Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...

[hyphen]

Ok...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-10...

Tesla said:

“A utility company in your area announced they may turn off power in some areas of Northern California beginning October 9 as part of public safety power shutoffs, which may affect power to charging options,”

“We recommend charging your Tesla to 100% today to ensure that your drive remains uninterrupted.”

[Some Gump]

jjwilde said:

I mean we will eventually get fully self driving cars. It's just a matter of debate about when.

Or does anyone here think it will never happen in our lifetimes (assuming we're all under like 40)?

I'm in the "maybe" camp.
In the 90''s, they were predicting flying cars by now. From terminals full of crt screens.
Communicstion was predicted to be via tiny phones, a badge etc. Instead we have huge smartphones.

Reality: that re appears to still be no viable solution to the travelling salesman problem. Despite how many teraflops of power? We got tothemoon on less processing than an iphone. HOwever, simple route plans are still apparently quite challenging.

Now do that in real time. Assess every possible (probable??) Outcome ofeach object in your next journey. People, cars, objects don't obey the laws of the road. Every singlemorning some tt jumps out infront of you at a roundabout. How do you judge which one it is? Experience? empathy? Stereotyping the car? Something else? Every day you adjust your own actions in order to avoid pagga caused by some one else.
Us humans have evolved for an awfully long time to be able to assess intent,danger, expected next move etc of other humans, animals, objects etc. It's an amazing ability. Our concprehension of risk, likely outcome and likely next action is really quite amazeballs.

Where are we today? 2 years after elon promised full self driving, a tesla can't predict the outcome of driving at a wall. A desktop computer can't decide the est route between a number of immobioe locations. We have a lomg, long way to go.*

• and then the lawyers, legislators, lobbyists and unions and other meddling tts get to delay it for another 2-10 years...

[Some Gump]

Lol.

A few days (weeks?) Ago, someone said that dyson would revolutionise electric csrs. I wrote a scathing reply but deleted it on the basis that a) it was the ranting of a man scorned by an appliance purchase, b) it was overly cynical on the real vs marketing benefits of mr dyson's inventions and c) on this fking kindle i can't type forst.

The ultimate aim of that rant was to say that if dyson made ane car it'd either be amazeballs, or totally average - and either way it'd be daft expensive.

Anyone ays, we'llnever know because it's apparently it's been canned as uneconomical.

[anonymous-user]

Some Gump said:

Lol.

A few days (weeks?) Ago, someone said that dyson would revolutionise electric csrs. I wrote a scathing reply but deleted it on the basis that a) it was the ranting of a man scorned by an appliance purchase, b) it was overly cynical on the real vs marketing benefits of mr dyson's inventions and c) on this fking kindle i can't type forst.

The ultimate aim of that rant was to say that if dyson made ane car it'd either be amazeballs, or totally average - and either way it'd be daft expensive.

Anyone ays, we'llnever know because it's apparently it's been canned as uneconomical.

As discussed in the other two threads.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Some Gump said:

Communicstion was predicted to be via tiny phones, a badge etc. Instead we have huge smartphones.

an apple watch will do pretty much all of the communication a smart phone can, smartphones are larger because they are portable computers and there is an advantage to having a bigger display when web surfing or running a sat nav, they are not large because they can not make the technology small

flying personal vehicles has always been a nonsense, if they can hover they need huge amounts of energy, half the drivers on the roads are idiots so good luck letting them fly, and then you will have the vehicles of those who do not maintain them properly falling out of the sky

they only way they could work would be if they where run and maintained professionally and completely autonomous

[DonkeyApple]

Dave Hedgehog said:

an apple watch will do pretty much all of the communication a smart phone can, smartphones are larger because they are portable computers and there is an advantage to having a bigger display when web surfing or running a sat nav, they are not large because they can not make the technology small

flying personal vehicles has always been a nonsense, if they can hover they need huge amounts of energy, half the drivers on the roads are idiots so good luck letting them fly, and then you will have the vehicles of those who do not maintain them properly falling out of the sky

they only way they could work would be if they where run and maintained professionally and completely autonomous

Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right. Who the hell also wants jokers above and below.

The flying car was trying to solve a problem that just doesn’t exist which is why no serious money has ever been invested into doing so and as you say, any kind of market would only ever exist in the distant future if they can function 100% perfectly as drones. Until then the helicopter is already the best solution.

[hyphen]

Some Gump said:

Lol.
Anyone ays, we'llnever know because it's apparently it's been canned as uneconomical.

It was always going to be uneconomical in the short to medium term, Dyson knew that.

Dyson pulled out as he realised that the competition would be stronger than he had imagined and he would end up risking everything.

And he also realised that his advisers on this project were incompetent (as per their aquisition of a snake oil battery company and its useless patents).

