Rapid depreciation

[dalton108]

Anyone who believed Tesla would be an appreciating asset is living outside of reality.

Well, that’s a crime and a tort and it’s called “fraud in the inducement.”

Sponsored

 

[Kevin Burns]

I have 2,716 miles on my 2024 CyberTruck AWD. The Tesla Charge Stats in the Tesla app says that I have charged 2,585kWh. That is 952Wh/mile. I let FSD do the driving. It may be high because I leave my CT in my driveway with Sentry Mode on.

 

[dalton108]

“Elon lies often...”

Archived. ?

Major formatting problems with the rest of this reply. Please hold.

 

[SCTesla]

Well, that’s a crime and a tort and it’s called “fraud in the inducement.”

Again, the court ruled that those statements are corporate puffary. They aren't realistic statements.

 

[dalton108]

there was a court case regarding his FSD timelines, statements like "No Tesla will ever need new brakes for the life of the vehicle", etc. and the court ruled them to be corporate puffery, not lies or misleading.

What are your citing is called dicta. It really doesn’t matter for this decision that the court needed to make. And unless I’m mistaken the issue on this case was about the nomenclature “full self driving.” THAT is what no reasonable person would be confused by because Tesla was always crystal clear about what it could and could not do.

Not the same as what I will certainly admit is puffery that if you’re buying a car today and you don’t buy a Tesla you might as well buy a horse because ‘our cars are going to drive themselves and you’ll be able to use them as a business.’ Kind of not the point that it wasn’t actionable in court of law. If you’re arguing that no one should ever believe Elon Musk (because he’s been adjudicated to be a flagrant and and recalcitrant liar and a court of law) - I don’t think that’s the flex that you think it is.

 

[mongo]

I have 2,716 miles on my 2024 CyberTruck AWD. The Tesla Charge Stats in the Tesla app says that I have charged 2,585kWh. That is 952Wh/mile. I let FSD do the driving. It may be high because I leave my CT in my driveway with Sentry Mode on.

Yeah, sentry greatly increases standby power usage.

That number is gross power from the grid. Along with driving, it's preconditioning, sentry, charging inefficiency, cabin overheat protection...

 

[Kevin Burns]

33,700Whr/gallon of gasoline divide by 952Whr/mile = 35 equivalent miles/gallon. I can live with that…

 

[dalton108]

there was a court case regarding his FSD timelines, statements like "No Tesla will ever need new brakes for the life of the vehicle", etc. and the court ruled them to be corporate puffery, not lies or misleading.

What are your citing is called dicta. It really doesn’t matter for this decision that the court needed to make. And unless I’m mistaken the issue on this case was about the nomenclature “full self driving.” THAT is what no reasonable person would be confused by because Tesla was always crystal clear about what it could and could not do.

Not the same as what I will certainly admit is puffery that if you’re buying a car today and you don’t buy a Tesla you might as well buy a horse because our cars are going to drive themselves and you’ll be able to use them as a business. Kind of not the point that it wasn’t actionable in court of law. If you’re arguing that no one should ever believe Elon Musk I don’t think that’s the flex that you think it is.

The only vehicles that increase in value are classics and supply constrained/rare vehicles.

I’m very certain that doesn’t apply to these cars.

That doesn't apply to any Tesla and typically EVs depreciate at a higher level due to fears of 2nd hand battery ownership.

Except, that if you are to compare the CT to its most logical analog the GMC Hummer EV it’s depreciation is twice the amount. For what insane person would say is a far less technically competent vehicle. I’d love to hear you explain the difference.

It's naive that you believe you will be able to enter your vehicle into a RT program anytime in the near future.

I don’t know if you can define “anytime soon” (I didn’t have an express timeline) and I certainly don’t think of myself as naïve.

The man said that the car would appreciate. That is because of technology that he promised he was going to deliver. As a result of that I went in the direction of his brand instead of other vehicles that I could’ve purchased. The vehicles are sufficient for my purposes I’ve never suggested that I have been defrauded. But again I’m not sure what you’re achieving by adamantly insisting that I should never believe anything that the man says. Weird.

The fact that you can trade a CT in for 75-80k today, when you can buy a new one for that is unheard of for Tesla.

First that price range is demonstrably false as of today. Second, the whole premise is patently false because it was true for just about every car during the chip shortage!

It's always been that way and Tesla puts almost 0 value in FSD in a trade in. When I traded a different MY in for my CT Tesla, Carvana, and Carmax told me they don't assign any value to FSD.

Correct. That’s the exact point I was making. They should change that because if it’s attached to the vehicle it is irrelevant for Tesla to take the position that ‘we turn it off and resell it and if somebody buys it from us wants it again they have to buy it again’ undermines the entire premise under which it becomes part of the car and therefore the car is a potential business.

