Did you miss the title of the article? They are trying to stop Tesla from advertising the fact.
You really shouldn't ask that, since you seem to have missed it.
> They are trying to stop Tesla from advertising the fact.
No, they are trying to stop them from advertising the gas savings in the price, not to stop advertising the gas savings at all.
That is, they want Tesla to stop advertising something other than the actual price as the price.
I'm not sure how more clear you wanted them to be.
There are ways to advertise the savings that won't be coercive.
By coercive I mean getting you in the door and beginning the sales process when you otherwise would not have.
In the UK you're skating on thin ice if you advertise to consumers, sales tax free prices, partially on the basis it looks like tax evasion. Plus the principle of being able to pay the advertised price.
Now its slightly different in shops for the trade where the pre-tax price is front and centre, the post tax price does still need to be displayed though I think.
There have been cases around vat free sales, and 'we pay the vat' promotions that have been pulled up by advertising standards though. That as far as I understand isn't an EU specific thing.
Well, in Europe there's an issue with budget airlines advertising tickets for ridiculously low costs that don't include all the costs you're likely to incur when you want to use that ticket. And of course buying houses is complex. But everywhere else, the price advertised has to be the price you pay on purchase. Anything else is deceptive.
Tariffs are hidden in the US, though you probably couldn't say for sure with any one product as it might come from different origins with different tariffs.
The question isn't "is anyone fooled by this anyway?", it's "why is Tesla using deceptive practices?". IMO, they should feel free to point out cost savings somewhere, but they should not fudge guestimated values into the first price they show you. It's not just tacky, it's bullshit. Energy cost and tax savings vary by region and based on your individual situation, your driving habits, etc. Tax refunds do not affect the cost you have to pay for a car upfront. Elon Musk is an engineer at heart, and I feel like he should know better. Doing things like this loses them the respect of a lot of people.
Tax refunds is money I'm definitely going to get back in a bounded (and reasonably short) amount of time. If I pay $40k for a car and get $7k back in the same year, it seems reasonable to advertise the cost as $33k (assuming it's clear that $7k of that is a tax refund).
But gas savings feels like bullshit -- it's money I may or may not get back (depending on my habits), the time horizon is unbounded, and even if it were bounded, it's long (an order of multiple years). That feels deceptive to me, and it's surprising they got away with it until now.
For example, if you buy the car in your name and then you lose your source of income (whatever reason, e.g. health, maternity/childcare) and for example you rely only on your spouse's income, I know at least one country where you can't pass the tax benefits to the other person (not even by transferring ownership of the car)
Somehow I suspect that they'll keep doing it in every country that hasn't told them to stop.
Theres a further complication in that most countries offer incentives for buying EVs, so you could legitimately think its one of those that Tesla is helpful illustrating for you.
Finally Europe has decent consumer protections, so the price advertised should be the price payable, and people expect that.
It is surprising that eBay manages to do this despite having decentralized sellers around the world with a global customer base, but an ordinary online retailer doesn't.
to be honest it is stunts like this where regulation does come in handy. like how we have truth in lending laws for home loans and even cars.
My dream for Tesla is thst Musk is gone, soon, because while he appears able to start great things, he’s a pretty lousy leader (and person) beyond that. I look at SpaceX and see something great that for the most part, does its thing because Musk isn’t around. I look at Tesla and I see him screwing around on Twitter, lying, and generally being a drain on the company. Tesla has too much good going on to make stupid promises about FSD or bullshit about their pricing.
Except that just the other day Musk went on record (on an earnings call?) saying that Tesla's would be capable of "full self driving, coast to coast, this year"...
I would bet 85% odds that Tesla is eventually going to offer a refund to all current Model 3 owners who "pre-purchased" self driving. In fact, that's the event that is more likely to happen "coast to coast, this year".
Calling it now: There will be an "autopilot hardware v2." And Tesla will have to dig deep to pay back all that pre-purchased FSD cash, probably plus extra to stave off a class action lawsuit, which is its own risk.
I would love to see full self driving, but I don't trust that hardware. I would love to see Tesla succeed, but I fear that Musk himself will bring it down.
The "self-driving" will be made available, both in hardware and software. It just won't be usable on roads (because every state will immediately outlaw it).
Few owners, brave enough to try it in spite of regulations, might discover some notable flaws... But hey, — no one promised you a perfect self-driving! You will be able to "self-drive" in couple of dedicated cities or around wilderness in the middle of nowhere (with modest risk of damaging vehicle), and that's supposedly what everyone has paid for. Musk won't be held responsible for restrictive laws, — he most likely anticipates that and hopes precisely for that.
