preemptive action if these dealers were being so honest about their pricing as it relates to “fair market” values?

 Why?

This is from your link

"The Dealer shall avoid in every way any 'bait,' deceptive, misleading, confusing or illegal advertising or business practices," the letter said.

Because some dealerships HAVE been deceptive and misleading and confusing....

From your link again.

Examples of these negative interactions include demanding that customers who are already on the reservation list for the 2022 model year F-150 Lightning make additional deposits or payments, the letter said.

"These actions are perceived as threatening customers by withholding their opportunity to convert reservations to orders," the letter said. "This behavior is not allowable ..."

"If it is determined that your dealership is engaging in such practices, Ford Motor Company reserves the right to redirect that dealerships allocation of the F-150 Lightning" for all of model year 2022, the letter said.

 

HOWEVER...like as with the Ford GT...FoMoCo will prevent the CONSUMER to make money off of the F150 Lightning.   As in, if you think dealerships should not make unGodly amounts of money on a hot item, how do YOU feel when business savvy consumers make money off of the dealerships?

Ford provided language that explicitly requires the buyer to agree not to sell, offer to sell or transfer any ownership interest in the Lightning within one year of purchase. If the buyer sells the vehicle within one year, they may face court action that includes blocking transfer of the car title.

 

But I read NOTHING on FoMoCo's stance on market adjusted pricing... Meaning, FoMoCo, if the price on the F150 Lightning is CLEARLY marked and stated and AGREED upon by BOTH the seller and the buyer, there is NO problem.   

IF the Buyer agreed upon 1 price, the dealer can NOT hike the price up again, but if the price was hiked up and clearly stated as such and before any agreement, then its FAIR game... 

 

It may not be FAIR market, but its FAIR game because it is a  FREE market economy

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[surreal1272]

Given that I’ve actually worked at more than one dealership and dealt with countless others in multiple states, I will continue to stand by my past and current statements regarding dealerships and their less than honest practices that have Jack squat to with a “fee market” economy. This isn’t the first time Ford has had to do this and they are not the only company to go through this with their respective dealerships. Just skip the part where Ford said that these practices hurt their brand image (and it does). I am not going to go into a long winded post about why I think it is the way it is because I have already covered it before here, many times. 
 

And some folks wonder why a company like Ford decided to forgo dealerships and do the “buy direct” approach in the ever growing Chinese market. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by surreal1272

[oldshurst442]

14 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Given that I’ve actually worked at more than one dealership and dealt with countless others in multiple states, I will continue to stand by my past and current statements regarding dealerships and their less than honest practices that have Jack squat to with a “fee market” economy. This isn’t the first time Ford has had to do this and they are not the only company to go through this with their respective dealerships. I am not going to go into a long winded post about why I think it is the way it is. I have already covered it before. 

 

You are arguing for other things that are happening at dealerships.

When a price is CLEARLY marked on the item being sold, ESPECIALLY if its CLEARLY written that the price has been adjusted and its HIGHER than what it was before...when BOTH prices are CLEARLY marked, the before lower price and the new HIGHER price due to unforeseen circumstances... then its a LEGAL practice...  

I dont know how more HONEST and OPEN and CLEAR and CANDID and STRAIGHTFORWARD and business can be...

A business does NOT have to tell the consumer and justify the prices it charges...

Its up to the CONSUMER to decide for himself if the price is WORTH it to him to buy.

And if the price is CLEARLY marked on the item, ESPECIALLY if its WRITTEN that it was marked up HIGHER for market adjustment.   You clearly have a grudge on dealerships.  And they may be warranted. Just NOT regarding market price adjustments.   

You see, rebates are ALSO price market adjustments.  On the opposite side of the spectrum. 

You could whine and cry and downvote all you want about market price adjustments.  Its LEGAL and its FAIR game.  It may not be FAIR market, but that does not make it that the dealership is thieving if the price is CLEARLY marked on the item ESPECIALLY if there is additional information stating the price went higher ESPECIALLY if the buyer AGREES to buy the item on the HIGHER price... 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

The 'market price adjustments' are fake though, just some greedy garbage dealer trying to profit on short supply. They should be fined and lose their license to operate as a dealer, have their dealerships torn down.  It's the same as sleazy merchants trying to sell water or groceries at fake inflated prices after a hurricane. 

