"Adding insult to injury, Tesla also states that they “will be prioritizing customers based on the order in which they accept their updated agreements.” For customers who have already been waiting for months or a year for their new roof, they are now being told that they need to agree to spend tens of thousands more dollars, as quickly as possible, if they want to reduce their wait time."
okay, let me get this straight. They're increasing the cost of a contract you'd already signed and then they're passive aggressively threatening customers to push them to the back of the queue if they don't agree?
Excuse the profanity but holy shit, that is the most brazen thing I've read in a long time. How can that be legal
It's legal enough, but what is also legal is that the other party exits the contract right there and then. Tesla offers to change the contract, and the other party does not have to agree.
If they need a new roof they can go to a regular roofer instead at a fraction of the cost.
The complication is the people who've spent money (e.g. cleared trees) predicated on getting a solar roof; IIRC you can sue for certain values of "I did X predicated on the other party's assurance they would do Y".
I would assume that this again has to do with the wording of the agreement signed with Tesla. One can assume they have lawyers of their own and that they wouldn't then do something like this if it's a blatant violation of the agreement, but nothing is impossible of course, including winning in court even if Tesla didn't think you would.
If I was affected by this I would probably not think of this as a complication but rather something that would make me look at different options. So either:
1.) There are competitors that can offer a deal considered subjectively better overall, for example a faster delivery and lower price for some other compromise (like panels instead of a nice looking roof).
2.) Or, there are no competitors that you can or want to consider, in which case you either pay up, wait for the market to mature or cancel the plans completely.
Mandatory binding arbitration bans courts of law from making any decision. They are only allowed to enforce the decision of the arbiter, who does not have to follow any laws except the American Arbitration Act.
I hate mandatory arbitration clauses as much as the next guy, but what you said is just not true. Arbitration clauses are thrown out by the courts regularly. The reason is the simple fact that the arbitration clause is only enforceable by the courts, and they can always decide to do the other thing.
If you go to arbitration and you feel the result was unfair, you can always appeal to the courts. There, the judge can either affirm the decision or throw it out entirely.
You're presuming judicial review. The arbiter result is final and binding. Appeals are exhausted. You may only argue the arbitration section under a very very limited set of choices under the arbitration act. And only the arbitration section. The rest of the agreement can be capricious, unfair, and malicious. That's for the arbiter to decide on, however.
And the arbiter only gets to keep making money by hearing "cases" as long as they don't rule against the company.
The problem is the court system has chosen to liberally interpret the arbitration act against the citizenry.
Now show me all these agreements being "thrown out". What's instead happening is state laws attempting to protect the citizenry being thrown out instead.
I was renting a storage unit recently, and even they had a binding arbitration clause where they decide the mediator, etc.
This really has been a cancer on our nation, I remember the day after citizens united even xbox live had binding arbitration in a mandatory update the very next day.
If they would have went with a regular roofer a year ago they would have avoided price hikes on standard materials. Now they face higher costs both ways.
The shady behaviour here is that they are framing this as 'updated terms' that people have to accept. Indeed this is quite aggressive and should cause whatever regulator/authorities to look into their practices.
Of course what they are actually doing is they are proposing new terms, which customers are free to refuse. The existing contracts stand and Tesla would need to follow whatever is permitted in the contract or contract law to cancel it or be liable for compensation.
I would also think that there ought to be an expectation of a reasonable deadline to execute the contract or customers can ask for a refund (at a minimum) and walk away, but IANA.
Better hope their urgent terms allow them to prioritise in this way.
Most contract law has things in place to prevent bait and switch tactics like this, especially when pressure tactics are used like threatening longer wait times.
It's likely that Tesla can walk away free and clear right up until something like a delivery or start of work.
(under the terms of the existing agreement)
If they do have the unilateral right to cancel the existing contract before starting work, offering new terms first probably won't be treated as coercive.
It's not. Either party can renegotiate a contract or back out of it, pursuant to the terms of that contract. Which is why without being an attorney and seeing the actual text of the contract it's useless to speculate about whether or not Tesla can do this.
Some folks might have promissory estoppel damages as was mentioned elsewhere, but that's entirely different than "you signed this contract so you must follow through on it."
If contract also stated/warned that there may be an increased final price then it'd be frustrating if it's such a high increase but then they were told; I don't know what their contracts said in full.
But on a purely logical level (I assume that legally things stand differently), it's effectively the same: without an agreed date limit, they could just delay it infinitely (unless the customer submits to some extra charge/price hike) and the buyer would be in a much worse situation than with a cancelled contract because the seller could pop up any day "now you get your roof, give us the money, now"
I imagine it's legal because it's a deposit, and also because caveat emptor, i.e., people are free not to do business with them. If people want to deal with random bullshit, that's their personal decision. In general, "illegal" is a very high bar to clear for most behaviours, it's easier just to decide not to put up with that as a customer especially if you haven't lost anything yet.
In Germany this is actually illegal. It's so illegal that it makes online business a bit more complicated. Because you can't change an online agreement unless the client agrees.
It's sad that it's not taken for granted that you can't change and agreement unilaterally.
This "online economy" muddied the water enough so that basic terms like "agreement" lost their meaning.
If we don't push back against this, we're heading to a world where servitude is taken for granted.
It's actually one of the things that constantly amazes me about other online businesses.
I'm still struggling with the fact that google wants to move my contract out of germany since I haven't been back since covid started. It refers to a section in the user agreement to object to it that I have not found.
It’s quite the opposite, online business in the EU is so much simpler, that I sign the contract and pay for the product online even if I go to the shop to take delivery of the product (and then have 14 days to return it). I guess ,,complicated’’ just depends on the viewpoint.
The quote in the article clearly says they can get their deposit back in full, if I understood correctly. Not everything that's wrong is illegal.
> You will receive an email in the next 1-2 days when your new agreement is ready for your review and acceptance before moving forward. If you are no longer interested in moving forward with Solar Roof, you can cancel your order by logging into your Tesla Account and your deposit will automatically be refunded.
Breach of contract settlements are typically far more than the initial outlay. That's the whole purpose of contracts, agreeing on a future outcome in advance.
I'm genuinely curious what damages would occur in the US in situation like this? I don't imagine there will be much of a direct hit to Tesla, mostly as I imagine the solar panel contracts aren't stating specific dates of completion; image wise and indirect financial cost, Tesla may not suffer much either from this bad behaviour mostly as they're optimizing for scale and seemingly being cutthroat for their own efficiency.
Afaik you have to have proof of damages, and I know in Canada at least you basically get nothing for emotional distress that may be caused - and in the US from what I know, mental pain and suffering can be a significant part of a settlement or ruling.
IANAL, but I believe the term is "detrimental reliance".
You relied on the representation of the other party that they agreed to X(written contract or not, written is easier to rove, but not essential), and then took actions based on the expectation of X.
Costs might include hard materials & labor costs for preparing the site, your labor in preparing the site, lost income for time you spent, opportunity costs of not taking advantage of other opportunities (e.g., how much electricity costs you incurred by not putting in other panels instead of their contract), and emotional distress.
The problem is going to be proving each and every one of those charges in court, in the face of both legitimate and bullsh*t arguments by Tesla's lawyers - and they will bring both types of arguments by the truckload.
What Tesla is counting on is that it will almost always cost more to pursue the lawsuit than you will recover, so no one will step up and sue. They have scale, you don't.
This is why class action lawsuits exist - so that all similarly situated plaintiffs can combine their actions into one, and pursue it with one firm. It would not surprise me that someone at a class-action firm is already examining these reports, taking notes, and making calls. Similarly, anyone with this problem should be contacting class action firms this morning.
You're going to have a hard time proving any modicum of emotional distress because Tesla raised the price of your luxury solar panel roof and charger for your Tesla from $77k to $90k.
House renovations can be incredibly stressful, which this may qualify.
As mentioned in the article, at least one individual spent thousands in preparation for his roof.
The time and effort of getting the initial work done and now the revelation of a double digit percent price increase, and a low key threat of further delays unless you sign right now?
Sounds quite distressful.
In fact, it is by design stressful, so as to pressure the consumer to accept the new contract.
I think I pointed that out - that a lawsuit as an individual is very hard to prove for a lower cost than any amount that you would recover
I.e., a lawsuit is not scaleable as an individual.
Tesla are taking advantage of that advantage of that asymmetry in scale, and basically saying "this is wrong, so sue us", knowing that few or zero will, and most will just eat that dung sandwich.
In America, they are of course free to not do business. The contract spells out the cost of doing so. In fact, this is the major purpose of contracts - specifying penalties for non-performance. It has to be a sum of money.
A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance.
> A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance.
Every part of this sentence before and after “it is an agreement on what is expected” is incorrect. A contract may lay out consequences of noncompliance, but it is contract law, not the terms of the contract that will set the actual consequences; those set in the contract are valid in only limited circumstances, and only then if their amount is appropriate under the law. And the manner of enforcement may be too compel performance of the obligations in the contract, see the remedy called “specific performance”.
Not as I read it? A breach results in either damages or cancellation-and-restitution. Which is money either way.
There is a little-used 'specific performance' case but that's for objects of art or whatnot, especially when no monetary value can be assigned. And in the overwhelming number of situations, should not be relied upon for remedy.
Lots of people here are ok with being abused by rich and powerful aasholes if it gives them the opportunity to become rich and powerful aasholes themselves.
It's the whole "I want corporations to do literally whatever they like with no oversight, because when I run a corporation one day I want to be able to do whatever I want with no oversight".
I'm writing this out of pure curiosity - if you were to discover that the vast majority (more than 90%, say) of human beings that have ever lived in Human history are quite well described by what you just wrote, would you reconsider your worldview?
I mean, the wording is shady, but exiting contracts isn't some end of the universe event, you pay whatever penalty are present for the contract termination and that's it.
People are also free to sue for monetary damages incurred from having to pay upfront whatever work they had to do to prepare their roof, and again, doesn't make exiting a contract illegal.
Parent is right in not jumping the shark and branding things names they aren't.
and? that's beyond the point being made. a tort gives the other party a legal liability, and still is not necessarily deriving form an illegal practice.
heck, it's not even clear if it's actually a breach of contract since they were willing to return deposits etc.
absolutely. court will do enforcement of the clauses and will apply remedies for damages if a tort is found. doesn't make breaching contract against the law, unless a law is violated while breaching the contract (i.e. fraud)
so by contrast you think the ever given being late against their delivery contract is illegal?
I mean, there's not much to be said about this is there, this is absolutely standard Tesla behaviour. Oh we didn't realise installing rooves could be complicated, here's a 30% price rise after we've already signed the contract. Don't worry though, your FSD package is definitely going to be working very very soon.
I don't know what it is about this continually unlearned lesson of "Maybe just chat with someone who does the thing you're trying to replace for 5 minutes". Absolutely same thing with the boring company- 5 minutes with an expert would have saved them years of learning the lessons everyone already knew.
But that's exactly the modus operandi of Musk's companies. Figure out the big picture of something based on first principles, assume that the industry is stuck on some local maximum, and try to do it in a different way. Sometimes it works, sometimes it may not.
I mean, there would've been plenty of knowledgeable people in the relevant industries telling Musk why landing rockets and reusing them is not going to work, and why battery powered mass market electric vehicles is a pipe dream.
The way this should work is: Sometimes it works and a company is successful, and sometimes it doesn't and the company isn't successful.
Musk's apparent mode of operation is: if it works, my company is successful, and if it doesn't work, a lot of customers (or even would-be-customers) will take part of the hit and the company won't be that unsuccessful.
ESA / Ariana Space did some studies on reusable rockets in the early 200s (if memory serves, and for the love of god I can't find the study anymore...). Their conclusions were:
- technically feasible
- economically not feasible due to limited number of launches
And weather or not i is econommically feasible for SpaceX is impossible to tell without their financials. It does seem so, that Starlink is increasing SpaceX launches.
There is truths to Tesla, but to be honest, Tesla was considerably close to running out of money some while ago. The art of Musk is to have Tesla seen as a tech company, and not as a car maker.
It was barely a prototype, more of a proof of concept, as it couldn't lift anything much but itself. Also it was not just reusable (though not reused) but SSTO. And SSTO is almost certainly a dead end for chemical rockets. In part but not exclusively because aerospikes seem to be impractical, but also because fully reusable and inexpensive boosters are obviously working just fine. The case for sending a lot of deadweight up the gravity well is simply too poor, even if you could do it with great efficiency.
A PooC seems a reasonable moniker, but the sole reason it didn't proceed to anything more practical was the lack of government funding. Big Space had become so dependent on gov contracts that they couldn't envisage doing anything on their own initiative: that was the true innovation of SpaceX, not landing rockets.
Frankly Delta Clipper was even more impressive given that it came from MDC who were by far the most conservative defense contractor. That sort of thing would have been more typical of Northrop.
DC-X's followups didn't get funded because the government and its subcontractors were comfortable with the expendable rockets, at least until Boeing (which bought McD) got frozen out of most government contracts for the EELV program. They were "punished" for corporate espionage by the government giving the contract to the company with the expensive, important parts of the rocket built in Russia.
