Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla? - Page 47
Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647
Results 921 to 929 of 929

Thread: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

  1. #921
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    145
    Likes (Given)
    230
    Likes (Received)
    76
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Don't you see? The very poll you pointed to proves my point. People say "I care" and in the next breath "as long it costs me nothing". That means they don't care. If they cared, they would give up everything to stop the end of the world.
    This is a false dichotomy. Humans have a long history of caring about things that they don't want to pay much for, so declaring that "if they cared, they would give up everything" is nonsensical in the extreme.

    There are any number of psychology and behavioral economics books you can read to better understand (or at least accept) the weird relationship between what people care about and what actions they take as a result. I recommend "Thinking Fast And Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, the father of behavioral economics, or "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini. Both are excellent and entertaining reads regardless of your interest in electric vehicles.

    One well-known phenomenon that is likely relevant is the Tragedy of the Commons, in which people tend to overuse and destroy a shared resource to avoid being the "sucker" who enables others to free-ride. If you ask someone "will you pay $10 to help save everybody", they might decline, but if you instead say "everybody is kicking in $10 each to save the planet, will you join them?" they're far more likely to be willing to pay. Same end goal, same dollar figure, just different psychology.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Don't you see the 97% is meaningless drivel if there is no end game?
    No, because again that's still not what the term "meaningless drivel" means. It's also not corrugated roofing, or potato salad, or electric boogaloo.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    The best analogy I got off the top of my head is ciggies. Is there a doctor on the planet that for the last 20 years doesn't say, smoking WILL kill you? And yet millions upon millions of new smokers start smoking. Explain that to me.
    Again, I highly recommend those books mentioned above, since this kind of question has been answered. The "Influence" book is particularly accessible and chock full of super entertaining stories of people doing seemingly irrational things.

    But to answer your question, humans evolved to deal with immediate threats, like tigers and spiders. During most of our evolution, we just didn't live long enough to care about things 10-20 years in the future. So as a species, we struggle with future threats and statistics. That's why there is a lot of effort in the medical community to figure out how to convey things like relative risk to people in a way they understand.

    To be clear, it's not much of a mystery why people care but won't pay. The mystery is how you get people to do what's actually in their best interests in cases like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Lets go to the actual poll, not some journalists opinion of the poll http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Docum...eet_v4_DTP.pdf Now the math doesn't add up to 100 so obviously its a question of "how much money" are you willing to give
    What are you talking about? I'll take a wild guess and assume you noticed that the first set of stats breaks respondents into three buckets, 71%, 9%, and 19%, which sums to 99%. You appear to believe there's a "how much money" question that got 1% of the response, or something, but that's not a reasonable conclusion.
    The most likely explanation is that the three buckets were something like 77.3%, 9.3%, and 19.4%, which does sum to 100%, but all three round down in the simplified presentation. As a side note, surveys like this have a margin of error that is typically a few percent, so it's totally pointless to argue over differences less than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    The "fact" was: Beta was a better format than VHS. Didn't matter. It lost. The public decided otherwise.
    I have to admit, this is the one line that motivated me to actually respond to this message, because that is not a "fact", even though I know you've declared it to be one at least twice in this thread.

    This is an Urban Myth. Beta was not the better format overall. It lost mostly because Beta tapes only had a capacity of one hour, while VHS offered two hours, which meant VHS enabled movie recording and rental. Sony's pricing and advertising didn't help beta, either. Some reviews thought beta had better video quality, but some thought VHS superior, so any video quality advantage was modest at best.

    References:
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...omment.comment
    https://mises.org/library/market-failure-again
    https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/palpd.html

  2. Remove Advertisements
     

  3. #922
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    This is a false dichotomy. Humans have a long history of caring about things that they don't want to pay much for, so declaring that "if they cared, they would give up everything" is nonsensical in the extreme.
    Not in the context of if they don’t, we all die. Absolutely not. If something is an existential threat. If we are dead, then it most definitely matters, or you die. This is the premise we are being told. We will all die.