[surreal1272]

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The 'market price adjustments' are fake though, just some greedy garbage dealer trying to profit on short supply. They should be fined and lose their license to operate as a dealer, have their dealerships torn down.  It's the same as sleazy merchants trying to sell water or groceries at fake inflated prices after a hurricane. 

All of this! 

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I’d like to add that all this talk about “customer choice” is also an illusion but some folks clearly are not ready to hear about that and I’m not going to waste two pages of this thread trying to convince them of it. They can believe whatever they want. Doesn’t make it true though. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by surreal1272

[oldshurst442]

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

The 'market price adjustments' are fake though,

You do NOT know if these adjustments are fake UNLESS you are the owner of the establishment or the accountant...

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

just some greedy garbage dealer

You may feel so, and it very well could be greed (I aint denying it...just to be clear), but in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY there is only ONE way a consumer could quell greed. And that is to choose NOT to buy...

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

trying to profit on short supply.

Short supply...

And THAT means the dealership ALSO may have its expenses SKY ROCKET and yeah!   It WILL be passed on to the consumer... 

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

have their dealerships torn down.

By whom?

You want government interference?

There is ONLY one way that a business gets torn down.  By lack of business. And the ONLY entity that has THAT kind of power is guess who?   The CONSUMER!!! 

So dont buy!!!

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

 It's the same as sleazy merchants trying to sell water or groceries at fake inflated prices after a hurricane. 

NOT the same thing.

Water and groceries (actual food...NOT Doritos, Twinkies and Coca-Cola) are ESSENTIAL to LIFE.

(NEW) automobiles are not.    When it comes to automobiles, there are other forms of transportation.  Public busses.  But most importantly,  USED cars.  But they too, their prices have skyrocketed.  But NOT as much a NEW...

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

I’d like to add that all this talk about “customer choice”

and THAT is it right there!

A consumer HAS a choice.  Buy used.   

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

is also an illusion

its NOT an illusion. Its just a choice that YOU dont want to explore.  Boo hoo hoo...

In other countries, in Greece, in Italy, in France, Germany (West or East) in the United Kingdom, in China and Japan, in India and in Pakistan and all of the Middle East and Africa...especially in the past, cars, used or new, were ALWAYS unobtainable.    

It is NOT a right to buy a new car at YOUR definition of what a fair price is...   

 

Keep in mind that you DO have the right to HAGGLE the market adjusted price.   The dealership has the RIGHT to refuse YOUR offer. Just like YOU have the right to REFUSE their offer! 

 

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

They can believe whatever they want. Doesn’t make it true though. 

Your argument has not convinced me to change my mind.

You are just going off a feeling  from your hatred of dealerships that dealerships are bad.  But your discussion is not a rational one.  Its an EMOTIONAL one.

You and Robert BOTH have downvoted a point that says that a price CLEARLY  MARKED AND VISIBLE ON THE ITEM BEING SOLD IS THEIVERY...    

Again...an automobile is NOT water or bread just in case both of you get confused on where on the essential scale to life the automobile belongs to and where water and bread belongs to...

I suggest both of you put your hurt feelings aside and analyze this statement PROPERLY:

A PRICE IS CLEARLY MARKED AND VISIBLE ON THE ITEM BEING SOLD

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

^ I don’t get why you are trying so hard to defend dealers and their sleazy practices.  F’em.  Obsolete franchise laws keep these bottom feeder scumbags in business.   Dealers have an obsolete business model, provide no value beyond warranty work and service.  

Edited January 9, 2022 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

Just now, Robert Hall said:

^ I don’t get why you are trying so hard to defend dealers and their sleazy practices.  F’em. 

Its just business.  And the right to DO business in a free market economy.

Im a business owner....

[surreal1272]

4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

^ I don’t get why you are trying so hard to defend dealers and their sleazy practices.  F’em.  Obsolete franchise laws keep these bottom feeder scumbags in business. 

Because “free market” derp derp. Skip the fact that folks have been conditioned to think this is an acceptable practice, for the last half century or so, by folks using that same excuse since day one. 
 

And all the down voting in the world does not change that fact. 
 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by surreal1272

[oldshurst442]

I dont like to have a consumer tell me what pricing is 'fair market'

Id like for the consumer to decide with his wallet. Not his mouth.   And I will come up with the conclusion at the end of the month with the risk that Ive took, that hard work that I do and the quality of the item that I sell dictate if the pricing I chose is fair market...

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And all the down voting in the world does not change that fact. 
 

In your case it sure doesnt...

You both laughed at the

"Its just business"  post.  

Its your right NOT to do business with a business that does NOT deserve your business...

I aint saying anything to contradict your point of view.  But I KNOW that a business DOES have the right to price their items as how THEY see fit.  And YOU have the right to NOT buy....

And I have been saying THAT from the very beginning...

[surreal1272]

And if it’s such a “free market”, then explain why the mainstream brands have lobbied various state governments in an effort to block Tesla from selling in their states via the direct buy method they made popular, only to see one of the past complainers (Ford) do the EXACT same damn thing in China? That is not “free market”. That is trying to maintain a monopoly but go on thinking that folks have had real choices in auto buying. 
 

 

[oldshurst442]

Just now, surreal1272 said:

And if it’s such a “free market”, then explain why the mainstream brands have lobbied various state governments in an effort to block Tesla from selling in their states via the direct buy method they made popular,

Different scenario and argument.  

 

 

Its the dealership ownership groups that want to control what it is they want to control and in THAT regard, I will agree to your point of view on that.

However, Musk's Tesla market adjusts their prices and RAISES the price more FREQUENTLY than what dealerships have done during Covid.  In fact, Tesla has RAISED its prices SEVERAL times BEFORE Covid on a freakin' whim... 

Have you been vocal about that?  

[David]

I myself would rather have a GM or FORD store, check out the item and decide if I want to pay the price they are asking and if not move onto another company.

Dealerships are hell to deal with and the public has made this very clear as well as states where they have sued and forced a dealership to sell due to the sleaze tactics they have taken against people.

[oldshurst442]

Just now, David said:

I myself would rather have a GM or FORD store, check out the item and decide if I want to pay the price they are asking and if not move onto another company.

So what is the difference?

Aside from whatever hurt feelings you have from dealerships. Leave that argument aside. We are solely talking about price...

1 minute ago, David said:

Dealerships are hell to deal with and the public has made this very clear as well as states where they have sued and forced a dealership to sell due to the sleaze tactics they have taken against people.

Ill repeat, SOLELY on what is written on a sticker price

 

it is CLEARLY written. There are NO shenanigans...

WHAT is the difference between that above...and this below?

https://www.thestreet.com/tesla/news/tesla-has-raised-prices-again-here-are-the-changes-tsla

 

@surreal1272 @Robert Hall @David

You guys have high fived each other...now that you have finished high fivin' yourselves,  its time to actually discuss with rationality and not with emotions... 

 

Tesla is NOT a dealership ownership group. Its a business. They reserve the right to hike prices as they see fit yet you wanna block the dealership ownership groups from doing the same. 

Why? 

Discuss.

 Thank-you.

I have stated MY stance SEVERAL times on what I think businesses and consumers could and should do in a free market economy... 

[Robert Hall]

With a direct store model like Tesla, you cut out the middleman resellers (dealership ownership group).   The middleman reseller model is obsolete and provides no advantages to consumers.   

[oldshurst442]

.

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

1 minute ago, oldshurst442 said:

@Robert Hall

Now that you have laughed and you have collected yourself with the hilarity, I would appreciate your feedback as to why all of a sudden, Tesla's price hikes are on another level for you, a respected level for you,  as opposed to dealerships...