(BTW, kids, if you ever want to see what a successful act of espionage looks like, look at this: it would look like Boeing shooting off its own foot and then the Pentagon shooting off its own foot in response, both in ways that "accidentally" benefit Russia and make us dependent on them for space access.)
Oh, and a quick non-political followup: Falcon 9 looks like another iteration of DC-X done with dense fuels in mind as per Mitchell Burnside Clapp's papers back in the 90's. I did a quick search but all that turned up was this. [1]
I don't know what this says regarding the possibility of further success for SpaceX; they've moved to a less dense fuel in hopes that it'll allow them to have self pressurizing tankage. While SpaceX has had increadible success I find myself wishing there was a way of wedding Elon's money and drive with the people who built DC-X in hopes that they could maybe, MAYBE, get more than one or two flights out of each test vehicle.
IF you could get cheap RL-10's for the price that the DC-X project was buying them for in the 90's, I'd suggest using them, suitably modified to burn methane, _just_ as a braking/landing engine. [2]
(But that was way back in the 90's, when the MIC was still sometimes running assembly lines instead of building each single engine by hand).
(Oh, and I found a slightly better ref. on RL-10's: [3])
The space launch industry was uniquely dysfunctional; SpaceX could get away with starting near the bottom of the learning curve. Tesla, by contrast, is up against companies that build products at large scales in a thick market while competing against the best the international economy has to offer. There's much less room for error there.
I don't know any other company that offers vertical energy integration just like Tesla. I was just talking yesterday to a guy who loves his Model 3 and is waiting for his Tesla batteries in his house for over a year now (and can pay more if needed). He isn't thinking of using another company, as vertical software integration is more important for him than timing / price.
Yeah, that integrated offering is a great market differentiator. Still a much higher bar than the basic competence that SpaceX has had to display to eat everyone else's lunch.
I think it's generous to attribute reusable rockets to Musk - the Space Shuttle Columbia went on 17 missions - Musk didn't develop the first reusable rocket.
As for electric cars, I believe the limiting factor was battery technology, which has improved in leaps and bounds in the past decade. Tesla wasn't the only company developing electric cars - Renault-Nissan Alliance achieved the sales milestone of 350,000 all-electric vehicles delivered globally in August 2016, ranking second was Tesla Motors with over 139,000 electric cars sold between 2008 and June 2016. It's also not clear that Musk founded Tesla, but I'm not clear on the history there.
Tesla do have the strongest branding in electric cars though, and I would attribute that to Musk's ability as a showman.
Elon Musk certainly DID NOT FOUND TESLA INC. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla inc in 2003. Sorry for the caps, but Musk invested later, after the first prototype (2004). Musk then ousted the original inventors from the company and sued them to for founder status. So, it's interesting that Musk is legally defined now as a founder of a company which he definately never founded.
There is a categorical difference between the Space Shuttle boosters and the Falcon 9 rockets. First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. The solid rocket boosters were, but only after they were recovered from splash-landing into the ocean, requiring extensive and expensive refurbishing before further launches. Which Falcon 9 boosters largely avoid by landing vertically.
And the Shuttle itself was reusable, but that's sort of besides the point, as that's a space-plane, not a rocket used to bring things into orbit. Whether capsules or space-planes is a better concept for the spacecraft itself is a different discussion altogether.
The per kg cost to orbit of Falcon 9 launches is an order of magnitude less than it was for Space Shuttle, so credit should be given where credit is due.
Cool! Did it contain anything hazardous while in regular use? I'm only seeing liquid H2 and O2. Maybe wall thickness would be a concern for habitation.
I'm not sure what was on the Shuttle tank, but other vehicles carry hydraulic fluid (for engine gimballing) & hydrazine (for small thrusters). They're usually vented at the end of a mission to safe the vehicle.
If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank.
More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks.
Thanks! I looked at some tank drawings, but couldn't tell if they were omitting auxiliary tanks for simplicity's sake. Didn't want to say anything inaccurate.
Oh they absolutely do have a chat with the experts beforehand. It's just that they think they know everything better so they straight up ignore the lessons, as they think for some magical reason they won't apply to them.
Source: Someone from an established boring company they tried to buy their first boring machine from, until they decided on a cheaper much more outdated model, with which they encountered basically all the problems they were warned about.
> 5 minutes with an expert would have saved them years of learning the lessons everyone already knew.
I'm not sure it's fair to make this statement without acknowledging the times he's been successful doing precisely what that five minute conversation would have had him avoid.
Bad example: Tesla almost went down the drain during the Model 3 ramp-up because they thought they knew better how to do large-scale car manufacturing than all the other large-scale car manufacturers. Turned out, they didn't, had to rethink and redesign many processes, and had to shift part of the production to hastily erected tents.
Tesla's main innovation and unique selling point was "attractive, high-end EVs", and later, "attractive, mass-market EVs". It was never "marginally more efficient mass production of cars".
Before SpaceX, there was little to no competition in reusable, cost-efficient rockets. Before Tesla, there was little to no competition in attractive, high-end EVs. That's why they're successful. There was, however, a lot of competition in car mass manufacturing. It was arrogant and misguided of Tesla and Musk to ignore industry knowledge in highly competitive areas.
I was under the impression the gigafactory is a major factor in being able to deliver cars at the price point Tesla does. A decade later, and other manufacturers are still just starting to catch up in pricing and performance.
This is why Musk gets away with what he does, his fans never know better. The Freemont gigafactory isn't even producing close to as many cars as when it was the NUMMI plant run by GM and Toyota.
Tesla's competitive advantage was a willingness to cut corners. Other companies have been testing, developing production processes, building supply chains. You can bet there won't be a Bloomberg model 3 weekly production tracker for their cars since they'll make what they plan, which will actually happen when they say.
If you measure performance in 0-60 only, and pricing/efficiency in self reported/marketed EPA range (not actual real world range) then Tesla is definitely ahead.
Is there even a point to comparing output? I bet the only thing in common between those factories is the floor space.
What I meant is that they are selling a car at $38k that outperforms the competition on range, efficiency, safety, space, performance, tech, driving assists; it includes features like the panoramic roof that cost an arm and a leg as optionals on every other car. So clearly they are doing something different in their manufacturing.
If you are aware of that, then I'm not sure why you would include Tesla in the list of companies, as I don't see how that point would apply there. For SpaceX I'd agree, and with PayPal I don't know enough about it's history.
I don't see a significant difference between founding a company from scratch and buying a fledgling tiny company with a cool name that has accomplished very little, when the significance is the 99% of what happened afterward.
And neither does anyone else, really, which is why the detail is mostly ignored in common discussion.
This maybe the big difference between SpaceX, where Musk worked based on previous work done by NASA and others, and all his other companies (Tesla and so on) where he ignored existing knowledge. Wouldn't he be Musk, there is a non zero chance of Tesla being bankrupt by now because of this.
You may be replying to someone who has read many ‘old’ books and become accustomed to the spelling ‘rooves’. They may also have a different cultural background to yourself. In the UK, for example, ‘rooves’ seems to be more common than in the US.
I ordered panels back in July last year, signed the paper work soon as I could to not be the bottleneck and they didn’t get them installed until November. They didn’t submit the loan paperwork so the loan expired. I’ve still yet get a bill for the system and it’s all powered on.
I’m really confused how anyone at Tesla allows their solar division to run like this. For all the cost cutting Elon likes to push, this seems like a huge area of waste.
I’m just finding it really hard to recommend Tesla solar to anyone. Trying to talk to anyone there is a massive pain point and in my case they clearly don’t want the money. (Just to be clear I’ve reached out a bunch and signed updated paperwork but they’ve still yet to submit).
Tinfoil hat here, but is it possible that they don't want to realize the revenue right now? I'm not an accountant but I do know that some businesses use lawful tricks to smooth out their profits. Otherwise what you describe seems like atrociously irresponsible business.
If they do that, it is really risky. SOX applies to them, and pushing out invoices by not raising them, for goods delivered, kind of violates revenue recognition requirements. Even if it is by mistake.
My solar installation takes care of itself day-to-day - I don't really need an app.
If you want to run your dryer when the solar panels are at their best, starting it on a simple timer will get you most of the benefit without any of that insecure IoT nonsense.
Tesla is increasingly losing their headstart in terms of EV innovations and technology. It's time for this stupid Elon Musk personality cult to wind down with it.
Big players in the car industry will slowly push Tesla out of the market in the next 10 years, as Tesla cannot compete with the logistics, expertise and reach of Toyota, Volkswagen or Fiat-Chrysler to name a few.
Volkswagen is churning out very decent full class EV cars across all sectors at a much faster rate than Tesla, thanks to the MEB [1]. Do they still lack range compared to a Model whatever? Yes. Has Tesla built amazing cars for starting off from almost scratch? Yes.
But an Audi e-Tron SUV feels 10x as awesome as a Model X, sorry. Hype or not it's not even close. I wouldn't even hesitate between a Model S and a Porsche Taycan either, even if things like charging infrastructure and range are considered.
Going from 0 to 60 in 2.7s is what Tesla claims on the Model S P1000D. You can do that maybe one time and then the time starts stretching. The Porsche Taycan Turbo S consistently delivers this performance 10x in a row without going weak. [2, German]
Right now Teslas have some edge here, others some edge there but Tesla won't survive the next 5 years of EV evolution with respect to the car industry heavy weights.
Another reason why Tesla is likely to get in trouble at some point in the future: lack of quality control (it appears to only have gotten even worse over the past couple of years) and terrible long-term ownership experience.
Terrible long-term ownership experience? Could you expand on that?
Seems to me that quality control has stayed pretty much the same (or, if anything, has gotten better), but you're seeing more of it since they're making way way more cars.
Owning a Tesla out of warranty is a pain in the ass, and expensive (my last maintenance cost 1400 euro’s, about double what I ever paid for my Audi’s, because there was just so much crap they needed to fix. Most of which they did not actually fix). A lot of things go wrong on Teslas. A nice example is the yellowing screens in the S/X and how Tesla is handling that these days.
People always think their cars will ‘keep getting better over time’ due to the software updates, but ask any MCU1 owner how well that’s going. Basically: once your hardware is no longer the latest generation they put in new cars, you quickly start missing out on new features. And that’s after the software has slowed down over time on your old hardware because they probably only test in the latest cars.
As for the quality control: there were plenty of videos from bumpers falling off of Model 3’s after driving through puddles. Or rain leaking through the windshield of Model Y’s. Even die-hard Tesla youtubers still mention the panel gaps whenever they get a new Tesla. Btw: ever noticed that they rarely keep those Teslas for more than 2 or 3 years?
S and X had a lot of build problems, but the problems you’re seeing on 3’s and Y’s are much more severe IMO. Especially from a company that once claimed they were gonna teach Toyota a thing or two about auto manufacturing.
>> Owning a Tesla out of warranty is a pain in the ass, and expensive (my last maintenance cost 1400 euro’s, about double what I ever paid for my Audi’s, because there was just so much crap they needed to fix. Most of which they did not actually fix). A lot of things go wrong on Teslas. A nice example is the yellowing screens in the S/X and how Tesla is handling that these days.
Won't argue that out-of-warranty work isn't pricey, but is it really any better than other luxury cars? I've had plenty of friends with BMWs or Audis that had huge repair bills on out of warranty stuff. Your example of yellowing screens is a known issue that they're finally admitting to, and rolling out a fix. Your one anecdote here regarding Audi seems contrary to much of general consensus.
>> People always think their cars will ‘keep getting better over time’ due to the software updates, but ask any MCU1 owner how well that’s going. Basically: once your hardware is no longer the latest generation they put in new cars, you quickly start missing out on new features. And that’s after the software has slowed down over time on your old hardware because they probably only test in the latest cars.
How is MCU1 owners not getting the latest features different from literally any other car? Every other car gets no additional features the moment you drive it off the lot. Even getting map updates is something that is iffy and costs money.
>> As for the quality control: there were plenty of videos from bumpers falling off of Model 3’s after driving through puddles. Or rain leaking through the windshield of Model Y’s. Even die-hard Tesla youtubers still mention the panel gaps whenever they get a new Tesla. Btw: ever noticed that they rarely keep those Teslas for more than 2 or 3 years?
Again, how much of that is quality actually getting worse, or just the fact they're making WAY more cars, so the quality % is same/better but incident amount is up due to scale?
>> S and X had a lot of build problems, but the problems you’re seeing on 3’s and Y’s are much more severe IMO. Especially from a company that once claimed they were gonna teach Toyota a thing or two about auto manufacturing.
I don't think anyone truly thinks Tesla is going to have better build quality than Toyota. That said, there's plenty of reports of other manufacturers with lemons. Again, the question is quantity. Tesla's failures get press.
I live in Australia, and last year I had 13kw worth of solar panels, with a 10kw inverter installed on my roof for $10k AUD (about $8k USD).
Our federal government does some subisidies, so I believe the raw cost was closer to $15k. But either way, that is substantially lower than what is quoted here?
I have solar on my roof and I'm actually glad it's bolted on instead of integrated into the roof itself. In the summer the heat from direct sunlight doesn't hit the roof and gets absorbed by the panels instead. This way my actual roof is staying relatively cool. A very nice feature that I bet many home owners don't realize until they have it.
