Crown

Board: Other Sports Cars Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Tesla

    CGX car nut:

    The Frankfurter Allgmeine posts an article on How to Bet Against Tesla.  

    Here's the link to the article, in German: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/die-boerse-und-die-tesla-aktie-so-wetten-sie-gegen-elon-musk-17317989.html#lesermeinungen 

    Google Translate provides a passable translation of the article.

    Good thing German is my first language.  Glad you are looking into betting against them. Put you money where your mouth is. Less work here.  This is actually a good time to short due to all that insider selling. 


    Re: Tesla

    bluelines:

    Next generation Tesla autopilot in testing indecision Night-time splashdown for four astronauts:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-56962932

    Congrats to Musk and SpaceX wink

    I admire Musk tremendously. He is a visionary. Smiley

    I just canceled my Starlink order though, it was ready to ship and they were fair enough to give me the chance to cancel it before they finally shipped it. I'm a little bit sad because I really wanted to test it but it makes no sense for me, I have fast internet access at home and Starlink isn't faster (maybe in the future). I also beta test Vodafone's 5G with a 5G router for a while now and they just increased the speed to around 170 Mbit/s (from a previous 28 Mbit/s, it couldn't switch to 5G, used only 4G, I know, not exactly 5G magic Smiley), so Starlink makes even less sense for me. 

    Still...Starlink is amazing for people who live outside internet service areas and who need fast internet. 


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Lamborghini Huracan Performante (2019), Mercedes GLC63 S AMG (2020), Mercedes C63 S AMG Cab (2019), Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk (2019 EU)


    Re: Tesla

     


    Re: Tesla

    Nice repeat of a similar video he produced a while back. I wonder if he knows many cars have achieved this?  
    Also - rollout for an EV is about its best party trick. Lol. 
    we shall see. Love the publicity. 


    Re: Tesla

    https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-emissions-credits-sales-profit-stellantis-fiat-chrysler-2021-5

    Here is a major blow to TSLA's ability to book a quarterly profit.

    Their biggest buyer of credits is pulling out. 


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    Topspeed:

     

    What really sucks is that everyone is waiting for the first review of the plaid. His entire video is based on false advertising that he is somehow able to get his hands on a real plaid model S.  So to summarize. His complaint is false advertising when he does not actually do any testing and is only speculating over and over again while lying to get viewers. As a YouTube fan I think he is a total hypocrite.  And he is full of crap thinking 2 seconds is not possible.  Totally Stupid to base acceleration on ability to brake.  But he gets his views. 


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood, you are actually refuting one of the most respected and unbiased channel on YouTube simply because he is saying something that you don't want to hear.

    He owns a Model 3 btw, so he do have first hand knowledge of Teslas and not a Tesla basher. 

    He is basing his conclusion on numbers and physics, and physics is the law that governs everything in life btw, not even Elon can violate the principles of physics. 

    Using braking numbers to calculate tire grip is very valid, and once you have the tire grip number you can do the other side of the equation and calculate how much power a car can put down for acceleration before breaking traction. All modern high power cars are limited by tire traction btw, given better tire grip all can have much better acceleration numbers, which is why that Book dude insists on doing his videos on prep-ed drag strips with much better than street road grip and also grippier drag racing tires for extra launch grips. Cars Brook tested will also have much better than normal braking distance simply because there is a much higher tire traction with drag racing tire on prep-ed surfaces if he test braking distances on the drag strip itself. 

    0-60 simply means a car gets to 60mph from rest. Not after rolling for 1 ft first. GPS timings are sensitive enough to time the event. Drag strip style 0-60 with the 1 ft roll out to break timing beams is out dated and gives better number than cars can actually do. But it's the way most Americans are used to seeing so it's another number that gets published. 

    On theory, a car will need to sustain approximately 1.4g in order to achieve sub-2 second 0-60mph. We are 'almost' there on tire tech. Cars running Cup R can do ~1.3g braking right now. 

    And once tire tech is there, not just a Plaid, but a whole list of cars can do sub 2, one of which will be the 918, the current champ for 0-60. 991 turbo S, 992 turbo S will both have a shot also. 

     

     


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    I don't believe the car's optimal 0-60 time is actually the important part of the new plaid drivetrain. Currently the cars can achieve a very good 0-60 time on a perfect road surface and still pretty good even on a poor road surface considering the open differential used.

    Plaid will not just be more power, but with one motor per rear wheel it should be like having the best limited slip differential possible. It will be the improvement in real world driving that should impress.

    Unless I've completely missed something  yes


    Re: Tesla

    Whoopsy:

    Leawood, you are actually refuting one of the most respected and unbiased channel on YouTube simply because he is saying something that you don't want to hear.

    He owns a Model 3 btw, so he do have first hand knowledge of Teslas and not a Tesla basher. 

    He is basing his conclusion on numbers and physics, and physics is the law that governs everything in life btw, not even Elon can violate the principles of physics. 

    Using braking numbers to calculate tire grip is very valid, and once you have the tire grip number you can do the other side of the equation and calculate how much power a car can put down for acceleration before breaking traction. All modern high power cars are limited by tire traction btw, given better tire grip all can have much better acceleration numbers, which is why that Book dude insists on doing his videos on prep-ed drag strips with much better than street road grip and also grippier drag racing tires for extra launch grips. Cars Brook tested will also have much better than normal braking distance simply because there is a much higher tire traction with drag racing tire on prep-ed surfaces if he test braking distances on the drag strip itself. 

    0-60 simply means a car gets to 60mph from rest. Not after rolling for 1 ft first. GPS timings are sensitive enough to time the event. Drag strip style 0-60 with the 1 ft roll out to break timing beams is out dated and gives better number than cars can actually do. But it's the way most Americans are used to seeing so it's another number that gets published. 

    On theory, a car will need to sustain approximately 1.4g in order to achieve sub-2 second 0-60mph. We are 'almost' there on tire tech. Cars running Cup R can do ~1.3g braking right now. 

    And once tire tech is there, not just a Plaid, but a whole list of cars can do sub 2, one of which will be the 918, the current champ for 0-60. 991 turbo S, 992 turbo S will both have a shot also. 

     

     

    Wrong on all counts. He never tested a plaid and pretended in the thumbnail and title he had. He is guilty of the same false advertising he thinks is so wrong. Period. The rest is his old repeat standard lecture about something he is flat wrong about. Sorry. Plenty of cars are already faster.  Just wait until the real testing comes along.  Of course he won’t care he already banked his views. 
    And you really don’t know what I want to hear or not. My calling bullshit on his ‘report’ for clicks stands on its own. 


    Re: Tesla

    Agreed. Tire tech is most important in achieving sub 2.0 seconds 0-60 mph acceleration times. We're getting there...

     


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Lamborghini Huracan Performante (2019), Mercedes GLC63 S AMG (2020), Mercedes C63 S AMG Cab (2019), Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk (2019 EU)


    Re: Tesla

    Gladstone:

    I don't believe the car's optimal 0-60 time is actually the important part of the new plaid drivetrain. Currently the cars can achieve a very good 0-60 time on a perfect road surface and still pretty good even on a poor road surface considering the open differential used.

    Plaid will not just be more power, but with one motor per rear wheel it should be like having the best limited slip differential possible. It will be the improvement in real world driving that should impress.

    Unless I've completely missed something  yes


    Plenty of cars have engines that can already deliver enough torque to the wheels to get a car from rest to 60 in under 2 seconds. They just don't have the tires to do it yet. 

    Independent motors' advantage would be in corners, where they can be used for torque vectoring easier than the current method of braking inside wheel. 


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood911:
    Whoopsy:

    Leawood, you are actually refuting one of the most respected and unbiased channel on YouTube simply because he is saying something that you don't want to hear.

    He owns a Model 3 btw, so he do have first hand knowledge of Teslas and not a Tesla basher. 

    He is basing his conclusion on numbers and physics, and physics is the law that governs everything in life btw, not even Elon can violate the principles of physics. 

    Using braking numbers to calculate tire grip is very valid, and once you have the tire grip number you can do the other side of the equation and calculate how much power a car can put down for acceleration before breaking traction. All modern high power cars are limited by tire traction btw, given better tire grip all can have much better acceleration numbers, which is why that Book dude insists on doing his videos on prep-ed drag strips with much better than street road grip and also grippier drag racing tires for extra launch grips. Cars Brook tested will also have much better than normal braking distance simply because there is a much higher tire traction with drag racing tire on prep-ed surfaces if he test braking distances on the drag strip itself. 

    0-60 simply means a car gets to 60mph from rest. Not after rolling for 1 ft first. GPS timings are sensitive enough to time the event. Drag strip style 0-60 with the 1 ft roll out to break timing beams is out dated and gives better number than cars can actually do. But it's the way most Americans are used to seeing so it's another number that gets published. 

    On theory, a car will need to sustain approximately 1.4g in order to achieve sub-2 second 0-60mph. We are 'almost' there on tire tech. Cars running Cup R can do ~1.3g braking right now. 

    And once tire tech is there, not just a Plaid, but a whole list of cars can do sub 2, one of which will be the 918, the current champ for 0-60. 991 turbo S, 992 turbo S will both have a shot also. 

     

     

    Wrong on all counts. He never tested a plaid and pretended in the thumbnail and title he had. He is guilty of the same false advertising he thinks is so wrong. Period. The rest is his old repeat standard lecture about something he is flat wrong about. Sorry. Plenty of cars are already faster.  Just wait until the real testing comes along.  Of course he won’t care he already banked his views. 
    And you really don’t know what I want to hear or not. My calling bullshit on his ‘report’ for clicks stands on its own. 

     

    Everyone here knows what you like and not like to hear bud. Smiley

    If you didn't think tire traction is the limiting factor, why do you think Brook bolt on some sticky rubber on his 720S and do his runs on a prep-ed drag strip to showcase improved drag times over factory numbers? Why don't he just keep his factory rubber and do his runs on regular surface instead?

     


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    When did I ever say the tires did not need to be sticky and the surface perfect?  Now you are really making stuff up. Stick to what I write please.   What I said was that YouTube video was false advertising and pure conjecture. We are waiting for the real test. That is what I want to see. Not guesses based on braking distance and old tires.  Not to mention the * all over the Tesla claims like all other magazine tests looking to be up front about roll out.   Btw rollout is perhaps the smallest in an EV compared to ICE. Rollout is all about the ICE motors biggest weakness - that first foot. Think about it 

    what is funny is the other brands pointing at Tesla for being off by fractions when they can’t get to within seconds in most cases with much more expensive offerings. All the while providing Tesla with free publicity while pointing fingers.   You can’t make this up. No wonder Tesla spends zero zero zero on advertising. They have threads like this one. 
     

    Hey Franz did you see the Tesla can’t do the promised 1.99 seconds to 60? 
    How awesome is that? Our EV which costs twice as much is almost always quicker than the 2.3 we claim.  Let’s be sure and tell everyone about this. 
    hold on. Something does not sound correct?  Run this by the board first. 


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood911:

    When did I ever say the tires did not need to be sticky and the surface perfect?  Now you are really making stuff up. Stick to what I write please.   What I said was that YouTube video was false advertising and pure conjecture. We are waiting for the real test. That is what I want to see. Not guesses based on braking distance and old tires.  Not to mention the * all over the Tesla claims like all other magazine tests looking to be up front about roll out.   Btw rollout is perhaps the smallest in an EV compared to ICE. Rollout is all about the ICE motors biggest weakness - that first foot. Think about it 

    what is funny is the other brands pointing at Tesla for being off by fractions when they can’t get to within seconds in most cases with much more expensive offerings. All the while providing Tesla with free publicity while pointing fingers.   You can’t make this up. No wonder Tesla spends zero zero zero on advertising. They have threads like this one. 
     

    Hey Franz did you see the Tesla can’t do the promised 1.99 seconds to 60? 
    How awesome is that? Our EV which costs twice as much is almost always quicker than the 2.3 we claim.  Let’s be sure and tell everyone about this. 
    hold on. Something does not sound correct?  Run this by the board first. 

     

    Hmm, that would be Elon's specialty isn't it?

    That Youtube video is just showing calculations from theoretical maths and physics, there is nothing wrong with that. 

    Of course Tesla doesn't need to spend money on advertising, there are countless Lemmings blindly repeating what Elon says without using their brain to think first. 

    One ft roll out benefits an electric car more than normal cars if we go by your thinking however. Electric car has max torque delivered at 0 rpm, so given enough tire traction, a EV can get to a higher speed than a normal car within that 1 ft and so their start off speed for 0-60 is higher, which also means a even slower true 0-60. 


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    Whoopsy:
    Leawood911:

    When did I ever say the tires did not need to be sticky and the surface perfect?  Now you are really making stuff up. Stick to what I write please.   What I said was that YouTube video was false advertising and pure conjecture. We are waiting for the real test. That is what I want to see. Not guesses based on braking distance and old tires.  Not to mention the * all over the Tesla claims like all other magazine tests looking to be up front about roll out.   Btw rollout is perhaps the smallest in an EV compared to ICE. Rollout is all about the ICE motors biggest weakness - that first foot. Think about it 

    what is funny is the other brands pointing at Tesla for being off by fractions when they can’t get to within seconds in most cases with much more expensive offerings. All the while providing Tesla with free publicity while pointing fingers.   You can’t make this up. No wonder Tesla spends zero zero zero on advertising. They have threads like this one. 
     

    Hey Franz did you see the Tesla can’t do the promised 1.99 seconds to 60? 
    How awesome is that? Our EV which costs twice as much is almost always quicker than the 2.3 we claim.  Let’s be sure and tell everyone about this. 
    hold on. Something does not sound correct?  Run this by the board first. 

     

    Hmm, that would be Elon's specialty isn't it?

    That Youtube video is just showing calculations from theoretical maths and physics, there is nothing wrong with that. 

    Of course Tesla doesn't need to spend money on advertising, there are countless Lemmings blindly repeating what Elon says without using their brain to think first. 

    One ft roll out benefits an electric car more than normal cars if we go by your thinking however. Electric car has max torque delivered at 0 rpm, so given enough tire traction, a EV can get to a higher speed than a normal car within that 1 ft and so their start off speed for 0-60 is higher, which also means a even slower true 0-60. 

    No Elon had the asterisk by his claim. The YouTube video falsely advertised he had actually done testing which is what everyone on the internet is waiting for.  He used that and promoted a false claim that he had his hands on a new model S.  If you want to be satisfied with his content that is up to you.  His point that Tesla does false advertising in light of this is hilarious to me. 
    The lemmings are the ones who defend ICE tech like it is some ancient cult.   Again my point, no matter how you wish to stretch it to produce the insult you are trying to land, was pretty limited and you missed it. 
    The rollout argument is so lame. If you understood more about drag racing I might go there but as they say it is a dead horse and great free advertising for Tesla.  
     

    Let’s all sit back and relax - see what Tesla delivers. I doubt they had not done their homework. 
    This is a great thread. I especially like how some keep coming back for more without any sense of irony or past history. 

     


    Re: Tesla

    In terms of Tesla lying to customers. I would like to point out that each and every one of you has been lied to about the cars price each and every time you have bought one. No one pays the same and someone always pays less than you. Yet you accept that without question. You think Tesla is the bad guys even though not a single tesla has been sold without the price being known exactly the minute you decided to buy it.  
    Not to mention how it is possible to lie in an ad when you don’t advertise.  What you are left with is empty complaints about an * by a pretty sweet 0-60 number any car buyer in his right mind would be thrilled with. 

    Ask yourself why you so brainwashed to accepts crap from ICE makers while ultra focused on any Tesla slip up? (Read with uncle Roger accent)

    And how about that Starship 15 touchdown!!!  Yeah, he is a big idiot liar. Give me a break 


    Re: Tesla

    “A decline in Tesla's regulatory credit sales could be devastating to its future profitability, strategist says”

    (6 May 2021)

    • Tesla has depended on the sale of regulatory credits to other automakers for a bulk of its profit in recent years.
    • But one automaker said it expects to stop buying credits from Tesla later this year once it hits its electric vehicle sales quotas.
    • "The loss of these regulatory credit revenues for Tesla is devastating and brings into question the future profitability of Tesla," Navellier's chief investment officer Louis Navellier said.

    Tesla's profitability in recent years has been driven by its sale of regulatory credits to automakers that hadn't hit their government imposed electric vehicle sales quotas.

    Now, one automaker is signalling that its reliance on Tesla's tax credits will come to an end later this year.

    Stellantis, the multinational automaker formed through the merger of Fiat Chrysler Automotive and France's PSA group, said it expects to achieve its European carbon dioxide emissions targets this year without EV credits bought from Tesla.

    Stellantis purchased about $2.4 billion worth of the tax credits from Tesla over the 2019-2021 period.

    Navellier chief investment officer Louis Navellier said in a note on Wednesday that the loss of EV regulatory credit sales for Tesla "is devastating and brings into question the future profitability of Tesla."

    As other automakers begin to ramp up the production of electric vehicles, Tesla's reliance on EV tax credit sales to boost profitability will likely dwindle.

    "The increased awareness of the role that carbon tax credits play in the company's profitability may lead to a fundamental re-valuing of the company in the coming year," Navellier concluded.

    The regulatory sales credits represent pure profit for Tesla, and in 2020 represented $1.58 billion in revenue for the EV manufacturer. But Tesla only registered net profits of $721 million in 2020, meaning that the company actually lost money on its main business of building and selling cars.

    This trend continued into the first quarter of 2021, when Tesla sold a record $518 million in EV tax credits. Those credit sales, plus Tesla's $101 million profit from its partial sale of bitcoin, helped mask the company's underlying loss from its car business. Tesla reported net profits of $438 million in the first quarter.

    "With the electrical technology that PSA brought to Stellantis, we will autonomously meet carbon dioxide emissions regulations as early as this year," Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares said in an interview with French weekly Le Point.

    "Thus, we will not need to call on European CO2 credits and FCA will no longer have to pool with Tesla or anyone," Tavares added.

    Link: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-regulatory-credit-sales-decline-devastating-future-profitability-electric-vehicles-2021-5-1030397066


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood911:

    And how about that Starship 15 touchdown!!!  Yeah, he is a big idiot liar. Give me a break 

    Tell us exactly what is Musk’s contribution to SpaceX besides opening his checkbook and asking his friends to kick in capital too?   This is Gwynn Shotwell and her team’s achievement.  


    Re: Tesla

    Whoopsy:
    Gladstone:

    I don't believe the car's optimal 0-60 time is actually the important part of the new plaid drivetrain. Currently the cars can achieve a very good 0-60 time on a perfect road surface and still pretty good even on a poor road surface considering the open differential used.

    Plaid will not just be more power, but with one motor per rear wheel it should be like having the best limited slip differential possible. It will be the improvement in real world driving that should impress.

    Unless I've completely missed something  yes


    Plenty of cars have engines that can already deliver enough torque to the wheels to get a car from rest to 60 in under 2 seconds. They just don't have the tires to do it yet. 

    Independent motors' advantage would be in corners, where they can be used for torque vectoring easier than the current method of braking inside wheel. 

    Independent motors would also be great at launch if there were sand or moisture across part of my lane of travel. Each wheel could deliver all the power it's own level of traction could tolerate. Certainly not going to break 2 seconds in those conditions though so probably of no real interest Smiley

     


    Re: Tesla

    Audi’s e-tron S has dual rear motors; however, that crossover is quite heavy, blunting the performance gains from full torque vectoring.  


    Re: Tesla

    CGX car nut:
    Leawood911:

    And how about that Starship 15 touchdown!!!  Yeah, he is a big idiot liar. Give me a break 

    Tell us exactly what is Musk’s contribution to SpaceX besides opening his checkbook and asking his friends to kick in capital too?   This is Gwynn Shotwell and her team’s achievement.  

    Would there be a SpaceX without Elon?  🧐 who hired Gwynn?  And yes - she is cool. 
    There is no shame in thinking Elon gets a lot done. I would be far more worried about feeling so insecure. 


    Re: Tesla

    Boxster Coupe GTS:

    “A decline in Tesla's regulatory credit sales could be devastating to its future profitability, strategist says”

    (6 May 2021)

    • Tesla has depended on the sale of regulatory credits to other automakers for a bulk of its profit in recent years.
    • But one automaker said it expects to stop buying credits from Tesla later this year once it hits its electric vehicle sales quotas.
    • "The loss of these regulatory credit revenues for Tesla is devastating and brings into question the future profitability of Tesla," Navellier's chief investment officer Louis Navellier said.

    Tesla's profitability in recent years has been driven by its sale of regulatory credits to automakers that hadn't hit their government imposed electric vehicle sales quotas.

    Now, one automaker is signalling that its reliance on Tesla's tax credits will come to an end later this year.

    Stellantis, the multinational automaker formed through the merger of Fiat Chrysler Automotive and France's PSA group, said it expects to achieve its European carbon dioxide emissions targets this year without EV credits bought from Tesla.

    Stellantis purchased about $2.4 billion worth of the tax credits from Tesla over the 2019-2021 period.

    Navellier chief investment officer Louis Navellier said in a note on Wednesday that the loss of EV regulatory credit sales for Tesla "is devastating and brings into question the future profitability of Tesla."

    As other automakers begin to ramp up the production of electric vehicles, Tesla's reliance on EV tax credit sales to boost profitability will likely dwindle.

    "The increased awareness of the role that carbon tax credits play in the company's profitability may lead to a fundamental re-valuing of the company in the coming year," Navellier concluded.

    The regulatory sales credits represent pure profit for Tesla, and in 2020 represented $1.58 billion in revenue for the EV manufacturer. But Tesla only registered net profits of $721 million in 2020, meaning that the company actually lost money on its main business of building and selling cars.

    This trend continued into the first quarter of 2021, when Tesla sold a record $518 million in EV tax credits. Those credit sales, plus Tesla's $101 million profit from its partial sale of bitcoin, helped mask the company's underlying loss from its car business. Tesla reported net profits of $438 million in the first quarter.

    "With the electrical technology that PSA brought to Stellantis, we will autonomously meet carbon dioxide emissions regulations as early as this year," Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares said in an interview with French weekly Le Point.

    "Thus, we will not need to call on European CO2 credits and FCA will no longer have to pool with Tesla or anyone," Tavares added.

    Link: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-regulatory-credit-sales-decline-devastating-future-profitability-electric-vehicles-2021-5-1030397066

    Yup. It could be devastating if f you have never driven a Tesla and if the rest of the auto industry was not ten years behind in EV development. 
    Having to deal with all the ICE hardware, inventory and factories once you can’t  sell them is also potentially devastating.  Are they not in the business of selling ICE cars?  Is that what makes their EV losses possible?  Sounds like similar problems but I would rather be selling good EVs and not worry about ICE legacy crap while enjoying a nice temp boost in credits from the competition.   
    which problem would everyone here prefer?


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood911:
    Whoopsy:
    Leawood911:

    When did I ever say the tires did not need to be sticky and the surface perfect?  Now you are really making stuff up. Stick to what I write please.   What I said was that YouTube video was false advertising and pure conjecture. We are waiting for the real test. That is what I want to see. Not guesses based on braking distance and old tires.  Not to mention the * all over the Tesla claims like all other magazine tests looking to be up front about roll out.   Btw rollout is perhaps the smallest in an EV compared to ICE. Rollout is all about the ICE motors biggest weakness - that first foot. Think about it 

    what is funny is the other brands pointing at Tesla for being off by fractions when they can’t get to within seconds in most cases with much more expensive offerings. All the while providing Tesla with free publicity while pointing fingers.   You can’t make this up. No wonder Tesla spends zero zero zero on advertising. They have threads like this one. 
     

    Hey Franz did you see the Tesla can’t do the promised 1.99 seconds to 60? 
    How awesome is that? Our EV which costs twice as much is almost always quicker than the 2.3 we claim.  Let’s be sure and tell everyone about this. 
    hold on. Something does not sound correct?  Run this by the board first. 

     

    Hmm, that would be Elon's specialty isn't it?

    That Youtube video is just showing calculations from theoretical maths and physics, there is nothing wrong with that. 

    Of course Tesla doesn't need to spend money on advertising, there are countless Lemmings blindly repeating what Elon says without using their brain to think first. 

    One ft roll out benefits an electric car more than normal cars if we go by your thinking however. Electric car has max torque delivered at 0 rpm, so given enough tire traction, a EV can get to a higher speed than a normal car within that 1 ft and so their start off speed for 0-60 is higher, which also means a even slower true 0-60. 

    No Elon had the asterisk by his claim. The YouTube video falsely advertised he had actually done testing which is what everyone on the internet is waiting for.  He used that and promoted a false claim that he had his hands on a new model S.  If you want to be satisfied with his content that is up to you.  His point that Tesla does false advertising in light of this is hilarious to me. 
    The lemmings are the ones who defend ICE tech like it is some ancient cult.   Again my point, no matter how you wish to stretch it to produce the insult you are trying to land, was pretty limited and you missed it. 
    The rollout argument is so lame. If you understood more about drag racing I might go there but as they say it is a dead horse and great free advertising for Tesla.  
     

    Let’s all sit back and relax - see what Tesla delivers. I doubt they had not done their homework. 
    This is a great thread. I especially like how some keep coming back for more without any sense of irony or past history. 

     

     

    I firmly remembered Elon never said anything about 'asterisks' during all his 'claims', ranging from Model 3 deliveries or profitability or Tesla Roadster arrival time, or the Tesla Semi, or the Tesla truck, or pretty much everything he 'promised'. Please direct me to a video of him saying something them mentioned 'oh but everything I have said has an asterisk to them'.

    Jason from EE never claimed he has a Plaid to be tested, nor does his video title implied such a thing. Not sure where you get that fails idea to frame him. 

    And if you were to accuse me of being a fan boy of normal cars, may I remind you that I currently have 2 EVs in my garage and 2 hybrids also. Also have a 3rd EV on order. Might want to rethink that idea. 

    At the end of the day, all Jason did was doing the theoretical math, showing what is possible and what isn't physically. Nothing more and nothing less, and he IS a Tesla customer happily owning a Model 3. 

    From history, Tesla WILL deliver, eventually, and partially, on what Elon promised. See delivery date slips and the so called Autopilot cruise control system, and oh, the full self driving thingy. 

    It's really fun to see how different Tesla people reacts to stuff as compared to other car companies, the fuse is REALLY REALLY short. 


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    Nope again. All I complained about was his false advertising. Maybe you were not aware of it like I was. 
    I don’t have any short fuse. This thread is my entertainment during Covid.  I don’t think I need permission to express my opinion.  At least I cheer success rather than look for fault.  
    And if you think his video was accurate about what is physically possible go watch some top fuel drag racing. 
    In summary I might suggest those with the shortest fuses are those who’s cars can’t do 2 sec 0-60 even though they cost so much they can’t be insured or used. 
     

    ps I do know you have every other EV in your garage or on order.  I also have a 997 Turbo, a Scarab at the lake, a John Deer lawnmower and a gas trimmer. Lol. I’m amused by the fact that if you got a Tesla you might not be able to admit it. 
    Cheers buddy. I hope you are doing well and single life is not beating you up too much.  Kids are all that matters. 


    Re: Tesla

    “TesIa tells regulator that full self-driving cars may not be achieved by year-end” (Reuters)

    (7 May 2021)

    Tesla Inc told a California regulator that it may not achieve full self-driving technology by the end of this year, a memo by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) showed.

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk said during an earnings conference call in January that he was "highly confident the car will be able to drive itself with reliability in excess of human this year."

    Tesla has also rolled out what it describes as a "beta" version of its "full self-driving" (FSD) program to a limited number of employees and customers since October, and Musk has touted the capability on Twitter.

    "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ. Tesla is at Level 2 currently," the California DMV said in a memo about its March 9 conference call with Tesla representatives, including autopilot engineer CJ Moore. Level 2 technology refers to a semi-automated driving system, which requires supervision by a human driver.

    The memo was released by legal transparency group PlainSite, which obtained it under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    "Tesla indicated that Elon is extrapolating on the rates of improvement when speaking about L5 capabilities. Tesla couldn’t say if the rate of improvement would make it to L5 by end of calendar year," the memo said, referring to level 5 full autonomous technology.

    The California DMV, Tesla and Moore were not immediately available for comment.

    "Tesla indicated that they are still firmly in L2," California DMV said in the memo. "As Tesla is aware, the public’s misunderstanding about the limits of the technology and its misuse can have tragic consequences."

    The California Highway Patrol is investigating why a Tesla vehicle crashed into an overturned truck on a highway near Fontana, California, on Wednesday, killing the Tesla’s driver. The patrol did not say whether the Tesla was operating on Autopilot or not. 

    Federal highway safety regulators are investigating more than 20 accidents involving Tesla vehicles.

    Link: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-tells-regulator-that-full-self-driving-cars-may-not-be-achieved-by-year-2021-05-07/

    NB: For reference, this is the original source material...  C7BEAB03-A272-4B0C-AF73-D01AEAA5AA36.gif

    AFA5EF17-E7CC-4077-9A35-93EA7602DB4B.jpeg

    4EE1C984-AAFB-44AA-95F2-56B1D5892E8F.jpeg

    7CF69318-0185-42B3-A7CE-4F795AB191FA.jpeg

    88CCDDBA-A331-443D-90A3-9AE08DF93801.jpeg

    Smiley


    Re: Tesla

    Leawood911:

    Nope again. All I complained about was his false advertising. Maybe you were not aware of it like I was. 
    I don’t have any short fuse. This thread is my entertainment during Covid.  I don’t think I need permission to express my opinion.  At least I cheer success rather than look for fault.  
    And if you think his video was accurate about what is physically possible go watch some top fuel drag racing. 
    In summary I might suggest those with the shortest fuses are those who’s cars can’t do 2 sec 0-60 even though they cost so much they can’t be insured or used. 
     

    ps I do know you have every other EV in your garage or on order.  I also have a 997 Turbo, a Scarab at the lake, a John Deer lawnmower and a gas trimmer. Lol. I’m amused by the fact that if you got a Tesla you might not be able to admit it. 
    Cheers buddy. I hope you are doing well and single life is not beating you up too much.  Kids are all that matters. 

     

    I watched and have many friends racing them. Do you think without their sticky tires on a glue sprayed surface they can put down those 12,000hp to the ground and finish the 1000ft run in 3 seconds?

    They are tire traction limited, their engines produced way too much torque and can break traction even with the sticky tires. Do you know they avoid the initial wheel spin by slipping the clutch? And progressively add pressure to the clutch pack until traction isn't an issue and put down the full power much later down the run? Thank you for mentioning Top Fuel racing in order to highlight tire traction issue for acceleration.

    Acceleration from rest is always tire traction limited, unless of course one is driving a 40hp shitbox. 


    --

     

     


    Re: Tesla

    Again, I never questioned tires being part of the equation. With current street tires and a good surface along with enough power 2 seconds is easy to 60. We are not asking for 300 mph in 4 seconds.  But as you can see and obviously realize it is totally possible. I would bet Tesla has tested it many times. 
    why not wait and see until someone has an actual car to test with. 


    Re: Tesla

    Boxster Coupe GTS:

    “TesIa tells regulator that full self-driving cars may not be achieved by year-end” (Reuters)

    (7 May 2021)

    Tesla Inc told a California regulator that it may not achieve full self-driving technology by the end of this year, a memo by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) showed.

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk said during an earnings conference call in January that he was "highly confident the car will be able to drive itself with reliability in excess of human this year."

    Tesla has also rolled out what it describes as a "beta" version of its "full self-driving" (FSD) program to a limited number of employees and customers since October, and Musk has touted the capability on Twitter.

    "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ. Tesla is at Level 2 currently," the California DMV said in a memo about its March 9 conference call with Tesla representatives, including autopilot engineer CJ Moore. Level 2 technology refers to a semi-automated driving system, which requires supervision by a human driver.

    The memo was released by legal transparency group PlainSite, which obtained it under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    "Tesla indicated that Elon is extrapolating on the rates of improvement when speaking about L5 capabilities. Tesla couldn’t say if the rate of improvement would make it to L5 by end of calendar year," the memo said, referring to level 5 full autonomous technology.

    The California DMV, Tesla and Moore were not immediately available for comment.

    "Tesla indicated that they are still firmly in L2," California DMV said in the memo. "As Tesla is aware, the public’s misunderstanding about the limits of the technology and its misuse can have tragic consequences."

    The California Highway Patrol is investigating why a Tesla vehicle crashed into an overturned truck on a highway near Fontana, California, on Wednesday, killing the Tesla’s driver. The patrol did not say whether the Tesla was operating on Autopilot or not. 

    Federal highway safety regulators are investigating more than 20 accidents involving Tesla vehicles.

    Link: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-tells-regulator-that-full-self-driving-cars-may-not-be-achieved-by-year-2021-05-07/

    NB: For reference, this is the original source material...  C7BEAB03-A272-4B0C-AF73-D01AEAA5AA36.gif

    AFA5EF17-E7CC-4077-9A35-93EA7602DB4B.jpeg

    4EE1C984-AAFB-44AA-95F2-56B1D5892E8F.jpeg

    7CF69318-0185-42B3-A7CE-4F795AB191FA.jpeg

    88CCDDBA-A331-443D-90A3-9AE08DF93801.jpeg

    Smiley

    Hilarious repost. Do you think we are so Unsophisticated around here to not have had this posted here right away? 
    It is not just old news but of course you think it is significant.  ‘May not be done in time’. Lol. There may not be a Santa Clause either. 
    Is your intention to spread the news that self driving MAY not be available by the end of the year?  What is the significance of this letter from exactly?  
    Maybe to back to the original post.  


    Re: Tesla

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/14881853/predict-man-elon-colonise-mars-book/
    I find this far more interesting 

    In fact it is fricking weird  

     


    Re: Tesla

    The National Law Review: “The Dangers of Driverless Cars”

    (5 May 2021)

    The concept of driverless cars is here to stay. America is competing in a global race to make driverless cars the norm, and as predicted, nearly all major car manufactures currently offer vehicles with varying levels of autonomy. Today, more people seem to want driverless cars, there is currently little legislation controlling the industry, and the size of the global autonomous vehicle market is projected to be valued at $556.67 billion by 2026. What’s not to love?

    While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has designated six levels of autonomy to driver-assisted technology, most consumers are unaware of the distinction. With the current lack of industry standards and legislation, automakers tend to blur the line in their marketing.

    Fully self-driving cars (aka autonomous vehicles), or Level 5 AVs, are designed for travel without a human operator, using a combination of sophisticated AI software, LiDAR, and RADAR sensing technology. And technology continues to develop in the hope of making “driverless” cars better and safer.

    But how does this play out in real life? Are these vehicles really safer than a human driver who is fully involved and in control?

    Are Driverless Cars Safer?

    Despite claims to the contrary, self-driving cars currently have a higher rate of accidents than human-driven cars, but the injuries are less severe. On average, there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents per million miles driven, while the same rate is 4.1 crashes per million miles for regular vehicles.

    Let’s look at some of the dangers inherent with driverless cars.

    False Sense of Security

    These cars are often marketed as “driverless,” so is it any wonder when human drivers act more like passive passengers when they operate them?  None of these driverless cars are entirely self-driving, so labeling them “driverless” is misleading, at best. It seems to be true that the vast majority of all accidents involving self-driving cars have been the result of the human driver being distracted, as often happens in a car with no automation.

    Yes, drivers are supposed to be alert and ready to take over control at a moment’s notice, but how likely is that when the driverless car was purchased to be, well, driverless?

    The most recent fatality involving a driverless Tesla occurred in Texas on Saturday, April 17, when It crashed, killing both passengers, continuing to burn for four hours. According to an article by the Washington Post, the accident is under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but police reported no one was driving the vehicle.

    Danger of Fire

    Lithium-Ion (LI) batteries are well-known to be highly combustible. As lithium burns, it creates a metal fire with temperatures that reach 3,632 degrees Fahrenheit or 2,000 degrees Celsius. Attempting to douse the fire with water could lead to a hydrogen gas explosion.

    According to the National Transportation Safety Board, if a collision damages a battery, there is a risk of “uncontrolled increases in temperature and pressure, known as thermal runaway…” This can cause an explosion of toxic gases, the release of projectiles, and fire, presenting an additional danger to emergency responders.

    INCIDENTS

    The April 17 Tesla crash mentioned above resulted in a fire that lasted four hours and required over 30,000 gallons of water to put it out. A vehicle fire is normally brought under control in minutes, according to the Washington Post.

    In 2018, a 2012 Tesla model S appeared to spontaneously catch fire while it was being driven in West Hollywood, CA. There were no injuries in this incident but note that there was no collision that sparked the fire.

    In 2018, a 2014 Tesla Model S crashed in Fort Lauderdale, FL, and burned for more than an hour, requiring hundreds of gallons of water to reduce the battery to hot embers. Two people died in this incident, and a third was seriously injured.

    In 2017, a driver lost control of a 2016 Tesla X SUV and crashed into the garage of a house (reword). The battery caught fire and spread to the building. Firefighters were initially able to put out the initial flames when the battery flared up again in a “blowtorch manner.” It took several hours to finally get the blaze under control.

    Imperfect Technology

    A 2020 AAA study found that vehicles equipped with active driving assistance systems experienced some type of issue on the average of every eight miles in real-world driving. They also found that active driving assistance systems, systems that combine vehicle acceleration with braking and steering, often disengage with little notice, requiring the driver to resume control immediately. It’s easy to see how this scenario can end in disaster if the driver is distracted even momentarily or relying too much on the system’s capabilities.

    In 2016, an 18-wheeler truck crossed a highway in Florida while a Tesla attempted to drive through it – at full speed. The Tesla driver as a result of injuries received. The car’s autopilot feature failed to brake because it could not distinguish the white side of the truck against the brightly lit sky. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined that the occupant was at fault as they should have had an opportunity to brake before the collision but was likely distracted.

    As we reported in our November 7, 2019 blog post, As Cars Grow More Autonomous, Safety Remains an Issue, a man died in a crash due to an Autopilot navigational error. Autopilot is the self-driving function in Tesla cars. The victim had sought repair for the malfunction several times from the dealer.

    Cyber Attacks

    The threat from hackers during operation is a real one. In 2015, hackers remotely took over a Jeep, forcing it to stop on a St. Louis highway while driving at 70mph. The hackers were able to access the car’s braking and steering through the onboard entertainment system.

    The article goes on to explain that this was an “unplanned planned” exercise, meaning that this was part of a test scenario, but the driver did not know precisely how or when the takeover would occur. Nevertheless, the danger he was put in and the panic he experienced served their purpose. Unfortunately, hackers are clever and choose to apply their skills in ways that can be harmful and even deadly.

    Complex, Real-Life Driving Conditions

    In his book, “Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies,” Charles Perrow points out that building in more warnings and safeguards, which is the standard engineering approach to improving safety, fails “because systems complexity makes failures inevitable.” Instead, “adding to complexity may help create new categories of accidents.” Good point, especially when one considers real-life conditions while driving.

    Split-second decisions, rapidly changing weather conditions, being able to look into another driver’s eyes at a crossroad – these are real-life conditions best left for an engaged driver. Technology can undoubtedly be enormously helpful; in some instances, some of the new automotive assist technologies can be lifesaving when properly used. But driving is complicated; roads, lanes, and conditions vary, and the same actions aren’t always the best under all circumstances.

    Lack of Self-Driving Regulations 

    Automakers, industry advocacy groups, and corporations are urging Congressional leaders to enact legislation to allow for “greater deployment of autonomous vehicles” while also calling for “rigorous safety standards” for the new driverless technology. At the moment, there is some existing regulation governing self-driving vehicles, and the number of states at least considering legislation related to autonomous vehicles is gradually increasing.

    However, there is a long way to go on that front. In the meantime, car manufacturers, including Tesla, are free to bring their driverless cars to market with very little restraint.

    A January 15, 2021 article in GovTech noted that rules that allow fully self-driving vehicle manufacturers to “skip certain federal crash safety requirements” in vehicles that are not designed to carry people was issued by the Trump Administration, a push favored by the NHTSA.

    More rules and legislation will likely follow in an effort to speed up the process of getting more self-driving vehicles on the roads. Not everyone is happy with that, however. Safety advocates warn that there need to be rules to protect consumers, including exemptions from regulations designed for vehicles with human drivers.

    Are We Moving Too Fast?

    Jason Levine, Executive Director of the Center for Auto Safety, expressed concern that the NHTSA is too focused on “enabling the rapid deployment of self-driving vehicles by amending rules written for cars with drivers.” He also noted that “recognizing the unique characteristics of autonomous technology may be the fastest way to authorize the deployment of autonomous vehicles, but it is not a consumer safety-driven approach.”

    Other criticism recently aimed at NHTSA by safety advocates concerns the implementation of voluntary guidelines for self-driving vehicle manufacturers. That means they are not required to participate in a reporting system to track how developing vehicles perform in the safety tests recommended by federal regulators. Critics argue that these assessments should be mandatory, and companies required to be transparent.

    The United States is projected to have 4.5 million self-driving cars on the roads by 2035. Let’s hope that the automobile companies put consumer safety over profit and the agencies that exist to protect us do their jobs.

    As technology and legislation involving self-driving vehicles become more and more complex, so will legal cases. If you or your loved one has been involved in a crash involving a self-driving car, you need an attorney who understands the legal, technical, and legislative complexities.

    Link: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars


     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part I) Thread Closed 9/24/20 12:47 AM
    watt
    626894 2849
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 12/30/20 9:03 AM
    rhino
     
     
     
     
     
    387269 1279
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 6/8/21 7:15 PM
    JR-550
    89684 1087
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 5/12/21 3:30 PM
    WhoopsyM
    47765 344
    Porsche Sticky ROAD TEST: New 992 Carrera 4S 3/3/21 10:57 PM
    Wonderbar
    36583 336
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 10/19/20 6:12 PM
    Leawood911
    34236 380
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 6/21/21 9:32 PM
    CGX car nut
    19040 394
    Porsche Sticky Porsche extends the Taycan model range (Taycan 2WD) 2/1/21 12:42 PM
    Leawood911
    5188 29
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 7/27/20 2:13 AM
    DJM48
    576701 5257
    Porsche Cayman GT4 5/4/21 4:46 PM
    Topspeed
    438183 3586
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 6/22/21 5:42 PM
    Topspeed
    371124 3917
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 6/24/21 6:57 AM
    GnilM
    370708 3496
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 4/28/21 12:26 PM
    W8MM
    332734 3252
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 12/8/20 7:51 PM
    DJM48
    311787 2646
    Porsche Tesla Roadster 9/23/20 8:22 PM
    bluelines
    257412 4279
    Porsche OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 6/24/21 9:20 AM
    spudgun
    236122 1557
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 2/11/21 9:22 AM
    Itsme
    162800 1379
    Others Alfa Romeo 4C 9/23/20 10:22 AM
    RCA
    139054 792
    Porsche 992 GT3 6/24/21 9:36 AM
    Grant
    138772 2655
    Lambo Lamborghini Huracan and variants 4/9/21 4:32 PM
    Topspeed
    112121 1225
    McLaren F1 2/25/21 11:33 AM
    RCA
    77937 207
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 6/23/21 11:16 AM
    Leawood911
    77127 1180
    AMG AMG GT R 11/19/20 11:47 PM
    Topspeed
    66269 819
    Lambo Aventador and SV 4/20/21 3:21 PM
    CGX car nut
    65504 683
    Porsche 991 Speedster 9/3/20 4:29 PM
    Topspeed
    62311 878
    Porsche Nürburgring - Tesla vs. Taycan 11/23/20 6:10 PM
    Topspeed
    46124 596
    Others Bugatti Chiron 6/9/21 6:51 AM
    Jean
    37900 479
    Porsche Olive 991.2 GT3 Clubsport 1/1/21 7:58 PM
    throt
    34767 615
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 6/23/21 12:18 PM
    Josef
    34605 529
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 3/21/21 5:01 PM
    Topspeed
    29477 385
    266 items found, displaying 1 to 30.