Salt water caused many Fisker Karma to burst into flames during Storm Sandy. They got soaked in it where they were sitting around not going anywhere waiting shipment. So, driving through similar water to this new "boating video" that Musk commented on - someone in 2013 reported on driving through about 6" of water and then the car becoming bricked. Did Musk tell you that the owner of that car had to take an insurance comprehensive claim out because Tesla did not warrant the repair? I recommend reading this from Tesla's own forum:
Tesla in rain
Submitted by mmkell on September 10, 2013
I love my new Tesla so this is not a "hater" piece. There was a heavy rain in Naples as we were driving and we turned on to a side street. It was dark and we were unable to see the road clearly. We went through a puddle (deep, but too dark to tell how deep) and then quickly turned into a parking lot to get off the street. The car didn't start the next day and is now at the service center where they are telling me that Tesla will not cover the expensive damage under the warranty.
This was a normal driving experience, not a hurricane or a flood, and it seems to me that the car should be built to withstand this sort of minor situation.
Watch out for puddles!
As an admitted drug user - how do you expect people to take you, pwdy, aristocratized seriously? Whether it is prescription or self-prescribed, you need to possibly work on reality and not trying to imagine the world you want to live in as being so real.
If then else logic...
If they are seeing 60-65% Model S off the line.
And if Model S vin # issuances were averaging under 1000/week for the last six months (inclusive of June 20) seen below. Then how the heck can they be sustaining 2000/week if the # of Model X is less than S?
They probably had one week of 2000/wk and capitalized on that instant (much like the plan to exit 2015 with a 100,000/year run-rate statement).
Hence your Pwdyfan420 with reference to 4/20? And your Aristocratize.... crazy posts too?
Matches some of our opinion that combined output is only "sometimes" 2000/week.
And that MS is 2/3 to 3/4 of the runrate now.
Tesla seems to have made progress toward 2,000/week production run-rate. Model X production run-rate improved but still appears to have some challenges requiring a lot of man hours at final assembly. However, we believe Model S supply has improved (now has capacity of 1,500/week) which explains timing of 60kWh introduction. Tesla indicated plant was running close to 50/50 split of S/X, but by our count on the final assembly line (an admittedly limited sample size) we would put mix at closer to 60-65% Model S…
Tesla is confident they can ramp Model 3 quickly – a) technology will be relatively standard, b) paint capacity is already at 250k, and can go to 500k with limited capex, c) stamping needs modest investment. Incremental capex really going to Model 3 robotic line and final assembly line which needs to be built…
To that end, Tesla is essentially learning how to become a manufacturing company on the fly. While we don’t have meaningful reason to doubt Tesla can eventually get to their targets, doing so in a timely matter without some growing pains could prove challenging. Failure to hit near-term objectives may not impact the long-term view, but could hold back the stock or provide a more favorable risk/reward entry point
An EV won last year's Pike's Peak race.
Vooooom, vooom, vvvvrrrroooom vvvvvvrrrrooooooooom. That's the sound Sébastien Loeb made when he set the record for the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in 2013. For 8 minutes and 13.8 seconds, Loeb's Peugeot 208 T16 turned petroleum products into 875 horsepower, screaming through 156 turns on the 12.42 mile (20 km) course.
The sound of the breeze over a subtle purr hypnotically accompanies the video of Rhys Millen, as he set 2015's winning pace of 9 minutes, 7 seconds. While not beating Loeb's record, Millen's performance did enter the record books as the first time an electric vehicle has taken the King of the Mountain title across all classes.
The problem here is various religions call for their "overcoming" other religions. Done through population warfare - or in other words "go forth and multiply". Seems like some religions are doing what other religions want to do. It is a feedback loop that doesn't work.
Thanks for the stained feedback. It sure cleans up a lot of inaccuracies.
They want to switch - WHEN THE CUSTOMERS ARE ABLE TO BUY. Understand that real businesses - ones that rely on profits - need customers to come calling and asking for products in the price-ranges that they can afford.
The number of cars sold in the USA are 2:1 sold on the used market than new, then the issue here is most consumers can afford used cars. EVs need to come down to the MSRP of under 30,000 per car before incentives. Because many consumers have limited tax liability to take advantage of the huge government incentive only useful unless they lease.
GM's banks have now re-set and are leasing Volts for higher monthly prices due to the low residual value of them. Same for Nissan unless they self-finance. It is all about monthly payments for many buyers.
Who will buy EVs? Fans at college campuses now? Those with $100,000 student loans and no job when they graduate? The market for EVs should be similar to that of hybrids or worse for the next 10 years. The fans buying EVs are many wealthy people who want something new and cool. I don't see common consumers coming to the table. 400,000 reservations for the Model 3? All the while Honda sells 330,000 CR-Vs and 400,000 Civics in the USA alone per year. Chevy sells 350,000 Cruze. Nissan sells a lot of Altimas and other. The market is huge and 400,000 is actually a pittance.
Poor planning. Why wouldn't you want to keep participating in propping up Tesla's stock price with your $1000 loan to the company (fully refundable, of course)? Why would you believe that government administrators in the USA would not be extending the incentives? $1000 in Tesla's bank is almost as safe as in your local bank.
Tesla is crafty. They may ship a lot of the earlier orders to Europe first so that they can stretch out the USA-side of the incentives. There is a cool down period for USA tax credits that just don't shut off after 200,00 are sold. Europe is more ripe for EVs anyway - with high gas prices and some interesting incentives not based on unit-sales.
Remember, the USA tax credit is based on 200,000 total vehicles sold in the USA - and then that starts the cool down period over the next few quarters. Since IRS is an annual collection, the date the car goes into service is critical during the cool down. And they will make sure to hit 199,995 at the end of say 2017 so that they can enter 2018 with full incentives intact. Adjusting where cars go to close a quarter is key to how Telsa has worked so far.
Not a similar compare. Look at the limited effects that hybrid cars had on the auto industry. Even with everyone selling them the last 15 years, the up-take was limited. And the economic "benefit" to consumers for EVs is very limited right now. Most look at the costs as being more prohibitive than just getting a basic hybrid car like a hybrid Prius, Camry, etc.
You are spouting your "want" but don't actually do research to review the "real details".
There is more to it than cows:
- constant removal of Amazon rainforest for more cattle and other farming. takes decades to grow back, if allowed. Is a CO2 sink which goes away.
- constant fertilizer mining, shipping and distributed across farmland causing runoff and loss of gulf delta life. Losing plankton, a CO2 sink.
- non-cow but other animal farming emits methanes (not inert)
- acres managed for cattle cannot be used for other purposes or go back to forest.
- huge industries organized around continuing the systems of factory farming, fertilizer mining, farm equipment sales, steak houses and so on will not want to see much change.
I enjoy meats but tend to avoid beef most of the time. Still, it is topical. Should we be growing population unbounded and removing most wild population so that we can "contain and manage the planet"? Is this a good thing?
How else to save money on rocket launches? Launch them from speed from a large, high-altitude plane. This is how I've always wanted to see space launches done - Paul Allen and company seem pretty well into this area.
A space launch company bankrolled by Microsoft Corp co-founder Paul Allen intends to compete with space entrepreneurs and industry stalwarts by launching satellites into orbit from the world’s biggest airplane.
Stratolaunch Systems, a unit of Allen’s privately owned Vulcan Aerospace, last week gave a small group of reporters a first look at the nearly finished aircraft.
With a wingspan of 385 feet (117 m), the six-engine plane will be larger than Howard Hughes’ 1947 H-4 Hercules, known as the “Spruce Goose,” and the Antonov An-225, a Soviet-era cargo plane originally built to transport the Buran space shuttle that is currently the world’s largest aircraft.
35% market share. That is 35% of 17 Million per year. 5.9 Million plug ins. Who will make them? VW, GM, BMW, Mercedes, Kia, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota. And Tesla, if they survive to 2035.
Isn't it a little much how we pay so much attention to a couple dozen cars shipping overseas? All the while, Chevy Cruzes come off the line at 1000 per day in Ohio and with highway ratings of 39 or so, offer some good mpg to save oil for under $18k. (Don't say it is a small car - I saw a guy working at an un-named financial services company who dressed out at 350 pounds driving a smart car)