People are somehow downvoting this but it's a fact that my attic is a lot cooler for longer after solar was installed despite much hotter summers. The solar panels are shading my roof and the main thing heating it is the hot air.
Tesla's fancy solar roofs take this away and are very likely more expensive over the long term due to higher AC costs.
Not looking for excuses, but I was shocked a week ago by the price increases across the board. I ordered a second custom Threadripper machine to complement the one I built over 2 years ago: the CPU (2xxx) that I bought more than 2 years ago had the same price, the same cooler was double (from 59 to 118), the same case was 50% more expensive. The Plantronics headset I bought 4 years ago is more expensive today, even if the model is quite old.
Even the same jeans and motorcycle boots are 50% more expensive than the list price 3 years ago, the bicycle parts ordered from Germany are 50% more expensive than 4-5 years ago, so it is not just computer parts. Not sure if this is all from the vast quantity of money printed in the past year or there is some other cause I cannot identify.
Have a look at construction materials pricing. Lumber is up 200% since last year. Plumbing materials are going up like 30% every few months to the point a local supplier here has to post signs indicating price increases.
Was speaking with a contractor who told me quotes they put out a year ago they’re having to revise about 40% (depending on project) for clients that are requesting work start now.
Labor costs haven’t quite risen in that field yet but with insatiable demand right now I’d expect it to. A carpenter I know has been working 6 days a week for months now.
Money is cheap and people had a great year of saving due to not taking vacations, etc last year. Combine that with supply lines being disrupted and it’s a bidding war for materials.
Go to Home Depot and be shocked at the price of a 2x4.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the manufacturing industry & the global supply chain is still reeling from the COVID pandemic closures - there’s a well documented microchip shortage, and other prices have been jacked up due to the reduced capacity of global supply chain. The inflation angle isn’t really the reason for the price hike/stagnation.
There probably will be at some point in the medium term as Tesla transitions to a more boring and less growth focused company.
But Musk has siphoned so much wealth out of Tesla because of his extraordinary compensation package that it makes you wonder if they will survive over the long term.
The price of those panels is absolutely insane compared to normal panels. For marginally better looks, you pay 10x. Normally it takes around the lifetime of a panel to make back the money it saved on your bill, this will never do that with those prices.
Are you comparing "panels vs. solar roof", or "roof + panels vs. solar roof"? My understanding was that this being your roof (and thus replacing the cost of the roof) was the main point that makes it at least less unreasonable.
I don't disagree with you, but this in itself is hardly an uncommon thing in any consumer market. What makes it really weird though is how it messes with the economy of getting something out of your investment.
I just don't get, what is the point of that solar roof at such an insane price ($5-8 per watt, seriously? this is the price from 10+ years ago!). What am i missing?
To be fair, the solar roof is beautiful but oh my god is it expensive. I looked into it months ago and couldn’t believe the sticker price and that was before the price hike.
It's cheaper than replacing your roof (with comparable roofing material) and getting a solar installation. If your roof is still good then you aren't really the target market.
So what's their target market then? If you're building a new house you need to be able to plan construction. Waiting a seemingly arbitrary amount of time for your roof to be installed seems extremely unattractive. Are people really willing to put up with that?
Or is the intended target market just very old houses that are being fully renovated?
The pitch goes like this. You need a roof (either because you're building a new house or because your roof needs replacing). A regular roof will last maybe 25 years. The Tesla roof costs substantially more, but it also reduces or eliminates your electric bill for decades, and it lasts "infinity or the lifetime of the building," so in theory it could save you the cost of replacing your roof next time. Now, whether that actually works out in practice depends on a lot of unknowns plus also local factors (how much do roofs costs where you live, how much sunlight do you get, how much electricity do you use, does anyone in several hundred square miles know how to repair your Tesla roof, etc).
The 25 years is interesting. Tile roofs over here, Europe / EU, last way longer than that. On both my grand parents houses, from the 50s, the roof was not replaced yet. If something goes, it is usually due to damage or because the construction under it rots over time due to leaks that aren't fixed.
We have a rather flat roof, so no tiles, and the bitumen cover has to covered with a new layer every 10 years or so. This is also considerably cheaper than tiles.
Same here in the UK. Many houses I've lived in are approaching 100 years now(1920-1930 terraced houses) and all of them had original roofs. But many(Americans?) on HN say that roofs only last ~25 years. Like...how? Are they made out of paper? How can a solid slate roof need replacement after only few decades?
> How can a solid slate roof need replacement after only few decades?
You will find when you Google "American roofs" that one of the top "People also ask" is "What are American roofs made of?", which goes on to say to your horror:
An asphalt shingle is a type of wall or roof shingle that uses asphalt for waterproofing. It is one of the most widely used roofing covers in North America because it has a relatively inexpensive up-front cost and is fairly simple to install.
The dominant American roof uses inferior technology because it inexpensively lasts on average about four mortgage holders (average US mortgage holding period is seven years), by which time IBGYBG. And to think many believe China has cornered the market on the "cha bu duo" mindset. To be fair, unless you are paying well over average rates, I've yet to see a country where the average residential construction shows a lot of attention to detail, just like in many other industries.
> The dominant American roof uses inferior technology because it inexpensively lasts on average about four mortgage holders (average US mortgage holding period is seven years)
Interesting contrast with the UK where a typical mortgage duration is 25 years (and the roofing material is designed to last at least 4x that, and with appropriate repairs several hundred). But I think the UK roofing approach is more driven by regulations (and the typically higher housing cost relative to incomes much more by by land shortage)
How can a solid slate roof need replacement after only few decades?
Putting in a new solid slate roof today is stupidly expensive, and basically nobody does that outside of the very top end. You can probably change your asphalt shingle roof 4 times for the price of putting up a slate roof.
Essentially it's a question of priority. Most people probably don't plan to live more than 20-25 years in their current house, so why not go for the cheapest option that gets the job done and let the next owner worry about fixing the roof.
>>Putting in a new solid slate roof today is stupidly expensive, and basically nobody does that outside of the very top end. You can probably change your asphalt shingle roof 4 times for the price of putting up a slate roof.
I'm assuming you're talking about US? In UK all new houses still have solid slate roofs. Even the cheapest new houses(around £100k where I live) have a solid slate roof that is expected to last 50-100 years.
That's maybe the reason, European houses, even if the initial owner doesn't plan to live there for ever, are buit to last basically for ever.
but wouldn't make something like tesla's solar roof make more sense for houses like that, those that already use solid shingles? If I don't care about my house for more than 25 years anyway, I think I'm not the ideal solar roof customer anyway.
Asphalt shingles last 30+yr (depending on climate, use case and installation quality) before they run into issues.