Here is a pic of James Dyson trying to convince Tesla to see some sense:

Edited by hyphen on Friday 11th October 09:19

[WestyCarl]

hyphen said:

It was always going to be uneconomical in the short to medium term, Dyson knew that.

Dyson pulled out as he realised that the competition would be stronger than he had imagined and he would end up risking everything.

And he also realised that his advisers on this project were incompetent (as per their aquisition of a snake oil battery company and its useless patents).

Here is a pic of James Dyson trying to convince Tesla to see some sense:

I believe it was more due to "wow, designing and making a car if way more complex (and costly) than we thought", the project was already yrs behind schedule.

As mentioned previously, the positioning of the car had no real competition. (of course it may also have had no market due to this )

[Dave Hedgehog]

DonkeyApple said:

The flying car was trying to solve a problem that just doesn’t exist which is why no serious money has ever been invested into doing so and as you say, any kind of market would only ever exist in the distant future if they can function 100% perfectly as drones. Until then the helicopter is already the best solution.

there is one kind of working

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-voloco...

[Dave Hedgehog]

hyphen said:

Ostriches dont stick their head in the sand

you can also polish a turd

[hyphen]

WestyCarl said:

I believe it was more due to "wow, designing and making a car is way more complex (and costly) than we thought", the project was already years behind schedule.

Jag signed a contract with Magna Steyr to make the iPace for them.

Dyson could have licensed a platform and farmed out production to another company, bought in the batteries and other parts, and just concentrated on having the best motors and design.

Dyson likes end to end control too so working that way would be new for him.

But would still be running a loss for many years, and so I think Dyson doesn't want to mortgage everything & spend other people's money I think, as he could lose the company he founded and has his name on it. And

He appears to have got carried away, buying those homes in Singapore,making plans for factories and so on.

Then his financial director finally got Dyson into that meeting he had been after a while, and he had to come back down to earth.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 11th October 09:37

[DonkeyApple]

Dave Hedgehog said:

DonkeyApple said:

The flying car was trying to solve a problem that just doesn’t exist which is why no serious money has ever been invested into doing so and as you say, any kind of market would only ever exist in the distant future if they can function 100% perfectly as drones. Until then the helicopter is already the best solution.

there is one kind of working

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-voloco...

That’s going to struggle to fit on the average drive and make a bit of a mess of the school run.

That’s a helicopter anyway and they are just trying to solve the problem of a few wealthy people still being able to fly a helicopter between residential and office rooftops in cities which are clamping down on ICE products.

[DonkeyApple]

WestyCarl said:

I believe it was more due to "wow, designing and making a car if way more complex (and costly) than we thought", the project was already yrs behind schedule.

As mentioned previously, the positioning of the car had no real competition. (of course it may also have had no market due to this )

Is that Dyson or Tesla?

It’s taken the latter a decade and tens of billions to get to the point that as a premium, modest volume car vendor it can work but I think it’s fair to argue that it’s key USP in achieving this is that it succeeded in creating immense brand power among blokes who think Marvel is real and have credit lines with which to indulge their consumption desires. As I think several people observed in other threads, who’s going to walk up to strangers and brag that they have rented a car that has the same name as their mother’s vacuum cleaner?

[Dave Hedgehog]

marvels not real

[ZesPak]

DonkeyApple said:

creating immense brand power among blokes who think Marvel is real and have credit lines with which to indulge their consumption desires.

I've said this before, every car is a compromise, and a Tesla makes perfect sense if you do a lot of miles, because of taxation.
Is it as inspiring as a great I6 or V8? No. But if you have to put it against 4 pot diesels, which is what the target demographic previously drove, they didn't have a choice.

The brand power doesn't come from nothing, they do a lot of things right that classic manufacturers just don't seem to get (infotainment), and the cars are a pleasure to be in and to drive.

It is however, not a weekend toy. It's a commuter car. It fills the same spot as an A4 or 530d. And how many of those are bought on finance?

A standard range model 3 is 50k EUR here, which is a lot of money. But considering taxes it's actually closer to a 35k diesel car.
So if your choice is an A3 with a couple of options (or an A4 without any) or a fully equiped Model 3, I'd argue you'd have to be an idiot to go for the Audi.
Even at 50K, you can't even get a diesel A4 with more than 200 bhp (I know that speed doesn't matter but come on...).
Bear in mind that the Tesla is a RWD rocket and has almost all the equipment you can think of.

And that's all before you mention running costs.

I don't know what planet you live on, but over here company leasing lists dominate new premium sales. And I've yet to encounter anyone who would say no to a Tesla with any other argument than "I don't want a Tesla" or "I really want a BMW".
Maybe everyone I know believes Marvel is real.

[Witchfinder]

Dave Hedgehog said:

marvels not real

Don't worry he's just winding you up. Elon Musk is in that film where he talks to Tony Stark. They talk about making an electric jet.