    Yes, the Tragedy of the Commons, well known for 150 years, commonly brought up by “environmentalists” to further their cause, or explain it. I have no doubt the theory is true. So what? Explaining the behavior does not change it. It is what it is. It is the behavior. Now what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    No, because again that's still not what the term "meaningless drivel" means. It's also not corrugated roofing, or potato salad, or electric boogaloo.
    OK “meaningless drivel in the context that if you don’t reach your desired end goal, massive amounts of money, then in the end, it means nothing. We all died." All the work, all the words, meant nothing. They were rubbish. We died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    But to answer your question, humans evolved to deal with immediate threats, like tigers and spiders.
    Well yeah, exactly. Didn’t I use the name Maslov several times? What is more important than the physiological needs of humans? This is like Psych 101 from like Freshmen college. Nothing is more important and it plays out every day. I've said that multiple times. This is the core of Kman's question. Do people care about today or tomorrow. They care about right now. They care about how they are going to feed themselves today and pay for their kids clothes tomorrow. Next week is a lifetime away.

    Yes. You got it. Sounds like we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    To be clear, it's not much of a mystery why people care but won't pay. The mystery is how you get people to do what's actually in their best interests in cases like this.
    YES. You got it. I've been saying that for a year. Lousy salesman. Now what (presuming it is in their best interests. I have no issue with it getting hotter, Personally I'm not sure it matters. Humans are very adaptable. Dinosaurs not so much).

    But assuming it matters. yes, now what? Who is going to give up social security, medicare, welfare, and defense because there simply is not enough money to go all in and change everything forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    What are you talking about? I'll take a wild guess and assume you noticed that the first set of stats breaks respondents into three buckets, 71%, 9%, and 19%, which sums to 99%.
    http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Docum...eet_v4_DTP.pdf The money question, the one where the rubber meets the road.

    “Support for a $1 fee to combat climate change has remained fairly steady over time. “

    Answers are 57,28, 40, 23, 15, and 16 totaling 169%. So go to the real question http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Docum...line_final.pdf

    Q22_A.
    Its 6 different questions, not one question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    I have to admit, this is the one line that motivated me to actually respond to this message, because that is not a "fact", even though I know you've declared it to be one at least twice in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post

    This is an Urban Myth. Beta was not the better format overall. It lost mostly because Beta tapes only had a capacity of one hour, while VHS offered two hours, which meant VHS enabled movie recording and rental. Sony's pricing and advertising didn't help beta, either. Some reviews thought beta had better video quality, but some thought VHS superior, so any video quality advantage was modest at best.

    References:
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...omment.comment
    https://mises.org/library/market-failure-again
    https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/palpd.html


    Well, I remember VCR shopping and looking at the specs and the cost. I said:
    Beta was a better format than VHS. Didn't matter. It lost. The public decided otherwise.

    I forget where I bought, it could have been Circuit City, long gone. VCRs. Amazing, who would have thought that you didn't have to watch TV live anymore (or reruns)? So it was off to read the reviews, the specs and lets see what they said, from Wiki, and being a tech type person and, unfortunately an early adopter, I read the blueprints or specs and can see the house.

    “Beta I speed of 1.57 inches per second (ips) offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 lines vs 240 lines horizontal NTSC), lower video noise, and less luma/chroma crosstalk than VHS”

    Yeah, better format than VHS. Better specs. No contest there with probably there resolution and noise being the issues to me. Long time ago. Now the non-tech stuff.

    Price? Most definitely Beta cost more. That WAS an issue.
    Tape length? Absolutely an issue but not as much as Price.
    Who makes it? Sony. Sony wins, at the time well known. JVC? Who is JVC, Japanese Victor.

    “Betamax is, in theory, a superior recording format over VHS due to resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines), slightly superior sound, and a more stable image; Betamax recorders were also of higher quality construction.”

    Yeah, technically, the superior unit. But there is no doubt price matters. Its like reading a spec that says a car is a 4.8 0 - 60 car but cost $60,000 while another is a 4.9 car but cost $40,000. Really, does the 0.1 seconds matter? Well to the techies, it matters. In reality? Of course not. Lets continue

    ”… these differences were negligible to consumers, and thus did not justify either the extra cost of a Betamax VCR (which was often significantly more expensive than a VHS equivalent) or Betamax's shorter recording time.”:

    Ahh, in the end, it ALWAYS come down to money (all other things being equal). VHS was cheaper, and since there were VHS competitors – that Free Market stuff – competition is good. It drives the price down farther. But RCA? Not really a name associated with quality vs Sony? But Sony had no competitors. So in the end, just like most everyone else, ended up with JVC despite knowing the Beta was then better technical format. But I guess I wasn't a purist. Sometimes its better to be part of the crowd and buy from a field of competitors driving down the price and let the upscale Beta stand by itself.

    Now do we agree or not? I'm not sure. But I don't disagree the length of the tape or price was a MAJOR issue. Those are the two issues that pushed me into VHS vs Beta . I REMEMBER making those decisions while at the same time knowing the specs of Beta were better, a superior technical product.


  4. #923
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    BTW Brett, this struggle between the technically superior but more expensive product vs the cheaper but more popular product happens all the time. When your young, the money might matter a great deal.

    About 12 years ago I bought a Tube, yes tube, HD TV. 30" instead of a flat screen. It was a HEAVY beast, but just blew away the flat screens, which of course can be much bigger. And it was more money, especially for the size. Now that decision was the opposite. I went with the more expensive product, in a field I knew was dying. I mean who was buying tube TVs once flat screens arrived? But it was a conscious decision because the picture was beautiful in comparison to flat screens of the day.

    Just recently I got rid of that heavy beast. But that decision was the exact opposite of the beta vs VHS thing. These kind of decisions happen all the time.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    Planet-9.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #924
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by K-Man S View Post
    what if you had 2 choices:

    1) You could get your mobility/transportation needs satisfied for only $5/day using product X but the use of product X will have detrimental consequences that will result in there being no mobility/transportation in 200 years.
    2) You could get your mobility/transportation needs satisfied for $10/day using product Y and Product Y has no such detrimental consequences

    Which would you choose? In your post above I think you would argue that MOST people would choose option 1, it is half as expensive as option 2 and any effects aren't likely to happen until after they are dead so they don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    humans evolved to deal with immediate threats, like tigers and spiders. ... To be clear, it's not much of a mystery why people care but won't pay. The mystery is how you get people to do what's actually in their best interests in cases like this.
    Kman, sorry to hear about GT4 transmissions. Wow.

    Going back to question 1, and Bretts analysis, a very recent example came into focus.

    When theoretical poll questions ask about the future, the results mean little, besides the normal thing that polls mean little about the future. Its because its not real. Asking if would be willing to give $10/month to save mankind vice ACTUALLY having to pay it, are two entirely different things. I might think that killing baby seals is bad and might be willing to contribute money to stop it, but when the hand comes out to actually pay it, maybe I don't have the cash on hand because my kid needs some supper. Theoretical future questions and reality are entirely different, which bring us to a great example, California.

    You can read a journalists opinion of what is going on here. But I rather go to the original source material https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/Me...meta_id=399410 Beverly Hills is banning the sale of tobacco (I know, I bring up tobacco and smoking a lot. That's because its TANGIBLE. Its not "people will die". Its "people HAVE died". If you can't get people to do anything when something is tangible, you will never get trillions to fight something in the future).

    Except for one thing ... some people want to exempt cigar lounges. Now you can read what the ex-governer of CA had to say, and others, summarized by the LA Times article or just go directly to the original material. https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/Me...meta_id=398219 Start at attachment 4 and start reading all the letters that want the lounges to be exempt, and who they are from. Note their professions, including at least one doctor.

    You can read the letters yourselves and the authors reasons why they think they are special and should be allowed to buy tobacco where they choose to do so vice other residents of the city. The letters speak for themselves.

    BTW, I presume the could still be members of the club, drink fine whisky, eat fine food, still have their meetings and conduct business with their peers in their "clubs", just without tobacco. Now go watch Live PD and watch "alleged" criminals (innocent until proven guilty) being arrested while smoking their choice of tobacco, unwilling to even put out their butts with handcuffs on.

    Those who expect Massive, trillions of dollars, will never get it from a population that won't even save itself when the immediate dangers are well known. A massive, trillions upon trillions of dollars expenditure is not just DOA, it never had a chance.
    Last edited by chows4us; Yesterday at 09:09 AM.

  7. #925
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    145
    Likes (Given)
    230
    Likes (Received)
    76
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Not in the context of if they don’t, we all die. Absolutely not. If something is an existential threat. If we are dead, then it most definitely matters, or you die. This is the premise we are being told. We will all die.
    Well, we already know we'll all die. My point was that people are really bad at properly weighing long-term results, especially when there is math or science involved.

