RIP the internal combustion engine!

All things Rugby
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?
Because it was a bit shit.
Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

slow wing wrote:
The government accepts that air pollution from all sources contributes to about 30,000 deaths a year in Britain. But the research estimates that diesel-related health problems cost the NHS more than 10 times as much as comparable problems caused by petrol fumes. Last year the UN's World Health Organisation declared that diesel exhaust caused cancer and was comparable in its effects to secondary cigarette smoking.
Unbelievable that an allegedly civilised country accepts this! FA, why do you leave this part out in your rants against converting to renewables?
Dark satanic windmills.
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 19116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by DOB »

6roucho wrote:
DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?
Because it was a bit shit.
Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.
You could be onto something here, 6roucho. I look forward to the release of the not shit 3-wheeler.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:
DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?
Because it was a bit shit.
Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.
You could be onto something here, 6roucho. I look forward to the release of the not shit 3-wheeler.
That Toyota looks the business to me.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Supercars unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show from the world's top 3 manufacturers, and 2 out of 3 are petrol-electric hybrids ...

Image
Image

Lamborghini Veneno
6.5-liter, naturally aspirated V-12 engine
0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds
top speed approaching 220 miles an hour
production run: 3 vehicles
price: $3.9 million


Image
Image

LaFerrari (I'll let you guess the manufacturer)
6.3 litre V12 engine + electric motor
combined 963 horsepower
zero to 100 kph = 62 mph in less than three seconds
zero to 200 kph = 124 mph in less than seven seconds
zero to to 300 kph = 186 mph in less than 15 seconds (?)
top speed in excess of 350 kph
production run: 499 vehicles
price: $1.3 million


Image
Image

McLaren P1
plug-in hybrid
3.8-liter twin-turbo V8 engine + electric motor combination
12-mile all-electric range at "city speeds"
903 horsepower and 663 lb-ft of torque
zero to 100 kph = 62 mph in less than three seconds
zero to 200 kph = 124 mph in less than seven seconds
zero to to 300 kph = 186 mph in 17 seconds
top speed electronically limited to 350 kph
production run: 375 vehicles
price: $1.3 million


Away from Geneva, Porsche is also prototyping the 918 Spyder - a ~million dollar hybrid that can go 15 miles and reach speeds of 100 mph in electric only mode.
4.6 litre V8 engine + two electric motors - one in front and one in the rear
combined output of 770 horsepower
projected top speed of more than 325 km/h.


This Is Why Ferrari, Porsche, And McLaren Went Hybrid With Their New Hypercars - jalopnik.com
etherman
Posts: 5312
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by etherman »

Lamborghini Veneno
6.5-liter, naturally aspirated V-12 engine
0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds
top speed approaching 220 miles an hour
production run: 3 vehicles
price: $3.9 million

I'd love a look at Lambo's business plan :lol:
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 19116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by DOB »

etherman wrote:Lamborghini Veneno
6.5-liter, naturally aspirated V-12 engine
0-60 mph in 2.8 seconds
top speed approaching 220 miles an hour
production run: 3 vehicles
price: $3.9 million

I'd love a look at Lambo's business plan :lol:
"Plan"?

"Who's gonna buy it?"
"Put a dancing bull badge on it, some plum will have deep enough pockets somewhere."
merlin the happy pig
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by merlin the happy pig »

6roucho wrote:
DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:
DOB wrote:
6roucho wrote:Why did the Sinclair fail?
Because it was a bit shit.
Indeed. I think the best way to build a successful three-wheeler is to make it not shit.
You could be onto something here, 6roucho. I look forward to the release of the not shit 3-wheeler.
That Toyota looks the business to me.
I agree, the chance to use a very small commuter vehicle without needing a motorcycle license, and with proper weather protection could be a winner.
As usual though price is everything.

Keep it simple with low performance and aim it squarely at the one person commute role to keep costsvas low as possible.

The concept also looks good with or without electric power it's going to be cheap to run as a petrol vehicle simply by virtue of its very low weight.
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by bimboman »

That Toyota thing willfail fir the same reasons these things always do. Too small too low to the ground. Too dangerous in traffic . Anyone comfortable with those things already has a decent cheap scooter
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 19116
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by DOB »

bimboman wrote:That Toyota thing willfail fir the same reasons these things always do. Too small too low to the ground. Too dangerous in traffic . Anyone comfortable with those things already has a decent cheap scooter
I think this is it. Also, it would want to be scooter levels of cheap for people to give up the safety and luggage space of even a micro car like a Fiesta or Yaris.
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Donger »

Image

In Washignton DC.

Tesla's everywhere here now!
User avatar
Donger
Posts: 14243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trump Tower

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Donger »

DOB wrote:
bimboman wrote:That Toyota thing willfail fir the same reasons these things always do. Too small too low to the ground. Too dangerous in traffic . Anyone comfortable with those things already has a decent cheap scooter
I think this is it. Also, it would want to be scooter levels of cheap for people to give up the safety and luggage space of even a micro car like a Fiesta or Yaris.

this. I get on 495 (the beltway that rings Washington DC), and my VW Cabrio is about as small as I want to get.

I keep seeing that photo of the guy who got crushed in his Smart Car.....
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Excellent stuff on the Teslas, Donger... :thumbup:


The Toyota i-Road trike is more attuned to European sensibilities than America's. It's obviously been inspired by Peugeot's HYmotion3 Compressor Concept of 5 years ago...

Image
(click for large image)

Peugeot unleashes 118 mpg HYmotion3 Compressor Concept - AutoblogGreen, October 2008

That had an electric hub motor in each front wheel and a 125 cc turbocharged motor for the rear wheel, but no doors.

Renault evolved that into Europe's top selling electric vehicle, the Twizy quadricycle...

Image

Renault Twizy is Europe's best-selling electric vehicle - AutoblogGreen, November 2012


The Twizy starts at €6,990 - side windows not included. If the fully enclosed Toyota i-Road can match and then beat that price then I think they are in business. Toyota is currently testing them in Grenoble, so here's hoping.


Video here of Toyota i-Road driving around the booth.

Image

The rear wheel swivels as the front wheels give the lean, so the turning circle is quite good.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Tesla has just delayed its Model X by a whole year... :(

Image

Tesla Delays Model X Production To “Late” 2014 - Inside EVs

Tesla said it wants to concentrate on profitability with its Model S. The good news at least is that the Model S is selling probably better than Tesla had expected.


I'm wondering now if the Model X was a tactical mistake from Tesla? Sure, it is very cool. But if their goal is the takeover of electric cars then perhaps they should have just downsized and economised the Model S to quickly start manufacturing the mass market Model T?
MacGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MacGyver »

slow wing wrote:Tesla has just delayed its Model X by a whole year... :(

Image

Tesla Delays Model X Production To “Late” 2014 - Inside EVs

Tesla said it wants to concentrate on profitability with its Model S. The good news at least is that the Model S is selling probably better than Tesla had expected.


I'm wondering now if the Model X was a tactical mistake from Tesla? Sure, it is very cool. But if their goal is the takeover of electric cars then perhaps they should have just downsized and economised the Model S to quickly start manufacturing the mass market Model T?
They most likely haven't because the world is not ready yet. Remember, what was it, 2005 or 2006 when you started this thread? You said back then, in 10 years time electric cars would be outselling petrol ones. I said more likely 20 to 25 years. You poured all sorts of scorn on that. Well, you've got 2 or 3 years left, I don't like your odds...
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
MacGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MacGyver »

slow wing wrote:MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
Strange that you have to resort to flat out lies, but I guess that is your way. :lol: :thumbup:
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
Strange that you have to resort to flat out lies, but I guess that is your way. :lol: :thumbup:
Oh really?
size: show
Image
MacGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MacGyver »

slow wing wrote:
MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
Strange that you have to resort to flat out lies, but I guess that is your way. :lol: :thumbup:
Oh really?
size: show
Image
Wow, that is pretty sad. You either keep records of threads or spend time digging through the archives of the net. Either way, that is just sad. Well, the second one is sad, the first one is a little bit scary.

Hybrids aren't out selling petrol cars though are they...
MacGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MacGyver »

... and besides, I believe in context I was referring to main stream cars, eg a Mazda 3 or Hyundai i30. Not an Audi or BMW which class you'd have to put the Tesla in. Mum and Dad ain't buying that to drive little Johnny to soccer practice.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

A catch-up on some of the news around electric cars...


The end is nigh for Fisker Motors that no longer makes the luxury plug-in hybrid Fisker Karma, favoured by the likes of Justin Bieber.

They are desperately looking for a Chinese buyer and now founder Heinrich Fisker has just left the company.

Image
China’s Geely decides American electric-car maker Fisker isn’t worth buying

No great loss really. They are no Tesla Motors and were always going to be a bit of an irrelevancy.
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Volkswagen announces its first electric production car – the e-up!

Image

A Yaris-sized 4-seater car initially for the European market. Features:
up to 93 miles (150 km) per charge
81-hp electric motor
18.7 kWh lithium-ion battery
can be recharged to 80 percent within 30 minutes
motor puts out 155 lb-ft (210 Nm) of torque
0-62 mph (100 km/h) in 14 seconds
top speed is 83 mph (135 km/h)
weight = 2,612 lbs. (1,185 kg)
Price not yet announced

The e-up! will make its official auto show debut at this year's Frankfurt Motor Show, and VW will begin taking orders shortly thereafter.

Volkswagen announced recently that it had opened a new facility to assemble the packs for the e-up! in Braunschweig, with a capacity of 11,000 packs a year.

:thumbup: :thumbup:
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Mahindra E2O Electric Minicar Launches In India, Nee Reva NXR

Image

Image


three-phase electric motor: 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower)
50 mph top speed
lithium-ion batteries: capacity not stated
62 miles of range
1,830 lb
A charge from the average Indian outlet will take around 5 hours
the car's crumple zones "comply with European norms"
smartphone-controlled features and a dashboard-mounted touchscreen
$11,000 after Delhi's government subsidy for electric car

The car will be built at the MREV’s facility in Bengaluru which has the capacity to produce 30,000 cars per annum. Initially though: "[w]e will feel good if we are able to sell 400-500 units of the e2o per month.”

The car will be launched across eight cities – Delhi, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Pune, Cochin, Hyderabad and Bangalore – over the next three to four weeks. MREV has set up 253 charging stations in public places across these locations as support infrastructure for the vehicle. :thumbup:


:thumbup: :thumbup:
Last edited by slow wing on Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yer Man
Posts: 20769
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Yer Man »

Are they producing a special "bi-gum" model for Yorkshire?
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Thought-provoking analysis on comments from Nissan boss and electric car enthusiast Carlos Ghosn...
Renault chief Ghosn clings to China for electric car boost

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:16pm EDT
* China aiming for 2 mln capacity by 2020
* Electric vehicle experiment at critical point - analyst

By Laurence Frost and Norihiko Shirouzu


PARIS/BEIJING, March 18 (Reuters) - China will save the electric car, Renault-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn predicts - and with it the vision of battery-powered motoring on which he has staked his credibility.

...
Link - Reuters
User avatar
Fat Albert
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trantor

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Fat Albert »

Planet Earth calling Slow Wing, you are running out of time, please advise retraction date well in advance

Code: Select all

                                      Feb 2013   2013 YTD      Feb 2012
US Auto Total Light Vehicle Sales    1,192,299  2,235,537     1,170,945
US Auto Hybrid Light Vehicle Sales      40,173     74,784        57,979
US Auto Plugin Light Vehicle Sales       5,405     10,081         3,112
US Auto Diesel Light Vehcile Sales       9,374     16,974        16,618
Hybrid's took 3.34% of the market, plugins 0.45% and diesels 0.79%

These figures exclude Tesla 'S' sales because Tesla does not co-operate with US auto industry statistic capture processes, i.e they refuse to say how many they sold. Hybrid.com estimates that Tesla sold 2,700 model 'S' through Feb 2013 or about the same as Porsche sold Cayenne SUVs

Diesels outsold plugins 2:1 and BEVs including Tesla remain < 1% of the market

Some, 1,600 Chevrolet Volt found buyers in Feb 2013, GM's public sales target for 2013 is 60,000, so the Volt is not even reaching 1/3 of it's sales target, despite incentives and low volume production costs meaning that GM continue to make a loss on each sale of $40,000, about the same as the retail price.

US Light Vehicle Sales | US Electric Light Vehicle Sales
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

This is an interesting statistic on that topic, FA...
Marketing chief Maximilian Kellner pointed out that last year 92,221 electric vehicles were sold around the world, up from just 4,669 in 2010.
BMW’s first electric vehicle attracting 100s of orders ahead launch

That is growth by a factor of 20 in only two years... :shock:

Add another 4.5 years to that to get to my prediction for December 2016 and at that growth rate it would be 76 million electric vehicles per year by then... :shock:

Note that 84 million total vehicles were produced worldwide in 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry
and you can see that I am right on target with my OP prediction from 2006 even if only fully electric vehicles are included... :smug:

:P
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

FA, if you are claiming that Chevrolet Volts continue to cost $80,000 a piece to produce - the incremental cost - then aren't you saying they cost the same to produce as a nicely loaded 85 kWh Tesla Model S luxury sedan with a 500 km all-electric range?
User avatar
Fat Albert
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Trantor

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Fat Albert »

slow wing wrote:FA, if you are claiming that Chevrolet Volts continue to cost $80,000 a piece to produce - the incremental cost - then aren't you saying they cost the same to produce as a nicely loaded 85 kWh Tesla Model S luxury sedan with a 500 km all-electric range?
No. Slowy

As Tesla made a $150,000 loss on every $100,000 roadster it produced giving rise to a cost of $250,000 per vehicle I suspect that the cost of each and every $80,000 'S' sold so far is more of the order $160,000. This is, of course in the eyes of green economics, a sustainable business model :roll:
User avatar
slow wing
Posts: 5124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by slow wing »

Fat Albert wrote:...I suspect...
:roll:

Tesla Motors is a publically traded company and we already know it is operating at a profit, if only by a little bit for now.

The earnings and revenue numbers highlight a core theme for 2013 and Tesla, which will revolve around getting to the 25 percent gross margin that Musk has promised, a milestone he reiterated on the investor conference call last Wednesday. For the fourth quarter, the gross margin was just 8 percent, owing to the high expense of ramping production and reaching economies of scale for a factory that’s geared to produce just 5,000 cars a quarter.
http://gigaom.com/2013/02/27/getting-to ... ear-ahead/

Gross Margin = (Revenue − Cost of Goods Sold) / Revenue

<=> Cost of Goods Sold = Revenue * (1 - Gross Margin)

In the approximation that the margin is only for the Model S then, for a car selling at $80K:

Production Cost of Model S ~ $80K * 92% ~ $74K (4th quarter of 2012)
Production Cost of Model S ~ $80K * 75% ~ $60K (goal by end of 2013)

Tesla Motors... :proud:
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
User avatar
MorseCode
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:07 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MorseCode »

6roucho wrote:Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
What's game changing about their technology? There has been electric cars for over 100 years.

Now the Google self-driving cars, now that really is game changing technology.

Electric cars are just fashionable right now, and Tesla are selling to meet that demand. They dont offer anything over a regular car that would make people rush out to buy one. They aren't even good for the environment.
towny
Posts: 19189
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by towny »

MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:
MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
Strange that you have to resort to flat out lies, but I guess that is your way. :lol: :thumbup:
Oh really?
size: show
Image
Wow, that is pretty sad. You either keep records of threads or spend time digging through the archives of the net. Either way, that is just sad. Well, the second one is sad, the first one is a little bit scary.