I would appreciate if you responded. 

That's different.   A manufacturer raising product prices isn't the same is a corrupt middleman reseller tacking on fake 'market adjustments'. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

With a direct store model like Tesla, you cut out the middleman resellers (dealership ownership group).   The middleman reseller model is obsolete and provides no advantages to consumers.   

But...but...

Cutting out the middleman USUALLY means that prices that YOU pay as a consumer should be LOWER because their is no middleman making a profit from the consumer.   Tesla has no middleman, yet Tesla has raised their prices directly to the consumer.

 

 

[oldshurst442]

9 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

9 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

That's different.   A manufacturer raising product prices isn't the same is a corrupt middleman reseller tacking on fake 'market adjustments'. 

I thought you wouldnt respond, but you responded, and caught my post before I altered it and but made this post...

No its not different. 

YOU want to call the middleman corrupt. But it aint.  

YOU are arguing this with emotion. Do not do that.   Its cut and dry. 

Tesla is a business. So is a dealership. Regardless if a dealership is a middleman or not. 

You may want the dealership model to go away. And that is fine.  But you wont be getting rid of greed.  Its a free market system. The system itself can be corrupt and anyone doing business in this system can be influenced by greed whether the middleman is cut or not...

But...

You ASSUMING that dealership price market adjustments are pure greed is flawed and wrong and you simply dont have ALL the information at hand to make such a judgement call... 

It may or may not be.

You do NOT know for sure UNLESS you are the owner paying the bills or the accountant doing the numbers...

 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[surreal1272]

24 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

That's different.   A manufacturer raising product prices isn't the same is a corrupt middleman reseller tacking on fake 'market adjustments'. 

Exactly. Not even close to an apples to apples comparison. 

[Robert Hall]

17 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

You do NOT know for sure UNLESS you are the owner paying the bills or the accountant doing the numbers... 

Well, neither do you...you don't own a car dealership chain.   

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Exactly. Not even close to an apples to apples comparison. 

Wrong.

A dealerships HAS expenses.  So does a manufacturer.  Those expenses get passed on to the consumer.

Nobody could make a judgement call on what prices need to be made. Only an owner could see fit what the market could sustain and what the business could sustain regarding price.

The consumer has final say with his wallet. 

Words, like what you are doing here is MEANINGLESS... 

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Well, neither do you...you don't own a car dealership chain.   

No.

But I aint crying about greed and how the middleman is corrupt. Wah wah wah.

Ill say it again.

In a free market economy, a business has the right as they see fit, to price an item that they sell. The consumer has the right to NOT buy.

Since in a free market economy there is no cap placed on profit, then the consumer has all the right in the world to vote with his wallet if he buys or not...

Its simple as that.

 

[surreal1272]

10 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Words, like what you are doing here is MEANINGLESS... 

Stop the patronizing BS Olds. I know exactly what I am saying and others do to. If you want to ignore everything that runs counter to what you are saying, then that is on you but stop expecting others to buy into it.

 

Please though, by all means, continue downvoting PHOQUEING facts.

Edited January 9, 2022 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

15 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Well, neither do you...you don't own a car dealership chain.   

Maybe he'd like to explain this from the FTC website (not directly written by the FTC, for the record). It was written in 2014 but it is still spot on in relation to the dealership monopolies and their lobbying power with various state governments. Again, if it is a "free market", then why are dealerships fighting the very principles of the same free market?

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2014/04/who-decides-how-consumers-should-shop

 

 

[oldshurst442]

Just now, surreal1272 said:

Stop the patronizing BS Olds. I know exactly what I am saying and others do to. If you want to ignore everything that runs counter to what you are saying, then that is on you but stop expecting others to buy into it.

Dude...

Its a BUSINESS.

In a FREE MARKET ECONOMY.

Greed has NOTHING to do with it. Its all about...BUSINESS.  

Haggle the new adjusted price. You still have that right.   They refuse, you could go into another dealership. 

Haggle THEIR price adjustment.  If they also refuse. Ask yourself a question as to why in the world would a business, 2 in fact, REFUSED a transaction...