    When a hurricane is approaching Florida, people are very quick to spend money on plywood for their windows and food stockpiles. That's also an existential threat (for them), the big difference is that it's imminent and they understand it, and importantly they can see exactly how their $$ will improve their own well-being.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Yes, the Tragedy of the Commons, well known for 150 years, commonly brought up by “environmentalists” to further their cause, or explain it. I have no doubt the theory is true. So what? Explaining the behavior does not change it. It is what it is. It is the behavior. Now what?
    Sure, but the point was that it refutes your claim that "If they cared, they would give up everything to stop the end of the world."

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    OK “meaningless drivel in the context that if you don’t reach your desired end goal, massive amounts of money, then in the end, it means nothing. We all died." All the work, all the words, meant nothing. They were rubbish. We died.
    You are persistent, I'll give you that. I remain convinced that communication is best served by using words with their agreed-upon meaning, but what I think you're trying to say is that all these words are pointless if they accomplish nothing. Or maybe you're taking the nihilistic view that everything is meaningless because we're just going to die anyway?
    Anyway, this is too philosophical for me, so whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Now what (presuming it is in their best interests. I have no issue with it getting hotter, Personally I'm not sure it matters. Humans are very adaptable. Dinosaurs not so much).
    If you're not sure it matters, that's because you reject the scientific consensus. Or because you don't think it matters if your actions (or lack of action) causes great suffering after you're gone. Or both.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    But assuming it matters. yes, now what? Who is going to give up social security, medicare, welfare, and defense because there simply is not enough money to go all in and change everything forever?


    Again with the false dichotomy. Our options are not restricted to either doing nothing or bankrupting the economy. There is a huge spectrum of actions between those extremes.
    In engineering we have a popular expression "perfect is the enemy of done", and that applies here: don't let the difficulty of fixing everything stop you from fixing anything.

    Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Saying you "don't mind if it gets hotter" tells me you're not there yet. Years ago I heard a nice breakdown of the relevant questions in climate change:
    1. Is the Earth warming?
    2. To what degree is it caused by humans?
    3. What can we do about it?
    4. What should we do about it?

    Questions 1-3 are scientific, with #3 having a big technology component. Question 4 is not a scientific question, but more of a political/economic/policy question. 1 and 2 have been definitely answered with scientific consensus ("yes" and "mostly"). Question 3 is sort of the brainstorming phase, with an ever-growing array of suggestions (carbon capture, carbon tax, banning coal, etc.).

    You keep presuming the only answers to #3 involve spending all our money, which is absolutely not true. And you also seem to feel that unless we have a "total fix" for #4, we should spend nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post

    http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Docum...eet_v4_DTP.pdf The money question, the one where the rubber meets the road.

    “Support for a $1 fee to combat climate change has remained fairly steady over time. “

    Answers are 57,28, 40, 23, 15, and 16 totaling 169%.


    Did you read the table? There is no reason to expect those stats to sum to 100% because, as you seem to have discovered from the "real question", those numbers show support for various different fees. That's pretty obvious from the table.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post

    Well, I remember VCR shopping and looking at the specs and the cost.


    Yeah, me too.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    I said: Beta was a better format than VHS. Didn't matter. It lost. The public decided otherwise.

    Yeah, better format than VHS. Better specs. No contest there with probably there resolution and noise being the issues to me. Long time ago. Now the non-tech stuff.

    Price? Most definitely Beta cost more. That WAS an issue.
    Tape length? Absolutely an issue but not as much as Price.
    Tape length is absolutely a technical spec, and far more important than you give it credit for. In fact, the slightly lower video quality due to slower tape speed suggests the engineers purposely traded off a bit of quality for extra recording capacity, making these factors impossible to decouple.
    And regarding cost, Sony dropped the price of beta significantly to compete with VHS (remember, beta hit the market long before VHS), so for much of their overlap there wasn't a significant price penalty for beta.
    Regarding video quality versus tape capacity, back in the day did you record stuff on VHS? What VHS format did you use, SP, LP, or EP? I cared about quality, but I cared a lot more about not having my recordings get truncated by end-of-tape, so I used the 4- and 6-hour formats almost exclusively, even though they had lower video quality. A 1-hour tape would be a non-starter for me, even if it had marginally sharper video.

