Connect with us

News

Tesla bull asks Elon Musk for Full Self-Driving value to be added with vehicle trade-in

An autonomous Tesla Model 3 in action. (Credit: Tesla)

Published

on

Tesla will consider adding monetary value to its Full Self-Driving suite when an owner is attempting to trade-in their vehicle. The company is looking into the possibility following a request to Elon Musk from notable Wall Street analyst and Tesla bull Pierre Ferragu.

Ferragu, an analyst from New Street Research, currently owns a Model 3 equipped with Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite. After purchasing the self-driving capability in November, Ferragu said he is interested in upgrading from a Model 3 to a Model Y. Still, he isn’t pleased about paying the $10,000 price tag for the semi-autonomous driving feature when he recently shelled out the money for the Model 3.

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite is what the company may be most known for outside of its highly-advanced electric vehicle tech, which has made it the undeniable leader in the EV sector. However, the Full Self-Driving suite is not included with the purchase of the vehicle like Basic Autopilot is, and to have the FSD capabilities, the owner must pay $10,000 on top of the price of the car.

“@elonmusk: I paid FSD for my Model 3 in November. I now want to upgrade to model Y and your team tells me you don’t value FSD in your trade-in offer because you can do the software upgrade for free. Want me to pay again full price for FSD again? That’s not fair, change that!” Ferragu tweeted to Musk.

Advertisement
-

Musk and Tesla are considering adding the transfer or giving some credit toward an FSD-equipped vehicle’s trade-in value. Currently, the issue is that Tesla is not giving any monetary value to the FSD suite when someone wishes to trade in their car toward a new one. This would effectively mean that FSD makes the car no more or less valuable than it would be without the functionality equipped. This is causing a dilemma with some owners who wish to upgrade or change their Tesla vehicle as it would require paying another hefty $10,000 fee.

ALSO READ:

Tesla FSD Beta completes LA to Silicon Valley drive with zero interventions

Musk stated that he would look into the possibility of having FSD add value to a trade-in. The reason Tesla didn’t consider it before, according to Ferragu, is because the company can activate the functionality to any vehicle for free.

Advertisement
-

Other owners would be interested in a one-time transfer to a new vehicle, which would be advantageous for multiple scenarios. One would be if a family has two Teslas, but one is driven more than another. If the new car will be driven more frequently, but the current car has FSD, some owners may want to transfer the self-driving capability to the new vehicle. Another situation that would give owners some more leeway would be if they are trading an FSD-equipped vehicle in for a new Tesla. If their FSD purchase was recent and at the same price point as the current $10,000 tag, the feature could be transferred to the new car. If the owner paid less, Tesla could require the owner to pay the difference.

Tesla has been known to listen to real-world owners and use the feedback to improve their cars. Musk will likely update the development as it is figured out. It will be interesting to see how the company values FSD through trade-ins or if it will take the route of a transfer option for recent buyers of the Full Self-Driving suite.

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.

That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.

The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.

Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.

Advertisement
-

SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.

The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.

Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading