Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...

[Heres Johnny]

gangzoom said:

Heres Johnny said:

911 - 1.5 to 1.7
Boxster - 1.4
Cayman - 1.4
Panamera - 2 to 2.2
Macan - 1.9 to 2.0
Cayenne - 2 to 2.5

I think you should be amazed as you'd have to look hard to find one over 2.5 ton

Doesn't the Macan and Cayenne make up the vast majority of Porsche sales? So maybe not 2.5 tons but lets not pretend the days of sub 1 ton cars are coming back anytime soon.

The Macan is still under 2 ton and is their best selling car.

Why introduce Porsche without some checking?

[DonkeyApple]

gangzoom said:

But as its pretty obvious no one buys a Tesla (or any car) on actual environmental issues.

Cycling is by far the best way to commute in any UK city but most people rather sit in metal boxes queuing in traffic.

Car may get lighter but EVs don't need to be that much heavier as the kona shows.

Absolutely. The EV movement for the time being has been hijacked by the consumer industry to help sell more goods etc but that doesn’t mean we won’t eventually see a reversion to it actually being about the environment.

Just imagine for a moment the absolutely monumental shift in consumer activity if cars were taxed on weight with ICE taxes kicking in from say a ton and a bit of extra leeway given to EVs due to their general benefit!

Overnight, consumers would start buying smaller cars with lighter drivetrains and smaller power units. The environmental impact would dwarf anything EVs could ever achieve. It would be a genuine revolution in private transport with more road space, less consumtion of consumables including all fuel types and more interestingly for us car enthusiasts it would trigger a massive evolution of products.

EVs already have a packaging advantage if you’re going to evolve to using smaller cars and it is the only blended ICE/EV solution going forward that achieves anything positive.

Massive, two tonne heffers lugging about their overweight bodies, drivetrains, wheels and power sources are not a solution but the absolute poster boy for the core issue regardless of what type of motor they have pushing them along.

[oop north]

gangzoom said:

What do you think the average weight of products sold by Porsche was in the last 12 months, I would be amazed if it was under 2.5tons let alone 2tons. The current Range Rover is not far off 3tons, weight isn't an issue just for EVs.

On the other hand a Kona EV weighs 1640kg, barely 100kg more than a Focus, and has over 250 miles range, lithium ion batteries are fine. Its the cost thats the issue.

Edited by gangzoom on Monday 26th August 11:30

Current Range Rover is 2,160–2,360 kg. I would call 660kg-840kg quite a way off 3 tonnes myself.

[dmsims]

oop north said:

Current Range Rover is 2,160–2,360 kg.

Not according to here: https://www.landrover.com/vehicles/range-rover/spe...

[Heres Johnny]

dmsims said:

oop north said:

Current Range Rover is 2,160–2,360 kg.

Not according to here: https://www.landrover.com/vehicles/range-rover/spe...

I think 2160 is a lot near to 2240 than 3000 is

[gangzoom]

Heres Johnny said:

I think 2160 is a lot near to 2240 than 3000 is

Ok so 2ton+ still, just like some EVs .

[skwdenyer]

DonkeyApple said:

gangzoom said:

But as its pretty obvious no one buys a Tesla (or any car) on actual environmental issues.

Cycling is by far the best way to commute in any UK city but most people rather sit in metal boxes queuing in traffic.

Car may get lighter but EVs don't need to be that much heavier as the kona shows.

Absolutely. The EV movement for the time being has been hijacked by the consumer industry to help sell more goods etc but that doesn’t mean we won’t eventually see a reversion to it actually being about the environment.

Just imagine for a moment the absolutely monumental shift in consumer activity if cars were taxed on weight with ICE taxes kicking in from say a ton and a bit of extra leeway given to EVs due to their general benefit!

Overnight, consumers would start buying smaller cars with lighter drivetrains and smaller power units. The environmental impact would dwarf anything EVs could ever achieve. It would be a genuine revolution in private transport with more road space, less consumtion of consumables including all fuel types and more interestingly for us car enthusiasts it would trigger a massive evolution of products.

EVs already have a packaging advantage if you’re going to evolve to using smaller cars and it is the only blended ICE/EV solution going forward that achieves anything positive.

Massive, two tonne heffers lugging about their overweight bodies, drivetrains, wheels and power sources are not a solution but the absolute poster boy for the core issue regardless of what type of motor they have pushing them along.