    The point is that Beta had some advantages of VHS, and VHS had some advantages over beta. Even at the same price, a logical fully-informed consumer might reasonably choose VHS over beta. Thus, it's not correct to definitively state that beta was "better", and the popular notion that the public picked the "worse" format is incorrect. Same with other popular myths such as QWERTY vs Dvorak, or Windows vs Mac. In all these cases the overall winner had some important advantages over the competition, so the simplistic "public got it wrong" narrative is not accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    Now do we agree or not? I'm not sure. But I don't disagree the length of the tape or price was a MAJOR issue. Those are the two issues that pushed me into VHS vs Beta . I REMEMBER making those decisions while at the same time knowing the specs of Beta were better, a superior technical product.
    I think you're downplaying the importance of recording capacity and somehow saying it isn't part of the "technical specs". But fine, I think we both agree that the public often picks a different product than we would pick. You're a beta guy, I really hate Windows, etc.

    To summarize, I'm really looking forward to the Taycan. I'm hoping this platform is the VHS to Tesla's Beta. See what I did there?

  8. #926
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    First, the Taycan is already a success. They intended to make 20K and now are making 40K. There a lots of people with money to burn that are also early adopters. In fact, you need money to burn to be an early adopter but take then biggest hit because of the economy of scales. It will be the Macans and box/cay sales that will make or break Porsche, mostly the Macans since they sell few box/cay in comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    Well, we already know we'll all die. My point was that people are really bad at properly weighing long-term results, especially when there is math or science involved.

    When a hurricane is approaching Florida, people are very quick to spend money on plywood for their windows and food stockpiles. That's also an existential threat (for them), the big difference is that it's imminent and they understand it, and importantly they can see exactly how their $$ will improve their own well-being.
    Yes, I agree. You see it all the time. That's my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    You are persistent, I'll give you that. I remain convinced that communication is best served by using words with their agreed-upon meaning, but what I think you're trying to say is that all these words are pointless if they accomplish nothing. Or maybe you're taking the nihilistic view that everything is meaningless because we're just going to die anyway?
    Anyway, this is too philosophical for me, so whatever.
    OK, I assumed we all knew we were talking in the context of an existential threat. If its only a local or regional threat, then it matters little. Its only when the world is going to end that the real money comes into play, and this existential threat is what I keep hearing over and over again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    If you're not sure it matters, that's because you reject the scientific consensus. Or because you don't think it matters if your actions (or lack of action) causes great suffering after you're gone. Or both.
    No, there is option 3. I have no doubt temps are rising nor that humans are part of this closed system. I reject that it really matters. You don't know what you don't know. You don't know what technology will be invented. The desire to make money is strong for capitalists. What CO2 scrubbers will be invented? Or further, so what if the sea rises? Maybe over generations the coastline changes.

    WHY would anyone think the coastlines will always be the same? Why? Our lifetimes are puny? The Earths been around 4b years. Coastlines change all the time. Nothing is static. No, option 3 is I can buy into temps rise but I also have great faith in mankind's technical abilities to solve problems, nm the massive opportunities for vacation cruises to the open waterways of the Arctic or a plush new forest in Antarctica. Think of the massive finds once all the snow is gone. I might come across facetious but its to make a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post

    Again with the false dichotomy. Our options are not restricted to either doing nothing or bankrupting the economy. There is a huge spectrum of actions between those extremes.


    Not if we only got 12 years left
    Here are some recent choice headlines from a panic environmentalist press

    It is absolutely time to panic about climate change

    The Uninhabitable Earth

    "It is, I promise, worse than you think. ... you are surely not alarmed enough. ...
    The End of Food .... Climate Plagues"

    OMG bubonic plague from the melting Tundra!!!

    Its easy to find the alarmists crowd in panic gaslighting the public, which in turn mostly ignores them.

    So I'm taking their side. The world will end, and you MUST change everything, I stated my POV

    "The fundamental problem with the wish to obtain massive amounts of money to solve global warming is that if there is a problem that requires a solution (and I am skeptical that any such thing needs to be done) then the buy-in needs isn’t going to require something that takes a few years, nor a decade, nor a generation. No. You’re talking about transformation of, on a GLOBAL scale:

    the entire transportation sector (autos, trains, shipping, airplanes);
    the food industry (tractors, farming),
    the very food humans eat (yeah, good luck with that);

    small engines (e.g., lawn mowers, chain saws);
    the military (good luck with that too);
    and the infrastructure that supports those sectors.

    This is not a generational thing. It’s a multi-century thing. It's an "ALL TIME THING". You can't just quit when the numbers are down. They must know that. They can't revert to the "old way". EVERYTHING, must change - FOREVER."


    Can you just fix a little? That's not what "they" are telling us. PEOPLE WILL DIE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    Did you read the table?


