Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Musk fined $20 million no longer Tesla CEO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • wolfhnd
    replied
    I'm too old to really care but the electric grid will not handle everyone using an electric car. Basically it's more stupidity from virtue signalling self righteous incompetents. It is the same nonsense as the people who say we can put a man on the moon but we can't solve x insert their favorite socialist dream. Just take a look at how leftist have managed California's highway system they were gifted by a generation that was competent to see how dystopian the dream is. I'm not saying it will never happen but the market is artificial leading to all kinds of distortions, a much different situations than previous changes in transportation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    P is right: Telsa has nothing going for the Big Three. Electrics can be luxury cars and may work in Europe, but average Americans drive too many miles for electrics.

    Solve the battery issue, and then there will be a big move to electrics.
    The Big 3 (though Toyota more than Chrysler-Fiat should be in there) are concentrating heavily on electric and hybrid (the latter the more useful especially in cold environments), and Tesla may be a cheap pick up for some of their engineers, the name, and some of their industrial support divisions. Not saying they will (there is bad blood between Tesla and the Big 3), but generally speaking companies like this are usually bought out by larger companies.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

    Ford dropped its car line because the profits are greater in SUV and trucks. It is concentrating (and betting) heavily on hybrid and electric crossover etc, and hopes to have 42 different models of hybrids and electric vehicles by 2022 or '24 (I forget which).

    Tuebor
    They also did it to avoid problems with trying to meet ever stricter emissions and safety requirements on cars

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Ford in the meantime dropped production of cars for SUV and trucks leaving them (in the US) with fewer regulations on their vehicles and somewhat lower pollution requirements. My guess is if Tesla goes under before 2024, BMW might well decide to reverse that decision.
    Ford dropped its car line because the profits are greater in SUV and trucks. It is concentrating (and betting) heavily on hybrid and electric crossover etc, and hopes to have 42 different models of hybrids and electric vehicles by 2022 or '24 (I forget which).

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    TAG, one of the biggest advantages of a glider kit is that the engines generally get better fuel mileage. Half a mile per gallon is big savings when you're running 100k+ miles a year and MPG is in the 6-7 mile range. Glider kits usually don't come with the rear drive axles either.
    What I'm pointing out is that the EPA, emissions regulations, and government regulation in general has created a market for these vehicles. California may well be creating a similar market for older gasoline powered vehicles by forcing "zero-pollution" cars on the public.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    TAG, one of the biggest advantages of a glider kit is that the engines generally get better fuel mileage. Half a mile per gallon is big savings when you're running 100k+ miles a year and MPG is in the 6-7 mile range. Glider kits usually don't come with the rear drive axles either.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Persephone View Post

    Electric vehicles might not do well in some states but it seems to be a hit in California. The only problem is, there's not enough electricity to juice up all the electric cars. Heck, we barely have enough electricity now, let alone in 2045 when Gov Brown want to ban vehicles with gas engines.
    California has government regulations in place that mandate that by 2033 there be more than 1 million zero-emission cars on the road. They give big rebates. Car companies are required to sell an all-electric vehicle in their product line in California. For example, Chrysler-Fiat is selling their Fiat 500e there. They lose between $8,000 and $9,000 on every sale. But, if they want to sell cars in California they have no choice but to include a loser all-electric car in their fleet.
    The only way the all-electric car can be widespread is if government forces it down people's throats. It's clear the market doesn't want them.

    As an example of what might well happen, as it already has happened in the trucking industry, is that companies will start to look for ways around the regulations. In the trucking industry there is something called the "Glider Kit." This is a brand new truck chassis and cab, etc., that is delivered without engine to the buyer. The buyer then has a "Glider Kit" company, like Fitzgerald, install a factory quality, rebuilt engine that's say 20 years old in the truck. This makes the truck subject to the emissions standards that applied when the engine was first made. That is, the truck can pollute more.
    The advantage is the truck is much cheaper to purchase. The emissions requirements are less stringent so it's easier to get the truck registered for use. It's cheaper to repair and maintain the old engine that comes without the advanced, and complex, systems new engines require to meet their emission standard. So, trucking companies are turning to these kit manufacturers to keep their costs down and legally evade EPA regulations.

    I could see a market for older vehicles being rebuilt instead of all-electrics because of the cost and inconvenience that all-electrics impose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Ford in the meantime dropped production of cars for SUV and trucks leaving them (in the US) with fewer regulations on their vehicles and somewhat lower pollution requirements. My guess is if Tesla goes under before 2024, BMW might well decide to reverse that decision.
    Electric vehicles might not do well in some states but it seems to be a hit in California. The only problem is, there's not enough electricity to juice up all the electric cars. Heck, we barely have enough electricity now, let alone in 2045 when Gov Brown want to ban vehicles with gas engines.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Persephone View Post
    If automakers stopped making vehicles with internal combustion engines then we would have no choice but to make the switch or stop driving.

    BMW claimed in 2014 they will stop using gas engines in 10 years. Will it happen in 2024? We'll find out in due time.
    Ford in the meantime dropped production of cars for SUV and trucks leaving them (in the US) with fewer regulations on their vehicles and somewhat lower pollution requirements. My guess is if Tesla goes under before 2024, BMW might well decide to reverse that decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    If automakers stopped making vehicles with internal combustion engines then we would have no choice but to make the switch or stop driving.

    BMW claimed in 2014 they will stop using gas engines in 10 years. Will it happen in 2024? We'll find out in due time.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    What an incredibly isolationist view
    How so? I find all-electric battery cars impractical in the extreme for most Americans. With greater driving distances here they make little or no sense. They are also more expensive across the board than gasoline powered vehicles, far, far more expensive in most cases. Since they offer no practical advantage over a gasoline powered vehicle, why bother with one?

    The market has spoken too. None of them sell well except where government regulation and OPM financial incentives are offered in large quantities. That's why California and Norway both get more sales: Government interference in the marketplace.

    The battery is pretty much a dead end technology. Sure, you can make a safer one, or a better one, but you'll never get more than around 2 volts out of a battery cell and its lifetime will always be determined by cell size. In Musk's battery factory case, he went with extant lithium battery technology. Now there's a better design that won't have this happen:



    By committing so much money and effort into building a technology that is now obsolescent, Musk shot himself in the foot.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Tesla has several unresolvable problems with their cars:

    The biggest is that Tesla doesn't offer anything but an all-electric car. This is, and likely always will be, a niche vehicle that appeals to just a small segment of the market. All-electric cars make up about 2% of the market and have for more than a decade now. They are not "best sellers" nor are they very popular.





    California is forcing people into buying these vehicles by government mandate. No other state is following suit.

    Next, the Tesla is expensive even as battery cars go. There are cheaper choices so they're losing market share on pricing. It doesn't help that Tesla has no distribution system and no dealer warranty repair system in place. This means that people who buy one and experience problems with their vehicle have difficulty getting it fixed. It doesn't help that Tesla's quality is iffy at best. It certainly isn't up to industry standards for a product costing what it does.

    Lastly, other all-electric manufacturers can afford to take a loss on their cars and sell them below wholesale value. They will make that up on the other 98%+ of the gasoline and diesel products they sell. Thus, they can undercut Tesla entirely making it a poor consumer choice.

    Then there's this guy. He's invented a battery that puts Musk's battery mega factory out of business.

    What an incredibly isolationist view

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Tesla has several unresolvable problems with their cars:

    The biggest is that Tesla doesn't offer anything but an all-electric car. This is, and likely always will be, a niche vehicle that appeals to just a small segment of the market. All-electric cars make up about 2% of the market and have for more than a decade now. They are not "best sellers" nor are they very popular.





    California is forcing people into buying these vehicles by government mandate. No other state is following suit.

    Next, the Tesla is expensive even as battery cars go. There are cheaper choices so they're losing market share on pricing. It doesn't help that Tesla has no distribution system and no dealer warranty repair system in place. This means that people who buy one and experience problems with their vehicle have difficulty getting it fixed. It doesn't help that Tesla's quality is iffy at best. It certainly isn't up to industry standards for a product costing what it does.

    Lastly, other all-electric manufacturers can afford to take a loss on their cars and sell them below wholesale value. They will make that up on the other 98%+ of the gasoline and diesel products they sell. Thus, they can undercut Tesla entirely making it a poor consumer choice.

    Then there's this guy. He's invented a battery that puts Musk's battery mega factory out of business.


    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post

    I suspect that one of the major auto companies will gobble Tesla up. FCA maybe?

    Tuebor
    P is right: Telsa has nothing going for the Big Three. Electrics can be luxury cars and may work in Europe, but average Americans drive too many miles for electrics.

    Solve the battery issue, and then there will be a big move to electrics.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Correction--he is still CEO, he was just ousted as chairman of the board...which means nothing has really changed. He's still pulling the strings.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X