It includes for example Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, Opel, Volkswagen, the VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie; German Association of the Automotive Industry) and the VDIK (Verband der Internationalen Kraftfahrzeughersteller; Association of International Motor Vehicle Manufacturers)
VDA members are here: https://www.vda.de/en/association/members.html
VDIK members are here: http://www.vdik.de/members/members.html and include for example Citroën, Fiat, Honda, Hyundai, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugot, Renault, Saab, Toyota, Volvo...
On the other hand there are so many competing companies represented there, that similar practices of any single traditional manufacturer would not be accepted either. So I don't see why people reject the characterization of self-regulation.
Of course if most of the car manufacturers agree to do something illegal the self-regulation will fail. This has happened in the car manufacturing supply-chain, fines have been imposed and more investigations are on the way IIRC. That is governed by different legislation.
Probably also in the emission frauds there have been at least been "gentlemen" agreements. It's not very convincing that the engineers of the competitors did not understand how some manufacturers achieved their emission values.
But also cases related to consumer marketing which should be covered by the self-regulation remain unsatisfactory. It's well known that all manufacturers advertise misleading and unrealistic mileage values that no driver can achieve in real life. So if the majority of the businesses agrees to cheat customers self-regulation just fails. They will just stop newcomers who try to be disruptive in their cheating.
In the end every decision could be brought to court. As a matter of fact in the case of self-regulation it would not have even been Tesla who would have needed to appeal a decision. There was no decision, just a request to comply with legislation. They could have just waited whether Wettbewerbszentrale goes to court. That they decided to comply without any court decision tells a lot.
Meanwhile, the shenanigans in US advertised pricing allows for enormous hidden costs - think cellphone, cable or telephone bills.
How does that work for online advertising and online shopping sites? Most of Europe uses destination based VAT for remote sales, which could make it very difficult or annoying to include VAT in the advertised price if the ads or shopping site reach more than one country.
That's not unusual, American companies do that, too, in order to calculate sales tax.
You probably need it anyway to calculate shipping.
VAT just isn’t particularly hard, as business problems go.
And if you are Amazon, you then give the diff as a discount if it was more than advertised.
You can click on a "details" button where it will expand and list all the details, and only there, after the purchase price it'll say how much you can save by not having to buy gas.
Even the big, heavy older Teslas get the equivalent of at least 60 mpg (say, 300 watt hours per mile at 15 cents per kWh vs $3 for a gallon of gas).
a WH/m x b $/kWh / 1000 = x $/mi
c $/ga gasoline / x $/mi = mpg equivalent.
For a=300, b=0.15, c=$3.00 you get 66mpg.
You can plug in your own numbers as you see fit.
The cost savings is then estimated by plugging in a number of miles driven, and comparing gallons of gas versus a hypothetically less efficient car (not sure what MPG rating Tesla uses for its comparison)
Note that the Tesla Model 3 is closer to 150 WH/mi. And what does gasoline cost in those European countries?
The thing would need to be mint as any minor issue would be takes months to fix.
With every car I’ve owned, I have no direct relationship with the OEM. I think I had a Cadillac repaired by the dealer once because it ended up being cheaper. That’s a feature. I’ve seen what happens when companies corner the market on anything — it’s not good for anyone but the company abusing the market.
I’d lease a Tesla. Anything else is too big a risk.
For a car there simply cannot be a correspondingly safe assumption, can there?
Especially since you can't estimate the future price of fuel.
This is especially true once you're no longer comparing the same units even between vehicles. It's much easier to compare euros with euros than having to compare euros with l/100km and kWh/100km.
Moreover, it's possible to make a plausible fuel price estimate based on current and historical prices, and if it turns out to be wrong then it wouldn't be any less wrong for having the buyer calculate it instead of the seller.
Tesla aren't saying "this is how much you could save", they're taking that number off the purchase price until you walk through the checkout.
Fuel varies so much in price that fuel price variation would mask cost differentials between cars.
You could start combining some synthetic averaged fuel price with MPG to arrive at a cost. But is it a cost that anyone's likely to achieve, or know how it relates to their own circumstances.
At least mileage figures however flawed are a known quantity, I know how it relates to my driving, and I know whether fuel prices are currently low or high.
That is very close to what they are doing. If it had the real price and it said "You would save x amount with this option" I doubt anyone would care.
So, it’s not just “like” they are doing it, they are doing it.
They are allowed to advertise "price X, but remember you also save Y per year". But not "price X minus Y".