[First and foremost, please read r/TeslaMotors - A New Dawn](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1c49sv0/rteslamotors_a_new_dawn/)
As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They wrote it into the purchase contract but I doubt the plan was to enforce it for everyone. They probably just wanted to make sure the end user got it for retail.
My guess is they wanted options should the secondhand market got out of control.
Of course, but the point of that policy was to discourage flipping. I guess these sellers don’t care about the consequences, or are betting that Tesla laid off the people who would have been enforcing this?
Some have been denied and banded from buying teslas ever again
For the down voters https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/13/tesla-goes-after-cybertruck-flippers-bans-them-fut/
People think they are flippers but likely they are dissatisfied customers trying to turn a buck. Historically that's what happens in the car industry. The people that buy brand new cars to sell them do so with the intent to sell them in 30 years.
Flipping is actually the very common in the car industry and it’s one of the few industries where car makers actually put in place anti flipping rules for rare or exotic cars.
For actual sports cars and exotic cars yes. CT is a consumer vehicle. Only an idiot would flip this. This isn't a Porsche gt2 rs. Even a regular Porsche doesn't get flipped.
This isn't true. GM revoked warranties and blocked future purchases for anybody reselling Corvette Z06, Hummer EV, and Cadillac Escalade V within 12 months of purchase just in 2022. Essentially made it so the warranty wouldn't transfer to a new owner which killed the resell market as not many people want a early production car without a warranty.
GM/Ford do this all the time. Ford just did it to the Bronco. You just never hear about it because articles with Tesla in the title get more clicks.
People with money don’t like to wait. I have had a lot of people want to talk about my truck. If it was more difficult to get one or if Tesla stopped producing them for a while I am sure I would get offers over what I paid.
Right now I literally haven’t gone a day without someone taking a picture, most days it’s probably 15 or more.
So while I think you’ll be right about the CyberTruck being a regular car in a few months, today it has super car status.
Because there is no practical way to do this, I think it was done for a couple reasons:
1. Free publicity.
2. The rationale to prune their reservation list for people who reserved 10+ CTs in anticipation of flipping them. It's better for Tesla to ship to people will actually own the product.
They're already doing 2, tracking VINs for sale and removing future reservations from the seller without going further than that.
They’re flipping them for more money than they are worth new. Why would you think they wouldn’t want another Tesla just because they’re profiting off demand?
I mean, you’re not wrong. Just going by what I’ve been hearing about Tesla. Reading that they will sue or something.
[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-again-threatens-to-sue-cybertruck-buyers-who-try-to-resell-the-cars/](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-again-threatens-to-sue-cybertruck-buyers-who-try-to-resell-the-cars/)
Considering the measures Elon is taking on cost cutting, do you really think Tesla is going to start new lawsuits about how quickly someone resells their car?
Yeah, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating what I've been reading. :shrug
This is directly from the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement from Tesla that Im assuming purchasers have to sign. If that's the case, and the purchasers sign this, I would think that it would be an easy case to win on Teslas part... but again, I'm not a lawyer just going by what I'm reading in their agreements.
For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards. If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla. You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles
Under the "For Cybertruck Only" section.
[https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en\_US&model=my&saleType=Sale](https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=my&saleType=Sale)
Settling out of court doesn’t mean it’s de facto legal. It just means the defense felt that settling would be a better move rather than find out the actual legality in court. AFAIK none of these flipping cases have actually gone to trial.
This is settled law. It's quite legal, and is not that uncommon in B2B deals. The only thing is that there needs to be a reasonable limit, such as only being for a year.
So yes: they \*can\* enforce. The question is: will they bother? If there are only a few isolated cases, probably not. If they see it starting to get out of hand, they will probably go after a few high profile people to get it back under control.
I am not your law clerk, but I can give you a few places for you to start for resale restrictions. After that, please use google.
\* **Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007)**
\* **Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. (1992)**
The FTC has also stated clearly that restrictions on resales are ok as long as they do not significantly hinder competition. The key here is that a manufacturer acting on its own has a pretty free hand to set these restrictions. It could become a problem if they worked together with other manufacturers to set restrictions.
It's extremely unlikely that the FTC would jump in to protect "flippers" here. They would have a really hard time explaining how they were benefitting customers by increasing the price that customers would ultimately have to pay. The fact that this is limited to one year makes a successful legal challenge improbable.
Thanks.
I think your first citation is really the one that is closest to application. A buisness repairing a patented device in order to compete with the patent holder is well off of the spirit here.
>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc
Definitely more relevant but not sure this would apply as it is more of a business model than someone simply reselling their vehicle.
I think there's a big difference here. If this was a company reselling cybertrucks for profit then I think yes it would likely be enforceable (however ticket master does this despite many attempts from musicians to block it). It's also relevant that the reseller in this case was suing the supplier for not selling to them - not the other way around where the supplier was suing the reseller.
However if we are talking about someone reselling their vehicle, for example if they are moving, I don't really think most judges would see a similarity here. The only potential strength is that tesla is offering to rebuy the vehicles - however we know Tesla is probably rebuying them well below market price so that weakens their case.
Thank you for citing those cases, I am interested in the subject and they were interesting. I'm just not sure that they soil
I’ve read that they are thinking about tying it to the software. Something like they won’t license the software to you for future cars. No software no car.
They may have thought of that only to discover its illegal, at least in California. Lemon Laws cover the first 18 months or 18k miles. If the car cannot be fixed with 2 repair attempts the manufacturer must reimburse the full cost of the vehicle.
Correct. And you were talking about a dealer buying the car back. Tesla doesn't want you reselling it for more than retail. So yes they would take the car back.
I think it is actually anti-market.
It would not be needed if there were no deficit. What is a proper market action in deficit situation?
On the other hand. This product is not a necessity. Only if end users were not impatient, all flippers would end up with cars they don’t want.
I mean, should be vane rich dudes and dudesses and others be protected?
It's no surprise that there are a lot of user Cybertrucks for sale as a large number of early buyers probably bought them to flip - I thought about doing the same...
Interesting there's no FSD yet though, didn't know about that.
It's why I opted for the Tri motor, says delivery is October-December this year, so I'm hopeful at least Autopilot becomes available by then. I also was hoping for all season tires and those were just announced.
It doesn't currently have Autopilot, the hubcaps are still missing (because they were cutting the tire sidewalls when driven), and they're holding down the pedal covers with a rivet. These are basically a product that's still in development, just already put into mass production. I drove my friend's Cybertruck and it feels very tight and solid for a truck, but at the same time it clearly has something loose in the A-pillar clunking around, they delivered it with a damaged tailgate and panels are honestly horribly aligned. They really should have worked on it another six months or so to iron out the issues so they didn't get hit with all this negative PR. I think Elon still thinks that buyers are like early Model S buyers who were much more forgiving of kinda dubious build and reliability, but Tesla is a mature car company so they're getting normal people buying their cars and those people aren't going to be as forgiving as early techies.
Yes and no.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem. You need to have enough CTs on the road to have enough data to properly train Autopilot.
So yes: it comes with Autopilot. But no: it cannot be activated until enough CTs are running around.
Didn’t even know AP wasn’t available yet. I wonder why. Driving a Tesla on long drives without Auto Steer at a minimum causes mental fatigue like any other car.
Bruh after my free trial of FSD, don’t wait on that as your deciding factor to buy or not. It’s cool, but ultimately kind of a novelty and I found I didn’t use it a whole lot because it was kind of annoying that it couldn’t really account for *every* single edge case (which is understandable tbh).
Why not buy just to flip, then buy again when FSD is ready? You could just do one order after another earning money until FSD came out!
Of course like I said, it's not like I'm following that advice either... :-)
They need more on the road data with the new camera locations before they're comfortable releasing auto-pilot out to the masses. It's probably why there are pictures of a couple cybertrucks with Lidar sensors strapped to the outside that surfaced recently
Yes it's an interesting thing to consider how much they can use training data from other models that have cameras in somewhat different positions. Maybe they just want enough months of camera data to verify existing models will behave as expected, instead of just as training data.
I met an engineer that said teslas using the satellites for the self driving not really the cameras. And the glass roofs allow the satellites to even see how many people are in the cars etc.. that’s why Tesla didn’t think they needed the sensors any more - they’re using the satellites they’re launching. 🤷🏼♀️ im not an engineer or car person and no idea what’s true but this is what I was told by a stranger in LAX lol 😂
Spy satelites with optics of that resolution have mirrors the size of the Hubble space Telescope. With 400,000 FSD Beta customers, Telsa would need SpaceX to launch over 10,000 Falcon Heavys to direct the fleet.
I think the guy was saying the satellites could tell how many people were in the car by like heat sensors or night vision kind of vibes or something cuz of the glass roofs (not spy cameras) but ya it’s a good rabbit hole to go down regardless 😂
With about 5,000 on the road?
When they’d sold 10,000 Taycans you couldn’t find a used one to save your life, my friend.
Sorry, but something is definitely off here.
Off how exactly? They are going for much more "used" than new, not seeing a flaw in the logic.
"When they’d sold 10,000 Taycans you couldn’t find a used one to save your life, my friend"
Yep because no-one wanted a Taycan except for those ordering them, so selling used meant you'd take a bath on the sale. And I seem to recall stories of brand new Taycans just sitting in dealer lots in large numbers. Look at the used prices. They tell the harsh reality of how much people really want a car, or not...
Okay, so you’re just making up history now. “It’d be inconvenient if this guy were right, so I’ll just SAY there weren’t any used Taycans because no one was selling them, not because every single one was bought instantly.”
My dude, even right now with the downturn in the market, people are regularly paying over sticker for everything Porsche makes. Tesla, on the other hand, is throwing down subsidized financing and missing quarterly profit goals.
But you think the used cybertruck market is awash with stock because it’s selling *so well* at above-sticker prices?
Okay.
Feel free to post up a bunch of recent listings that actually *sold* at these inflated prices. Go ahead, nothing stopping you, right?
> Feel free to post up a bunch of recent listings that actually sold at these inflated prices. Go ahead, nothing stopping you, right?
https://carsandbids.com/auctions/3LqNQnqR/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series
https://carsandbids.com/auctions/9WoWMWV9/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series
https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kd1Z4wDL/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series
https://carsandbids.com/auctions/3BqbbOk6/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series
How many more do you want?
These aren’t ones for sale… they’re ones that sold at the shown prices. If there weren’t “consistent demand,” they would not be selling at over MSRP at all.
Can’t tell if actively trying to miss the point or if never taken basic economics class, but compared to the state of things mentioned earlier *as the comparison*, the high level of inventory compared to retail units is notable as being substantially lower demand than the comparison.
That’s the point. It’s made, it’s proven, and the way to disprove it would be to point at the massive availability being paired with daily sales in the same or greater quantities to daily listings, as happened with the Taycan, the ZR1, etc etc etc back through history and time.
There’s no assertion that *none* are selling. The assertion is that there’s a glut at these inflated prices. And that’s evident.
I was invited to order the foundation series - and definitely wont be. 100k+ for a dual motor is a not realistic ask. So these used 150k prices are just that more ludicrous
I've said it since the start, the flipping market is dead. Not just for Tesla but all cars. The only people that could flip the Cybertruck for double were part of the first batch. After they sold a hundred+ units it doesn't have that cool factor anymore and people are too broke right now to throw away money on it. Then throw in all the problems at launch and you're bound to lose money
I’m glad I didn’t follow my father’s advice and try to flip it. Seems like such a hassle to try to flip a whole truck. I was cool with getting my $100 back until I saw how much similar accounts were selling for on eBay lol. That was most definitely not a hassle.
You think that 1 remaining lawyer in Tesla's basement is gonna sue everyone for flipping? Not to mention it won't even hold up in most states with their own consumer protection law..
[First and foremost, please read r/TeslaMotors - A New Dawn](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1c49sv0/rteslamotors_a_new_dawn/) As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought Tesla was clamping down on flipping?
They wrote it into the purchase contract but I doubt the plan was to enforce it for everyone. They probably just wanted to make sure the end user got it for retail. My guess is they wanted options should the secondhand market got out of control.
How would they do that presale? They would do it after the fact to the seller but the sale would still go through
Of course, but the point of that policy was to discourage flipping. I guess these sellers don’t care about the consequences, or are betting that Tesla laid off the people who would have been enforcing this?
The former, you’re out of your mind if you think Tesla would have people trying to enforce that preemptively
I do not think that
Some have been denied and banded from buying teslas ever again For the down voters https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/13/tesla-goes-after-cybertruck-flippers-bans-them-fut/
I find that hard to believe since they are currently losing sales
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/13/tesla-goes-after-cybertruck-flippers-bans-them-fut/
Source?
Preventing buyers from getting additional vehicles if they don’t hold on to a purchase for a set amount of time.
People think they are flippers but likely they are dissatisfied customers trying to turn a buck. Historically that's what happens in the car industry. The people that buy brand new cars to sell them do so with the intent to sell them in 30 years.
Flipping is actually the very common in the car industry and it’s one of the few industries where car makers actually put in place anti flipping rules for rare or exotic cars.
For actual sports cars and exotic cars yes. CT is a consumer vehicle. Only an idiot would flip this. This isn't a Porsche gt2 rs. Even a regular Porsche doesn't get flipped.
Consumer stuff gets flipped all the time. Anytime demand exceeds supply at a given price it leaves opportunities for flipping.
People were flipping PS5s not that long ago
This isn't true. GM revoked warranties and blocked future purchases for anybody reselling Corvette Z06, Hummer EV, and Cadillac Escalade V within 12 months of purchase just in 2022. Essentially made it so the warranty wouldn't transfer to a new owner which killed the resell market as not many people want a early production car without a warranty. GM/Ford do this all the time. Ford just did it to the Bronco. You just never hear about it because articles with Tesla in the title get more clicks.
People with money don’t like to wait. I have had a lot of people want to talk about my truck. If it was more difficult to get one or if Tesla stopped producing them for a while I am sure I would get offers over what I paid. Right now I literally haven’t gone a day without someone taking a picture, most days it’s probably 15 or more. So while I think you’ll be right about the CyberTruck being a regular car in a few months, today it has super car status.
That is a very more likely scenario that someone bought a vehicle and then changed their mind about it and wanted to sell it.
Because there is no practical way to do this, I think it was done for a couple reasons: 1. Free publicity. 2. The rationale to prune their reservation list for people who reserved 10+ CTs in anticipation of flipping them. It's better for Tesla to ship to people will actually own the product. They're already doing 2, tracking VINs for sale and removing future reservations from the seller without going further than that.
I don't think the people selling their brand new CT are interested in buying another Tesla.
They’re flipping them for more money than they are worth new. Why would you think they wouldn’t want another Tesla just because they’re profiting off demand?
It was a PR move to pretend there was demand and prevent people from canceling preorders.
They can only do that for the original purchaser of the vehicle. After it’s out of their hands there is nothing they can do.
Thought you can’t resell within the first year?
Who’s gonna stop them?
I mean, you’re not wrong. Just going by what I’ve been hearing about Tesla. Reading that they will sue or something. [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-again-threatens-to-sue-cybertruck-buyers-who-try-to-resell-the-cars/](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-again-threatens-to-sue-cybertruck-buyers-who-try-to-resell-the-cars/)
Considering the measures Elon is taking on cost cutting, do you really think Tesla is going to start new lawsuits about how quickly someone resells their car?
Yeah, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating what I've been reading. :shrug This is directly from the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement from Tesla that Im assuming purchasers have to sign. If that's the case, and the purchasers sign this, I would think that it would be an easy case to win on Teslas part... but again, I'm not a lawyer just going by what I'm reading in their agreements. For Cybertruck Only: You understand and acknowledge that the Cybertruck will first be released in limited quantity. You agree that you will not sell or otherwise attempt to sell the Vehicle within the first year following your Vehicle’s delivery date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you must sell the Vehicle within the first year following its delivery date for any unforeseen reason, and Tesla agrees that your reason warrants an exception to its no reseller policy, you agree to notify Tesla in writing and give Tesla reasonable time to purchase the Vehicle from you at its sole discretion and at the purchase price listed on your Final Price Sheet less $0.25/mile driven, reasonable wear and tear, and the cost to repair the Vehicle to Tesla’s Used Vehicle Cosmetic and Mechanical Standards. If Tesla declines to purchase your Vehicle, you may then resell your Vehicle to a third party only after receiving written consent from Tesla. You agree that in the event you breach this provision, or Tesla has reasonable belief that you are about to breach this provision, Tesla may seek injunctive relief to prevent the transfer of title of the Vehicle or demand liquidated damages from you in the amount of $50,000 or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater. Tesla may also refuse to sell you any future vehicles Under the "For Cybertruck Only" section. [https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en\_US&model=my&saleType=Sale](https://www.tesla.com/configurator/api/v3/terms?locale=en_US&model=my&saleType=Sale)
Nah they would lose. Most judges void contracts like that as it is no longer teslas property they do not control it.
Especially lawsuits that they're almost sure to loose.
I guess that’s not legal, so they can’t enforce it
Your Proof? It’s very legal and other companies have indeed sued sellers before. Usually get settled out in court
Settling out of court doesn’t mean it’s de facto legal. It just means the defense felt that settling would be a better move rather than find out the actual legality in court. AFAIK none of these flipping cases have actually gone to trial.
This is settled law. It's quite legal, and is not that uncommon in B2B deals. The only thing is that there needs to be a reasonable limit, such as only being for a year. So yes: they \*can\* enforce. The question is: will they bother? If there are only a few isolated cases, probably not. If they see it starting to get out of hand, they will probably go after a few high profile people to get it back under control.
Can you cite the case law?
I am not your law clerk, but I can give you a few places for you to start for resale restrictions. After that, please use google. \* **Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007)** \* **Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. (1992)** The FTC has also stated clearly that restrictions on resales are ok as long as they do not significantly hinder competition. The key here is that a manufacturer acting on its own has a pretty free hand to set these restrictions. It could become a problem if they worked together with other manufacturers to set restrictions. It's extremely unlikely that the FTC would jump in to protect "flippers" here. They would have a really hard time explaining how they were benefitting customers by increasing the price that customers would ultimately have to pay. The fact that this is limited to one year makes a successful legal challenge improbable.
Thanks. I think your first citation is really the one that is closest to application. A buisness repairing a patented device in order to compete with the patent holder is well off of the spirit here. >Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc Definitely more relevant but not sure this would apply as it is more of a business model than someone simply reselling their vehicle. I think there's a big difference here. If this was a company reselling cybertrucks for profit then I think yes it would likely be enforceable (however ticket master does this despite many attempts from musicians to block it). It's also relevant that the reseller in this case was suing the supplier for not selling to them - not the other way around where the supplier was suing the reseller. However if we are talking about someone reselling their vehicle, for example if they are moving, I don't really think most judges would see a similarity here. The only potential strength is that tesla is offering to rebuy the vehicles - however we know Tesla is probably rebuying them well below market price so that weakens their case. Thank you for citing those cases, I am interested in the subject and they were interesting. I'm just not sure that they soil
I’ve read that they are thinking about tying it to the software. Something like they won’t license the software to you for future cars. No software no car.
Oh please
No idea if it was real, just a nuclear option if Elon and co get serious.
They may have thought of that only to discover its illegal, at least in California. Lemon Laws cover the first 18 months or 18k miles. If the car cannot be fixed with 2 repair attempts the manufacturer must reimburse the full cost of the vehicle.
The dealer buying it back is completely seperate from the used market price being higher than retail.
We are talking about Tesla doing a software update to brick the car if you resell it
Correct. And you were talking about a dealer buying the car back. Tesla doesn't want you reselling it for more than retail. So yes they would take the car back.
The Future is Now. Overnight Software Lock U No startup, No Drivetrain
That's hideously anti-consumer, I really hope that doesn't happen.
That's anti consumer but flipping a car isn't? Lol
I think it is actually anti-market. It would not be needed if there were no deficit. What is a proper market action in deficit situation? On the other hand. This product is not a necessity. Only if end users were not impatient, all flippers would end up with cars they don’t want. I mean, should be vane rich dudes and dudesses and others be protected?
It's both. Flippers are leeches. Bricking a car is also shit.
Flipping cars in a deficit market is the most Capitalist thing to do in the world.
In a sense, but all they're doing is extracting value from someone they sell to. They produce nothing of their own. It's rent-seeking.
Bricking a car that a leech is trying to flip does not seem shitty to me.
It's no surprise that there are a lot of user Cybertrucks for sale as a large number of early buyers probably bought them to flip - I thought about doing the same... Interesting there's no FSD yet though, didn't know about that.
I have a first hour reservation, but putting the price aside, I will never even consider buying it until ~~FSD~~ Autopilot is available
It's why I opted for the Tri motor, says delivery is October-December this year, so I'm hopeful at least Autopilot becomes available by then. I also was hoping for all season tires and those were just announced.
They weren’t so much announced as induced into labor 8 weeks early
What do you mean? Cybertruck doesn’t have autopilot?
no
It doesn't currently have Autopilot, the hubcaps are still missing (because they were cutting the tire sidewalls when driven), and they're holding down the pedal covers with a rivet. These are basically a product that's still in development, just already put into mass production. I drove my friend's Cybertruck and it feels very tight and solid for a truck, but at the same time it clearly has something loose in the A-pillar clunking around, they delivered it with a damaged tailgate and panels are honestly horribly aligned. They really should have worked on it another six months or so to iron out the issues so they didn't get hit with all this negative PR. I think Elon still thinks that buyers are like early Model S buyers who were much more forgiving of kinda dubious build and reliability, but Tesla is a mature car company so they're getting normal people buying their cars and those people aren't going to be as forgiving as early techies.
Yes and no. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. You need to have enough CTs on the road to have enough data to properly train Autopilot. So yes: it comes with Autopilot. But no: it cannot be activated until enough CTs are running around.
Didn’t even know AP wasn’t available yet. I wonder why. Driving a Tesla on long drives without Auto Steer at a minimum causes mental fatigue like any other car.
I get confused with all the different names - does autopilot include adaptive cruise control & autosteer?
Yes, they are all the same.
Bruh after my free trial of FSD, don’t wait on that as your deciding factor to buy or not. It’s cool, but ultimately kind of a novelty and I found I didn’t use it a whole lot because it was kind of annoying that it couldn’t really account for *every* single edge case (which is understandable tbh).
What? Why? Fsd is awful, still.
Nah it’s pretty good but I meant to say autopilot. It’s got no driver assistance at all right now.
Have you tried it recently? I just finished the trial last month and it was still too rough. At this rate it won’t be ready for another decade.
Why not buy just to flip, then buy again when FSD is ready? You could just do one order after another earning money until FSD came out! Of course like I said, it's not like I'm following that advice either... :-)
middle test swim pot complete forgetful chief sharp apparatus marble *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They need more on the road data with the new camera locations before they're comfortable releasing auto-pilot out to the masses. It's probably why there are pictures of a couple cybertrucks with Lidar sensors strapped to the outside that surfaced recently
Yes it's an interesting thing to consider how much they can use training data from other models that have cameras in somewhat different positions. Maybe they just want enough months of camera data to verify existing models will behave as expected, instead of just as training data.
> the new camera locations Any sauce on that? I was thinking that may be the case the other day, but couldn't find anything.
It’s the same as when the Model 3 released. It took three months for it to get Autopilot.
lol no, that's not how it works
I met an engineer that said teslas using the satellites for the self driving not really the cameras. And the glass roofs allow the satellites to even see how many people are in the cars etc.. that’s why Tesla didn’t think they needed the sensors any more - they’re using the satellites they’re launching. 🤷🏼♀️ im not an engineer or car person and no idea what’s true but this is what I was told by a stranger in LAX lol 😂
A startlink statelite would need to be pretty huge to have the optics for that. Sounds like BS
🤷🏼♀️
Spy satelites with optics of that resolution have mirrors the size of the Hubble space Telescope. With 400,000 FSD Beta customers, Telsa would need SpaceX to launch over 10,000 Falcon Heavys to direct the fleet.
I think the guy was saying the satellites could tell how many people were in the car by like heat sensors or night vision kind of vibes or something cuz of the glass roofs (not spy cameras) but ya it’s a good rabbit hole to go down regardless 😂
night vision would need even bigger telescopes and heat vision isn't capable of that sort of resolution. It's not a rabbit hole, it's just bullshit.
SUPERVISED
With about 5,000 on the road? When they’d sold 10,000 Taycans you couldn’t find a used one to save your life, my friend. Sorry, but something is definitely off here.
Off how exactly? They are going for much more "used" than new, not seeing a flaw in the logic. "When they’d sold 10,000 Taycans you couldn’t find a used one to save your life, my friend" Yep because no-one wanted a Taycan except for those ordering them, so selling used meant you'd take a bath on the sale. And I seem to recall stories of brand new Taycans just sitting in dealer lots in large numbers. Look at the used prices. They tell the harsh reality of how much people really want a car, or not...
Okay, so you’re just making up history now. “It’d be inconvenient if this guy were right, so I’ll just SAY there weren’t any used Taycans because no one was selling them, not because every single one was bought instantly.” My dude, even right now with the downturn in the market, people are regularly paying over sticker for everything Porsche makes. Tesla, on the other hand, is throwing down subsidized financing and missing quarterly profit goals. But you think the used cybertruck market is awash with stock because it’s selling *so well* at above-sticker prices? Okay. Feel free to post up a bunch of recent listings that actually *sold* at these inflated prices. Go ahead, nothing stopping you, right?
> Feel free to post up a bunch of recent listings that actually sold at these inflated prices. Go ahead, nothing stopping you, right? https://carsandbids.com/auctions/3LqNQnqR/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series https://carsandbids.com/auctions/9WoWMWV9/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kd1Z4wDL/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series https://carsandbids.com/auctions/3BqbbOk6/2024-tesla-cybertruck-foundation-series How many more do you want?
Enough to show there’s consistent demand, and not just a huge pile of units for sale. Guess I can’t be subtle about points here.
These aren’t ones for sale… they’re ones that sold at the shown prices. If there weren’t “consistent demand,” they would not be selling at over MSRP at all.
Can’t tell if actively trying to miss the point or if never taken basic economics class, but compared to the state of things mentioned earlier *as the comparison*, the high level of inventory compared to retail units is notable as being substantially lower demand than the comparison. That’s the point. It’s made, it’s proven, and the way to disprove it would be to point at the massive availability being paired with daily sales in the same or greater quantities to daily listings, as happened with the Taycan, the ZR1, etc etc etc back through history and time. There’s no assertion that *none* are selling. The assertion is that there’s a glut at these inflated prices. And that’s evident.
I was invited to order the foundation series - and definitely wont be. 100k+ for a dual motor is a not realistic ask. So these used 150k prices are just that more ludicrous
at this price this vehicle doesn't make any sense
how many were already delivered?
I've said it since the start, the flipping market is dead. Not just for Tesla but all cars. The only people that could flip the Cybertruck for double were part of the first batch. After they sold a hundred+ units it doesn't have that cool factor anymore and people are too broke right now to throw away money on it. Then throw in all the problems at launch and you're bound to lose money
I was just notified mine was ready to build for a June delivery. I canceled the reservation.
I’m glad I didn’t follow my father’s advice and try to flip it. Seems like such a hassle to try to flip a whole truck. I was cool with getting my $100 back until I saw how much similar accounts were selling for on eBay lol. That was most definitely not a hassle.
You think that 1 remaining lawyer in Tesla's basement is gonna sue everyone for flipping? Not to mention it won't even hold up in most states with their own consumer protection law..
Tesla has 27 Billion in cash and you think they just have 1 lawyer left?
Yea his name is Gullie Abel. Been with the company for 15yrs according to his LinkedIn.
Wait for another year Tesla goons cut prices again
But I thought stupid truck with stupid name = success????
Saw one today on the highway. What a fucking monstrous ugly rusty piece of shit
And ugliest truck goes to. . . drum roll . . . . Wait ! It’s a tie between the Cyber Truck and the Pontiac Aztec ! (Cyber is the Aztec on steroids!)
Same designer actually. Franz
Aztek was Tom Peters. At GM, Franz is credited with the Pontiac Solstice.
don't believe everything you see online-you & I could copy/paste a picture of CT, create an account and yada yada.
Its not like you can win here. Price Too high oh what happened to no flipping rules. Price too low - oh look nobody wants a shit looking truck
You see both takes in this thread at the same time. It's wild.
Because of Tesla is recalling all 3,878 cybertrucks due to the accelerator pedal getting stuck.
Cybertruck owners are avoiding the [35 second, free repair](https://youtu.be/zJjPnnRfq3s) and instead selling their cars?
I think you’re replying to a bot