Hacker News Reader

Comment by mminer237 | Hacker News Reader

> Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.

This seems like a new low in scammy marketing. I can't wait for everything to have wildly undermarked prices with small asterisks saying it's when you subtract all the ways it will save you money in the long term.

View on HN

They also do this thing at the top of their product page [0] where they say 11,000 lbs towing capacity, 340 mi. range (estimated), 2.6 sec 0-60 mph (with leadout). But they aren't selling a truck with those exact specs. The AWD has a 340 mi. range (est.) and a 4.1 0-60 and the Cyberbeast has a 320 mi. range (est.) and a 2.6 0-60 mph (with leadout). They pick the best attribute from each to highlight on the top of their product page. Note that they also advertise one model's 0-60 with leadout and one without so the difference between them looks more substantial than it is.

[0] https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck

If you switch the site to Australia[0] you'll notice they don't do this - it's because by consumer law they're not allowed to, and you have to quote the "drive away price"

You can't even deduct the various gov rebates or tax exemptions; only mention that you _may_ qualify.

They have a smaller and lower contrast "after cost savings" at the bottom of the page - but the price on the site is the price, as it damn well should be.

[0] https://www.tesla.com/en_au/model3/design#overview

I'm looking at insurance plans and it is the same story, they show price as if you get the maximum govt assistance, even if I put in $1M for annual income.

I see this style of price hiding more prevalent everywhere. Too much psychology and dark patterns have invaded everything we do. I cannot count how many times I click a cool new open source project link on HN, see a pricing page, and find a "monthly" price with an astrix and toggle to see the real monthly price

They've been doing this for many years now. The 3 was released with the prices calculated in this way on the website.

"They've been lying for years" is hardly a defence. In most countries this kind of pricing nonsense is illegal.

It's not a defense. The person above said it is a "new low in scammy marketing" (emphasis mine). In order to be a new low, it has to be new.

In most (32) states there are extra fees added to yearly EV registration to compensate for the lack of gas tax revenue, but Tesla never includes them in their calculations. Insurance costs and tire wear are usually much higher for Teslas, too. Neither does Tesla include the costs of the charger or the electrician's installation fees (~$1,000). Supercharging fees on road trips are completely ignored. It's also highly unlikely that anyone considering the purchase of these cars meets federal tax credit income thresholds ($7,500). Borderline fraudulent.

The $7,500 at least is pretty legit, since in 2024 the IRS will let you get the discount at point of sale.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/ev-tax-credit-elect...

> $7,500 at least is pretty legit

You can't claim it if you make more than "$300,000 for a household, $150,000 for an individual or $225,000 for a head of household" [1]. That describes a decent fraction of the Cybertruck's target market.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/1147209505/electric-car-tax-c...

Yes but the new method transfers the tax credit to the dealer, who then gives you a discount off the purchase price. Seems possible that the purchaser income limit wouldn't apply when it's the dealer taking the credit. All the articles I've seen say we're still waiting for complete IRS guidance though.

> possible that the purchaser income limit wouldn't apply when it's the dealer taking the credit

The credit changes when you get the cash, not its eligibility [1]. If the dealer mistakenly gives you the credit, it will be added back--with interest and penalties--when you file. (The dealer reports it, so if someone forgets to include it in their filing it will accrue penalties and interest until the IRS gets around to collecting.)

[1] https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean...

How is it any different from $10,000 Full Self Driving "Autopilot" will be out anytime next year™

You get the credit on your taxes, enshrined in law.

As opposed to the promised and paid-for feature where the delivery isn't enshrined in law? What an altruistic company.

Some people get credit on your taxes, some people don't, yet Tesla is advertising it as a universal tax credit. So they aren't stating what is "enshrined into law" but rather the best case scenario.

This doesn't seem very different than advertising a price after a rebate.

Saving $1,200 a year on gas seems reasonable if you pay $4/gal and fill up a 14gal tank twice a month. I'm not sure about the tax credit -- I assume those are guaranteed to whoever purchases the vehicle, but maybe that's not the case.

Price after rebate seems reasonable: you pay money, get the item, a rebate gives you money back on your purchase.

Savings over time is a whole other dimension, you have to wait for it. And it makes huge assumptions about usage and input (gas) prices.

It also assumes you’re not already driving an EV so your current gas cost is $0. That seems near illegal.

> That seems near illegal.

Oh, come on. Tesla is not hiding this. It's the first thing you see in the pricing section, and it's the last thing you see at the bottom. Maybe it's illegal somehow, but this is certainly not immoral.

Tesla is making the case for the efficiency gains of their vehicle based on what most people drive today. This is certainly becoming less relevant/useful as electric/hybrid vehicles become more popular, but it is still quite helpful for anyone trying to compare the cost of a Tesla vs a ICE automobile. Even better, this expected total cost of ownership would be included somewhere like it is with home appliances [0].

> It also assumes you’re not already driving an EV so your current gas cost is $0.

In that case, you can simply select the "Purchase Price".

> Savings over time is a whole other dimension, you have to wait for it. And it makes huge assumptions about usage and input (gas) prices.

That's fair. Tesla very clearly details their assumptions under the "see details" link, which to my eyes looks quite generous:

-----

Gasoline Savings

Electric vehicles are less expensive to fuel than gasoline powered vehicles. The average person drives between 10,000 and 15,000 miles and spends between $1,700 and $2,500 on gasoline per year.

We've assumed a fuel economy of 20.0 miles per gallon for a comparable gasoline powered truck. We've also assumed the national average of $0.16 per kilowatt-hour for residential electricity (assumed for 100% of charging) and $3.30 per gallon for gasoline over the next three years. Tesla efficiency values are based on Cybertruck All-Wheel Drive.

Comparison gasoline vehicles are selected based on vehicle class, seating capacity and standard features. We use the EPA estimated range standard to compare efficiency data between our vehicles and a comparable gasoline alternative using each vehicle's combined city/highway MPG and MPGe ratings. Actual range may vary based on factors such as speed, weather conditions and elevation change.

Cybertruck All-Wheel Drive consumption rating = 42.9 kWh/100mi

Comparison vehicle consumption rating = 20.0 mpg

References:

We used the most recent gasoline and electricity prices that were available to us through third-party resources on November 30, 2023.

-----

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergyGuide

> Maybe it's illegal somehow, but this is certainly not immoral.

It is absolutely immoral, and I have no idea how you can say otherwise with a straight face. Tesla is deliberately listing the price as lower than it actually is, in order to try to psychologically trick people into buying their vehicles. It's (probably) legal because they state in smaller print what the actual price is, but it's hella fucking immoral.

> We've assumed a fuel economy of 20.0 miles per gallon for a comparable gasoline powered truck.

This is absolutely misleading. F-150, Tundra, RAM 1500, Sierra, every single one of these pickups has a better fuel economy than this. It's not really a comparable economy if you pick "a number worse than every alternative" as your baseline.

Are you sure? 20 seems pretty fair.

* https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Ford_F150.shtml

* https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Toyota_Tundra.s...

* https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_Ram_1500.shtml

* https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2023_GMC_Sierra.shtm...

Yes: https://www.motortrend.com/features/most-fuel-efficient-pick...

Starts with Ridgeline and Tacoma at 21mpg, Tundra at 22, Ranger at 23, Gladiator at 24, RAM 1500 and F-150 at 25, Silverado and Sierra at 26.

> 20 seems pretty fair.

How do you get "chooses a number that is 5% less than the worst, and 25% less at best" as a "fair" comparison point?

The average of those vehicles is actually 23.8mpg. To me a comparison should be "somewhere in the middle of the table", not "coming last".

I've got a siphon hose, my gas costs are $0 too! /s

How would you feel if a Prius was advertised thousands of dollars under the actual number of dollars you pay for the car because of “fuel savings compared to a Camero over 5 years”? Or is it only OK when Tesla does it?

> Or is it only OK when Tesla does it?

There's no reason to assume I'm biased towards Tesla here.

If any carmaker wanted to say "our car is X% more efficient, and the average person could reasonably expect to save $Y", and then discount that from the sticker price, I would be okay with that.

I don't think it's deceptive at all as long as the estimate is reasonable, and as long as there is clear communication about the sticker price vs the price after savings.

That is not the price of the vehicle. If anything the price should be more because the three year cost of the vehicle is more than the initial price.

Then where do you draw the line? I, and almost the entire developed world, draws the line at price = number of currency units required to leave the store with the item for sale. Every car could otherwise claim a deduction because it’s more fuel efficient than a sports car or a Rolls Royce or an F-350. And some cars don’t need as expensive of tires, should they claim that deduction? What about cars that are 2 wheel drive, there’s lots of savings there over 4 wheel drive…

I mentioned this in another comment: something like EnergyGuide [0] would be great for this case, that way manufacturers like Tesla could more easily and consistently communicate how their vehicles have a lower cost of ownership.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergyGuide

I also want to say, if Tesla was doing this in some shady way, e.g. not offering an easy way to view the true purchase price, or making unfair comparisons, I would be totally against what they're doing.

You can't just combine capex with notional opex savings and then post that as if that's the effective price.

If I'm trying to sell you a $6,000 server, I can't take a notional AWS bill of $2,000 a year and say 'since this server will save you $2,000 in cloud costs over three years, it's basically free'

Why not?

Because it's not free, it's $6000. It's fine to mention the two things together but rolling them into one figure is nonsense - expected operational savings don't have any impact on purchase price. In the context of the Tesla, the 'gas savings' are 1) an estimate based on a specific scenario and therefore not guaranteed, and 2) not materialised at the point of purchase; this is the difference between 'price' and 'cost'.

Try walking into a Tesla dealership, telling them you expect the car to save you $10,000 over its lifetime, and that you should therefore pay $10,000 less than the ticket price, and see what they say.

What they’re trying to do is give you a number that they think compares more directly with the sticker price on an ICE truck.

They’re trying to say:

Okay, this truck costs $CYBER. and that looks like more than $RAM. But the ownership cost of $RAM is really $RAM + $GAS, and the cost of $CYBER is $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $REFUND. And $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $REFUND might be less than $RAM + $GAS. And Tesla would like you to notice that.

And Tesla’s mathemarketing geniuses said: ah, but if $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $REFUND is less than $RAM + $GAS, then $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $GAS - $REFUND would also be less than $RAM.

And since Dodge advertises the price of their truck as $RAM, Tesla thinks it’s only fair for them to advertise the ‘fair comparison’ price of their truck as $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $GAS - $REFUND.

Which by some weird twisted logic makes sense, and the absolute difference in prices is somewhat meaningful, but it gives a misleading impression of the amount you’ll spend and the relative amount you’ll save.

Because it implies you’ll only end up spending $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $GAS - $REFUND on your Tesla compared to $RAM on your Dodge. It feels like you’re saving $SAVINGS/$RAM.

But you’re actually going to spend $CYBER + $ELECTRIC - $REFUND (which is a bigger number than they are showing) compared to $RAM + $GAS on the Dodge (admittedly also not a number Dodge is advertising anywhere). And you’re actually only going to save $SAVINGS/($RAM + $GAS), which is a smaller proportional saving (remember we don’t know how big Tesla assumes $GAS is, only that they say $GAS - $ELECTRIC is $3000).

But it also assumes that what you’re going to do is follow their logic and take their ‘potential savings’ comparable price, and compare it to the sticker price on an ICE truck. Rather than look at that number and compare it to another truck and then apply your own estimated TCO differential to figure out the all in cost. In which case you’ll double count the TCO difference to Tesla’s benefit.

So yeah, it’s a dishonest bit of math.

The tax credit is guaranteed as long as you made less than 300k this year or last year (150k if not married), and it is now given directly at time of purchase instead of later when you file. Seems OK to include. The gas savings is much more speculative.

Do people making less than 150k buy 100k cars? I don't have a good sense for how Americans budget their vehicle purchases.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people making less than 150k buy $60k F-150s.

There’s a big difference between $60k and 100k.

My point is Cybertruck starts at $60, not $100k, and likely a majority of sales will happen closer to $60k than $100k. But I'd venture to guess that a majority of people buying even the $100k variant do qualify for the credit.

absolutely, and people making less than 50k buy 50k cars. Plus, there are also a lot of people in low cost of living areas that hapily drop cash on cars.

I was visiting my hometown where houses are 200k and lots of households make 100k-200k/yr. All the driveways were full of new trucks, SUVs, and boats.

Should they? Probably not in most cases. Do they? Absolutely.

The real killer here though is the limit. If you're making $160k, that $7000 is still a real incentive. Can you afford it without, sure, but if we're trying to incentivize EVs then everyone should get the incentive... sometimes wealthy people are wealthy because they save money whenever possible, so the incentive will still move the needle on EV adoption.

Like all incentives, it should be on a sliding scale. Frankly, fall benefit would start to fall off after 100k income and/or some vehicle value cutoff, maybe 50k. Beyond either value, you'd then decay to upper limits linearly (easier for the consumer to understand) with upper income level 160-180k range ish, and upper vehicle value maybe 100k.

All numbers subject to change!

You can just click the "purchase price" tab instead of the "probable savings" tab.

Totally missed that subtle dark gray on black design element! You have to begin scrolling immediately to see the three trim levels, and by then, the tabs are lost forever. Quite literally fits the phrase "dark pattern", ha!

It shows a reasonable disclaimer at the bottom:

> * Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.

I mean clearly you can read it since it's the same text color and background color as the price you are complaining about, as well as all the specs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com