Now, now Ray you do nice. After all you KNOW the EV car is good for you! And it can be argued no one's trying to literally pry your fingers off, just price 'em off [rising gas costs]. You dig?
Jokes aside, I'm thinking some ICE cars will continue. The 'do as I say, not as I do' elite for certain will keep theirs withstanding posturing for all things green.
Impacting who? Poor people and the retired, working/ middle class who can't exactly afford Tesla's!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
Yep! Many are noticing the increase costs even with an economy four-cylinder car. Especially if you're on a fixed income or poor. And of course in other areas related to fuel costs.
As the fall-out widens the resistance to understanding that connection IS waning!
The persistent elite class and politicians [no matter which party] are NOT impacted rather prices double, triple, or quadruple!
But I'm done with defending them.
As they dictate policy on behalf of, and in consideration of the dearly oppressed. Yeah, right...:rolleyes:........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
Withstanding how great some feel some Mercedes models are suppose to be [if you can afford the maintenance] they've always crammed a great deal of crap-plastic components under their hoods [ask a mechanic]!
Ultra expensive plastics - that deteriorate with heat and age [why I'd NEVER buy a used Mercedes]. Now they've progressed to using edible plastics!? Another reason to stay away from these money-pits as they age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
It's not "working out kinks." Teslas are not made well. At least, not as well as a $100,000 car *should* be made. There's a great Youtube channel called Rich Rebuilds that goes over the issues Tesla has in excruciating detail.
Here's a video where he takes his Model X to a Tesla mechanic who goes over all the issues it has *from the factory*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqpVWvwV-Ds
Among them - the factory motor mounts allow too much lateral torque, causing the drive shaft to bend. Water from puddles can kick up through the wheel well, up through the A pillar and leak into the cabin. The side windows will fall out of their brackets on the front doors, breaking the lift mechanism. The battery pack coolant connectors fail. The brake pads they use are prone to corrosion. The front bumper frame cracks because most of them were hand tig-welded by someone who didn't know what they were doing. The body panels can shift out of alignment on the back doors, making the open-and-close mechanism break.
On top of that there is a ton of servicing weirdness. To replace the center touch screen out you have to remove the front windshield. To change the cabin air filter you have to remove the entire frunk liner.
Tesla drivers still love their cars, but the quality issues are signifgant and persistent. Drivers will only put up with them for so long, especially when you are shelling out six figures for a car. The big 3 don't have a stellar reputation for quality, but even they have figured out how to keep body panels aligned properly on $20,000 vehicles.
^^^ Yes, OK, I was being a bit generous to say 'kinks' as you point out. Indeed, for the high cost associated you'd think core things like torque and brake pads would be a non-issue. Body panels, doors lacking fit and finish would make me very angry when I've experienced excellence still present in cars well over ten years old! I've volunteered at the NAIAS many times and the crappy fit and finish of some models is incredible!
Yep, mechanics see and know the 'patterns' of problematic cars fast. I always talk to them regarding a model or year I'm considering.
As we're [my family] used car enthusiasts, I take into consideration how a car will age. If it's new and already crapy I'm not interested. I've come to expect base quality and durability from the makes and models we currently drive. I can't see suddenly jettisoning that at the behest of an EV. Nope. I don't need a 'tinny' tinker-mobile. Thank you for the details.
PS. My run-about sedan needs a motor mount. I'm not upset about it. The car has over 200K miles! Everything wears eventually...:rolleyes:... but wear due to poor engineering - 'new' car? Unacceptable!
I kinda think that is where they will end up with their top model,in the Jaguar,Range Rover,even C6 performance wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLemur
The lower end versions will not be able to compete with the 12k cash back that will be available to EVs manufacturered in the US,sense they are made in China.
If you drive a high end model paying for the quirks is just a part of the experience.
I think in the end what is going to drive pricing and affordability,no matter how much you incentivize the purchase,their base materials used in the manufacturing process,still depend on the very thing you are trying to eliminate and driving up the costs in the process.
Fossil fuels.
Unless one can build an EV ground up using zero fossil fuels in the process all you are really doing is changing a stale automotive industry with a new style of product.
The evolution of the auto industry backed by trillions of taxpayer dollars,but not really saving the planet in the process.
While completely ignoring the things right in front of us that could be changed and would have a massive impact.
