Met the CEO from Tesla today as well as got to touch and sit ina Tesla S. What an awesome car!
More pics :o
So is Elon Musk as nuts passionate as he seems IRL?
He is not "fake" feeling in person. Very down to earth and genuine. The interview during the keynote was very telling of this. Contrasted by Micheal Dell who is very much a sales and PR guy when you see him on the same interview.
More pics
Oh, I didn't mean that, Elon is nothing but genuine...
More pics
And more...
Told my wife that if we win the lotto I want one.
There's also some high-efficiency non-electric cars finally being built -- but might be tough to get in North America, apparently.
http://www.trueactivist.com/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/
PS: on the subject of electric cars and whatnot, can a mod somehow combine this current thread with this ancient one?
http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php?topic=6454.0
...and maybe also where a 3rd thread branched off:
http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php?topic=2371.msg43432#msg43432
...and JEEPERS there's a 4th thread where electric/hybrid cars and mileage etc. were discussed:
http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php?topic=6621.0
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 16, 2014, 09:02:43 AM
There's also some high-efficiency non-electric cars finally being built -- but might be tough to get in North America, apparently.
http://www.trueactivist.com/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/
No it is because it doesn't pass basic safety standards and haze limited areas the concept car is allowed to drive.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/xl1.asp
That is where the Tesla is different, it is a fully realized car and capable of very reasonable range.
Quote from: Lazybones on April 16, 2014, 09:09:56 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 16, 2014, 09:02:43 AM
There's also some high-efficiency non-electric cars finally being built -- but might be tough to get in North America, apparently.
http://www.trueactivist.com/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient/
No it is because it doesn't pass basic safety standards
I read the Snopes, and sure it makes sense that this is a test car and a limited run and therefore it's prohibitively expensive to modify the car to pass certain tests that are specific to North America. But also isn't it possible that it didn't "pass" those North American tests because it wasn't "allowed" to even take them? In various industries (not just for cars -- Big Pharma comes to mind) there is definitely cases where it would appear that some less-than-objective folks in positions of power make it near impossible for tests to be taken in NA when similar tests in Europe or Asia have already been taken and ended up with surprising (game-changing?) results.
Still, interesting specs to say the least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
North American safety standards are just different period. For example several mini-vans have different seating layouts in the North American and Euro versions due to child restraint and crash test requirements.
The Mazda5 in Europe can optionally seat 7 instead of 6 with a hidden seat that pops up between the mid row seats.
Quote from: Lazybones on April 16, 2014, 09:15:41 AM
North American safety standards are just different period.
Yeah -- see my edit above (sorry).
Concept car + limited run + expensive to modify the car to take those NA tests = obviously not a blatant Big Oil Conspiracy, agreed.
Makes me think of the two seat "smartcar" there is little or no benefit to it over a basic civic accept it is smaller.
I dunno, it seems like a normal sized car, but with much better mileage not including the electric engine.
Quote from: Tom on April 16, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
I dunno, it seems like a normal sized car, but with much better mileage not including the electric engine.
Yeah, in brief it's a normal-sized 2-seater with a super-tiny gas tank but an incredibly efficient (and very differently-designed) engine hence the "100km per 1L" claim. But in NA that engine is not available for this car (because of not being tested, see above).
It's the same reason we'll never see a Tata Nano in North America - our laws require cars that hold up better in crashes, have proper signalling devices, and (in Canada) have headlights that stay on at reduced power during the day. Amongst many other requirements.
If you want to dig at a conspiracy, there's the question of the GM EV cars from the late 90s. Although from what I've seen about them, I think GM shelved the project due to cost - pickup trucks were selling like crazy and raking in the profits while the EV cars were costing GM millions of dollars and the lack of range on the old battery packs made them pretty much unusable outside of a small city.
The Smart cars originally had tiny turbocharged engines and were very efficient on gas - their fuel economy and size was a selling point in high-fuel-price, crowded cities in Europe, where people sometimes parked them sideways in parking spots to fit more cars in less space. In Japan, they were small enough to be classified as Kei cars, which allowed the Japanese to avoid a large amount of gas-guzzler tax. In North America, where cities are newer and have been designed with more space in mind, the tiny size isn't a big selling point. One of the main complaints of drivers in North America was the lack of highway power, so the engines increased in size, which in turn reduced the fuel economy. Yes, nowadays a Smart Fortwo and a Honda Civic cost close to the same but the Civic uses more gas and has more space.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 16, 2014, 09:17:39 AM
Concept car + limited run + expensive to modify the car to take those NA tests = obviously not a blatant Big Oil Conspiracy, agreed.