The key to effecting change in consumers is to do it incrementally and with the illusion of choice.

Anything else is hopeless.

Of course we can make lighter EVs - we just need to ramp up carbon production.

Cycling is not the answer; for many it is a punishment. There’s no political cover for such initiatives right now.

[anonymous-user]

jamoor said:

In a few years we may get to the point that we don't need to strongarm people into electric cars because the economics make sense this will happen waaay before they ban ICE cars in 2040. I'm pretty sure it will happen in this decade.

Really? This decade ends at the end of this year.

There’ll still be a significant majority in ice cars by then I’d suggest.

[DonkeyApple]

skwdenyer said:

The key to effecting change in consumers is to do it incrementally and with the illusion of choice.

Anything else is hopeless.

Of course we can make lighter EVs - we just need to ramp up carbon production.

Cycling is not the answer; for many it is a punishment. There’s no political cover for such initiatives right now.

I agree. I do think that the next big taxation event will be based around weight but as you say, it would be incremental, starting with the real heffers and moving down over time. For two reasons, to stop people from screaming and to give the automotives time to adjust etc.

Agree re cycling. It’s not an answer but a step backwards to try and get millions onto bikes. The days of penniless workers living in slums less than a mile from the factory is long gone. Cycling can work in some towns and cities but be detrimental in others such as London where it has been part of the causes of increased congestion and ergo pollution. Cycling needs a more intelligent approach where towns that have the right amount of space and the right topography can make it a real alternative for as many as possible but in towns where it won’t ever work well enough to help the issue the money should be invested elsewhere.

[jamoor]

REALIST123 said:

Really? This decade ends at the end of this year.

There’ll still be a significant majority in ice cars by then I’d suggest.

Ah well spotted, I meant next decade

[AstonZagato]

Quite bizarre to watch - silence and speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=109&am...

Porsche Taycan full Ring lap in 7:42

[hyphen]

Musk even got Space X to buy $255 million of junk Solar City bonds.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-m...

article about Tesla's Solar City aquisition and upcoming lawsuit said:

On October 28, 2016, just before shareholders were set to vote on the acquisition of SolarCity, Musk strode onto a platform erected on the set of Desperate Housewives at Universal Studios’ back lot in Los Angeles. He talked about the existential threat presented by global warming and the desperate need for sustainable energy. Then he gestured to a group of houses that had been set up around him. They might look normal, he said, but they actually featured a revolutionary new product called the Solar Roof—shingles that would last longer and cost less than a regular roof, even before factoring in electricity. Tesla expected production to begin the following summer.

The next month, shareholders approved Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity. “Vote tally shows ~85% of unaffiliated shareholders in favor of the Tesla/SolarCity merger!” Musk tweeted. The deal doubled Tesla’s debt load, but it was good for Musk, who converted his stake in SolarCity into more than $500 million in Tesla stock. By preventing SolarCity from collapsing, he also shored up his most valuable asset: investor faith in his own genius. If any piece of his empire had faltered—if Musk were shown to be fallible rather than superhuman—it would have cast doubt on the narrative that enables him to raise cheap capital for his money-losing enterprises.

“Thanks for believing,” Musk tweeted to his shareholders.

Article says that the shingles are just normal roof shingles in that presentation, and they didn't exist! Musk was just lying to get the aquisition done!

Edited by hyphen on Monday 26th August 22:17

[jamoor]

AstonZagato said:

Quite bizarre to watch - silence and speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=109&am...

Porsche Taycan full Ring lap in 7:42

Makes me wonder where supercars will belong as their major advantage would have been their powertrains but in the future they may all share broadly similar ones.

[skwdenyer]

hyphen said:

Musk even got Space X to buy $255 million of junk Solar City bonds.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-m...

article about Tesla's Solar City aquisition and upcoming lawsuit said:

On October 28, 2016, just before shareholders were set to vote on the acquisition of SolarCity, Musk strode onto a platform erected on the set of Desperate Housewives at Universal Studios’ back lot in Los Angeles. He talked about the existential threat presented by global warming and the desperate need for sustainable energy. Then he gestured to a group of houses that had been set up around him. They might look normal, he said, but they actually featured a revolutionary new product called the Solar Roof—shingles that would last longer and cost less than a regular roof, even before factoring in electricity. Tesla expected production to begin the following summer.

