More terrible news for Tesla

[skookerasbil]

My goodness, poor old Elon is such a failure. His car company is producing the premier EV's in the world, some of which easily beat $2 million vehicles in performance for less than a tenth of that cost. His Space X launches over 50% of the orbitual launches in the world. His Boring company now has contracts for building his rapid transit system. He has more contracts for his grid scale batteries. Goodness sakes, how will be man face his failures. LOL.

Most of Tesla is still Disney. 50/50 the company makes it..... several prominent executives in the auto industry say they're fucked, but what would they know?

They are a fringe car company making fringe cars most people dont want ( operative word is "most" ).

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

 

[idb]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

You're right of course.
It reminds me of how the carbon paper and slide rule industries were kicking the PC's arse back in the late 70's.

 

[polarbear]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

You're right of course.
It reminds me of how the carbon paper and slide rule industries were kicking the PC's arse back in the late 70's.

He is right and you have no idea how much more sophisticated the technology used in internal combustion engines is than the primitive PM DC motor principle. We use that one at the kindergarten level to demonstrate simple physics. The only thing that`s "new" in electric cars is the type of batteries they use and none of them can compete with the amount of energy and power on demand we can get from gasoline.
Which is why idiots like you are hoping for some kind of miracle battery not realizing that Lithium (EMF=3.7 Volts) is as good as it can possibly get because there is nothing else to be had except Kryptonite or Unobtainum from Hollywood Lalaland.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

You're right of course.
It reminds me of how the carbon paper and slide rule industries were kicking the PC's arse back in the late 70's.

He is right and you have no idea how much more sophisticated the technology used in internal combustion engines is than the primitive PM DC motor principle. We use that one at the kindergarten level to demonstrate simple physics. The only thing that`s "new" in electric cars is the type of batteries they use and none of them can compete with the amount of energy and power on demand we can get from gasoline.
Which is why idiots like you are hoping for some kind of miracle battery not realizing that Lithium (EMF=3.7 Volts) is as good as it can possibly get because there is nothing else to be had except Kryptonite or Unobtainum from Hollywood Lalaland.

Lol....my idiot andriod battery needs charging by noontime.....st00pid. Batteries are ghey.

Five years ago, the k00ks were waxing poetic about how awesome batteries would be by now.....ok....they still blow!

 

[polarbear]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

You're right of course.
It reminds me of how the carbon paper and slide rule industries were kicking the PC's arse back in the late 70's.

He is right and you have no idea how much more sophisticated the technology used in internal combustion engines is than the primitive PM DC motor principle. We use that one at the kindergarten level to demonstrate simple physics. The only thing that`s "new" in electric cars is the type of batteries they use and none of them can compete with the amount of energy and power on demand we can get from gasoline.
Which is why idiots like you are hoping for some kind of miracle battery not realizing that Lithium (EMF=3.7 Volts) is as good as it can possibly get because there is nothing else to be had except Kryptonite or Unobtainum from Hollywood Lalaland.

Lol....my idiot andriod battery needs charging by noontime.....st00pid. Batteries are ghey.

Five years ago, the k00ks were waxing poetic about how awesome batteries would be by now.....ok....they still blow!

And where is that John Goodenough miracle battery they have been bragging so much about?
It still exists only on paper along with a "top secret" lab prototype that can`t even power a light bulb.
Goodenough published a table which only specifies Volts, nothing else...meaning it`s not any better than rubbing a balloon on a rug to get a static charge.

 

[idb]

Lol....Tesla delivered about 100,000 cars in 2017!!!

But skeptics are the morons here!!!

Tesla: vehicle deliveries by quarter 2018 | Statistic

Sounds impressive huh?

Until you see the sobering reality ( if you are a climate k00k )

Chevrolet U.S. Sales Decrease 2.9 Percent To 206,804 Units In December 2017

@www.youlookstoopid.com

Chevy sold over 2x that amount in just December of 2017! One month of sales..........almost double the amount of cars Tesla sold in a whole year!!

You're right of course.
It reminds me of how the carbon paper and slide rule industries were kicking the PC's arse back in the late 70's.

He is right and you have no idea how much more sophisticated the technology used in internal combustion engines is than the primitive PM DC motor principle. We use that one at the kindergarten level to demonstrate simple physics. The only thing that`s "new" in electric cars is the type of batteries they use and none of them can compete with the amount of energy and power on demand we can get from gasoline.
Which is why idiots like you are hoping for some kind of miracle battery not realizing that Lithium (EMF=3.7 Volts) is as good as it can possibly get because there is nothing else to be had except Kryptonite or Unobtainum from Hollywood Lalaland.

Obviously the more complex a machine is then the better it must be at its task...that's patently true.
The highly advanced principle of harnessing exploding gases in a heavyweight and complicated machine and converting the linear forces from those explosions through a series of gears to a rotary motion to drive the wheels must be better than strapping a high torque lightweight rotary action motor directly to the driving wheels because...well...because DC motors have been around for so long and they're simple.
And even though the power on demand from a battery is instant and a battery vehicle can generate the torque to leave an internal combustion vehicle in its dust it can't be as good because batteries are ghey...or something.
There's no doubt you have a point there.

 

[polarbear]

Haha another green-groupy pretending to know something about engineering. It takes more than just torque to outpace the competition. You need POWER and that takes what apparently you don`t comprehend.
It`s the product of torque x revs. Torque by itself means nothing! And btw if it were not for the internal combustion principle we would not have jets or even be able to get anything off the planet.
This is an internal combustion engine:

So was this ( rocket ) engine:

As well as this one:

Thank God Libtard idiots like you weren`t around when this technology was high priority otherwise we would still be trying to get off the ground flapping fabric wings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is based on the fallacy of false equivalency: the electric car has not received the subsidies and infrastructure provided to the fossil fuels car.

 

[polarbear]

The OP is based on the fallacy of false equivalency: the electric car has not received the subsidies and infrastructure provided to the fossil fuels car.

Haha now we are down to the usual "bailout" rubber argument which is the fallacy that "explains" why electric cars are inferior. It was Obama who decided to bail out all kinds of recipients, like banks, the real estate sector etc, not just the automobile sector. His decision according to you Tonka-toy car fans is the reason why consumers prefer the by far more versatile internal combustion engine powered cars. That is as stupid as claiming that the bank bailouts are the reason why Bitcoin can`t out compete conventional banking...and I could mention many more of the kind of red herring arguments Liberals come up with every time they loose.
This is 2014, not 2009 and since then ICP cars implemented by far more technical improvements mostly gained from experimentation on race tracks...not from Obama`s subsidies...and the only ones relying on subsidies (in the form of financial incentives, to stay alive are the production lines for electric cars.
Consumers are offered up to $ 10 000, in many countries if they buy an electric car while being penalized in all sorts of ways if they buy a gas and especially so if its a Diesel powered car.
So f-off with that worn out subsidy argument !
The second part of your argument is even dumber. The infrastructure for fossil fuel cars exists because the industry which refines crude oil constructed it since it was easily predictable what will be needed.
Anybody who intends to market a product without considering that the infrastructure needed to utilize it does not exist is not playing with a full deck of cards. Especially those who entertain ideas that the tax payer should foot the bill (with excesive GHG taxes) to build an infrastructure for a product with a questionable future.

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP is based on the fallacy of false equivalency: the electric car has not received the subsidies and infrastructure provided to the fossil fuels car.

Haha now we are down to the usual "bailout" rubber argument which is the fallacy that "explains" why electric cars are inferior. It was Obama who decided to bail out all kinds of recipients, like banks, the real estate sector etc, not just the automobile sector. His decision according to you Tonka-toy car fans is the reason why consumers prefer the by far more versatile internal combustion engine powered cars. That is as stupid as claiming that the bank bailouts are the reason why Bitcoin can`t out compete conventional banking...and I could mention many more of the kind of red herring arguments Liberals come up with every time they loose.
This is 2014, not 2009 and since then ICP cars implemented by far more technical improvements mostly gained from experimentation on race tracks...not from Obama`s subsidies...and the only ones relying on subsidies (in the form of financial incentives, to stay alive are the production lines for electric cars.
Consumers are offered up to $ 10 000, in many countries if they buy an electric car while being penalized in all sorts of ways if they buy a gas and especially so if its a Diesel powered car.
So f-off with that worn out subsidy argument !
The second part of your argument is even dumber. The infrastructure for fossil fuel cars exists because the industry which refines crude oil constructed it since it was easily predictable what will be needed.
Anybody who intends to market a product without considering that the infrastructure needed to utilize it does not exist is not playing with a full deck of cards. Especially those who entertain ideas that the tax payer should foot the bill (with excesive GHG taxes) to build an infrastructure for a product with a questionable future.

Dumbass progressives dont know that Soetero was THE Godsend for the big banks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is based on the fallacy of false equivalency: the electric car has not received the subsidies and infrastructure provided to the fossil fuels car.

Haha now we are down to the usual "bailout" rubber argument which is the fallacy that "explains" why electric cars are inferior. It was Obama who decided to bail out all kinds of recipients, like banks, the real estate sector etc, not just the automobile sector. His decision according to you Tonka-toy car fans is the reason why consumers prefer the by far more versatile internal combustion engine powered cars. That is as stupid as claiming that the bank bailouts are the reason why Bitcoin can`t out compete conventional banking...and I could mention many more of the kind of red herring arguments Liberals come up with every time they loose.
This is 2014, not 2009 and since then ICP cars implemented by far more technical improvements mostly gained from experimentation on race tracks...not from Obama`s subsidies...and the only ones relying on subsidies (in the form of financial incentives, to stay alive are the production lines for electric cars.
Consumers are offered up to $ 10 000, in many countries if they buy an electric car while being penalized in all sorts of ways if they buy a gas and especially so if its a Diesel powered car.
So f-off with that worn out subsidy argument !
The second part of your argument is even dumber. The infrastructure for fossil fuel cars exists because the industry which refines crude oil constructed it since it was easily predictable what will be needed.
Anybody who intends to market a product without considering that the infrastructure needed to utilize it does not exist is not playing with a full deck of cards. Especially those who entertain ideas that the tax payer should foot the bill (with excesive GHG taxes) to build an infrastructure for a product with a questionable future.

EVERYONE: read polarbear's inconsistent commentary above.

It falls apart when one consider the decades long government commitment to fossil fuel cars opposed to the short run Obama commitment. If the same amount of commitment continued, electric cars would have done as well

 

[polarbear]

The OP is based on the fallacy of false equivalency: the electric car has not received the subsidies and infrastructure provided to the fossil fuels car.

Haha now we are down to the usual "bailout" rubber argument which is the fallacy that "explains" why electric cars are inferior. It was Obama who decided to bail out all kinds of recipients, like banks, the real estate sector etc, not just the automobile sector. His decision according to you Tonka-toy car fans is the reason why consumers prefer the by far more versatile internal combustion engine powered cars. That is as stupid as claiming that the bank bailouts are the reason why Bitcoin can`t out compete conventional banking...and I could mention many more of the kind of red herring arguments Liberals come up with every time they loose.
This is 2014, not 2009 and since then ICP cars implemented by far more technical improvements mostly gained from experimentation on race tracks...not from Obama`s subsidies...and the only ones relying on subsidies (in the form of financial incentives, to stay alive are the production lines for electric cars.
Consumers are offered up to $ 10 000, in many countries if they buy an electric car while being penalized in all sorts of ways if they buy a gas and especially so if its a Diesel powered car.
So f-off with that worn out subsidy argument !
The second part of your argument is even dumber. The infrastructure for fossil fuel cars exists because the industry which refines crude oil constructed it since it was easily predictable what will be needed.
Anybody who intends to market a product without considering that the infrastructure needed to utilize it does not exist is not playing with a full deck of cards. Especially those who entertain ideas that the tax payer should foot the bill (with excesive GHG taxes) to build an infrastructure for a product with a questionable future.

EVERYONE: read polarbear's inconsistent commentary above.

It falls apart when one consider the decades long government commitment to fossil fuel cars opposed to the short run Obama commitment. If the same amount of commitment continued, electric cars would have done as well

Anyone reading it will notice that you are resorting to the usual Dem ignoratio elenchi by substituting the phrase "government subsidies" with "government commitment". Hahaha as if pre-Obama governments were "committed" to fossil fuel cars. When did they proclaim that ? No government ever committed to anything without officially proclaiming it. Show me that proclamation. Of such there are all kinds. For example you won`t have any problems finding the one that proclaimed farm subsidies etc. So quit the "government fossil fuel commitment" b.s. !
That "short run" Obama "commitment" has no equal in the recent past no matter what you like to call it now.
The electric car "commitment" still continued even after Obama. It has been proclaimed in the form of tax incentives and in many other countries in the form of emission penalties. That has nothing to do with the fact that for example people in Fargo ND know they can`t drive in an electric car to Minneapolis and back home again which is no problem in a "fossil fuel car" as you call state of the art automobiles (& trucks). Even an engineering illiterate like you should know by now that it`s not the car which is the problem but the power source ( the battery)....as if a government could change the fact that there is no element to be had that is higher up the EMF scale than Lithium, but how can anyone argue that with someone like you who has never even heard about EMF never mind how it is determined.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I used government subsidies, my diction challenged friend. Now talk honestly about what we are all discussing, and you can get an honest response. The fact remains if electric cars received the support for as long as fossil fuel cars, there would be no discussion here.

 

[polarbear]

I used government subsidies, my diction challenged friend. Now talk honestly about what we are all discussing, and you can get an honest response. The fact remains if electric cars received the support for as long as fossil fuel cars, there would be no discussion here.

No you did not. You changed it to "government commitment", obfuscating the issue. But no matter how you slice it government has little to do with ingenuity and innovation. For that you need gifted people.
When Henry Ford and Oskar Krause (the guy behind the O.K) designed and implemented the first assembly line there was no government subsidy involved. Now we are at a point where most of the assembly is carried out by robots. Elon Musk did not have to re-invent any of that. Not only is he too stupid by not considering that there is no infrastructure for his electric cars on our roads he is also too dumb to get the manufacturing part of his enterprise right. Like Hillary he now blames it on saboteurs. There is no amount of government subsidies that can fix stupidity. Most of the time it results in even greater stupidity.
While the rest of the automobile industry has been implementing ever more sophisticated technology your hero still is trying to figure out how his cars can get from A to B.
If we would have had to rely on people like Musk we would still not have transatlantic flights let alone space exploration. Don`t hold your breath for amateurs like Musk to solve the problems with more government subsidies.
They have already been solved by the "fossil fuel" engineers. The solution is not just an electric motor, but a hybrid system like the one Porsche engineers demonstrated in the Porsche 918:

Of course most people can`t afford a 918, but it was meant mostly as a proof of concept, which is how almost all the advances that were made started out. There was no government subsidy involved with the concept of using an electromagnetic braking system which feeds energy back into the battery or any of the rest of the revolutionary concepts incorporated in this car !

 

[Old Rocks]

Fuck your 918. It is slower than a P100D, and costs way more. His Super Charger network is up and growing daily. And his factory will be spitting out Tesla 3's very rapidly by the end of this year. I have been in on the breaking in of a new manufacturing plant several times, and it is always a pain in the ass. He is doing very well in getting his factory up to speed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Fuck your 918. It is slower than a P100D, and costs way more. His Super Charger network is up and growing daily. And his factory will be spitting out Tesla 3's very rapidly by the end of this year. I have been in on the breaking in of a new manufacturing plant several times, and it is always a pain in the ass. He is doing very well in getting his factory up to speed.

Yeah the 918 really sucks!

Hmmmm.....so let's see. Guy who can afford a supercar is going to want to show up at the power party in a Porsche? Or a Tesla?

What progressives fail to comprehend is the culture as it relates to cars! Just out in left field on this, especially when it comes to performance cars. Their hatred for anything traditional and American is shared by very few, which is why you show up at any car show with 500+ high performance cars, you see 2 or 3 Tesla S"s. Nobody wants these cars....they are fringe products in a market dominated by conventionally powered LOUD AS FUCK FAST cars. More Hellcats are sold in a few weeks than for a whole year for the Tesla.

Progressives dont understand American culture as it relates to the automobile!