Holy crap, I think that's the first time I've seen you agree that there's
not a conspiracy at play! :D
A further example of how standards are different:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#United_States
In early 2006, prior to formal importation to the United States, a specialty firm - G and K Auto conversions of Santa Ana California received DOT, NHTSA, and EPA approval to market a modified European specification Smart Fortwo in the US. Modifications for the grey market vehicles included DOT certified headlights, reinforced doors for additional side impact protection, an odometer in miles rather than kilometers, and soft padding on the interior pillars and ceiling.
So the doors weren't strong enough, the headlights weren't bright enough, and the interior was too hard to protect occupants in a crash. The Europeans had no problem with the car as-is, but the Americans said it wasn't safe enough for their roads.
Basically the same is happening with the VW X1.
Now, why don't we have a VW Amarok in North America?
Quote from: Thorin on April 16, 2014, 01:07:22 PM
Now, why don't we have a VW Amarok in North America?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Amarok Explain the inclusion ITT please?
Quote from: Thorin on April 16, 2014, 10:31:00 AM
If you want to dig at a conspiracy, there's the question of the GM EV cars from the late 90s. Although from what I've seen about them, I think GM shelved the project due to cost - pickup trucks were selling like crazy and raking in the profits while the EV cars were costing GM millions of dollars and the lack of range on the old battery packs made them pretty much unusable outside of a small city.
As Portrayed In MovieFilm(s)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_of_the_Electric_Car
Quote from: Thorin on April 16, 2014, 10:31:00 AM
Holy crap, I think that's the first time I've seen you agree that there's not a conspiracy at play! :D
THEY got to me! :o
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 16, 2014, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: Thorin on April 16, 2014, 01:07:22 PM
Now, why don't we have a VW Amarok in North America?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Amarok Explain the inclusion ITT please?
VW vehicles not sold in North America. While the XL1 is in low production and can't pass North American crash standards without modification, the Amarok
can pass those standards and if it had to be modified then doing so would not be nearly as expensive per unit as the XL1. And if your complaint is that I switched from one vehicle to another, well, it switched from Tesla to VW earlier.
No complaint or objection, I was actually just curious the reason you mentioned a particular model. Interesting.
Quote from: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2349942/elon-musk-gets-out-of-the-vehicle-patents-game
Elon Musk has released the Tesla Motors patents to the public domain, and cited the spirit of the open source moment as his motivation
"Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis ... We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform"
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-youNicky Tesla would be proud...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/12800228845https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/14405402742A noble move, Elon -- get the innovative ideas OUT THERE and waste no time in CHANGING THE WORLD!
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/dear-elon-please-do-what-you-think-best-humanity-dont-worry-about-patents
It would have even been better as a share and share alike license, but still, pretty cool
Very cool, and a smart business move. If more people adopt their technology for charging and other similar things, that just furthers Tesla's cause. The fewer different types of charging stations needed, the better.
imo this was Elon's way of pre-empting a modern equivalent of That Thief Tommy Edison.
Keeping in mind that the whole world runs on Nikola Tesla's electric motor and he died penniless and alone in a hotel room
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2014, 02:49:58 PM
Keeping in mind that the whole world runs on Nikola Tesla's electric motor and he died penniless and alone in a hotel room
Compared to Elon right now, Tesla was ... shall we say, "lower profile" at the time of Edison's tomfoolery...
I've yet to see him cook an elephant ;-)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on June 16, 2014, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 16, 2014, 02:49:58 PM
Keeping in mind that the whole world runs on Nikola Tesla's electric motor and he died penniless and alone in a hotel room
Compared to Elon right now, Tesla was ... shall we say, "lower profile" at the time of Edison's tomfoolery...
Nikola Tesla vs Thomas Edison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0) Epic rap battle (loud)
Edit: PSA always hover over links at work and if it is YouTube assume the worst.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 16, 2014, 04:48:38 PM
Nikola Tesla vs Thomas Edison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0)
^ very LOUD "Epic Rap Battle" warning woulda been nice. :P
However I skim the NEARLY TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND COMMENTS (!) and saw this gem near the top...
Kate NotGettingThis 3 days ago
Why are schools teaching kids about Edison? Why are they crediting him instead of Tesla?
How hard is it to say, "Lots of people think Thomas Edison created the lightbulb, and many other inventions, but it was actually Nikola Tesla. Let's read about Tesla."
Personally, Edison is the hugest jerkwad ever. He stole from Tesla and when he bet Tesla he couldn't fix his machine, he didn't pay up and kept the fixed machine. Some people are asking why there's so much hate for Edison, and I saw someone attacking Tesla for A) living in a hotel room, and B) his OCD.
A) He most likely ended up in a stupid hotel room because Edison stole his inventions and ideas. He must've spent quite a bit of money and time on fixing one of Edisons's machines, or creating something, thinking he'd get paid for it. Nope, Edison never paid him, and he quite possibly claimed some of the inventions/ideas Tesla came up with were his. Therefore, Tesla never got to sell his inventions/ideas for money to sustain himself.
YEAH!
And-a I will drive 500 miles and-a I will drive 500 more...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/07/elon-musk-says-500-mile-range-electric.html
(I just wish it also could ... you know... http://www.scaled.com/projects/bipod )
Quote from: Darren Dirt on July 27, 2014, 09:02:49 PM
And-a I will drive 500 miles and-a I will drive 500 more...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/07/elon-musk-says-500-mile-range-electric.html
(I just wish it also could ... you know... http://www.scaled.com/projects/bipod )
In other recent news Toyota is giving up on batteries and going fuel cell http://usfinancepost.com/no-more-electric-cars-from-toyota-21713.html
That's a dumb article title. Fuel cells output electricity. they are still electric cars.
Quote from: Tom on July 28, 2014, 07:35:18 AM
That's a dumb article title. Fuel cells output electricity. they are still electric cars.
Hence why I didn't use their title.
Well gasoline-powered engines can output electricity as well, but there's a pretty clear distinction between plug-in electric vehicles and gasoline-generator electric vehicles.
I'm surprised Toyota is dropping their Prius, it's one of their flagship products nowadays. Even though it doesn't sell that well in Alberta.
I doubt they'll drop it entirely. use the same car, but replace the massive batteries with a fuel cell. I assume they've managed to get some decent power out of their fuel cells, and have a way of distributing or refilling their fuel cells to owners. If not.... it'll do worse than the prius :(
Most electric vehicles are actually coal powered vehicles, as the most abundant power generation is still coal
So really an electric car just offsets the CO2 exhaust from the vehicle to a coal fired power station somewhere (which will also increase the amount of radioactive waste, fly ash and other coal byproducts contain radioactive elements like Thorium, Uranium 235, etc...)
Ya. Though more and more green energy is brought online every year. And alberta has a bunch of natural gas plants, and places are starting to not build more coal plants.
The EPA in the us has a new rule they want to put in place restricting the emissions of coal plants, that would pretty much make any old plants out of spec, and any new ones have to really improve. Some states are fighting it (of course) but meh.
I'm less worried about coal emissions in first world countries, where gas is cheap anyway.
Imagine a low cost electric car hitting a large market with little to no emission laws and high gas prices. The mind boggles
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 29, 2014, 11:54:30 AM
Most electric vehicles are actually coal powered vehicles, as the most abundant power generation is still coal
So really an electric car just offsets the CO2 exhaust from the vehicle to a coal fired power station somewhere (which will also increase the amount of radioactive waste, fly ash and other coal byproducts contain radioactive elements like Thorium, Uranium 235, etc...)
Don't forget the toxic waste used for the batteries...
On the other hand a pure electric vehicle offsets the Freight needed to transport crude oil (often by train), the additional fuel used by trucks to distribute the refined gas to the gas stations and over all the plants have a fairly high efficiency..
It is also easier to upgrade the electricity source to a new green source for all existing electric cars than it is to upgrade all the cars to change fuel cell type etc after the fact... If for some reason your area switches from Coal to hydro dam, or to geo, wind, solar... All of the electric cars become more green, even the older ones.
I don't half wonder that in the next 5 to 10 years we'll see a renewed interest in nuclear powered cargo vessels. There was some research done with several prototypes back in the 60s but then it was expensive to maintain compared to the price of Diesel
For large navies going nuclear solved the logistics problem of having to maintain a (weakness) large support fleet for key assets (carriers, attack subs, etc), it wasn't cheap but it solved problems.
But yeah, it's scary the kind of chemistry that goes into high performance batteries!
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 29, 2014, 01:26:35 PM
I don't half wonder that in the next 5 to 10 years we'll see a renewed interest in nuclear powered cargo vessels. There was some research done with several prototypes back in the 60s but then it was expensive to maintain compared to the price of Diesel
For large navies going nuclear solved the logistics problem of having to maintain a (weakness) large support fleet for key assets (carriers, attack subs, etc), it wasn't cheap but it solved problems.
But yeah, it's scary the kind of chemistry that goes into high performance batteries!
The biggest problem with nuclear is life cycle... both for the waste (very little in new designs but still horrible stuff) and end of life (no one wants to shut them down).. Essentially once they are built they start degrading and are used as if they will last for ever.. Any fixing to them if damaged is very dangerous and just because it is out in the Ocean doesn't mean that leaking waste isn't a problem if one sinks..
Everything has risks, that's for sure
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 29, 2014, 01:38:24 PM
Everything has risks, that's for sure
Decommissioning them is super expensive and seemingly NEVER complete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning#North_America
Especially when federal and state government clash
How could those plants ever have been considered worth building if they cost hundreds of millions, take 10-20 years to build, then only run for maybe 30 years? And then some cost millions per year to "maintain" in dismantled state? yow.