[Heres Johnny]

ZesPak said:

DonkeyApple said:

creating immense brand power among blokes who think Marvel is real and have credit lines with which to indulge their consumption desires.

I've said this before, every car is a compromise, and a Tesla makes perfect sense if you do a lot of miles, because of taxation.
Is it as inspiring as a great I6 or V8? No. But if you have to put it against 4 pot diesels, which is what the target demographic previously drove, they didn't have a choice.

The brand power doesn't come from nothing, they do a lot of things right that classic manufacturers just don't seem to get (infotainment), and the cars are a pleasure to be in and to drive.

It is however, not a weekend toy. It's a commuter car. It fills the same spot as an A4 or 530d. And how many of those are bought on finance?

A standard range model 3 is 50k EUR here, which is a lot of money. But considering taxes it's actually closer to a 35k diesel car.
So if your choice is an A3 with a couple of options (or an A4 without any) or a fully equiped Model 3, I'd argue you'd have to be an idiot to go for the Audi.
Even at 50K, you can't even get a diesel A4 with more than 200 bhp (I know that speed doesn't matter but come on...).
Bear in mind that the Tesla is a RWD rocket and has almost all the equipment you can think of.

And that's all before you mention running costs.

I don't know what planet you live on, but over here company leasing lists dominate new premium sales. And I've yet to encounter anyone who would say no to a Tesla with any other argument than "I don't want a Tesla" or "I really want a BMW".
Maybe everyone I know believes Marvel is real.

Have you not been following the thread? DA and a number of others have also pointed to the taxation as being a primary factor. Would Norway be like it is if wasn't for Tax or would it be more like Italy where take up is relatively low? Same with the Dutch. Look at Hong Kong sales and what happened when the tax changed there - sales STOPPED over night. They didn;t fall back, they didn't halve, they stopped.

https://qz.com/1676912/teslas-sales-never-recovere...

What you seem to be saying is Tesla can only sell their cars because of tax advantages meabing a 50k Tesla can compete against 35k ICE, and even at 50k Tesla struggle to turn a profit. Not pretty really is it?

[WestyCarl]

DonkeyApple said:

WestyCarl said:

I believe it was more due to "wow, designing and making a car if way more complex (and costly) than we thought", the project was already yrs behind schedule.

As mentioned previously, the positioning of the car had no real competition. (of course it may also have had no market due to this )

Is that Dyson or Tesla?

It’s taken the latter a decade and tens of billions to get to the point that as a premium, modest volume car vendor it can work but I think it’s fair to argue that it’s key USP in achieving this is that it succeeded in creating immense brand power among blokes who think Marvel is real and have credit lines with which to indulge their consumption desires. As I think several people observed in other threads, who’s going to walk up to strangers and brag that they have rented a car that has the same name as their mother’s vacuum cleaner?

Having Dyson products in the far East (Japan and China) is seen as a status symbol it's by far their strongest market with huge brand power, this was his main market. However whether £300 hairdryers translate to £300k+ cars is the un answered question.

Or maybe by the cancellation of the project it's been answered.................

[WestyCarl]

hyphen said:

Jag signed a contract with Magna Steyr to make the iPace for them.

Dyson could have licensed a platform and farmed out production to another company, bought in the batteries and other parts, and just concentrated on having the best motors and design.

Dyson likes end to end control too so working that way would be new for him.

But would still be running a loss for many years, and so I think Dyson doesn't want to mortgage everything & spend other people's money I think, as he could lose the company he founded and has his name on it. And

He appears to have got carried away, buying those homes in Singapore,making plans for factories and so on.

Then his financial director finally got Dyson into that meeting he had been after a while, and he had to come back down to earth.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 11th October 09:37

Licensed platform's, 3rd party manufacture may work for £60k Jag's but I suspect would put of buyers for £300k+ cars.

[Tuna]

ZesPak said:

I've said this before, every car is a compromise, and a Tesla makes perfect sense if you do a lot of miles, because of taxation.
Is it as inspiring as a great I6 or V8? No. But if you have to put it against 4 pot diesels, which is what the target demographic previously drove, they didn't have a choice.

The brand power doesn't come from nothing, they do a lot of things right that classic manufacturers just don't seem to get (infotainment), and the cars are a pleasure to be in and to drive.

It is however, not a weekend toy. It's a commuter car. It fills the same spot as an A4 or 530d. And how many of those are bought on finance?

A standard range model 3 is 50k EUR here, which is a lot of money. But considering taxes it's actually closer to a 35k diesel car.

That's post-hoc reasoning. Tesla only got to the point of Model 3 production by selling to those who were willing to pay over the odds for a niche product (you can call them early adopters or Marvel fanbois depending on your point of view).

If Tesla had started with the Model 3, the brand would not be viewed the way it currently is.