The problem is repairs, you are held hostage by Tesla, so even a fender bender turns into a write off, or months without the vehicle whereas a normal shop could fix it up in a day with regular parts.
Just don’t buy tesla and you should be ok.
And, after those people burned up inside one. just don’t get inside a Tesla either
I’m all for hating on Tesla for legitimate issues, but the driver of that car crashed into a concrete pillar doing in excess of 120MPH, which probably has a lot more to do with why they died than anything else. Fires and being trapped inside mangled wreckage can happen with any vehicle, especially at speeds like that.
We had a similar situation when Teslas were new here in Europe and a Model X crashed head on into the median on the autobahn at full speed (130km/h or 80mph).
The guy died because he didn’t wear any seatbelt and was ejected from the car. The car looked horrendous but he would have survived if he wore a seatbelt.
Doesn’t stop the media from printing “Tesla kills driver” for 2 weeks straight.
I felt like making a sarcastic comment about “all that extra safety tech”.
But 120mph is pretty fucking ridiculous.
Except, that’s a head on collision on a 60mph road.
So, I’m not sure how to feel.Still don’t think I’d get in a Tesla just on principle, tho
But 120mph is pretty fucking ridiculous. Except, that’s a head on collision on a 60mph road.
Incorrect, for two reasons: 1, kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed. Twice as fast, quadruple the energy. 2, in a head-on collision, the crumple zones of both vehicles absorb the energy. I doubt the concrete pillar absorbed much.
The MythBusters did a nice episode on this.
Huh.
Googling turned up this:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/329831/crash-simulation-on-mythbustersThanks!
And I still don’t want one. They could sell them for $1000, and I still wouldn’t want to be seen in one.
Tesla is now the official Trump-mobile.
He got all the left with money for a new car to buy one. Now it’s the right’s turn to be milked.
They’re offloading like all of their EVs, they have a bunch of Chevy Bolts for significantly less than the kbb value.
A high depreciation cost is a benefit to the company, since it can otherwise offset income earned elsewhere in the company, thereby increasing profits over what they would have otherwise been.
They’re selling these for another reason than depreciation, but the comments here already seem to get that.
High depreciation is only valuable if there’s no additional cost associated with them. Teslas have high repair costs (and opportunity costs as it sits idle waiting for the dealership to get to it) and, since they’re selling them, there’s now a replacement cost.
I might be wrong but that sounds like the broken window fallacy.
I get that it rhymes.
It’s just when a business makes an “investment” aka cost, depending on the type of cost, they can use all or part of it (depending on classification) to offset “revenue” aka income, the more they offset then allows more income to be untaxed.
If you have a situation where a business has an asset (Teslas here) where the real life value (market value) suddenly drops, that business has to report additional depreciation, which does hurt the asset side of the balance sheet, but improves the income side
I don’t have any insight into lender agreements, so it could be something else entirely, like the lenders would want the rental company to add additional collateral if the value of the cars drops.
I’m just saying that it’s likely those other reasons driving the Tesla sell off.
I get that depreciation is a useful tool for business accountants but my point is that if a business has to sell the Teslas, it would be better for them to get a good resale price over more depreciation.
Depreciation is good for “oh well, at least we don’t have as much tax” as opposed to “let’s sell these assets at a loss to get more depreciation”.