25yr an unacceptably short lifetime for any professionally installed roof. That's like what you get when you install liquidated shingles that were sitting outside on a pallet for 15yr on a garden shed that has small tree bits falling on it and moss growing on it.
I've lived in both the UK and Texas so I've run the gamut. Honestly I think the roofing situation in the UK is much worse. I've not lived in a property without roofing problems and leaks. Especially considering the weather is so mild here, I think people just leave it too long to replace their roof. I have stayed at a stately home (long story - old building), and the roof was permanently under repair basically cycling under scaffolding.
That being said - Texas has more extreme conditions for roofs which may explain the perception. Sustained winds of 70mph+ can and do happen on a yearly basis - also baseball sized hail and thunderstorms. It's pretty common to see a mild storm in the UK blow off some of the older roofs that probably should have been replaced a few decades earlier.
Yeah, the climate is an important factor here in Texas. We had a roofer out not too long ago and I asked him how long roofs typically last here, and he just sort of shrugged and said "they last until a storm damages them and then you get your insurance to replace it."
Sure, if your homeowner's insurance is paying to fix it and you never actually see the bill, it sounds like a more expensive roof still makes sense. But putting up the upfront expense of a tile roof when you know it's just going to break the next time there's a big storm is pretty unappetizing.
Fun to think if there will be hundred year old solar panel roofs that still produce a bit. Probably have to rewire them to bypass broken parts or something.
We have a house with a traditional slate roof and even though its in a pretty exposed position as long as it is maintained (we have the roofer out at least once a year) I can't see why it wouldn't last pretty much indefinitely (i.e. at least 150 years or more).
A slate or two might fall off in a storm - that's pretty much it apart from clearing out gutters which I can do. We are in a fairly exposed position overlooking the sea with no shelter from the south east where storm winds are likely to come from - but that's the price for great views!
I think as long as you don't let multiple slates come off in the same area (and therefore run the risk of water getting in) slate roofs pretty much last forever - they are stone after all!
We know life time of solar panels, much less than infinity. And next we should ask why don't they sell same roofing material without extra complication solar panels if it really last for whole lifetime of building. Shouldn't that alone be massive market? Or allow someone to licence it?
> If Tesla can’t honor the old price, they’ll need to put on a regular roof and solar panels (which they estimate will cost significantly less than Tesla’s updated Solar Roof pricing).
It’s not a status symbol per se, at least not in my opinion because the whole point is it’s invisible. Hard to flex if no one can see it, lol. It’s just a beautiful roof with hidden solar panels. But no, it’s nowhere near economical compared to the alternatives though they’re the only provider I know of doing invisible tiles. The price difference before the recent increase was like 20k for a 2,000 sq ft house vs 35-50k.
> The price of US solar installations seems incredibly high.
This is the real story here, and it seems like people are blind to it. Compared to everywhere else in the world, solar prices in the US are ridiculously expensive.
I'm based in Europe, and in January obtained quotes for a 10kW roof mount system to be installed. The most expensive quote I received was for €9,500. That's for all equipment, installation, taxes, and guarantee - and before government incentives (30%). The actual equipment would be less than €5,000 if you were to DIY the install, so even with that the installer is making a healthy profit.
I frequent /r/solar, and the prices I see people say they are quoted are mind bogling. For the same thing they are receiving quotes of $50k or more. Now admittedly I live in a lower cost of living European country, but I've read prices in Germany are very similar - and that is where all the equipment installers here use comes from anyway.
Some of the reasons people give are because electrical equipment needs to be upgraded. Ok, that might cost a little more, but not $40,000. The quote I received was for a new build. It cost us under €1,000 to have the electricity company bring in the supply and install
a cabinet and meter on our plot (it was empty before). That included digging up the road, and connecting to overhead wires nearby.
Right now Tesla roofs are for the wealthy, but I see that changing in a few years.
I need to replace my roof. I'm a contractor so I know how to do it. I'm getting older though, and procrastinating. My fear is the physical work, but that's another story.
I've looked into asphalt, and shingle. I'll most likely go with asphalt shingles because of the cost.
I figure if I procrastonate another few years, I might be able to put solar shingles up?
I'm glad Musk got the solar shingles rolling. I'm suprised other companies haven't ventured into solar shingles. And honestly, the electricty/green aspect is not my concern. I can't really afford to be green, but if I could put up a water tight reasonably priced roof--I'd go with paying a bit more than shingles that produce free electricity. (If anyone at a Musk industries reads this; there are many DIY guys out there. Put up some good installation videos of roofing, and of course, your product. Make them so detailed, the average DIY'er might attempt the job? Take into account many people might used the solar shingles, but not have the battery, and controls. I might put up the shingles, and wait for the battery costs to come down.
At some point, every building will need roof. It's a huge market.
>I'm suprised other companies haven't ventured into solar shingles.
This pretty much. Are other American roofing companies plain fucking stupid? For all the competition spiel in America, there really isn't much to show for it.
Might be the market is showing that solar shingles are stupid like solar roadways when compared to the alternatives. But solar shingles does sound cool.
Solar shingles aren't nearly as stupid as solar roadways. We already put solar panels on roofs. This just integrates it into the waterproofing layer of the roof, instead of sitting on top.
Solar roadways have the problem of: you need to -ing drive on them. So you need to build them strong enough to support the weight of a tractor trailers, while also making sure it has traction. Which goes against the ability of the solar panels to actually see the sun well.
But part of why solar roadways also suck (and how they are similar to solar shingles) is they 1) use less efficient cells than standard mounted panels. One article I found calculated an astonishingly poor 4.9% efficiency based on Tesla's own specs, 2) are stuck with the angle of the road/roof surface to the sun which can reduce capacity further, and 3) they have many more connections which can degrade and eventually short to ground (particularly if water gets under the flashing).
Lots of complexity and money for quite sub-optimal solar generation. Also despite everyone saying they look "beautiful" I think they are too busy because of how reflective they are and take away from the architectural beauty. If solar shingles end up being a failure, people will be able to recognize your roof, and now your house is now an eyesore with crapware on top of it that needs to be replaced.
Dumb question: Couldn't you build a roof from plain old solar panels, somehow sealed together? Put them next to each other with sealant in between horizontally, shingled vertically (this also allows you to have a drainage hole in the bottom of each panel if needed).
I think the issue is sealing the panels for expansion and contraction during seasonal temperature changes. Layers of shingles can expand and contract by sliding overtop of each other and butting into each other. There are gaps in the shingle installation for this purpose and only two nails are used per shingle to keep them from buckling and splitting. The overlap of many shingles is what typically keeps the water from being able to get underneath (which will start rotting wood and shorting connections). So if you didn’t have layers of paneling like Tesla is doing, you really don’t have a roof, since it will get water under it and eventually leak a lot.
The look of Tesla solar roof is a lot nicer than a roof mounted solar panel to be honest. It is the premium some people are willing to pay for. It would be a personal choice kind of thing. I definitely can understand it. People spend twice or more money on a logo on a T shirt every day.
I actually think part of Tesla's strategy is to make green tech more palatable for the conservative crowd.
Their whole line of cars highlights power, performance, luxury, and the cool factor. They've almost single-handedly destroyed the conception that EVs are sad little suped up golf carts for tree hugging dweebs. You're almost a loser if you don't have a Tesla now. The cybertruck is another big play on this trend.
The solar roof is another take on this. Make solar look like regular shingles and along with the amortized cost savings, people resistant to change really don't have a good argument against it, whereas they might for an installment of obvious panels.
Probably not since they replace the tiles. If you have a conventional roof solar panel there's a small gap between the roof and the panels. So effectively your roof is on the shadows of the panel
(Also some of the light that would heat it is turning into electricity, so maybe there is a small temperature difference there)
I worked for a solar installer company for a while last year and we were doing a training in preparation for building out our first installation of a Tesla solar roof. I didn't participate in the build, but was helping the installers with the training.
To your supposition about the construction and shading, the solar roof tiles are tempered glass plates with clips that mate with plastic standoff roof mounts, so there is a ~35mm air gap beneath the tiles and the roof membrane.
This is the pathway that the electrical cables route to interconnect the tiles and other needed electrical appurtenances like electric feed-throughs, mppt devices and inline disconnects to satisfy newer NEC rules about the maximum string voltage in a system shutdown.
The clip in design also allows for individual tiles to be removed and replaced without disturbing those around them, although scaling a glass roof sounds harrowing.
I will say that the roof quality needed to execute the solar roofing system was intense. There was very little affordance for shimming the tiles into the plane, which seemed a oversight in design. The whole roof deck needed to be coplanar to (going from memory) ~1". In our area this would be rare to find houses with this quality of roof deck, requiring significant reworking to rip the decking and shim the supporting structure from below. Our housing stock is old.
The estimated installation time was on the order of 10X of a traditional above-the-roof solar system at weeks vs ~2 days. The install really needed people with the skills of a roofer, which wasn't a significant overlap with the skills of a normal roof working solar installer.
Interesting. I wonder if the seismic requirements change as well. I'd think with such tight tolerances you'd have problems with flexing from even a modest quake.
I think that the reason for the coplanar requirements is that the tiles lap each other in the up-down slope direction, but only abut one another in the perpendicular. There's no interleaving or joining or flashing in that direction. Two abutting panels land into the same clip. Around penetrations and edges there are non-pv fractional tiles, and all of the ends edges and ridges etc are done with sheet metal.
Leaving too much gap will get stuff underneath the tiles and also make them more susceptible to being removed by wind or exposure of the membrane to UV and other things it's not tolerant of.
The real waterproofing layer is the membrane that's put down first.
There are higher numbers of clips on the panels/tiles for high wind areas.
If I was baller enough to afford this I would definitely invest in a continuous insulation roofing system to go on first.
Scummy behavior. The lesson, I guess: don't pay a deposit on something where the other party can unilaterally back out or change the terms giving you nothing but the deposit back.
Yeah, that's been my experience as a prospective Tesla Roof customer. For the record, I cancelled my order before this price hike was sent out, but man, Tesla's service and sales process is probably one of the worst experiences I've had from a price per service point of view.
FWIW, I own and have owned several Tesla vehicles and even though the economics of the Tesla solar roof + Powerwall didn't quite work out, I was willing to overpay a bit for the supposed ease of integration into the Tesla ecosystem. It was also a hedge against rolling power outages that California's been struggling with in the past few years.
I also have experience that Tesla customer service + sales support is pretty atrocious, but again, they were first movers and their product is legitimately pretty decent, so I was willing to take the hit. I was prepared for bad service, but what I got was legitimately awful.
I initially put a deposit down for a few Powerwalls (to be used to arbitrage power rates in CA and as a hedge against rolling blackouts). Over the next 3 months, I spoke with and was called by 6 different sales reps who told me that:
-- I could install the Powerwalls standalone and integrate it into my house
-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the Powerwalls wouldn't work
-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the wait time for a Powerwall was greater than two years
-- Even if I bought a Solar Roof, I could only buy one Powerwall
-- I could only buy one Powerwall. If I wanted to buy more than one, I would need to buy a Solar Roof as well.
-- They were not selling Powerwalls and the only way I could get a Powerwall was to buy a Solar Roof.
Obviously, they wanted to sell Solar Roofs. Fine. My house could probably use a new roof anyways, and the economics weren't that awful.
So I asked them what the next step was if I wanted to buy a Solar Roof (and some Powerwalls) and they said that they'd estimate my roof area from some satellite shots. They said that it'd probably take a few days.
About two months later, I get an email from Tesla letting me know that they had done their math and my quote was ready. The final price for just a Solar Roof (one Powerwall) system that output just 9.5kW? $60,000. Adding another Powerwall bumped it by $8,000. For what it's worth, I got several other quotes for a comparable roof replacement + solar panels and average pricing was around $40,000.
Tesla's proposal didn't discuss timing, didn't break down the cost of parts vs labor, and basically asked me to pay up and let them putz around till they decided to get to me. I asked for more information, got a call back about a month later. After our conversation, got an email with the breakdown of literally "roof = $xxx.xx" and "labor = $xxx.xx". Timing was cited to be between 3 - 9 months depending on supply.
Every single person I spoke with was different every time. There was some continuity on the email side, but honestly, it seems like Tesla couldn't be arsed to actually build or sell this product in a competent manner. I just wanted to put a few overpriced batteries in my house to keep the fridge running but Tesla turned this into a year-long debacle. Even after I canceled my order with Tesla, I still occasionally receive phone calls and emails from them asking to schedule my install date.
Given that Tesla hasn’t been around for very long, how long do/did your cars last, and why? Just interested, as the average (non-electrical) cars in my family last around 20 years.
Sure, early adopter in the Model S, leased for 4 years. I leased because EVs are still evolving in terms of tech and batteries have a finite lifespan (and are a pain to replace).
Actually went back to my 2009 diesel car when the lease expired because:
-- I'm tall and the Model S cars don't have much headroom. I've driven a few of the newer models (as courtesy cars) and for some reason, they feel much better in terms of headroom compared with the early models. I don't think they're listed as having more headroom though so this is a bit of a head scratcher for me. I don't think my car had a pano roof so that might have been the difference.
-- The QC and interior really is below standard for the price point of the car. A lot of plastic trim, squeaky bits, and laggy UI (for the main display -- driving was fine).
About a year later, I went back and leased a Model X for another 4 years. Headroom problem solved, QC still bad but the new processing unit made for a much smoother experience. Picked up a Model 3 as well and that car is far and away the best value proposition from Tesla. QC better on the 3, comfort improved (I actually prefer cloth seats to leather), and headroom is decent. Still leasing for reasons above.
I believe that EVs and autonomy are the future of passenger vehicles and Tesla makes decent EVs with decent autonomy. For my money, there are better EVs out there at most price points, but no one else has the Supercharger network and reasonably autonomous driving (on highways). I drive quite a bit and in heavy traffic (like 75% of my life) and over long distances (up and down California), Autopilot significantly reduces mental load and physical strain.
For what it's worth I still keep my old diesel around though it's requiring more and more maintenance even as its been driven less and less.
Judging by the used car mileage and years on some of the brands I’ve recently shopped for, a lot of people are taking out 1, 2, or 3 year leases.
I usually keep my cars for 8-10 years. How many miles are you putting on in 20 years? I put almost 200,000 miles in about 10 years on my 4Runner until the transmission started some crazy knocking sound at 230k.
It doesn't sound like they have someone competent leading or coordinating efforts in their Solar division.
I believe Elon said the biggest issue for the whole ecosystem is battery supply, Powerwalls competing with availability for their EVs etc. Compound this with they're putting out and trying to scale new battery tech, this does feel like it could lead to this mess.
Certainly they'd want to capture orders ahead of the curve enough but problematic when the product is still evolving and costs and timeline aren't known yet.
I do not get it. Bitumen shingles (and normale tile shingeles) and full roof pv modules seem like an ideal combination, as the modules will protect the shingles from heavy rain, wind and summer heat and will prolong the life of them for some time.
Does anyone know how many installations they are even completing?
According to their Q4/2020 report [1], they deployed 200MW of solar in 2020, which doesn't sound that spectacular for a solar company (globally, new installations in 2020 were > 100GW). Admittedly, I don't know a thing about solar, though.
Tesla's solar roof has never made sense unless you value the aesthetics of it extremely highly. Add onto that the fact that they can't deliver in a timely fashion and are being shady, I encourage anyone interested in solar to look into local installers who will do a great job, install panels that are just as effective, or more, for less money, more quickly.
The solar roof business has always struck me as the “...and we’ll also have a city on Mars” part of the Tesla car business. It’s just seems like an economic non-starter to me.
These kind of moves seem to underscore that; they don’t seem to care about the actual business, which would require creating a lot of trust over a long period of time. This isn’t like buying a new laptop, or even a new car: you’re talking about trusting someone’s word with the roof to your home and its primary power source for the next 20-30 years.
i am the proud owner of a 5 KWh ongrid solar solution which i bought for a grand total of inr 92000 or USD 1220.
my daily production is around 25 KWh on a really sunny day.
The lethargic govt "grant" took right around a month of my submitting a bank draft and the installation. then another month later the final installation of lightening arresters and such.
The way it is set up, you pay your deposit amount (around 30% of the project cost) via bank draft to the govt and they assign a local retailer/installer to install the whole setup, panels and reverse meter and inverter and once the govt gives them a green signal, their money is released.
Curious is there a site that captures solar installation costs globally for comparisons? Would be happy to contribute just had mine done. There was certainty a large spread in the quotes I obtained.
Solar roof tiles will take off when if/when residential rooftop solar is so ubiquitous that it is something people actually want to hide instead of show.
We are pretty far from that point, and at the moment, visible solar panels add value.
For the moment, the minority of people for whom non-visible solar PV on a premium slate type roof is a priority are largely people who are wealthy enough to be insensitive to this price change, so it sort of makes sense to charge more.
How do hidden solar panels (tiles or whatever other option) raise the value less?
Like, if you're buying a house, even if the solar panels are perfectly hidden, they'll still be prominently mentioned on the listing and by the agent. I'd imagine they'd even be more valuable than bulky and obvious panels, since those tend to look kinda ugly, especially on some more vintage house designs.
I think the grandparent was saying that the super visible solar panels allow the house owner to signal to their neighbors/visitors/friends/family that they are environmentally conscious, thus getting social credit for the solar installation.
I.e. The social cachet from the older style panels being super visible outweighs the reduced asthetic, therefore people will not pay extra for nicer looking solar.
Is that really such a big thing? And even if it is, it's not like roof tile panels are impossible to know about. For starters, they're not actually completely invisible - you can usually still tell. But more importantly, there will still be construction that your neighbours will ask you about ("hey, whacha building, neighbour?" "oh, not much, I'm just replacing my roof with solar tiles. Y'know, for the environment!") and you can surely subtly brag about it. Word travels fast so everyone around would quickly know and I'd imagine rich people would be far more impressed by someone with a beautiful roof and high-tech solar tiles, than someone installing the same ugly panels everyone and their dog have had since the early 2000s - same level of environmental signaling, but far more impressive.
Yeah, I can't see it having a huge effect. Here in Queensland, Australia, where every second house has regular panels I have never heard of people thinking they confer bragging rights.
> I think the grandparent was saying that the super visible solar panels allow the house owner to signal to their neighbors/visitors/friends/family that they are environmentally conscious
Not exactly. I meant that most people don't think standard PV panels are so unsightly that they would pay a huge premium for solar roof tiles, and many actually like how standard PV panels look.
> How do hidden solar panels (tiles or whatever other option) raise the value less?
They don't. They probably raise it more in fact. But given that both raise the resale value, but the solar roof is phenomenally more expensive, most opt for standard PV, and think it looks plenty fine.
Almost no one is buying these systems outright and based on my experience last year buying a house the ones with solar leases were unattractive to buyers since they had been on the market for months compared to the single digit days for houses we were looking at.
IIRC, several years ago purchase overtook leasing for new residential solar installations. It’s definitely not the case thst no one is getting owned instead of leased solar.
Musk being a grifter how unexpected...
Honestly he does the same thing that he has done all over his career promising people the moon but making them pay for Mars and more he did something similar with his initial employees at Tesla and their options I don’t know how people can keep trusting him is ridiculous.
I’ve heard the same about SpaceX employees being promised Tesla stock for helping them out with some Engineering challenges and then being conned out of them, and the case of (again) SpaceX engineers promised Starlink stock (it’s about to be spun off) and then conned after having pitched in to help on it.
The more I learn about how his employees are treated the more I wonder if these companies would be sustainable over the years.
okay, let me get this straight. They're increasing the cost of a contract you'd already signed and then they're passive aggressively threatening customers to push them to the back of the queue if they don't agree?
Excuse the profanity but holy shit, that is the most brazen thing I've read in a long time. How can that be legal