If there is a refusal on their part, its NOT because of greed.

If one agrees to haggle and eliminate the price adjustment for you, you have NOT given YOUR business to a business that price gouges you.   Maybe.    Again, you really do NOT know why that particular business has opted to raise their prices and REFUSE to haggle on the price adjustment to sell to you.

It could be about greed. it could be that the dealership cant afford to sell lower. It could be many things. 

But if HE refuses too many transactions because consumers are savvy NOT to buy from that place or because that dealership cant make money off their cars FROM MSRP pricing, than that dealership WILL close its doors.

So...no matter how much whining you are doing, its just business at the end of the day.  Nothing personal to you, the consumer. Just business. 

Dont buy. Its simple. 

 

 

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

Maybe he'd like to explain this from the FTC website (not directly written by the FTC, for the record). It was written in 2014 but it is still spot on in relation to the dealership monopolies and their lobbying power with various state governments. Again, if it is a "free market", then why are dealerships fighting the very principles of the same free market?

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2014/04/who-decides-how-consumers-should-shop

 

 

 

 

Michael replied on Apr 25, 2014 12:22PM PERMALINK

The FTC did not write this. It is the sole opinion of 3 employees of the FTC. And if you think this is the best way to buy a car, go for it. Let me know how it works out when you're paying $1500 more than you needed to because the manufacturer won't negotiate. Also, let me know how you like those cars that are put out by narrow minded engineers that don't fit the real world because they've had no input from dealers in the real world who are listening to their customers.

13 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

 

Please though, by all means, continue downvoting PHOQUEING facts.

 

You are the one that is downvoting the facts.   

All I here form you is just hurt feelings that you have about dealerships...

[surreal1272]

@oldshurst442-Again, you have skipped over everything that has been said. That is why this is last response to you regarding it.

 

Sincerely,

Someone who has been in sales and negotiated such things damn near his entire life.

[oldshurst442]

35 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

@oldshurst442-Again, you have skipped over everything that has been said. That is why this is last response to you regarding it.

 

Sincerely,

Someone who has been in sales and negotiated such things damn near his entire life.

skipping over what?

A dealership is a business for the millionth time.  It does not matter if they are the middleman or not.  

Price hikes happen. Expenses of any kind, imaginary or not, are to be passed unto the consumer.   

You brought up Tesla. I pointed out that they have hiked prices up BEFORE the dealerships have and BEFORE Covid struck to which @Robert Hall says that is different.

Different from what I asked.

 

All you and Robert have done is just sides skirt the question as to why its different stating that dealerships are middlemen and they are evil and Tesla is a manufacturer. 

THAT does NOTHING for YOUR side of the argument.

Greed?

If a price hike happens from a manufacturer, then its going to be passed down to the dealer which then is going to be passed down to the consumer when there is a middleman.

If a price hike happens from a direct to consumer manufacturer, the price hike is passed down to the consumer.

The dealership is a business therefore the % might be higher than the direct to consumer model. The dealership HAS to make a profit.   Its a BUSINESS... 

What I gather is that you and Robert do not want certain types of business models to exist.  But be careful what you wish for. Direct to consumer business models may not be as efficient or less profit oriented that you guys think they may be and a savings for the consumer maay never happen.

You cant haggle the price on any Tesla. Prices go up but it seems never go down. 

A software upgrade on a new thing that Tesla wants to unlock and the consumer pays for it with a price hike. 

Tesla had a lower KW/H , eliminated that battery option and offered a bigger battery locked to the lower KW/H battery.  People wanting to pay for the lower KW/H battery paid a lower price for it and the people wanting to pay for the full KW/H paid a higher priice tag.  

Fair?

Yes?

Problem is, both options got a higher price tag after 6 or so months. 

Software. Its just software. Funny how Tesla prices have never come down...   Its just software...