I think newer designs are better, but not many of them have ever been built due to paranoia.
That's politics for you
There were a handful of Tesla cars in shining brilliance at this year's Father's Day "Show & Shine" car show at the "Celebration Church" on 75th and Argyll (previously known as "Church on 99", been running more than 10 years now). Got pictures to prove it ;)
Pretty cool to look at. Obviously not inexpensive.
But how's the actual business doing? Like, is maybe Musk publicly faceplanting on purpose, because he can't use facts to respond to the increasing complaints and accusations (and short sellers)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0HE9nbqJjE
^ PS: in that video, I learned something shocking/sad -- the really cool idea Tesla electric SEMIS are not feasible, charging-power-wise O_o ... Ambitious Ideas + Poor Execution = [footnote in history for the wrong reasons]?
Or... is maybe Musk one of the short-sellers, in some weird way of building up a big profit from which to make the Tesla corp PRIVATE again? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776
https://twitter.com/AVUSANY/status/1026910831534133248
"Trading is currently halted for TSLA"
( after it almost immediately shot up +8% ) ( actually +10% in less than 30 minutes(!!!) -- see https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla )
That video is a completely one sided negative list.
Probably best to balance that out with something else before drawing any conclusions.
IE the truth is dirty / gray.
I love how the two book examples at the start are of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates was considered crazy for going after Software over hardware.
Steve Jobs had MANY of those crazy moments.. no one really through the first iPhone could do what it promised.
But that is the thing.. If you push the limits its hard to predict what will happen.
As for Tesla?
The SEMI is already doing runs with fully working prototypes and MAJOR companies have signed up for SHORT HAUL work.. IE things like grocery stores / retailers moving good from a warehouse to a store within a city that is HIGHLY inefficient with current SEMIs but necessary due to the volume of goods.
The Model 3 production run was always slated as the more expensive first.. Currently Long range rear, Long range dual / performance, LAST the base model.. Will the base sell for $35,000 US? Maybe
Musk should stay off twitter... that I can agree on.
I don't think all of Musks ideas will land, however I am fairly confident that they will continue to pump out MORE of those model 3s at a higher rate which should balance their books and drive up demand for their home solar / charging products.
Edit:
Check out https://electrek.co/ if you want to see mostly positive tilted Tesla news.. Note I acknowledge it is tilted / biased.I find it hard to find unbiased news on Tesla, just need to aggregate the positive and negative together.
Quote from: Lazybones on August 07, 2018, 01:55:44 PM
That video is a completely one sided negative list.
Probably best to balance that out with something else before drawing any conclusions.
IE the truth is dirty / gray.
Agreed.
But the source of the "pro-Tesla" side is almost always going to be biased, aka Tesla and affiliates / proxies. So I thought this "con-Tesla" video was a nice quick summariy of a lot of the complaints I have heard from various sources over the last few months (or even years).
I don't care either way, I think it's exciting times re. technology, but the reality of money and physical limitations etc. can't be ignored no matter how cool tech or ideas seem to be. I want TSLA to succeed, so I hope today's teaser/bombshell by Musk is the real deal, that the company goes Private again, to stop being handicapped by all the PR and speculation and shorting BS. Then at least if it fails it's all on Musk and his exec team or whatever, no excuses. But if he succeeds it might even teach the social media outrage mob to chill a bit, and stop discouraging dissenting views and visions. :)
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026914941004001280
https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1026912973120462848
The madman is actually gonna do it! (Unless shareholders vote no)
https://www.tesla.com/blog/taking-tesla-private
I just hope there's no more corporation welfare in the future -- that's the real issue for a lot of people ( e.g. as summarized in the text below the cartoon here: https://grrrgraphics.com/teslas-musk-mobile/ )
Elon Musk...
...as Doc Oc from the Spider-Man universe.
^ words (tweets)
^ visuals (comic panels)
https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk
https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk/media
Pretty sweet. Almost surreal existential accidental humor along the lines of "Garfield Minus Garfield".
( see also: https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/media )
Quote from: Darren Dirt on August 15, 2018, 05:53:18 PM
Elon Musk...
...as Doc Oc from the Spider-Man universe.
^ words (tweets)
^ visuals (comic panels)
https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk
https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk/media
Pretty sweet. Almost surreal existential accidental humor along the lines of "Garfield Minus Garfield".
( see also: https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/media )
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080963075539234816
"'Neil A' (as in Armstrong) backwards is 'AlieN'. There are no coincidences."
also, "Evian, the first bottled water, is naive spelled backwards"
...this might be the thing to get "Dr. OctoMusk" back to work!
[ most recent tweet = 21Dec2018, but last COMIC was 29Oct2018 https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk/status/1056930658436579328 ]
( https://twitter.com/DrOctoMusk/media = easily skim to the present from August when this RW post mentioned it )