#1 being single use plastics,Covid alone produced 850,000 tons of single use plastics in PPE, a lot of that is now added to the trash already floating in the oceans.
$74 million spent alone on disposable face masks that are now blowing across parking lots.
They put everybody on recycling,spent billions making non recyclable bins to put the stuff in,and when you do,only 5% actually gets recycled in the first place.
Soft drinks used to come in glass bottles,totally recyclable and now everywhere you go you see discarded plastic water bottle,pop bottles laying in the streets and ditches.
Look at the video coverage of the protesters at the COP26,1/2 of them were carrying plastic bags over their shoulder.
If one wants to save the planet,do it with conviction and not by throwing up little feel good moments that is actually only moving money up the chain,somebody has to pay for it and it is not being paid for by the rich.
Once again I have to ask
Why is the world hell bent laser focusing on EVs as the solution?
Mr Farley was correct,that is not innovation for a solution,the guy that built the first EV in Detroit back then did not spend trillions,or spend trillions more putting infrastructure in place to support it,nor did the government give the buyers cash back in order to buy it,they developed a product that stood or fell on its own merit.
That same model built back then would fit right in driving around in most highly populated cities,how many dense city dwellers,where a majority of the population actually lives,drives more then 50 miles a day anyways.
All they did was take old technology that was already there,and make it look pretty by today’s standards,and justified spending trillions by saying it is saving the planet.
Personal wise everything I could want for is within a 2 mile radius of me,business wise it does not matter because all the costs are passed down to the consumer.
So the pitch of convert your fleet to EVs in order to save your business millions in fuel costs is BS,because businesss are not going to pass that savings down to the consumer no different then the utilities have,costs will go up to convert the fleet and they will not get reduced as a savings to the consumer,it will just add to the profit line.
Looks like not everyone is Bullish about Tesla...
Legendary investor Jeremy Grantham warns Tesla stock is in a bubble, rings the inflation alarm, and predicts an epic market crash [[msn.com)
It's pretty obvious Tesla's stock price is totally detached from reality, as are lots of others. It doesn't really say anything about the company though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
I am not a stock guru but I think Tesla is a Tech company and valued as such,the automotive part is just the test platform to show the other manufacturers who are purchasing the technology,that it actually works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
I agree the value is based on government incentives,just like solar was,when the incentives are pulled back,it crashes.
We have seen it before,the government pumped billions into private industry for the space race and silicone valley was created,lots of instant billionaires that have gone by the wayside sense.
A perfect example would be your local billionaire that sold a financial software package for 100s of millions,then bought it back for pennies on the dollar after the ride was over.
I still think Tesla will just end up as a low volume high end market,but that is all they really will need,because they will be getting a cut from the majority of manufacturers across the world every car produced anyways,so no need to worry about low end production.
They are like a Sears of tech,and that what the government paid them to be,design products,test them,then put them on the shelf for others to purchase.
The existing manufacturers could not devote the time and funds in order to develop that tech full time,like it was the only thing on their plate.
The side most people do not see is a lot of that tech is being used in the military,like a cargo ship designed to be a missile platform,self propelled remotely with no crew.
It can be sent off to war as a battle ship,perform the same functions,with not a single soul on board.
Its the AI that they are going after as the ultimate goal,the cars are just the testing platform.
We as the taxpayers are invested in Tesla,if there is a crash or correction in the market,they may see some devaluation but their reason for existing goes way beyond EVs.
Solar did the same thing,and everybody ended up in the dust when the basis of that technology matured.
It went to dust when governments across the world became a roller coaster of government incentives.
Tesla as a tech company has that ace in their pocket,you and I,the government has privatized the space program,the military and other programs,they would not at this point allow Tesla to fail as a matter of National security.
But we have seen this all before,dot coms,energy stocks,computers,tech,real estate etc.
Big money gets in,cashes out at the peak and then when it crashes moves on to the next.
Us little people do not direct the markets,we are just allowed to play in the sandbox with a few stocks here and there,their rise and fall has already been dictated to by people that move money.
It was Morgan that set off the crash of 29,they moved money from the states to fund Germany’s rise and rebuilding.
One cannot really look at Tesla as a auto manufacturer and judge it on that basis,it’s a tech company and a private arm of the United States government.
I think the real valuation is when comparing it to the Virgin,who is doing much of the same,but on his own dime and will succeed based solely on non incentivized marketable products.
No I do not own Tesla stock.
To say tech is not sub stainable right now,anybody can,because as we witness everyday,nothing is sustainable at the rates they are,you would have 1/2 the population living in the streets by 2030 if it kept on at its current rate.
There has to be a correction or easing off across the board,otherwise Tesla or EVs are going to be the least of our worries.
Us little people have had a good 6 year run,history tells us that now is the time to cash out and hold and not be taking on debt,while spending like drunken sailors on leave,because Tesla will not be feeling the pain,we will be.
I agree with that. There's more to Tesla than vehicles. They are quietly big into home power generation and back up--essentially rooftop solar panels that charge seven day full house backup batteries. This will increasingly be a model for new homes in the eco-conscious future. It harkens back to the log cabin with a fireplace. No need for external power sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
As the say goes, "Data is the new oil" and all those Teslas with the self-driving systems are gathering wealth of location and other data.
In many ways the company reminds me a lot of the Apple story, an innovator of addictive products [so much that customers willingly pay more than for equivalent products] that lead to other revenue streams, like the iPod lead to music sales, and the iPhone to app sales, with both companies led by eccentric geniuses.
Nonetheless I think they are over their skis when it comes to the share price and the competition is coming at them fast and furiously.
Yea all the numbers are mind boggling.
Remember Microsoft,who now runs 75% of the worlds governing platforms.
Nobody can complete because it is a propriety platform and they got in at the beginning.
If Tesla’s technology patents are propriety,then the future will revolve around Tesla as the nucleus.
When I ask the question of why hell bent on EVs and not other technology,is it because other manufacturers can now pull that technology off of the shelf and apply it to their brand.
For instance,Is BMW in Germany designing EVs while using a completely different technology model not based on what has already been developed and proven by Tesla,same as for GM and Ford.
When Mr Farley is asking for innovation,is he asking for innovation in order to build an EV not based on existing patented technology that has already been established by Tesla ?
Make sense?
If Tesla owns the patents on existing EV technology and on all the massive technology side streets they have taken,as it is today and it is proven effective,until somebody finds a way to do the same thing but different,everything not called a Tesla will be a knock off dependent on Tesla supplied technology.
If that is the case,then they can write their own ticket fir a long time to come.
That is my theory without having insite to the other manufacturers products being put out,for example Rivian,how much of their finial product is based on patented Tesla technology?
In theory I could come up with a sexy look of a body as a car,go to Tesla for the power train and be a manufacturer.
But Ford is already offering that with its off the shelf EV motor,but not the rest of the bits to complete the drivetrain,which leaves me to believe,that the rest of the bits outside of the electric motor are already patented and Ford cannot legally offer them.
If that is the case ,Tesla already controls the future if the EV market and today’s valuation is chump change considering where the world is in its infancy stage when it comes to EVs,including the millions of chargers and infrastructure that is needed to power those chargers.
If we knew how much of their technology is being used by other manufacturers,we know it is being used,but to what extent will determine their valuation.
If in fact they do control the technology patents,they have no competition, and everybody down the line after that will be going through the Tucker experience unless they develop another form of a vehicle that is not fossil fuel or EV related.
It also goes to the batteries,LG seems to be the one who is supplying everybody,so if Ford builds a battery plant are they going to build a battery not based on existing already pattened technology,which will be a LG battery stamped with a blue oval ?
You and I as a consumer can already buy those cells that make up a EV battery on the internet,so in theory,any one of us can buy the Packard Plant and produce EV batteries for the manufacturers and just buy the cells on the open market like everybody else is,it would not take billions.
Which goes to question,what is Ford doing different after spending billions to build battery factories in order to produce them outside of simply being able to control their supply.
But unless they are actually building the needed cells,they are not really controlling anything,just assembling batteries.
Which is exactly is what LG is doing,buying cells on the open market and then assembling them into a finial product,the battery.
We learned that with the Bolt,because only the batteries that used cells made in China were the ones effected and not every battery they put out.
So the batteries and electric motors,anybody can build in their garage,it is all the bits needed to convert that energy into forward motion that is the key,if Tesla has been able to patent that basic principle,they control the world of EVs alone until somebody else invents something totally different.
I think that is why Ford offered that EV motor for sale in the open market,in order to get the public to buy the motor and create a totally different forward motion drivetrain not based on existing technology.
If that is the case,it is the most brilliant decision in the decade,because it opens up its research department to millions of creative minds out in the public that they would have never been able to reach otherwise.
If and a massive big if,what I have laid out is true,Tesla controls the future and unless the manufacturers can find an alternative,they will all be rebranded Tesla’s and the only competitors will be in brand name only.
Slow time in recharging EV batteries vs. refilling a gas tank?
Ford may have a "game changer" to level the playing field...
Ford invents cable that can charge electric cars in about 5 minutes [[msn.com)
Patent Pending...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrjbjSS1MHk&t=178s
Putting an Engine in My Tesla and Taking It to Get an Oil Change
I wonder if they can expand on that by burying that cable beneath the road surface and air charge like you can do with an IPhone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
You would never have to plug it in to begin with.
Off topic but the other day I read an article about how a Tesla blocked everybody in a parking garage for over 3 hours,seems as though when the battery depletes,it locks the brakes so you cannot push the car out of the way.
If that cable works,I am sticking a diesel generator on a flat bed and become the first AAA EV roadside assistance.
Because apparently EV drivers forget to keep it charged,just like others run out of gas.
"Geely Technology Group has already established around 100 battery swapping stations across China that can swap batteries in as fast as 59 seconds using automated technologies that allows for safe operation. The driver simply enters into the station and leaves with a fully charged battery without having to leave the vehicle."
Geely owns Volvo and a few others.
Is that the future of EV gas stations,pull in to the pump,it swaps your battery out in 1 minute and you are on your way?
What's often forgotten in this debate is was clean energy from the grid used to charge up the "green" EVs? Most likely not. Until they get all their energy from the sun they're just as bad as ice cars. Electrification of cars is not a new thing. They started that back in the civil war days. Until the model t essentially killed interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Hydrogen fuel cell technology shows promise. Hydrogen is clean and the most readily available resource on the planet. Ford needs to look in THAT direction instead of trying to out-tesla, Tesla.
Unfortunately hydrogen has it's issues too. While hydrogen is abundant here, most of it is tied to oxygen atoms in the form of water. To free the hydrgen you need to add energy. Specifically electrolysis of water. It is a great way to store energy, but the energy has to come from another source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmberko11
I've read that hydrogen won't make economic sense for the foreseeable future for passenger vehicles but will for large trucks, where batteries won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Meanwhile, Motor Trend's car of the year is the Lucid, which supposedly can get up to 520 miles on a charge:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/luci...r-of-the-year/
Lucid sells when they actually start production for between $145 - $170,000.
Not really for the masses.
Maybe that is the future,instead of now where you pay X amount for a base model and more as the options kick in it will be based on how far you can drive the thing in a battery charge.
Toyota has been testing and running hydrogen cars for over a year in California and is now reaching 800 miles per cell charge.
When you look at what is really going on,it has little to do with saving the planet and like the organizers have said,it’s about creating a new age and money stream.
Billions in government money are going to strictly EV and EV infrastructure and RD only,no other alternative source.
Rules were recently passed where only EVs purchased from union shops will be allowed the cash back incentives,which is actually forcing every taxpayer and workers in non union shops to support the unions financially.
While removing those same billions in incentives and RD from the auto manufacturers in the south whose workers voted not to unionize.
So in effect punishing those who do not join the union.
If it was really about alternative energies powering vehicles outside of fossil fuels,we would be looking at and funding all options,but we are not,we are picking a specific route and funding a specific line of thought,that’s not letting innovation flow for a cause.
Hydrogen can be implemented with the least amount of disruption and without the taxpayers dipping in their pockets in order to fund private for profit enterprise to the tune of trillions of dollars.
But then again what fun is it when the pot is filled with 100s of millions when it can be filled with billions and trillions.
If it is really about powering with alternative energy,why would you limit yourself to only one option and only incentivize that one option while purposely stacking the deck against other options?
One would think the non union shops in the south could band together for a few years and dump at cost EVs on the market in order to eliminate the higher cost union shops,if they are going to play that game,why not?
GM says 40% of EVs by 2030,which is also a labor reduction needed to build the things of 30%,20 years down the road when they are 100% EV production in a sea of EVs to choose from,how much of the union is actually going to be left?
It is okay to save the planet but either people do not realize cause and effect or do not care in the haste and are willing to do so at any cost.