The Model S is a 10 year old car. Its price tag has gone up and NEVER discounted in 10 years. Mostly software upgrades but no clearance sales...    Justified for the hardware upgrades, but software upgrades.  And why no option to offer consumers not to opt for software that is not wanted to counterbalance any price hikes?

And then to boot, price hikes whenever the "market" demands it so and its OK for Tesla because its a direct to consumer model.   

THAT should be the OPPOSITE of what you guys propose...

And funny how Tesla has NO clearance sales...

Supply and demand?

Funny how THAT works in Tesla's greed but it shouldnt for a dealership...

Just be honest about why you dont like dealerships and cut out the bullshyte saying dealerships are greedy for price market adjustments.

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

Haggling on prices is fine at a flea market or Turkish bazaar, seems absurd to do a new consumer product.  I don't think haggling works if I go into the Apple store and want to buy a new laptop or order dinner in a restaurant.  Fixed price, I can choose if I want to buy that product or not. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

6 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Haggling on prices is fine at a flea market or Turkish bazaar, seems absurd to do a new consumer product.  I don't think haggling works if I go into the Apple store and want to buy a new laptop or order dinner in a restaurant.  Fixed price, I can choose if I want to buy that product or not. 

And the truth comes out...   Your argument is NOT about greedy dealerships...

Haggling or not, 

You can STILL choose to buy a product or not...

And its your RIGHT to haggle the price of your NEW car.  Why do you want to eliminate that right you have? 

Wouldnt it be great if we could haggle the price of whatever object of materialism we want?

Yes its a hassle to haggle, but it does benefit our wallets.  A fixed price and you are screwed.

Anyway, you dont HAVE to haggle the price of your new car. Just agree to pay whatever the dealership is asking of you.  Same as if you would if you bought from Tesla...

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[surreal1272]

Well guess I called it. Damn near a page wasted already. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by surreal1272

[balthazar]

The irony here is just about EVERYTHING everyone buys is thru ‘sleazy middlemen’, making sleazy profits over & above the manufacturer. Supermarkets; just bulldoze them all down. 😁

[oldshurst442]

@Robert Hall  

Again with the laughy thing. LOL

What @balthazar said is true. I wanted to say something like that but I was trying to tie it in with dealerships.  

I wanted to say something like middlemen and small business is the backbone of America. But I do realize that dealerships are no longer small business.   So I refrained from the obvious connection that Balthy obviuosly had no problems making. And rightfully so for him pointing out the idiocy of yours and @surreal1272 take on it... 

But then again, grocery store chains are no longer small business either.

We could buy our groceries at farmer's markets.  You know, cut out the middleman...

But some of us also buy our groceries from Amazon based delivery services... 

I know... I was approached by UBER start deliveries by UBER EATS.   I told them to go phoque themselves...

They wanted as high as a 7% profit sharing from me with the delivery that they make on TOP of what THEY charge the customer for the delivery...

They wanted to become MY partner without taking the phoquing risks of the actual business I worked hard to build on...

Then they came with an offer of 5%.

McDonald's gives them something like 2% or lower...  But McDonald's is also a HUGE business that can take that kind of thievery.  Its just a additional advertising convenience for McDonalds to have DoorDash and Uber Eats deliver for them...  

If you want to talk about thieving, greedy, evil middlemen, maybe we should be talking about Amazon and UBER and DoorDash and shyte like that... 

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

15 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

But some of us also buy our groceries from Amazon based delivery services... 

I know... I was approached by UBER start deliveries by UBER EATS.   I told them to go phoque themselves...

If you want to talk about thieving, greedy, evil middlemen, maybe we should be talking about Amazon and UBER and DoorDash and shyte like that... 

 

I buy groceries from Whole Foods via Amazon and a from a couple local chains via Instacart.  Very efficient, and nice to have food delivered to my door without having to go out to a grocery.  I like UberEats, DoorDash and Grubhub for restaurant delivery...used those a lot during the last 22 months of pandemic to avoid going out in public... I like services that I can use from my phone to procure products and avoid having to go out and shop for, esp. in times like these...

I miss dining out, but with COVID highly contagious and even being current on my vaccination, I’m risk-averse about going out around people indoors…

Edited January 9, 2022 by Robert Hall

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I buy groceries from Whole Foods via Amazon and a from a couple local chains via Instacart.  Very efficient, and nice to have food delivered to my door without having to go out to a grocery.  I like UberEats, DoorDash and Grubhub for restaurant delivery...used those a lot during the last 22 months of pandemic to avoid going out in public... I like services that I can use from my phone to procure products and avoid having to go out and shop for, esp. in times like these...

You missed... I added this part to it:

 

I know... I was approached by UBER start deliveries by UBER EATS.   I told them to go phoque themselves...

They wanted as high as a 7% profit sharing from me with the delivery that they make on TOP of what THEY charge the customer for the delivery...

They wanted to become MY partner without taking the phoquing risks of the actual business I worked hard to build on...

Then they came with an offer of 5%.

McDonald's gives them something like 2% or lower...  But McDonald's is also a HUGE business that can take that kind of thievery.  Its just a additional advertising convenience for McDonalds to have DoorDash and Uber Eats deliver for them...  

 

You have NO qualm to pay for a service and support a middleman like that though.   As long as YOU benefit from it.  But the price you pay for that service...  Its worth it to you.      

Its a very hypocritical stance you got going on there. But you probably dont know how high of a percentage UBER and Amazon collect from the business to delivery.   But maybe you do, but you feel that THAT kind of profit making is justified as long as it benefits you...

Very hypocritical...

Maybe that kind of percentage does NOT affect big business like a huge retail grocery store or a McDonald's, but that kind of middleman KILLS the family owned business...

Very very hypocritical stance and business practices you support... 

 

[surreal1272]

18 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Very very hypocritical stance and business practices you support... 

Same can be said for you since now you don’t support the middle man approach because it affects businesses like yours. Also hypocritical because it flies in the face of your “free market” mantra you have been going on about for the last page and a half. 
 

Funny how that works. 

[oldshurst442]

@surreal1272

Why are you laughing? 

First off, I phrased it wrong, Uber wanted 7% then 5% of the totality of the bill charged to the customer.

Uber then charges a fee to its customer, MY CUSTOMER, for the delivery...

Uber double dips and charges ITS customer, ME and MY customer, a fee to cover its expenses...

Fair?

Why yes!  It seems fair until you analyze how shytty that deal is for me...

I COULD charge a fee to MY customer the 7% or 5% to offset MY fee that I have incurred to UBER for a delivery service.  But then the customer, all HE does is just pay fees through his ass...

Uber NEEDS to cover its expenses...

Yeah...lets see what its expenses are...

Gasoline prices?

NO!  NOT THEIR CAR.

Wear and tear on the delivery car?

NO! NOT THEIR CAR.

Pay roll?

NO!  They dont pay their employees as they do NOT have any employees. They are a middleman service to that to. They say they are a contractor helping me and the customer have a meeting so I could supply a hot dog and the delivery guy to deliver said hot dog to the customer.

They pay NO hourly wage. Just an amount of money based the number of deliveries made.  They pay NO employee insurance, no uniform, supply nothing to the driver... 

And yet, @Robert Hall and you too, since you find it funny, you both find an OBVIOUS greed filled middleman as no problem...

I, if I agreed to UBER EATS, I have to buy the unmade product, I have to supply the energy to make the product, I have to PAY somebody to make the product, I have to deal with the wear and tear of MY equipment, pay my electric and gas bill, and I have to GIVE Uber 7% of the bill of MY customer, because HE wants MY hamburger, I have to GIVE UBER 7% (or 5% when they 'negotiated' a second time) of MY bill that I CHARGE MY CUSTOMER...

You guys have a very warped opinion on what is a greedy middleman... 

15 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Same can be said for you since now you don’t support the middle man approach because it affects businesses like yours. Also hypocritical because it flies in the face of your “free market” mantra you have been going on about for the last page and a half. 
 

Funny how that works. 

Uber does NOT support my business.

Uber LEACHES off of businesses..