Hybrids aren't out selling petrol cars though are they...
You called Slow Wing a liar. He's possibly a zealot, smelly and a undoubted hippy.... but liar he isn't.

Care to apologise?
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
What's game changing about their technology? There has been electric cars for over 100 years.

Now the Google self-driving cars, now that really is game changing technology.

Electric cars are just fashionable right now, and Tesla are selling to meet that demand. They dont offer anything over a regular car that would make people rush out to buy one. They aren't even good for the environment.
Where to start? Tesla have produced the first long-range premium-quality electric car accepted by the mainstream motoring press. More than accepted: all the leading magazines have lauded it as the best luxury car produced in America and at least the equal of the E Class and 5 Series. It's game-changing because it's perceived as better than it's competitors.
User avatar
MorseCode
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:07 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MorseCode »

6roucho wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
What's game changing about their technology? There has been electric cars for over 100 years.

Now the Google self-driving cars, now that really is game changing technology.

Electric cars are just fashionable right now, and Tesla are selling to meet that demand. They dont offer anything over a regular car that would make people rush out to buy one. They aren't even good for the environment.
Where to start? Tesla have produced the first long-range premium-quality electric car accepted by the mainstream motoring press. More than accepted: all the leading magazines have lauded it as the best luxury car produced in America and at least the equal of the E Class and 5 Series. It's game-changing because it's perceived as better than it's competitors.
Ok so they've made a very nice luxury car, and they'll probably sell a lot to wealthy customers, but that's a very small part of the driving population. If the people who drive around in E Class at the moment, are now driving around in Teslas, well ... big whoop. What difference does it make, what game has it changed. It wouldn't even be 1% of the car market. As it is Tesla are still dreaming of getting to a number like that.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
What's game changing about their technology? There has been electric cars for over 100 years.

Now the Google self-driving cars, now that really is game changing technology.

Electric cars are just fashionable right now, and Tesla are selling to meet that demand. They dont offer anything over a regular car that would make people rush out to buy one. They aren't even good for the environment.
Where to start? Tesla have produced the first long-range premium-quality electric car accepted by the mainstream motoring press. More than accepted: all the leading magazines have lauded it as the best luxury car produced in America and at least the equal of the E Class and 5 Series. It's game-changing because it's perceived as better than it's competitors.
Ok so they've made a very nice luxury car, and they'll probably sell a lot to wealthy customers, but that's a very small part of the driving population. If the people who drive around in E Class at the moment, are now driving around in Teslas, well ... big whoop. What difference does it make, what game has it changed. It wouldn't even be 1% of the car market. As it is Tesla are still dreaming of getting to a number like that.
What's game changing is their technology. It's transportable to every niche. As prices fall, so the price point of the market will fall, and we know from technology that the price of it falls substantially every year.

What's important is that they can produce competitive quality vs. petrol vehicles.
User avatar
MorseCode
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:07 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MorseCode »

6roucho wrote:What's game changing is their technology. It's transportable to every niche. As prices fall, so the price point of the market will fall, and we know from technology that the price of it falls substantially every year.

What's important is that they can produce competitive quality vs. petrol vehicles.
Have they got any technology that has changed the game though? They might have made the batteries a bit more efficient, they might have reduced the charge time a bit, but you still have huge big batteries to lug around. Batteries are still made out of rare earth elements. Batteries still wear out and need replacing. Batteries still have a shorter range then a full tank of gas.

If Tesla had game changing tech then they wouldn't need a $10,000 tax incentive to shift even luxury cars. When they can sell an electric car for cheaper than a petrol car with no tax incentive, then ya, maybe then the game might have changed. As it is right, they're selling a less-practical-more-expensive car to people who can afford it, because it's fashionable.
User avatar
6roucho
Posts: 9504
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Gangly Beehive

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by 6roucho »

MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:What's game changing is their technology. It's transportable to every niche. As prices fall, so the price point of the market will fall, and we know from technology that the price of it falls substantially every year.