The next month, shareholders approved Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity. “Vote tally shows ~85% of unaffiliated shareholders in favor of the Tesla/SolarCity merger!” Musk tweeted. The deal doubled Tesla’s debt load, but it was good for Musk, who converted his stake in SolarCity into more than $500 million in Tesla stock. By preventing SolarCity from collapsing, he also shored up his most valuable asset: investor faith in his own genius. If any piece of his empire had faltered—if Musk were shown to be fallible rather than superhuman—it would have cast doubt on the narrative that enables him to raise cheap capital for his money-losing enterprises.

“Thanks for believing,” Musk tweeted to his shareholders.

Article says that the shingles are just normal roof shingles in that presentation, and they didn't exist! Musk was just lying to get the aquisition done!

Edited by hyphen on Monday 26th August 22:17

Interesting article.

The Buffalo plant deal wasn’t struck with Tesla; it wasn’t even struck with Solar City. It was struck with a company that Solar City bought out after New York did the deal. It may have been a dodgy deal, but it wasn’t Musk’s dodgy deal.

The bigger question is this: what has Actually happened to Solar City? Why have their sales tanked?

[gangzoom]

DonkeyApple said:

The days of penniless workers living in slums less than a mile from the factory is long gone.

Maybe you want to look up the price of some of the bikes you see on London roads, I would say quite alot of them require more pennies to own than some cars .

Even in Leicester I can cover 5 miles quicker on my bike in rush hour than driving. As soon as my daughter is going to the local school I'll be back on my bike.

If you don't want people to cycle or have cars whats your solution to mass transit, and remeber London is not representative of the rest country.

Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 27th August 07:23

[TooLateForAName]

skwdenyer said:

Interesting article.

The Buffalo plant deal wasn’t struck with Tesla; it wasn’t even struck with Solar City. It was struck with a company that Solar City bought out after New York did the deal. It may have been a dodgy deal, but it wasn’t Musk’s dodgy deal.

The bigger question is this: what has Actually happened to Solar City? Why have their sales tanked?

Well this stuff doesn't help...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23...

[DonkeyApple]

An interesting article on autonomous driving. Very brief and simplified but brings in commentary from a larger than usual number of sources.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49420570

[DonkeyApple]

gangzoom said:

DonkeyApple said:

The days of penniless workers living in slums less than a mile from the factory is long gone.

Maybe you want to look up the price of some of the bikes you see on London roads, I would say quite alot of them require more pennies to own than some cars .

Even in Leicester I can cover 5 miles quicker on my bike in rush hour than driving. As soon as my daughter is going to the local school I'll be back on my bike.

If you don't want people to cycle or have cars whats your solution to mass transit, and remeber London is not representative of the rest country.

Edited by gangzoom on Tuesday 27th August 07:23

If you read the post you’d appreciate that that is exactly what I was saying!

You’ve got to think things through a little more coherently and not run at such a base level and make up silly remarks. Let’s take your latest sentence ‘If you don't want people to cycle or have cars‘ who has ever said this in this thread and why would you just make something up to try and have an argument?

I could also ask you how you think your expensive London bikes comment disproves that workers are no longer penniless and living within a mile of the factory? When in reality your comment simply adds to what was being said and highlights the total fallacy.

And why would I care if you are wuickernon your bicycle? Just exactly what point are you trying to make in response to someone who has just posted in favour of cycling but observing that a more intelligent use of money is required to maximise the benefit of this form of transport.

I’m going to be really blunt here and point out that you are thinking at that base ‘football fan’ level where you just attack anything that isn’t wearing your colours without any independent thought. This thread is much better for not having the likes of Rob or the anti EV idiots on it because it allows the intelligent people who occupy the middle ground to have a very interesting discussion with bits we can all learn from and even have our views and opinions evolve.

[Dave Hedgehog]

AstonZagato said:

Quite bizarre to watch - silence and speed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=109&am...

Porsche Taycan full Ring lap in 7:42

damn you porsche i already wanted one of these, now doubly so ....

shame i am a pleb lol

[Dave Hedgehog]

DonkeyApple said:

An interesting article on autonomous driving. Very brief and simplified but brings in commentary from a larger than usual number of sources.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49420570

an interesting read, but it should be noted that going fast on a track is infinity easier than perfecting autonomous driving on a road