In a third-party sale most claim it's worth between $1,500 and $2,500.

Also, correct and precisely what I was saying in the first place. See above.

 

[VAF84]

I forgot to mention. OP, my 100k msrp 2024 Sierra EV that I purchased in October got a $60k trade-in offer from Tesla for a CT. I’m sure I can do better elsewhere, but just saying depreciation on EV’s, especially high trims are a B. And in my case nobody knows much about Mary Barra’s politics and no one is blowing up GMC dealerships.

 

[Nice2CTu]

My interpretation from the OP post was asking whether EM statements (unspecified) and political predilections were/ are probable sufficient cause to induce a class action lawsuit. Prevailing/winning a suit requires establishing harm/damage (and sometimes intent of same). For this requirement the OP suggested depreciation harm to his Cybertruck and thereby his personal economic harm.



Dalton108, correct if I misconstrue, but as an officer of the court and a successful career serving as same, it's your job to assess if that kind of posed question has any merit/standing. I interpret your position to be that it certainly is a valid question to ask (certainly you encourage those questions because if you could represent that client, it's both ethically and economically in your potential interest). I believe you also stated fairly clearly that you don't estimate such a suit would have high probability of success, but nonetheless you are clearly supporting the right to pose the quest



Many of the rest of us on this board (I'm taking big liberties here because I don't represent any of us except me, so please excuse the preamble phrase), take emotional umbrage at what is a jarring cognitive dissonance, to wit: a) how can it be that a cybertruck owner board club member could possibly pose a potential lawsuit against the hero and leader that gave us the best transport vehicle on the planet; b) the leader does good things for humanity like returning astronauts, plans to put amazon and walmart and some of us on Mars and survive; c) provide robots to give everyone everything at no cost; d) identify waste in the federal spending; e) give us Grok3 (albeit not cost-free); f) sponsor creation of life enhancing brain circuit surgery allowing paralyzed victims mobility and communication; g) philosophically support the idea that the prime directive of AI should be to benefit humans/humanity; h) create a solar/battery project enhancing the potential to enhance the grid and produce power from the



OP, I respectfully support your right to ask the question. My opinion is it would be a very small chance of prevailing, either economically or in fact-based causality. Stockholders might grimace and wish for different decorum and claim harm, except for those who continue to benefit from the leaders good results, but drawing causality from a philosophical and /or political position directly to the up/down $ value of a used transport vehicle is a stretch, both from a proof of intent, but more importantly because there are so many other counter arguments to the causes of such economic determinati



Good luck whatever you decide to do. If you ask a question in heaven about whether a Hermes Psychopomp could bring a suit against the leader there for saying he thinks all heavenly hosts should unite with those from Hades for an evening celebration, don't be surprised that it will stir cognitive dissonance and sour responses from the devoted.

Just sayin'.

 

[REM]

1. In fact, Elon has asserted on multiple occasions that Tesla would be appreciating assets.

This is a factual statement, and it's based on the hardware suite and software upgradability. Vehicles (mechanically speaking) are fast-depreciating assets that see a lot of wear and tear. The battery packs are supposed to outlast them; and they do to a large extent. Any Tesla today that has reached the limit of repairability can have the packs retrofitted into grid storage or ground back up into new batteries at about a 99% capture efficiency.

Any other car with an increasing number of parts is eventually going to settle back into massive depreciation. Not a single other OEM on the planet is positioned as close to autonomy as Tesla. And Elon is right; there will come a time when they will literally be able to press a button and turn on the autonomy capabilities of every vehicle in the fleet.

Elon puts all of his eggs in the "physics and first principles" basket. And I completely agree with him.

 

[dalton108]

This is a factual statement, and it's based on the hardware suite and software upgradability. Vehicles (mechanically speaking) are fast-depreciating assets that see a lot of wear and tear. The battery packs are supposed to outlast them; and they do to a large extent. Any Tesla today that has reached the limit of repairability can have the packs retrofitted into grid storage or ground back up into new batteries at about a 99% capture efficiency.

Any other car with an increasing number of parts is eventually going to settle back into massive depreciation. Not a single other OEM on the planet is positioned as close to autonomy as Tesla.

And Elon is right; there will come a time when they will literally be able to press a button and turn on the autonomy capabilities of every vehicle in the fleet.

Elon puts all of his eggs in the "physics and first principles" basket. And I completely agree with him.

Then we completely agree. Although, I am in my comments *specifically referring to automation day when he tied that assertion to FSD.

* I know I said that he mentioned it on multiple occasions but the one I’m primary drawing from in my comments above is/was automation day.

The primary quotes, all from
April 22, 2019’s, “Autonomy Investor Day” I’m drawing from are these:

—-

“If you buy a car that does not have the hardware for full self-driving, it is like buying a horse. And the only car that has the hardware for full self-driving is a Tesla.”

“The fundamental message that consumers should be taking today is that it’s financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla. It will be like owning a horse in three years.”

“I think the most profound thing is that if you buy a Tesla today, I believe you are buying an appreciating asset—not a depreciating asset.”

“By Tesla’s estimates, owners might be able to earn $30,000 in gross revenue from their cars per year, or more than $300,000 in revenue over the 11-year lifespan of their car.”

—-

The number of people on this forum who watched all 3hrs and 52mins of this presentation back then, I suspect, is not one besides me. I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.

The presentation and thus the comments made during it were not some offhand comments. They were being presented to institutional investors, analysts, and media. The express purpose was to entice investors.

It is now being laughably suggested that he’s a liar and nobody sane whatever believe him. Excuse my French, but that’s a bunch of poppycock!

It was shortly after that date if not the next morning that I ordered my wife’s 2020 model Y. No regrets it has been a WONDERFUL CAR. As have all 5 of my Teslas. But, to pretend that what happened didn’t is a game for fools! I won’t play it!

 

[dalton108]

My interpretation from the OP post was asking whether EM statements (unspecified) and political predilections were/ are probable sufficient cause to induce a class action lawsuit. Prevailing/winning a suit requires establishing harm/damage (and sometimes intent of same). For this requirement the OP suggested depreciation harm to his Cybertruck and thereby his personal economic harm.



Dalton108, correct if I misconstrue, but as an officer of the court and a successful career serving as same, it's your job to assess if that kind of posed question has any merit/standing. I interpret your position to be that it certainly is a valid question to ask (certainly you encourage those questions because if you could represent that client, it's both ethically and economically in your potential interest). I believe you also stated fairly clearly that you don't estimate such a suit would have high probability of success, but nonetheless you are clearly supporting the right to pose the quest



Many of the rest of us on this board (I'm taking big liberties here because I don't represent any of us except me, so please excuse the preamble phrase), take emotional umbrage at what is a jarring cognitive dissonance, to wit: a) how can it be that a cybertruck owner board club member could possibly pose a potential lawsuit against the hero and leader that gave us the best transport vehicle on the planet; b) the leader does good things for humanity like returning astronauts, plans to put amazon and walmart and some of us on Mars and survive; c) provide robots to give everyone everything at no cost; d) identify waste in the federal spending; e) give us Grok3 (albeit not cost-free); f) sponsor creation of life enhancing brain circuit surgery allowing paralyzed victims mobility and communication; g) philosophically support the idea that the prime directive of AI should be to benefit humans/humanity; h) create a solar/battery project enhancing the potential to enhance the grid and produce power from the



OP, I respectfully support your right to ask the question. My opinion is it would be a very small chance of prevailing, either economically or in fact-based causality. Stockholders might grimace and wish for different decorum and claim harm, except for those who continue to benefit from the leaders good results, but drawing causality from a philosophical and /or political position directly to the up/down $ value of a used transport vehicle is a stretch, both from a proof of intent, but more importantly because there are so many other counter arguments to the causes of such economic determinati



Good luck whatever you decide to do. If you ask a question in heaven about whether a Hermes Psychopomp could bring a suit against the leader there for saying he thinks all heavenly hosts should unite with those from Hades for an evening celebration, don't be surprised that it will stir cognitive dissonance and sour responses from the devoted.

Just sayin'.

Perfection.

 

[nocyber]

I sold my CB because I had started to see the rage from others long before it became the cultural phenomenon that it is right now. I didn’t sell it at the perfect time, but I only “lost” $2k.

You don’t have any claim for rapid depreciation.. plenty of vehicles have rapid depreciation. In fact, in my personal opinion I went and immediately took my money to buy what I believe to be the very best for the money sports car on the market.. a CPO 2024 BMW XM. At $180k.. a bit steep.. at $99k with two sets of wheels with effectively unlimited mile warranty and 37 miles of pure electric range to backup the twin turbo V8? Ain’t nothing like it.

I plan to buy another Cyberbeast.. hoping to get in on the height of madness here and hopefully get one in the high 70s.

 

[ModelC]

sooo, not the point I made. I’ve asked Tesla to buy the truck back per the ban on selling it within 12 months and they are silent. No number has come back yet. And it’s great that you have plenty of equity, I don’t. And now the truck is depreciating at a rate far faster than it was before. No one could have anticipated what is going on with Tesla re its stock price nor the resell market. And let’s not pretend than non Tesla related actions are having a substantial impact on both.

if it is depreciating then just drive it until it doesn’t work anymore.
I am sure you will get at least a decade of use.
I am not understanding your economics in this.
in ten years (+) you won’t have the depreciation concern and you would have gotten plenty of use from it.

Sponsored