What's important is that they can produce competitive quality vs. petrol vehicles.
Have they got any technology that has changed the game though? They might have made the batteries a bit more efficient, they might have reduced the charge time a bit, but you still have huge big batteries to lug around. Batteries are still made out of rare earth elements. Batteries still wear out and need replacing. Batteries still have a shorter range then a full tank of gas.

If Tesla had game changing tech then they wouldn't need a $10,000 tax incentive to shift even luxury cars. When they can sell an electric car for cheap with no tax incentive, then ya, maybe then the game might have changed. As it is right, they're selling a less practical car to people who can afford it, because it's fashionable.
Yeah, they've changed the game. The Tesla S is the SEXIEST NEW CAR IN AMERICA.

Take your hand off it.
User avatar
Geek
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by Geek »

6roucho wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:
MorseCode wrote:
6roucho wrote:Fats just wants Tesla to fail. I'm happy to buy their shares. They have game-changing technology, great products, oodles of cash, a winning brand and excellent leadership. It's hard to see how they won't be successful.

I'm happy to buy green stocks across the board, regardless of Fat Albertosarus or Silveronadon.
What's game changing about their technology? There has been electric cars for over 100 years.

Now the Google self-driving cars, now that really is game changing technology.

Electric cars are just fashionable right now, and Tesla are selling to meet that demand. They dont offer anything over a regular car that would make people rush out to buy one. They aren't even good for the environment.
Where to start? Tesla have produced the first long-range premium-quality electric car accepted by the mainstream motoring press. More than accepted: all the leading magazines have lauded it as the best luxury car produced in America and at least the equal of the E Class and 5 Series. It's game-changing because it's perceived as better than it's competitors.
Ok so they've made a very nice luxury car, and they'll probably sell a lot to wealthy customers, but that's a very small part of the driving population. If the people who drive around in E Class at the moment, are now driving around in Teslas, well ... big whoop. What difference does it make, what game has it changed. It wouldn't even be 1% of the car market. As it is Tesla are still dreaming of getting to a number like that.
What's game changing is their technology. It's transportable to every niche. As prices fall, so the price point of the market will fall, and we know from technology that the price of it falls substantially every year.

What's important is that they can produce competitive quality vs. petrol vehicles.
That last part is certainly important, and also far from certain. In order to be competitive in bulk the technology will have to be financially competitive (i.e. no subsedies) with current tech. What are Tesla doing with their batteries which is so different to anyone else? Do they really have new battery technology with an order of magnitude greater energy density? Somehow I doubt it, as it would have been all over the literature. The cars launching in India and from VW that SlowWing posted a little earlier in this thread are the reality of electric cars today, in so far as direct competition for Mr and Mrs Smith's dollar. Look at the performance and you will see that the game has not changed at all.
MacGyver
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: RIP the internal combustion engine!

Post by MacGyver »

towny wrote:
MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:
MacGyver wrote:
slow wing wrote:MacGyver, what I claimed back in December 2006 is repeated in the OP of this thread. It's not going to be too far wrong. :yawn:

You were instead talking about plug-in hybrids like the GM Volt being about 20 years away, electric cars much later. Well the Volt entered production in 2010 and it (combined with its European version, the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera) has already sold more than 40,000 units. You said we weren't going to get pure electric cars with a 500 km range, absent some massive technology breakthrough. Well what do you think is the range of the 85-kWh Tesla Model S that is already on the market? ;)


Strange then that you of all people should be ridiculing my 2006 predictions.
Strange that you have to resort to flat out lies, but I guess that is your way. :lol: :thumbup:
Oh really?
size: show
Image
Wow, that is pretty sad. You either keep records of threads or spend time digging through the archives of the net. Either way, that is just sad. Well, the second one is sad, the first one is a little bit scary.

Hybrids aren't out selling petrol cars though are they...
You called Slow Wing a liar. He's possibly a zealot, smelly and a undoubted hippy.... but liar he isn't.

Care to apologise?
:uhoh:

Wtf. Read what he accused me of, read what his records show me actually saying, understand the context, then go fudge yourself in the arse with a stick from an endangered Amazon rainforest.

Good night.
Post Reply