    Not at first glance, that's why I had to go back and read the real survey. That was my bad reading and I went to correct it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    Tape length is absolutely a technical spec
    OK, if you think so. I think more of the others. What speed did I use? 2 hours. Just buy more tapes on sale. 6 hours looked like crap. 2 hours covered a movie.


    To generalize all this, I believe Maslow was correct. You mentioned Florida. Yup people do things last second. ITs human nature. OH, and now I see some residents of Beverly Hills think they are "special" so their tobacco laws shouldn't apply to them.

    Thats what humans do. YOU take the pain. YOU pay the taxes. But I will carve out an exemption for me.

  9. #927
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    145
    Likes (Given)
    230
    Likes (Received)
    76
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by chows4us View Post
    First, the Taycan is already a success. They intended to make 20K and now are making 40K.
    What I mean is that I hope decades from now, on a forum devoted to something like asteroid watching or jetpack maintenance, people will be having an off-topic discussion about how even though the Porsche/VW/Audio electric-car platform vastly outsold the others, the long-defunct Tesla vehicles were technically superior thanks to their Ludicrous Mode and giant screens, but they lost out due to the competition's emphasis of unimportant non-technical features like reliability, dealer networks, and ownership costs.

    That's the success I'm talking about.

    -Brett

    P.S. I own a Tesla Model S (my wife's daily driver), and like it a lot, so I don't actually hope Tesla goes under. Musk is kind of a jerk, but otherwise I'm a fan. The above comments are intended for entertainment purposes mostly.

  10. #928
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Sometimes I watch car videos on youtube, not the "reviews" by reviewers but the mechanics. The reviewers are sort of "meh", 15 mins of fame, move onto the next car. The mechanics talk about every day problems they see all the time. I found this guy, who on first impression came of a bit weird, but after you watch a few videos he is very experiences (51 years?) and seems to work on a lot of older cars, all kinds of older cars. The following are his opinions but I agree with the concept that lithium based chemistry will NOT be the future alternative energy source for cars. Maybe Toyota knows what they are doing. Hmm.







  11. #929
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,536
    Likes (Given)
    2593
    Likes (Received)
    3656
    Images
    9
    Downloads
    106
    Uploads
    2

    Re: Mission E - Can it compete with Tesla?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett_Coon View Post
    What I mean is that I hope decades from now, on a forum devoted to something like asteroid watching or jetpack maintenance, people will be having an off-topic discussion about how even though the Porsche/VW/Audio electric-car platform vastly outsold the others, the long-defunct Tesla vehicles were technically superior thanks to their Ludicrous Mode and giant screens, but they lost out due to the competition's emphasis of unimportant non-technical features like reliability, dealer networks, and ownership costs.

    That's the success I'm talking about.

    -Brett
    .
    Good one. The problem with people predicting things is that they rarely anticipate the break throughs that happen. When there were 3 networks and you had to watch something live, or in summer reruns, who could have imagined a world where you could just push a button and watch about anything you wanted, anytime, not only on a massive 80" flat TV but on a tiny screen you held in your hand (that also made phone calls)? Nobody. The alarmist at the time were worrying about the next ice age or running out of oil. Microwaves were amazing machines. Hit a button, out comes cooked bacon and popcorn in a few minutes, something inconceivable. Poor Jiffy Pop, their days were numbered.

    We don't know what we know. I "doubt", not a prediction but "doubt", that VAG will have anything near its current sales success in the next decade. I "guess" they will sink slowly, weighted down by EU regulations that strangle the life out of them while valiantly sprouting their rhetoric about how the Porsche SUVs are "sports cars" and how important sustainable supply chains are to their ethics, or whatever.

    My other guess, I said before, is if Tesla can actually prove itself to be a viable car making enterprise, and keep down the competition coming from the VW brand, not the corporation but the brand, and the Koreans who must be doing something, along with potential Chinese EVs that could be imported to the US, then it will be eaten by one off the big boys, maybe Mitsu/Renualt, maybe VAG or GM/Ford. As noted in one of those videos above, where is the market for fixing used EVs, the dealers?

  12. Remove Advertisements
     

Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 05-11-2017, 09:13 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 10:20 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 11:45 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2015, 03:00 PM
  5. So... I got my VIN. What can I do with it ?
    By xsi123 in forum 981 Cayman and Boxster Configurations and Ordering
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 09:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •