I rented out my car on GetAround (not a Tesla) for eight months, and the results weren't pretty:
One accident (side swipe), two tows (parking in construction zone and blocking a neighbor's driveway respectively), and countless tickets.
Many renters didn't fill it up with gas after their trip ended. They also left my car dirty and left trash in it.
Many of my renters improperly parked my car on the street, resulting in countless tickets (GetAround requires renters to park it in a restriction-free zone for 24 hours, no street cleaning, etc.).
My brakes squeal now, and the maintenance light is on in my car. One of the tires also has a gash in it.
One renter stole my SD card, USB car charger, and windshield mount for my phone (I hadn't kept tabs on them so I couldn't narrow it down who the culprit was).
Going into it, I was pretty optimistic about it, but after getting towed twice, I'm feeling pretty sour about it. Their customer support was pretty terrible, too -- they took days to respond at times.
I did FlightCar for a year, and their customer service was a bit better, and their renters took nicer care of my car.
I don't know, to me, I treat Airbnbs and Ubers considerably nicer than respective hotels and taxis because they are real peoples' personal property (I even do the dishes for Airbnb owners even though I'm not supposed to).
I have much more respect for something that an actual person owns. If it's some mom and pop bed and breakfast I respect it a lot more than if it is some hotel.
EDIT: After thinking some more it is all boils down to how much the owner cares about it. For example I really care a lot about my car but the rental comapany doesn't really care much about any specific car that they own.
I'm the same way. Granted, I am not a jerk about taking care of my hotel room either, but I definitely think about it differently.
I just know a mistake I make in an Airbnb might mean breaking someones things that have sentimental/personal value whereas a corporate-owned hotel obviously doesn't have that at all.
I think most "normal" people don't mistreat rented cars, so they expect others won't either. It's the same as the original AirBnB pitch. Unfortunately there are added complexities with cars - tourists might not understand local parking rules or road conventions, resulting in towing, tickets and accidents that are not borne out of ill will, they just happen.
Most people may not have mistreated Hydraulix989's car either, but a small minority of them would be sufficient to ruin his car, get it towed a lot of times, etc.
Even if 1 in 10 people mistreat a car, if it's rented out a lot, that adds up to a lot of damage.
You won't believe how detailed and idiot-proof I made my vehicle description (which is a feature GetAround has that's designed for owners to outline parking instructions, etc.).
Aren't tickets and towing the responsibility of the renter?
GetAround's terms of service (section 12: https://www.getaround.com/renter-policies) implies that they are.
They are, but it's still pretty frustrating when your car ends up in that one impound lot in SoMa that has one star ratings (I'm near Bernal), and you have to work with GetAround support to get it out of there.
The first tow cost $500, the second one $700 for the renter (2x more expensive than towing in even NY), but that's a separate issue.
I had a very similar experience renting my car on Getaround and have heard the same from many others. It seemed to get worse over time as the pool of renters grew and there was less interaction between myself and renters.
Anyone know of a service / app like these or Zipcar that could be used to share a car between a group of friends & associates? My city is way too small for Zipcar but I could probably round up a car sharing group if it wasn't too much hassle to administer.
http://Turo.com let's you approve of the renter so you could use that.
Be aware though that there are risks to using them since they don't have the best record on privacy/security. They had a formal process where they were leaking drivers license data via email to third parties that I helped make them aware of and they fixed. Still, the fact they even put that policy into place makes me want to share it.
Viper has an inexpensive alarm with app controls but the cellular connectivity is terrible. Seems like it wouldn't be hard to improve it and make a nice UI for checking the car in and out.
I was tempted to do this myself and scraped some data from GetAround to evaluate the feasibility of it. There are currently 14 Teslas on GetAround in SF. From what I can tell from the data, about half of them are making enough money to cover the costs of their lease. The biggest determinate of whether or not they break even is how often they make it available on the weekend. The biggest challenge is finding parking. There are quite a few city lots that offer chargers, but most of them have a 2 hour charging limit before the car has to be moved. If someone in SF has a parking spot and a plug and would like to see a Tesla in it, PM me and let's chat. :)
I'd be concerned about going over the lease's mileage limits. Most people that have rented my car on GetAround use it for trips to drive all the way to Sausolito or to Big Sur.
If I were leasing my car, it would've gone over in a few months.
You get rekt on costs if you go over the mileage limit.
I like the story of the guy who gets to drive a tesla for half the year for free. He should buy a second one so he can drive the other one for the rest of the time.
(Or more realistically, one rented full time should be enough to pay for two cars)
Been using HyreCar to rent a car out to rideshare drivers.
It's not a bad way to squeeze some value out of a car that has basically bottomed out in trade in value already: my 07 BMW is already trading in at about the same price as a similar Honda.
The goal of my experiment is to earn ~1x the trade in value renting it before selling it.
While this might look like a good short term solution for new car payments, expecting it to last over the course of a loan is extraordinarily dangerous.
With every rental comes mileage and wear and tear on the vehicle, devaluing it. Not to mention the fact that it is being used as a rental requires disclosure upon sale, permanently devaluing the car below comparable vehicles.
Tesla's hold their value at a higher rate than internal combustion vehicles [1]. They're also orders of magnitude cheaper to operate per mile [2] (electricity as fuel gets you down to ~3-7 cents/mile, not including maintenance which is limited in a powertrain with only a handful of moving parts).
> Not to mention the fact that it is being used as a rental requires disclosure upon sale
3-7 cents per mile is not "orders of magnitude" cheaper. Total burdened cost per mile (including insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc.) for cars today is about 55 cents per mile these days per the IRS.
The fuel only cost for a car that gets 25 mpg (which is not great fuel efficiency) is currently at around 12 cents per mile assuming $3/gal gas. Maintenance may be lower with an electric car but, in the case of Tesla, it's a luxury car brand with expensive sole-source parts and there's the big question about battery costs over time.
This is awful logic. What happens if there's another financial downturn, causing you to not be able to sell your car? What happens if the price of oil goes way down, causing the value of Teslas to drop dramatically?
If you can't afford the car without others paying for it, you probably shouldn't sign for the loan. Hell, you shouldn't be able to get one in the first place.
Shouldn't? Forgive me, but it sounds like you're making a moral judgement here.
If there's a downturn and a loaned car can't be sold privately, then the car is simply repossessed and auctioned off. These things are all contractual, and in a properly setup system the company shouldn't make any losses over all their loans, regardless of a few pettering out.
If you buy a car and rent it, that's suspiciously like simply running a business and many businesses run using loans both short term and long.
> What happens if the price of oil goes way down, causing the
> value of Teslas to drop dramatically?
It is generally considered far more likely for the price of oil to go dramatically up, not down. Saudi Arabia is currently pumping at razor-thin margins. In the words of their oil minister (yes, they have one): "The stone age came to an end not due to lack of stones"
I agree that the the price of oil is more likely to increase. It's common sense: The oil companies prefer to develop the cheapest (simplest, most accessible) fields first, so every time a field empties they replace its output with oil from a more expensive field, or not if the new field seems too expensive at the current price level.
But that doesn't that indebted car owners are safe. Oil producers can't cut production all that much (geology doesn't work that way) so the price can certainly drop in the short term. A few years later it'll have increased again, but in the meantime the bank might have impounded the car.
On the other hand there is a limit on the amount of Oil we can take up per the not-doom-the-world requirement, and current known reserves surpass this limit meaning that its better to sell now before you don't get to sell at all.
A parent comment asked "what happens if the price of oil goes way down, causing the value of Teslas to drop dramatically?" implying "so people won't rent your Tesla, which you expected to pay with the rental fees".
I can think of bigger risks. But anyway, that's the connection, tenuous as it may be.
"The stone age came to an end not due to lack of stones"
what does that even mean?!? It implies that there is not a lack of oil but the oil age will be coming to an end anyway. I think what he's actually trying to say is "we're running out of oil, but I can't say that".
The actual quote is roughly "the stone age didn't end for lack of stones, the oil age won't end for lack of oil", and he was saying that the oil age would end when the price of newly developed oil fields rose above the level where consumers would choose to spend their money in other ways.
I think he also said that "there'll always be a trickle of oil being produced at $1000/barrel" but maybe that was at another time.
As in better technology than fossil fuels is now available which will cause less oil demand over time. I have seen a lot of articles recently mentioning how several countries have a significant portion of their energy needs met by renewables. IIRC Costa Rica was one...
> It is generally considered far more likely for the price of oil to go dramatically up, not down
When everybody agrees, someone is not thinking. So it was in 2014. And with houses in 2008. And .com stock in 1999.
There are any number of low-but-not-zero-probability events that can cause the price of oil to start rising very quickly. Including the collapse of the House of Saud.
True, but it is a good sign that people are willing to do that to drive a good electric car. Tesla is going to make a killing whenever the Model 3 happens. I'm especially excited to see the other auto manufacturers responses. I'd like to have a variety of electric car options.
Teslas hold their value because the supply is low and the waiting list is very long.
A lot of the cars are resold at prices that are very close to a new listing, this isn't that different than many other high end cars with limited production (although these tend to be at higher price brackets than the model S).
As far as the cost per mile goes the fuel costs are not the biggest factor.
Insurance cost, cost of financing/ROI loss and the devaluation of the vehicle are considerably more important when calculating the per mile costs of owning a car.
A 30 mpg car with $3 gas costs $10k per 100k miles to fuel.
In other words, the operating costs for a Tesla do not make up for the premium price of the vehicle. You're buying a luxury car, not paying upfront for operational expense. When they release the 3, things will be different.
I'm not an accountant but I can't think why not. The IRS doesn't know or care if I'm driving a Prius or a Ford Econoline van today so I doubt if they treat EVs differently.
I don't think the average Tesla owner cares about "cheaper to operate". I have a weird feeling the average Tesla owner has a classic, gas guzzling, vechicle/vechicles in their multi-unit garage.
Teslas are a rich man's car.
I'm waiting for the day it becomes a poor/middle class vechicle.
I know I won't buy a used one until they open up the parts supply, and open up the operating system. I don't see that day coming. I really wanted one a year ago. I figured they must have a few that have been wrecked. I wanted to put one back on the road, with a salvage title. I found it's practically impossible.
As to holding their value, yes--they are commanding high prices, even used. They are a rich man's novelty. If a rich man can get deal on a used car, why not pay bite. It's a small demographic sector of society. It's a niche market right now.
My hope is in the future all electric vechicle manufactures are required to open up their software, so guys like myself can buy in the secondary market, tweak, and get these used electric cars back on the road, in a cost effective way.
(Dissabled the AI if you think if the Tesla, or federal government fears guys, like myself, will tinkering with it. I can live without the AI. I do want a cheap, used, electric vechicle.)
I too am looking for a cheap used electric vehicle, and the Leaf is almost the right answer. But I very much doubt that the software will ever be open, as that's where the value-add and "secret sauce" is. It'll be interesting to see what if any legislative response happens as a result of the VW scandal, but too few people understand the implications.
(I have exactly the wrong use pattern for an electric car: my petrol car sits unused for most of the week, but every now and again I drive it several hundred miles.)
The leaf just seems to make too many compromises to reach low cost. The tiny size, the poor range, the ugly styling, the tiny wheels, etc.
The Chevy Bolt is no looker, but it seems to be less of a compromise than the Leaf. It look much more roomy inside and gets Tesla-like range at 240 miles per charge.
Obviously, everyone here is waiting on the Tesla 3, but the problem is that the federal $7,500 tax credit is limited by quantity by manufacturer. Tesla will most likely run out before Chevy does, which might give Chevy the advantage here. It does look like the 3 will come in around $3,000 less than the Bolt, which is going to be quite the advantage for Tesla's customers who have pre-ordered. Right now it looks like non-pre-orders will not be able to get the tax credit.
> The leaf just seems to make too many compromises to reach low cost. The tiny size, the poor range, the ugly styling, the tiny wheels, etc.
Tiny size? Just the other day I fit a chest freezer I bought at CostCo inside it. That's not TINY. In fact, I was remarking that, while it does look small, it's just because the average US car is huge. In fact, it's likely to be bigger then what most people drive in Europe.
Agreed that the wheels are small. The car is heavy and tire lifetime is not the greatest as a result.
The Bolt is much smaller than the Leaf.
I'd get a Volt if I were worried about range today. It is an electric car, albeit one with a generator.
Are you aware of Musks overall goal of using economies of scale to get down to an affordable 'every mans' car model? Anyone that thinks they could have rolled the manufacturing to accomplish this out from day one (not having ever manufactured a car) doesn't know how much is involved in car manufacturing, or manufacturing just about anything for the mass market... I'm assuming you know all this though considering how much you've looked into acquiring a Model S and the fact that you are on HN.
It is about $1100/month (can be less). Expensive, but not outrageously so, well within reach of, say, an experienced software engineer in SV, NYC or London. We are still considered middle class, right?
When you're already paying extreme housing costs? I really don't think most SWEs I know could afford this... Unless they wanted to give up saving for retirement, owning a house, etc.
You can have a model S in the UK for 395 pounds(¬500USD) /month. That's a 7-year contract, but given the 8 year warranty on the car, I don't really see a problem here. And 395/month is very affordable if you have a job in IT, even outside london(I make waaaaaay less than any of the figures in the article above and my monthly payments for the car are larger than this).
Where do you see a 7 year contract in the UK? The longest financing term offered by Tesla is 48 months, you can get a Tesla Model S 60D/70 for about 350-400 GBP a month (after a down payment (of about 20K + another similar payment at the end), but I haven't seen a 7 year contract any where.
NVM I found the 7 year leasing program.
After a down payment of ~16,000 pound, you get to a monthly payment of 622 GBP for 71 months for a Tesla Model S 60 (not D).
http://imgur.com/a/1Asgz
This isn't "affordable" by any means, and this is the most basic Model S, without AWD, autopilot or any other upgrade package.
Yes, you're right, I mixed those two up - you can have the car for 395/month on a 4-year long Purchase Hire Contract, or for about 600 on a 7-year old lease. My mistake.
The autopilot option changes the monthly payments in almost negligible way though.
> the 85 kWh Model S, our most popular model by far, now has an 8 year, infinite mile warranty on both the battery pack and drive unit. There is also no limit on the number of owners during the warranty period.
I'm sure that in UK "warranty" means that all work and the unit itself is paid for by the manufacturer in case of a fault. If only parts were covered, but not labour, it would have to be described as such,
Tesla created a brand that is unmatched and stands on its own from the car market. I think it doesn't matter if Chevy, or BMW makes an electric car, it doesn't matter if has better distance or faster chargers, it is not a Tesla so people who want a Tesla won't want that car.
Or to put it another way people who want and buy Teslas are not necessarily the same people who want, or like other cars.
In a perverse way, one of the things that propels the brand forward is the difficulty to get one. Once something is forbidden, it automatically become desired. In a funny way I'd like to imagine, we'd discover one day Musk is paying all these state dealership lobbies ot lobby against direct Tesla sales.
>I think it doesn't matter if Chevy, or BMW makes an electric car
I think you're wrong here. Tesla makes electric cars that actually look like fossil fueled versions of the cars that they make. The Roadster looks like a regular sports car, the Model S looks like a full size luxury car.
Part of my problem with the BMW i series is that the two cars look like spaceships or cars from a 1960s illustration of "the future". They call a ton of attention to themselves and I think they look ridiculous.
I think the real competition is making an electric car that looks/feels like the fossil fueled cars that many people in the world are used to driving. Right now, it seems like Tesla is winning that battle, though the Chevy volt is definitely on the right track.
The observation was that Tesla made a brand in its own right. There is a car there, but they are selling Musk himself, the ideas behind Tesla, his other companies.
Even if Tesla was technically inferior, and looks like a gas guzzling car, it would still sell better than competitors.
> though the Chevy volt is definitely on the right track.
Technically they are. If you look at features only they did the right thing. But Volts are not flying off the shelves so to speak. Unfortunately I think association with the Chevy brand is probably a part of the reason. I think they should have spun off a subsidiary company with a new name, and marketed the company itself just as much as the car. This is a bit like how car companies have luxury brands and regular, so it would be electric cars vs regular, basically a 3rd thing.
>it is not a Tesla so people who want a Tesla won't want that car.
That's a much smaller market than those in SV think. Most people around me haven't even heard of the company. I'm sure that's unfathomable to some of the people on these boards.
Nah, he's making a (probably correct) observation of the market. Tesla is like the Apple of cars, and Elon is the Steve of the auto industry. It doesn't have to make sense in order for it to be true.
Exclusivity does indeed impact people's decisions, but it's far from the only driver. If a major brand made a new electric car that was demonstrably better than a comparably priced Tesla, it would sell well, and word would quickly spread. There is also significant appeal in having the "best". Musk organizing lobbyists against his own company makes no sense. If they wanted to make the cars scarce they could simply produce fewer of them. Instead they're scaling production as quickly as possible, because obviously selling more cars results in more revenue.
trouble is with that analogy is there are plenty of other car makers that fit the luxury end of the market Tesla is going to have a hard time replacing, RR Bentley, BMW Mercedes and BMW.
Let alone the really guci brands like say Bristol where if you are not the right sort of chap you can't buy
Please, "conspiratorial thinking" ... it was obviously a joke. But the observation that an a restriction or prohibition on something making it more desirable wasn't.
As for fanboy-ism, I just described how I saw the market. I am certainly not camping under Musks' window. But many consider him the equivalent of some technological messiah, whether you like, or I like or anyone else.
A sibling comment compared it to Apple, that's a good analogy. It doesn't matter how fast or cool Dell or Microsoft is, those people want an Apple and will not buy anything else. I think Tesla is the same way.
So so besides the one-line zinger, how would you describe the fact that people who can't afford this product and go out of their way to just to drive it.
> A sibling comment compared it to Apple, that's a good analogy. It doesn't matter how fast or cool Dell or Microsoft is, those people want an Apple and will not buy anything else. I think Tesla is the same way.
Just as a worthless set of anecdotes, the Apple and Tesla fanboy groups have a pretty large overlap, based on people that I know who own a Model S.
So what are you arguing against? That these fanboys don't exist? I think we are talking about the same thing...
I was saying there are irrational fanboys that will not buy anything else, and then you chime in "Oh, that's a worthless observation! There are lots of irrational fanboys"?
Yeah, I think we are. Rereading my comment, it was poorly worded...
My point was that the irrational fanboy-ism that's sometimes associated with Apple and Tesla is, in my experience, exhibited by the same people. So the Apple analogy is a good one, possibly because they're the same group of people (?).
One accident (side swipe), two tows (parking in construction zone and blocking a neighbor's driveway respectively), and countless tickets.
Many renters didn't fill it up with gas after their trip ended. They also left my car dirty and left trash in it.
Many of my renters improperly parked my car on the street, resulting in countless tickets (GetAround requires renters to park it in a restriction-free zone for 24 hours, no street cleaning, etc.).
My brakes squeal now, and the maintenance light is on in my car. One of the tires also has a gash in it.
One renter stole my SD card, USB car charger, and windshield mount for my phone (I hadn't kept tabs on them so I couldn't narrow it down who the culprit was).
Going into it, I was pretty optimistic about it, but after getting towed twice, I'm feeling pretty sour about it. Their customer support was pretty terrible, too -- they took days to respond at times.
I did FlightCar for a year, and their customer service was a bit better, and their renters took nicer care of my car.