Toyota is bullish and is all in on hydrogen based power,I am not going to write them off that quick as between Toyota and Honda,they did kick American auto manufacturers ass with a better and more reliable car,they set the standard for US manufacturers to follow at that time.
I think they also understand the ramifications of removing 40% of ICE powered vehicles from the streets in a short amount of time and the real impact that will have and the millions of people that will effectively netured in the process.
Thats not true innovation when you throw unlimited amounts of money at something,you can figure out anything if you throw enough money at it.
True innovation is when you open your mind to all possibilities and not remain laser straight-line focused on one.
During WW2,Germany already was close to developing the nuclear bomb,but we beat them to it,why?
Because they were laser focused in developing small tactical nukes to use on a battlefield,if they had said screw it let’s just level the entire city like we did,they would have beat us.
Thats the way it works though,the ones that stand to gain the most, always say this is the best route to go.
Ever wonder why Tesla’s are made in China ?
Auto manufacturers in this country are not only focusing on EVs but also how to produce them in what will be a highly competitive market,we have already seen what happens when you dump a large employment force on the market locally,imagine that system wide across the entire country.
The technology of tomorrow will not revolve around the technology of today,it all evolves,there is no way in the future you are going to be able to employ those who lose their jobs in the process of elimination today because by design the technology of tomorrow replaces them.
Which begs to question of,who exactly will be in a position to actually buy the cars and at what percentage.
It will not be like it is today.
We are coming up on 2022 in 3 short years,2025 at that time who is going to be dumb enough to commit to buying a $50 - $90,000 ICE vehicle on a 7 year note while knowing full well that in 5 years it will essentially be worthless and taxed or have operating costs designed to discourage ownership of said vehicle.
2030 is not going to arrive and all of these manufacturers are going to all of the sudden say,hey here are the cars come buy them,on the meantime they are going to be focusing on how to get people to buy them,because you do not have 40% of the population tripping over themselves to buy them.
40% does not sound like a lot but considering you are at 1-2 % right now that is a massive leap in 5 years.
Article from 2017
4 years later how much of this has become the reality,and what is the impact when you remove 43% of the market.
Silberg predicts that by 2040 the share of two-car families will decrease to 43% – and that percentage will continue sliding. Two major forces that are driving the change, he says: self-driving cars and the growing popularity of on-demand, ride-share services.
https://blog.nationwide.com/one-car-...ive%20industry.
Also hydrogen would make more sense than batteries for large aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
even for cargo ships that emit more CO that 2000 cars in one trip or the millions of pieces of construction and farm equipment out there.
We are throwing all the ducks into EVs while completely ignoring the main sources out there.
Would I buy an electric car that got a thousand miles on a charge that takes five minutes? I would.
Now that there’s huge money in play that’s the trajectory. On the supply side solar electricity costs are plummeting, already cheaper than coal.
Today the President is in town to open Factory Zero fka the Poletown Plant.
“You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
No, but it does help to have a sense of direction. Everything is "cheaper" when someone's trying to gain control. After they do, things change.
Solar may be cheaper to produce,but the cost to implement is still there,my electric bill now has an additional $45 alternative energy conversion charge.
Not much to me but for those on fixed income or low income along with the other rising energy costs that’s a big hit.
I did a bit more research on Fords new charging car design,the idea and patents have been applied for,but the cable has not been designed or tested.
The spokesman said - Thats what the next two years will bring,the building and testing of it.
Using liquids to remove heat from electronics is not new,they have been doing that basic principle with servers and swamp coolers for decades.
Another thing on the charging aspect,it appears as though existing EVs have a built in charging resistance,so even if you plug it into a fast charger,the actual vehicle is only going to charge at the rate it was designed to.
Even in peak times my electric bill did not go over $100 a month,if I am already seeing a increase due to alternative energy,how is that cheaper then existing energy sources?
What could the dinosaurs have done differently in order to secure their future existence,if they had trillions of dollars to throw at controlling the climate would they still exist today?
I will make this one short and sweet and directly to the point :)
Building An EV Produces 70% More Emissions Than ICE, Says Volvo
https://insideevs.com/news/549267/ma...ore-emissions/
So we get to kill the planet 70% faster,in order to save it.
Better make that roll out tomorrow,we will all be dead in 8 years.
^ The inconsistency and lack of understanding on how energy is made does not surprise me.
The fixed narrative must be followed.
Absolutely no revision allowed!
Full speed ahead.