Modern cars suffer from overcomplexity. Many subsystems became way too complex. Amount of electronics
used further increases complexity and actually cuts private mechanics from the business. The more
complex the car is, the less reliable it is . So luxury models paradoxically can have a lot of problems
as they are oversaturated with electronics. Of course, you get a free loaner vehicle with the dealership, but still
moving all your belonging from one car to another is a frustrating exercise.
It's tough as there way too much variety on the marketplace and too much competition for what, in
essence, are almost identical sedans, or small SUVs.
Some interesting development the last year are "driver support" systems like Subaru EyeSight version
3.
Configuration of a car is another problem. For example I prefer to have a weather package (heated
mirrors, heater seats, front defroster, if available and fog lights. I also prefer cloth seats. I do
not want to pay for leather and the sunroof. But strangely enough it is difficult to get that set
of options, and if you you often get sunroof as a present from the vendor, which I do not
need. Not all people who are willing to pay more for the vehicle appreciate sunroof :-). It
actually makes roof less stable at crash. That's a problem.
Adaptive cruse control make great sense for long rides. Which is probably the main thing I am
exited about Forrester, as drive quality wise it is close to Mitsubishi Outlander 2006. Not bad, but
nothing special. Same with the acceleration up the hill. Crosstrek is more sexy but is sluggish in
this department, so complains on web sites are not without merit. I am not too exited about
CR-V and think you have a better SUV overall, despite Edmunds and Kelly ratings. The way Forrester
engine compartment is structured looks better for me. It's tight but all the necessary spots are
easily accessible. Also Honda car engines rotate in the wrong direction :-)
Automakers frequently change vehicle designs as the Environmental Protection Agency raises fuel-efficiency
standards. They are increasingly using lighter materials like aluminum and high-strength metals like
ultra-hard boron steel, particularly in the frame and suspension parts. Such parts are expensive.
As GM faulty ignition switch
story tell us there is no guarantee. You can get into troubles, even for a model that is
produced for many years. They knew about faulty switch for more then 10 years and more then a
dozen peoples died due to this defect. See News section.
Too much emphasis on fuel economy is not good. Weight of the car is a safety feature and it
affects fuel economy. Generally if you want excellent fuel economy you need
to buy a small car. Let's say the size of Corolla or Civic, or smaller. Such cars are dangerous on modern highway
as frontal collision with a heavier car (say, mid size SUV or light truck) gives you very little chances of
survival.
Hybrid cars look promising but they are more expensive and this additional expence eats all fuel
economy unless average for the life of the car prices are, say, above $3.5 a gallon.
Electrical car represent another set of problem:
Battery is like another passenger who is always in your car. Lithium battery is a dangerous passenger
to ride with, more like like a bomb you are driving with.
Difference in price is such that essentially you just paying all your fuel savings up-front
if gas prices stay below $4 per gallon.
What if oil prices drop during the lifespan of the car like happened in 2014-2016.
CVT Transmissions
CVT tranmissions displayed convetional gearboxes almost completely. And the reson is is fuel
economy.
Damage Control: Elon Musk Admits Cybertruck Could "Flop", Writes Off Summon Feature As
Just A "Fun Trick" BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, JUL 18, 2021 - 09:11 PM
As the cold hard reality of Elon Musk's promises of years past start to catch up to the
Tesla CEO - who last week
testified in a trial where he is alleged to have made a unilateral decision to poorly
allocate shareholder capital by bailing out his cousin's failing Solar City business that was
on the verge of insolvency - Musk now appears to be embarking on a journey to try and talk his
way out of past promises and manage expectations.
And while the mainstream financial press and regulators seem to be just fine with allowing
Musk to get away with this, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out each time the Earth's boy
genius attempts to re-write history right in front of our faces, with a smile, as though no one
would notice and/or remember a half-decade of missed deadlines and false promises along the
path of selling equity to investors and pushing
poorly made vehicles, many hand-assembled in a makeshift tent ( hereinafter referred to as
"the Alien dreadnaught" ) to marks willing to buy.
The walk back of history began with a mega-huge whopper about 2 weeks ago when, at the
beginning of July,
Musk admitted that Full-Self Driving - a non-existent feature customers have been paying
for for a half-decade - was a "hard problem", casually dropping into conversation the idea that
the company may not be anywhere close to meeting Musk's promises about FSD.
As a reminder, Musk said in 2019 he was "very confident" in predicting autonomous robotaxis
"next year", which would have been 2020, which has now turned into "last year" and is six
months away from being "two years ago". Earlier
this year Tesla offered up another reality check when it admitted to regulators that it was
still "firmly in level 2" autonomy.
"Generalized self-driving is a hard problem, as it requires solving a large part of
real-world AI. I didn't expect it to be so hard, but the difficulty is obvious in retrospect.
Nothing has more degrees of freedom than reality," Musk wrote on Twitter in early July.
It's a far cry from what Musk was saying years ago. "Tesla will have over 1 million
robotaxis on the road next year," Musk proclaimed in April of 2019, now more than 2 years
ago.
Great, so you'll just issue refunds to everyone who has paid for the feature over the last 5
years, right?
Regardless, even the latest much heralded update to Full Self Driving, which
arrived about a month late and had been touted as a solution to the last beta, which was
such a disaster it was
pulled off the market quickly , appears to be more of the same: jerky movements, uncertain
vehicle operation and constant necessary interruptions from the driver.
After Full Self Driving 9.0's release, even the company's biggest fans like Galileo Russell
said he saw little difference between the last beta and this one - and he still thinks the
company is "still a long way away" to truly autonomous driving "where you never have to
intervene".
Musk Walks Back Cybertruck Expectations
In another walk-back and reset of expectations last week, Elon Musk also Tweeted that there
was "always some chance" that the Cybertruck - a product
introduced almost two years ago in November 2019 to ridiculous fanfare - could "flop".
This stands at obvious odds with statements
Musk made in September at the company's shareholder meeting, where he said "The orders are
gigantic" about the truck. Musk claimed there were "... well over half a million orders." He
continued: "It's a lot, basically. We stopped counting."
Recall, at the introduction of the Cybertruck, Musk had an assistant come on stage and try
to break the truck's armored glass.
"Normal glass shatters immediately," Musk said as his assistants, dressed like characters
from The Matrix, dropped a metal ball on conventional glass, causing it to shatter.
At which point another of Musk's assistants gently threw a similar metal ball at the
Cybertruck parked on stage. The driver's side window promptly broke.
"Oh my fucking God," Musk nervously said, live on the stream, after the front window
shattered into a million pieces.
And if this demo wasn't enough to "manage expectations", Musk is now admitting the truck
could "flop".
But don't worry shareholders, Musk has your back. He Tweeted: "To be frank, there is always
some chance that Cybertruck will flop, because it is so unlike anything else. I don't care. I
love it so much even if others don't. Other trucks look like copies of the same thing, but
Cybertruck looks like it was made by aliens from the future."
Actually, it appears Musk doesn't have your back - it appears he's going to do whatever the
hell he wants regardless of whether or not it's good for the company.
"In end, we kept production design almost exactly same as show car. Just some small tweaks
here & there to make it slightly better. No door handles. Car recognizes you & opens
door. Having all four wheels steer is amazing for nimble handling & tight turns!" Musk
gushed about the truck, which is still not in production.
Some critics not only believe the truck is already a "flop", but also that its claimed specs
are outright fraudulent.
"This fraud is no different from those of Theranos or Nikola," Stanphyl Capital's Mark
Spiegel wrote on Twitter last week.
Musk Walks Back Years Of Bluster About "Smart Summon"
And now, the most recent walk-back. Shortly after Musk's Cybertruck comments came Musk's
"realigning" of expectations about Tesla's Summon feature, which Musk has been boasting about
whilst collecting order money, for years.
This series of Tweets is a
great starter thread on Musk's previous statements about summon - including ones claiming it
can go across the country and others using Summon as a reason to bump up the price of the
non-existent Full Self Driving - (additional sources here ), which
include:
January 10, 2016 : "In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not
blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY."
October 20, 2016: "When you want your car to return, tap Summon on your phone. It will
eventually find you even if you are on the other side of the country."
October 31, 2018 : "By next year, a Tesla should be able to drive around a parking lot,
find an empty spot, read signs to confirm it's valid & park."
November 1, 2018 : "Tesla advanced Summon ready in ~6 weeks! Just an over-the-air
software upgrade, so will work on all cars made in past 2 years (Autopilot hardware
V2+)."
November 1, 2018 : "Car will drive to your phone location & follow you like a pet if
you hold down summon button on Tesla app."
April 6, 2019 : "Tesla Enhanced Summon coming out in US next week for anyone with
Enhanced Autopilot or Full Self-Driving option."
May 23, 2019 : "Smart Summon coming soon!"
October 11, 2019 : "Now that Tesla V10.0 with Smart Summon is out, Full Self-Driving
price will increase by $1000 on Nov 1."
April 16, 2020 : "We're working super hard on getting traffic lights & stops
released. Reverse summon (auto park) will be part of the core Autopilot software upgrade for
FSD later this year."
And then, finally, just this past week: "Current Summon is sometimes useful, but mostly just
a fun trick," Musk nonchalantly wrote on Twitter this weekend.
More than five years after Musk claimed Summon would work cross-country, it appears he is
now giving up on the feature as it stands today. It's yet one more walk back and re-writing of
history that both customers and regulators will likely be just fine with.
Everyone Can See It Except Regulators And Tesla Cultists
Keep in mind these walk-backs don't even include
the company's Solar Roof rollout . Even the mainstream media is catching up to that
disaster: Bloomberg's Dana Hull
published a piece last month aptly titled "Tesla's Solar Roof Rollout Is a Bust" And a
Fixation for Elon Musk".
"It needs to be beautiful, affordable and seamlessly integrated," Musk said about the
company's solar roof shingle back in 2016. "You'll want to call your neighbors over and say,
"˜check out this sweet roof.'"
Except now it's a half decade later and the company has barely rolled out any solar roofs,
struggling to hit 200 installations per week. This is despite the fact that Musk set a goal to
install more than 1,000 of them a week back in 2019. It raised prices in April of this year,
leading to a slew of cancellations, Hull notes.
We don't seem to be the only ones exasperated about the lack of regulatory oversight on
Musk's actions, either. For example, many on social media and podcasts have honed in on the fact that Full Self
Driving is a complete and total bait and switch - except the "switched" item doesn't seem to
exist, either!
Damage Control: Elon Musk Admits Cybertruck Could "Flop", Writes Off Summon Feature As
Just A "Fun Trick" BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, JUL 18, 2021 - 09:11 PM
As the cold hard reality of Elon Musk's promises of years past start to catch up to the
Tesla CEO - who last week
testified in a trial where he is alleged to have made a unilateral decision to poorly
allocate shareholder capital by bailing out his cousin's failing Solar City business that was
on the verge of insolvency - Musk now appears to be embarking on a journey to try and talk his
way out of past promises and manage expectations.
And while the mainstream financial press and regulators seem to be just fine with allowing
Musk to get away with this, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out each time the Earth's boy
genius attempts to re-write history right in front of our faces, with a smile, as though no one
would notice and/or remember a half-decade of missed deadlines and false promises along the
path of selling equity to investors and pushing
poorly made vehicles, many hand-assembled in a makeshift tent ( hereinafter referred to as
"the Alien dreadnaught" ) to marks willing to buy.
The walk back of history began with a mega-huge whopper about 2 weeks ago when, at the
beginning of July,
Musk admitted that Full-Self Driving - a non-existent feature customers have been paying
for for a half-decade - was a "hard problem", casually dropping into conversation the idea that
the company may not be anywhere close to meeting Musk's promises about FSD.
As a reminder, Musk said in 2019 he was "very confident" in predicting autonomous robotaxis
"next year", which would have been 2020, which has now turned into "last year" and is six
months away from being "two years ago". Earlier
this year Tesla offered up another reality check when it admitted to regulators that it was
still "firmly in level 2" autonomy.
"Generalized self-driving is a hard problem, as it requires solving a large part of
real-world AI. I didn't expect it to be so hard, but the difficulty is obvious in retrospect.
Nothing has more degrees of freedom than reality," Musk wrote on Twitter in early July.
It's a far cry from what Musk was saying years ago. "Tesla will have over 1 million
robotaxis on the road next year," Musk proclaimed in April of 2019, now more than 2 years
ago.
Great, so you'll just issue refunds to everyone who has paid for the feature over the last 5
years, right?
Regardless, even the latest much heralded update to Full Self Driving, which
arrived about a month late and had been touted as a solution to the last beta, which was
such a disaster it was
pulled off the market quickly , appears to be more of the same: jerky movements, uncertain
vehicle operation and constant necessary interruptions from the driver.
After Full Self Driving 9.0's release, even the company's biggest fans like Galileo Russell
said he saw little difference between the last beta and this one - and he still thinks the
company is "still a long way away" to truly autonomous driving "where you never have to
intervene".
Musk Walks Back Cybertruck Expectations
In another walk-back and reset of expectations last week, Elon Musk also Tweeted that there
was "always some chance" that the Cybertruck - a product
introduced almost two years ago in November 2019 to ridiculous fanfare - could "flop".
This stands at obvious odds with statements
Musk made in September at the company's shareholder meeting, where he said "The orders are
gigantic" about the truck. Musk claimed there were "... well over half a million orders." He
continued: "It's a lot, basically. We stopped counting."
Recall, at the introduction of the Cybertruck, Musk had an assistant come on stage and try
to break the truck's armored glass.
"Normal glass shatters immediately," Musk said as his assistants, dressed like characters
from The Matrix, dropped a metal ball on conventional glass, causing it to shatter.
At which point another of Musk's assistants gently threw a similar metal ball at the
Cybertruck parked on stage. The driver's side window promptly broke.
"Oh my fucking God," Musk nervously said, live on the stream, after the front window
shattered into a million pieces.
And if this demo wasn't enough to "manage expectations", Musk is now admitting the truck
could "flop".
But don't worry shareholders, Musk has your back. He Tweeted: "To be frank, there is always
some chance that Cybertruck will flop, because it is so unlike anything else. I don't care. I
love it so much even if others don't. Other trucks look like copies of the same thing, but
Cybertruck looks like it was made by aliens from the future."
Actually, it appears Musk doesn't have your back - it appears he's going to do whatever the
hell he wants regardless of whether or not it's good for the company.
"In end, we kept production design almost exactly same as show car. Just some small tweaks
here & there to make it slightly better. No door handles. Car recognizes you & opens
door. Having all four wheels steer is amazing for nimble handling & tight turns!" Musk
gushed about the truck, which is still not in production.
Some critics not only believe the truck is already a "flop", but also that its claimed specs
are outright fraudulent.
"This fraud is no different from those of Theranos or Nikola," Stanphyl Capital's Mark
Spiegel wrote on Twitter last week.
Musk Walks Back Years Of Bluster About "Smart Summon"
And now, the most recent walk-back. Shortly after Musk's Cybertruck comments came Musk's
"realigning" of expectations about Tesla's Summon feature, which Musk has been boasting about
whilst collecting order money, for years.
This series of Tweets is a
great starter thread on Musk's previous statements about summon - including ones claiming it
can go across the country and others using Summon as a reason to bump up the price of the
non-existent Full Self Driving - (additional sources here ), which
include:
January 10, 2016 : "In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not
blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY."
October 20, 2016: "When you want your car to return, tap Summon on your phone. It will
eventually find you even if you are on the other side of the country."
October 31, 2018 : "By next year, a Tesla should be able to drive around a parking lot,
find an empty spot, read signs to confirm it's valid & park."
November 1, 2018 : "Tesla advanced Summon ready in ~6 weeks! Just an over-the-air
software upgrade, so will work on all cars made in past 2 years (Autopilot hardware
V2+)."
November 1, 2018 : "Car will drive to your phone location & follow you like a pet if
you hold down summon button on Tesla app."
April 6, 2019 : "Tesla Enhanced Summon coming out in US next week for anyone with
Enhanced Autopilot or Full Self-Driving option."
May 23, 2019 : "Smart Summon coming soon!"
October 11, 2019 : "Now that Tesla V10.0 with Smart Summon is out, Full Self-Driving
price will increase by $1000 on Nov 1."
April 16, 2020 : "We're working super hard on getting traffic lights & stops
released. Reverse summon (auto park) will be part of the core Autopilot software upgrade for
FSD later this year."
And then, finally, just this past week: "Current Summon is sometimes useful, but mostly just
a fun trick," Musk nonchalantly wrote on Twitter this weekend.
More than five years after Musk claimed Summon would work cross-country, it appears he is
now giving up on the feature as it stands today. It's yet one more walk back and re-writing of
history that both customers and regulators will likely be just fine with.
Everyone Can See It Except Regulators And Tesla Cultists
Keep in mind these walk-backs don't even include
the company's Solar Roof rollout . Even the mainstream media is catching up to that
disaster: Bloomberg's Dana Hull
published a piece last month aptly titled "Tesla's Solar Roof Rollout Is a Bust" And a
Fixation for Elon Musk".
"It needs to be beautiful, affordable and seamlessly integrated," Musk said about the
company's solar roof shingle back in 2016. "You'll want to call your neighbors over and say,
"˜check out this sweet roof.'"
Except now it's a half decade later and the company has barely rolled out any solar roofs,
struggling to hit 200 installations per week. This is despite the fact that Musk set a goal to
install more than 1,000 of them a week back in 2019. It raised prices in April of this year,
leading to a slew of cancellations, Hull notes.
We don't seem to be the only ones exasperated about the lack of regulatory oversight on
Musk's actions, either. For example, many on social media and podcasts have honed in on the fact that Full Self
Driving is a complete and total bait and switch - except the "switched" item doesn't seem to
exist, either!
Canada will
ban the sale of fuel-burning new cars and light-duty trucks from 2035 in an effort to reach
net-zero emissions across the country by 2050, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government said
on Tuesday. Reuters reports: Only zero-emissions cars and trucks can be sold from 2035,
according to a statement, adding that a mixture of investments and regulations will help
industry transition toward that goal. The government also said it will set interim targets for
2025 and 2030. "We are committed to aligning Canada's zero-emission vehicles sales targets with
those of the most ambitious North American jurisdictions," Environment Minister Jonathan
Wilkinson said in the statement. "We will work with the United States to harmonize fuel
efficiency regulations and we're investing in consumer rebates, charging stations, business tax
breaks and industry transition costs," Wilkinson added.
"Canada cannot reach our greenhouse gas targets if emissions from cars, SUVs and pickups,
which are currently growing, are not curtailed," said Keith Brooks, programs director at
advocacy group Environmental Defence, who welcomed the move. Brooks said only 3.5% of vehicles
now sold in Canada are electric and that the government needs to do more to support the market
for zero-emissions vehicles.
While the vast majority of us can eventually make do with electric cars, we have
roads in some places over a thousand kilometres long, with nothing on them. Think like the
Alaska Highway, but worse. I've driven on of them, up the east coast of Hudson Bay. It's
absolutely empty, and there's 8 hours between gas stations. Many ICE cars don't even have the
range do drive there as it is.
We have ice roads into northern communities that will soon (due to global warming) become an
even larger network of vast, desolate roads. The cost of installing electric charging stations
on these roads would be insurmountable. You're talking about tens , if not hundreds of
thousands of kilometres of new high-tension power lines. We just wouldn't be able to put
charging stations far enough out to make this feasible. So, sure, the vast majority of
cars could be electric by 2035, not all of them can be. Therefore a ban is not a realistic
solution.
I don't see it happening in 25 years to travel for a thousand km, in the dead of winter,
possibly towing a load. Is it possible? Sure. But I highly doubt it.
Plus, we have an election coming up, likely in the fall, and parliament is out for the
summer very soon. This is Trudeau's (and his party's) way of saying "Look at all the good I've
done! I'm hip and green!", without actually accomplishing anything, because as we all know, in
government terms, "in 25 years" means "I don't have a plan, I won't create a plan, and I'm
leaving this for someone else to solve. So... Coal power for
Canada, then... (
Score: 3 ) by gillbates (
106458 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:46PM ( #61535766 )
Homepage Journal
The problem with electric cars is that they're coal powered cars. Instead of burning
half-hydrogen, half carbon, the power company energy comes entirely from carbon, and loses
about 10-15% of that power in the lines themselves. Sure, your power company *might* be using a
renewable energy source, but if they're not, your electric car is actually worse for the planet
than a conventional ICE powered vehicle.
Banning fuel powered vehicles is not the way to go. Instead, they should be looking into
carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel, and ethanol powered vehicles. That way, you get the benefits
of emissions reduction without forcing anyone to buy a new car or change their habits.
Yes, I know it takes a lot of energy to convert a biological carbon source into a
hydrocarbon - or a lot of acreage to grow the oil-rich plants like soybeans. But if we're
serious about mitigating global climate change, carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels are the most
realistic option available. And it can be done right now, today, with the technology we already
have. Why extreme
solutions? (
Score: 2 ) by joe_frisch (
1366229 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:49PM ( #61535776 ) Why ban
ALL gas fueled vehicles. There are probably a variety of situations where electric vehicles are
not viable. Reducing to 10% gas has almost as big an effect and eliminates the extreme
situations.
Instead the people who need gas cars will either drive old, less efficient vehicles, or
heavy trucks which are exempt - both of which will increase emissions.
While 53.1 MJ/kg, for natural gas is correct the problem is getting this kilogram. You need
to liqidify gas to get a kilogram of gas in volume comparable with gasoline. It looks too high
for me. I think by MJ/m3 gasine solidly beats natural gas (even liquefied) in energy density. See
Specific Energy
and Energy Density of Fuels - Neutrium
... lithium had been thought to be the solution to the clean energy movement.
Unfortunately, it has been proven that lithium will not be able to provide enough power for
long-range trucks... ocean-going freighters... military vehicles...trains"¦ planes...
jets, and more.
Why? The story of energy transitions through history has been a constant move toward fuels
that are more energy-dense and convenient to use than the fuels they replaced.
Fossil fuels are the most energy-dense, making them hard to replace.
At 53.1 MJ/kg, natural gas boasts the highest energy density of any fossil fuel, followed by
gasoline at 45.8MJ/kg, and coal at 30.2MJ/kg.
Lithium-ion batteries--one of the most effective ways to store renewable energy--can only
afford an energy density of 0.504MJ/kg. That's 91 times less energy density than gasoline!
So, while lithium could become the predominant energy carrier for small vehicles like
cars and small vans...It simply doesn't appear to have enough power density to become practical
for larger truck and vicles that need to make long hauls.
While 53.1 MJ/kg, for natural gas is correct the problem is getting this kilogram. You need
to liqidify gas to get a kilogram of gas in volume comparable with gasoline. It looks too high
for me. I think by MJ/m3 gasine solidly beats natural gas (even liquefied) in energy density. See
Specific Energy
and Energy Density of Fuels - Neutrium
... lithium had been thought to be the solution to the clean energy movement.
Unfortunately, it has been proven that lithium will not be able to provide enough power for
long-range trucks... ocean-going freighters... military vehicles...trains"¦ planes...
jets, and more.
Why? The story of energy transitions through history has been a constant move toward fuels
that are more energy-dense and convenient to use than the fuels they replaced.
Fossil fuels are the most energy-dense, making them hard to replace.
At 53.1 MJ/kg, natural gas boasts the highest energy density of any fossil fuel, followed by
gasoline at 45.8MJ/kg, and coal at 30.2MJ/kg.
Lithium-ion batteries--one of the most effective ways to store renewable energy--can only
afford an energy density of 0.504MJ/kg. That's 91 times less energy density than gasoline!
So, while lithium could become the predominant energy carrier for small vehicles like
cars and small vans...It simply doesn't appear to have enough power density to become practical
for larger truck and vicles that need to make long hauls.
The U.S. is woefully unprepared to handle "the electrification of everything," as Amy Myers
Jaffe, a research professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School, describes the drive to
electrify transportation and buildings and parts of industry in The Wall Street
Journal .
Increased electrification in all sectors will need huge investments in the electric grid, in
battery storage to back up renewable power generation, in charging points for EVs, and in
technologies such as green hydrogen to help those technologies to reach maturity and cost
efficiency enough to start replacing fossil fuels.
"˜Not a chance' Tesla will dominate car industry in 20 years: legendary investor Bruce Greenwald
Max Zahn with Andy Serwer
Wed, May 26, 2021, 9:56 AM
In this article:
TSLA
+2.39%
Tesla (
TSLA
)
short sellers are up $4 billion so far this year, driven by the stock's fall back to earth after a steep rise of more than 695%
last year, according to an
analysis
by S3 partners that CNN reported
.
Investor Michael Burry, who
anticipated the 2008 housing collapse and was made famous by the book and movie "The Big Short," last week
revealed
that
his firm Scion Asset Management had joined the army of Tesla short sellers to the tune of more than 800,000 shares worth about
$534 million.
Now another legendary investor,
Columbia University Professor Emeritus Bruce Greenwald" whom The New York Times once
called
"a
guru to Wall Street's gurus"" says he doesn't think Tesla can live up to its astronomical market cap. But Greenwald
acknowledged he wouldn't short Tesla because many have gotten "slaughtered" doing it.
In a new interview, Greenwald
predicted that Tesla will fail to dominate the auto industry over the long term because of a likely explosion in the size of the
electric vehicle market and a lack of differentiation between Tesla's products and those of its competitors.
"Twenty years from now" you
really think that they're going to dominate the auto market?" Greenwald tells Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer. "Not a
chance."
"We know what a competitive auto
market looks like," he adds. "Because in that market, most of the big companies have flirted with bankruptcy at one time or
another."
A Tesla that was involved in a fatal crash in Southern California last week was operating on
Autopilot at the time , it has been revealed. The crash is still is under investigation by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a report from
ABC noted on Friday.
The crash, which took place on May 5 in Fontana, killed the 35 year old driver after his
Model 3 hit an overturned semi on the freeway. A second person was seriously injured after the
Model 3 hit him, while he was trying to help the driver of the overturned semi.
On Thursday of this week, the California Highway Patrol announced that the car was operating
on Autopilot, which has been no stranger to controversy involving fatal Tesla wrecks. This
wreck marks at least the fourth death in the U.S. involving Autopilot.
The information was so important, the CHP felt, that they shared it despite the ongoing
investigation, stating: "While the CHP does not normally comment on ongoing investigations, the
Department recognizes the high level of interest centered around crashes involving Tesla
vehicles. We felt this information provides an opportunity to remind the public that driving is
a complex task that requires a driver's full attention."
Just days prior, the CHP
arrested yet another Tesla driver who it said was in the back seat of his vehicle while it
barreled down Interstate 80 near Oakland. Autopilot or Full Self Driving were assumed to be
operating.
There is also an ongoing NHTSA investigation involving a fatal Tesla wreck that took place
in Houston weeks ago. The NTSB
has issued a preliminary report in that case, finding that a similar vehicle could have
engaged Traffic Aware Cruise Control, but not Autosteer, at the point where the crash took
place.
The NTSB concluded by stating that the investigation was ongoing and that it was working
with Harris County Texas Precinct 4:
The NTSB continues to collect data to analyze the crash dynamics, postmortem toxicology
test results, seat belt use, occupant egress, and electric vehicle fires. All aspects of the
crash remain under investigation as the NTSB determines the probable cause, with the intent
of issuing safety recommendations to prevent similar crashes. The NTSB is working alongside
the Harris County Texas Precinct 4 Constable's Office, which is conducting a separate,
parallel investigation.
Recall, it was Mark Herman, Harris County Constable Precinct 4, who was most skeptical of
Elon Musk's comments absolving Autopilot of liability last month, telling Reuters that the
police served search warrants on Tesla to secure data from the Model S.
Responding to Musk at the time, Herman said: "If he is tweeting that out, if he has already
pulled the data, he hasn't told us that. We will eagerly wait for that data."
"We have witness statements from people that said they left to test drive the vehicle
without a driver and to show the friend how it can drive itself ," Herman said according to the
Reuters report .
(hackaday.com) 124BeauHD on Monday February
08, 2021 @10:10PM from the clean-energy dept. A German research organization has developed a
magnesium-based "
Powerpaste " with an energy density ten times more than
current battery technology . Hackaday reports: We've been promised hydrogen-powered
engines for some time now. One downside though is the need for hydrogen vehicles to have heavy
high-pressure tanks. While a 700 bar tank and the accompanying fuel cell is acceptable for a
city bus or a truck, it becomes problematic with smaller vehicles, especially ones such as
scooters or even full-sized motorcycles. The Fraunhofer Institute wants to run smaller vehicles
on magnesium hydride in a paste form that they call POWERPASTE.
The idea is that the paste effectively stores hydrogen at normal temperature and
pressure. At 250C, the paste decomposes and releases its hydrogen. While your motorcycle may
seem hot when parked in the sun, it isn't getting quite to 250C. Interestingly, the paste only
provides half the available hydrogen. The rest is from water added start a reaction to release
the hydrogen. Fraunhofer claims the energy density available is greater than that of a 700 bar
tank in a conventional hydrogen system and ten times more than current battery
technology.
One thing that's attractive is that the paste is easy to store and pump. A gas station,
for example, could invest $20-30,000 and dispense the paste from a metal drum to meet low
demand and then scale up as needed. A hydrogen pumping setup starts at about $1.2 million.
Fraunhofer is building a pilot production plant that will produce about four tons of the
material a year.
Before I bought my 18 year old PU a few years ago, I seriously looked at the Chinese
versions of 'jeeps'. Based on their simple military version utility vehicle, it looked like a
no-nonsense no-bling reliable 4X4; kind of like a modern version of the Willys Jeep. Beats
the Hummer nonsense, or Envoys, or Jeep PU.
Anyway, l was dipping the toe and doing research until the family deal came up. Instead of
a 4X4 (which I actually need on the local weed slick boat ramp) I throw some weight in the
back like we used to 50 years ago.
New vehicles re waaay too complex and more expensive than they need to be. 7 airbags?
Really? How about just slowing down and driving carefully? Buyers need to wait and not be
stampeded into this market .if they can do so.
Yes, really. You are not a genius for driving a 40-year old van with no fucking airbags.
You're just a cheapskate.
Just so you know, every single air bag in a new car protects against specific injuries.
The side head curtain reduces the likelihood of death from a side impact brain injury by
forty percent. The little air bag under the dash protects against tibial plateau fractures in
frontal crashes.
It's not just the airbags either. Ask Tiger Woods why his legs are still attached. Hint:
it's from the high-strength steel toe/lower leg pan now mandatory in new cars.
I could go on, but the point should be clear: the shit you drive is demonstrably less safe
than any vehicle built in the last five years.
Yes. New cars are generally safer than older cars. However, that doesn't make a person
driving an old car stupid, nor does it make someone who drives a new car smart.
It's all a matter of risk acceptance, and that is very personal. I drive an old car that
lacks lots of safety features. A also ride a powerful motorbike. Given this, would it not be
a tiny bit weird if I insisted on the newest, safest car around while also using a
two-wheeled means of transport that is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the oldest
clunker of a car?
Of course, being a careful and capable driver doesn't guarantee you'll never end up in a
serious accident. But on the other hand, I tend to feel that cars that have a reputation for
protecting against any type of accident attract a certain class of drivers. Just sayin'.
Undeployed airbags are a major danger for emergency services personnel trying to extricate
bad drivers from their cars, as anyone who has had any training in emergency response will
tell you.
I think it's a case of 'different folks, different strokes'. I have a nice 1993 Nissan
300ZX that's my fun/fancy car. It has less than 40K original miles and drives like a
dream.
The honeymoon between Tesla and China continue to sour as the Global Times , China's closest major
media organization to the state, published a horrifying image of a Tesla vehicle rear-ending a
truck in Shaoguan, South China's Guangdong Province on Friday, "killing the electric car's
driver on the spot."
Tesla can't catch a break in China. If state media wanted to protect the US car company,
they would've ignored the report; instead, they're drumming up bad press for Elon Musk. This
follows CCTV broadcaster calling for an
investigation last month into Tesla's brake failures following other incidents where the
electric cars have plowed into things.
In roughly three minutes, you can fill the gas tank of a Ford Mustang and have enough range to go about 300 miles with its V8
engine.
But for the
electric Mustang Mach-E
,
an hour plugged into a household outlet gave Bloomberg automotive analyst Kevin Tynan just three miles of range.
"Overnight, we're looking at 36 miles of range," he told Insider. "Before I gave it back to Ford, because I wanted to give it back
full, I drove it to the office and plugged in at the charger we have there."
Standard home outlets generally put out about 120 volts of power at what electric vehicle aficionados call "Level 1" charging, while
the high-powered specialty connections offer 240 volts of power and are known as "Level 2." By comparison, Tesla's "Superchargers,"
which can fully charge its cars in a little over an hour, offer 480 volts of direct current.
That difference is night and day, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Energy by University of California Davis
researchers Scott Hardman and Gil Tal that surveyed
Californians
who purchased an electric vehicle
between 2012 and 2018.
Roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) owners switched back to owning gas-powered cars, in large part because charging
the batteries was a pain in the trunk, the researchers found.
Of those who switched, over 70% lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer than that lacked Level 2 connections
at their workplace.
"If you don't have a Level 2, it's almost impossible," said Tynan, who has tested a wide range of makes and models of PEVs over the
years for his research.
Even with the faster charging, a Chevy Volt he tested still needed nearly six hours to top its range back up to 300 miles from
nearly empty -- something that takes him just minutes at the pump with his family SUV.
Public charging stations may look like the electric version of the gas station, but nearly two-thirds of PEV drivers in the survey
said they didn't use them. Exactly why they didn't use the public stalls was not specified.
EVs have come a long way in recent years in terms of range, safety, comfort, and tech features, but Hardman and Tal note that very
little has changed in terms of how they are recharged.
The researchers warned that this trend could make it harder to achieve electric vehicle sales targets in California and other
countries, and the growth of the market overall.
Two U.S. senators have expressed concern about what they said may be an emerging pattern of
safety concerns involving Tesla Inc. TSLA -3.28% vehicles in the wake
of a fatal crash in Texas.
In a letter Thursday to America's top automotive-safety regulator, Sen. Richard Blumenthal
of Connecticut and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts urged the agency to develop recommendations
for improving advanced driver-assistance systems such as Tesla's Autopilot.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened a probe into
the weekend crash , one of more than two dozen investigations it has launched into
Tesla-involved crashes. The agency has said that most of those investigations are related to
the vehicles' advanced driver-assistance features.
"We fear safety concerns involving these vehicles are becoming a pattern, which is
incredibly worrisome and deserves your undivided attention," the Democratic senators wrote
about Tesla in the letter, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
... ... ...
Consumer Reports on Thursday said it
had done tests this week in which it was able to get a different Tesla model's Autopilot to
operate without anyone in the driver's seat. The vehicle, which uses steering-wheel inputs to
assess driver attention, didn't send any warnings about an empty driver's seat, Consumer
Reports said. The organization attached a weight to a Model Y's steering wheel to simulate a
hand during the testing.
"I was really shocked how easy it was to do it," said Jake Fisher, the group's senior
director of auto testing, one of the people involved in the test-track experiment. "When you
have an automation system like that which explicitly needs a driver to be ready to take over at
any time, you have to make sure that someone is actually engaged."
Tesla didn't respond to a request for comment on the Consumer Reports finding.
I continue to be amazed that serious people think that gasoline powered vehicles can be
completely replaced by electric vehicles in a decade-and-a-half, and that this would be a good
thing, even if possible. Under threat of government action, however, the world's major auto
manufacturers are falling in line boosting production of plug-in models, and upstart Tesla
Motors is now the world's most valuable auto manufacture, based on the value of its capital
stock issued and in the public's hands. Mary T. Barra, CEO of General Motors, has pledged to
sell only zero emission vehicles by 2035 . That
would meet the deadline imposed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed an executive
order banning the sale of internal combustion vehicles in the nation's largest car market by
2035.
Charging electrric cars at work makes sense, as it rquires several hours. But what if you
want to drive on a long trip? Photo credit: Felix
Cramer CC-BY-SA 2.0 license
GM, rescued from liquidation courtesy of US taxpayers (and bondholders who were cheated out
of their place in line as creditors by the Obama administration), may simply be sucking up to
governmental power. But Akio Toyoda, CEO of Toyota Motors, the world's largest (or second
largest, depending on the year). and grandson of the automaker's founder, has spoken out and
called out fallacy of thinking that this is possible or desirable. [I must here disclose that I
was a consultant for a Toyota company for several years, but that all my comments on the
company here are based on publicly available information.]
As the grandson of Toyota founder, Kiichiro Toyoda, the scion was raised surrounded by all
aspects of the auto industry and his business acumen is second to none. So when he had some
harsh words for electric vehicles at the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association
end-of-year press conference last week, people took notice.
The Wall Street Journal was in attendance and noted the CEO's disdain for EVs boils down
to his belief they'll ruin businesses, require massive investments, and even emit more carbon
dioxide than combustion-engined vehicles. "The current business model of the car industry is
going to collapse," he said. "The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets When
politicians are out there saying, 'Let's get rid of all cars using gasoline,' do they
understand this?"
Studies detailing the carbon emissions necessary to manufacture an electric vehicle reveal
that on a net basis, there are more emissions for vehicle bought and used for its expected
lifetime, than would be generated by buying and using a conventional gasoline-powered
vehicle.
Toyota can certainly make electric powered vehicles. It introduced the hybrid Prius, after
all, and has a strong position in that market. Toyota's mastery of the discipline of mass
production of vehicles is such that it could do well no matter what power source is used. But
the costs of complete conversion to electricity-powered vehicles are mind boggling.
Where will all, the electricity needed to power to entire fleet of cars in the US (or Japan)
come from? Despite the fantasies of greenies, it won't be from windmills or solar farms. They
are too unreliable, take up too much land, and cost too much. Right now, it is coal and natural
gas that produce the most electricity at the most reasonable cost. And they emit CO2. Plus,
there is considerable loss of power due to resistance in the transmission lines, requiring an
even greater amount of gross power before the net power reaches the battery in the vehicle,
charging at the user's home ort some other location. Nuclear power does offer some potential,
but how many people want to live near the hundreds and hundreds of nuclear power plants that
would be required to fuel the nation's vehicles?
Then there is the small matter of batteries. The very large batteries needed for electric
cars use lots of expensive lithium (and some other rare elements) whose supply is limited, and
whose mining requires lots of scarce water. In fact, powering the world's vehicles by battery
is simply impossible, given the limited world supply of lithium, as this
clever post by Powerline's Steve Hayward makes clear. The title gives away the
punchline:
WHO WILL TELL THE GREENS THERE IS NO BATTERY FAIRY?
For the longest while I have been asking, "Where do environmentalists and Democrats think
all these batteries for our oil-free transportation fleet are going to come from?" It seems
they think there is a Battery Fairy out there somewhere who will magically supply the
ginormous battery capacity, and additional supply of electricity to charge them, in order to
deliver us to our blessed fossil-fuel-free future.
But there's a problem. As the world scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy,
the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required to enable that transformation
could become a serious issue in its own right. "One of the biggest environmental problems
caused by our endless hunger for the latest and smartest devices is a growing mineral crisis,
particularly those needed to make our batteries," says Christina Valimaki an analyst at
Elsevier. . .
It's a relatively cheap and effective process, but it uses a lot of water –
approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium. In Chile's Salar de Atacama, mining
activities consumed 65 per cent of the region's water. That is having a big impact on local
farmers – who grow quinoa and herd llamas – in an area where some communities
already have to get water driven in from elsewhere. . .
Two other key ingredients, cobalt and nickel, are more in danger of creating a bottleneck
in the move towards electric vehicles, and at a potentially huge environmental cost. Cobalt
is found in huge quantities right across the Democratic Republic of Congo and central Africa,
and hardly anywhere else. The price has quadrupled in the last two years.
I am glad that some grownups are pointing out that the electric vehicle conversion emperor
has no clothes on. But that hasn't stopped governments, manufacturers, and investors from
pretending that electric vehicles are our only future.
As Herbert Stein famously said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." We're
only beginning to discover that about pipe dreams of an all-electric vehicle future.
As to whether EVs are as environmentally friendly as many people claim is a topic that is
hotly debated. The chart near the top of this article screams that they are not. Electricity
demand is still rising across the world, most nuclear plants getting very old, and the most
ecologically friendly sources are running full out. This means the slack is being taken up by
fossil-fuel generated plants. Under the idea of, last in first out, this would mean that almost
all the juice being pumped into EVs comes from fossil-fuel generated juice. To make matters
worse, other issues exist.
Below are a few comments, or parts of comments, about EVs that have been gathered from
different recent articles. I have not fully researched all these but they do add to my doubts
about these vehicles.
The Greenwashing Industrial Complex is one of the evilest and fraudulent scams of the
21st century. As an example, the pollution and environmental destruction created by the
manufacturing and disposal of EV batteries, and also the magnets for power-generating
windmills, is 10X worse than pollution created by fossil-fuel vehicles.
In Germany about 40% of the energy mix is produced by coal and 30% by renewables - a
mid-sized electric car must be driven for
125,000 km , on average, to break even with a diesel car, and 60,000 km compared to a
petrol car. It takes nine years for an electric car to be greener than a diesel car,
assuming an annual average mileage of 13,500 km. Most consumers will have bought a new car
by then. The case is similar in the U.S. but less pronounced in
nuclear-powered France .
Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone.
Consider dust, fumes, wastewater, and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo;
water shortages and toxic
spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local
communities; a heavily polluted river due to
nickel mining in Russia; or
air pollution in northeastern China, as mentioned above.
There isn't enough cobalt in the world to replace even half of the current ICE vehicles.
Never mind the fact they have kids mining the stuff in the Congo. InsideSources
, says, every EV battery contains cobalt, with most of it mined in the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC). This area has been an ugly mess for years as the Congo government and armed
militants duke it out over the control of mines. Much of the DRC cobalt is then hauled to
South Africa and shipped to China for processing.
Also flowing into the issue of " less damaging to the environment" is something recently
brought to my attention, and that is, EVs tend to rapidly eat through tires. While many people
may not think this is a big deal, it is. Since electric car batteries are heavier than petrol
engines they need a more robust tire. Also, because of their accelerating faster from a
standstill. If you want to take advantage of that without too much wear then you need a more
robust tire, these cost more, and it has been said, you are lucky if you get 20,000 miles out
of a set of tires. All this is addressed at,
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-electric-cars-wear-out-tires-faster-than-fossil-fuel-cars
Pollution From Tires Is A Growing EV Issue
Like many people I had forgotten or brushed aside the thought something as simple and common
as the tire was such a problem. This should have been high on my radar because years ago I was
given a building simply because it had been filled with tires. The officials in my city were
all over the owner to get rid of them. It cost me a bit of money and a lot of work to have them
hauled away and properly recycled. With that in mind, below are a few of the many articles
voicing pollution issues concerning tires.
Homeguides.sfgate.com claims; Toxins released from tire decomposition, incineration, or
accidental fires can pollute the water, air, and soil. While 42 states regulate tire disposal
to some degree, eight states have no restrictions on what you must do with your discarded
tires. Even with laws in place, illegal dumping still occurs, presenting negative environmental
impacts.
Tiretechnologyinternational.com states; Air pollution from tire wear particles can be 1,000
times worse than what comes out of a car's exhaust, Emissions Analytics found harmful particle
matter from tires is a serious environmental problem. What is even more frightening is that
while exhaust emissions have been tightly regulated for many years, tire wear is not. With the
increasing growth in sales of heavier SUVs and battery-powered electric cars, non-exhaust
emissions are a growing problem.
And, www.politico.eu/article/tires , delves into how
driving affects the environment in ways beyond the well-known pollutants spewing from tailpipes
and leaking from engines. Tires shed tiny pieces of plastic as they wear down, accounting for
about 10 percent of the microscopic pieces of the pollutant found in the sea, according to one
estimate. Tire waste was addressed in the European Commission's Plastics
Strategy earlier this year. The EU executive is looking into how to cut down on
microplastics that may be coming from tires and is considering regulations.
With all the above in mind, the buzz in EV trading over the last couple of weeks has
interestingly been surrounding legacy automakers like General Motors and, even Ford moving
strongly in the direction of manufacturing more EVs. This may someday be seen as a huge
environmental misstep. The best answer may be a shift to more efficient gasoline engines in
smaller vehicles. 4,675 20 NE play_arrow
thezone 20 minutes ago (Edited)
Here in California the electric grid is near collapse. We're all nervous if they start
having millions of vehicles plugging in.
Probably rations and random outages coming.
Fat Beaver 15 minutes ago
Maybe someone can help out here but i remember in school we learned that electric loses
about 60% of it's energy thru losses from extraction to end user (mostly lost in resistance
thru transmission lines if i remember right). And gas is 90 something percent efficient...i'm
all for alternatives to fossil fuels but we gotta be realistic...we need to look at
hydrogen... especially solar/hydrogen used together. This solar and wind power sht is the
biggest monetary scam in history, and the electric vehicle scam might take it over.
HC-CZ 5 minutes ago
Agree on everything, but one part is missed. And it is a biggie.
The electricity required to power all the EVs in the world is much higher than what we use
now. And since natural gas is frowned upon, the extra generating capacity is even higher. An
electric cooktop is 8000 watts, your EV charger is about 9000 watts for the small ones.
Therefore, the entire electrical grid would need to be replaced to have enough capacity to
feed all these new electrical requirements.
Youri Carma 17 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
Then there is the issue of energy transition loss.
1. First electricity is produced in a powerplant,
2. then that energy is transported to a place where yo can charge your battery,
3. then the battery has to be charged,
4. then the battery has to transport the energy to the electric motor,
5. then the electric motor has to transform this energy into kinetic energy.
A worldwide outage has hit Tesla's app and website, leaving many drivers locked out of their
own vehicles. Helpless customers vented their anger online while the system was down for
several hours
Hundreds of Tesla owners around the world reported having trouble logging into the
automaker's app and website on Wednesday.
Frustrated customers flocked to Downdetector, which tracks outages of online services in
real time, lamenting about missed appointments and berating the Elon Musk-owned company for
taking its time to resolve the issue.
Customers also took aim at Tesla for lacking any backup support that would spare owners the
inconvenience of having to carry their physical key on them at any given time.
"Man I was supposed to snag my new m3 today! Cancelled! LAAAME. Time to invest in a
working BCP plan tesla," Kevin Taylor wrote.
"How can the most valuable car company in the world not have the backup support for a
problem like this?" another commenter asked, adding "This shouldn't be down for more
than an hour."
Others went on to accuse Tesla, which is yet to comment on the issue, of leaving its
customers in the dark about the global tech failure.
"I'm stranded as I don't have the key card with me and need to enable driving with my
phone. I cannot believe there is no announcement from tesla on what the time frame is we are
looking at for them to be back online," a disgruntled driver wrote.
The glitch has apparently prompted some would-be Tesla owners to doubt the wisdom of
investing in the high-dollar electric cars.
"I am supposed to pick up my Tesla today, and they told me [the] system was down while I
was on uber, damn it! I have a second thought now," LukeY wrote.
While Tesla owners were impatiently waiting for the phone app to spring back to life,
pundits on Twitter cast their woes as a prime example of the modern over-reliance on tech.
The RAV4 is already a high flyer as Toyota's top-selling model
in the U.S. for 2020, and the fourth-best-selling model in the U.S. overall following full-size pickup trucks from Ford,
Ram and Chevrolet. For 2021, Toyota adds to the RAV4 portfolio with the RAV4 Prime -- the first plug-in hybrid SUV from the
Japan-based automaker. The 2021 Toyota RAV4 Prime instantly becomes the most powerful variant in the model lineup, yet also
the most fuel-efficient RAV4 ever with a fuel-economy rating of 94 MPGe as well as an all-electric driving range of 42
miles.
Toyota continues the electrification of its lineup with the introduction of the all-new 2021 Toyota Venza. If the name
seems familiar, that's understandable -- Toyota offered a crossover with this name until production ended in 2015. The new
Venza 5-passenger crossover will be built on the Toyota New Global Architecture platform, and it looks leaps and bounds
ahead of its predecessor with a stylish new exterior, the latest safety features and both a hybrid powertrain and all-wheel
drive as standard equipment.
The CR-V is Honda's first hybrid to have all-wheel drive. Unlike Toyota's hybrid
all-wheel-drive system that puts an electric motor in the rear end to assist the otherwise
front-drive RAV4, the CR-V uses the same system that's in the non-hybrid. Which is to say there
is a clutch that engages the rear axle when the stability-control system detects slippage or
when sending torque to the rear axle is otherwise advantageous, such as ascending a steep
grade.
Honda has also tweaked the naturally aspirated 2.0-liter inline-four. This Atkinson-cycle
engine uses the same higher compression ratio setup as the Accord Hybrid (13.5:1) and a new
exhaust-gas recirculation system. The system's combined outputs of 212 horsepower and 232 lb-ft
of torque are the same as the Accord hybrid, too. The hybrid could be considered a performance
version since it makes more power than the 190 horsepower and 179 lb-ft you get from the CR-V's
turbocharged 1.5-liter four. For comparison purposes, the RAV4 Hybrid makes 219 horsepower and
the Ford Escape hybrid has 209 ponies.
It was just hours ago that
we highlighted a wreck where a Tesla slammed into the back of (yet another) inanimate fire
truck.
And yet again, here we are with another "peculiar" sounding Tesla accident. This one
involving a Tesla that ran a red light near Los Angeles, California and slammed into another
vehicle on Sunday, killing two people.
According to
KTLA 5 , the incident took place at Vermont Ave and Artesia Blvd. on Sunday. The driver of
the 2016 Tesla exited the westbound 91 freeway "at a high speed" and then failed to stop at a
red light at the next intersection. As a result, he slammed into a 2006 Honda Civic at the
light.
Two vehicle occupants have been seriously injured after a Tesla slammed into the back of a
Cloverdale Township Volunteer Fire Department Truck early Sunday morning. According to the
Greencastle Banner-Graphic , the accident took place in Cloverdale, IN.
The fire truck was in the eastbound lands of the interstate, responding to an earlier wreck,
when a Tesla ran into the rear of the truck, causing "heavy damage" to both.
Reports from the scene indicated that both the driver and the passenger were unconscious and
trapped. There is no word yet on whether or not Autopilot played a role in the accident.
Both occupants were extricated from the vehicle and the Indiana State Police said that the
accident involved "serious personal injury."
Recall, this is not the first time a Tesla has slammed into the back of an inanimate fire
truck. In 2018,
an accident occurred when a driver smashed into the back of a fire truck in Southern
California. That driver was found to have been "looking down" at "what appeared to be a mobile
phone" while the car's Autopilot was engaged, according to
Bloomberg .
Smaller SUV's have been described as just a way to make a minivan look masculine. In other
words they're compact or subcompact cars with box bodies. Fuel efficiency is not much different
than my older subcompact 3-door which gets around 31mpg. Huge SUV's on truck bodies are a
different story of course, but those aren't so popular.
Yes. SUV's are a serious problem. Most people don't need them (the flood of two-wheel
drive SUV's tells you everything that you need to know). They aren't any safer (the evidence
is clear: nimble small cars are better at avoiding accidents than clumsy big SUV's). They
represent massive, carbon spewing overkill, in a society that really doesn't care much about
the future of human civilization. Trump is just making it worse.
That said, though there's been an uptick recently, the basic issue has been around for 20
years now. The reality is a little more nuanced:
First, if you ignore the overkill factor, the biggest SUV and pickup truck pigs are
actually not bad for their size. Many of them have genuinely interesting advanced features
(e.g. shutting down unneeded cylinders if the extra power isn't required) that haven't
trickled down to smaller SUV's and affordable cars yet.
Second, there's a significant efficiency and economic benefit to people who buy smaller,
more efficient cars, *if* mileage standards are enforced.
Efficiency standards are based on a fleet average (SUV's up to gigantic are included in
the fleet average calculation, pickup trucks, unfortunately are not). Most SUV's have a high
enough profit margin to justify subsidizing smaller, more efficient cars.
The effect is that more efficient cars (including smaller hybrids) are more affordable for
people who can't afford an Escalade. Because most of those more efficient small cars run fine
on regular gasoline, they are a lot cheaper to drive as well.
So there's that. It remains to be seen if California manages to hold the line on fleet
efficiency standards, though.
What you do not understand that modern compact SUVs are sedans in disguise and as such are no
less efficient (wind drag is higher on speed above 50 miles/hour, but roll loses are less due
to larger tires.)
They also are better suited to low quality roads with large potholes, which became more
and more prevalent
This is just a more practical in the current circumstances form factor that people tend to
prefer. They all have the same engines as sedans and often the same frame.
The majority now are 4 cylinder (the dominant SUV in the USA is 4-cyl Honda CRV which gets
over 30 miles per gallon 28/34 according to the government stats).
The personage of large SUV on US roads is shrinking with the deterioration of the standard
of living of population and loss of well paying jobs. Also many people who buy large SUVs and
a small tracks gets some income as subcontractors; so for them this is a work horse, not only
ride to work car.
Another fact is growing percentage of older people (17% I think as of 2019) in the USA who
own the car but do not drive much (say less then 3K a year). For them the issue of fuel
efficiency is moot, but issue of reliability is important. As such they are better off with a
larger engines and larger SUVs.
I'm surprised to see these things described as a safe alternative. SUVs have a higher
center of gravity than sedans, which actually makes them more likely to roll or lose control
unless you have a highly skilled driver who is aware of this.
It depends. Hybrid SUVs have a heavy battery that lower the center of gravity
considerably.
Higher position of driver in SUV actually is a safe measure in and by itself, as it improves
visibility.
I see EVs and modern ICE vehicles as too complicated, even though they seem quite reliable
for a few hundred K Km. My God, even modern tire valve stems have batts and transmitters
linked to idiot displays because people are now too stupid to check their tire inflation.
Valve stem price $200 $300 per? Extrapolate to battery and propulsion software, (proprietary
software), that stops all future jobber replacement parts beyond belts and fluids.
Anyway, I have a rebuilt 1981 Westfalia that looks and runs like a dream. It is worth more
than I have invested in it, in fact it is currently worth 7X what my showroom condition 2005
GMC work truck is worth, (The truck with 150,000 Km on it and maintained to new condition).
The most complicated system on the Westie is a resistor pack "running" some intake temp
sensors to adjust mixture mix on startup. My electronic tech buddy was looking to fix a
friends jeep last week. The horn wouldn't work. He thought it was .well, a horn. No it isn't.
It is a sending unit that transits to a brain box that sends a signal to a device that says,
"Make horn noise now". Computerised, of course. My Father- in-law had some kind of Buick that
would flash the occasional warning light about a door. Price to swap out the module? $900.
Excess complexity needless complexity.
I keep seeing a modern Mad Max in my head. Instead of an insanely laughing Mel Gibson hot
wiring a fuel tanker we'll see a meter toting nerd testing leads and wires and asking if
anyone can read this damn code?
Paulo, your meter toting nerd is more likely going to be a nerd with a laptop, an OBD port
dongle and a Controller Area Network Bus (CANBUS) sniffing setup, fuming about a strange
(proprietary) implementation of the CANBUS protocol. My undestanding of the CANBUS
arrangement is that all devices are attached to the Controller Area Network (CAN) and
assigned a unique id. In the case of the friend's jeep, pressing the horn button results in a
packet being sent across the CAN addressed to the horn. All devices on the network receive
the packet but only the horn responds to it and switches on. I assume a second packet would
switch it off.
The theory is that CANBUS should allow a single network/power cable to daisy chain to all
the devices in the vehicle and control them, as opposed to having, for example, several wires
to control three speed wipers with intermittent wiping as well. It remains to be seen how
well CANBUS will stand the test of time but, it is likely to see increased adoption,
especially with EVs.
Hi Paulo,
I share your concern about vehicles becoming too complex to fix with local skill/local
machine, etc. I used to handle many repair tasks myself when younger, but things have become
a complicated spaghetti mess under hood.
And of course, this problem affects just about all kinds of vehicles built in past 3-4
decades. I'd guess well over 95% of the vehicles running around on the roads are 'fragile'
due to complexity of the systems. EV maybe less so, since there are simply less systems at
play.
A guy in Germany has over 900,000 km on a Tesla. I'm guessing he had had to have the battery
pack changed out, but didn't see that info.
Another issue along these lines is the energy supply line.
With Petrol, there a very complicated system to get the juice from the source rock to the
target tank. Such as a refinery.
That looks very fragile to me.
Reliance on that kind of complex system in a chaotic world is very risky.
The supply line for electricity can be just as complex, but just like you point out the
possibilities with the Westfalia, I point out that the electricity supply line can also be
much simpler. If you have some equipment (dry solid material with no moving parts- PV panels,
inverter, wiring/plug), your personal or local supply change for transport juice can be very
short, and durable.
Tesla reaches 10 billion electric miles with a global fleet of half a million cars
Fred Lambert
- Nov. 16th 2018 6:02 am ET
Tesla's global fleet is growing at a record pace and we now learn that it reached a total of
10 billion electric miles with half a million cars this week.
Back in October 2016, we reported on Tesla reaching the 3 billion electric mile milestone
and the company's global fleet managed to add 500 million more miles 3 months later –
bringing the total to 3.5 billion in December and another half a billion more by March
2017.
At the time, Tesla's fleet was driving about 5 million miles a day on average.
We were able to track the progress through the Tesla road trip page and Tesla confirmed
that its global fleet reached over 5 billion electric miles driven in July 2017.
The average went up to almost 7 million miles per day when Tesla slowly started Model 3
production.
Tesla removed the counter from the Tesla road trip page and we haven't been able to track
the fleet mileage as consistently.
But a source familiar with the data point confirmed to Electrek that the fleet surpassed 9
billion total miles in September and at the time, Tesla drivers averaged almost 20 million
miles per day – close to 4 times the average from just 2 years ago.
At the time, we noted that at that pace, the fleet would reach 10 billion miles before
Thanksgiving and sure enough, the same source confirmed to Electrek that Tesla's fleet
reached 10 billion electric miles yesterday.
The Tesla global fleet also reached a total of 500,000 vehicles around the world just a
day before.
Electrek's Take
That's a great milestone because it's 10 billion miles that would have been powered by gas
or diesel and it's now powered by electricity.
While it doesn't mean that it's always completely clean, it at least has the potential to
be clean. Between my Model S and Model 3, I have several thousand miles of my own in this
total and most of them were powered by clean hydro from Quebec.
It's the case for many other Tesla owners around the world and for those in places where
electricity is still generated through polluting sources, EV owners are adding solar power at
a higher rate, which is resulting in their cars being powered by the sun.
I think it's truly an exciting time for electric vehicles and it's just the beginning. We
are going to see many new models creating a lot of growth in the next few years and not just
from Tesla.
If you are a Tesla owner, let us know in the comment section below how many miles you
contributed to that 10 billion-mile milestone.
*
[In comparison, the total US vehicle miles driven each year is only about 3.2 trillion
vehicle miles.]
"... "Many dealers will encourage you to act fast, but it's always a smart move to take your time and compare different offers from the dealer and your trusted financial institution," he said. ..."
"... Another big mistake people make, according to Pendergast, is obtaining a vehicle loan through a dealer without speaking with your bank or credit union first. Speaking with your financial institution or credit union about available options can boost your purchasing power. ..."
In the market to buy a car ? Some studies suggest some of the best
deals are available
during the
summer months .
Heading into the summer, some carmakers are reeling off of sluggish sales, too.
... ... ...
Regardless of when you plan to make a purchase, here are some ways you can make sure you are
getting the best deal, according to tips provided to FOX Business by Joe Pendergast, vice
president of consumer lending at Navy Federal Credit Union.
Don't skip the research phase:
Knowledge is power when it comes to buying a car.
"Being prepared means you have greater purchasing power and can boost your confidence during
the buying process," Pendergast said.
Things you should know before going out shopping include your credit history, average
interest rates and how much you want your monthly payment to come out to. Pendergast said a
dealer is likely to be more willing to negotiate with you if you have a payment threshold
set.
In order to determine that threshold, it is prudent to know what deals are on the
market.
And for those on the market for a used car, Pendergast said a vehicle history report can
help prevent you from buying a car with potential problems, which will save you money down the
road.
Don't visit just one dealership:
Another pair of mistakes car shoppers make are agreeing to dealership add-ons, and
considering an offer from just one dealership.
Pendergast said shoppers should take a look around at their local dealerships, but noted
that people can do research online as well.
"Many dealers will encourage you to act fast, but it's always a smart move to take your time
and compare different offers from the dealer and your trusted financial institution," he
said.
How many dealerships you should visit depends on what type of car you are looking to buy,
your ideal price point and how quickly you are looking to get a vehicle.
Another big mistake people make, according to Pendergast, is obtaining a vehicle loan
through a dealer without speaking with your bank or credit union first. Speaking with your
financial institution or credit union about available options can boost your purchasing
power.
"... The demand for renewable energy and storage technologies will far exceed the reserves for cobalt, lithium and nickel. In the case of cobalt, of which 58 per cent is currently mined in the DR of Congo, it has helped fuel a conflict that has blighted the lives of millions, led to the contamination of air, water and soil, and left the mining area as one of the top 10 most polluted places in the world. ..."
"... According to a recent report from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (via Charged), plug-in vehicles displaced 323 million gallons of gasoline in the US in 2018. That's still a mere drop in the gas can: it amounts to 0.25% of all gasoline used in the US in that year (another dose of reality: the increasing popularity of trucks and SUVs has more than wiped out all the emissions reductions from EVs). ..."
My attention was caught yesterday by a press release from the UK's Natural History
Museum, authored by a group of British geoscientists:
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to
produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the
entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world's lithium production and at
least half of the world's copper production.
A friend alerted me to a piece by Asad Rehman of War on Want, provocatively entitled The
'green new deal' supported by Ocasio-Cortez and Corbyn is just a new form of colonialism
which makes the point:
The demand for renewable energy and storage technologies will far exceed the reserves
for cobalt, lithium and nickel. In the case of cobalt, of which 58 per cent is currently
mined in the DR of Congo, it has helped fuel a conflict that has blighted the lives of
millions, led to the contamination of air, water and soil, and left the mining area as one
of the top 10 most polluted places in the world.
In a sense hybrid cars are more promising as they have much smaller battery and as such
consume less rare elements per car.
It looks like the current stress on "pure" EV is really unhealthy and unscientific.
You are right in your belief that people will not want to change their lifestyles, but they
will, there will be no choice and soon they will mostly forgot how it was in the past.
2050 will be a very different world than the present, and 2080 will again be a very different
world.
Specific societal projections into the future beyond about 10 years are pure fantasy and
should be ignored.
Some major physical changes are underway on this planet which will change everything. Those
should not be ignored.
There's an enormous amount of lithium out there – far more than the proven reserves
of the USGS, which were never, ever intended to be used for this kind of long-term planning
exercise. But it doesn't really matter.
There are many, many different chemistries for making batteries. Lead, aluminum, sulfur,
iron the list is almost as long as the periodic table. Lithium has a little higher energy
density than most, but they'd all work, in a pinch.
For instance, there was a company recently developing an advanced lead battery that was at
least twice as energy dense as convention lead-acid and half the cost, but it couldn't quite
compete with the li-ion juggernaut, and it went out of business.
Think VHS vs Beta. Beta was better, but VHS was a bit cheaper and better marketed, and got
to economies of scale before Beta. Both worked.
Think Laserdisc vs Blueray. Laserdisc was a bit larger, and it didn't quite compete with
DVD and Blueray. But it worked just fine.
The one really critical point that Tesla bashers are VERY careful to avoid is that Tesla's
market cap at the lowest point a few days back was still roughly eighty percent of Ford's and
not much less than that, about sixty five percent ( mental arithmetic in both cases) of GM .
and that Tesla manufactures only a tiny percentage of the volume of these two old line
companies. FOR NOW, lol.
Folks who bought GM years ago haven't seen any stock price appreciation worth writing home
about it. Ditto Ford.
Tesla even in the dumps is a big winner for long term investors.
According to a recent report from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy (via Charged), plug-in vehicles displaced 323 million gallons of gasoline in the US
in 2018. That's still a mere drop in the gas can: it amounts to 0.25% of all gasoline used
in the US in that year (another dose of reality: the increasing popularity of trucks and
SUVs has more than wiped out all the emissions reductions from EVs).
However, the trend of falling demand for gas is gathering speed. The amount of gasoline
displaced was about 42% higher in 2018 than in 2017, and about double the amount in 2016.
Furthermore, the share of pure electric vehicles is growing. Gasoline displacement from
pure EVs versus plug-in hybrids was evenly split in 2012 and 2013, but in 2018, EVs
accounted for two thirds of the displacement.
As gas consumption begins to fall, electricity consumption is rising. Another DOE report
shows that the amount of energy consumed by plug-in vehicles in the US has nearly doubled
in the last two years, from 1.44 terawatt hours in 2016 to 2.85 TWh in 2018. Here we also
see the trend toward pure EVs – in 2018, pure EVs accounted for 61% of electricity
consumption from plug-in vehicles, while plug-in hybrids accounted for 39%.
Tech: "Tesla Fires Sound Alarms About Safety of Electric-Car Batteries" [
Industry Week ]. "For EVs, the risk of a fire or explosion is comparable -- or potentially
slightly lower -- than for gas or diesel-fueled models, according to a 2017 report by the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
However, safety risks may increase as manufacturers work to boost performance and push
battery cells closer to their limits, the study found Rapid growth means the sector 'will no
doubt see increasing quality control issues with the supply chain,' [Simon Moores, London-based
managing director of industry consultant Benchmark Mineral Intelligence] said. 'The biggest
challenge for all EV makers is to ensure quality and consistency runs right through the supply
chain -- from raw material selection to chemicals to battery cell -- and into the pack and
vehicle.'" •
The Tesla Model S had been been parked in San Po Kong Plaza for about half an hour on May 12
before the battery started emit to smoke and flames appeared, according to the report. There
were sounds of explosions and firefighters took about 45 minutes to extinguish the blaze, the
Economic Times reported.
It was the first fire of its kind in the city, the report said.
Tesla didn't have a comment on the matter, a Beijing-based spokeswoman for the company said.
Hong Kong's Fire Services Department is investigating the May 12 fire, a representative said,
declining to identify the make of the car.
Last month, videos on social media showed a car bearing a Tesla logo in Shanghai emitting
smoke before bursting into flames, while rival NIO Inc. said one of its ES8 electric vehicles
caught fire in the north-west Chinese city of Xi'an while being repaired. Tesla and NIO said
they were looking into the reports.
The incidents have fueled concern over the safety of EVs in China. In 2018, China recorded
at least 40 fire-related incidents involving new-energy vehicles, a fleet that includes pure
battery electric, hybrid plug-in and fuel-cell vehicles, according to the State Administration
for Market Regulation.
With Tesla already facing stiff competition from high end retailers like Audi and Jaguar -
both of whom have introduced luxury performance electric vehicles – Volkswagen is now
posing an additional threat that could impact middle market buyers of Tesla's Model 3.
In fact, Volkswagen has invested $34 billion in a strategy to try and take down Tesla as the
leader in electric vehicles, according to Bloomberg. The company is now taking €1000
deposits for its new ID.3 hatchback, which Volkswagen is hoping will be the electric successor
to its iconic Beetle. The vehicle will start at less than €30,000, which is about the same
price as the diesel variant of its Golf hatchback.
VW sales chief Juergen Stackmann said recently: "We are not playing. This is the car to beat
for the future, for all our competitors."
The ID.3 marks the beginning of a roll out of more than 20 battery powered models over the
coming years for Volkswagen. Their target is to sell more than 1 million electric cars annually
by 2025 and the company's effort will undoubtedly continue to stoke the fire of competition in
electric vehicles. Unlike Tesla, profitability remains paramount for VW. Stackmann continued,
saying that VW's EVs "must make money."
The introduction of the ID.3 comes on the precipice of electric vehicles breaking through to
the mass market, which still hasn't happened in full yet.
VW is offering a special edition of the vehicle, limited to 30,000 vehicles and inclusive of
a year of free charging at certain stations. Reservations have been opened for customers in 29
countries across Europe, including Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. The car will be
officially unveiled in September, and Stackmann expects the company reservation book to be full
ahead of the event.
The first "limited-edition" run of the vehicle will cost less than €40,000 and have a
range of ~260 miles. The basic version will have a range of ~180 miles and the top-of-the-line
model will have a range ~330 miles.
If you've ever found yourself wondering when is the best time to buy a new car, the
answer is -- it depends. Car deals, car incentives and car promotions change throughout the
year. The best car deals aren't confined to any one day or month.
Yes, timing matters and can make a big difference for maximum car savings. But other
things matter too.
When Is the Best Time To Buy A Car?
Black Friday and public holidays offer big car savings. So do certain months, such as
October, November and December. The end of a month or quarter, like the end of the year,
usually means good deals. Look out for model changeover periods too. They typically happen in
the late summer into fall. Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve are particularly good times. So
are other low shop traffic times, such as early in the week.
Best Time To Buy A Car:
Black Friday, Holidays
Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, has become one of busiest days of the year at
many car dealerships.
It's not just that shoppers have come to expect retail and tech deals on this day. Dealers
increasingly look to Black Friday to get cars off the lot, said Brian Moody, executive editor
at Autotrader, an online platform for car shoppers.
Black Friday
doorbusters, special deals and promotions could save you hundreds or even thousands of
dollars.
But Moody advises car buyers not to "get all caught up" on Black Friday deals at your
local dealership. "If it is, in fact, a one-day deal, go down there. If not, there's no need
to rush."
Other stock
market holidays for the best car deals include Memorial Day (in late May) and Labor Day
(in early September). Incentive programs, such as special financing rates, zero-percent loans
and cash-back offers for buyers, tend to appear on the long holiday weekends.
Don't have excellent credit? Those attractive holiday promotions are unlikely to get you a
great deal, even if it's one of the best times to buy a car, Moody warned.
Best Time To
Buy A Car: End Of The Year
In general, October through December are the best months of the year to buy a car.
For both buyers and sellers, a new year just begs for a fresh lineup of cars, resulting in
hefty discounts on outgoing-year models.
"Dealers don't want to have last year's model on the showroom floor, even if they are
completely new, with no miles on the odometer," said Eric Lyman, TrueCar ( TRUE ) senior vice president
of industry insights.
December offers the deepest discounts. It averages a 6.82% discount off the sticker price,
according to TrueCar, a car pricing and info site. In February, the average discount slips to
5.78%, making it the weakest month for savings.
That difference of just a few percentage points matters more than it seems. A vehicle
costing about $36,000 (the average new car price) would fetch a discount of $2,455 in
December -- $375 more than it would in February.
Best Time To Buy A Car: End Of The
Month, End Of The Quarter
Similarly, shopping at the end of a month or quarter is helpful, Autotrader's Moody
said.
Monthly and quarterly sales targets loom for both dealerships and their sales staff, with
bonuses at stake.
IBD NewslettersGet exclusive IBD analysis and action news
daily.
Some car-buying experts point out the actual sales deadlines may fall a few days before
month-end. So consider targeting the 27th, 28th or 29th day of the month, rather than the
very last day.
In terms of months, there's another thing to think about. Some vehicles, like SUVs and
trucks, sell briskly year round. Others, not so much.
"If you're in Michigan and you want a convertible, the middle of winter might get you a
better deal," Moody said.
Best Time To Buy A Car: Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, New
Year's Day
Many car-buying experts say the best day of the year for car buying is the very last day.
Monthly, quarterly, and annual sales targets all converge on Dec. 31, so great deals
abound.
Others say New Year's Day rivals New Year's Eve as the best day to buy a car.
"From a sales reporting standpoint, because of the New Year's Day holiday, the first and
second day of January falls into the December sales reporting month for dealers," said
TrueCar's Lyman.
TrueCar found in a 2016 study that New Year's Day offers an average 8.5% savings off the
sticker price. That was better than other day of the year and topped an 8.3% average discount
on New Year's Eve.
Meanwhile, Moody considers Christmas Eve one of the best days. The salespeople at
dealerships just want to get home. "That raises the likelihood of getting a good
deal."
Best Time To Buy A Car: Early In The Week
Car buying experts find shopping early in the week helps. Auto dealers get busier as the
weekend nears, and savings get smaller.
Monday offered maximum savings -- averaging 8.10% vs. 7.49% on Sunday, TrueCar found.
Broadly speaking, lower traffic days at dealerships helps you nab a better car deal. Think
week days, rainy days, depth-of-winter days. "If there's no special deal going on and it's a
Saturday, everyone will be there," Moody said.
His advice? Be flexible. Think whether you really have to have the orange car or heated
steering wheel. "If you want the best deal, buy the car they already have (in
stock)."
Best Time To Buy A Car: Model Changeovers
Autotrader also recommends watching for model changeovers, which can produce big
savings.
New car models get discounted when fresh versions or updates appear. A prior-year model
can offer almost all the same features as the current-year model at a far lower price.
New car models typically arrive in September and October, so the end of summer tends to
mean good deals at dealerships on outgoing-year models.
Often, extra-big deals are found on models being redesigned or discontinued, as sellers
make room for more desirable vehicles. Those savings can, in turn, pad your retirement nest
egg or your rainy day fund.
On the flip side, you may not get your first choice in terms of color or trim.
More
Car Buying Tips
Moody offers this tip to car buyers: Don't go shopping the same day you're buying. In that
respect, buying a car is like buying a house.
Research the vehicle and options you want in advance. Know your credit score and how much
car you can afford. Test drive the vehicle in advance. Equally important, test drive the
technology, whether it's the backup camera or the forward collision monitoring.
"The technology might have a greater impact on your life than just how powerful the engine
is," Moody said.
Lyman calls the best time to buy a car a personal decision, one that's best made with
common sense. "You can time the market but if your car is just limping along, the costs of
having a big vehicle event might offset any saving you would get."
The number of electric vehicles is increasing rapidly, but at great human cost.
You probably have not heard anything other than praise for
electric cars in the mainstream
media. They are sexy and environmentally friendly too, we are told. The first may be true, but not the latter.
Batteries are not good for the environment, and their raw materials are mined at the expense of human health.
Rare Earth Metals
Rare earth metals are needed to make efficient batteries. The minerals are found in low densities in the earth's crust, and tons
of rock need to be mined, filtered, and transported in order to find the amount required to make a vehicle battery. Typically, the
energy needed to create them exceeds the amount that they store during their lifetime. That is why they are so expensive.
Congo
Cobalt is one of the ingredients needed to make batteries. In 2018, 70% of this mineral came from the Democratic Republic of Congo
in Central Africa. The metal is mined by poor Congolese people who work under conditions that would have been unthinkable and highly
illegal in any Western country. Accidents are common, sometimes killing the miners.
Little attention is given to those who toil to make wealthy Western environmentalists happy. It is not uncommon for green ideals
to be at odds with human health. DDT is a miracle chemical that was used to eradicate malaria in America and Europe, but environmentalists
were able to de facto ban it in the 1970s, resulting in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths in developing nations.
Similarly, Norman Borlaug initiated what is known as the green revolution in farming. His work earned him a Nobel Peace Prize
in 1970, and he became known as "the man who saved a billion lives." Everyone loved him, except
radical
environmentalists . They successfully managed to prevent him from applying his farming techniques in Africa, which resulted in
the needless suffering and deaths of millions of Africans.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that environmentalists have
little concern for the lives
of miners in Congo.
Hybrids
The rational alternative to electric vehicles, which is both good for the environment and for human health and prosperity, is
the chargeable hybrid. An average car owner drives less than 50 miles per day, but electric vehicles strive to give you a range of
300 miles or more per charge. This means that they will be equipped with batteries that are six times larger than is needed for daily
usage. Thus, six times more rare earth metals must be mined at a greater human, environmental, and economic cost than is necessary.
The chargeable hybrid solves this problem by having a much smaller battery, but also a small gasoline engine that kicks in on
the rare occasions when you need to drive longer.
When you are driving in the city, you will mostly be in electrical mode, thereby not contributing significantly to noise and pollutants
from the gasoline. Thus, you are environmentally friendly where it is most needed – in densely populated areas.
When the battery is small, no special high-power charger is needed. Instead, you can just plug the car into an ordinary socket
and charge it overnight. In short, you get all the benefits of having an electric vehicle, but none of its downsides.
So why are hybrids not more popular? They are not "pure" enough for environmentalists. They hate fossil fuels and don't want to
sully their green souls. For that reason, hybrids are not the focus of research and development that they deserve. That's a shame
because they genuinely have the potential to be a competitive alternative to the ordinary gasoline car – without nearly as many skeletons
in the closet.
Concerns about the safety of Tesla's "Autopilot" continue to swirl after a new video of a
Model 3 crash surfaced this weekend on Twitter. The video, posted to Twitter on Saturday, shows
a Model 3 with its autopilot engaged going up a relatively routine exit ramp at a speed that
appears to just be about 25mph.
The ramp is congested and traffic is moving relatively normally, until the turn creates such
an angle that the only thing visible in front of the Tesla is a black Subuaru Forester, which
may or may not have blended into the color of the road ahead of the Tesla. That's when Tesla's
Autopilot makes the bold, if inexplicable, decision to accelerate directly into the back of the
Forester:
Eh, probably 100 drivers fell asleep that same day and crashed they just barely make the
news. The statistics will show the truth eventually. Most every Tesla crash makes news and
none of Kia's do. Only 3 million fires but we have heard about the dozen or so of Tesla's
problems. Not that I am advocating for Tesla I think electric cars are idiotic but eventually
government will force us all to have one and for the control systems to keep us from breaking
any laws including going 5 mph over the speed limit.
Citigroup researchers point out Tesla's stock has long been valued as if it's selling a look
into the future of driving. Hence, investors have usually been willing to overlook Tesla's
sales stumbles as it works to ramp production and stoke demand.
But Tesla's disastrous first quarter (which includes mixed messages around store closures
and profitability) suggests consumers think Tesla's electric cars are overpriced versus their
utility. In other words, they are more carefully weighing the options of going fully electric
via Tesla versus a range of more affordable options in the category (including hybrids).
While there are some Tesla specific factors in play here such as its ongoing production
problems, the steep fall-off in demand to kick off 2019 is likely to be a greater weight to
Tesla's stock near-term. Without steady demand for Tesla's cars, it could set off a host of
negatives for Tesla such as debt raises and more price cuts on its cars.
My 02 gets 48 at 55 mph, 44 at 75-80, in town, around 40, has 150K on it
Assuming 12K miles per year you get 12 years.
So 8 years is not unreasonable and probably is too low (sorry I can't find the academic
reference I used right now)
BTW replacement cost of the battery for Leaf is around $5.5K and even for Leaf you get
something like 6 years.
Nick Gx Ignored says:
03/01/2019 at
7:34 pmIn does not make much sense to waste 30% or more of natural gas this way, in comparison with using nat gas for transportation
directly
Natural gas can be burned at 60% efficiency in central electrical generation plants, which is about 3x as efficient as NG cars.
So, EVs make perfect sense, even if the grid is 100% NG. But the grid isn't 100% NG, and EVs can charge when wind and solar are strongest
and need the extra demand: 2 AM and 2 PM.
Reply
But assuming 10% losses in transmission and 20% losses in charging
0.6*0.9*08=0.43
In the past years, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up
to 35%. I think natural gas has similar efficiency.
So EVs beat natural gas auto by around 8% in optional temperature for EV (60-75F range) and I was incorrect. Sorry about that.
In colder weather gas powered cars will always beat EV due to losses in EV for heating.
I think that might be true for driving with air conditions too.
What advantages of natural gas remain? I think the only one is that you can use existing cars with a very small modification of
injection system.
NOTE: It looks like cited by you efficiency of 60% is the upper limit of gas turbine efficiency (38% might be more reasonable):
Gas turbines in the simple cycle mode, only Gas turbines running, have an efficiency of 32 % to 38 %. The most important parameter
that dictates the efficiency is the maximum gas temperature possible. The latest Gas Turbines with technological advances in materials
and aerodynamics has efficiencies upto 38 %. In the combined cycle mode, the new "H class" Gas turbines with a triple pressure
HRSG and steam turbine can run at 60 % efficiency at ISO conditions. This is by far the highest efficiency in the thermal power
field.
Transport makes up another 25% or so. That is why I'm interested in battery electric
vehicles. Eventually the vast majority of vehicles will have to be battery powered or just
something other than petroleum based fuels. My hope is that the good people in the oil patch
can keep things going long enough for the transition to get started in earnest.
I did an exercise once in which I calculated that, for a particular year, it would
required less than 20% of the electricity produced in that year to power an all electric,
light vehicle fleet in the US. If renewables were to grow fast enough to dominate the US
electricity markets by say 2030, dealing with the additional demand from EVs should not be an
intractable problem.
Transport makes up another 25% or so. That is why I'm interested in battery electric
vehicles. Eventually the vast majority of vehicles will have to be battery powered or just
something other than petroleum based fuels. My hope is that the good people in the oil
patch can keep things going long enough for the transition to get started in earnest.
We need to try to see a bigger picture. EV does not exists in vacuum. They need
infrastructure such as lithium battery producing plants, charging stations, and more powerful
electrical grid (in case they reach substantial proportion of private cars)
We also need to understand that that the energy needed to create a car lithium battery is
close to energy required to driving a medium size diesel for over 8 years (which might last
20 years or more with proper maintenance -- even Prius can last over 10 years and 200K
miles). If this is not an exaggeration, than this is as close to a death sentence for EV
vehicles as one can get from "saving energy" standpoint.
Precise economic calculations does not favor EV. Looks what is happening with the demand
for Tesla cars. It's not pretty. Despite all hoopla, they were forced to lower prices to
sustain the demand.
The largest part of electricity produced in the USA now is produced using natural gas, so
in this sense pushing electrical cars in the USA without pushing nuclear power plants is a
very stupid idea. But it is a good idea for France.
But nuclear power plants have their set of dangers and problems, as we know from
Fukushima.
In does not make much sense to waste 30% or more of natural gas this way, in comparison
with using nat gas for transportation directly. So this is not a progress, this is a
regress.
So things are more complex then they looks but IMHO currently economics does not favor
electrical cars too much, in comparison with alternative. Although large scale experiments
like Tesla are necessary and make sense as they prepare us for a very uncertain futures and
we need to keep all options on the table.
But again the fact that nothing is done in the USA to stimulate usage of cars on natural
gas is a sign of stupidity and regress, not a sign of progress.
Please remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That actually should
be tattooed on Elon Musk forehead ;-).
I used two pieces of recent info to estimate the percenatge range drop associated with EVs in
cold weather.
Recently the AAA issued a report in which they stated that at 20F, the average percentage
range drop of the four EVs they tested at 20F was 40%. A few weeks ago in our local paper, a
reporter tested a Chevy Bolt at 14F and reported that the range drop was 47%.
The range of a vehicle is determined in a test lab at 68F. So a temp drop of 48F reduces
the range by 40%, based on the AAA tests. Assuming the efficiency drop is linear, that
translates into 0.833% drop for each 1 degF drop.
So the percentage range loss for the Bolt, which is 54 degs below the test temp, should be
approximately 0.833*54=45%. Reasonably close to the 47% reported.
A 40% to 47% range loss is major and I am now beginning to think that the Canadian/US
govt/Automakers should be providing this info to customers on the fuel economy label. A good
bogie cold temp would be 32F. I can hear the howls from the EV crowd. "Automakers in
Canada/US discouraging consumers from buying EVs."
Maybe Consumers Report might start doing cold weather tests on EVs and plug in hybrids
after the recent cold snap in US and Canada this winter. As noted above, some plug-in hybrids
turn on the gasoline engine to provide cabin heat in winter. Not sure what they do at 95F.
Does the engine drive the AC compressor?
The drop in range depends on the length of the trip.
In cold temperatures such as 14F the battery energy is used to warm the battery over the
first few miles and range is not very good if calculated over a 5 mile trip. Over the course
of a longer trip such as 100 miles the range loss is not as great.
It also depends how high one heats their car. I dress warmly when it is 14F outside rather
than my typical clothing inside my house.
If I didn't dress properly, my range would be lower.
Average temperature where I live was about 19 F in January (average monthly temperature in
2019), the range was about 24% lower over about 1500 miles driven compared to October 2018
results (1600 miles driven in October 2018).
There is a loss of range, but it is not as large as 47% based on my experience in a Tesla
Model 3.
In October the average was 241 Wh/mi and in January it was 300 Wh/mi.
Just hours after the company's brand new general
counsel quit and CEO Elon Musk may have violated his consent order with the SEC by
Tweeting false 2019 guidance , Consumer Reports has now pulled its recommendation of the
Model 3 based on reliability issues. "Members say they've identified a number of problems with
their cars, including issues with its body hardware, as well as paint and trim," Consumer
Reports
said .
The report called reliability "a weak spot" for Tesla and noted that no other Tesla models
carry CR's recommendation, either. Tesla shares quickly dropped to session lows in response to
the report: Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at Consumer Reports said: "While
Teslas perform well in Consumer Reports' road tests and have excellent owner satisfaction,
their reliability has not been consistent, according to our members, which has resulted in
changes to their recommended status."
The survey found that the Model 3's sole touchscreen would often malfunction. "The touch
screen would intermittently begin acting as if someone was touching it rapidly at many
different points. This fault would cause music to play, volume to increase to maximum, and
would rescale and pan the map in the navigation system," one CR survey respondent said.
Other owners complained about paint trim defects and windows cracking. "Earlier this year,
our test vehicle developed a large crack in its massive rear window during a cold spell when it
was parked outside," Consumer Reports said.
And it's not just the Model 3 that was brought up in the report. "Tesla's other models have
suffered from below-average reliability as well," the report says.
It continues: "The
Model S sedan has had an inconsistent history , being above average, average, and below
average, with each downward move following in the wake of a hardware change made by Tesla."
The timing for Consumer Reports to pull its recommendation couldn't be worse, with
short-sellers recently
doubling down on the idea that Tesla is facing a significantly ugly growth trajectory and
demand for the Model 3 seemingly falling off a cliff and catalyzing price cuts, as we have
reported recently .
I'm a TSLA bear myself, but this is less than 3 weeks of production. It could be explained
by moving cars around the country. In their quarterly reports, we've seen about this many
unsold cars. Most car dealerships have several months worth of inventory.
If they get up to 20K or more unsold, it could indicate a problem.
If you want an amazing car...that fits anyone's needs and then some......this is it.
Reliable...Inexpensive....Depreciation is next to ZERO...especially if you buy one 1 year
old. A car is a tool. Buy the best tool that causes you NO GRIEF...keeps you safe...and is
fun to drive. You want a car with the "Lowest Cost of Ownership" yet able to recover much of
your investment when you want a newer one. Stay away from the ones that are the opposite of
what I just posted. Land Rover, Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac...etc. All turds.
For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely
there
I am not so sure. It looks like hybrid cars are very competitive with the EV. The efficiency of Tesla and similar EV is grossly
overrated. You have losses in the transmission line, losses in the charger, losses in the battery. Plus if the mechanical transmission
is used, you have losses in transmission during driving (substantial).
The ~56kwh Roadster battery takes ~70kwh to charge. (approx) So ~20% of the electricity you pay for is lost to heat. How much
is the charger and cabling, and how much the batteries, I have no idea.
Here is a very simple calculation. Tesla with the air conditioner on auto 73F and external temperature 60F (minimal use of
the air conditioner) consumes around 300 watts/mile. Double this for temperatures below freezing point or temperatures above 90F.
The cost per mile at 15 cents per Kwh and 20% loss is 5.4 cent.
Hybrid SUV like RAV4 hybrid (which is a much better and safer car, especially in winter) with an average of 35 miles per gallon
and the price of gas at $2.5 per gallon has cost 7.1 cents per mile.
That means that Tesla provides just 24% economy, which is completely eaten by the higher cost of Tesla (say, $44K vs. $29K
).
Assuming mileage 200K at the end of the life of each car, this $15K difference adds 7.5 cents per mile.
Which means that at those price levels Tesla is competitive only if electricity is free.
I'm not really sure of the significance of that. Using fossil fuel products as combustible fuel limits the efficiency at which
one can obtain useful work from the fuel. That efficiency number is really only useful when comparing one source to another and
the ffs pretty much will operate in the 40%=/- range for most stationary applications. For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency
is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely there. That rejected energy is just a fixture of
the way energy is extracted through combustion so I doubt it has any meaning except for how much you are overheating a river near
a coal or NG power plant.
For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely
there
I am not so sure. It looks like hybrid cars are very competitive with the EV.
The efficiency of Tesla and similar EV is grossly overrated. You have losses in the transmission line, losses in the charger,
losses in the battery. Plus if the mechanical transmission is used (for example 10:1 fixed gearbox like in Tesla), you have losses
in transmission and motor during driving (say 10%). So total efficiency of electricity usage would be around 70%, which is high,
by not that high. Atkinson-cycle ICE engines used in hybrids have ~40% efficiency.
The ~56kwh Roadster battery takes ~70kwh to charge. (approx) So ~20% of the electricity you pay for is lost to heat. How much
is the charger and cabling, and how much the batteries, I have no idea.
Here is a very simple calculation. Tesla with the air conditioner on auto 73F and external temperature 60F (minimal use of
the air conditioner) consumes around 300 watts/mile. Double this for temperatures below freezing point or temperatures above 90F.
The cost per mile at 15 cents per Kwh and 20% loss is 5.4 cent.
Hybrid SUV like RAV4 hybrid (which is a much better and safer car, especially in winter) with an average of 35 miles per gallon
and the price of gas at $2.5 per gallon has cost 7.1 cents per mile.
That means that Tesla provides just 24% economy, which is completely eaten by the higher cost of Tesla (say $44K vs. $29K ).
Assuming mileage 200K at the end of the life of each car, this $15K difference adds 7.5 cents per mile.
Which means that at those price levels Tesla is competitive only if electricity is free.
Your calculations are probably correct, but there are other considerations. For instance, UK oil production peaked in 1999
at around 3 million barrels per day, it has now fallen to 1 million. At $50 oil, it costs us $25 million per day to import the
oil we consume over our production. Our wealth is draining away in a trade deficit that has increased with declining oil and gas
production.
The Tesla Model 3 is perfectly safe in winter, and is a far nicer car than a RAV4 hybrid. The appropriate comparison would
be to Volvo XC60: https://www.edmunds.com/volvo/xc60/2018/hybrid/
What about road clearances? What about the ability to lock differential when driving on steep ice-covered incline ?
There are also "known unknown" related to lithium battery use (Panasonic cells) at low and very low temperatures. As no Tesla
3 is 8 years old yet, it difficult to say whether the battery can last till the end of the warranty period in continental climate
weather conditions (very cold in winter, very hot in summer).
Looks like if you cool a lithium battery below zero F and try to drive before it warmed to 70F the longevity of battery decreases.
Higher temperatures also have negative effect (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526891/
)
As the operating temperature of LiB changes from 25 to 55 °C, the degradation rate of maximum charge storage after 260 cycles
is found to increase from 4.22% to 13.24%. At the component level, for the same change in the operating temperature, the degradation
rate of the Warburg element resistance after 260 cycles increases from 49.40% and 584.07% (Fig. 10) which is the highest change;
and that for the cell impedance ranks second, increasing from 33.64% to 93.29% (Fig. 8). As for the charge transfer rate, the
change in its degradation rate decreases from 68.64% to 56.19% (Fig. 7).
Simply turning on the electric vehicles AAA studied in 20 degree weather revealed a 12 percent loss in range. On a vehicle
like the Chevy Bolt, with an EPA rating of 238 miles per charge, that would drop range to 209 miles.
Brannon said using climate control revealed an even bigger surprise: Range dipped by an average 41 percent -- which would
bring an EV like the Bolt down to just 140 miles per charge.
For the Chevrolet Volt, engineers combat cold-weather energy draining by engaging ERDTT – Engine Running Due To Temperature.
This runs the Volt's supplementary gasoline engine to ensure enough power is available to run the defroster. But the all-electric
Tesla doesn't have this option.
At low temperatures lithium battery can't be charged so if in normal conditions Tesla recaptures energy for the battery during
regenerative braking (regen) this is not the case anymore. That further decreases range.
Even with other sources stating that cold weather lowers the Model S range by only a quarter, Rob said drivers should anticipate
on using an average of 40-percent more power. When the roads are icy or wet, increase this by another 25-percent.
"Expect to lose about 10 miles of real range for every 10 degree drop," said Rob. "Plan your charging and driving accordingly
– don't cut it close."
If you run out of energy at -5F, the car needs to be tolled.
If you try to keep battery warm your battery will be drained during parking, unless you are connected to the charger.
At low temperatures (especially with front wind) and during initial warm up of the cabin the heater consumes around 5KWH further
draining the battery.
At 90F loss of range is less then in winter -- about 20%, but at 100F it is similar and the effect of battery longevity are
also similar and negative.
So in areas with continental climate EVs make much less sense then say in California.
As I have suggested, works fine in winter. As long as one doesn't ride in the car naked during the winter, losses from using
the heater are not that great. So far the lowest temperatures the car has seen parked overnight outside have been about minus
15 F for a low with an average of about minus 10 F, battery lost about 250 Wh each hour on average. Battery capacity is about
78,000 Wh. Average temperature where I live is about 19 F in Jan. In Jan I drove about 1500 miles and averaged about 300 Wh per
mile vs 245 Wh/mile in October (1600 miles). That is my experience in average winter weather where temperature averaged 19 F in
Jan 2019. Range decreased by about 22%. My experience is that range also decreases in a hybrid during winter( I have been driving
Toyota hybrids since 2004).
Have driven plenty in snow and ice with the Model 3 this winter, take it to a ski area almost every weekend, the more snow
the better ;-)
Judging from people experiences there are some undeniable problem with driving Tesla 3 in winter.
The construction of door handles in Tesla3 is a problematic for winter. Frameless windows also represent a problem.
Some pretty educational videos:
1. People are running of energy with Tesla 3 parked at airport for a week or so at cold weather. You need to leave at least
15 km per day in battery in cold weather, or you are in trouble. 30 if weather is very cold. Looks like Tesla 3 tries to heat
battery all the time to avoid damage from low temperatures.
2. To drive Tesla 3 in cold weather you need to "preheat" the car until battery reaches "working temperature" range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2gmphV8IZQ
3. ~52 miles commute to work in cold weather is all that can be made safely. In video below only 43 miles left at the end (the
car was not connected to the charger during the working day):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvybhb8P894
4. A very short round trip with a preheated car, which was parked outside) reveals problems some problems with handling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Qjt0obVfI
Ample supply of heat from ICE engine helps steering. Tesla does not have it and it looks like it became very stiff.
It is actually amazing that lithium batteries (which are electrolyte based) work that well at such low temperatures. So in
way Tesla experiment opens new frontier for lithium batteries.
What's the most recommendable small SUV for the most people? Once again, the answer is the
Honda CR-V. In the five years the Kelley Blue Book Best Buy Awards have existed, Honda's
compact crossover has won its category four times. Given that the small SUV segment continues
to grow in popularity with each, that's no mean feat.
Standing Out Amid a Raft of Rivals
Winning this category also means the Honda CR-V bettered some dozen competitors, including
all-new versions of formidable challengers like the Subaru Forester and long-time archrival the
Toyota RAV4. The Honda CR-V excelled in every category, from its class-above interior size and
flexibility to its fuel efficiency and safety features. Throw in useful tech features and a
sterling reputation for reliability and resale value, and the CR-V continues to pull ahead of
the pack. Whether you're looking for a safe, practical, easy-to-drive and easy-to-own car for a
younger driver or a leather-laden mainstream SUV that could give some luxury vehicles a run for
their money, there's a CR-V to meet your needs.
The CR-V itself was totally revamped just last year, and with the all-new model came a small
but efficient turbocharged engine, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto smartphone compatibility, and the
Honda Sensing system that bundles active safety and driver-assistance features like automatic
emergency braking, blind-spot monitoring, lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control. Skip
the base LX model and you'll get all those features standard, plus unexpected creature comforts
like 12-way power operated and heated driver seat.
Outsized Interior and Excellent Efficiency
Practical by birth, one of the CR-V's best traits is just how much room there is in its
otherwise compact footprint. Presenting 75.8 cubic feet of usable space with the rear seats
folded flat, the CR-V's cargo space remains near the top of its class. That figure even edges
the larger, all-new 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe, itself a highly recommendable crossover SUV with a
larger footprint that is good for growing families.
Also impressive: the MPG the 2019 Honda CR-V returns. The older, 2.4-liter engine used only
in the base LX model still gets up to 34 mpg on the highway. The new, smaller, and more
powerful 1.5-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder that is used (and recommended) in the rest of the
lineup is only a tick behind, boasting up to 33 mpg. Whichever powerplant or trim you choose,
you can get all-wheel drive for added traction and more confidence on slippery, weather-fouled
roads.
Enviable Resale Value and Reliability
No writeup about a Honda would be
complete without mentioning the brand's strong reliability and resale value. These two
characteristics are especially noteworthy in the CR-V. Its reliability has been enviable over
its 20-plus year existence, and it's a mainstay among Kelley Blue Book Best Resale Value
Award winners.
There are now more than a dozen small
crossover SUVs competing for space in your garage. Almost all have at least one standout
trait, but none are more well-rounded or more recommendable than the 2019 Honda CR-V. More
2019 Honda CR-V
Build and price your own 2019 Honda CR-V to see this week's Fair Purchase Price, 5-Year Cost
to Own and more, or check out the CR-V models for sale today at dealers
near you.
"... Much below that and the chemistry that's used to store energy runs into various problems. Among other things, battery components develop increased resistance that limits how much power they can hold, as well as how fast a battery pack can be charged or discharged, said Timothy Grewe, chief engineer for electric propulsion systems at General Motors. ..."
"... Grewe has experienced sharp reductions in the range of his own Chevy Bolt, but he also said there are ways to limit the impact of cold weather. That includes storing a battery car in a garage, preferably one that's heated. And wherever it is parked, it helps to keep the EV plugged in ..."
"... many battery vehicles are programmed to use some of the energy from the grid to keep the battery pack warm, improving its efficiency. ..."
"... Motorists are also advised to "precondition" their EVs, Grewe and Brannon said. That means heating up the cabin while still connected to the grid, rather than drawing energy from the battery pack. Most new battery-electric vehicles have custom smartphone apps that allow a driver to switch on cabin heat remotely when plugged in. Commuters can even preprogram the system to automatically start at a particular time of day. ..."
Hoping to increase the appeal of their battery-electric vehicles, automakers have begun
rolling out an assortment of "long-range" models, such as the Tesla Model 3, Chevrolet Bolt EV,
Jaguar I-Pace and Nissan Leaf Plus.
Under ideal conditions, these products can deliver more than 200 miles per charge and, in
some cases, even 300. But as many owners discovered last week as winter storms slammed much of
the country, cold weather does not qualify as "ideal." A new AAA study finds that when the
thermometer dropped to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, range fell by an average of 41 percent on the
five models it tested.
"We found that the impact of temperature on EVs is significantly more than we expected,"
said Greg Brannon, AAA's director of automotive engineering.
Some EV drivers -- including this correspondent -- recently found that range can drop by
half when the mercury tumbles into negative territory. The AAA study appears to be the first to
have used standard, repeatable methodology to confirm the problem and compare the effect of
winter temperatures on different models.
Several surprises emerged from the research, according to Brannon, starting with the fact
that the impact on range was pretty much uniform among the cars tested: the BMW i3s, the
Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Model S and the Volkswagen e-Golf.
"It's something all automakers are going to have to deal with as they push for further EV
deployment because it's something that could surprise consumers," said Brannon.
Different factors can affect the loss of range, he and other experts have noted. Simply
turning on the electric vehicles AAA studied in 20 degree weather revealed a 12 percent loss in
range. On a vehicle like the Chevy Bolt, with an EPA rating of 238 miles per charge, that would
drop range to 209 miles. But that part of the test assumed operating the vehicle with cabin
heat and seat heaters turned off.
Brannon said using climate control revealed an even bigger surprise: Range dipped by an
average 41 percent -- which would bring an EV like the Bolt down to just 140 miles per
charge.
The problem is that unlike a car with an internal combustion engine that can warm the cabin
with waste heat, EVs have to tape into their batteries to power the climate control system.
Part of the problem, he said, is that "lithium-ion batteries like the same sort of
temperatures that we do, around 70 degrees."
Much below that and the chemistry that's used to store energy runs into various
problems. Among other things, battery components develop increased resistance that limits how
much power they can hold, as well as how fast a battery pack can be charged or discharged, said
Timothy Grewe, chief engineer for electric propulsion systems at General Motors.
Grewe has experienced sharp reductions in the range of his own Chevy Bolt, but he also
said there are ways to limit the impact of cold weather. That includes storing a battery car in
a garage, preferably one that's heated. And wherever it is parked, it helps to keep the EV
plugged in . Onboard electronics will prevent overcharging. But many battery vehicles
are programmed to use some of the energy from the grid to keep the battery pack warm, improving
its efficiency.
Motorists are also advised to "precondition" their EVs, Grewe and Brannon said. That
means heating up the cabin while still connected to the grid, rather than drawing energy from
the battery pack. Most new battery-electric vehicles have custom smartphone apps that allow a
driver to switch on cabin heat remotely when plugged in. Commuters can even preprogram the
system to automatically start at a particular time of day.
While cold weather is especially hard on range, batteries also don't like hot weather, said
Brannon. "Much like when it's cold, in hot weather EVs suffer some decrease in range, but not
as much as in the cold."
The AAA study found range fell 4 percent from EPA numbers at 95 degrees. But, again, that
number was assuming the motorist didn't mind sweating. Turn the climate control system down to
70 degrees, AAA found and range fell by 17 percent.
Tesla emailed a statement that disputed AAA's findings, saying the report exaggerates the
impact that cold weather has on its electric vehicles' range. The company didn't provide data
saying how much range is lost in cold temperatures.
"Based on real-world data from our fleet, which includes millions of long trips taken by
real Model S customers, we know with certainty that, even when using heating and air
conditioning, the average Model S customer doesn't experience anywhere near that decrease in
range at 20 degrees Fahrenheit," the company said in a statement. "And the decrease in range at
95 degrees Fahrenheit is roughly 1 percent."
One thing that EVs and conventional vehicles have in common is that energy efficiency --
whether measured by range or miles per gallon -- can be affected by a variety of factors. These
can include your driving style, as well as the terrain.
Do a lot of hill climbing and you're going to use energy faster. EVs, however, are
especially sensitive to any accessory drawing power, whether the car's climate control or even
headlights, meaning that driving at night, whatever the weather, will hurt range.
"... And oh yes, there is this famous outcry 'costs will come down!' almost like it's some kind of birthright, and that repeating it ad-infinitum ad- nauseum – is supposed to make it true. No, costs do not have to come down. Power systems (battery, ICE, whatever) are not the same thing as the last 3 decades of improvement in electronics. Energy does not equal technology. Historically, costs for metals used in energy systems have outdistanced standard inflation by many hundreds of percent. The following elements have increased in price from 1980 to 2018; copper 200%, nickle 55.4%, iron ore 504.2%, lithium +800%, manganese 0% (unchanged), cobalt 534%. It doesn't look to me like 'costs are-a commin' down!!', in fact quite the opposite. ..."
Mining lithium consumes huge amounts of diesel and natural gas. As the cost of these fuels go
up, so must the produced metal. And not just in the mining operation, but in building roads
to the mines, and other processing infrastructure. I think it is very clear that these
operations cannot be powered by solar or wind.
Automobile lithium packs have to be exchanged every couple of years in a car, costing 10s
of thousands of dollars. Because of this, many electric car owners get rid of their ride when
the battery expires. A whole new business has arisen, that of selling used Teslas minus the
battery. It is already possible to buy a relatively recent model 3 'shell' (stripped of
battery, but has everything else and is fully functional) for as low as $6,000. Essentially
we are now seeing that service life of the vehicle shell is contingent on the economics of
the battery that powers it. Perhaps it makes sense to low-cash buyers to buy a used shell and
re-battery it, which is contingent on the original owner to take a substantial hit to the
pocket book.
And oh yes, there is this famous outcry 'costs will come down!' almost like it's some
kind of birthright, and that repeating it ad-infinitum ad- nauseum – is supposed to
make it true. No, costs do not have to come down. Power systems (battery, ICE, whatever) are
not the same thing as the last 3 decades of improvement in electronics. Energy does not equal
technology. Historically, costs for metals used in energy systems have outdistanced standard
inflation by many hundreds of percent. The following elements have increased in price from
1980 to 2018; copper 200%, nickle 55.4%, iron ore 504.2%, lithium +800%, manganese 0%
(unchanged), cobalt 534%. It doesn't look to me like 'costs are-a commin' down!!', in fact
quite the opposite.
Now as for lithium specifically – no, 'there aint' lots of it, as some here want so
desperately to believe. From Metalary – 'There's only a limited supply of this element,
because it only makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth's crust. Chile produces most of the
element for the world market, with Australia coming in second. In the US you can only find a
single mine in the whole country. It doesn't occur naturally in elemental form, either.'
' What these things all mean is that the demand for lithium-ion batteries will rise even
further. The price of LITHIUM CARBONATE IS UP 47% FROM 2015 and the year 2017 will see
increased sales of pure electric cars. Add the fact that Li-ion batteries are also used for
mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other wearable devices, and the
demand for the commodity will surely increase as well.' Clearly, from all of the above, there
is only one direction for lithium prices and it will rocket up accordingly.
EV, if it is here to stay, will remain as a status item of very limited quantity as
governed by sales prices equivalent to the upper echelon of the luxury car market. Battery
materials costs, which in lithium format are not and will not decrease going forward, will
permanently keep it there.
Okay, I am not taking sides in this cat fight. But I would like someone to give some stats on
the lifetime of lithium batteries along with the cost of replacing them. And a link
supporting your stats.
I googled it and got this.
The typical estimated life of a Lithium-Ion battery is about two to three years or. 300
to 500 charge cycles, whichever occurs first. One charge cycle is a period of use from
fully charged, to fully discharged, and fully recharged again.
But I could find nothing on the replacement cost of a Tesla battery.
The Model 3 Long Range warranty is for at least 70 percent range at 120K miles
Tesla sells a Model S (and X I assume) warranty for at least 70 percent capability for 8
years and unlimited miles.
Based on this, I find it very hard to believe your statement of "Automobile lithium packs
have to be exchanged every couple of years in a car, costing 10s of thousands of dollars.
"
Here's an example of Tesla owners debating battery replacement costs. Main takeaways: it
costs a lot, and you really aren't expected to have to do it. The battery should last the
life of the car. If it does not for some reason, your vehicle is essentially totaled.
I have a 2013 Leaf, battery still has about 90% of life, so even if it degrades another 10%
in the next six years, it'll still be usable, for twelve years of use, which I would guess is
about average life span for a car. My guess is the battery tech has improved in the interim.
Price to replace it is around $7K. Keep in mind I've never had to change the oil, flush the
radiator or any of that other maintenance crap that sucks up a lot of time also.
Seems unlikely that majority of the middle class can afford EV's. Most new vehicles are sold
using a lot of debt. as loan durations increase. I believe the current trend to sell
inventory is with 84 month loans and there is increasing interest in 96 month loans as
interest rates move higher. Also dealer inventories have been very high since 2017:
https://www.autonews.com/article/20181015/RETAIL01/181019834/inventory-matches-slowing-market
I just don't believe the average Joe can afford an EV. In additional the US grid would
need add a heck of lot of infrastructure and power plants to support an EV transportation
system. My guess it would probably cost at least $1T USA (which we don't have). Since most of
the new power comes from NatGas, switching to EVs is re-arranging Deck chairs on the Titanic:
switching from Oil to NatGas for transportation. To move to a renewable power source to
support EV transportation is probably around $10T for the US, which is economically
unobtainable considering the looming debt & demographic problems.
Realistically the bucket bottom of the US Economy is likely to fall out during the 2020's,
as Debt & Demographics overwhelm the economy. US Nat Debt is now over $22T and increasing
by more than $1T per year ($1.4T in 2018). There is at least $100T in underfunded
entitlements & pensions. Its not as if the USA is going to go Soylent green on its
retirees to solve its financial problems.
That said EVs are dumb idea considering the amount of resources needed. The obvious choice
would be to focus on mass transportation and rebuilding the oil rail network that was
destroyed by air travel. It would made a lot of sense to start rebuilding rail &
railstations decades ago rail improvements take long time it has to be integrated with
working rail-lines (ie you cannot shutdown a highway or rail line to make improvements: You
have to work around the traffic). If every major town and city was connected it could bring
in local freight & move passengers. People could use their ICE vehicles to commute the
short distance to the nearest rail station. it would also reduce the need for long haul
trucking and switch most of the trucking to just local delivery.
The only reason people want EV is so they don't have to change!
Well said Tech Guy, absolutely 100% endorse what you've written above.
You're 'spot-on' in your assessment of costly infrastructure issues, unsustainable
government debts, and demographic problems. These factors will constrain EV production to
those that can afford them, which isn't the impoverished middle class anymore. EV's will
therefore remain a purchase option only for an upper-middle to upper-high class range
demographic.
You guys focus too much on the US. What I want to know is how do you expect for EVs to get
charged in Spain, and what are we supposed to do stretch battery life when we have 35 deg C
in long summer days and -5 deg C winter nights. And where is the country supposed to get that
electricity when the idiots who run the government don't like nuclear, nor natural gas?
Stephen Hren Wrote:
"Ethanol production consumes 40% of our corn crop."
Yup. Ethanol is just a subsidy to corn growers & its an energy sink since it take more
energy to fertialize, plant, harvest, ferment & distill than you get out with combustion.
Not to mention the depletion of aquifiers and fertializer\herbicide\pesticide runoffs that
end up in rivers, lakes and oceans.
Stephen Hren:
"As the switch to EVs continues, this food will be available to people rather than ICEs"
Nope. Most people cannot afford them, and EVs and Ethanol use the same power source:
NatGas. EVs will never go mainstream and probably largely disappear in the 2020s. Probably
Hybrids will remain on the market (for those that can afford them). Considering the entire US
vehicle economy survives on subprime auto loans, its just a matter of time before it just
implodes. The only people that can afford EVs are those making more than $100K per year.
"The study shows that the average buyer of a regular Ford Focus was 46 years old and had a
household income of $77,000 per year, as compared to the an annual household income of
$199,000 for the average, 43-year-old owner of Ford Focus electric."
The number of used cars sold are expected to reach 39.5 million, while new car sales are
expected to decline to 17.1 million. You have declining new car sales, probably because of
affordability.
Nissan has fulfilled its promise to introduce a long-range version of the Leaf electric car : the 2019 Leaf Plus will
go on sale this spring with a larger battery pack and a more powerful electric motor. But the
Nissan's new 62.0-kWh battery pack, although significantly bigger than the base Leaf's 40.0-kWh
pack, makes for an EPA range estimate of 226 miles -- below the Chevrolet Bolt EV's 238 miles,
the Kia Niro EV's 239 miles, and the Hyundai Kona Electric's 258 miles.
Advertisement -
Continue Reading Below
Other than that crucial range figure, the Leaf Plus's other numbers are competitive with
those rivals. Its electric motor is more powerful than the base Leaf's 147-hp unit, producing
215 horsepower and 251 lb-ft of torque. This extra grunt should make it usefully quicker than
the base car, which already went from zero to 60 mph in a decent 7.4
seconds in our testing .
CycleCruza
8
months ago
Even dealerships rip you off. I got ripped off at a Lexus dealership for service that was not needed. It's tough ti find
honest mechanics.
P e w
D i e P i e e
1
month ago
Wow........you guys seriously
gave
that company
$654.14
to do nothing and to top that, you didn't even manage to get your money back
Epy
1
month ago
I wish you guys would have taken him to court and got his business shut down. Anybody who does something like this
doesn't deserve to have a business. None the less you guys had all the proof you needed.
Kingdrosive
3
2
months ago
This stuff is true..be aware you guys.. i'm not a mechanic but I know my way around cars and my mom's car had to be serviced
not that long ago. They said her steering fluid is dirty and needs to be changed 🤔My mother drives a Lexus, which has
electronic steering..doesn't use steering fluid..I went off on the tech.
mg1881
2
weeks ago
AFTER looking at my truck in the shop, the tech came out to the office and told me that my air conditioner needed servicing.
"That's funny.." I said ".. because this truck does not have air conditioning."
Dewey B
1
week ago
You should really be checking hospital emergency rooms. Thought I had a kidney stone, Doctor never even touched me, sent me
home in pain with a prescription for Ibuprofen. Charged me $4000. That's where the real scams are!
"... If you get a call or letter saying that your new car warranty is about to expire and it offers you an "extended warranty," use caution. Car warranty scams, which attempt to trick consumers into buying vehicle service contracts, continue to plague consumers despite government efforts to crack down on the caper. ..."
"... Those who purchased the service contracts found that the coverage was far less than represented, the agency says. For instance, it says, the policies didn't provide bumper-to-bumper protection or cover the entire vehicle engine, as customers were led to believe. Those who tried to obtain refunds found it virtually impossible. ..."
"... Although the refunds announced this week are from a 2011 settlement between the FTC, the company and its principle executive, the car warranty scam is alive and well, say the Better Business Bureaus based in West Palm Beach and St. Louis, where many warranty marketers are located. ..."
808
SHARES Watch for bogus warranty
expiration notices disguised to look as though they're from car manufacturersIf you
get a call or letter saying that your new car warranty is about to expire and it offers you an
"extended warranty," use caution. Car warranty scams, which attempt to trick consumers into
buying vehicle service contracts, continue to plague consumers despite government efforts to
crack down on the caper.
The Federal Trade Commission announced earlier this week that it was mailing more than $4
million in refunds to nearly 6,000 consumers who the agency said were conned by a company that
used robocalls to hawk service contracts costing from $1,300 to nearly $2,900.
The FTC says the Miami-based company tricked consumers into believing that the calls were
from their vehicle manufacturer or car dealer, a common tactic in car warranty scams.
Those who purchased the service contracts found that the coverage was far less than
represented, the agency says. For instance, it says, the policies didn't provide
bumper-to-bumper protection or cover the entire vehicle engine, as customers were led to
believe. Those who tried to obtain refunds found it virtually impossible.
This is not the first case of its kind. In 2011, the agency announced it was returning
nearly $3.2 million to 4,450 victims of two other telemarketing companies that it accused of
using
deceptive practices to sell auto warranties.
Although the refunds announced this week are from a 2011 settlement between the FTC, the
company and its principle executive, the car warranty scam is alive and well, say the Better
Business Bureaus based in West Palm Beach and St. Louis, where many warranty marketers are
located.
"We have many, many complaints. We continue to get them," says Bill Smith, investigator for
the St. Louis BBB.
Along with phone calls, some warranty marketers mail bogus warranty expiration notices
disguised to look as though they're from manufacturers, dealers or state motor vehicle
departments, says Smith. They advise recipients to call for details about extending their
coverage. "These people get you on a phone, and they will not let you go until they have sold
you on a deal," he says.
Smith says the salespeople often try to pressure car owners into an immediate purchase by
claiming the offer is good only for that day. They promise customers that they have ample time
to cancel if they're unhappy after receiving the contract terms. But canceling and obtaining a
refund often is difficult or impossible, he says.
Michele Mason, senior vice president of the West Palm Beach bureau, says the BBB has
received consumer complaints about the scam as recently as last week. She says some complain
that they're harassed daily by callers pushing the coverage. Even the bureau's new CEO has
received bogus warranty expiration notices, she says.
Typically, the marketers aren't providing the actual coverage. Instead, they're selling the
policies on behalf of companies that do. Legally, the policies aren't warranties, which
typically are provided by manufacturers or retailers at no additional cost. Instead, they're
service contracts that promise to pay for repairs. Many of the contracts simply duplicate
coverage available under any existing manufacturer's warranty. What to Do If you receive
a letter, postcard or telephone call advising you that your car's express warranty is about to
expire, check with the manufacturer. It could be a car warranty scam. Don't call the number
that's on any letter or postcard you receive, even if it looks like the communication is from
the automaker. It could be a fake.
If your vehicle warranty has expired or is about to, don't purchase a service contract.
Instead, plan ahead by buying a reliable car and maintaining it as the manufacturer recommends.
Then self-insure by saving the money you otherwise would spend on a service contract and use
that for any needed repairs or maintenance.
If you feel you must purchase a service contract, consider one offered by the carmaker.
Third-party contracts are notorious for fine print that excludes many types of repairs and for
denying claims for anything the provider deems to be a pre-existing condition. Repairs required
because of normal wear and tear also may be excluded.
Never agree to a contract for any product or service without reading terms and conditions,
no matter how long the company says you have to change your mind, says Smith. If a salesperson
pressures you to make a purchase right away, go elsewhere.
The concept of car ownership could change, too. Today, privately owned cars spend most of
their lives parked and unused. Self-driving cars of the future are expected to be on the
roads for a much bigger portion of the day -- once they drive you to work, they can drive
someone else to the grocery store. That means roads could be filled with fewer vehicles
overall.
Self-driving cars will hasten the switch from gasoline-powered automobiles to electric
vehicles. The sensors and computers calling the shots will need electrical power, rather than
horsepower that gasoline engines provide.
You probably never studied computer science in depth. One probably needs a degree in
electrical engineering to understand huge problems on this technological path. But some
problems are visible even for mere mortals: The problem with self-driving cars is that
computers are very stupid (let's put it politely handicapped) drivers that can't sense a lot
of things that human sense. They are good only for "normal" situations and limited traffic
scenarios, for example following the car in front of you at (10+your speed) or greater
distance at speeds higher than 25 miles per hour. In congested bumper-to-bumper traffic with
crazy from spending 4 hours on the road human drivers cutting you left and right, they are
useless unless they can communicate with the car in front of you and the car behind you
getting their "intentions" beforehand. This is probably possible using Bluetooth or WiFi, but
is far ahead of us and requires developing protocols and standardizing actions taken by
self-driving cars across various manufacturers. The maximum you can envision now is
autonomous delivery of an empty car (no passengers) as a very low speed (like Google maps
cars) to the driver.
Self-driving cars will hasten the switch from gasoline-powered automobiles to electric
vehicles. The sensors and computers calling the shots will need electrical power, rather
than horsepower that gasoline engines provide.
I like your enthusiasm, but from an engineering point of view, this solution is less
attractive than driving cars on natural gas, and biodiesel. Right now early Tesla enthusiasts
are still not chased out of their expensive neighborhood, but soon they might suffer stigma
and find dead cats in their backyard, especially if other people air conditioning goes out in
summer, or electrical heating at winter due to their hobby ;-). Early Tesla buyers are either
"conspicuous consumption" junkies or the followers some secular cult of the "Second coming of
the electric cars." Rational person right now probably would buy a hybrid. In California as
far as I can tell this is mostly prestige issues that drive people to buy Tesla, especially
among IT specialists. Most of those people (for various reasons including inferiority
complex) are luxury car buyers anyway.
In 2016, there were about 222 million licensed drivers in the United States. Each driver
on average drives 13,474 miles each year. Now assuming 0.300 kilowatts per mile please (which
means no heating and air conditioning in those cars) and even distribution of those miles
during the year (so each driver drives 13,474/365 miles a day) calculate how much energy
needs to be produced for, say 80% of that car to be electric. Add 20% losses in transmission
and charging. Now divide by 12 hours as the most car will be charged at night, right?
Two problems:
1. How to generate so much energy for the cars needed each night? Are you advocating mass
buildup of nuclear power stations? Because neither solar nor wind can work without
compensating nuclear (gas powered -- you need rapid switch on/off) for night time in case of
the electric car is owned by the majority of the population. East-West high voltage lines can
help, but in a very limited way (only three hours difference). Who will pay for this giant
infrastructure project?
2. Liability questions arising are very complex. The question to you: when self-driving
car electronics detects a child is running directly in front of the car and determines that
it can't stop in time and will hit the child unless it crashes the car into the pole and
possibly kills one of the passengers in the front seats, whom it should save: passengers of
the car or the child?
According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average American driver
puts in 13,474 miles behind the wheel each year. However, you might be surprised to learn that
men spend much more time behind the wheel than women: the average American male drives 16,550
miles each year, while the average American female logs just 10,142 miles in a given year.
That's 63% more miles for men, suggesting that perhaps women have discovered how to take a
more efficient route everywhere they go (said with tongue-in-cheek). At face value there is
certainly a gap between the sexes, but there are greater trends at play.
Low gas prices make the larger vehicles seem to have affordable running costs – but if
the cost of gas goes up, you are stuck, and if your income goes down, you hurt as well. While
I am still working, I am past retirement age and I know my working years are numbered, I
think the next recession will do my consulting in. My 2004 Forrester had 230,000 miles when
my son did in the front end. It wasn't worth repairing. So I bought a Prius Prime. It truly
gets well over 50 mpg, not including the battery, which has a 25 mile + range. I am heading
into retirement with a 2008 Toyota Corolla with 42,000 miles, and the Prius.
By the time they die, or I get rid of them, I will make do with electric self-driving
vehicle services.
I am not sure my daughter will ever buy a car. I think she has figured out she can rent as
she needs it and she chooses to live in the city where she can take her bike, the bus, or
light rail.
The younger generation is much less car centric, and the market is consequentially
shrinking.
I would imagine the elderly will be scrambling all over themselves to purchase the medical equivalent of Siri or Sarah(?)
for Android that will listen to them with precise voice-to-text, listen to their breath and pulse, use low-cost Test-on-a-Chip
with personalized AI to a global medical FAQ and Amazon Pharmacy and transdermal implant to keep them precisely medicated without
the intervention of a 3x more expensive and #3 cause of malpractice death medical/hospice for-profit wealth-extraction USAryan
Vampirocracy.
"... "the deception is about to catch up to TSLA. Elon's Musk erratic behavior suggests that he sees it the same way." ..."
"... Lehman threatened short sellers, refused to raise capital (it even bought back stock), and management publicly suggested it would go private. Months later, shareholders, creditors, employees and the global economy paid a big price when management's reckless behavior led to bankruptcy." ..."
"... "There are many parallels to TSLA. In 2013, TSLA was on the brink of failure. TSLA's cash reserves fell to a dangerously low level and CEO Elon Musk secretly and desperately tried to sell the company," ..."
"... "Rather than communicating the truth to shareholders, Mr. Musk bluffed his way through the crisis." ..."
"... "large revenue and earnings disappointment" ..."
The 'deception' around electric car maker Tesla will catch up to the company soon, according
to hedge fund manager David Einhorn. He compared Elon Musk's behavior to Lehman Brothers
executives shortly before the bank's demise. In a letter to investors, Einhorn wrote that like
the investment bank that famously collapsed a decade ago "the deception is about to catch
up to TSLA. Elon's Musk erratic behavior suggests that he sees it the same way."
According to Einhorn, " Lehman threatened short sellers, refused to raise capital (it
even bought back stock), and management publicly suggested it would go private. Months later,
shareholders, creditors, employees and the global economy paid a big price when management's
reckless behavior led to bankruptcy."
Lehman Brothers was one of the largest investment banks in the US, whose collapse triggered
a global financial crisis of 2008. Einhorn is known for his short-selling of Tesla stock. In
other words, he makes bets that Tesla shares would fall in price.
Bets against Tesla have been good for Einhorn's Greenlight Capital as the carmaker's stock
plunged nearly 25 percent during the third quarter. Einhorn's fund has been burning through
money, too – a 25 percent loss for the year despite the record gains in S&P 500.
According to Einhorn, Tesla has been acting in many ways like Lehman Brothers, which
attacked Einhorn when he said that the bank was a risk to the financial system. A few months
later Lehman collapsed.
"There are many parallels to TSLA. In 2013, TSLA was on the brink of failure. TSLA's
cash reserves fell to a dangerously low level and CEO Elon Musk secretly and desperately tried
to sell the company," he said. "Rather than communicating the truth to shareholders,
Mr. Musk bluffed his way through the crisis."
The hedge fund manager predicts that Tesla would post a "large revenue and earnings
disappointment" in its fourth quarter. Tesla has burnt through $3.5 billion since the
beginning of the year, but Elon Musk hinted that Tesla may soon be profitable in recent emails
to employees that were leaked to the media.
Congrats. Sounds like a good swing trade in light of the fact that the trend
is your friend.
I am getting in on the great bear raid against Tesla, which I've been agnostic
on (mostly ignoring it) other than being skeptical. Did a lot of research over
the weekend, and the findings were quite disturbing. Musk will be lucky to avoid
a prison sentence.
Tesla is going to zero, barring something like Musk getting a large commitment
from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
There are no shares available to short, but puts suit me just fine. JP Morgan
Chase will be coming out with Tesla credit default swaps as well. That said
actually selling the swaps could be a problem.
On a different note, Tesla is going to zero. The company has a number of
severe problems:
• Tesla is burning through one billion per quarter and is likely to run out
of cash this year
• It is the only company of its size (in the market) offering high yield debt
and stock offerings to accredited investors (which do not require SEC disclosure)
• Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly refused to meet with Elon Musk
when he was in Saudi Arabia
• Elon Musk has violated federal securities, labor, and OSHA laws
• Musk and many other current and former executives have signed false documents
and thus committed perjury
• The Model 3 is a disaster and was panned by Consumer Reports, Car and Driver,
and Edmund's
• The self-dealing merger with Solar City would likely not have been approved
by shareholders without Musk's vaporware demonstration of solar roof tiles that
do not exist (securities fraud)
• Half of Tesla's output is exported, leaving it very vulnerable to trade retaliation
• Quality problems continue to be severe, and Tesla has now resorted to partnering
with local body shops for post-production fixes
• Extreme shortage of spare parts means Teslas can be out of service for months
• Tesla takes months to refund customer deposits
• Numerous accounting problems, leading to 86 questions from the SEC for the
last fiscal year, compared to zero for Ford Motor
• Tesla "autopilot" units keep crashing
• Highest accident and fatality statistics in its vehicle class (new luxury
vehicles)
• Model S wheels and suspensions keep cracking
• Difficulty of exiting vehicle in the absence of electrical power (no mechanical
door handles) led to children literally being burned alive
• A flood of competition is inbound, including the 600 horsepower Porsche Misson-E
going into production at Zuffenhausen next year
• Tesla's zero emission credits are set to expire, just as other automakers
start harvesting them
Every freely available share is now short–not joking. You can't even short
the stock anymore generally, though puts are of course available.
Musk himself is likely to be personally wiped out as well, as he has borrowed
against 40% of his shares. He'll face a very ugly margin call when the stock
starts sliding. Additionally, he's likely to personally face both civil and
criminal liability.
I bought some Tesla shares as the company as dipping a few weeks ago.
Hedge your long position with some puts. Only reason I am not short is that
there are no shares available to short. I did buy puts however.
Congrats for putting your money where your mouth is. By next year this time
you may be featured on @Bagholderquotes :).
The criticism of lack of profitability is sound & fair, but I also think
most of the overheated commentary has been irrational and overtly emotional.
This has been true. Most Tesla criticism up until now has come from two camps:
1. Gearheads with gasoline flowing in their veins who hate EVs. I belong
to this group (my daily driver has a 450 horsepower V-8 and I hate fuel economy
and EVs), though I avoided getting irrational about Tesla.
2. The Zero Hedge doomerist crowd.
There have, however, been two major exceptions. Jim Chanos and Bob Lutz.
Jim Chanos is a legendary short seller who nailed Enron and Valeant (though
he lost some credibility by betting on a China crash that never happened). Chanos
states that the only times he's seen so many executive departures before are
Enron and Valeant.
Bob Lutz likely needs no introduction to you. And while Lutz is a car guy
(invented the Dodge Viper), he says the greatest achievement of his career was
the Chevy Volt and that EVs are inevitable. Furthermore he highly praised the
Model S. Lutz has bluntly called Tesla a personality cult that's going bankrupt.
I expect Tesla to gradually improve net profitability as time goes on.
Musk has prioritised volume expansion over profits and I think it is fair
to say that he underestimated how tough it would be.
Tesla can't improve its net profitability because it has no profitability
to begin with, even if we accept Tesla's fictitious gross margins and channel
stuffing (e.g. "selling" batteries to The Boring Company).
Musk has indeed prioritized volume production, and his failure is due to
his arrogance. This arrogance is typical of Silicon Valley as a class. They
assume they know better than any other industry, failing to realize their success
is due to monopoly and lack of regulation (welcome to the auto industry boys!).
Musk deliberately recruited executives with no experience in the automotive
industry, and he attempted to fully automate production (e.g. his infamous alien
dreadnought remark). If Musk weren't so arrogant, he would've learn that Roger
Smith attempted this in the '80s and went so far as to buy FANUC. It was a complete
disaster. Sandy Munro describes robots as blind one-armed idiots, and notes
that not only can they not do everything but one must design the product itself
for robotic production.
This arrogance is directly culpable for Tesla's huge capital costs, as essentially
Tesla bought far more capital equipment than it can actually use or is required
in automaking. Musk said he was going to build half a million cars this year.
He'll be lucky to hit 200,000.
Even aside from Tesla's financial woes, regulatory violations, massive civil
liability, and outright criminality a massive flood of competition is inbound.
Volkswagen is currently converting twenty assembly plants to EV production,
Daimler is investing twenty billion euros in it by 2022, and GM is putting over
20 all electric vehicles into production over the next five years.
Then there's the fact that the Model 3 turns out to be something of a dog.
Consumer Reports, which called the Model S the best car it has ever evaluated,
noted that the Model 3 has a greater average stopping distance than the Ford
F-150.
What's the story for Tesla surviving? A company that appears to be under
SEC investigation somehow raises $20 billion in the next few years, achieves
mass production, eliminates its severe quality problems, doesn't get sued by
all the people it killed, and beats the competition handily?
Then there's the fact that Musk appears to be personally melting down. Feuding
with Warren Buffet, attacking the press Trump-style, and dating someone named
"Grimes" who is an "anti-imperialist" singer (?!).
I highly encourage you to check out Fintwitter on this (the only Twitter
that can compete with Frogtwitter). No one does scuttlebutt like bears.
I don't see the supercharger network as a major competitive edge at all.
People interested in long-distance driving don't buy EVs. I can "recharge" any
of my vehicles in one minute.
And the rest of the industry is not standing still on this. The German automakers
and Ford Europe are partnering with Shell to create their own network in Europe.
Many other efforts underway in America and Asia as well. These efforts involve
automakers, oil companies, power utilities, and in some cases governments. An
ocean of capital is available for this.
EVs will not completely take over unless the government forces it, but I
agree they will comprise a large percentage of new auto sales in the next decade.
Maybe even a majority.
The thing is that these EVs will not come from Tesla, unless Tesla survives
as a brand of a global OEM (I see GM and Ford as likely candidates for acquiring
Tesla).
Remember the auto industry is the most brutally competitive industry on the
planet.
A media ratings website is something Trump should've done.
In Musk's case it is ridiculous because the media has been polishing his
knob non-stop until his disastrous performance on the last earnings call.
He's also angry that the press is reporting on the alarming work conditions
at Tesla's Fremont assembly plant, including some poor schmuck who suffered
an arc flash explosion that melted all his skin because Tesla refused to de-energize
the high voltage equipment he was working on (a violation of NFPA 70, OSHA,
and CalOSHA).
Financial journalism is mostly solid as Peter Brimelow will be happy to tell
you.
You'll be happy to know that Teslemmings are accusing the Wall Street Journal
reporter Charley Grant of being a RUSSIAN TROLL .
My knowledge only dates to last weekend really. Got tired of hearing about
Musk and decided to do some scuttlebutt.
Space X is a private company, so I'm unaware of its financials or ownership
structure. I suspect it is not profitable as it raised capital as recently as
last year, but in principal there is nothing wrong with its business model.
Its technical and commercial achievements are impressive. Unlike the situation
with Tesla, Musk actually recruited experienced aerospace executives and engineers
for Space X instead of Snapchat retreads (not joking–some dipshit from Snapchat
is now running the Autopilot program).
The collapse of Tesla will do two things to Space X:
1 – Musk has borrowed against 40% of his Tesla shares, likely to finance
his other businesses and fund his lavish lifestyle (Bel Air and London mansions,
Gulfstream G650, etc.). This means he'll face a crushing margin call, possibly
forcing him to sell his shares in Space X.
2 – It will destroy his halo, which is source of his success. This is why
Musk committed securities fraud in order to have Tesla acquire Solar City, which
was rapidly headed for bankruptcy. With his reputation in tatters, it will call
into question his leadership of Space X. Certainly ideas like going to Mars
with other people's money will be out.
There is also a real possibility that Musk will face felony prosecution,
in which case he certainly won't be running Space X.
A lot of the Tesla bears assume there's something wrong with Space X as well,
but I don't think this is warranted. One guy who is documenting all the Model
S suspension failures has invented a half-cocked conspiracy theory that Space
X's achievements are fictitious. It's pretty common for short sellers to get
emotional during a great bear raid, which is part of the fun.
Some resources for you all on Tesla's impending collapse, starting with FinTwitter:
FinTwitter Resources
Mark Spiegel, Managing Partner of Stanphyl capital and Tesla bear
The normal thing is you settle your issues (legal, financial, etc.),
find out who really cares about you (in Musk's case, this might be down
to just his brother and Thiel), and start over.
Musk is a very talented man, and at the end of the day he will be all
right. He isn't Elizabeth Holmes, he's Icarus with a fatal attraction to
capital intensive industries. Musk appears to be guilty of violating a number
of federal laws, but he's not Jeff Skilling.
Preston Tucker for instance, the Musk of the 1940s, went right back to
work. As Tucker walked out of the court room he was unphased, quipping that
even Henry Ford failed the first two times around.
He ultimately found new investors in Brazil to back a new sports car.
Unfortunately Tucker died a premature death.
While "autopilot" does not amount to "self-driving" cars, self driving
cars have absolutely no business being touted except on roads made specifically
or certified for self driving cars. Frankly, I'm hugely skeptical of self
driving cars until the cars communicate with side road sensors and maybe
with the other cars
Tesla could now own 100% of an electric car factory in China, says
government
Good place for someone who thinks his employees ought to work 100 hours
a week.
Kyle Bass won big betting against on the lowest growth area in the world:
the EU. He lost a bit of money and a lot of credibility trying to short
Japan (long known as the sucker bet.) Betting on a China crash is inherently
flawed, because China has been transformed by the friendly attitude and
assistance of successive American governments, which facilitated the economic
growth of China following China-USSR military clashes in the late sixties.
Developing China has been seen as a way of weakening Russia. But the years
of allowing China to drive a coach and horses through international trade
has created a klepto-merchantilist decepticon monster piling up huge trade
imbalances. And instead of the Chinese government buying advanced US products
2025 program aims to make them technological leaders as well
China is going to transform itself into an unbeatable megastate, and
will not run out of steam. To prevent itself being supplanted as the most
powerful state in the word America will take action against the interests
of the greedy globalising hyper-capitalist elite and diplomatic shills running
their country into the ground. The first signs are already there that American
self preservation is emerging from the deep state. The US will see that
the trade and technology restriction it will try first will not be enough.
As things get nasty, China will resort to overt military pressure on the
rest of the world, or maybe it will give up its objective of global domination
and rely on everyone being nice to it!
A lot of Tesla skepticism is the mirror image of Tesla and Musk fanboyism.
That is it's based largely on irrational "player hating". A lot of the skepticism
and hate against Musk is from conservatives or right-wingers who associate
him with the left because of his popularity among many liberals. Also a
lot of financial types hate him because they're paper pushers and he's an
industrialist. Hedge funders and other financial types regard themselves
as being at the top of the social hierarchy, so an engineer and industrialist
building stuff makes paper pushers like themselves look bad.
-The production ramp up, while bumpy, is brisk
-While losses keep increasing, Tesla's opex as percentage of sales continues
to drop
-Thus far it has the only widespread high energy charging network
-While other automakers excel at mass production, they'll face bottlenecks
in ramping up EV production as well (notice GM's pace with the Volt and
Bolt) until well into the next decade
Hedge funders and other financial types regard themselves as being
at the top of the social hierarchy, so an engineer and industrialist
building stuff makes paper pushers like themselves look bad.
Plenty of asset managers are long Tesla and are practically fanboys of
Musk. Musk himself engages in quite a bit of "paper pushing" since he's
had to raise capital so many times.
"Paper pusher" is an irrational criticism of the finance sector. Allocating
capital is a very important job.
Whether it's an irrational criticism or not depends on one's values and
views on political economy. To some, the financial sector has manifestly
failed at allocating capital properly and is filled with rent seeking. Others
will point to its size and the capitalization of financial markets as evidence
of its value and importance.
What's the evidence that it has failed at allocating capital successfully?
No shortage of rent-seeking of course. But if there's one thing I've
learned it's that bagholders are gonna bag. This isn't some hypothetical either, look at countries without sophisticated
financial markets. People are forced to save by speculating in real estate,
and credit is often not available to business unless the state makes it
available (perfectly reasonable in such economies to be fair).
Since the 80s, the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio has been
much higher than the historical norm, higher than when the US had higher
rates of growth. There have been several bubbles, and consumer debt has
risen significantly while income has stagnated and startup formation is
at a 40 year low. Capital allocation has been very unproductive. It's caused
lots of asset price inflation and increased debt without producing new assets
and income streams. Capital allocation is highly centralized and it has
the same problems communist economies have with central planning where capital
is centralized in the state. A lot of unproductive activity and rent seeking.
In financialized economies with inflated asset prices, people have low
savings and can't even afford to buy real estate or can only afford it by
taking on lots of debt and having to depend on further price inflation so
that they don't go underwater. In countries with financial repression, public
debt tends to be low and interest rates tend to be low and capital gets
directed towards industry.
Since the 80s, the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio has been
much higher than the historical norm, higher than when the US had higher
rates of growth.
Stock prices were unusually low in the 1970s, as epitomized by BusinessWeek's
famous 1979 The Death of Equities cover.
In addition to reversion to the mean, several other factors made stocks
more valuable since that time.
The collapse of inflation and interest rates increased the net present
value of stocks, the rise of emerging markets with poor domestic capital
markets increased foreign demand for stocks, America's persistent trade
deficit further increased foreign demand for American assets, and the low-cost
trading and 401k revolutions.
There have been several bubbles
So what? Since the pop of the last bubble the S&P 500 with dividends
reinvested has returned over 400%.
and consumer debt has risen significantly
And? One man's debt is another man's asset.
income has stagnated
Correction, wages have stagnated. Capital income has soared. Entirely
expected consequence of union busting, mass immigration, and offshoring.
startup formation is at a 40 year low
And this is the fault of Wall Street how? If you haven't noticed VC is
throwing money at startups.
Capital allocation has been very unproductive.
Evidence? Certainly return on capital and return on equity haven't been
poor.
It's caused lots of asset price inflation and increased debt without
producing new assets and income streams.
Increased debt by definition creates new assets. Remember than one man's
debt is another man's asset.
Capital allocation is highly centralized and it has the same problems
communist economies have with central planning where capital is centralized
in the state.
Dude, have you even been to Costco? No lines for toilet paper there.
A lot of unproductive activity and rent seeking.
Meaning what exactly?
In financialized economies
The fuck does this mean?
inflated asset prices
At what level are asset prices inflated?
people have low savings
Personal choice. In some respects a consequence of sophisticated financial
markets–people rely on credit instead of savings. Hence why people buy houses
and cars with loans.
can't even afford to buy real estate or can only afford it by taking
on lots of debt and having to depend on further price inflation so that
they don't go underwater
Yes, this is called a mortgage. A financially rational decision given
the opportunity cost of committing so much capital upfront. Unsurprisingly,
this decision does involve a bit of risk. Big whoop. You think returns should
be guaranteed?
In countries with financial repression
The fuck does this mean?
public debt tends to be low
So what? The federal government is a higher quality borrower than any
household, so perhaps we should thank the government for bearing the burden
of credit expansion.
interest rates tend to be low
You mean like 3% on the ten year?
capital gets directed towards industry
You mean like Tesla? Wonder where they got their capital
Well like I said earlier, this is a matter of one's values and views
on political economy. If one prefers asset price inflation and a capital
structure of heavily indebted households and young adults, then there's
nothing wrong and everything is rosy.
Household income overall, not just wages, has stagnated.
Startup formation is still at a 40 year low, despite all the noise about
venture capital and Silicon Valley.
ROC and ROE are based on corporate income, which are at historical highs.
The rest of your comment is just econ 101 and biz school corp finance
and accounting 101 hand waving to justify the status quo.
Your whole argument in the original post is that Tesla and SpaceX could
not get the capital that they have without Musk committing fraud and violating
a bunch of laws. In other words, two new industrial firms with tremendous
brand value and advancing decades ahead of the competition (
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/every-3-5-years-spacex-is-adding-a-decade-lead-on-competitors.html
) could not have been capitalized otherwise.
Tesla's a company that should never have been. The whole concept is bullshit.
The electric car can not compete with the internal combustion engine the
energy density is not there.
I do not believe that Tesla is likely to produce profits in the foreseeable
future that justify its current valuation. However, a German engineering
service company has analysed a Tesla 3 model and found that the materials
cost of a car is around US-$ 18.000 and the cost of production can be estimated
at around US-$ 10.000, so the gross margin should be ok if they manage to
get production volume up.
Agreed that Tesla is probably going down the tubes, but what about the
effect on other technology stocks?
No-one really knows when Tesla will go down, but when it does, it's going
to impact the whole of Tech sector investment. For example, it's true that
a company like Amazon makes a profit, but it's also got a lot of fantasy
built into its share price (as pointed out in detail by David Stockman):
I wouldn't even grant such naif glibness Econ 101; it's more closely
resembles some nursery school "wisdom" and amounts to something like saying
that one man's fire is another's construction project.
I'll be the first to admit that under certain circumstances, debt
can be good, but the key word is "can" as I'm sure you'll agree.
Debt, like fire, capitalism, and communism (note the lower case "c").
is nothing more than a tool and whether any of those things is good or not
depends on a lot of other factors as you so correctly point out. Anyone
who makes such a cringe-worthy comment as "debt is good" or its equivalent
is not to be taken seriously and I quit reading his comment after that.
Why should anyone waste his time reading some author who has so little
to offer? People take 'Ol Thor seriously???
This goes to show how idiotic "investors" really are. Tesla was a No
Go from the very start. It was a failed business plan before it ever got
up & running. The technology will never be affordable to the vast majority
of the unwashed despite creative credit schemes. That means only the so-called
1%ers would be the target market and before too long that market would be
saturated and conquered and growth in profit and earnings would cease. The
reasonings given for tanking this stock by "investors" doesn't even mention
this. They're fucking clueless.
You want a growth industry for our time? A good long-term investment,
or long-term these days, with a business plan that will provide growth for
at least several decades? Invest in my company, Euthanasia, Inc.
. That's where the money is. You'll make gobs of money, significant double
digit ROI, and in 20 to 30 years when you're as wealthy as Trump if not
wealthier, there will be nothing, and no one, left to buy with all that
money. They'll, and it, will be gone. No one left to wipe your ass so you'll
have to use the money that was them and it to wipe it instead until you
defecate for the very last time.
I'm not even entirely sure whether anyone went to the moon these
days.
I'm entirely sure we didn't.
According to
Wiki
, the rate of payload to initial mass of the Apollo missions was roughly
1 to 25 from Earth to lower Earth orbit, but about 1 to 3 from Earth orbit
to lunar orbit. Assuming Earth orbit was 200 miles above Earth, less than
10% of the total energy required to escape Earth's gravity had been applied
once orbit was reached. Therefore, somehow the engines became about 100
times more fuel-efficient when going from Earth orbit to the moon.
There are many more astonishing details. One is that NASA
lost all the tapes of the lunar missions – allegedly the tapes were
"reused". Another is that the dosage of radiation measured on board the
lunar missions was
no different
from those of typical Earth orbit missions. Considering that the lunar
missions would have had to go through the van Allen radiation belt, they
should have received a significantly higher dosage.
You're trolling but fundamentally the notion of the "dark factory" or
the completely automated factory was hardly beyond belief, or else it wouldn't
have been attempted so many times in the first place. Its a lesson that
we learn, often at considerable cost, that the wetware of the brain is still
remarkably efficient and capable of things that our machines aren't, but
the central conceit of it: that we can make things from processes done by
repetitive functions is hardly impossible.
Its essentially the very background of programming: single use methods
and black box classes to manipulate data, then provide useful and interesting
results. It just so happens that in manufacturing in the real world that
there's much more variation and less control over both inputs and outputs,
but I am sure that every single person with a Six Sigma or ITIL cert has
at least given a passing thought to it. The entire point of such confined
processes is to turn humans into rough approximations of machines; why not
use machines for that purposes?
I'm always amazed at how there are so many fatalities and injuries
due to operator error on passenger trains – there really should be none.
Because it's all still in the hands of a driver, who has a fairly monotonous
job and tends to drift off from time to time. Automation is easily possible
on a technical level, but the driver is needed as an ultimate legal scapegoat
so that when SHTF, the company as a whole is not held liable. There's also
the interesting observation that due to computers having potential blind
spots, a human being is always needed and, paradoxically, the only way to
keep the human being engaged is to have them handle many of the easy tasks
that the AI could actually do better.
The problem is that Musk ran this company like a tech product where scaling
does not require massive capital and correcting mistakes means patching
lines of code, not massive recalls or people burning alive.
If Musk was smart, he would have combined his experience in tech and
entrepreneurship with the experience of a legit manufacturer.
If Musk kept production small and put out quality products, he could
have sold the company to Ford or Toyota and scaled production massively
with experienced people.
Musk would have made billions, and Tesla would likely be a leader in
EVs going forward for decades. Instead Musk got greedy and said we don't
need to sell out. With our market cap we are already the same size as Ford.
Well, enjoy prison Elon.
Well like I said earlier, this is a matter of one's values and views
on political economy. If one prefers asset price inflation and a capital
structure of heavily indebted households and young adults, then there's
nothing wrong and everything is rosy.
What precisely do you mean by values in this context? What are your values?
And, to repeat Thorfinsson's earlier question-dismissal of your faith, what
the hell is "asset price inflation"? Asset prices go up in accordance with
expected future returns and the current interest rate curve. Sometimes price
bubbles form; there is no reason to believe that we are currently in the
midst of one in the stock market. That current rates are low, implies a
high present value for future flows, and a testament to the desirability
of U.S T-bonds and corporate credit in general.
Household income overall, not just wages, has stagnated.
Startup formation is still at a 40 year low, despite all the noise
about venture capital and Silicon Valley.
Startup formation everywhere demonstrates high time- clustering. Why
is that a fault of the financial sector?
ROC and ROE are based on corporate income, which are at historical
highs.
Yes, this is true. Labour share has gone down in relative terms. Perhaps
many categories of labour will continue to devalue, replaced by automation.
We may at some point need to do a cost-benefit analysis of guaranteed minimum
income. I remain somewhat circumspect of the notion.
The rest of your comment is just econ 101 and biz school corp finance
and accounting 101 hand waving to justify the status quo.
Which portions?
Perhaps, it is precisely a lack of understanding econ 101. which leads
to an inevitable reliance on the cult of Liquidationist Ron Paulisms.
Your whole argument in the original post is that Tesla and SpaceX
could not get the capital that they have without Musk committing fraud
and violating a bunch of laws. In other words, two new industrial firms
with tremendous brand value and advancing decades ahead of the competition
(
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/every-3-5-years-spacex-is-adding-a-decade-lead-on-competitors.html
) could not have been capitalized otherwise.
That was hardly the entirety of the argument. I've just started looking
at Tesla in depth, in order to handicap a long-term short position and I
conclude that it is a great short. Objectively, his capex and opex are completely
highly, highly, unwarranted, even for a new technology venture. He broke
and bent a few laws to burn investor capital. As a result, top talent is
exiting the company. Musk however, does not see it for he is in the grips
of a bad case of G'd complex.
Musk is not Bezos. He does not have the vision he thinks he's got. Market
will not tolerate this sort of extraordinary corporate profligacy for more
than another year in my reckoning. I think his best bet might be to seek
a collaboration with Daimler and focus on the battery business.
I wouldn't even grant such naif glibness Econ 101; it's more closely
resembles some nursery school "wisdom" and amounts to something like
saying that one man's fire is another's construction project.
Try not to be too glib yourself. Hit the econ 101 books, would be my
advice to you. There is a world of difference between personal debt, single
company corporate debt, and, economy-wide sovereign debt. The trouble with
your faith is that you deliberately ignore two basic econ 101 concepts:
individual optimal debt ratios, and, thereafter, the fallacy of composition
as it applies to public or sovereign debt.
The question of debt and Savings more generally, has deeply psychological
underpinnings connected to language. [For another time]
Anyone who makes such a cringe-worthy comment as "debt is good" or
its equivalent is not to be taken seriously and I quit reading his
comment a fter that.
That would explain a great deal of your typically frantic behaviour.
You have the laughable habit of erecting strawmen. "Debt is good" is not
a statement anyone on the rational side of economics has ever claimed in
isolation. Properly understood, debt is an instrument to smooth inter-temporal
investments and consumption.
Worth watching for anyone looking to get a sense of Tesla as a car. The
short version: Battery up -- crap; Battery down -- remarkable.
The stuff Tesla can't get right is old tech; the stuff that is good is
electric & electronic. I prefer the short narrative but the timing is too
hard. Tesla has proved itself brilliant at raising money. It's market cap
is $46B.
People love Tesla. I can't be sure about the timing. Otherwise I would
be short.
One way to construct a short is through the purchase of a longer dated
put, as you might already know. If that is more premium than you are looking
to spend, then one can look at put spreads.
The history of auto making is littered with dead entrepreneurs. I have
to hand it to Musk, he has balls. He capitalized on or, is responsible for
the reinvigorated interest in EVs and, he took advantage of all the government
incentives that followed. I don't know much about Tesla's manufacturing
abilities. I doubt Ford or GM will be interested in buying anything more
than the Tesla brand name, which is a clever one.
I wonder? Does the Tesla family receive royalties? I doubt it. Maybe this
turn towards electric vehicles will renew interest in cheap if not free
electric power. Will it finally be admitted that the universe along with
everything in it, such as the sun, is electric. Does anyone else find it
odd that since the 1920s nothing much has changed in the field of electronics.
I hear it isn't properly taught. Not even at MIT.
I am probably making a mistake diving into the weeds with you people
again, but basically you people are pointing out flaws in how the economy
has developed in the past generation which are not the fault of the financial
sector.
The economic damage to the middle and working classes have been caused
by five things:
• "Free trade" (deindustrialization)
• Mass immigration
• Union-busting
• Increasing monopoly power
• The healthcare and education rackets
Which of these are the financial sector to blame for exactly, and how?
By shifting your goalposts from wages to household income (ignoring that
the average household size has declined), yet then your turn around and
point out corporate income is historically high. My claim was only that
income has risen. It's just that income has gone to capital rather than
labor in the past generation. That's a political issue.
Musk violated securities laws (likely) in getting Solar City and Tesla
to merge. Beyond that he has risen capital based on the promise of new products
and increasing production. He hasn't delivered as fast as he promised. That
isn't securities fraud, business is hard. Particularly the automotive business.
Critics of the financial sector are claiming they're just paper pushers
who don't allocate capital to industry, yet here we have a glaring example
of where capital markets raise MASSIVE amounts of capital for an entirely
new industry.
There is a world of difference between personal debt, single company
corporate debt, and, economy-wide sovereign debt.
Now that's funny coming from you,Mave!
I was the one who pointed out,to you, the fact that there
was a world of difference between various kinds of debt, e.g., public vs
private debt. Up until I clued you in on that elementary fact, you stood
by your witless comment that "debt is good."
It's as corny and silly as Rand's utterly contemptible and sappy claim
that greed is good.
Try to keep up, will ya?
PS: What does your hero, Krugman say about debt?
Note to those who don't know what this is about, it's a feud between
me 'n The Mave, who is such a guru in econ 101 that he bids us read Krugman
if we want to understand "eekonomiks" as he does.
I mean, really, doesn't that reveal the level on which that one's thought
processes attempt to function?
That would explain a great deal of your typically frantic behaviour.
You have the laughable habit of erecting strawmen.
And that is a fine example of projection.
And speaking of strawman arguments, I responded to this, which is a direct
quote.:
One man's debt is another man's asset.
You would do well to look up the meaning of the word, "strawman."
The statement, as quoted, is evidence of an incapacity to analyze simple
concepts, and it indicates to me that he has nothing to offer me. It's really
quite simple, but keep trying.
Tesla would be profitable by now if it hadn't attempted to build an "alien
dreadnought" fully automated production line and hadn't bothered with the
Model X or Model 3. Other diversions like R&D for a fictitious semi aren't
helpful either.
EVs will be affordable in the next decade as global battery production
ramps up.
But most of these EVs will not be Teslas. They'll be from the traditional
OEMs and some new Chinese companies.
Yes, this is true. Labour share has gone down in relative terms.
Perhaps many categories of labour will continue to devalue, replaced
by automation. We may at some point need to do a cost-benefit analysis
of guaranteed minimum income. I remain somewhat circumspect of the notion.
The automation thing is bullshit handwaving sold by The Ecommunist as
a convenient excuse. The same publication that tells us we need massive
immigration.
We've been "automating" since Watt invented a functional steam engine
and Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny.
Even earlier, really. The Middle Ages saw the invention of the mouldboard
plough and the padded harness, increasing the productivity of agriculture.
Automation increases the value of human labor, though it does cause occupational
and sector displacement.
Guaranteed minimum income is the Silicon Valley version of bread & circuses.
The economic damage to the middle and working classes have been caused
by five things:
Only five things?
You think various scams and frauds such as bailouts, foreign "aid" and
skyrocketing public debt (used criminally in most cases ) have had no effect,
or are they covered by one or more of your five?
The Treasury Department made a profit on the bailout.
Foreign aid is much lower than it was during the golden days of the middle
class, and it's paid out of tax revenues (and bond sales) which are primarily
paid by the wealthy.
I'm opposed to both, but don't see how either harm the middle and working
classes.
I watched that interview a while back, I wish they asked him when his
car came off the line, I think he got one of the early cars, with Tesla
its a bad idea to buy the first cars built, wait for six months or a year
until they have fixed all the problems, after that I think the quality is
far better
The Saudis plan to float Aramco next year for that to be a success they
will want high oil prices, the frackers in the US may cause them problems,
but if the Saudis and the Russians want high prices they should be able
to get close to $100 a barrel if they work together
That should help Tesla and EV sales in general, today I passed my local
filling station on the way to work, petrol was €1.37 per litre and Diesel
was €1.47 per litre, with prices like that EVs have a bright future in Europe
and Asia
Also if Tesla can last long enough to build their Truck they will turn
that whole industry on its head
I'm not even entirely sure whether anyone went to the moon these
days.
I'm entirely sure we didn't.
And, there it goes. Ka-dink, swish, swirl, galook! Straight into the
Wackadoodle Dumper.
Do I recall correctly there being some sort of 80′s social wisdom about
the end of any discussion being the point at which someone was compared
to Hitler? Or somebody called someone a Nazi?
Nowadays, it's the point at which some ignorant jackass asserts a conspiracy
-- usually some variation on the voluminous and multi-fantastic 9/11 conspiracy
collections, but there's been a recent upsurge in moon landing conspiracies.
Electric trucks are a particularly dumb idea other than niche applications
like port trucking (where you could just build a narrow gauge railroad instead).
I'm opposed to both, but don't see how either harm the middle and
working classes.
You don't? Well, fancy that.
The explosive growth of the middle class, and its accelerating acquisition
of assets, is noteworthy. In no time at all, the middle class will re-acquire
the 95% of gross national wealth held by the to-be-pitied "1%". Oh, woe
be to the rich! They die off so swiftly, so unfairly.
The middle class grows fat with the undeserved profits they obtain from
exploiting the wealthy class. It's obscene. There oughta be a law!
Automation increases the value of human labor, though it does cause
occupational and sector displacement.
Isn't that what I said in: "Perhaps many categories of labour
will continue to devalue, " ?
Of course, automation started with the Wheel and labour to capital substitution
increases the marginal productivity of Labour [thus value of Labour]. Nothing
to do with what the Economist says [I don't usually read them].
As I also wrote I am circumspect of the idea of GMI. What I do know is
that the dislocations on account of capital/tech substitution is ratcheting
up very rapidly and that means in the interim we very likely will not see
any significant rise in wages for many categories of labour. How long these
dislocations remain, at what point we have a sufficiently well-endowed Labour
Force, I cannot predict.
I don't think so, if Tesla can deliver their truck with close to the
claimed specs then they will clearly change the whole industry, trunks only
get about 8mpg, so switching to electric power gives massive saving in fuel
and maintenance costs
from what we know plenty of companies with large fleets of trucks have
placed orders with Tesla, assuming Tesla do the job right and the trucks
run well after six months or a year someone will run the numbers for electric
Vs Diesel and there will only be one winner
In practice, owing to widespread atomophobia, fossil fuel energy is required
to produce hydrogen.
Even if atomophobes were sent to concentration camps (as they should
be), why would we want to invest massive amounts of capital for this project?
Because Toyota is enamored?
As I also wrote I am circumspect of the idea of GMI. What I do know
is that the dislocations on account of capital/tech substitution is
ratcheting up very rapidly and that means in the interim we very likely
will not see any significant rise in wages for many categories of labour.
How long these dislocations remain, at what point we have a sufficiently
well-endowed Labour Force, I cannot predict.
This is still nonsense. The biggest drop in wages occurred in the 1980s,
when union-busting kicked into high gear but the manufacturing base was
in tact (and frequently protected, against Reagan's own instincts).
The biggest loss in manufacturing jobs was in the 2000s, conveniently
right after China joined the WTO.
American manufacturing isn't even that automated. Robot density is significantly
lower than leaders like Japan, Germany, and South Korea.
Most of the deindustrialization effect is by now played out, and wages
would start rising again if immigration were actually clamped down on.
What's the evidence for "ratcheting up very rapidly"? Total factor productivity
growth isn't all that high these days.
There was recently an anon on this blog who was obviously an Indian.
He spoke of Dharma, etc. He is the only other fellow but you who I've heard
use the term "white trashionalist", which is a pretty odd coincidence.
Technically, the use of a battery of over seven thousand small lithium
cells ("2170s" – not much bigger than flashlight cells) to power a car feels
very wrong. Wrong because of the labor intensity of manufacture (even if
robotic); wrong because of the multiplication factor upon the reliability.
And just plain inelegant from an engineering point of view.
Still, and all, I know from first hand that courageous new ventures must
necessarily attract monumental criticism until they are finally proved successful:
it is so much easier just to say "no" to a new idea.
Somebody said "you can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs".
This is still nonsense. The biggest drop in wages occurred in the
1980s, when union-busting kicked into high gear but the manufacturing
base was in tact (and frequently protected, against Reagan's own instincts).
However, here is a question for you. If you decry the breakup of labour
unions, would you decry as well, a de-cartelisation of Banking? If not,
why not? [Banking is cartelised. Try obtaining a banking license]
Most of the deindustrialization effect is by now played out, and
wages would start rising again if immigration were actually clamped
down on.
That statement is nonsense. I am not a proponent of unrestricted immigration.
I support merit-based immigration. However, wages would not at all start
rising inevitably if immigration were severely restricted tomorrow. There
are many reasons for it, monopsony power of corporates is one big reason.
Forget Hydrogen powered cars, its a joke for people who don't understand
basic physics
Well, maybe. Petroleum will have the edge for another ten years, at least.
Long-term, however, some other energy source will be required. Fuel cells,
or some derivative thereof, may be a possibility. Solar energy for the separation
of water into H and O is free, although the implementation of method is
not.
er . 'White Trashionalist' is a term that has been used since the 90s.
Any basic Google search will confirm this.
If you took off your Gimp suit and got out of the cage once in a while,
you might start to become acquainted with the outside world, and why normal
white people like me avoid you at all costs.
1. Free trade means no tariff risks -- the rich get richer.
2. Immigration lowers labor costs -- the rich get richer.
3. Union busting lowers labor costs -- the rich get richer.
4. Monopolies increase profits directly -- the rich get richer.
5. Healthcare and its associated sub-industries are phenomenally profitable
-- the rich get richer.
I don't deplore the breakup of labor unions since I'm on the capital-management
side. American (and worse, British) labor unions fomented endless trouble
when they were powerful. Just pointing out that union busting obviously
had a major impact.
As for banking, I do support de-cartelisation.
Monopsony power and geographic arbitrage are certainly part of the picture.
Only two in the top ten are in the financial sector, and these days Buffet
is into a lot more than that. No bankers or asset managers.
No shit the rich are getting richer, Sherlock. That isn't the subject
of discussion at all. You're just an idiot like all these other doomerist
clowns.
I'm tired of replying to you morons who don't know shit from shinola.
Sam Shama can deal with you blockheads if he pleases.
You are an idiot. Petroleum will deplete, doofuss. Fuel
cells may be one option, and technologies for producing H from water are
open to development. Solar power has, currently, and I emphasize "currently",
the best profile. Ground-based solar panels are NOT the only option.
Fusion is also a possibility -- dicey, but still a possibility.
Excellent, and predictable! You have declared your expertise to be absolutely
unquestionable, denied all argument to the contrary, and you exit the lists
triumphantly.
SpaceX is obviously being funded by the USG. I can't fly a $25.00 drone
within 1000 yards of any airport, but the government stands by while some
private company flies objects into space? Not buying it.
Those "five things" are concomitant with the massive gains to the financial
sector and increase in its size. That is prima facie evidence right there.
Furthermore, we know financial interests and powerful individuals from the
financial sector have promoted those five things.
I didn't shift goalposts. Wages have stagnated, and so have household
incomes. Household size may have declined, but so what? Most households
used to have one income which was sufficient to support a wife and children.
It's not an example if, as you say, it only happened because of fraud
and illegal activity.
You're the idiot, its possible to buy a fuel cell Mirai in California
now but few people want one because there is no refuelling network, who
wants to buy a car that can't drive anywhere, at the same time the sales
of EVs continue to rise
I NEVER said petroleum would not deplete, but because of fracking its
not something to worry about yet
Using Solar power to create Hydrogen from water is a dumb idea, nobody
who understands the physics would do it, so its you who is the idiot
Forget about Hydrogen powered cars they will NEVER be sold in large numbers
Given my ancestral history, family traditions and values, no. It
has been instilled in me since birth as immoral and dishonorable.
Well, I can understand your tradition but not your perspective. Many
traditions are meant to be broken, but that aside, a hatred for finance,
wilfully conceals from the mind that which is so starkly obvious. None of
what you busy yourself with in your daily life, as in here and now in the
pursuit of keyboard games, would have hardly been possible without modern
finance.
Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, etc all required venture capital and then financial
engineering to get to where they are today. IBM needed the merger of four
companies, public stock issuance with the investment banking talent of Charles
Flint to gain its early incorporation. Do you think all of that would've
been possible without the financial sector? Not a chance.
Take our most gracious host. He is a brilliant man, a trained theoretical
physicist who wrote a piece of great software to value mortgage-backed securities
and then sold his company to another finance company called Moody's to become
independently wealthy. He now uses his wealth to promote free speech – a
very honourable purpose indeed. Hat tip. On occasion, he takes pot shots
at finance; a case, if ever there was one, of the socialite turning up her
nose at the very thing that made her a socialite!
Now, mortgage-backed securities are exactly the sort of financial innovation
that makes finance an indispensable part of any modern economy. How else
could one have high homeownership? This is not to claim that abuses do not
occur. They most certainly do. But show me an abuse-free Industry and I
will gift you a unicorn.
There is plenty of excellent public transit in negro infested cities.
The problem is the negro riders drivers mechanics and managers and heads
of the agencies.
Railroads have been pretty much 100% electrified the whole world over
for nearly 70 years now (except for a handful of tourist and "living museum"
steam trains).
Yet, except for a few very high density traffic segments and where socialist
bureaucracies imposed it such as the old Soviet Union, most railroads still
find it more efficient to have their electric locomotives carry their own
power plants with them than to use and maintain a central grid to provide
power to the locomotives.
Most Countries with modern railroads run electric trains powered by over
head wires, eg the French TGV, German ICE, thats the way any state or private
railway operates if they invest for the longterm
You seem to be talking about Diesel electric, thats something different,
and NO its not more efficient
What that has to do with Tesla, Fuel cells or Hydrogen you neglected
to say
I'd like to see an actual costed bill of materials.
Assuming it's true, it requires $6 billion capex and 150 weeks of 10,000
cars produced per week.
That's half a million cars a year, which of course need to be sold and
serviced. What's the global total addressable market (TAM) for compact executive
sedan (sedan market is crumbling) EVs?
Combined 2017 sales for the BMW 3-series, Mercedes Benz C-class, and
Audi A4 in the USA, Europe, and China was about 975,000 units.
Let's assume the global TAM for compact executive sedans is 2 million
units. Do one quarter of these buyers want EVs? Of those who do, will they
all choose the Model 3? Many, probably most, luxury car buyers have very
poor tolerance for quality and service problems.
And as Tesla also cannot be price competitive in Europe (10% tariff)
or China (25% tariff) without local assembly plants, most of these sales
will have to be made in North America. Countries like Norway are likely
to phase out or reduce their silly EV subsidies, which in any case will
be available to competitors. Tesla can also forget about major sales in
Japan (ever), Korea (ever), or India (without local assembly).
The truck is vaporware, so I wouldn't put much stock in Tesla's claimed
specs.
Most trucking, by ton miles, is long haul trucking.
The claimed 80% range (there will rarely be time to charge to 100%, so
80% "Megacharger" needs to be employed) is only 400 miles. After that, it's
a half-hour recharge.
The Megacharger itself is also dubious–one megawatt is a lot of power.
What kind of electric connectors and safety provisions will be employed?
Musk claims they'll be solar-powered. Really–a one megawatt solar array
at every truck stop? In reality they'll of course be grid connected.
Currently Tesla charges a quarter per kilowatt hour for its supercharger
stations. Based on one megawatt output and 30 minutes charging, the Semi
will take 30,000 kilowatt hour charge. That will cost $7,500. Recharging
from ordinary utility power would "only" cost $3,000.
A new Peterbilt can carry 300 gallons of diesel, which gives a fully
loaded truck a range of 1,800 miles. Filling those two 150 gallon tanks
is only $1,000.
So under realistic conditions energy costs for a new Peterbilt are 34
times lower than the Tesla Semi. Best case conditions, let's say in the
Pacific Northwest on ordinary utility power, "only" ten times.
This isn't like the Model S where recharging it costs you $10 and thus
beats even the most fuel efficient cars on the road.
The basic point that is being missed by this entire discussion is that
the inconvenience of having to plug your car to your house for 4 hours to
"refill" it is worth it only if what you save on gasoline makes the car
cheaper than owning an ICE.
When gasoline is $3 a gallon there are few electric vehicles that can
make this happen. You can get used Nissans for around $10,000.
Theoretically the Tesla Semi needs an 1,100 kwh battery bank.
That's $220 for 400 miles on the "Megacharger"–about the same as the
Peterbilt.
So energy cost is at parity. Range however is shorter and capex is higher
(battery alone almost as much as a new Peterbilt). Given Tesla's quality
issues, opex almost certainly higher as well.
Diesel trucks also have a lot more room to improve their energy efficiency.
There are for instance no hybrid semi trucks with regenerative braking yet,
but there will be. Trucks could also employ combined cycle engines, which
aren't practical in passenger cars owing to space issues.
In other words electric trucks only make good sense for niche applications
like port trucking and inner cities with air pollution concerns. They might
of course be mandated.
The recharging issue doesn't seem like a big deal for typical car users,
who mostly just commute and run errands. Just plug it in at night. If you
want to take a road trip, rent a car.
But they're not suitable for people like me, who need to drive hundreds
of miles (or longer) at a stretch a few times per month.
There's also a hard ceiling on how many EVs can be sold beyond that.
You have the "what if" buyers (look at all the people who buy trucks just
in case they need to move a buddy's couch), and then you have the gasoline-fueled
gearheads who hate EVs and refuse to buy them (also me).
In China it seems likely EVs will be mandated, but will this happen elsewhere?
Britain and France mandating 100% EV sales by 2040 is a joke–like government
policy won't be altered in a 22 year timespan.
Well, I can understand your tradition but not your perspective.
Perspective? Hatred? Where do you get this stuff?
I've been around for a few years, worked for large and small corporations,
in small towns and large metroplexes, from mailroom to CIO. I have yet to
encounter a professional in the "finance" industry who was, or is, an honest
man. You certainly have the option to pursue such a career. I choose not
to.
The financial sector makes billions from student loans used to pay tuition
to the educational racketeers.
Union busting was part of the corporate raising of the pension funds
and the corporate raiders who acquired and disassembled the big corporations
The .50 . 35 zoro interest rates are an evil thing done by the financial
sector. I don't know the motivation of that but zero interest rates are
definitely the fault of the financial sector
AGREE. An all-electric sedan is next on our list and perfectly fits our
needs.
Also, it seems that some EVs around here come with lease offers as good
as internal-combustion vehicles. So I'm not sure that the upfront cost is
greater all the time.
Using Solar power to create Hydrogen from water is a dumb idea, nobody
who understands the physics would do it, so its you who is the idiot
When petroleum depletes, how long will coal and NG last, whether for
power plants or hydrogen production? The remaining choices will be solar,
nuclear, or fusion -- all for electric power.
What's it going to be? Personally, I have a sneaky suspicion that somewhere
in flyover country a lot of progress is being made on laser-controlled fusion,
or some combo of magnetic bottle and laser.
What's more, I'll bet that we won't see a replacement power source until
some entity, under any of many names, is going to make a lot of money with
it.
The recharging issue doesn't seem like a big deal for typical car
users, who mostly just commute and run errands. Just plug it in at night.
If you want to take a road trip, rent a car.
Actually refueling is an inconvenience for me, it'd be simpler to just
plug it in for the night. Except, of course, on longer trips.
Regarding longer trips, currently it's difficult with an electric vehicle.
But maybe in a couple decades ranges will be double what they are, and most
drivers need stops after 500 kilometers to eat and go to the bathroom anyway.
So I guess fully electric vehicles will be fully usable for most users.
I suspect internal combustion engines will be prohibited from entering
a number of rich NIMBY localities. So eventually you will need a hybrid
with a fully electric mode to be able to go to some of your destinations.
Fully gasoline cars will therefore have only limited utility. A lot of people
will buy the cheaper electric only versions, and eventually these will be
the only versions on offer.
This will also be a reason for the electric trucks. Already electric
trolley-buses (often with batteries) are popular in cities. No one likes
diesel smoke, who wants his children to inhale it? Prohibiting diesel or
even all ICE vehicles will increase real estate prices. So local governments
will have an incentive to do that. Legally it's already possible in Germany,
and I suspect it will be possible elsewhere, too. Even the threat of it
was enough to drastically reduce demand for diesel cars in Europe. Once
demand is reduced, the incentive to develop them will be weaker, and eventually
they will be abandoned.
But the big picture is that there are at least 200 million regularly
used passenger vehicles in the United States. I actually look the exact
numbers up occasionally when I do the math. Maybe it is 300 million.
Every year, between 12 and 16 million new vehicles are added to this
and an equal number scrapped.
The buyers you describe are a tiny minority of this total.
We have to also consider the number of urban dwellers who wish to own
a car, but park on the street in places like Boston and for whom plugging
a car in overnight may be a serious issue.
And also there will be the undoubtedly growing number of Uber-type vehicles.
I foresee the EV market as being primarily of a luxury/toy character
for the next decade with an undeterminable number of taxi/fleet/Uber vehicles
added.
Tesla will most likely be a failure in this environment.
The Treasury Department made a profit on the bailout.
That's what they tell us. They always try to bullshit us.
Foreign aid is much lower than it was during the golden days of the
middle class, and it's paid out of tax revenues (and bond sales) which
are primarily paid by the wealthy.
And where do the wealthy get their money? At whose expense do they obtain
their monopolies and monopsonies and oligopolies and oligopsonies?
Do you really not think the US is devolving into a 2 class society?
Perceptive people have been noticing its development for a long time.:
I witnessed the momentous changes and participated
in them. While they were occurring I saw something
else that filled me with dread. I saw the government
of the United States enter into a struggle with the
trusts, the railroads and the banks, and I watched while
the business forces won the contest. I saw the forms
of republican government decay through disuse, and I
saw them betrayed by the very men who were sworn
to preserve and uphold them. I saw the empire of
business, with its innumerable ramifications, grow up
around and above the structure of government.
- R. F. PETTIGREW, TRIUMPHANT PLUTOCRACY, The Story ofAmerican Public
Life from 1870 to 1920.
Here's something more recent, although Pettigrew's comment still applies.:
Men haven't got the freedom today that they had when the Constitution
was written In that time, men could go into their own business. They
could follow farming and they could do this and that. Today, young men
in college are not planning on individual development, as much as getting
a job. They have someone else raise the money, and then they do the
work. And men haven't the freedom because big business doesn't give
it to them.
Your second attempt is far better but you're still too high on the recharge
cost, have another go at it
After that try to figure out the difference in maintenance costs over
the life of the truck, if you can get these numbers right it will start
to make sense to you
There are hundreds of thousands shares of TSLA available for short and
the short fee rate was 3.14% at the end of Friday (2018-06-01), is this
article a short pump like Muddy Water kind of analysis?
Yeah I do see your point on fusion, its only a matter of time before
some nerd or a group of nerds crack it, but I suspect the future will be
powered by Solar PV, the cost keeps dropping and its easy and quick to install
That's what they tell us. They always try to bullshit us.
If you don't accept the audited figures of the Treasury Department, it's
not possible to discuss TARP's profitability unless you have other figures
which suggest the government suffered a loss.
Which in macroeconomic terms wouldn't have been a bad thing at the time
(stimulus), but certainly would increase the injustice.
And where do the wealthy get their money? At whose expense do they
obtain their monopolies and monopsonies and oligopolies and oligopsonies?
#1 – Software, specifically PC operating systems and office software
#2 – Online retail and webhosting
#3 – Investing, largest operations being manufacturing, transportation (BNSF),
and insurance
#4 – Social media (advertising)
#5 – Enterprise software (databases)
#6 – Diversified, but mostly energy
#8 – Financial news
#9 – Search (advertising)
#10 – Search (advertising)
I can go into more detail on each.
Bill Gates: IBM fucked up and let him own DOS
Jeff Bezos: Raised capital from venture capital and an IPO, financed
expansion thereafter out of cashflow. Net worth is also inflated based on
an unrealistic expectation of hockey stick earnings trajectory.
Suckerberg: Stole the idea from the Winkelvoss twins, raised capital
from VC. Lucked out when MySpace turned into a black ghetto.
Larry Ellison: Unsure if VC was involved, IPO in '86 was essential.
Came out with the best database during the critical 90s
Bloomberg: Came out with a superior product for traders who had
never used computers before
Page & Brin: Superior search product, raised seed money through
VC, universities, and military-industrial complex
The people who "suffer"? Consumers and competitors. Though hard to see
how Jeff Bezos harms consumers. Likewise the real consumers of Facebook
and Google (advertisers) don't suffer either (the suckers who use the platforms
are a different story).
Do you really not think the US is devolving into a 2 class society?
When did I say it isn't? Might be more than two classes, but I basically
agree and so do the data.
Pettigrew describes a time which is somewhat like our own.
As for Rankin, blaming "Big Business" for this is more or less a tautology.
The idealized freedom of early America was possible because of the boundless
amounts of land. Capital tends to concentration, and this wasn't actually
a novel observation by Marx. People have known this for thousands of years.
The mid-20th century was an odd time of relative egalitarianism which
developed out of unique historical conditions. It's not likely to be repeated.
manorchurch, the other day you kindly promised to ignore me in the future.
Please abide by it, or at least refrain from answering my comments, if all
you have to offer is name-calling. Thank you.
Let's start at home, in DETROIT, where apparently this writer has never
visited except on the pages of Car & Driver. Roger Smith? Are you kidding?
Detroit is the world capital of incompetence. Roger Smith? Why not Ford's
"genius" Donald Petersen (who publicly admitted being a Mensa member)?
I sold robots to Detroit in the 80's. If you never entered an assembly
plant or parts plant, you should shut the fuck up about what they were then
or now. I have dealt with every type of manufacturing and most types of
service company in my career, none have been remotely as dysfunctional as
auto manufacturing.
Re Tesla, yes, the Model 3 is following the Model X and original Roadster
into a crapfest. But the fanboys don't care. The Model S can still smoke
a Ferrari in the 1/4mi. So the pop media will continue giving Musk a pass
and the gearheads (real ones anyway) will continue to marvel (but probably
never buy). I would be shocked if our pathetic anarcho-tyrannical government
found the balls to call Musk on his shenanigans especially given its own
shenanigans with Government Motors and the UAW.
You mention Ford Europe but not GM (Opel & Vauxhall), wonder why..
Bob Lutz? The dude's like 90 now. Come on. I can walk to his house and
see if he knows whether he's home or not if it helps. But I haven't seen
him on a motorcycle in years or flying for years and those are his passions
in life.
And Ford? Have you ever really looked at the results of a feng shui Chairman
on an industrial company like ole Henry built? The apples have fallen very
far from the tree. Handing the reigns to Mark Field, who lives in Naples,
Florida, was a typically incompetent move by feng shui Billy (the landscaping
at his house occupies him apparently more than the functionality of his
great grandfathers company). Put it like this, Ford is every bit as competently
run as it's sister company the Detroit Lions. Class B stock!
The only things I can endorse in this piece are (1) Toyota has its shit
together more than Detroit (or Honda apparently given their incompetence
in F1), and (2) electrics will not fully replace internal combustion without
government mandates (what kind of idiot would buy a Model S over the slower
Ferrari V12s)?
Tesla Tier 2 Supercharger cost is 25 cents a kilowatt hour in most states.
What's wrong with the figure?
In theory an EV has lower maintenance costs owing to the absence of an
internal combustion engine and complex transmission. In practice Teslas
have higher maintenance costs than conventional vehicles owing to their
poor quality control.
Let's start at home, in DETROIT, where apparently this writer has
never visited except on the pages of Car & Driver. Roger Smith? Are
you kidding? Detroit is the world capital of incompetence. Roger Smith?
By your own admission, Elon Musk chose to copy Roger Smith's disastrous
manufacturing strategy of the 1980s. It's likely he had never heard of this,
as if he had he would not have proceeded with the "alien dreadnought".
Why not Ford's "genius" Donald Petersen (who publicly admitted being
a Mensa member)?
During Petersen's time in the Ford C-suite the company introduced the
Taurus, Escort (North America), and Explorer.
I sold robots to Detroit in the 80's. If you never entered an assembly
plant or parts plant, you should shut the fuck up about what they were
then or now. I have dealt with every type of manufacturing and most
types of service company in my career, none have been remotely as dysfunctional
as auto manufacturing.
I have visited a number of assembly plants.
Probably a salesman (actually, a lot of salesmen) thirty years younger
than you sold robots to Musk.
The global auto industry, warts and all, produced almost one hundred
million cars last year. What other industry produces complex machines on
such a massive scale?
You mention Ford Europe but not GM (Opel & Vauxhall), wonder why..
I'm well aware GM gave up on Europe. None the less "New GM" has posted
a cumulative of $70 billion in profits since it and Tesla IPO'd in the same
year.
Bob Lutz? The dude's like 90 now. Come on. I can walk to his house
and see if he knows whether he's home or not if it helps. But I haven't
seen him on a motorcycle in years or flying for years and those are
his passions in life.
Other than the hybrid diversion (last thing Tesla needs), what about
this is wrong?
And Ford? Have you ever really looked at the results of a feng shui
Chairman on an industrial company like ole Henry built? The apples have
fallen very far from the tree. Handing the reigns to Mark Field, who
lives in Naples, Florida, was a typically incompetent move by feng shui
Billy (the landscaping at his house occupies him apparently more than
the functionality of his great grandfathers company). Put it like this,
Ford is every bit as competently run as it's sister company the Detroit
Lions. Class B stock!
Bill Ford is indeed a dipshit. He's even a vegan .
None the less Ford manages to build six million cars a year and has vast
resources.
As you allude to later, it's not just Ford and GM. There are lots
of automakers with vast resources.
The only things I can endorse in this piece are (1) Toyota has its
shit together more than Detroit (or Honda apparently given their incompetence
in F1), and (2) electrics will not fully replace internal combustion
without government mandates (what kind of idiot would buy a Model S
over the slower Ferrari V12s)?
Toyota is late to the EV party. But I have a feeling it won't take them
long to catch up with their eleven-figure annual profits and $25 billion
in the bank.
Its wrong because you assume the Megachargers will be priced the same,
we don't know this yet
Second I suspect most of the trucks will be charged over night for far
less than 25cents per kilowatt, the Tesla truck will easily beat Diesel
trucks on running costs, no doubt about that IMO, thats why Tesla have over
2000 orders, the industry won't be slow to dump the ICE
with Tesla any brand its a bad idea to buy the
first cars built, wait for six months or a year until they have fixed
all the problems, after that I think the quality is far better
FIFY
BTW, you can see this play out in the market if you watch the manufacturer
auctions. Look at the number of manufacturer buyback units in the lanes.
But, true, we don't know what the price will be yet.
If charged overnight you're right, though again those trucks won't come
from Tesla.
Diesel trucks could match these energy costs by adopting combined cycle
hybrid powertrains, and perhaps moving to natural gas. Of course then the
upfront capital cost advantage presumably disappears.
The "orders" (truck is vaporware and will never enter production) might
be down to running costs, but don't forget hype and trend following.
Charlie Munger likes to talk about when in the 80s Exxon bought a fertilizer
company. All of the other oil majors followed and bought their own fertilizer
plants. It turned into a fiasco.
Tesla and SpaceX are the shiny stars of the American technology, it cannot
fail in front of the rising power of China. Most of the Americans believe
in that and pinning their hope on Musk to turn Make American Great dream
come true.
I don't think it fair to call the Megachargers vapourware, they will
be built
Why won't the Tesla trucks be charged over night ?
ah OK you think the whole thing is never going to happen, fair enough
only time will tell I suppose, but if Tesla show even a small profit by
the end of the year they will last until 2019 and we will see the trucks
on the road
Second I suspect most of the trucks will be charged over night for
far less than 25cents per kilowatt, the Tesla truck will easily beat
Diesel trucks on running costs, no doubt about that IMO, thats why Tesla
have over 2000 orders, the industry won't be slow to dump the ICE
They need to develop roadside swappable batteries or inductive charging
while underway before we see OTR tractor widespread adoption. 2K units is
nothing in that market. And unlike early adopters of electric autos, early
adopters of electric tractors will be betting their livelihood on the reliability
of the machine and range is a much bigger issue since even city trucks are
frequently run all day every day. Also, have they come up with reefer trailers
(or boxes) yet?
SpaceX is very different to Tesla, Teslas future is in doubt, SpaceX
clearly lead the world in rocket technology, most people think Musk is bullshitting
about sending people to Mars but he's well on the way now, the only company
close to SpaceX is Blue Origin and they won't reach orbit until 2020 if
it all goes well for them
Has anyone seen a Tesla Megacharger? It doesn't exist. Hence it's vaporware.
That doesn't mean it couldn't be built or anything, obviously there's nothing
intrinsically impossible about producing a megawatt charger.
Why won't the Tesla trucks be charged over night ?
My prediction is that long haul trucking will move towards using trucks
24 hours a day once self-driving technology gets good enough and the human
driver can sleep on the road. Letting a truck sit overnight is such a waste.
Alternatively fleets can swap drivers, but obviously that's a bit complicated
which is why it's not really done now. Plus in North America at least most
trucks are owner-operated (different in Europe of course, don't know how
it works in Asia).
ah OK you think the whole thing is never going to happen, fair enough
only time will tell I suppose, but if Tesla show even a small profit
by the end of the year they will last until 2019 and we will see the
trucks on the road
Tesla has already admitted the truck is not currently under "active development",
which gets to the heart of the problem of the company. They've obviously
proven they can engineer great products and have tremendous star power,
but they're not very good at anything else.
Based on Tesla's production track record it's exceedingly unlikely they'll
post a profit at the end of this year.
That's not to say there won't be electric trucks. You've already made
a great case as to why there will be electric trucks.
The suicidal Tesla was a convert to Islam. Belgium's full of them. Lucky
that it did not try to board a train like that crazy shooter in the Clint
Eastwood film.
True enough, but they have a very monopolistic look about them. On the
one hand monopolies are great (very profitable) but on the other, they allow
price gouging since there's no competition – hence the legislation.
Monopolies can delay the fateful day by buying politicians ( the present
bought and paid for Congress), but longer term they need a dictatorship
(of the proletariat, of big business, or Counter Culturals or Zionists or
anything really) to shut down the public, with some kind of "Homeland Security"
to detain dissidents.
This is where we are now, with the antidote being the breakup of the
Union. Each Federal State fixes its own spending, taxation and debt issuance
(disowning the FED), and requires by law, active citizen participation and
voting to determine policy (e.g. no votes or budget for an Iran war).
I agree that the mid 20th century middle working class was anomaly that
will never be repeated unless a miracle happens and the US population goes
down to 20o million
As if mortgage finance preceded people living in homes. And forget all
the bullshit spewed about how much home ownership is indispensable for a
society: American culture (people enjoying the actual way they live) was
far better pre-1900 than it is today.
One additional nail in Tesla's coffin could conceivably come from the
failure of Global Warming to materialize as predicted. Indeed, the 17-year-long
'pause' in global warming continues, even though the amount of CO2 in the
Earth's atmosphere is now beyond 400 ppm.
Yet, to date, there have been no environmental catastrophies tied to
anthropogenic global warming. Dire predictions from the 'warmist community'
have been a bust.
Keep in mind also that the natural forces and variables that steer our
planet's climate and weather are immense and, in some cases, not fully understood.
Mysteries abound. The interactive effects of these natural forces are chaotic,
unpredictable, and presently beyond the reach of even any supercomputer.
Climate mysteries continue.
If catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming does not arrive as predicted
(very possible) then the carbon taxes and pro-EV tax breaks might come to
a sudden and surprising halt. This will further undermine Tesla's rent-seeking
economic strategy.
It seems Tesla is going to defile the name of famous inventor? His name
shall be the synonym for the smart selling of sweet foam, in an extremely
advanced packaging. Will the Tesla family sue EM for this shame?
By your own admission, Elon Musk chose to copy Roger Smith's disastrous
manufacturing strategy of the 1980s. It's likely he had never heard
of this, as if he had he would not have proceeded with the "alien dreadnought".
Not at all. Smith's epic failure wasn't in attempting to automate, but
in attempting to change Detroit. The robots weren't the problem. They put
wheels on cars and torqued the lug nuts. They welded panels. They tacked
off primed bodies before being painted. They applied paint and clear coat.
The problem was in the laborers who worked the floor and sabotaged the robots
or simply just didn't do their jobs.
I've seen hundreds of auto workers asleep on the assembly line. Asleep.
Or nodding off on dope. Massive signs in Ford bathrooms "employees caught
using drugs on premise will be referred". Books have surely been written
on the insanity of the UAW. If not, there's a mountain of material just
waiting.
I had constant customer calls in the 80's about workers screwing up my
robots and destroying both units on the line as well as severely damaging
my machines, taking them out of operation (and thus stopping the line) until
I could send crews to fix them. Routine maintenance wasn't done either and
fully half the machines were less than useless at any given time, resulting
in rework rates that were no better than before the machines were installed.
Electric vehicles are a more energy efficient form of transport, so it
will be cheaper in the long-term scale – whether there is man-made global
warming or not. There would be less chance for subsidies in the latter case,
but the intrinsically more energy efficient transport will eventually win
on costs without subsidies.
Although main advantage in my opinion is more simply moving emission
fumes away from population centers.
Alternatively fleets can swap drivers, but obviously that's a bit
complicated which is why it's not really done now. Plus in North America
at least most trucks are owner-operated (different in Europe of course,
don't know how it works in Asia).
Driving teams are common as chrome in the OTR biz. It's another major
obstacle for electrics as a diesel fill takes 20 minutes and the rig is
back on the road with one team member snoozing in the sleeper and one behind
the wheel. JIT manufacturing and produce demand it.
Self driving OTR tractors are an interesting subject. Who will insure
them? Private auto liability is one thing, company owned tractors are another.
My belief is that government would have to step in and limit liability claims
against AI drivers for this to ever work. And with the Democratic Party
run by trial lawyers
"Elon Musk is now warning that unless we want to become these computer's
"pets", we must ourselves merge with AI (artificial intelligence). Intel
says that by 2020 human brains will contain chips which will run the computers
to "prevent" this AI takeover.
These kinds of fear-provoking statements reflect the old Masonic project
advancement technique of problem-reaction-solution, or Ordo Ab Chao (Order
out of Chaos). They first create a problem, then fix it with a Draconian
solution which will advance their Great Work of Ages or New World Order."
Yes, thank you. It was one of the very central ideas Krugman wanted to
drive home, particularly for David Brooks' readership.
You insist on calling it funny, which is your prerogative. A sense of
humour is rather a personal taste, and I do understand your position. Better
than you or I go into the same routine, it might better serve purposes to
take a squint at some of the top comments:
Ron Mitchell
Dubin, CAAug. 21, 2015
Times Pick
Our Federal Budget is around $3.5 Trillion. Our GDP (national income) is
around $20 Trillion. Our nations net worth (savings and investments) is
around $80 Trillion. There is plenty of money available to borrow. If Growth
exceeds investments then the nation makes a profit.
122 Recommend
Joe From Boston
MassachusettsAug. 21, 2015
Times Pick
For all those fiscal conservative who have a big problem with government
debt (but who assure us that the government should behave like our individual
households), consider this:
Private debt for economically sound purposes, like buying a home or building
a business, that are expected to provide an economic return, are reasonable
debts.
Private debt for reasons that have, or are expected to provide, no economic
return, like going on a fancy vacation, are not reasonable debts if they
endanger one's ability to pay them back. I was raised with the precept that
"if you can't afford it, don't buy it."
Can you conservatives kindly explain why debt to build infrastructure
that we clearly need, like roads, bridges, the tunnel under the Hudson for
Amtrak, and so forth, are UNREASONABLE? They will generate an excess economic
return, as history has shown, for example with the interstate road system
and the railroads. They will also generate jobs that can only be performed
by local personnel, typically AMERICANS
David desJardins
Burlingame CAAug. 21, 2015
Times Pick
Maybe we should also mention that the balance sheet of the US government
is strongly positive. The tangible assets it owns (even ignoring future
tax revenue) are worth much more than its debt. Calling the government broke
is like calling a homeowner broke because he has a $1 million mortgage on
his $3 million home.
Other than the hybrid diversion (last thing Tesla needs), what about
this is wrong?
Um, $2/gal gas?
Detroit does this again and again and again. They were too stupid to
see that the Minority Mortgage Meltdown (TM Steve Sailer) would stuff their
business model. Too stupid to see that rising fuel prices would stuff their
reliance on pickups and body-on-frame SUVs for profitability. Too stupid
to see that models like the Taurus, apparently designed solely for fleet
sales, were unwanted by consumers who preferred the reliability of a Camry.
In the mid 2000's, dealers were dumping MSO SUV units at auction below factory
invoice – years before the financial collapse.
GM's recent profits are entirely at the expense of communities hosting
derelict abandoned toxic sites that were formerly GM factories as well as
non-UAW labor retirees who lost everything. Thanks Obola Feral Government.
No matter, Detroit incompetence will restore the status quo soon enough.
Saturn 2 maybe? A new, new type of car company..
Fuel prices are heading sharply back north at the same time the manufacturers
are abandoning sedans for SUVs and crossovers. Future "clunkers" when that
Feral program is rebooted.
As for the rush to EVs, it's ONLY due to Tesla's market valuation that
Detroit is producing crap like Volt/Bolt. I've seen Ford admit this and
I'm sure GM is on the same wavelength since independent thought in Detroit
died the day Heinz Prechter blew his brains out. Soon enough I expect to
see local storage lots filled with Bolt/Volt/Jolt/Dolt models just like
they used to be filled with EV-1s.
Since the comments have gone off topic, let me expound on a proposal
I submitted in 2001. I believe there is a low tech device that can be used
to generate electricity from fusion.
Build a "box" big enough and strong enough to contain a full blown thermal
nuclear explosion.
Such a box could also generate electricity from the permanent disposal
of high level nuclear waste such as spent fuel rods.
If you insist, I'll publish the proposal and some of the responses.
Those people you list owe their fortunes to network effect monopolies.
Their fortunes are based on rent-seeking due to the network effect aka network
externality aka natural monopoly.
A tax on net assets at a rate equal to the rate of interest on the national
debt that eliminates other forms of taxation will mitigate this private
sector rent seeking and help restore the egalitarian middle class society
of the mid 20th century.
The economic damage to the middle and working classes have been caused
by five things
No. Those things worsen the situation but are more or less reversible.
What is really painful and persists generation after generation is the cyclical
nature of our economic pattern of growth. When financial bubbles periodically
collapse they cause a great deal of human suffering, even to the rich, but
I don't believe that there is any natural law that demands that economic
growth must proceed through cycles of general expansion and general collapse.
At the same time, these "business cycles" of bubbles and crashes are difficult
to imagine in a world without fractional reserve banking.
Now, I don't know what the exact disadvantages of a full reserve banking
system would be. My knowledge is limited and I haven't had the time to think
or read about it in depth. But I get the impression that academics mostly
avoid discussing this issue. The fractional reserve banking issue is generally
(though not always) brought up by Libertarians so some appear to consider
it an unworthy matter of debate. Still, if we could manage to avoid the
plague of economic crises and depressions, we would all be much better off,
regardless of all those income distributions trends.
I iike the way Aldrin was physically attacking a 'Moon-landings never
happened' type some years ago.
OTOH, unlike your other intelocutor, I find the arguments interesting.
You use a very weak point, once out of the Earth's gravity well, it is
taking little energy to go further.
More interesting is that all of the Apollo astronauts (except the ones
burnt on the launch pad) had relatively long lives.
As you also say, why no radiation effects?
I have a nice program on my phone, from Russia, it is a 'day of the ISS'.
When I am watching it, I try to study Russian Cyrillic, but also thinking
'this looks like a space-ship, but it is not going anywhere, except low
orbit.'
Roscosmos was offering an Apollo 8 style flight around the Moon on a
modern Soyuz for many years, of course, very expensive, but well within
the means of space-fan tech billionaires and many others
No such flight was ever booked, surprising to me, and it is no longer
on offer, AFAIK.
Why?
Unlike you, I won't say 'the Moon landings never happened', but
Hell, O.J.Simpson did a Moon-landimg in Capricorn 1、
Another reason Tesla is a failed business model and always was, as any
auto manufacturing start-up would be at this juncture, is the fact that
as a species Human has reached Peak Mobility. We're on the downside of Mobility
now due to resource constraints. Mobility from here on out will only increase
in virtual world electronically via bits & bytes. And hey, they're working
on Teleportation so who knows, in 40 years Scotty may be beaming us to the
gold mines in the Congo where we can direct the African slaves digging away
in the dirt to exactly which nuggets we want for our gold toilets.
EVs have had forever now to prove themselves and sorry, it's just never
going to happen. The next latest & greatest technology related to Mobility
is in The Pipeline and EVs were squashed by the auto manufacturers for far
too long to the point it missed the Opportunity Window for scalable implementation.
If the Elite want the next latest & greatest in Mobility Technology,
they're going to have to pay dearly for it rather than doing what they've
done in the past and roll out scalable perverted facsimiles of the technology
to the masses in order to subsidize their Bells & Whistles versions. That
can't & won't happen with this next wave of cutting edge Mobility Technology.
It will be for the Elite only, and the Elite will have to pay dearly for
it.
The Working Class was, and still is, its own worst enemy. It bought into
the Myth that their Precious Little Darlings were all Einsteins waiting
to Self-Actualize and so they spent gobs of their hard-earned money to send
those Precious Little Darlings to University to kick-start that process
of Einsteinatization.
Guess what? It never materialized. Surprise-Surprise!!! Their Precious
Little Darlings, as it turns out, weren't Einsteins afterall, but instead
Unremarkable Cube Monkeys, Corporate Catamites if you will, with worthless
diplomas versus diploma-less Factory Floor Workers with the only difference
being, as a Cube Monkey you get to press the Internet Levers all day as
a perk and if you press the right ones, you get a banana, a rarity, if you're
lucky.
How did The Working Class expect to maintain itself if the jobs it was
working weren't good enough for the Little Einsteins it was raising? By
virtue of this fact, it forfeited any right to complain about its jobs disappearing
since it fueled the demand-destruction of those jobs in mythologically believing
its progeny were too good for such ignoble endeavors.
You use a very weak point, once out of the Earth's gravity well,
it is taking little energy to go further.
The point is that near Earth orbit is still within the gravity
well; reaching Earth orbit takes only a small fraction of the energy required
to actually leave the well.
As you also say, why no radiation effects?
Not necessarily radiation effects, but lunar missions should have resulted
in measurably higher readings on the dosimeters than Earth orbit missions.
Bicycles are the only advancement in human transportation.
Cars are actually slower. Slow as walking.
The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7500 miles: less than
five miles per hour. In countries deprived of a transportation industry,
people manage to do the same, walking wherever they want to go, and
they allocate only 3 to 8 percent of their society's time budget to
traffic instead of 28 percent.
I salute your inventiveness, Mark. However, I believe the "thermonuclear
containment box", while useful for small applications, produces a mere googol
of terawatts over a 1500-year lifetime of power production.
Compare that trivial output to that of the "Congress-critter containment
box", which produces a googolplex of terawatts over an eternal lifetime.
I think you'll agree that nothing matches the pure heat output of massed
Congressional representatives. Throw in their loyal staffs, and the people
of Earth could spend weekends in the Andromeda galaxy, while never lacking
for air-conditioning.
But, do keep inventing, Mark. And send a few bucks every week to your
loyal, hard-working Congressperson.
The roof tiles raised some eye brows here in Wales. Tata Steel (& predecessors)
has been developing them for over 10 years. The problem is not a PV layer.
The problem is that 20 years of neglect on a roof requires very good coating
technology. Even coloured tiles, where Tata is teçhnical leader, are quite
demanding. Very few good players.
The electricity that EV's consume will have been subject to large conversion
losses and large transmission losses. Overall natural gas well/çoal mine
to rubber on the road needs economic renewables or baseload nukes to make
sense.
Biological hydrogen (think methane and ammonia) is the likely route if
hydrogen ever becomes economic. There are production sites now and a UK
railway company plans fuel cell locomotives shortly. That said locos are
going out of fashion in favour of mixed multiple units, Japanese style (electric
or diesel under every alternate cars). No good for a US freight railway.
Electric trucks are a particularly dumb idea other than niche applications
like port trucking (where you could just build a narrow gauge railroad
instead)
.
The electric trucks will start at the port like the containers did, then
spread out with the help of rebuilt hiway systems dedicated to that development
I think. Steel rails were great in their day, (before there was digital
systems to guide vehicles precisely and reliably,) that is what they do
by restraining the wheels to a particular long pre-established rote path.
(Some switching is allowed, little as possible.)
Rubber tire is king now. Check out the robots in this video of automatic
port.
Not how all the wheels steer for tight turning, and they are slow for
now, but will speed up later.
New rail road loading/discharge near the ships are automated too, double
stacked etc.
Narrow gauge is for mines in the old days, and amusement parks.
And they are expected to last a lot longer so amortization will be over
20+ years. Which is why they may become taxis for the masses while only
the rich, the rural and petrolheads own personal vehicles.
Electric motor is (a lot) more efficient at converting electrical energy
to mechanical energy, than internal combustion engine conversion of the
chemical energy in hydrocarbon, into thermal energy, into mechanical energy
.
You're right, there is a trick here.
The electrical energy itself has to be produced (and transported and
stored).
But natural gas, coal, fuel oil, and even petroleum electricity generation,
then to electric motor, is still not only a much more efficient energy conversion
process (than the ICE), but there are far more various sources– while sources
of petroleum are limited, and in many places require long transportation
to even get to the market.
The funny part is that, even with an extra step forward and a step backward,
petroleum electricity generation, to the electric motor, will still be more
efficient use of petrol to mechanical energy conversion (as far efficiency
of the initial power station conversion is so much better than the engine
in the car).
And we can already see reflected in the market the end of the whole comparison
– in lower costs per kilometer traveled in an electric vehicle than an internal
combustion engine powered vehicle.
On second thought, your objection to my gravity argument has merit –
I neglected the kinetic energy of the Earth orbit, which already amounts
to roughly one half of the energy required to leave Earth's gravity. Still,
if we assume roughly equal energy expenditure for reaching Earth orbit and
for going from there to the moon, then there remains a noticeable discrepancy
between 1/25 payload to Earth orbit and 1/3 payload from Earth orbit to
moon.
Biological hydrogen (think methane and ammonia) is the likely route
if hydrogen ever becomes economic.
I'm inclined to agree, emphasis on "if" hydrogen becomes the default.
There's power options enough for surface transportation and domestic
electric grid. As I said, I really do suspect there is a fusion power method
that will manifest itself when outages begin, and mucho money can be made.
Have you any thoughts on a replacement aircraft fuel?
One question I had in mind is what Model 3 owners think of their cars.
I mean, those whose cars haven't crashed yet, which is the vast majority.
One annoying stereotype is that Tesla owners are like vegans or crossfit
enthusiasts, they just can't stop talking about their hobby. This is actually
a good thing for the company. Its owners destroy their own reputations to
enhance that of the company. Nassim Taleb wrote that he bought a Tesla after
his neighbor has had one for a couple years and was still enthusiastic about
it.
The electricity that EV's [sic] consume will have been subject to
large conversion losses and large transmission losses.
Y es, this is an intractable problem that is further complicated
by inefficiencies introduced to the electrical grid by intermittent, unreliable
power sources such as wind turbines and solar arrays. It's like using a
very long, leaky hose on a gas pump to fill your tank. Some of the fuel
just spills on the ground, and never makes it to your car, but you
we pay for it anyway.
Batteries remain the other big problem with EVs. Current battery technology
does not give EVs adequate range to make them practical for anything but
local errands and light commuting. In addition, lithium ion batteries are
dirty to produce, but since most of the production is done off shore and
out of sight in China, the Greenies with more money than common sense
can feel all virtuous and superior hauling groceries -- or zipping out
to Starbucks for a frothy latte -- in their pricey EV.
Coal is our most abundant fuel. There may be several hundred years
worth of coal reserves , but green propaganda has convinced many scientific
ignoramuses that coal is too dirty to burn because it supposedly contributes
to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that might lead to
runaway global warming where Earth could become like Venus.
Wc can thank Carl Sagan for some of that runaway science fiction.
The United States has about 25% of the world's proven coal reserves.
We could probably be entirely energy efficient if we burned our coal, which
can be done cleanly and efficiently in modern coal-fired power plants with
scrubbers and other technology to remove pollution.
Irrespective of the EPA's idiotic proclamations, CO₂ is not a pollutant.
However, carbon dioxide does help plants grow bigger and better while requiring
less H₂O, which is the reason many greenhouse operators elevate the CO₂
levels in their growing enclosures for a real greenhouse effect from the
mighty molecule.
In the meanwhile, the so-called "renewable" energy sources like wind
turbines and solar arrays can't carry their own weight, and must rely on
back-up conventional power plants fired by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear
fission for when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine. Even
with big loans and subsidies, operations like Solyndra have gone belly up,
costing taxpayers $535 million for that single boondoggle alone, thanks
to the poor man's friend waging his war on coal, Barrack Obama.
But of course, thorium reactors that will fit in the trunk of your EV
are coming real soon now , so there's a real hot tip for all
you stock market tycoons looking to make a bundle; just be careful where
you stick it.
The biogenic origin of oil is a theory. The competing abiotic or abiogenic
theory of the origin of petroleum argues that oil is produced naturally
in the bowels of the Earth, and wells up toward the surface where it accumulates
in the so-called reservoir rocks, or formations.
A mangled version of the abiogenic origin of oil was offered to the West
by Thomas Gold, but most of the original work was done by Russians and Ukrainians
during the Soviet era based on theories originally espoused by Von Humbolt,
Mendeleev, and others in the 19th century.
(Grammar note: Never use apostrophe+s -- ('s) -- to form plural
of nouns in English, except when forming the plural of lower case letters,
like p's and q's).
The biogenic origin of oil is a theory. The competing abiotic or
abiogenic theory of the origin of petroleum argues that oil is produced
naturally in the bowels of the Earth, and wells up toward the surface
where it accumulates in the so-called reservoir rocks, or formations.
Jeeze, bullshit doth verily abound. Petroleum is composed of organic
compounds from the breakdown of plants. First thing abiotic theory must
produce is an explanation of how rocks deep in the mantle manage to produce
organic compounds containing eukaryotic DNA.
how rocks deep in the mantle manage to produce organic compounds
containing eukaryotic DNA
I t's not a very strong argument. There are heat-loving microbes
that consume oil -- and some kind of microbe eats virtually everything else
-- so finding organic remains within the oil is no great surprise, and even
if they don't eat it, they might get caught up in it, like Smilodon
at La Brea, a cat with only 8 lives. Association does not prove causation
any more than the presence of fish in the sea proves that the fish created
the water.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft showed us that Saturn's moon Titan has sizable
surface lakes full of ethane, methane, and propane, proving incontrovertibly
that you don't need vegetation or the "breakdown of plants" to create the
so-called "fossil fuels."
Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas
and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas
reserves on Earth, scientists said today.
We humans are still relative ignoramuses about Earth, and have only just
scratched the surface of our own planet, with the deepest drills going down
only about 40,000 ft. or so, while the fabled journey to the center of the
Earth would require a trip of about 4,000 miles straight down, so we aren't
quite there yet, but watch out! According to climate authority, almost-President,
inventor of the Internet, and green guru Al Gore, "The interior of the earth
is extremely hot, several millions of degrees."
Whew! No wonder he's worried about the Earth melting.
If hydrocarbons are created naturally on Titan, there is no reason to
doubt that they could be created naturally on Earth as well. In fact, as
far as we can tell, hydrocarbon molecules appear to be common and widespread
throughout the universe.
"Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the most abundant complex
molecules in space.
As things get nasty, China will resort to overt military pressure
on the rest of the world, or maybe it will give up its objective of
global domination and rely on everyone being nice to it!
Economic domination, by for example China (or really anyone else) cannot
be stopped or even impeded by means of military pressure or diplomatic intrigue
– the two main tools favored by Washington. Biased reporting by the "Fake
News Media" is even more ineffective.
What WILL WORK is what worked in the 1980s in responding to Japan's rise:
the United States and Germany got their economic houses in order, and even
South Korea and Taiwan aggressively ramped up their quality and productivity
to get up to Japan's level.
It was a long process for all of these nations, but it was the only option.
E-Trade shows a 1% Hard to Borrow fee for Tesla, which isn't really bad
considering it's prorated over a year. It costs barely over a penny a day
per share to short.
Surely, one cannot blame the whole financial sector. But certain parts
of it would not survive without Government bail outs every 10-20 years.
Those parts are definitivly working in a parasitic manner by shifting their
risks on the general public by levereging their systemic importance ("too
big to fail" etc ).
Also, as one hears from some traders, the stock market is used less and
less to raise fresh capital for companies but operates more like a zero
sum casino game for speculators. Of course, speculation enables market liquidity
but this is only useful if it supports the primary of function of raising
capital for new ventures.
I have no problems with casino capitalism, since no one has to be harmed
if one chooses not to participate. But lets call a spade a spade and, more
importantly, let the banks bear the responsibility for their own actions.
That is, risks have to be shifted back to bank owners by higher equity requirements
and, possibly, stricter punishments for financial misbehavior. Some kind
of regulation is also needed in order to enable the regulating authorities
to swiftly enforce bankruptcy proceedings without hampering the systemic
functions that the financial sectors provides (by some pre-structering of
bank operations or something similar).
Unbelievably, there is talk of electric aeroplanes. I think this implies
a turbine somewhere with other systems such as propellers to be electric.
Enough kerosene can always be grown in a field.
Meanwhile, I am actually putting commercial effort into Thorium. Supplying
the materials for a molten salt reactor to be exact.
I just mentioned thorium elsewhere. I am doing work in the field.
EV's. A product of inattention when using a tablet, which forces apostrophes
where they are not wanted. That said, when actually typing they come mechanically
from my fingers at times. I have glaucoma so proof reading is not a strength.
Unbelievably, there is talk of electric aeroplanes. I think this
implies a turbine somewhere with other systems such as propellers to
be electric. Enough kerosene can always be grown in a field.
I figure the first sign of true petroleum depletion will be restrictions
on air travel by the unwashed and unanointed. Only the government, and the
military, of course, will be entitled to air travel. It takes an awful lot
of field-grown kerosene to fly airplanes.
Thorium will work for safe reactors. I'm still betting on fusion.
Musk and his accomplishments, views serves as an aspiration to our generation.
The big problem with his views – HE RUNS A BUSINESS AS A TECH STARTUP. In
tech scale is not a problem, you can scale from thousands to millions to
hundreds of millions or even billions of users (Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp
etc) in a relatively short period of time. In tech you can literally deliver
"crap" fast, lacking most of the functionality, but be the first one to
capture the market and gradually improve and patch the system.
If he had partnered with big car manufacturer he could have delivered on
promises by now. And have a successful enterprise in partnership with big
car manufacturer.
The theory of reflexivity is of limited use in my experience. However
TSLA is an example of positive reflexivity. As such it can 'defy gravity'
for an unknown period, and is immune to normal valuation metrics, I consider
it un-investable.
Listening to their annual meeting, this is a cause as much as a business.
A lot of owners are stockholders and vice versa. Its market cap is $50 Billion.
GM is $60 B and F is $47 B.
I could see it raising a LOT of capital and think it has a runway beyond
the model 3. They just need to scrape by with the 3. Fanbois will tolerate
no profits for a long time.
The meeting was more like a revival than a business meeting. For many
of the reasons that GM and F are bad businesses. TSLA is on a tilted playing
field. Consumer Reports changing its recommendation? It wouldn't happen
for anyone else. TSLA gets away with things that GM and Toyota have been
fined billions for.
Tesla is burning through one billion per quarter and is likely to
run out of cash this year
I haven't checked their cash burn, but $1B a quarter? Other than issuing
equity, they could do a convertible preferred again or a rights offering.
A flood of competition is inbound
This is the only risk I can see getting traction. The other stuff won't
happen until after it fails.
I started looking into this as a short–but it seems suicidal. You could
be both right and broke.
No, his opinions are interesting with plenty of good points, but he never
talks about the issue of autonomous cars, thats fine if he assumes that
autonomous cars are not possible any time soon, however, if autonomous cars
are possible then the car industry as we know it is about to change completely
and totally
Bravo. I thought exactly this years ago, but it seemed just simply pointless,
really even bothering to try to argue the toss with people who think they
know everything.
Time the governments told the truth. Think I've heard that somewhere
before, too.
2 – It will destroy his halo, which is source of his success. This
is why Musk committed securities fraud in order to have Tesla acquire
Solar City, which was rapidly headed for bankruptcy. With his reputation
in tatters, it will call into question his leadership of Space X. Certainly
ideas like going to Mars with other people's money will be out.
I'm certainly no SpaceXpert (haha), but I've done a lot of reading on
the subject, recently. Assuming his other ventures can't drag SpaceX down
financially (a safe assumption, from what little I've read on the
topic), Mars will be fine. He can get started for like a billion – far less
than cash-guzzler ULA is asking ($25 billion all-in, much of which has already
been spent on SLS without a single launch).
And by "get started," I mean land the seed colony on Mars. Really, it's
everything other than getting to Mars that's the problem.
Last I heard (as of about a month ago), SpaceX has pretty much no plan at
all for the colony itself. All the tech still needs to be designed.
But SpaceX doesn't need a Mars trip or a Mars colony. At all. It's just
Musk's aspiration. If the satellite cloud plan (the official name escapes
me ATM) works, SpaceX could be printing money within a few years. Even if
it doesn't, SpaceX is eating every other launch provider's lunch. The race
is very much theirs to lose.
A lot of the Tesla bears assume there's something wrong with Space
X as well, but I don't think this is warranted. One guy who is documenting
all the Model S suspension failures has invented a half-cocked conspiracy
theory that Space X's achievements are fictitious. It's pretty common
for short sellers to get emotional during a great bear raid, which is
part of the fun.
Anything's possible, but if so Musk has a lot of very serious aerospace
types totally snowed. And it's some sleight of hand he's pulling, steadily
dropping what SpaceX charges to launch.
SpaceX is obviously being funded by the USG. I can't fly a $25.00
drone within 1000 yards of any airport, but the government stands by
while some private company flies objects into space? Not buying it.
This makes literally no sense.
Tesla and SpaceX are the shiny stars of the American technology,
it cannot fail in front of the rising power of China. Most of the Americans
believe in that and pinning their hope on Musk to turn Make American
Great dream come true.
China has an admirable space program, but we must be forgiven for thinking
a chink nationalist is just letting his envy do the talking.
Also, at this point I think the Mars plan and the restarting of 2001
that Musk and SpaceX have done are bigger than Musk. I think both will
easily survive Musk leaving the picture entirely.
Yes, BFR and BFS are both still just concept drawings and marketing talk
as far as the public is concerned, but even if they were scrapped right
this minute, SpaceX could still get us to Mars with Falcon Heavy. But I
wouldn't bet against BFR and BFS.
Protip, the current SpaceX action, other than development of BFR/BFS,
is Block 5, the first version of Falcon 9 with a reusable core, and the
final planned version of the vehicle. SpaceX plans to reuse Block 5 cores
3 or 4 times this year. Long term, they plan to phase everything else out
as BFR/BFS come online.
An acquaintance in NYC just received his Model 3 delivered to him. Previously
he had a 2007 Audi (I'm unsure what model), and he's super happy with his
Model 3. He likes the driving experience (he's driving quite fast and aggressively),
the gadgets (he's a bit of a technophile, too), and he thinks maintenance
will be cheap, so that once he's paid the price upfront, it'll cost next
to nothing to him for another 10-20 years (depending on battery life, which
he expects to be actually two decades). He also likes the fact that it's
"good for the environment," as he put it.
Musk is the best thing that happened to America in the last several decades.
America should be proud.
Is he perfect ? are his businesses perfect ? who cares. What matters
is that he is a fantastic innovator who has no known rivals right now. And
HE is HERE, in the USA.
The Ford, Gm, Krysler elephants who have been making nothing but hideous
cars forever (ok, there might be a couple of exceptions here and there)
are campaigning like mad dogs against Tesla because, once again, Tesla is
a statement about those shit companies caught sleeping. It is pretty much
the same as in politics, where MSM spreads bull shit.
I can't say if all the allegations against Tesla are true or not but
they seem to be very much the same as attacks on other companies the financial
industry has done to destroy the owners then take over the company for peanuts.
My feeling is this is the same. No I can't prove it but it wouldn't surprise
me at all. Other commenters have quoted material and build prices for Tesla
cars that show they could make a very hefty profit if they can get the volume
up and they seem to be doing this.
Let's look at the attack on Tesla's lack of profits and then compare
to Amazon. Amazon lost money for a long, long time,[are they still losing
money??]. But somehow Tesla is treated different. Now anyone can put up
an online store but not everyone can build a car. It would seem building
a car is much more difficult than an online store.
It appears Amazon has made most of it's recent profits from cloud computing
and still loses money on online sales so their profits could be stripped
at any time by cloud computing competitors. Why is Musk considered a huge
rip of when Amazon lost money for over twenty years and is probably still
not making an online store profit yet Musk has been delivering???
I often wondered if Musk was Jewish. He says he's not. If he's not I
could see a mass Jewish attack on him to strip away his coming internet
service. A internet service that could be used as a distributed information
service with TV NOT controlled by the Jews. This would be reason enough
to attack him. Look at what happened to CNN and Turner. They filled him
full of lies, brought him in then stripped him of assets. Could this be
what is happening to Musk? They want to cut him off before he can get a
world wide satellite system up not controlled by the Jews. I don't know
if this is what's happening but it wouldn't surprise me.
Say, what ever happened to Elon Musk, owner of the USA's Great White Hope to replace the
Russian RD-180, SpaceX? Ever wonder?
Well, he is as umm eccentric as ever, recently firing off an alarming tweet that he is
thinking about taking the company (Tesla, not SpaceX) private at about a third above the
current share value, and that he has secured financing. This triggered a wave of unease, and
an SEC investigation, which might make you curious whether Musk will ever learn that while
his off-the-wall unusual behaviour was once endearing and inspirational, it is now becoming a
major liability and perhaps a barometer of his mental stability.
Here's an interesting discussion of his financial position, which I hope he reads, since
he seems to be completely unaware of the effect of some cataclysmically bad decisions.
It is looking more and more like all he really knows back-to-front is how to spend gobs of
money. People like to let you use their money to do that when they think you might be
brilliant, but their reluctance grows exponentially if you are perceived to be crazy.
The piece ends with an interesting observation; of Tesla's Board of Directors, nobody is a
car, manufacturing, sales or transportation expert.
The car manufacturing industry didn't arrive at where it is now – with bumps, mistakes,
casualties and even flat-out embarrassments like the Ford Edsel along the way – without
developing a whole culture of design, testing, manufacturing processes, test-marketing,
distribution networks and marketing. Elon Musk's problem is that he is completely ignorant of
the history of car-making – and in effect of manufacturing generally since much
manufacturing over the last 100 years has centred around car-making.
Musk could have consulted with or hired people from Ford or GM, in particular hiring those
employees who had ideas about managing those companies or creating new designs and design
concepts that had been knocked back by senior execs there because those ideas threatened
their (the senior guys, that is) power or level of control they had, but were still viable
financially. He should have done something similar to what a former Wall Street hedge fund
manager did, when he came to Australia and discovered that Mexican food restaurants here were
the pits: he set up a restaurant in Newtown called Guzman y Gomez, hired Mexican chefs to
teach local people how to cook Mexican food, and then he hired administrators and managers
from McDonald's, and investors in that company, to help set up the franchise restaurants in
other parts of Sydney.
The interesting thing now is that GYG has franchise restaurants in Singapore and Japan and
is looking at opening a franchise in Chicago. All this has been done without spending huge
amounts of money on marketing (which is what McDonald's used to do) and using a strategy of
opening stores in specific places (mostly areas that tourists, backpackers and students
frequent) and cooking as close to authentic Mexican food as is possible in Australia, given
that most ingredients aren't available here and Australians tend to prefer milder foods.
The problem with Musk and Tesla is too much ambition. The current fiasco has no connection to
the previous mode of operation: produce expensive vehicles like Model S. For some reason Musk
assumed he could transition to volume manufacturing of cheap(er) sedans without any long term
investment. That is why they are building defect ridden crap (punctured batteries, bumpers
that fall off 30 minutes after you pick up your car) under a tent in 3rd world unsanitary
conditions.
I guess Musk must be suffering the cliche megalomania disease. All that power went to his
head and he can't think straight. An emperor with no clothes.
I think at least a little of Musk's problem is that he borrows enormous amounts of money
using businesses which are not moneymakers as collateral. I like the Tesla; it seems like a
great car, and some people are very keen on it – it also puts the lie to the notion
that a car cannot be electric and also be sporty and fast. But Tesla is not profitable,
because Musk keeps borrowing more money and plowing it into new ideas.
But there is probably a lot of the crazy-emperor complex in there as well, and for that
you could hardly blame Musk. The American media feted him as some sort of incredible genius
and greeted everything that came from his mouth as a pearl of wisdom that the common man is
ill-suited to understand. Friends might have reined him in earlier, but he either has none or
does not listen to those he has.
I like the Tesla S too. But the Tesla 3 is a catastrophic failure by comparison. This
indicates a company going off the rails. As for endless borrowing and red ink status, that is
not all that bad. AMD had this pattern for most of its history. But it serves a vital role as
Intel's main competitor and seems to be doing well these days. Musk's Tesla could have had
this debt financing model as long as it produced a viable product. With the Tesla 3 it has
destroyed itself since any reputation for quality it had has flown out the window and Tesla
cannot even deliver the necessary volumes of the Model 3.
The shift will be to hybrids - not fully-electric. I don't know of ANY country that has
the infrastructure, let alone the electrical production capacity, to cover the needs of
all-electric vehicles.
Fossil fuelled vehicles will be with us for a LONG time to come.
Somehow the Saudis don't strike me as people who buy a.non gasoline car manufacturer
invested in a solar city failure for a pumped up price and ever postponed profits and barely
met production promises with faulty cars factory gated.
In an
email sent later to Tesla employees , Musk wrote, "a final decision has not yet been made,
but the reason for doing this is all about creating the environment for Tesla to operate
best."
He also said, "If the process ends the way I expect it will, a private Tesla would
ultimately be an enormous opportunity for all of us."
Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management and a CNBC contributor,
said Tesla has operational problems and has lost 50 key staffers.
1. There is no funding This is the simplest Occam's Razor explanation. There simply is no
funding. Musk feels confident he can get financing and has had conversations with
individuals and funds It's possible Musk has had conversations with third parties about
financing a transaction and feels comfortable he could round up cash. A full buyout would cost
about $72 billion at $420 a share, though Musk, himself, owns 22 percent of the company and
suggested he would allow existing shareholders to maintain ownership, which would lower the
cost.
With Elon Musk refusing to name any of the parties from whom he has allegedly "secured funding" after launching a huge short squeeze
in Tesla yesterday with his now infamous Tesla "going private" series of tweets, it was only a matter of time before the regulators
- who have so far stubbornly ignored Tesla - started asking questions.
According to
the WSJ , that time is now, because the SEC has inquired with Tesla about Elon Musk's announcement that he may take the company
private " and whether his claim was factual ", or in other words, whether Musk lied when he said he had secured financing.
The regulator also asked why the disclosure which kept people glued to twitter for hours was made on the social network rather
than in a regulatory filing, and whether the firm believes the announcement complies with investor-protection rules.
According to the WSJ, the SEC inquiries - which originated from its San Francisco office so it will be relatively easy to visit
the Fremont office - suggest Tesla could come under an enforcement investigation if regulators develop evidence that Musk's tweet
was misleading or false.
"Frankly, the bigger issue is going to be whether the information is correct or not," said Ira Matetsky, a partner at Ganfer
& Shore in New York, who outlined questions the SEC might ask. "When Musk tweeted this, was he saying this was something that
was definitely going to happen? Something that might happen? How would a reasonable investor interpret that and was it consistent
with the facts as they existed at the time?" -
BBG
And while it is mostly semantics, so far it remains unclear if the SEC had opened a formal enforcement investigation based on
the answers it received from the company.
"To put that out unless he absolutely has financing secured and is ready to make the bid that could be market manipulation," Keith
Higgins, a Ropes & Gray partner who formerly led the SEC's corporation finance unit, told
Bloomberg . "He could be in big trouble if that turns out not to have been true."
The biggest risk for Musk is if regulators find that he made a statement only intending to goose his company's share price, or
as he likes to put it, "crush the shorts." Under US securities law, companies and corporate officers can (and will) be held liable
for making misstatements or omitting information that shareholders need to make informed investment decisions.
In his email to employees on Tuesday, instead of detailing the circumstances around the "pre-commited" going private deal, Musk
blamed short sellers and other pressures public markets put on companies as factors in announcing he wanted to take the company private.
However, that's not enough.
As
we noted earlier , one potential problem is that merely the intent of a "going private" transaction, triggers rule 13E-3, which
requires the company to file a Schedule
13E-3 with the SEC as well as furnish the required disclosures to the company's shareholders. Note: the rule is triggered in
either case, even if the intent to go private is ultimately unsuccessful.
13E-3 or no, the SEC will demand to know just what is going on, what the Board knew and when - recall it stated today that it
was made aware of Elon's plans last week and yet there was no mention of this in the 10-Q's "Recent Developments" section - and if
Musk was even sober and rational when he tweeted what he did.
Meanwhile, Tom Farley, the former President of the NYSE, had some advice for the SEC:
Dear @SEC_News, this is an easy one: ask TSLA to show you the agreement(s) signed by their funding source(s) by 5pm EST that
demonstrates the funding is "secured" and "certain." If there is no such agreement, require a statement by 5:30pm. Inspire market
confidence.
And while Musk has historically been extremely cavalier with his tweeting, this time it could cost: if found guilty of stock fraud,
he would surely be on the hook for billions as the lawsuits start piling in, with the worst case scenario giving Musk an unlimited
amount of time to tweet to his heart's content... from prison.
The stock dropped back under $370 on the news, and is rapidly approaching the $359.8676 conversion price of the $920 million of
convertible bond due March 2019, which some have speculated is the entire reason behind the "going private" spectacle.
Vote up! 3 Vote down! 1
In the beginning Tesla looked like a good business venture because of limited oil reserves in the world and the promise of
increasing oil prices.
The prospects for vast profits were very promising for the people who control US fiances, and Musk an insider bought a controlling
interest of the company.
Eight years ago Musk brought the company public to raise funds developing its then upcoming Model S electric car. However,
the company was also at the time awash in red ink. It had lost $290.2 million since its 2003 founding, and its first-quarter loss
in 2010 was $29.5 million, but a $465 million U.S. Department of Energy loan helped the company gain some momentum.
Musk's companies, Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have
benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging
empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
It is government money being used and not exclusive private money for such risks, but what is the difference when the same
people control US finances, the Fed, and the government?
A year before Musk announced his recent intention to take Tesla Motors private all things seemed to go wrong for the company,
like thousands of Model 3s electric cars dormant in various parking lots as if they are not selling (as if they have really tried),
production delays, and numerous unprecedented numbers of Tesla autos catching fire with occupants dying - very dramatic. The stocks
stocks begin to fall and then Musk just recently announces his plans to go private.
What promise does Musk really see in his various models? Has this very connected man or the people behind him made efforts
to screw SH's by depressing share value?
He doesn't have close to the estimated 72 billion he would need to do it. Yeah, yeah, take
away his 20% and its still not even close. Estimates put his net worth in *just* the 20
billion range.
We'll see him in leg irons when Trump gets beat by Biden. Never.
U.S. insider trading prohibitions are based on English and American common law
prohibitions against fraud. In 1909, well before the Securities Exchange Act was passed, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that a corporate director who bought that company's stock
when he knew the stock's price was about to increase committed fraud by buying but not
disclosing his inside information.
Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits short-swing profits (from
any purchases and sales within any six-month period) made by corporate directors, officers,
or stockholders owning more than 10% of a firm's shares. Under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act,
SEC Rule 10b-5, prohibits fraud related to securities trading.
Tesla, which has posted profit only in two quarters since becoming a public company eight
years ago, broke another record for quarterly net loss on Wednesday, smashing the previous
record of $709.6 million set in the
first quarter.
While the new milestone is only slightly higher than the previous one, the contrast is more
drastic in comparison to the same period last year. In 2017, the innovative tech company
reported a net loss of (only) $336 million in the second quarter.
While Tesla so far has been mostly losing money at a growing pace , Musk reiterated on
Wednesday he expects the company to become profitable as soon as the next quarter after it
boosts production of its Model 3 vehicle, envisioned for mass marketing.
After the results were posted, Tesla issued a statement saying that it plans to churn out
from 50,000 to 55,000 vehicles in the third quarter, an ambitious goal, given its recent
frantic scramble to increase output to 5,000 cars a week. While Tesla hit the long-delayed
target in June, the process put additional strain on the company, forcing it to spend millions
to ramp up production.
While the electric car maker has failed to generate profit for yet another quarter, the
trend has not apparently discouraged the market, with Tesla stock gaining 11 percent and
trading at $334.18 per share after the statement was released.
Positive signs that might have contributed to the optimism among investors is that the
company's cash burn slowed down, from $745.3 million in the first quarter to $739.5 million, in
the second one.
Musk previously dismissed speculations that his company would need to raise money to stay
afloat, promising back in April that it would be profitable in the third and fourth
quarters.
I'm a fan of Elon Musk because he does some incredibly cool things. However, half the time I
think he just likes to run with scissors because his life must not be interesting enough. The
author of Brotopia identified him as having gone to one of the now infamous Silicon
Valley sex parties -- in costume, no less -- and his excuse was that he didn't see the blatant
sex at the sex party.
Then there was the flame thrower thing. His company (Tesla) is in the most flammable state
in the union but he apparently decided it would be a fun idea to sell flame throwers.
Then there was the Tesla autopilot fiasco
. Even Consumer Reports
argued that when people that see the term "autopilot," they think they can turn the feature
on and then do whatever they want, without having to drive the car.
There is an old story about a guy who rented a motorhome and asked about cruise control, and
the rental rep told him it was like autopilot. He later drove off, set cruise control, and went
to the back of the motorhome to make coffee. It didn't end well for him or the motorhome. That
incident alone suggests that the one thing you never should call even advanced cruise control
(which is what the Tesla currently has) is "autopilot." In my opinion, Musk should be held
accountable for every death and injury to folks who treated Tesla Autopilot like it was
autopilot.
Then there was Musk's now famous conversation with financial analysts on a conference call.
They asked legitimate questions, and he went off the rails on them, causing a sharp drop in
Tesla valuation. That's just stupid.
Most recently, he flew a small submersible to the location where 12 Thai soccer players were
trapped in a cave. It did look like a poorly-thought-through PR stunt, and the lead diver, who
clearly was focused on getting the kids out, didn't want to mess with an untested piece of
tech. Not that it was a bad idea, but you'd consider the device a proof of concept -- not
something you'd risk a child's life on unless you had no other choice. That
wasn't the case .
Apparently, Musk didn't like being told no. When he pushed, the diver apparently told Musk
he could put the sub in an uncomfortable place in Musk's body. Musk's response was to go on
social media and accuse the diver of being a pedophile. That is not a term that is
interchangeable with "jerk." It has consequences, and social media is an international
platform. Were I Unsworth, the diver Musk attacked, I would sue Musk in France, where they are
really aggressive when it comes to penalizing false claims like this.
Musk manages on the ragged edge, which means that from a financial standpoint, his companies
are mostly one mistake away from going under. Tesla, in particular, doesn't look like it will
survive the decade. That suggests that rather than creating all of this drama, maybe focusing
on the basics of running the firms would be in Musk's and his companies' best interests.
"... " The spokesperson also added depending on the vehicle's configuration , Model 3 wait times are currently 1 to 3 months", but spokeshuman did not explain why no base models will ever be produced. ..."
"... " Tesla ditched reservations and opened up Model 3 sales to anyone for a $2,500 deposit." that's because reservations are refundable....as long as the cash holds out, sales deposits apparently not. ..."
Why Are "Thousands" of Teslas Sitting In a Field in California?
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/19/2018 - 16:14 129 SHARES
"There's so much inventory here, it's crazy."
When Tesla finally met its Model 3 production run rate target, astute investors and analysts
pointed out the use of the word "factory gated" in the company's press release: "Not only did
we factory gate 5000 Model 3's , but we also achieved the S & X production target for a
combined 7000 vehicle week!" Musk wrote in an email to his staff that week.
It was a term that Tesla hadn't used before.
Now, thanks to a couple of sleuths on Twitter, we may have just found out what the term
means. Twitter Tesla sleuth @ISpyTSLA, with the help of others, has been trying to figure out
exactly where all these vehicles are winding up. @ISpyTSLA found that it appears that
"thousands" of vehicles are being stored "in a field" 500 E Louise Ave, Lathrop, CA 95330.
Perhaps as a place to temporarily dump cars that should be 'off the books' or as some said,'
"There's so much inventory here, it's crazy."
The accompanying video appears to show "thousands" of Tesla vehicles just rusting in the
open air under the scorching California sun.
Additional video shows the Twitter users initial approach to the property, which appears to
have a gate with a warning sign that the premises are being video monitored.
The Twitter user notes that trucks seem to be bringing cars in, but not out. Follow up
Tweets noted that "there's no real
activity in the inventory lot" before noting that "some cars are coming out".
Meanwhile, as another Twitter user noted, another just as vast pile of Model 3s can be found
near the Burbank Hollywood Airport.
The reaction from Twitter was underwhelming.
Great News Lemmings! All of our 5K Burst week cars are sitting in a scrap heap. This is
GREAT news, we are going to make submarines out of them. Elon $TSLA
But why stash the cars there? Is it to optimize net working capital and give investors - and
auditors - the impression of more liquidity than is actually available?
Surely this will, or should, be one of the "boring" questions asked on the company's
conference, if PricewaterhouseCoopers doesn't ask first.
Meanwhile, Tesla already had to fend off a downgrade from Needham this morning, who warned
that Model 3 refunds were moving faster than deposits, something we documented
here over a month ago .
"Based on our checks, refunds are outpacing deposits as cancellations accelerate," wrote
analyst Rajvindra Gill in the note Thursday. "The reasons are varied: extended wait times,
the expiration of the $7,500 credit, and unavailability of the $35k base model."
"In August '17, TSLA cited a refund rate of 12%. Almost a year later, we believe it has
doubled and outpaced deposits. Model 3 wait times are currently 4-12 months and with base
model not available until mid-2019, consumers could wait until 2020," Gill added.
This morning Tesla refuted this, however, with the discovery of this new lot Tesla's PR
spin job for today may only be getting started.
There probably aren't any batteries in them. These cars are in various states of technical
completeness. Processes that were too time-consuming and parts that were not readily
available were skipped in order to complete their ridiculous publicity stunt. No one likely
knows the missing bits for any given car so they are junk. This is what happens when you are
able to do what you're doing because of lots of "other-people's money". 4th turning bitchez,
gross waste and abuse. All the big manufacturers are doing it, why shouldn't Tesla?
Elon Musk manufactures here in the USA. Most American car manufacturers, other than Ford, took bigly bailout money from American
taxpayers and then set up shop in racially homogenous, cheap-labor countries in China &
Latin America. Ford went straight to Mexico, bypassing the bailout cash.
"Profitable" American car manufacturers still do some production in the USA, mostly hiring
groups of young temps. They pay the youthful, blue-collar temp workers more than most
white-collar temp jobs around here offer.
About 5 years ago, a local car manufacturer was paying temps $17 per hour, as opposed to
the typical $10 per hour offered to white-collar non-college-grad office workers or $12 per
hour for white-collar college-grad office workers. I recently saw an article, suggesting that
the same American car manufacturer is now paying young temps even more, quite a bit more.
The article was adorned with a photo of an aging union worker, but no explanation was
provided about how this system really works, with the young temps hired to do the bulk of the
physically demanding labor. Due to senority, a small group of old union workers avoid that
work, doing the cushier tasks.
The liberal agenda pusher who wrote the article, sticking a photo on it with an especially
aged union worker, was probably promoting the faulty idea that America needs more immigration
to fill those jobs due to an aging population, when, in fact, the young Millennial generation
is BIGGER than the aging Boomer generation.
Furthermore, American citizens often get on lists to fill those high-paying temp jobs in
car manufacturing. Applicants often have six-month waiting periods due to the massive number
of job seekers, chasing those rare, high-paying TEMPORARY jobs.
Much like state jobs, US citizens must wait to get a good-paying temp job with those car
manufacturers, and if the person who wrote the article had talked to temps who actually
worked those jobs, s/he would know it. But it might not matter; advocates of mass-scale
immigration gonna advocate.
Tne Media helped establish Musk as a cult figure. Reality is catching up with a false god, that is what's happening. At what point will Musk throw a kool aid party for MuskCar employees under the tent.
No its not what other car manufacturers do if they have so many orders to fill? only car
manufacturers forward producing and estimating demand need store them but most adjust
manufacturing levels to avoid it now as its expensive to store, and even non registered
vehicles decline in value and are subject to damage.
Tesla with back orders should have no need at all to store cars, with such a professed
backlog, so the fact they have is highly suspicious.
It might suggest to some analysts that the vehicles are not completed not safe or
something else is awry.
It doesn't even look like "thousands" of cars to me. A quick drone flyover would clear
this question up. And sure, this is what all car manufacturers do. Transshipment, rework, whatever. I mean,
what else would you do? Put a tent over them? Everything about Tesla is stupid, and I'm enjoying their failure. But stories like this
give credence to Musk's paranoid assertions that the world is out to destroy him.
Back in the old days of software we called it 'shipping bricks'. The new version of the
software wasn't ready, but we booked orders, so we slapped labels on blank disks, but em in
boxes with manuals and sent em out. Customer called a few days later when the software was
ready, and we said, 'oh sorry, must have gotten a defective one, we are fed exing a new disk
in the mail.
These may look like Teslas, but they didn't pass tests or are unsellable for some reason,
so they count them as 'gated inventory' Same thing
The increase in TSLA market cap more than covered the few thousand "cars" Tesla needs to
hide that will never actually be sold, well until Elon called a hero a pedophile.
This is how the great publicly traded con economy works. You aren't producing product to
sell, you are only manufacturing a story to sell stock. Since stock based compensation makes
you a billionaire even if your company loses billions of dollars, what incentive is there to
turn a profit?
You end up with more scams than productive corporations. If there was no stock market,
Walmart would exist, but Amazon would not. Walmart is profitable in the billions of dollars,
Amazon is not. Bezos could not be worth $150billion without the scam of publicly traded
shares because it would take a few thousand years to pay out $150billion to Bezos from
Amazon's profit.
Meanwhile Walmart could pay a few executives $1 billion per year and have plenty of profit
left. Why is one company worth $250 billion, less than half revenue and the other near $850
billion with less than $200 billion in revenue?
Not only Tesla is "storing" cars. All the majors appear to be doing the same. I live near
Flint MI and you would NOT BELIEVE the number of lot's, fields, and empty spaces in the area
that are FULL of late model vehicles. I suspect most are lease returns that are being kept
out of the market to keep prices elevated. I have a 21 year old pick up truck. It is paid
for. I would buy a newer truck but they are way too expensive. We have a newer SUV, also paid
for. When the "big 3" decide to sell some of those lease returns at a reasonable price I MAY
look at buying one. I WILL NOT BUY ONE for the prices they want. I just purchased a nice home
for less than $40K so why would I buy a depreciating asset for the same amount?
Tesla delayed some deliveries until July, probably so that they could reach 200K cars sold
this quarter and have the $7500 tax credit until Q4. But now that they've sold 200K, it makes
no sense to hang onto them unless they don't have a buyer. Maybe that's why they opened the
Model 3 builder site to everyone? Could it really be that they've run through all of the
Model 3 preorders because most people who signed up to buy a $35K car aren't interested in
paying $49K minimum as it is now?
This is a reasonable interpretation. Best case for Musk. In islolation (lol) it doesn't
seem fatal.
But even so, he has higher inventory control costs. His labor costs have proven higher
too. Down the line these cars have no dealer network to service or repair them, and to
provide it is [would cost] billions.
Yea and the Tesla tards are all gaga over the 30% profit margin the 3 will bring as
indicated by those that tear down and analyze the vehicle. We're all gonna be rich when Tesla
stock hits 10,000 by the end of the year. Booya. What you delusional Musk lovers should do is
learn the difference between GROSS PROFIT, which is that touted 30%, and NET PROFIT. Gross
profit only includes the direct costs to produce the car, materials and labor, but does not
include selling, general, and administrative which will consume that 30% "profit" and then
some. General expenses such as warranty work, electricity, paying engineers and secretaries
and other non direct manufacturing personnel such as material handlers and plant cleanup and
trash disposal and maintenance people etc, "free charging", R&D, interest on the debt,
sales offices, etc etc. In the past your boy could brag about the cash pile on hand most of
which was accumulated for PR purposes by delaying payment to suppliers.
Not since "Who Killed the Electric Car" have so many with axes to grind began fueling this
bazaar anti-Tesla barrage. Musk is part of "those who do" while "those that can't" SHIT ALL
OVER EVERYBODY who can.
Behind this is a hedge fund with a heavy short position, oil industry think tanks, and
just plain shits parading on some fucking adolescent thing called "Twitter".
Have you dumb asses looked at the quantities of warehoused traditional cars by all other
manufacturers? Youtube it if you don't believe. As to you haters and inflammatory dickheads,
it's time to stop whacking it and eat the fucking cracker.
You really are delusional. "Who Killed the Electric Car' is nothing but a hit piece on GM.
GM killed their own electric not the electric industry like idiots want to believe. Their car
although state of the art at the time had little range with the old tech batteries that were
available at the time and would have been extremely expensive to build as it had no parts in
common with other vehicles in their line. Plus at the time there was absolutely no public
demand for electrics. The current flurry of electrics coming on the market is not because of
Tesla, as you cult members want to believe, but from the hugely funded enviros pushing for
the elimination of all ICE cars. In Germany and a few other countries they have passed or are
in the process of legislating no new ICE cars to be sold by a certain date, anywhere from
2025 to 2030 depending on country, and all ICE cars off the road by 2050 or other dates
depending on country.
Recently there was a complete fiction hit piece that oil companies outspend enviros by 10
to 1 on lobbying. Enviro organizations such as Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace,
Tom Steyer and other billionaires, and other enviro groups spend most of their budgets, which
is in the billions, on lobbying. Under Obama his EPA pursued a "sue and settle" policy to
encourage enviro groups to sue the EPA which would settle quickly as a way to get funds into
the enviros pockets. Not to mention the hundreds of billions given to enviros by governments
around the world. The Obama EPA refused to release to Congress the science on which their
rulings were made because most of that "science" was bullshit written by enviro activists.
The EPA advisors were all enviro activists. When Trump put Pruitt in charge of the EPA you
clowns claimed he was anti science when he shit canned the activist old boy network and set
up debates from all sides. Under Pruitt they took money destined for activists and used it
clean up real pollution in Superfund sites which the Obama EPA ignored.
The other manufacturers can afford to warehouse cars as they make real profits. They also
have to buy "pollution permits" to sell their cars in Commiefornia, which ends up in Tesla's
pockets even though they pollute worse the ICE though not directly. As it is your boy is no
different than the other manufacturers yet, except for ZH and other sites willing to print
the truth, the general media, especially tech sites, can't get enough of licking Musk's balls
and stroking his ego by wrongly calling him a genius who is going to change the world. Every
single market your boy is in from Powerwalls to solar panels to cars there is experienced and
well funded competition but yet the delusional refuse to believe it. His factory of the
future, which was going to change the way cars are built, was a huge failure as in many
procedures humans are better than robots which is why other car companies still employ
humans. Your boy who was going to change the way cars are sold is opening dealerships. Plus
Tesla is opening large numbers of repair shops contrary to the belief of many Tesla fanbois
that Tesla's run forever without any repairs.
Boy did I scratch off your scab! Feeling accused? BTW cut back on "enviro-whatever" ok,
'cus it really sounds stupid. Your writing is dense, machine like, staid, crystalized, like a
walking dead pedantic. Your reality is your own, there in your hermit crab shell, I wish you
a constant stream of nutritional plankton, return to your place on the coral wreath.
Notice you came back with nothing but name calling and a writing style critique. Another
content free liberal, once you scratch one layer deep past the talking points.
Production does not always mean demand. In today's' ideology, production pays the rent, as
long as the feds keep bailing you out. For years there have been photos of new car
graveyards. It gives the charts something good to say.
"We produced 7,000 cars this week" gives the illusion of high demand for product, while not
indicating who the buyers are. Part of the Sales illusion.
1 Problem. Tesla Vehicles Are Made From Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys. So They Do Not Rust
! This Tells Me Someone Didn't Do The Proper Research or Proof Reading .
Yeah, well if you actually DO proper research you'll find that only iron and steel rust.
Aluminum corrodes, forms a thin layer of oxidized aluminum over its surface which does
protect further surface corrosion. However, in a salt environment, even a teeny little bit of
salt and water, like say salt found in desert areas, will cause severe corrosion where the
aluminum turns to dust. If it rains in Lathrop followed by lots of wind, any and all
unprotected aluminum WILL turn to dust and that right quick if left that way. Ask any Navy or
Marine Corps pilot or any Navy or Marine Corps aircraft maintenance person whose served at
sea and flew or worked on any number of aircraft. So thanks for the "they do not rust"
warning so that "someone" could do Proper Research or Proof Reading. Good tip.
" The spokesperson also added depending on the vehicle's configuration , Model 3 wait
times are currently 1 to 3 months", but spokeshuman did not explain why no base models will
ever be produced.
" Tesla ditched reservations and opened up Model 3 sales to anyone for a $2,500 deposit."
that's because reservations are refundable....as long as the cash holds out, sales deposits
apparently not.
I left our М3 parked in our driveway at the Jersey
Shore for the last 48 hours. Checked the app and had
only 62 miles of range! When I parked it Friday
afternoon it had about 180. What am I doing wrong!
It's been super hot here. Is this usual? Is there a
setting I need to look at?
It seems that widespread suspicions that Tesla CEO Elon Musk resorted to cutting corners in
his pursuit of ramping up Model 3 production to meet his lofty production targets may be
valid.
Martin Tripp - the former Tesla engineer who on
June 20 was sued by Tesla for trying to "sabotage" the company - is alleging several
egregious safety violations that, if true, could destroy what remains of Musk's tattered
credibility.
In an email sent by Meissner Associates, a law firm which has represented whistleblowers to
the SEC and which was retained by the whistleblower, Tripp alleged that Tesla made
misstatements to investors about placing batteries with holes punctured in them into vehicles
to help pad out its Model 3 production numbers in pursuit of Musk's goal of producing 5,000
Model 3s a week.
He also alleged that Tesla placed battery cells too close together and didn't properly
secure them, raising the risk of future combustion, and that the company "systematically"
reused parts that had been deemed to be scrap or waste.
Tripp's claims remind us of some inconsistencies
highlighted by Vertical Group's Gordon Johnson , who pointed out that some of the
supposedly "finished" cars had been labeled "factory gated", meaning they still required
additional testing and quality inspections.
So far Tesla shares appear unaffected by the report.
I think we are seeing more and more the calling card of a sociopath / psychopath. Not
surprising to us here, but to the wider population. Again, as with several other examples -
simple honesty would have been smarter, yet the guy lies through his teeth. Hilary Clinton
syndrome. A pathological need to lie even when it will work out badly for you.
They certainly ger erratic and lash out when they get challenged. As the heat gets turned
up, especially when questioning their intelligence, the LOCO dial gets cranked.
Nothing new here. All great innovators have experienced the negative and disparaging
onslaught from the unwashed illiterate rabble who lash out in jealous fury accompanied by a
liberal dose of envy at those people who lead rather than grovel in the shit dropped by the
herd.
That's not innovation- it's marketing. A Nissan Leaf does the same thing for $35K but some
soulless Silicon Valley millionaire needs to buy a Tesla to feel validated. It's just a bunch
of batteries wired together to power an electric motor- it was done basically the same way
140 years ago.
Elon is blasting off a rocket next week and even offered a sub to the Thai Government to
assist with the rescue of those youngsters from that flooded cave.
Was your submarine in the shop?
I just think people are piling on a bit too heavy on the guy.
Interesting that you call him a visionary. Firstly as has been noted above that electric
cars were among some of the very first automobiles built. So nothing new there.
The United States government through the DOE were conducting research during Bush 43's
tenure in the area of fuel cells and fuel cell powered automobiles. Pretty visionary stuff
that. Yeah spare me the issues surrounding fuel cells, I know them all. However as soon as
Obama turned up guess who was first in line to see to it that the US Government subsidized
battery powered autos and stopped all work on fuel cell powered vehicles. Why that would be
Musk; visionary, savior of the planet, greenie all the way. Why then lobby Barry and his ilk
to kill off fuel cells. Musk wanted no part in a competitive alternative, some might argue a
better one.
By the way if you want an example of Musk's commitment to the environment take a look at
the Fremont factory via any of the mapping applications. It's very apparent that Telsa is
certainly only committed to the betterment of the climate through words and not deeds. No
recycling at that plant.
Whistle blowers - whom I refer to as honest, diligent employees - are the only real
protection consumers and investors have to defend themselves from a congress that caters to
corporations and banks. We can support them this fall by firing every complicit house member
and 1/3 of the senate. In January, we could have a house of representatives working for us.
In two years, we could have a majority of the senate truly representing the people of our
nation.
While Elon has various character defects that make him a grating personality, he has still
managed to create the first new car company to be seen in many decades. I am no fan, but it
is still impressive.
"... Stephen Neumann told Clean Energy Wire, gas-fueled cars could become the alternative to electric vehicles, which still suffer shorter driving ranges and much longer recharging times than fossil fuel cars. ..."
Third,
there are simply no CNG cars being sold in the U.S. right now, after Honda and Chevrolet
stopped manufacturing the CNG Civic and the Impala Bi-Fuel. Except fleet sales, you literally
cannot buy a new CNG car in the country. You can only retrofit your gasoline vehicle with a gas
system. Yet, natural gas is a viable alternative to gasoline when it comes to trucks and buses,
if only for emissions' sake.
The transportation industry accounted for as much as
28 percent of greenhouse emissions in the U.S. in 2016. Switching to CNG from gasoline
makes sense for trucks and buses whose purpose is to provide reliable transport for goods and
passengers rather than breaking engine performance records. Also, a fueling network for buses
and trucks would be much easier -- and cheaper -- to build.
Elsewhere, the future of natural gas vehicles is brighter. Recently, a senior Volkswagen
executive said
NG vehicles could come to account for a tenth of the total vehicle fleet in Germany and Europe.
In fact, Stephen Neumann told Clean Energy Wire, gas-fueled cars could become the
alternative to electric vehicles, which still suffer shorter driving ranges and much longer
recharging times than fossil fuel cars.
we stress to our readers that just because TSLA
makes
a Model 3 car
–
with competition coming and buyers tired of "waiting"
– does not mean
demand
for that car exists.
I've been thinking / saying this for
months.
5000 a week is 250,000 units a year. There are only 6 models in North America
that sell >/= 250K units a year. They may be able to produce 5,000 units a week,
but they can't SELL 5,000 units a week. Pull it. This charade is getting really
old.
They will have to start a dealer network to park all those cars somewhere.
Then package all the dealer debt into some exotic debt instrument and sell it
to the Muppets as AAA asset-backed paper with above market yield!
Later the
Fed will have t buy that shit back to hide the crimes and stupidity of
government actions and "save the system".
Even with some churn in the list T is sustaining over 400,000 confirmed orders
on the books. At 5000 per week that is 80 weeks work to get to the last one.
The churn in orders is likely due to people maxing their wait time
expectations, but as the waiting list diminishes wait time will reduce and
more folk will decide to buy.
Try driving an electric car - you will never want a FF car again. Then it
becomes a case of which EV to get. If one has a choice and the money then a
Tesla is the best. If money-constrained then there are other choices. I
think T will be around for a while to satisfy the top end of the market.
Nissan Leaf, eGolf etc will work better for others but the Big T will stay
on top, IMHO.
The chief engineer is gone, and he was doing production
engineering. That is, the assembly line. Elon shoved him aside to do this hail
mary pass - assembling them by hand in a tent.
So now he's gone, and there are actually several top positions vacant.
Fortunately, one of them is in accounting so for a while here Musk can use some
not-so-GAAP ledgering.
Seeing the top production engineer leave during a period of rapid production
engineering overhaul... what could go wrong?
Musk cavalier attitude has resulted in Tesla becoming one of the world's
most-shorted stocks. Unfortunately, for the shorts, shares are up almost 30% in
the past month mainly as a result of Musk's antics and toying with those of
little faith. More about this in the article below.
This is way too optimistic. First of all in comparison with a
good hybrid like Camry hybrid Tesla is not that great. With 50 miles per gallon
you need 6 gallons for 300 miles. So at $32 you break even with Tesla (which
costs two time more) and at $3 you lose one dollar per gallon. You need to burn
30K gallons to break even with Tesla. That's 150K miles.
I have been a zero hedge reader for 9 years. I have at times been a fierce critic
of Elon Musk (especially with Solar City)
I have owned a Model 3 for 3 months..
you can ask me any question if you want... but my perspective:
- Handling is amazing. The car handles better than a BMW 3 series. Consumer
Reports compared it to a Porsche Boxter.
- Power is amazing. 0 to 60 time is 5.1 seconds. That is comparable to a BMW
340I
- Operaring cost are amazing. The cost to add 300 miles of range where I live
in SoCal (where electricity is expensive) is $10-$12 ($0.12 per kWh at night).
Again.. how much would it cost to drive 300 miles on a comparable gasoline car?
- there is pretty much no maintenance schedule (battery fluid every 60k mike
and brake fluid every 30k miles)
- Autopilot is amazing. I drive from LA to SD pretty much 100 percent on
autopilot. Is it self driving? No. Do you need to pay attention? Yes. Does it do
a damn good job at centering the car on its lane? It really does you would be
surprised. Are there limitations with it? Yes there are.. stationary objects are
one example. Are stationary objects a major problem when you use autopilot as
designed (on the freeway)? usually not.. and by keeping good following distances
and paying attention that is not a problem. All the instances of accidents
published in the media have been by people who were not paying attention at all.
I paid $57.5k + TTL for that. I intentionally left out tax incentives because
those will be phased out. Ask yourself.. is it really more expensive than a
comparable 3 series when you take into account the above? I don't think so.
That is my major criticism with tesla bears. You can't compare a model 3 to.
$18k focus. Not saying that everything that Elon musk does is good. Using tesla
as a piggy bank to Bail out Solarcity and SpaceX.. I certainly do not agree with
that.
Now let's talk about reliability. Well so far I have run into 2 issues:
electronics under the seat exposed l, and spontaneous crack on the pano roof
(know defects in earlier model), both issues were promptly resolved. It's too
early to tell but for now it's better than my Scion FRS.
A Tesla vehicle caught fire, apparently "out of the blue," while sitting in California
traffic. Video of the incident has been shared by US actress Mary McCormack whose husband was
in the electric car at the time. McCormack said her husband was in traffic on Santa Monica
Boulevard when the vehicle suddenly caught fire. There was "no accident" and the blaze
came completely "out of the blue," she said.
@Tesla This
is what happened to my husband and his car today. No accident,out of the blue, in traffic
on Santa Monica Blvd. Thank you to the kind couple who flagged him down and told him to
pull over. And thank god my three little girls weren't in the car with him pic.twitter.com/O4tPs5ftVo
Passersby flagged down the driver who then got out of the vehicle. Video recorded at the
scene shows flames shooting from underneath the parked car.
The electric car did not have an autopilot feature and was a "normal Tesla,"according to McCormack.
Sheriff's Lt. William Nash in West Hollywood
said that deputies saw smoke coming from the electric vehicle and then fire. Firefighters
were called to extinguish the flames. Nash said the log entry cited the possibility of a faulty
battery, however, McCormack said on Twitter that they hadn't yet received an explanation for
the sudden blaze.
Tesla called the incident "an extraordinarily unusual occurrence" and said it was
investigating the matter.
The company is facing intense scrutiny after several incidents involving its vehicles. Last
month, a Tesla burst into flames after a fatal crash in Switzerland. In the US, investigations
were launched after a Model S crashed into a concrete wall and caught fire in Florida, killing
two teenagers. Another Model S, with an autopilot feature, crashed into the back of a firetruck
in South Jordan, Utah.
Tesla founder Elon Musk has criticized media
coverage of crashes involving his vehicles and claims the cars are at least 10 times less
likely than a gas car to catch fire, citing data from the National Fire Protection Association
and US Federal Highway Administration.
This is an excellent and detailed explanation of the problem. Though I don't know the
details, I recall that the i3 was the subject of a huge controversy about what subsidies
and lane privileges it would receive from California, eventually resulting in the small
tank and probably in the 6% restriction. Initial reviews of the i3 have quickly zeroed in
on this as a highway safety issue, with i3s getting in the way of other traffic when they
don't have the electric power needed for hills. That probably bodes well for California
to reconsider this matter.
One question for you: what about the return trip from Tahoe? How does the i3 do at
regenerating and recapturing the energy used to get up there?
I live in California and adjacent to hilly terrain, often with 6%+ grades with 65mph
as the posted speed. I test drove vehicles on this. I went with the Volt as the Volt in
hold mode (or, in a pinch, low-mpg, charge-increasing "mountain mode") allows me to save
up enough SOC to not only take the grades fine, but pass pretty much everyone else. The
BMW i3 is totally capable of this same feat if hold mode could be enabled.
I totally agree that these arbitrary rules don't do us any good. I feel like the rules
are designed around preventing people from using the vehicles as designed... what a great
strategy if intended to discourage purchases.
Thanks for this awesome and informative article. Very well-written. I'm looking
forward to the next installment. I experienced the 3-day test drive, and am considering
an i3, so this gave me great information. The notion of using up most of the energy you
carry around is intriguing, and makes the i3 with the REx even more attractive,
especially compared with the Tesla. The i3's light weight really appeals to me, as it
makes the car fun to drive. I currently have a 335is, with the DCT, which is a nearly
perfect car, and my only wish is that the car was lighter.
I also wonder if someone figured out how to adjust the SOC via the onboard computer?
That would be really useful.
Great article and I loved the detail, look forward to your next one! Question, is
anyone hacking the i3 to increase the level at which the SOC is at? If so, how easy is
it? I live in Denver and your article basically put the nail in the coffin for me in
regards to getting an i3 unless of course I could (relatively) easily change the SOC
limit.
On a different note, Tesla is going to zero. The company has a number of severe problems:
• Tesla is burning through one billion per quarter and is likely to run out of cash
this year
• It is the only company of its size (in the market) offering high yield debt and stock
offerings to accredited investors (which do not require SEC disclosure)
• Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly refused to meet with Elon Musk when he was
in Saudi Arabia
• Elon Musk has violated federal securities, labor, and OSHA laws
• Musk and many other current and former executives have signed false documents and thus
committed perjury
• The Model 3 is a disaster and was panned by Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, and
Edmund's
• The self-dealing merger with Solar City would likely not have been approved by
shareholders without Musk's vaporware demonstration of solar roof tiles that do not exist
(securities fraud)
• Half of Tesla's output is exported, leaving it very vulnerable to trade
retaliation
• Quality problems continue to be severe, and Tesla has now resorted to partnering with
local body shops for post-production fixes
• Extreme shortage of spare parts means Teslas can be out of service for months
• Tesla takes months to refund customer deposits
• Numerous accounting problems, leading to 86 questions from the SEC for the last fiscal
year, compared to zero for Ford Motor
• Tesla "autopilot" units keep crashing
• Highest accident and fatality statistics in its vehicle class (new luxury
vehicles)
• Model S wheels and suspensions keep cracking
• Difficulty of exiting vehicle in the absence of electrical power (no mechanical door
handles) led to children literally being burned alive
• A flood of competition is inbound, including the 600 horsepower Porsche Misson-E going
into production at Zuffenhausen next year
• Tesla's zero emission credits are set to expire, just as other automakers start
harvesting them
Every freely available share is now short–not joking. You can't even short the stock
anymore generally, though puts are of course available.
Musk himself is likely to be personally wiped out as well, as he has borrowed against 40%
of his shares. He'll face a very ugly margin call when the stock starts sliding.
Additionally, he's likely to personally face both civil and criminal liability.
"... proudly tweeted last Friday about an over-the-air software update which improves the Tesla Model 3's crappy braking by 20 feet in a 60 mph stop. ..."
"... If you've ever had a personal computer suddenly freeze as a force-fed Microsoft OS update wipes everything, you know that "What could possibly go wrong" is more than a rhetorical question. ..."
' With their unproven, secretive technology that's fully hackable '
Mad genius Elon Musk -- our new Hawking, now that Hawking's left -- proudly tweeted
last Friday about an over-the-air software update which improves the Tesla Model 3's crappy
braking by 20 feet in a 60 mph stop.
If you've ever had a personal computer suddenly freeze as a force-fed Microsoft OS
update wipes everything, you know that "What could possibly go wrong" is more than a
rhetorical question.
"... Despite receiving all this government money, Musk's company has not shown demonstrable results. Yesterday, Bloomberg released a story under the headline "Tesla Doesn't Burn Fuel, It Burns Cash," detailing how the company spends $6,500 a minute and may run out of money by the end of the year. Just weeks ago, Moody's downgraded Tesla's credit rating due to its seeming inability to meet deadlines. Mr. Musk's estimate of producing 20,000 vehicles in December, for instance, turned into just over 2,400 in the entire fourth quarter. ..."
"... Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty. ..."
Anyone familiar with the hit sitcom Seinfeld knows that Cosmo Kramer, the
rambunctious, eccentric neighbor of Jerry Seinfeld, had a lot of big ideas. From make-your-own-pizza parlors to
tie dispensers to the
infamous " mansierre
," Kramer was -- in his own mind -- a world-changing revolutionary.
Of course, aside from one notable exception ( the Regis Philbin-approved pop-out coffee table
book ), none of his ideas ever panned out. But lack of achievement is exactly what viewers
expected every week. The whole fun of Kramer was his dream-big mentality and the impracticality
that came with it.
No one on the show was senseless enough to support Kramer in his work. In fact, in one
episode, Leland fired
him even though he did not hold any standing position. Kramer couldn't even keep a job at a bagel store for
longer than a few days. It was his friends' open refrigerators that provided him with the life
support he needed to continue dreaming and inventing.
This comedy sitcom case study is ironically much more sensible than what occurs in real
life. There are plenty of Cosmo Kramers out in the world today with ideas that are even more
ambitious than anything Kramerica Industries could have
formulated. The only difference is that these individuals have armies of lobbyists that can
convince our spendthrift government to finance their ideas, even though they have yet to pass
any free-market smell tests.
Perhaps the most recent example of such a politically astute, Kramer-like figure is Elon
Musk. This larger-than-life media personality plans to do everything from sending men to the
moon and Mars, to creating a 700-miles-per-hour tunnel transportation system, to turbocharging
human brains by implanting computers.
All of these are excellent ideas, to be sure, but ones that bear significant amounts of
risk. Unfortunately, Mr. Musk does not seem willing to bear all the risk himself. His business
model revolves around hiring experts to navigate the waters of the Washington swamp to discover
ways to make the American people pick up the tab.
Take Tesla, for example. The car company was created to bring electric vehicles to the
general public en masse -- a mission that oddly requires over $1
million in lobbying expenditures annually. As a result, the cars are financed by over $280
million in federal tax incentives, including a $7,500 federal tax break, and tens of millions
more in state rebates and development fees.
Despite receiving all this government money, Musk's company has not shown demonstrable
results. Yesterday, Bloomberg released a story under the headline "Tesla Doesn't Burn
Fuel, It Burns Cash," detailing how the company spends $6,500 a minute and may run out of money
by the end of the year. Just weeks ago, Moody's
downgraded Tesla's credit rating due to its seeming inability to meet deadlines. Mr. Musk's
estimate of producing 20,000 vehicles in
December, for instance, turned into just over 2,400 in the entire fourth quarter.
It is no wonder that when these government subsidies die, electric vehicle sales plummet.
Three years ago, sales sunk by
more than 80 percent in the state of Georgia when the $5,000 state tax credit phased out.
Last year, sales declined by
60 percent when its EV tax breaks sharply fell. These empirical case studies do not paint a
positive picture of Tesla's future, especially given that its federal tax break is expected to phase out
sometime this year. Perhaps funding Kramer's big ball of oil in the name of alleviating
the world's spillage problems would have been just as, if not more, fruitful.
SpaceX is no better. Roughly 85 percent of its contracts come directly from the federal
government. The aerospace manufacturer hit a
then-personal record of $2 million in annual lobbying spending not long ago as it continued
its quest to conquer the stars. New York magazine once asked
"Are Elon Musk's Aggressive Lobbyists Bad for Silicon Valley? " but without them the
government-dependent company might not even exist.
SpaceX has already received roughly
$15 billion in subsidy guarantees from Texas, and despite
meeting just one sixth of the hiring goals it promised, it is requesting
$5 million more . Similarly, even though SpaceX has already received over $70 million from
the federal government to develop its BFR, the company would
like more on that front as well.
Meanwhile, just last week, NASA's Office of Inspector General found that SpaceX has raised the cost of some
launches by over 50 percent due to having "a better understanding of the costs involved after
several years of experience with cargo resupply missions." This new development means that the
government's deal -- already diluted by costly rocket failures -- continues to get worse and
worse.
And don't even get me started on SolarCity, Mr. Musk's solar panel company, which has still
not turned an annual profit despite receiving over $490
million in grants from the Treasury Department over the years and the government covering
30 percent of its installation costs.
As a free market capitalist, I am rooting for Mr. Musk to pull it together and succeed. But
I don't want the federal government to waste any more of Americans' hard-earned cash to make it
happen.
We will never know what the well-intentioned Cosmo Kramer could have accomplished had Jerry
and the rest of the gang cut him off from their refrigerators, homes, and other welfare as a
means of forcing him to follow through with his goals. However, we can still explore how taking
away such measures of comfort will affect Elon Musk's motivation and decision-making.
Ironically, it just may be the recipe for success that the ambitious CEO needs.
Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty.
There are legitimate questions to ask regarding tesla, but SpaceX is a whole other issue.
Pretty much every rocket manufacturer gets massive government subsidies. SpaceX is not the
first and probably not the last. but their increase in price is still cost competitive
compared to other manufacturers.
Ford Says Farewell
America's most iconic automaker plans to drive almost all of their passenger sedans into the sunset by 2020.
By
Telly Davidson
•
May 16, 2018
1959 Ford Country Squire Station Wagon Advertisement Life Magazine November 10 1958
By SenseiAlan /Flickr/CreativeCommons
Ford Motor Company recently dropped a bombshell -- one that would have been largely
unthinkable before the Great Recession. FoMoCo announced that it would be phasing out virtually all passenger cars built
for the U.S./Canadian market (they will continue in Europe) by 2020, except for the upcoming Focus Active and
always-popular Mustang -- a move all the more grim in that it was founding father Henry Ford that pioneered the mass-market
sedan for both America and the world.
The Focus will be first to go this month, followed by the Taurus next March and the
Fiesta in May 2019.
Ford Motor Company was always the Eve to General Motors' Adam in Detroit, not only
making cars (and profits) by the trunkload, but leading the league in midcentury style. The "Jackie Kennedy"
Lincoln
Continental Town Car
.
The Thunderbird
. But during the "Big
Government" era of unapologetically high property taxes and ballooning environmental regulations, Ford suffered its
first postwar crash. Amid the 1975 fuel shortages, Congress passed -- and Detroit's own liberal Republican stalwart Gerald
Ford (despite some quibbles and misgivings) signed -- the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Act (CAFÉ), which started off by
requiring an 18 mpg standard by the 1978 model year (1975 models were around 13 mpg by average.) The standard would
rise to 19 mpg in 1979, 20 in 1980, and then not one but
two
mileage points per year through 1984 -- with massive, multi-million-dollar IRS and court-imposed fines if a manufacturer
was found to be non-compliant.
Like a small-town mayor futilely trying to resist a federal court order, Ford mocked
GM's newly streamlined "large" cars when they debuted for 1977 (GM had been planning to go on a diet even before CAFÉ,
and had vastly more R&D money than Ford or Chrysler). Ads noted that Ford's family-priced LTD sedan was now the same
length as a "downsized" (but still gargantuan by today's standards) new '77 Cadillac. Cynically, both Ford and Chrysler
made no secret of the fact that their 1978 model full-size cars would be the last of their kind (Cadillac also let
everyone know that their big 1978 Eldorado was heading for the exit door), encouraging not only the "buy it while you
still can!" panic buying of the hyperinflationary late '70s -- but also as good as telling customers that next year's
forcibly-downsized models would be decidedly inferior. Lincoln gave its Town Car and Mark V one last victory lap before
they went, and Ford also renewed the Mark V's shorter-wheelbase platform-mates the Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar for
1979. Still fuming at the imminent loss of their league-leaders, Ford so grossly overproduced for 1979 that Lincoln had
a backlog of 210 days' worth of cars by July of 1979,
effectively
giving them a 1980 model year.
Not surprisingly, the downsized 1979 Ford (and Chrysler) "full size" sedans initially
bombed -- sales declined drastically for the '79 LTD and Mercury Grand Marquis, and went off a cliff in 1980. And while the
Mark VI "only" fell by half of its 1979 numbers, the Town Car went off Thelma and Louise's cliff -- barely managing
one-third of its '79 numbers.
And all this was just a sampling of what became arguably the biggest one-year
euthanasia in Ford history, as the 1980 Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch (and their upscale twin, the luxury Lincoln
Versailles), and the iconic Pinto/Bobcat were all put to sleep at year's end. All but the Granada were canceled
outright, in nameplate as well as body style, with the Granada barely hanging on as a thinly-disguised Fairmont (Ford's
first big downsizing-era success, which kept the lights on at Dearborn during the 12-15 percent interest rate era from
1978 to 1983.)
Now the plot thickens. The first downsizing era was complete, but the second one, to
bring things into compliance for 1984-85 (and what Detroit assumed would be even more draconian) standards, was now
underway. Ford suffered catastrophic losses in 1980-82, and Chrysler had to beg a stern President Carter for a
too-big-to-fail bailout in 1979-80 to avoid bankruptcy, as they frantically redesigned their slow-selling car lines yet
again.
But out of this "Big Government" intrusion came the impetus to design what became
Ford's biggest successes in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s -- the 1983-88 and 1989-97 Thunderbird, the 1984-94 Ford
Tempo, and the 1986-95 Ford Taurus. (Already their 1981-90 Escort flirted with #1 bestseller status in recessionary
1982.) Meanwhile, arch-competitor GM euthanized all but the station wagons and the Chevy Caprice sedan (which lasted
until 1990) of their full-size 1977 lines in spring 1984. The cars GM replaced them with were engineering marvels
(except when it came to reliability, perhaps) of front-wheel-drive, V6-powered efficiency -- but as folksinger Malvina
Reynolds might have said, they all looked ticky-tacky and they all looked the same. GM suffered its largest decade-loss
in its then-history during the '80s, according to auto historian Paul Niedemeyer.
But just as it had in 1978, Ford held out -- and this time, the move paid off. As
Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. began relaxing CAFE laws (or at least refusing to raise the standards dramatically), the
"downsized" big cars of the first wave of downsizing that still remained in production began selling like
hotcakes -- especially to Greatest and Silent Generation traditionalists who wanted cars that reminded them of the
unapologetic luxury they drove in the 70s, when they were at the height of their earning power and still healthy. The
1991 LTD/Marquis looked much the same as they did in 1979, and the Town Car of 1989 (and its closest competitor, the '89
Chrysler Fifth Avenue) were virtual reruns of 1980. And the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (the only other GM survivor of
1984-85's "second downsizing") was still wearing its chrome-finned, formal-roofed, stately 1977 body all the way into
1992, with only a couple of reshaped-sheetmetal facelifts in between.
But Boomers had already been converted during the energy-conscious '70s to efficient
Japanese (and soon, Korean) cars. (Their Gen-X and Millennial children also would have no qualms at all about buying
"foreign.") By the late 80s and 90s, the Japanese were second to none in reliability, and rising suns like Hyundai and
Kia began offering league-leading, bumper-to-bumper warranties. As the
Roger &
Me
era of globalization took hold, even the saltiest WWII and Korea veterans
who were left began seriously considering Japanese and Korean autos -- given that the Asian automakers were consciously
building plants in the U.S. and Canada to erase the stigma of buying foreign (and head off potential tariffs), while the
allegedly "all American" Big 3 were sending jobs by the thousand to Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and eventually China.
The one big exception, however, was American trucks and vans -- including that ultimate
"soccer moms" symbol, the "minivan" (introduced by Chrysler in 1984 and Ford in 1985) and the luxury SUV. Because even
the biggest global-warming advocates and environmentalists had to concede that a civilized society needed ambulances,
hearses, construction, repair, and delivery trucks, and so forth, trucks were held to a significantly lower MPG
standard.
Conscious of his fellow Yuppies (and not wanting to be a gloomy Debbie Down-size-er
like Jimmy Carter), Bill Clinton said "No way!" to raising CAFE standards, much less cracking down hard on American-made
trucks, vans, Jeeps, and SUVs that were all the rage (and already paying the Big Three's bills) in the late '90s. And
naturally, Texas oilman George W. Bush (with his bestie, "Kenny-Boy" Lay of Enron) and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney barely
even touched fuel standards. The CAFÉ standard never rose above 27.5 mpg for passenger cars from 1985 all the way
through 2010 -- a full 25 years.
By 2010, the US auto industry was in the worst shape since the Great Depression, if
not the Carter years. GM was pulling itself out of bankruptcy, and cancelled their Saturn and Pontiac brands on
Halloween 2010 (Oldsmobile had been the first to the cemetery in the relatively prosperous June of 2004). Chrysler had
long ago put Plymouth and what was left of AMC/Eagle to sleep, and was even more bankrupt than GM. The only real
survivor was, ironically, Ford, thanks to its European partnerships and its red-hot truck/SUV presence, and the
ever-popular Mustang. (The Focus, Taurus, and Fusion were still doing well, although largely behind the Japanese and
Korean majors.) The Town Car (whose body dated to 1998) and Crown Victoria (which went back to 1991-92) finally died in
early 2012, after shutting down production at the end of August 2011. And though the iconic Lincoln Continental was
revived for 2017, it has largely failed to meet expectations.
So this was your life, Ford Motor Company. You invented the modern working-class
hero's sedan with the Model T, you survived and thrived as arguably midcentury middle-class America's most iconic
automaker, you stumbled badly and nearly OD'ed on gasoline and outdated styling through the last days of disco, but woke
up with Morning in America. "Big Gov'mint" forced you -- kicking and screaming -- to innovate in ways you didn't want to, but
that kept you alive during that time. And then, when deregulation happened, and the focus became trucks/minivans/SUVs
that didn't need year-to-year changes to stay popular, you had to play it as it laid.
Fare thee well, Ford sedans and wagons. It wouldn't have been the same without ya.
If oil prices his $100 a barrel as Citi is predicting next year (side effect of Trump's Iran move), this could
turn out badly for Ford.
I hope I have purchased my last gas car – a Prius Prime – a year ago. I am in my
later 60's and I like long range trips. At 50 mpg+ on gas, I will be able to afford to drive it when I am
retired. And for my about town commuting and short trips, I am averaging over 130 mpg – relying mostly upon the
battery. With luck, it will last until I am not up for long haul trips.
I hope to buy a fully self driving electric car in 4 years when I have finished paying off the Prius. My
wife is directionally challenged and we are likely to be somewhat rural, making Uber-like services less able.
In the mean time, she drives her 10 year old Toyota corolla, which gets quite good mileage.
I have driven gas guzzlers in my time, but given the amount I drive, I have decided to optimize my cars for
reliability and mileage. The Prius replaces a Suburu Forester that got ~ 23 mpg. It had over 230,000 miles on
it before it sustained enough damage from road debris that it wasn't worth repairing.
I don't need another suv or pickup, the kids are finally moving out.
Economic analysis often uses the term ceteris paribus -- all other things being equal -- but all other
things are not equal. The worker Tesla employed might have found employment elsewhere; it may have
even been more stable, safer employment that did not entail payment in Tesla equity, that is
subject to some uncertainty as to its ultimate value.
To highlight this point, it may be helpful
to consider the economic activity generated by Tesla's competitors in California. These
competitors' operations are being impaired by Tesla's sale of deeply subsidized cars in the state.
While Tesla's competitors do not manufacture cars in the state, they account for
1,366 dealerships
employing 140,596 jobs (that pay cash),
accounting for $8.56 billion in wages,
paying $9.38 billion in taxes, and
making $50 million of charitable contributions per year.
On a more minor point, the IHS Markit report assumes that the $2.1 billion in "wages" paid to
Tesla workers is spent in the California economy. As discussed above, the report includes in these
"wages" Tesla equity granted to employees without quantifying what percentage of wages this equity
represented. We are skeptical as to how many employees spent their Tesla stock to boost local
economic activity.
Cars are made of stuff . Software is made of bytes. While I don't say that Silicon
Valley squillionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk has stuff and bytes confused in his mind, it is true
that the unexpected materiality of the automobile is causinge his company problems, and may be
enough to sink it. Further, broadening focus from Tesla to the industry, the tendency of
electric vehicles (EVs) to de materialize -- by catching on fire -- will pose problems
for (publicly funded) local governments that nobody seems to be thinking about. I'll show the
first by looking at Tesla's attempt to automate the final assembly process; and the second by
looking at a recent Tesla battery fire.
In 2006 Tesla CEO Elon Musk published a 'top secret masterplan' on Tesla's website. It was
low on detail but the groundbreaking electric car company has stuck to it. Tesla, it said,
was going to '[1]create a low volume sports car, [2]use that money to develop a medium volume
car at a lower price and [3]use that money to create an affordable, high volume car'.
In Silicon Valley terms, Musk was going to create a manufacturing process that scaled
, a process where the only requirement to solve capacity problems is a frictionless capital
injection for bandwidth or servers (as opposed to, say, hiring and training workers). But now
we see that Tesla's process not scaling; that's why Tesla keeps not making Musk's
projections. A report from Bernstein analysts Max Warburton and Toni Sacconaghi ( noted at NC
here , and then at Business Insider (" The Robots Are Killing
Tesla ") explains why. Musk hoped to achieve the third phase of his master plan ("high
volume") through hyper-automation, including automating final assembly. It's not working.
Quoting Warburton and Sacconaghi (via
Twitter ):
We've noted Elon Musk's claims about reinventing auto production with interest. He's
talked about manufacturing being "a competitive advantage," about "the machine that builds
the machine," [ Wired ] and about
"manufacturing as the product." He has said " you can't have people in the production
line itself , otherwise you drop to people speed. So there will be no people in the
production process itself. People will maintain the machines, upgrade them, and deal with the
anomolies." These are bold claims. They have been accompanied by Tesla's huge capital
investments in the last two years We've noticed reports of hundreds of multi-axis Kuka robots
being purchases for Fremont (467 reported in just one batch -- we believe the total is far
greater). We've watched as Tesla bought outright a German automation design company
(Grohmann) to help it with its task.
[A]s Tesla has struggled to ramp Model 4 -- and as the company has sought to
optimistically discuss its assembly line design -- we've rather belatedly figured out what's
going on. The reason Tesla spent all this money, the reason it bought Grohmann, and the
reason it can't build Model 3's are all linked. Tesla has tried to hyper-automate Model 3
production. And like every historic attempt at high automation in the industry, it's
struggling.
In fact, Tesla's automation attempt is not only struggling; Warburton and Sacconaghi predict
it will fail. Here is why:
[Tesla] has also tried to automate final assembly . Tesla's approach to automation rings
alarm bells. If we look at the history of the auto industry, we can see that attempts to
automate final assembly haven't worked. Many OEMs have tried it in the past -- such as Fiat,
VW, and GM. They have all failed, often spectacularly. Anyone familiar with automobile
assembly knows this . .
[A]utomation is expensive -- and usually proves far less effective, highly inflexible, and
creates quality problems further down the line.
It's the materiality -- the bad welds, crooked bolts, misaligned fasteners, defective seals
-- that hyper-automantion cannot handle. Warburton concludes: "[A]utomation in final assembly
doesn't work." High-tech manufacturing expert
Roger Bohn agrees:
Fundamentally, Tesla has a product design and production process that are "not
manufacturable." That is, the product tolerances are considerably tighter than the process
variation. The result is that they produce lots of junk that must be scrapped or reworked.
They can partially reduce process variation by stopping more often to adjust machines, but
this causes downtime and creates "bottlenecks."
All this means that Tesla can't remove people from the production line. That means that
Tesla can't make Musk's projections. What that means, we'll see.
As a sidebar, it's worth noting that Tesa had the same issues with its battery manufacturing
plant.
CNBC in January:
Tesla's problems with battery production at the company's Gigafactory in Sparks, Nevada,
are worse than the company has acknowledged according to a number of current and former Tesla
employees.
Here is a description of the materiality of the battery-making process:
What does it take to make a Model 3 battery? Each battery pack contains four modules. And
each module contains seven bandoliers, or cooling tubes with a row of lithium-ion cells glued
to each side. Those cells have to be precisely aligned.
Manual assembly works for some parts of battery production, like bolting down and gluing
the "clamshells," or outer structures that hold a battery pack together.
But bandoliers are tough to put together by hand . Cells can be pushed a bit
too high or low, or otherwise drop out of alignment, as they're squeezed against the glue on
a cooling tube and packed into modules.
A current Gigafactory engineer recalled that in December, factory workers were manually
"slapping bandoliers together as fast as they possibly could," generating a lot of
scrap in the process.
Once the machines in the factory were able to crank out bandoliers as fast or faster than
the manual laborers, Tesla began sending Panasonic workers back to their employer, sources
said.
Today, Tesla is winding down manual assembly as much as possible at the
Gigafactory, a hopeful sign.
But one engineer who works there cautioned that the automated lines still can't run at
full capacity. "There's no redundancy, so when one thing goes wrong, everything shuts down.
And what's really concerning are the quality issues ."
Now, I can believe that in fact battery production will scale, simply because they are
orders of magnitude less complex than cars. Still, it's telling that we have the same issues at
both hyper-automated assembly lines. It's almost like management has a gigantic blind spot,
because the same problem keeps happening .
Battery Fires as an Externality
From Tesla's doomed quest for struggles with hyper-automation, let's turn to a
recent Tesla incident that points up a difficulty for the electric vehicle industry as a whole:
The death of Apple Engineer Wei Huang in his Tesla, and the subsequent battery fire. ABC
News describes the incident:
Huang was traveling at freeway speeds on the split along the Highway 101 and state Highway
85 junction, lost control and struck the middle barrier causing his vehicle to catch fire,
according to the CHP. A Sig-Alert was issued at 9:29 a.m., the time that the CHP was notified
of the crash.
After Huang's Tesla hit the median, it landed in the second left-most lane of southbound
Highway 101 and was hit by a white Mazda and consequently struck again by a gray Audi
traveling in the adjacent lane, CHP officials said.
(One can only conclude that Tesla -- and the entire EV industry -- dodged a bullet, in
public relations terms; there are no charred bodies strapped in the seats.)
Now, I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with Tesla's battery design (though one
can't help but wonder if quality assurance problems at Tesla's GigaFactory were somehow
involved). Instead, I'd like to focus on what the emergency crews and the firefighters had to
do to put out the fire. From the
Mountain View Voice :
Emergency fire crews arrived at the crash shortly after 9:30 a.m., and found that the
front end of the Tesla had "substantial damage," exposing the vehicle's lithium ion battery
and causing it to catch fire, according to Mountain View Fire Chief Juan Diaz. Electric
vehicle fires are typically put out by blasting a large quantity of water -- 3,000 gallons --
directly on the battery to bring down the temperature of the cells, which can overheat and
reach temperatures of up to 900 degrees, he said.
Diaz said the department was put in a difficult situation. Fire crews had 500 gallons of
water at the scene, but getting any more would have required running 2,000 feet of thick fire
hose across Highway 101, which would have been catastrophic for traffic in both directions,
Diaz said. But letting the car continue to burn on a busy highway, destroying the battery,
would have been a bad choice as well, he said.
"In the middle of the Highway 101 freeway, that's not something we want to do," he said.
"And it's not good for the environment with the byproducts of combustion."
Fire crews used the available supply of water and contacted the
manufacturer of the vehicle , Palo Alto-based Tesla, to assist in getting the battery's
temperature under control. Diaz said the engineers essentially disassembled a portion of
the car battery on the spot , and that subsequent thermal imaging showed
that the battery was no longer unstable.
Fire engines escorted the tow truck that removed the Tesla all the way to the
impound yard out of an abundance of caution, Diaz said. Car batteries are capable of
reigniting for 24 hours after cooling.
The challenging situation was made worse by the significant damage caused by collision
itself. Diaz said that Tesla vehicles are built to be very safe, with features to help first
responders deal with lithium ion batteries that ignite, but in this case emergency crews
had no access to the battery's disconnect wires because they were destroyed on impact
[1]. This is the first time the department has dealt with this kind of problem, Diaz said,
and he commended his department's response to the dangerous situation.
(The story doesn't mention
something an observer noted : "Small explosions within the body of the #Tesla just now as
technicians remove damaged batteries.")
Catastrophic automobile accident happen all the time; I doubt very much that the crash that
killed Huang is in any way unusual, even though it involved multiple vehicles. What was unusual
in this case -- what demand special, indeed unique handling -- was the presence of an electric
vehicle, which required (1) six times the amount of water normally used, (2) the presence of an
engineer from the manufacturer (luckily close at hand in Palo Alto), (3) thermal imaging, and
(4) a firetruck escort.
Further, if you RTFM , you
will see that Tesla recommends that fire departments do even more than the Mountain View Fire
Department did. From Tesla's Model X
Emergency Response Guid e (PDF), page 22:
A burning or heated battery releases toxic vapors. These vapors include sulfuric acid,
oxides of carbon, nickel, lithium, copper, and cobalt. Responders should protect themselves
with full PPE, including self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), and take appropriate
measures to protect civilians downwind from the incident. Use fog streams or
positive-pressure ventilation fans (PPV) to direct smoke and vapors.
So, (5) breathing apparatus, and (6) fog streams, whatever they are -- like a rock and roll
show? -- or big fans. Also, besides (7) something to cut the "first responder loop" with (page
15), (8) "insulated tools" (page 21), and (9) "a large open area" (page 21):
Always advise second responders that there is a risk of battery re-ignition. After Model X
has been involved in submersion, fire, or a collision that has compromised the high voltage
battery, always store the vehicle in an open area at least 50 ft (15 m) from any
exposure.
Presumably, you can't just stick a potentially flaming car in the parking lot behind the
station, so you need a fenced off, lit-up "open area," possibly guarded.
Right now, there aren't very many crashes involving electric vehicles; there were 17 million
new cars sold in 2017, of which 199,826 were EVs. Now, EVs may indeed
catch on fire less often than gasoline-fueled cars , but when they do, it looks like
substantially more resources from emergency responders and firefighters will be required to be
on hand at all times, including equipment, training, and infrastructure[2] (besides potential
medical issues for responders). So when the entire EV industry achieves scale, as it probably
will -- GM, after all, does know something about manufacturing -- there were be
considerable externalities. All this seems like rather a lot to expect of local governments,
even the most beneficent.
Conclusion
The EV industry has two problems: First, it looks like Tesla's hyper-automated EV
manufacturing process will fail (though the GigaFactory, being less complex, may succeed).
Since there are other manufacturers who have more functional views of the role humans should
play on the assembly line, likely the only people affected will be investors, short or long, in
what is, after all, a vanity project for Elon Musk. Second, if the Huang fire is any
indication, there will be significant externalities imposed on the public, especially their
local governments, as EVs become ubiquitous, which the Silicon Valley trade press ignores. In
each case, the materiality of the EV in the workplace -- whether at the point of its assembly
with human hands, or at the point of its disassembly through fire and rescue -- is a key factor
to examine.
NOTES
[1] Somebody should speak to Tesla's engineers about a design for disconnecting the battery
that fails when most needed.
[2] We don't seem to know exactly why lithium-ion batteries catch on fire.
MIT Technology Review , from coverage of a 2013 fire:
There is some real concern out there about the safety of lithium ion batteries, which is
understandable because there have been well reported cases of lithium ion batteries catching
fire. What's unnerving about many of these fires is that they seem to happen
spontaneously.
Yes, that's unnerving indeed. More:
First, the fire illustrated once again how difficult lithium ion battery fires are to put
out. Firefighters thought they had it put out, but it reignited. There are a couple of
schools of thought among battery experts about why this happens.
"A couple of schools of thought." That's unnerving, too.
In a battery fire, the main thing that's burning is the liquid electrolyte, which burns
best when it's exposed to air. One school of thought is that even in the absence of air there
other oxidants within the battery that can create and sustain a fire. It's thought that the
battery electrodes themselves can release oxygen, fueling the fire from within. If this is
the case, all firefighters can do is to work to keep the fire from spreading and wait for the
reactants to burn up.
Other research suggests that this isn't the case. Instead, what might happen is that even
once the fire is put out, the cells stay very hot and keep releasing more electrolyte in the
form of vapor. Once firefighters turn off the water and oxygen can once more come into
contact the vapor, it can reignite.
It seems clear that we need to do more tests and learn the best ways to put out battery
fires, especially as battery-powered cars proliferate.
It seems that in 2013, we don't really have a scientific basis for telling firefighters what
to do. Are there battery mavens in the readership who can bring us up to date on this
point?
EV will get better, and Tesla already gets good reviews, albeit with issues, at CR. Not
long ago they rated Tesla worlds best passenger car. Plus great reviews by owners.
Problems going from small production to big usually has serious problems. And much more
difficult for newbie with newbie tech. Rolls Royce jet engines essentially went under when
simply making bigger what they had been doing for decades.
They probably should have been funding with stock. Probably need 10b.
I really hope they make it. Solar with temp storage plus EV would solve a chunk of our
biggest problem, which is not how the rich treat workers but climate change, though
population is of course behind GW. But for EV to do their part people have to want to buy
them, and Tesla is the only one making that version.
Tesla gets good reviews at CR? Maybe for new car reviews, but long term reliability is
proving to be an issue. In 2015 the model S made news for getting a better-than-perfect score
on CR's new car review, but then ended up with a "not recommended" rating a few months later
due to reports of problems with reliability. Tesla is currently at war with Consumer Reports
over CR's "average" reliability rating for the model 3. CR hadn't driven a 3 yet, but the
rating was based on technology used in the current Model S, which the 3 borrows much
from.
As for Tesla being the only company making an EV people want to buy: the model 3 has been
outsold by the Chevy bolt for every month the 3 was available last year. In the 3's best
month, December, it was outsold by the Bolt 3,227 to 1,060.
I suspect a lot of people are so invested in the Tesla mystique they can't admit to
themselves they bought a pig in a poke and now they're holding the bag. It may be a little
while longer before they can admit that the emperor has no clothes. How's that for stringing
together cliches?
Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Musk and his various enterprises appear
to subsist more on PR than oxygen. One day Musk tells us that AI will destroy the world, the
next he wants to build an underground hyperloop between various cities, later he explains
that the first batch of people he sends to Mars will likely die there (well, that does seem
rather likely). The technological feasibility of Musk's plans are never questioned by his
adherents. Rather, his ideas are wafted toward the heavens on tremulous clouds of hype.
It's been a while since Americans dreamed big about the future. Musk's contribution to
that could be a worthwhile thing. But the big, visible failure of a hype machine is the
opposite.
According to Lambert's post it appears that Musk bet his company's life on high automation
technology. Ironically, Musk was ensnared by the fog bank of hype surrounding the "Robots Are
Coming (For Your Job, Not Mine)" crowd. He inhaled the PR about robotic automation, that it
was inevitable and incipient and ready for prime time. Now he's choking on the fumes.
Automation isn't there yet. The machines aren't smart enough.
We don't even know what "smart" is, much less how to mechanize it. But an entire industry
calls itself that.
It occurs to me that Steve Jobs, despite his tremendous personal flaws, was a far superior
technologist than Musk. When Apple was working on the iPhone, Jobs never hyped a product that
didn't and couldn't exist. The iPhone was developed in strict secrecy. When Jobs presented it
to the public, it did exactly what he said it did. The iPhone was an iteration on existing
technology -- as opposed to iterating on non-existent technology -- and it was fresh, novel
and useful. Tesla didn't invent the electric car. It doesn't have a self-driving car, either,
because those don't exist, but it sure wants us to think it will, any day now. The moment we
stop believing, Tesla dies.
The car company is having trouble. But the space company is doing very well, and is most
definitely not existing solely in PR. It is executing again and again and again, lifting
cargo and satellites to orbit and returning the boosters to be reused. Oh and by the way,
Tesla did make electric cars cool because of the performance, styling, and mass
availability.
This is a bigger problem than you think
I've noted this elsewhere, but it's interesting to note that GM's Battery design, used on the
Chevy Bolt is actually less flammable.
Because Tesla's battery chemistry is much more flammable than GM's and it requires more
armor to deflect foreign objects.
In this case, it would seem that Tesla's armor has failed.
That's a big deal. The reason why is because electric motors and battery packs (the IP
that Tesla uses is owned by Panasonic) are available everywhere. Putting together batteries
is supposed to be Tesla's core competency, it's competitive advantage, for lack of a better
term.
If you read the analysis, GM has produced a simpler to manufacture, less flammable, and
only slightly less energy dense battery pack. That's on its first serious try too at a
mainstream EV. Seeing as how Tesla is not way ahead on battery technology, what advantages
does it have? Brand and marketing may be the only thing that I see.
Another matter – Tesla vs Toyota
Tesla is quite literally the un-Toyota.
It is ironic that Tesla took over the factory formerly occupied by NUMMI, an icon of the
Toyota Production System (TPS). In the early stages of Tesla production, Toyota sent top
people to help. Yet so much of Tesla's vision of manufacturing is completely contrary to
TPS: Spend large amounts of capital to automate everything possible. Rely on hiring many
engineers to make it work rather than carefully developing talent from within. Repair in
quality rather than designing and building in quality. Aim for an ultrafast assembly line
instead of building to the rate of customer demand (takt). Note that the idea of people
continuously improving does not seem to appear in the Tesla playbook. It seems like a
vision born of the machine paradigm, not Wheatley's living system paradigm. It is also
interesting that in the gigafactories "production hell," Elon Musk developed some
appreciation of the value of people in crisis management: "It has to some degree renewed my
faith in humanity that the rapid evolution of progress and the ability of people to adapt
rapidly is quite remarkable."
What Elon Musk is missing is exactly the point that has made Toyota so successful.
Toyota's living system approach is exactly what has been missing from Musk's mechanisitic
view and needs to be at the center of his vision, not as an occasional response to a
crisis. Toyota is a learning organization with a long memory. In 1979, Toyota launched the
Lexus LS400 with the most advanced automation in the company at its Tahara, Japan, plant,
including robots in assembly doing jobs normally done by people. Sales were below
expectations and the plant was underutilized. Toyota's reflection was that the high capital
costs were fixed and could not be adjusted to match demand.
Toyota prides itself on only building to actual demand and when demand is down the
company wants the flexibility to reduce costs to remain profitable. This is possible with
people. While Toyota provides long-term job security for its regular team members, it uses
a variable workforce of agency personnel who can be released in a sales downturn. It also
plans overtime, which can be eliminated. In the Great Recession Toyota cut management pay
and in some plants limited production team members to 35 paid hours a week. And Toyota can
always find useful things to do with team members not needed for production, but robots
simply sit idle. Since the Tahara experience, Toyota reduced automation rather than
accelerated it.
The difference is that Toyota is competent at making vehicles. Tesla not so much, at least
not at the moment, and it will have to learn from its mistakes if it is to survive.
Another irony here. Tesla actually brushed off Toyota's help. It's not well known, but
Toyota actually helped another high end car manufacturer that was struggling, Porsche, which
adapted many of the TPS' best practices.
I suspect that Yves, who has worked in Japan, might be able to chime in a bit on Kaizen as
well.
The luxury cars regularly require fixes before they can leave the factory, according to
the workers. Quality checks have routinely revealed defects in more than 90 percent of
Model S and Model X vehicles inspected after assembly, these individuals said, citing
figures from Tesla's internal tracking system as recently as October. Some of these people
told Reuters of seeing problems as far back as 2012.
Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) said its quality control process is unusually rigorous, designed to
flag and correct the tiniest imperfections. It declined to provide post-assembly defect
rates to Reuters or comment on those cited by employees.
The world's most efficient automakers, such as Toyota (7203.T), average
post-manufacturing fixes on fewer than 10 percent of their cars, according to industry
experts. Getting quality right during initial assembly is crucial, they said, because
repairs waste time and money.
Tesla now has a reputation for unreliable cars with poor fit and finish. That is entirely
self inflicted. They have been shipping beta products and have made a number of pretty bad
decisions.
Musk also is hysterically ant-union. GM made peace with the UAW 80 years ago. I guess
10-percenter liberals now are "post-union," so they and Musk are compatible.
I believe the Tesla pack design is based partly on the knowledge that li ion cells
sometimes spontaneously explode or catch on fire. The pack is made from a lot of small cells
in separated compartments, so if some cells go out or burn, they shouldn't send the whole
pack up in flames. I don't know what happens with GM which uses fewer but larger cells. I
think there have been some incidents of contained battery failures (don't know if fires were
involved) in Tesla cars. The car is still functional enough to tell the driver to pull over
and call Tesla's roadside assistance.
I wonder how often that crash attenuator has gotten hit and whether there have been
previous times when the attenuator has been subsequently hit in another accident before being
replaced after the first one. I've seen those things on the freeway before but didn't know
how they worked.
Yeah the model 3 assembly automation story sounds like a cautionary tale.
An extraordinary amount of money and intellect are consciously being spent to remove
humans from manufacturing and transportation rather than increasing safety and efficiency.
The intensity is frightening. The Tesla was brought to the dealer to fix the autopilot that
swiveled the car seven to 10 times toward the same exact barrier. Rather than turning
autopilot off, the Apple Engineer, I surmise, wanted to find and fix the bug. But, instead he
died in Silicon Valley's quest for a dystopian future without labor. A world without a
purpose in life for human beings.
That's a particularly American obsession. I'm visiting Tokyo, where the street trees are
meticulously pruned. That takes labor. In the US, the only attention a street tree gets is
when it dies and is cut down.
Don't forget all the dogs and drunks that pee on said trees, helping them "just die." And
the stamping feet that compact the root spaces. And the effects of all that other human
effluvium that lands on the canopy and infiltrates the soil.
The problem Tesla is having is they don't have an automated production process, otherwise
there wouldn't be so much rework at the plants and they wouldn't have such poor build
quality, while it does a long time to get that to work well, its not easy or over night, even
if you were producing large mass products(cars). none of the mainstream producers were
successful, but now all of them do so, and the quality is light years better than it was when
they didn't have automation. They also had have about 3 times as many workers as they do now
to produce fewer vehicles.
I won't say much about the lithium ion batteries except to say that if they spontaneously
ignite from time to time, then it is because they have been pushed into production before
they understood the science of how they work. I went looking for the video clip of that Tesla
fire and found another one from Germany a few months ago ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzfxZMXRG38
). Maybe Tesla just hates Fire Departments which is why one of their cars crashed into a big
red fire truck because the car couldn't "see" it.
It seems to be a dream of Silicon Valley to get rid of all workers and replace them with
robots guided by AIs. Elon's factory is just the latest attempt at pushing this agenda
forward and he had as much luck as an IBM engineer becoming a farmer. This is not something
that you can just keeping throwing engineers at and expect that problem to be solved. You
wonder if he has even heard of W. Edwards Deming or even the Japanese concept of kaizan.
Humans are where they are because they adapt. Machines don't
Maybe a quote here might help. The science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: "A
human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship,
design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the
dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
And may I add also for robot car assembly machines?
Well at 3:02PM on April 1st, @ElonMusk thought it would be fun for TSLA sharefholders if
he made an April Fool's joke on Twitter :
Tesla Goes Bankrupt Palo Alto, California, April 1, 2018 -- Despite intense efforts to
raise money, including a last-ditch mass sale of Easter Eggs, we are sad to report that
Tesla has gone completely and totally bankrupt. So bankrupt, you can't believe it.
As you can imagine the joke is getting mixed reviews.
The stories about how Tesla tried to push robotics and automation to unheard of levels in
the industry is particularly damning. It explains their inability to hit targets project
years out after consuming gobs of capital in an industry that is really mature. Maybe it also
explains the rats fleeing the ship, errr, the high level executives seeking greener pastures
(and potentially cashing in their options).
I was finally able to convince a college friend to retrieve his $1000 dollar down payment
on a Model 3. Said friend is a programmer who this winter said he can't wait until Tesla is
doing all the driving for us because people are so bad at driving. So he was firmly in the
eating out of Elon's palm camp. For him to come around and claim back is money is something
else. Granted, it's just one person, but I have to think other deposit holders are taking
similar action, or at least thinking about it with the recent news.
An aging football stadium in Michigan. A decrepit paper mill in Minnesota. A sun-bleached patch of
desert in California.
These are the lots where Volkswagen is storing the hundreds of thousands of diesel vehicles
that included software to help them cheat US emissions testing as the company races to buyback a huge
chunk of its inventory ahead of a deadline agreed to as part of its settlement with the US government
,
per
Reuters.
Under the terms of its landmark settlement with the US government,
if 85% of the 500,000
cars VW promised to repurchase haven't been bought back or fixed by then, the company will face higher
punitive payments.
Luckily for VW,
the company says it has already repurchased 83% of these vehicles.
Back in 2015, the company admitted to one of the biggest corporate scandals of the millennium:
Installing software in its diesel cars to cheat US emissions test.
The company later pleaded guilty to several felonies, agreed to three years probation, an paid more
than $4 billion in fines.
Meanwhile, it was also required to buy back any car that had been affected by its strategy.
According to a court filing, as of Dec. 31, Volkswagen had repurchased 335,000 diesel
vehicles, resold 13,000 and destroyed about 28,000 vehicles.
As of the end of last year, VW was storing 294,000 vehicles around the country. The company has
sent more than 400,000 letters offering buybacks and reimbursements.
Tags
They have a bunch of them at the Silverdome in Pontiac. I've been working to
get one of the passats (or a bunch) out of there, but I've been unsuccessful
so far. I don't give a shit about emissions... I've been trying to fake
paperwork to say the cars are a year or two newer. I don't live in a city, so
I don't have to do emissions testing, and those passats go about 50 miles to
the gallon. Plus they're high quality German engineering.
Those were pretty nice engines. Forty miles to the gallon and cleaner
burning than the average American truck or SUV. But I guess gubbermint
had to set an example.., they can lie but you best not.
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
"... When will investors get tired of feeding their capital into this cash-burn machine? ..."
"... Bankruptcy is becoming an increasingly common "exit" from leverage buyouts that private equity firms undertook during the boom before the Financial Crisis. And the pension obligations? Read ..."
Posted on March
29, 2018 by Yves SmithBy Wolf Richter, a San
Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive
international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street
When will investors get tired of feeding their capital into this cash-burn
machine?
Tesla shares plunged 8.2% during regular trading hours on Tuesday and another 2% in
after-hours trading to $272.50, below where they'd been a year ago ($277.45), and down 28% from
September 18, when the market still had hopes for the Model 3.
The unsecured junk bond due in 2025 with a 5.3% coupon – which Tesla sold last August
when its stock was still over $357 a share – dropped to a record low of 89 cents on the
dollar in after-hours trading.
During a nasty day on the stock market, wunderkind Tesla got hammered by Tesla reality.
At First It Was the NTSB
The National Transportation Safety Board
announced that it was sending investigators to California to investigate the fatal and
fiery crash of a Model X on Friday morning that had shut down a carpool ramp and two lanes of
Highway 101, the Silicon Valley artery, for almost six hours, twice as long as most accidents
of this type,
according to the California Highway Patrol. NTSB said it would examine various issues,
including the post-crash fire and removing the vehicle from the accident site.
This is the second NTSB field investigation into the crash of a Tesla this year. In January,
the NTSB opened an investigation into the crash of a Tesla -- apparently in semi-autonomous
mode -- and a fire truck.
In the accident on Friday, the Model X hit a freeway divider, then was hit by a Mazda, and
crashed into an Audi. The lithium-ion cells caught fire. The driver of the Tesla perished. The
fire department ended up calling Tesla to determine how to extinguish the fire, as the exposed
batteries were also an electrocution hazard.
Then It Was Moody's .
During after-hours trading, Tesla got hit on the credit side with a resounding
downgrade from Moody's , which specifically:
Moody's cites these reasons:
Tesla's ratings reflect the significant shortfall in the production rate of the company's
Model 3 electric vehicle.
Tesla produced only 2,425 Model 3s during the fourth quarter of 2017; it is currently
targeting a weekly production rate of 2,500 by the end of March, and 5,000 per week by the
end of June. This compares with the company's year-earlier production expectations of 5,000
per week by the end of 2017 and 10,000 by the end of 2018.
These are just Tesla targets. Tesla never hits its targets. It overpromises to hype its
shares. It didn't overpromise, however, its "manufacturing hell," as CEO Elon Musk put it so
eloquently. And the few Model 3s now driving around out there appear to be beta-versions with
scads of quality problems. Moody's goes on relentlessly:
The company also faces liquidity pressures due to its large negative free cash flow and
the pending maturities of convertible bonds ($230 million in November 2018 and $920 million
in March 2019).
The negative outlook reflects the likelihood that Tesla will have to undertake a large,
near-term capital raise in order to refund maturing obligations and avoid a liquidity
short-fall.
Tesla has a lot of debt. Among the $23 billion in liabilities are: $10.2 billion in
long-term debt and $854 million in customer deposits, according to its
annual report . Tesla also had considerable liquidity at the end of December, including
$3.4 billion in cash and securities, and a "moderate availability" under its $1.9 billion
asset-based loan facility (some of which has been burned up in Q1). But Moody's says that this
is " not adequate to cover :"
1. The approximately $500 million in minimum cash that we estimate Tesla must maintain for
normal operations;
2. A 2018 operating cash burn that will approximate $2 billion if Tesla maintains high
discretionary capital expenditures to increase capacity; and
3. Convertible debt maturities of approximately $1.2 billion through early 2019.
These cash needs will likely require Tesla to undertake a near-term capital raise
exceeding $2 billion. Moreover, if the company maintains its expected pace of expansion, it
will likely need to raise additional capital during the second half of 2019.
Moody's threatened that ratings could be cut even lower if:
Standard and Poor's rates Tesla B-, one notch above CCC, and on a par with Moody's lowered
B3 rating.
Despite the drop on Tuesday, Tesla's shares are still inexplicably above the single
digits, considering how much it loses year after year, for ten years in a row, with every sign
pointing to even bigger losses going forward, and how much investor-cash it burns at an
accelerating rate, year-after-year, and considering the endless false promises and hype and the
truly amazing "manufacturing hell" that is unequaled among automakers.
Once the true believers in this stock finally walk away and the shares go where they belong,
Tesla's debt will get in trouble. The reason is simple: The entire premise of the creditors is
that Tesla will always have a high share price, and so it can always sell more shares to raise
more money to service its debt. But once issuing more shares becomes difficult in an unwilling
market, creditors won't be able to figure out how on earth (not Mars) Tesla is going to pay
them interest and principal, with no new money coming in, while also burning several billions a
year on its operations.
Once this powerful cash-burn machine can no longer fuel itself by selling new shares and new
debt, it's a scenario for default. Moody's would then slap a "D" rating on the company and its
debt, by which time most investors have already watched their capital go up in smoke.
Bankruptcy is becoming an increasingly common "exit" from leverage buyouts that private
equity firms undertook during the boom before the Financial Crisis. And the pension
obligations? Read
PE Firm Cerberus Capital's "Rollup" Collapses into Bankruptcy
(theverge.com)BeauHD on Wednesday February 21, 2018
@06:10PM from the potentially-meritless dept. A new lawsuit from a former Tesla employee
claims the
company knowingly sold defective cars , and that the employee was demoted and eventually
fired after reporting the practice to his superiors. The lawsuit was filed in late January in
New Jersey Superior Court under the Conscientious Employee Protection
Act (CEPA). The Verge reports: The former employee, Adam Williams, worked for Tesla as a
regional manager in New Jersey dating back to late 2011. While there, he says he watched the
company fail "to disclose to consumers high-dollar, pre-delivery damage repairs" before
delivering its vehicles, according to the complaint. Instead, he says the company sold these
cars as "used," or labeled as "demo/loaner" vehicles. "There's no merit to this lawsuit. Mr.
Williams' description of how Tesla sells used or loaner vehicles is totally false and not how
we do things at Tesla," a representative for the company said in response to the lawsuit. "It's
also at odds with the fact that we rank highest in customer satisfaction of any car brand, with
more owners saying they'd buy a Tesla again than any other manufacturer. Mr. Williams was
terminated at Tesla for performance reasons, not for any other reason." The lawyer for the
plaintiff could not be reached in time for publish.
Williams says in the court filing that he reported this behavior in late 2016 and early
2017 to his supervisor, as well as Lenny Peake, Tesla's East Coast Regional Manager, and Jerome
Guillen, a company vice president. Shortly after that, he claims, he was demoted to service
manager of the Springfield, New Jersey Tesla store. He then says he was demoted again later in
the year to a "mobile manager" position and was ultimately fired in September 2017. In the
lawsuit, Williams argues that he was terminated for reporting the alleged lawbreaking
practices, and he should therefore be covered by CEPA's whistleblower protection.
(electrek.co)BeauHD on Monday February 26, 2018
@05:20PM from the what's-inside dept. Rei writes: With an estimated
8,670 Model 3s delivered , a race is on as competitors and owners work to figure out its
limits and explore the tech behind it. Many-time Tesla teardown expert "Ingineerix" has posted
a series of videos
and discussed
his findings on Reddit . Among them: what appears to be the industry's first switched reluctance
motor , a massive "smuggling compartment" allocated for a future front-wheel motor, no
physical fuses (all solid-state
), significant wiring harness length reductions via the use of multiple body controllers, a
swappable crash energy absorption system, a liquid-cooled compute unit, and redundant
controllers for all safety-related systems. He followed up by posting
a screenshot of the car tricked into "factory mode " to reveal its internal specs,
including a 1200A max discharge current, 370kW max discharge power, and a 76 kWh pack with
72,5kWh usable. Meanwhile, Munro and Associates tore down a Model 3 for an undisclosed, "
not
Tesla " client, releasing a video criticizing its build
quality and for difficulty in accessing the HV cables in the event of an accident (Munroe's
claims were dismissed by Ingineerix). Meanwhile, engineers from German automakers were
extremely
impressed by what they found during their teardown -- particularly the power electronics
system, which they described as "compact, expandable, fully integrated, modular, easily
accessible, well-protected, reasonably priced and astonishingly clever in many details." Other
owners have been putting their cars on dynamometers to measure their power. Drag Times suffered some skid
and measured a conflicting 281 / 327.6 hp with 552 lb-ft torque. Contrarily, Tesla Repair Channel found
consistent readings around 250hp when starting from 30mph, but consistently around 390 hp when
starting from 10mph. The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear.
$99 Car Lease – Really?Is it possible lease a car for $100 a month or
less?
Yes.
In fact, the cute little Smart Car Pure Coupe can be leased for $99 for 36 months with $1393
due at signing. This is the lowest lease payment for any promotional lease on any car in the
U.S.. It has the lowest payment of any vehicle in our monthly Best Lease Deals Under $200
list.
This lease deal has been offered continuously for about 2 years, as of this writing, and it
appears it will continue to be offered for some time to come.
The $99 payment does not include any sales tax that might be required in your state and
county. Of the $1393 due at signing, $99 of that amount is the first month's payment.
Obviously, for only $99 it's not possible to lease a more expensive car -- not without a
large down payment. For example, a Mazda 3 (4-door) can currently be leased for $159/month, 36
months, and $2359 due at signing. A payment of about $99 could be achieved by adding about
$2500 more to the amount due at signing, for a total of about $4859.
The more expensive the car, the higher the down payment would have to be to achieve a
less-than-$100 lease payment. Most promotional leases for mid-priced vehicles are in the
$200-$299 payment range. At the time of this writing there are over 100 such lease deals being
offered by a variety of car companies.
Without special promotional lease deals such as that on the Smart Car, it would be
unreasonable to expect to get $99 leases without huge (and unreasonable) down payment amounts.
Furthermore, making a large down payment defeats one of the primary benefits of leasing --
preserving cash.
We continue to remind readers that special promotional lease deals always require that
customers be "well qualified" which means having a good credit score . It's smart for car
shoppers to know their credit score before visiting dealers to talk deals. Get your Experian Credit Report FREE at
freecreditreport.com It's good to know ahead of time
if you'll qualify for such special offers or if you'll be turned down.
Honda, in particular, frequently offers $0-$0-$0-$0 due-at-signing lease deals. This means
you pay no down payment, no security deposit, no tax, and no first month's payment .
At the time of this writing, for example, you could lease a Honda Civic sedan for only
$169/month with $1999 due at signing, or $220/month with $0 due at signing. Both are excellent
deals -- actually the same deal -- just different down payment.
Most lease deals from any manufacturer can be arranged so that no cash is required up front,
although it increases the monthly payment. See the following article for details: Zero Down Car
Leases .
... ... ...
Toyota, Honda and Nissan , for example have low-cost models that also have
high residuals -- and they (as of this writing) are offering great discounts (which lowers cost
even further) -- a perfect combination for leasing. The Honda Civic and Honda Fit are good
examples.
Let's look at the Toyota Corolla , a small economical 2-door sedan, priced at about $16,000.
At the time of this writing, Toyota is offering a special lease deal on this model (and many
other models) of $149 a month, 36 months, 36,000 mile allowance. They base this on a heavily
discounted price, a high lease-end residual value, and a super-low money factor (equivalent to
0.5% APR interest). Even without the special deal, this car could be leased for about
$200/month, depending on down payment, if any.
Other cars in this price range are the Nissan Versa , the Honda Fit , Hyundai Accent, Kia
Rio, and Kia Soul . All of these cars can produce lease payments in the sub-$200 range with
manufacturers' promotional offers. The Honda Fit has the highest residual value and would make
the cheapest lease, assuming prices were equal.
Toyota Yaris Lease QuestionsSee photos of the Toyota YarisCarMan@Edmunds
Posts: 38,515May
2006 edited May 2014 in Toyota Hi everyone. Please use the following
discussion to post any questions that you have about leasing a Toyota Yaris. Thanks.
CarMan@Edmunds Posts: 38,515July 2006
Greetings mrcheap666. Toyota is not currently providing any sort of lease support on the
Yaris. As a result, if you were to lease one through Toyota Financial Services right now
you would have to use its standard lease money factor. Its standard lease money factors
vary depending by region, but its buy rate standard factor should currently be around
.00265 for consumers who qualify for its Tier 1+ credit tier. Toyota Financial Services
current buy rate lease money factor for a 24 month, 15,000 mile per year lease of any 2007
Yaris is 59%.
CarMan@Edmunds Posts: 38,515July 2006 Hi
jrsaccato. Banks that lease vehicles usually do require consumers to have certain levels of
insurance coverage. The exact level of required coverage varies from bank to bank.
lori1011 Posts: 1September 2006
Hi there. I'm looking for peace of mind, and your blessing or comments on the lease deal
I'm being offered would help a lot.
New 2007 Yaris Hatchback, Automatic, ABS Brakes, Keyless Remote, Power Package, Floor
Mats.
lhanson Posts: 268September
2006 I don't know anything about leases, but I don't think that any of the options you
have listed would be considered to be fluff items. They are all factory Toyota installed
options. I think that the MSRP a lot more than $12,335. The $14,420 sounds about right. 0
· Share on FacebookShare
on Google+
I calculated the power package combo you selected (w/ABS) at $1,700 - price of $14,420 -
620 delivery - 11,950 Yaris Auto - 150 floor mats). I don't know if that is the right price
for that combo package, can't find it on Toyota's site (haven't guessed the right zip code
yet).
Some good info on leasing can be found at:
www.leaseguide.com, www.carbuyingtips.com, and www.fightingchance.com. The Fighting
Chance folks will sell you a service for $35 that includes their help on the phone (bring
your cell) while you are at the dealer reviewing the paperwork, they will tell you what
money factor and residual you should be getting.
If you want an Excel sheet to try out different numbers, try the worksheet at
www.carbuyingtips.com/regm.xls.
I've plugged these numbers into my spreadsheet:
Cap Cost: $14,420
Lease Acquisition: $400
Gross Cap Cost: $14,820
Lessee Cap Reduction: $342.05
Residual: $7.853.50 (which is 55.3% of $14,420)
Term: 36 months
Money Factor: .00279 (equivalent to about 6.7% APR)
Monthly Payment (before tax): 246.32
So, your payment of $246.29 looks about right.
But if you really were to get a residual of 59% - 8507.80 (I don't have the black book
of residuals, and it's kind of a guess anyway), you would have a monthly payment (before
tax) of $229.97. Might be worth finding out what the Yaris 3 year residual rate is (not
public knowledge).
I assume your 9.0% is your sales tax rate.
Remember that when you lease a car you pay the 1st month's payment and title fees up
front. Also, you pay sales tax on any cap reduction ("down payment") you make.
But, what about the $1,000? What is in that? Well, it includes your cap reduction ("down
payment"), the first payment (including sales tax), estimated registration/title fees and
security deposit. Lets assume registration fees of $200, I come up with out-of-pocket of
about $841 (342.50 cap reduction, 30.78 sales tax on cap reduction, 1st payment of 268.45
and registration of 200). So the dealer is adding on "fluff" fees of about $160 (or more,
depending on what registration fees are).
Sorry for the long note - but a lot of dealers mess around with little charges here and
there and will lie to your face about it being a state fee, or this or that, especially
with leases, since they don't have to disclose the money factor and residuals are hard to
get.
Kirstie_H Posts:
11,042April 2007
IMO, you've just given very bad advice. Members can decide for themselves, but this is
contrary to almost every other bit of advice offered. MODERATOR
Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on
my name.
oshetitzjay Posts: 3August
2009 So in May of 2008, I bought a pre owned 2007 FJ Cruiser w/ 16000 miles for around
24k plus warranty n stuff came out to around 27K. I had a $487 payment for 72 mos. A year
later, i noticed that the vehicle had depreciated so much and that i was under and thought it
wasn't worth it. in an attempt to get out of it, i leased a new 2009 yaris, which i am now
paying $450 a month for 60 months, with $4000 down. Is there any way out of this
[non-permissible content removed] lease? I thought of posting on lease trader but who would
pay $450 a month for a yaris? any insight as to how i could've done this or what i still can
do? 0 · Share on FacebookShare
on Google+
canonikon Posts: 1August 2009
it's only $79/month for 60 months for the 2009 yaris. how come you're paying so much?
So, paying more and more US workers to work build the biggest factories in the world
employing tens if thousands new US workers is something you oppose?
You favor GE closing US factories in favor of building produces outside the US? Ditto
pretty much every other industrial corporation?
Apple closed factories in the US and contracted with factories in Asia because Jobs was an
idiot for building factories in the US, so he was fired by people like you. When he returned
to Apple which was left with pretty much on asset, "Apple". Tim Cook explained building
factories in the US was impossible because paying US workers to learn how to build products
and facctories was too costly.
Elon Musk has proved Tim Cook was correct, but he ignores people like you, and keeps
hiring more and more workers in the US to make stuff that you consider impossible to make,
especially in the US.
Tesla market cap is actually closely tied to the productive capital assets Tesla owns.
Apple market cap is many times higher than the productive assets Apple actually owns. When
the same factories in Asia making Apple products are able to flood the market with products
just like Apple products, but without the Apple logo, Apple market cap will crash. Just like
has happened with GE. Sears.
What you are accuse DrDick of opposing is not exactly what Musk does.
And BTW who trained his rocket engineers? Did they grow on trees? I think it was the
pre-cost-cutting aerospace private/public sector, i.e. mostly government funded.
Not to take away from the SpaceX achievements which are considerable, but saying he/they
can do a better job than the govt rings a bit hollow. The govt funded his talent base with
past projects, and then neolib/con led administrations defunded the non-military part of
aerospace.
In a way private enterprise *can* do a better job than the govt in some areas, because it
will not be hindered and defunded by the R party or their neolib competition, but the
ambitions of investors and other supporting stakeholders can reign more freely. Also the
private sector is allowed to cut more corners than the public sector which is held to higher
standards as regards procedure.
But this is more an indictment of "conservatives" and profiteers than publicly organized
efforts in general.
And the car factories. They have "issues" (yes complex technology logistics are not easy),
and there have been somewhat substantiated rumors about anti-union goings on.
I have no problem with techies per se (my son works for a software company), jut the ones
like Musk who think that because they understand that they have the answers to everything,
but actually understand nothing else.
At my local utility's rate of 14 cents/kWh, that works out to a total fuel cost for the year
of $530, or about 3.4 cents/mile. Contrast that to about $3,000 and 20 cents/mile for a
comparable car like the Mercedes S Class.
But the Model S actually used more electricity than the 5,074 kWh on the car's energy
meter.
For one thing, the charging process is only about 85 percent efficient. Which means that for
every 85 kWh used by the car, 100 kWh came through my electric meter. In reality, that
5,074-kWh number is actually more like 5,700 kWh.
In addition, my car's "vampire" power draw while parked and shut down averaged about 4.5 kWh
per day for the first 10 months, and then about 1 kWh per day after a software update two
months ago. I estimate the vampire draw sucked up an additional 1,400 kWh or so.
That brings total actual energy usage for the year: about 7,100 kWh--putting efficiency at
about 466 Wh/mile, or about 2.1 miles/kWh.
The vampire and charging losses bumped the year's real fuel cost up to $820, or about 5.3
cents per mile. Which is still barely a quarter of the fuel cost of a comparable gasoline
car.
... ... ...
Earlier this winter, during my first January with the car--which was followed by the coldest
February in recent history around these parts--I found that my energy usage nearly doubled for
the short local trips that I usually take.
... ... ...
•The side mirrors don't adjust when I shift into reverse, as they are supposed to do.
I'll have it looked at next time I'm in for service.
... ... ...
Swapping the battery
Frustrated by my 60-kWh car's lack of range between the few-and-far-between East Coast
Superchargers at Interstate speeds in cold weather, I upgraded my 60-kWh battery to an 85-kWh
pack in December.
At first, I was told by the factory that such a thing wasn't possible. But the service guys
at White Plains found a way. After just two days in the shop, I had my upgraded car back,
complete with its discreet chrome "85" emblem.
I'm delighted with the result.
A 2,500-mile Supercharger road trip to Florida and back was a breeze, rather than the
white-knuckle freeze-in-the-slow-lane ordeal of previous road trips with the smaller
battery.
1. The Limitations on Long Trips This is more a criticism of Tesla's limited Supercharger
network in the Northeast than of the car itself. But the fact is, after a year of ownership, I
still can't reasonably drive the Model S to visit friends in Maine, Vermont, and upstate New
York, nor to three of the colleges my daughter has applied to for next year.
My fingers are crossed that this problem will go away one of these days. Or years.
2. The Vampire It's not the money spent on wasted electricity over the year--maybe
$200--that bothers me so much. It's the idea that the supposed best car in the world has a
basic flaw that hasn't been totally fixed in far more than a year.
While a recent
software update reduced the vampire draw substantially, I still lose anywhere from 3 to 10
miles of range every single day. My Volt has no vampire losses whatsoever. In fact, no other
electric car has vampire losses, as far as I know.
May.13.13 | About: Tesla Motors (TSLA)Nathan Weiss Long/short equity,
value, special situations, contrarian Get email alerts (200 followers)
On Thursday, I published an article about the
environmental merits of the the Tesla Model S , highlighting that I believe it is
effectively one of the most heavily polluting vehicles on the road. The article was met by a
barrage of attacks, the vast majority of which were by people who clearly did not read the
entire article. While we urge those with a sincere interest in our work to read our original
analysis, we also felt a simplified article with fewer, more basic calculations would result in
a more productive discussion about the environmental merits of the Tesla Model S.
The CO2 Generated Driving the Model S
Based on national average CO2 emissions calculations quoted by Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:
TSLA ), the Model S sedan
effectively emits 176g of CO2 per mile driven (622g of CO2 per kWh generated). To answer our
critics, we focus on the national average because Tesla is a mass-market car maker planning to
sell hundreds of thousands of vehicles in the United States over the next few years.
According to the footnotes on Tesla's website, their CO2 calculations are based on a Model S
consuming .283 kWh of electricity per mile driven - traveling 300 miles on a full charge of the
85 kWh battery. The reality is that in the 'real world,' drivers of the Tesla Model S have
reported higher energy consumption than Tesla and the EPA ratings suggest: By far the largest
single source of efficiency data from Model S owners is the 'L
ifetime Average Wh/Mile ' thread in the Tesla Motors forum, which reveals that the 48
owners of the 85 kWh Model S who posted to the thread realized average power consumption of
.367 kWh per mile driven (232 miles per 85 kWh) over 175,629 total miles. Contrary to claims
made in the comments about our previous article, we are not cherry-picking data! The 'Lifetime
Average Wh/Mile' thread is the largest collection of reported energy consumption by Model S
users and a fair representation of the vehicle's efficiency.
Using energy consumption of .367 kWh per mile driven rather than .283 kWh per mile driven,
the Model S effectively emits 228g of CO2 per mile driven. This puts the effective CO2
emissions of the Model S just above that of the Honda Civic Hybrid (202g per mile) and the
popular Prius V (212g per mile). Unfortunately, these calculations do not tell the whole story
of the Tesla Model S.
"... And over approx. 30 to 35 mph wind resistance exceeds rolling resistance & increases dramatically at each increment of velocity after that at an exponential rate. ..."
The Missing Piece in Plans for an All-Electric Vehicle Fleet: Electricity The New York Times has a
piece today
on barriers to the replacement of internal combustion-powered vehicles to an all-electric fleet in the United States. It talks about
production costs, the availability of key minerals and the need for a charging station infrastructure, but it oddly passes over the
most obvious impediment, at least from the perspective of climate change, the large increase it would require in electrical generating
capacity.
If the goal is, at it should be, rapid decarbonization of the economy, conversion to electric powertrains is worth doing only
if it results in the replacement of petroleum by renewable energy sources, so lets look at the arithmetic.
According to the latest version of Lawrence Livermore's invaluable
energy spaghetti diagram
, 25.7 quads of energy, in the form of petroleum, were used as inputs to the transportation sector. (A quad is a quadrillion BTUs,
approximately the amount of energy in eight billions gallons of gasoline.) Electric vehicles vary in their efficiency, and there
might be improvements on this front in the future, but lets use the common assumption that EV's are four times as energy efficient
as ICV's; that means we are looking at about 6.4 quads of added electrical demand.
Electricity output in 2016 was 12.6 quads, which implies we would need a bit over 50% more capacity to accommodate an all-electric
fleet. Of course, the actual expansion would be less than this because EV's could take advantage of off-peak capacity. Nevertheless,
from a decarbonization perspective, the critical constraint is not capacity as such but energy inputs as fuel. A natural gas plant
might be able to put out more electricity over a 24-hour cycle without additional capital investment, but only by burning more gas.
Those with greater expertise than I can summon can tell us how much efficiency we can squeeze from existing and prospective electrical
generating technology.
So somewhat more than 50% additional electricity is needed; how much of this can come from non-carbon sources? The most optimistic
scenario is one in which nuclear energy is included in this (non-carbon) mix, so assume the goal is simply to zero out coal and gas.
These two sources currently account for 62% of inputs into the electrical generating sector. No doubt we can get significant reductions
simply through efficiency measures; think of all those electrically-heated buildings leaking energy through poor insulation. If for
convenience we lump together increases in non-carbon inputs and efficiency savings, this would need to total 23.3 quads, the current
delivery of coal and gas to US electrical power stations, if the services provided by electricity use were to remain constant. If
a shift to EV's boosts electrical demand by, say, 40%, the need for renewable sources and efficiency savings would go up to 38.3
quads (23.3 current carbon input plus 15 new input), an increase of almost two-thirds. It is difficult see how this could be achieved
in the space of a generation or so, which is the timescale we face if we are to meet our declared carbon goals.
The bottom line as I see it is that, while a shift to electrical powertrains is necessary if we are to have motorized vehicles
in a post-carbon world, realistic scenarios for the electrical sector require a massive shrinkage of the number of such vehicles
we'll be able to operate, at least for the foreseeable future. This is unfortunate on two counts -- it will make it more difficult
to sustain living standards across the transition ahead of us, and it will increase the political barriers to getting the job done
-- but we won't make it go away by not seeing it for what it is.
Longtooth , December 20, 2017 12:30 pm
The myth that EV's solve or even can have a material positive effect on GHG reductions on a global basis is indeed predicated
on all additional required energy being supplied by renewables (zero carbon emissions sources). E.g that all surface transport
energy now reliant on fossil fuels will be replaced by renewables, excluding ocean transport.
Unfortunately for the fantasy there is no (absolutely no) theoretical scenario by any gov't agency on the planet, nor any credible
academic scientific analysis which shows this is even physically possible without the predominant global implementation of nuclear
energy production and then the consequent unresolvable problem of safely storing nuclear waste ad infinitum.
The ipcc reports, every 4 year's, describe 5 or 6 scenarios of which only 2 or 3 can reduce GHG emissions to thresholds sufficient
to maintain the global temperature rise below acceptable levels and "acceptable" has continued to increase over the years of the
ippc reports (predominantly because the published reports require gov't agents to sign off first effecting purely political interests).
Unfortunately (again) none of these 2 or 3 scenarios has ever been able to be shown as practically possible, again however
only with magic asterisks (carbon capture & storage) & massive increases in global nuclear energy production.
Even under those perfectly idealized conditions however there is no solution to the global costs and funding required to do
this, which is not even possible without amortizing the costs of implementation by the present two generations over multiple future
generations, and that has no actual or imagined solution at all and it still has no solution for nuclear energy waste disposal
ad ifinitum on this planet or even shipping it off to outer space (as has been proposed by some fantasies dreamers).
In other words the entire myth is founded on assumptions for which the means & methods have never been shown to be possible
without simply assuming "we'll figure it out along the way".
While this is the reality it is still imperative that the global community of humans try with all effort to do the possible.
Unfortunately (again) all available evidence is that the global community is absolutely fully dependent on fossils fuel sourced
energy to even maintain standards of living, much less improve them for the bulk of humanity that lags far, far behind the OECDs.
The reality is that the global population will have to be cut by at least half to realize a future planet inhabitable under
the conditions that have prevailed for moder humans. This will in fact occur in due course by starvation, the wars that will ensue
as a result of conflicts of interest as warming continues unabated, and increasing disease based deaths as warming continues.
I know this isn't the desired outcome of the myths that have been created to counter this reality.. what human wants to contemplate
it as real if they can avoid it by assuming it won't happen. What government wants to tell it's people & the rest of the globe's
people that our future progeny is collectively fucked, while we collectively decide to fuck them to maintain our own comforts
& conveniences, and fail to decide that to save our progenies semblance of enjoying life as we know it because we'ed have to sacrifice
now and refuse to do it.
One of the "nice " things about this approach is that none of us will be around to have to deal with it perhaps a few of the
generation now just being born, but only those from the third world, as the wealthiest nations continue on their merry path to
maintain and improve GPD and standards of living (albeit at increasingly greater levels of inequality),,, all of which requires
continued increases in fossil fuel consumption & GHG emissions
Gee I hope this comment wasn't a downer.
Jim A. , December 20, 2017 1:01 pm
Of course one of the effects of the "demand smoothing" that charging cars overnight has is that coal becomes more competitive
for supplying that power. And switching the power source for transportation from hydrocarbons (which gets energy from the creation
of carbon dioxide and water) to coal, (which gets energy from the creation of carbon dioxide alone) might well worsen the carbon
footprint of transportation.
Kaleberg , December 20, 2017 2:21 pm
Yes, moving away from fossil fuels is a big jump, and no one expects 100% replacement in the next 10 or even 20 years.. If
electric vehicles are four times as efficient as fossil fuel powered vehicles, then overall energy use would drop by 19.3 quads
from 25.7 quads to about 6.4 quads. Even if we continued to use fossil fuels for another generation or two, that would still be
a massive savings and one well worth pursuing.
If we assume a 30 year transition, one commensurate with the planned life span of the typical power generation facility, we
can imagine continuing the transition from coal to natural gas which cuts energy demand nearly 50%. (This is why we used 2.5 quads
less energy for power generation in 2016 as opposed to 2010.) This would give us lots of time to add that 6.4 quads of renewable
power. We're talking about adding 0.22 quads of capacity a year. That's about ten 1-gigawatt solar power plants a year. It's an
ambitious goal, but not an outrageous one.
One advantage of renewable power is that there has been a demonstrated learning curve. When the Chinese government decided
to build a solar power industry, for example, they brought costs down dramatically. Wind has worked similarly, though less dramatically.
We're even seeing the first large scale power storage schemes.
I really don't think that it will be energy issues that limit the number of motorized vehicles we'll have on the roads in 2050.
The more likely limits will be traffic capacity and population growth issues.
We can get the Chinese and the Germans to electrify us -- like we and the Germans wired Britain a hundred or so years ago while
the Brits made money with their money. Last I heard firing generators with gas to charge vehicle batteries has a multiply lower
carbon foot print than burning gasoline in engines -- we can just get on the good side of Vladimir Putin for the gas.
Longtooth , December 20, 2017 3:57 pm
Would any of you dreamers be willing to provide the credible source that shows real wold EV's are "four times more energy efficient
than ICE's"?
Joel , December 20, 2017 6:20 pm
Molten salt reactors?
Lyle , December 20, 2017 6:42 pm
You have to take the losses in generation into account in this unless you are doing the electrification to fight ground level
smog. the best fossil fuel plants run about 60% input energy(fuel) to output electricity (combined cycle gas plant). This site
shows auto energy losses :
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
Note that it says power to the wheels is 16 to 25% but 4 to 7 % can be recouped by regenerative braking. In terms of useful energy
it cites also about 2% for HVAC fans heated seats etc as well as lighting.
Note that of course in cold weather the free heat source
from the ICE has gone away, and needs to be replaced by something, (perhaps a low temp heat pump, as electric heat would be prohibitive
in terms of power).
Using the least pessimistic numbers for electric cars and the most pessimistic for gasoline cars you get close
to 4 to 1 using combined cycle gas plants,
However to make things work this does require putting solar panels over all parking lots at work places so that the cars can charge
when the solar energy is maxed out, And/or putting a second car type battery in the home and much larger roof solar panels.
If pushing nukes, consider T=thorium reactors, more available and safer than uranium ones. As for zeroing out fossil fuels, this seems an unnecessay chimera. Go for substantial reduction with shift to cleaner nat gas
than coal and oil.
Longtooth , December 21, 2017 12:28 am
Lyle,
The information you cite states up front that the data are estimates from models & lab test cells, with nothing citing any, not
one comparison with real world tests on an extended variable population driving in variable traffic over time.
Further more the data states up front that it is based on a Nissan Leaf EV model estimates, which is far, far from real wold
anything, now or in future especially.
Like I said, can any dreamer cite real wold data showing a "four times energy efficiency" (per mile travelled per year on average).of
EV's relative to ICE's?
Even the modeled data uses highway average speed of only 48 mph, which might apply in congested hiway travel, but is otherwise
not near real wold average highway speeds for miles traveled proportioned to total miles traveled, even in the U.S. At real world
highway speeds wind resistance consumes 80% of energy applied at the engine / motor, and at those speeds EV energy consumption
increases relative to ICE's when at at lower speeds.
It should be fairly simple to find real world tests of several EV's driven by average drivers in annual driving uses (not just
daily commutes) conducted over a 2 or 3 year period, no? I mean EV energy input at the plug is easier to track than iCE's total
gasoline consumed over n miles since every EV on the planet keeps on-board data (kWh input).
So where's the data showing real world "4x energy efficiency per mile travelled" than ICE's? Good luck.
Longtooth , December 21, 2017 2:25 am
Them most comprehensive real world EvpV data has been conducted by Belgium on several EV models over two years.
"Electric vehicles and energy consumption based on real world electric vehicle fleet trip and charge data and its impact on
existing EV research models"
It compares the NEDC model (New European Driving Cycle -- the equivalent model estimating tool as used in the U.S.) to real
world energy consumption for EV's.
It concludes real world consumption for EV's ranges from 30% to 60% more than the NEDC estimates, which means the U.S. DOT
estimates Lyle cited for an idealized Nissan Leaf at relatively slow U.S. hiway speeds which gave a factor of 3.5x the energy
efficiency of EV's relative to ICE's is overstated by at least 50%!
So that the real world factor is no more than 1,75x less than half the fictional "four times" being propagandize by dreamers.
The actual average energy consumption was 0.213 kWh/km (approx. 0.35 kWh/mile (I use the close enough approximation of 0.6
miles/km for quickie calcs), & even these average speeds reflected lower speeds than the U.S. composite real world averages.
BTW, I was familiar already with other real world tests also conducted by Belgium earlier on fewer vehicles. I would cite those
tests as well, but my laptop disk drive failed the other day & my data recovery is taking time, though I think I might also have
a copy referenced in one of my emails of a couple of yeas ago. I've been using the wife's damned IPad with its hunt & peck pop-up
keyboard a real pain, since i've been a touch typist since 8th grade.
In any event all real world comprehensive tests all show far lower energy efficiencies for EV,s relative to the same models
applied to ICE's since the U.S. & Europe have decades of experience developing models that are in very close proximity to real
wold energy consumption, but nearly none yet on real wold EV's use.
You can google the above title to get the .pdf file.
The data is based on several vehicles totaling 94.7k km (approx. 57k miles) over two years. The most miles & most EV's, with
the most number of drivers to date.
Also BTW, I know several Tesla owners. They say that if they drive far more conservatively than normal, they get energy
consumptions
close to, but still higher than Tesla says in their literature. If they drive normally however their energy consumption is over
twice the advertised values, and for longer distance highway trips at 70 to 80 mph it's even less efficient per mile so that have
to plan carefully to be near a charging station, & then have to wait in a line for 30 minutes or more, plus another 30 minutes
or more to charge . since the other Tesla EV's all have about the same range coming from the same origination area.
Longtooth , December 21, 2017 3:15 am
FWIW:
Energy consumption is the familiar e = mc^2 where c = acceleration due to gravity & m = mass.
What most don't know however is that vehicle wind resistance at constant speed v requires the vehicle to actually be constantly
accelerating to overcome the wind resistance.
So since the energy consumed increases by the square of acceleration then traveling at constant velocity means you are consuming
energy at the square of acceleration just to maintain that velocity against wind resistance.
And over approx. 30 to 35 mph wind resistance exceeds rolling resistance & increases dramatically at each increment of velocity
after that at an exponential rate.
Thus almost all your vehicle'ss energy consumption is due to the acceleration, rather than its mass. The crying shame of it
all is that general driving habits include the highest rates of acceleration from stop at a stop sign or stop light, not to mention
stop & go traffic congestion.
Longtooth , December 21, 2017 4:25 am
The acceleration energy consumption is one reason that in the future you will see pure autonomous vehicle use (no private drivers)
with the same designs so that they can travel in a train at say 120 mph and consume nearly the same energy as traveling at half
that velocity.
This requires both near bumper to bumper separations AND body designs tailored to minimize wind resistance of any following
vehicle in the train. The only vehicle using most of the energy is the lead vehicle in a train to break the wind resistance.
Thus in future (sometime) autonomous vehicles will all travel in trains of say 20 vehicle minimums at constant velocities of
over 100 mph to maximize road capacities while minimizing energy consumption, & this will be by law of decree either that or everybody
will travel on mass transit vehicles. Say bye-bye to privately owned vehicles & individual drivers -- this will be mandated to
maintain the planet's habitable temperatures to acceptable levels.
Why the high speeds, you ask?
Assume a 20 mile segment of roadway between accessing & egressing it. Vehicle capacity is dictated by how many vehicles can
occupy the road, which is a direct function of vehicle separation distances, so separation distances must be minimized to maximize
vehicle capacity (road carrying capacity).
Next consider that there's zero value if all vehicles are not moving, so road vehilce capacity is then zero in function, even
though the max number of vehicles occupy the road.
Now consider that a vehicle operating at 20 mph occupies a space on that 20 mile segment for 60 minutes, but a vehicle operating
at 120 mph occupies a space on that 20 mile segment for just 10 minutes. Thus 6 times as many vehicles can occupy the 20 mile
segment traveling at 120 mph than at 20 mph, hence the road's vehicle carrying capacity increases linearly with velocity.
Moreover the vehicle traveling at 120 mph can now be put to use for another set of passengers or packages 6 times every hour
rather than just once as with the vehicle traveling at 20 mph, thus carrying 6 times as many people or goods per unit time.
This means demand for vehicles is 1/6th compared to vehicles traveling at 20 mph. So far fewer vehicles required for a given
size population, & far less roadway (lanes), while spending far less time in transit, thus far more productive in every regard.
If you require efficient use of energy, time, & resources then that's the future, so bye-bye "individualism" . it's only a
matter of time, and time is running short.
You can do the calcs yourself for any difference in train vehicle velocities. I just used 20 & 120 mph to make the illustration
more intuitive.
The population will continue to grow, densities of people will continue to increase, & distances required to travel to/from
places of productive endeavors will continue to increase, all the while consuming more & more energy / person to even just maintain
standards of living, much less improve them.
The only real solution is to dramatically increase efficiencies of resources & energy per person with increasing human densitities.
Lyle , December 21, 2017 8:49 am
Note that I was saying that it takes using the most optimistic set of facts from the surveys to get to 4x. Also the surveys
did not assume cold weather which will drastically hurt the electric vehicles as the electric heat will kill the range (or we
can go back to the no heat no cool model of the model T.)
Longtooth , December 21, 2017 2:43 pm
Lyle,
No. It takes the most optimist set of pure assumption, without regard to the actual facts at all, to get to 4x.. eg pure fantasy.
"... Total 2015 gross passenger payments were 200% higher than 2014, but Uber corporate revenue improved 300% because Uber cut the driver share of passenger revenue from 83% to 77%. This was an effective $500 million wealth transfer from drivers to Uber's investors. ..."
"... Uber's P&L gains were wiped out by higher non-EBIDTAR expense. Thus the 300% Uber revenue growth did not result in any improvement in Uber profit margins. ..."
"... In 2016, Uber unilaterally imposed much larger cuts in driver compensation, costing drivers an additional $3 billion. [6] Prior to Uber's market entry, the take home pay of big-city cab drivers in the US was in the $12-17/hour range, and these earnings were possible only if drivers worked 65-75 hours a week. ..."
"... An independent study of the net earnings of Uber drivers (after accounting for the costs of the vehicles they had to provide) in Denver, Houston and Detroit in late 2015 (prior to Uber's big 2016 cuts) found that driver earnings had fallen to the $10-13/hour range. [7] Multiple recent news reports have documented how Uber drivers are increasing unable to support themselves from their reduced share of passenger payments. [8] ..."
"... Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely, Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to 80%. This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over 200% in 2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017. ..."
"... Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, VC-ize the subsidies. ..."
"... The cold hard truth is that Uber is backed into a corner with severely limited abilities to tweak the numbers on either the supply or the demand side: cut driver compensation and they trigger driver churn (as has already been demonstrated), increase fare prices for riders and riders defect to cheaper alternatives. ..."
"... "Growth and Efficiency" are the sine qua non of Neoliberalism. Kalanick's "hype brilliance" was to con the market with "revenue growth" and signs ..."
Uber lost $2.5 billion in 2015, probably lost $4 billion in 2016, and is on track to lose $5
billion in 2017.
The top line on the table below shows is total passenger payments, which must be split
between Uber corporate and its drivers. Driver gross earnings are substantially higher than
actual take home pay, as gross earning must cover all the expenses drivers bear, including
fuel, vehicle ownership, insurance and maintenance.
Most of the "profit" data released by Uber over time and discussed in the press is not true
GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) profit comparable to the net income numbers
public companies publish but is EBIDTAR contribution. Companies have significant leeway as to
how they calculate EBIDTAR (although it would exclude interest, taxes, depreciation,
amortization) and the percentage of total costs excluded from EBIDTAR can vary significantly
from quarter to quarter, given the impact of one-time expenses such as legal settlements and
stock compensation. We only have true GAAP net profit results for 2014, 2015 and the 2nd/3rd
quarters of 2017, but have EBIDTAR contribution numbers for all other periods.
[5]
Uber had GAAP net income of negative $2.6 billion in 2015, and a negative profit margin of
132%. This is consistent with the negative $2.0 billion loss and (143%) margin for the year
ending September 2015 presented in part one of the NC Uber series over a year ago.
No GAAP profit results for 2016 have been disclosed, but actual losses likely exceed $4
billion given the EBIDTAR contribution of negative $3.2 billion. Uber's GAAP losses for the 2nd
and 3rd quarters of 2017 were over $2.5 billion, suggesting annual losses of roughly $5
billion.
While many Silicon Valley funded startups suffered large initial losses, none of them lost
anything remotely close to $2.6 billion in their sixth year of operation and then doubled their
losses to $5 billion in year eight. Reversing losses of this magnitude would require the
greatest corporate financial turnaround in history.
No evidence of significant efficiency/scale gains; 2015 and 2016 margin improvements
entirely explained by unilateral cuts in driver compensation, but losses soared when Uber had
to reverse these cuts in 2017.
Total 2015 gross passenger payments were 200% higher than 2014, but Uber corporate
revenue improved 300% because Uber cut the driver share of passenger revenue from 83% to 77%.
This was an effective $500 million wealth transfer from drivers to Uber's investors. These
driver compensation cuts improved Uber's EBIDTAR margin, but Uber's P&L gains were
wiped out by higher non-EBIDTAR expense. Thus the 300% Uber revenue growth did not result in
any improvement in Uber profit margins.
In 2016, Uber unilaterally imposed much larger cuts in driver compensation, costing
drivers an additional $3 billion.
[6] Prior to Uber's market entry, the take home pay of big-city cab drivers in the US was
in the $12-17/hour range, and these earnings were possible only if drivers worked 65-75 hours a
week.
An independent study of the net earnings of Uber drivers (after accounting for the costs
of the vehicles they had to provide) in Denver, Houston and Detroit in late 2015 (prior to
Uber's big 2016 cuts) found that driver earnings had fallen to the $10-13/hour range.
[7] Multiple recent news reports have documented how Uber drivers are increasing unable to
support themselves from their reduced share of passenger payments.
[8]
A business model where profit improvement is hugely dependent on wage cuts is unsustainable,
especially when take home wages fall to (or below) minimum wage levels. Uber's primary focus
has always been the rate of growth in gross passenger revenue, as this has been a major
justification for its $68 billion valuation. This growth rate came under enormous pressure in
2017 given Uber efforts to raise fares, major increases in driver turnover as wages fell,
[9] and the avalanche of adverse publicity it was facing.
Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely,
Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to 80%.
This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over 200% in
2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017.
"Uber's business model can never produce sustainable profits"
Two words not in my vocabulary are "Never" and "Always", that is a pretty absolute
statement in an non-absolute environment. The same environment that has produced the "Silicon
Valley Growth Model", with 15x earnings companies like NVIDA, FB and Tesla (Average
earnings/stock price ratio in dot com bubble was 10x) will people pay ridiculous amounts of
money for a company with no underlying fundamentals you damn right they will! Please stop
with the I know all no body knows anything, especially the psychology and irrationality of
markets which are made up of irrational people/investors/traders.
My thoughts exactly. Seems the only possible recovery for the investors is a perfectly
engineered legendary pump and dump IPO scheme. Risky, but there's a lot of fools out there
and many who would also like to get on board early in the ride in fear of missing out on all
the money to be hoovered up from the greater fools. Count me out.
The author clearly distinguishes between GAAP profitability and valuations, which is after
all rather the point of the series. And he makes a more nuanced point than the half sentence
you have quoted without context or with an indication that you omitted a portion. Did you
miss the part about how Uber would have a strong incentive to share the evidence of a network
effect or other financial story that pointed the way to eventual profit? Otherwise (my words)
it is the classic sell at a loss, make it up with volume path to liquidation.
apples and oranges comparison, nvidia has lots and lots of patented tech that produces
revenue, facebook has a kajillion admittedly irrational users, but those users drive massive
ad sales (as just one example of how that company capitalizes itself) and tesla makes an
actual car, using technology that inspires it's buyers (the put your money where your mouth
is crowd and it can't be denied that tesla, whatever it's faults are, battery tech is not one
of them and that intellectual property is worth a lot, and tesla's investors are in on that
real business, profitable or otherwise)
Uber is an iphone app. They lose money and have no
path to profitability (unless it's the theory you espouse that people are unintelligent so
even unintelligent ideas work to fleece them). This article touches on one of the great
things about the time we now inhabit, uber drivers could bail en masse, there are two sides
to the low attachment employees who you can get rid of easily. The drivers can delete the
uber app as soon as another iphone app comes along that gets them a better return
For many air travelers, getting to and from the airport has long been part of the whole
miserable experience. Do they drive and park in some distant lot? Take mass transit or a
taxi? Deal with a rental car?
Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are quickly changing those calculations. That
has meant a bit less angst for travelers.
But that's not the case for airports. Travelers' changing habits, in fact, have begun to
shake the airports' financial underpinnings. The money they currently collect from
ride-hailing services do not compensate for the lower revenues from the other sources.
At the same time, some airports have had to add staff to oversee the operations of the
ride-hailing companies, the report said. And with more ride-hailing vehicles on the roads
outside terminals,
there's more congestion.
Socialize the losses, privatize the gains, VC-ize the subsidies.
The cold hard truth is that Uber is backed into a corner with severely limited abilities
to tweak the numbers on either the supply or the demand side: cut driver compensation and
they trigger driver churn (as has already been demonstrated), increase fare prices for riders
and riders defect to cheaper alternatives. The only question is how long can they keep the
show going before the lights go out, slick marketing and propaganda can only take you so far,
and one assumes the dumb money has a finite supply of patience and will at some point begin
asking the tough questions.
The irony is that Uber would have been a perfectly fine, very profitable mid-sized company
if Uber stuck with its initial model -- sticking to dense cities with limited parking,
limiting driver supply, and charging a premium price for door-to-door delivery, whether by
livery or a regular sedan. And then perhaps branching into robo-cars.
But somehow Uber/board/Travis got suckered into the siren call of self-driving cars,
triple-digit user growth, and being in the top 100 US cities and on every continent.
I've shared a similar sentiment in one of the previous posts about Uber. But operating
profitably in decent sized niche doesn't fit well with ambitions of global domination. For
Uber to be "right-sized", an admission of folly would have to be made, its managers and
investors would have to transcend the sunk cost fallacy in their strategic decision making,
and said investors would have to accept massive hits on their invested capital. The cold,
hard reality of being blindsided and kicked to the curb in the smartphone business forced
RIM/Blackberry to right-size, and they may yet have a profitable future as an enterprise
facing software and services company. Uber would benefit from that form of sober mindedness,
but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I know nothing about Softbank or its management, but I do know that the Japanese were the
dumb money rubes in the late '80's, overpaying for trophy real estate they lost billions
on.
Until informed otherwise, that's my default assumption
Softbank possibly looking to buy more Uber shares at a 30% discount is very odd. Uber had
a Series G funding round in June 2016 where a $3.5
billion investment from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund resulted in its current $68
billion valuation. Now apparently Softbank wants to lead a new $6 billion funding round to
buy the shares of Uber employees and early investors at a 30% discount from this last
"valuation". It's odd because Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund has pledged
$45 billion to SoftBank's Vision Fund , an amount which was supposed to come from the
proceeds of its pending Aramco IPO. If the Uber bid is linked to SoftBank's Vision Fund, or
KSA money, then its not clear why this investor might be looking to literally 'double down'
from $3.5 billion o $6 billion on a declining investment.
"Growth and Efficiency" are the sine qua non of Neoliberalism. Kalanick's "hype
brilliance" was to con the market with "revenue growth" and signs of efficiency, and
hopes of greater efficiency, and make most people just overlook the essential fact
that Uber is the most unprofitable company of all time!
What comprises "Uber Expenses"? 2014 – $1.06 billion; 2015 $3.33 billion; 2016 $9.65
billion; forecast 2017 $11.418 billion!!!!!! To me this is the big question – what are
they spending $10 billion per year on?
ALso – why did driver share go from 68% in 2016 to 80% in 2017? If you use 68% as in
2016, 2017 Uber revenue is $11.808 billion, which means a bit better than break-even EBITDA,
assuming Uber expenses are as stated $11.428 billion.
Perhaps not so bleak as the article presents, although I would not invest in this
thing.
I have the same question: What comprises over 11 billion dollars in expenses in 2017?
Could it be they are paying out dividends to the early investors? Which would mean they are
cannibalizing their own company for the sake of the VC! How long can this go on before
they'll need a new infusion of cash?
Oh article does answer your 2nd question. Read this paragraph:-
Since mass driver defections would cause passenger volume growth to collapse completely
, Uber was forced to reverse these cuts in 2017 and increased the driver share from 68% to
80%. This meant that Uber's corporate revenue, which had grown over 300% in 2015 and over
200% in 2016 will probably only grow by about 15% in 2017.
As for the 1st, read this line in the article:-
There are undoubtedly a number of things Uber could do to reduce losses at the margin,
but it is difficult to imagine it could suddenly find the $4-5 billion in profit
improvement needed merely to reach breakeven.
in addition to all the points listed in the article/comments, the absolute biggest flaw
with Uber is that Uber HQ conditioned its customers on (a) cheap fares and (b) that a car is
available within minutes (1-5 if in a big city).
Those two are not mutually compatible in the long-term.
Thus (a) "We cost less" and (b) "We're more convenient" -- aren't those also the
advantages that Walmart claims and feeds as a steady diet to its ever hungry consumers? Often
if not always, disruption may repose upon delusion.
When this Uber madness blows up, I wonder if people will finally begin to discuss the
brutal reality of Silicon Valley's so called "disruption".
It is heavily built in around the idea of economic exploitation. Uber drivers are often,
especially when the true costs to operate an Uber including the vehicle depreciation are
factored in, making not very much per hour driven, especially if they don't get the surge
money.
Instacart is another example. They are paying the deliver operators very little.
At a fundamental level, I think that the Silicon Valley "disruption" model only works for
markets (like software) where the marginal cost for production is de minimus and the
products can be protected by IP laws. Volume and market power really work in those cases. But
out here in meat-space, where actual material and labor are big inputs to each item sold, you
can never just sit back on your laurels and rake in the money. Somebody else will always be
able to come and and make an equivalent product. If they can do it more cheaply, you are in
trouble.
There aren't that many areas in goods and services where the marginal costs are very
low.
Software is actually quite unique in that regard, costing merely the bandwidth and
permanent storage space to store.
Let's see:
1. From the article, they cannot go public and have limited ways to raise more money. An
IPO with its more stringent disclosure requirements would expose them.
2. They tried lowering driver compensation and found that model unsustainable.
3. There are no benefits to expanding in terms of economies of scale.
From where I am standing, it looks like a lot of industries gave similar barriers. Silicon
Valley is not going to be able to disrupt those.
Tesla, another Silicon Valley company seems to be struggling to mass produce its Model 3
and deliver an electric car that breaks even, is reliable, while disrupting the industry in
the ways that Elon Musk attempted to hype up.
So that basically leaves services and manufacturing out for Silicon Valley disruption.
UBER has become a "too big to fail" startup because of all the different tentacles of
capital from various Tier 1 VCs and investment bankers.
VCs have admitted openly that UBER is a subsidized business, meaning it's product is sold
below market value, and the losses reflect that subsidization. The whole "2 sided platform"
argument is just marketecture to hustle more investors. It's a form of service "dumping" that
puts legacy businesses into bankruptcy. Back during the dotcom bubble one popular investment
banker (Paul Deninger) characterized this model as "Terrorist Competition", i.e. coffers full
of invested cash to commoditize the market and drive out competition.
UBER is an absolute disaster that has forked the startup model in Silicon Valley in order
to drive total dependence on venture capital by founders. And its current diversification
into "autonomous vehicles", food delivery, et al are simply more evidence that the company
will never be profitable due to its whacky "blitzscaling" approach of layering on new
"businesses" prior to achieving "fit" in its current one.
It's economic model has also metastasized into a form of startup cancer that is killing
Silicon Valley as a "technology" innovator. Now it's all cargo cult marketing BS tied to
"strategic capital".
UBER is the victory of venture capital and user subsidized startups over creativity by
real entrepreneurs.
It's shadow is long and that's why this company should be ..wait for it UNBUNDLED (the new
silicon valley word attached to that other BS religion called "disruption"). Call it a great
unbundling and you can break up this monster corp any way you want.
2. The elevator pitch for Uber: subsidize rides to attract customers, put the competition
out of business, and then enjoy an unregulated monopoly, all while exploiting economically
ignorant drivers–ahem–"partners."
3. But more than one can play that game, and
4. Cab and livery companies are finding ways to survive!
If subsidizing rides is counted as an expense, (not being an accountant, I would guess it
so), then whether the subsidy goes to the driver or the passenger, that would account for the
ballooning expenses, to answer my own question. Otherwise, the overhead for operating what
Uber describes as a tech company should be minimal: A billion should fund a decent
headquarters with staff, plus field offices in, say, 100 U.S. cities. However, their global
pretensions are probably burning cash like crazy. On top of that, I wonder what the exec
compensation is like?
After reading HH's initial series, I made a crude, back-of-the-envelope calculation that
Uber would run out of money sometime in the third fiscal quarter of 2018, but that was based
on assuming losses were stabilizing in the range of 3 billion a year. Not so, according to
the article. I think crunch time is rapidly approaching. If so, then SoftBank's tender offer
may look quite appetizing to VC firms and to any Uber employee able to cash in their options.
I think there is a way to make a re-envisioned Uber profitable, and with a more independent
board, they may be able to restructure the company to show a pathway to profitability before
the IPO. But time is running out.
A not insignificant question is the recruitment and retention of the front line
"partners." It would seem to me that at some point, Uber will run out of economically
ignorant drivers with good manners and nice cars. I would be very interested to know how many
drivers give up Uber and other ride-sharing gigs once the 1099's start flying at the
beginning of the year. One of the harsh realities of owning a business or being an contractor
is the humble fact that you get paid LAST!
We became instant Uber riders while spending holidays with relatives in San Diego. While
their model is indeed unique from a rider perspective, it was the driver pool that fascinates
me. These are not professional livery drivers, but rather freebooters of all stripes driving
for various reasons. The remuneration they receive cannot possibly generate much income after
expenses, never mind the problems associated with IRS filing as independent contractors.
One guy was just cruising listening to music; cooler to get paid for it than just sitting
home! A young lady was babbling and gesticulating non stop about nothing coherent and
appeared to be on some sort of stimulant. A foreign gentleman, very professional, drove for
extra money when not at his regular job. He was the only one who had actually bought a new
Prius for this gig, hoping to pay it off in two years.
This is indeed a brave new world. There was a period in Nicaragua just after the Contra
war ended when citizens emerged from their homes and hit the streets in large numbers,
desperately looking for income. Every car was a taxi and there was a bipedal mini Walmart at
every city intersection as individuals sold everything and anything in a sort of euphoric
optimism towards the future. Reality just hadn't caught up with them yet .
"... Uber and Lyft are fraudulent schemes based on selling false hope to desperate drivers on one hand, while promising investors the 'opportunity' of getting in on the ground-floor of a new, and 'disruptive technology', sure to become a profitable monopoly, and so make a fortune when it they take it public. ..."
"... new and disruptive technology ..."
"... It's not a good job, it's not a good investment, it's not a 'new and disruptive technology', it's a scam, and anyone trying to sell any portion of it is a fraud. ..."
"... I think it's worse than a scam. It's a scam on the drivers and users, but I suspect that the investors know just what is up: destroy the taxi market, supplant it with Uber/Lyft, and enjoy your monopoly rents forever. Libertarianism indeed! That's the ground floor they're getting in on: entrepreneurial feudalism. ..."
"... Most of the litigation regarding Uber drivers is predicated on proving an employment relationship, contrary to Uber's assertion that the drivers are independent contractors. ..."
"... These drivers are overworked, underpaid, deceived, exploited employees of uber all but in name, the independent contractor nonsense is bulls***. Tell me how this is a win for the driver?? ..."
"... The assumption goes further than that. If you are depreciating an asset (wearing out your car), that's a cost. Replacing tires more often, paying for a commercial car rider (which Uber riders are supposed to do but Uber does not enforce) are all costs that need to be included even if the driver owns his car outright. ..."
"... That depreciation and upwardly trending running costs are ommited in the analysis seems to me to be gross incompetence or willful deception by the authors. ..."
"... That is my buddy in Seattle's experience with Lyft. He got laid off from his tech job and started driving after a lengthy unsuccessful job search but has no illusions about the "gig economy", doing it mostly just to get out of the house. The other day he told be he'd driven over 4 hours for slightly over $50. That's below the Seattle minimum wage and that's before accounting for his expenses. ..."
"... People may like the cheap fares, but that's only because they are heavily subsidized by flushing VC down the toilet and drivers working basically at a loss once expenses are considered. ..."
"... I'm not a frequent Uber user, but when I do I ask the driver what it's like. All say that it's much harder to make money now than it used to be. One driver actually attributed that to the ouster of Kalanick, on the belief that Kalanick had been ousted because he was pro-driver. (I didn't argue). That same driver told me he was getting $8 of my $22 Friday night fare. ..."
"... So, I think The Point with Uber it that it is mostly a political research project. What those VC investors actually pay for is to test to what extent they can get away with undercutting wages, how agressive and blatant one can cut corners on legal compliance, what the consequences for doing this are in different regions. What are the stakeholders? How should these be managed/manipulated? ..."
"... When a ride is requested the customer knows where they are going and about how much it will cost. Uber and Lyft have the same information. But the driver only gets a customer rating and an estimated time to pick up, and 10-15 seconds to decide if they will accept the ride. They are not allowed to call the customer and ask for the destination. If they cancel the ride, they are punished. When the driver shows up, the customer has up to five minutes to get in the vehicle before the driver can cancel on that person, and five minutes is a horrible waste of time to someone who is compensated pennies per minute for waiting. The driver has no idea how much the customer is actually paying (which is often a violation of state laws requiring full disclosure of fares). Drivers have no information, a very unfair economic reality. ..."
"... The companies are praying that elimination of drivers via automated vehicles will solve their financial problems, however I suspect that these companies are going to learn a hard lesson about the true cost of maintaining a fleet of hi tech vehicles. ..."
"... Out in San Francisco proper the number of ridehailing vehicles with expired registrations has increased dramatically. Savvy taxi drivers and ridehailing drivers are earning less across the board. Drivers are coming from San Diego to drive in the SF Bay Area. Plateless toll evasion on the toll bridges has skyrocketed since ridehailing came on the scene. ..."
In Buffalo last weekend for a family event. Tried Uber and Lyft around 7 pm Saturday from
our hotel in Cheektowaga to get to Town of Tonawanda. Not one single car available on either
service. Call to taxi dispatch, taxi at our hotel in less than 10 minutes.
Uber and Lyft absolutely failed in that scenario and left a poor impression for what would
have been our first rideshare trip.
I drove a taxi for many years, and I now work in IT for a group of auto dealers.
Last week, one of the general sales managers at work explained to me that people are '
selling ' cars to us in order to get out from under the expense of payments. Many of
these people are 'up-side-down' in their loans, meaning they owe more than the car is worth.
These folks are having to pay us to take the car off their hands, for example one customer
paid us $8,000 to ' buy ' his car.
Now understand that this is only part of the potential cost of attempting to make part of
a living by driving for Uber or Lyft.
You've wasted a year, making much less money than promised, you put 40K miles on your car
instead of the average 20K, and you end up with a car that isn't worth nearly what you owe on
it.
So now you've wised up to the fact that this is not a real 'opportunity', you've damaged
your financial situation and you're worse off than you were before.
That nice car that was going to help you make a living is now a weight holding you down,
it's hard for you to even look at it, and you can't afford to pay someone to 'buy'
it from you.
Uber and Lyft are fraudulent schemes based on selling false hope to desperate drivers
on one hand, while promising investors the 'opportunity' of getting in on the ground-floor of
a new, and 'disruptive technology', sure to become a profitable monopoly, and so make a
fortune when it they take it public.
It's not a good job, it's not a good investment, it's not a ' new and disruptive
technology ', it's a scam, and anyone trying to sell any portion of it is a fraud.
I've only taken Uber a few times, and when a Cuban-American fellow in Miami picked us up
in his $40k new SUV and told us how Uber was going to be his way out of the rat race, I
thought along the same lines as you, this is never going to work.
It's not a good job, it's not a good investment, it's not a 'new and disruptive
technology', it's a scam, and anyone trying to sell any portion of it is a
fraud.
I think it's worse than a scam. It's a scam on the drivers and users, but I suspect
that the investors know just what is up: destroy the taxi market, supplant it with Uber/Lyft,
and enjoy your monopoly rents forever. Libertarianism indeed! That's the ground floor
they're getting in on: entrepreneurial feudalism.
Also, maybe that the way investment tends to work.
It's a scam on the drivers and users, but I suspect that the investors know just what is
up: destroy the taxi market, supplant it with Uber/Lyft, and enjoy your monopoly rents
forever.
Anybody who has been following this discussion here at NC knows that is the play, as it
has been sold to investors, however, there is very little evidence that it will work to
investors benefit outside of a profitable IPO.
IMHO, that IPO has always been the end game.
As has been pointed out previously, it will be very hard, maybe impossible to drive enough
of the taxi industry out of business to create that monopoly, and thus make the IPO look
enticing.
My bet would be that Uber and Lyft miss that mark by a wide margin, and go down in history
as a foolish misadventure on the part of investors.
As the number of disappointed investors, and ex-drivers mounts up, it will be harder and
harder to recruit new 'sub-contractors' and I wouldn't rule out a class-action suit by
drivers, investors, or both.
As the number of disappointed investors, and ex-drivers mounts up, it will be harder and
harder to recruit new 'sub-contractors' and I wouldn't rule out a class-action suit by
drivers, investors, or both.
Probably not from the drivers -- Uber drivers for the last several years (~2013 or so, I
think?) have been subject to an arbitration clause with a class action waiver. There is an
opt-out provision (most likely in place only to support the ridiculous argument that the
class action waiver doesn't violate Section 7 of the NLRA because of the right, under Section
7, to refrain from participating in concerted activity) but no doubt the vast majority of
drivers have not opted out and are probably unaware of it. The numerous class actions against
Uber have either involved drivers who stopped working for Uber prior to their implementation
of arbitration or have tried to attack the enforceability of the arbitration clause.
Unfortunately, those arguments haven't been, and the pending ones are unlikely to be, very
successful. The argument involving Section 7 of the NLRA is currently pending before SCOTUS,
but based on oral arguments, this looks likely to result in another 5-4 partisan split in
favor of employers.
The argument involving Section 7 of the NLRA is currently pending before SCOTUS, but
based on oral arguments, this looks likely to result in another 5-4 partisan split in favor
of employers.
Most of the litigation regarding Uber drivers is predicated on proving an employment
relationship, contrary to Uber's assertion that the drivers are independent
contractors.
You are correct that asserting any rights under the NLRA will require proving a common-law
employment relationship, which is unfortunately a more restrictive standard than the FLSA's
broad "suffer or permit to work" standard (and used by many state laws).
Unsurprisingly, Uber's response has been to hire Littler and Gibson Dunn to stonewall the
investigation by playing games like ignoring NLRB administrative subpoenas, requiring the
NLRB to petition a district court for an order enforcing the subpoenas. The order the NLRB
sought
was eventually granted by the court , but this game managed to delay the proceedings for
several months. And with the NLRB now under complete Republican control, both on the GC and
Board side, it's hard to have hopes for a positive outcome for the drivers.
And there are even worse possible scenarios than making less money than expected. A friend
of mine used a small inheritance ($5k or so) as a down payment to buy a new-ish car, with the
idea of driving for Lyft. The hope was that he would at least make enough money to pay the
note on his off-hours and have a more modern / reliable / fuel efficient car to get to his
other 2-3 jobs. My friend is very much part of the precariat, so this felt like a win from
his perspective.
This went on for a couple of months or so and things went more or less according to his
meager expectations, so he was happy. Until he got rear ended in his nice new car. The car
was totaled, the guy who hit him uninsured. His cut rate insurance company paid off the car
at 2k or so less than he owed on it. Of course he had no gap coverage to cover that, and his
down payment is long gone. I let him borrow an old pickup until he was able to get the
insurance sorted out and arrange another beater so he didn't lose his other job(s).
In addition to the obvious costs (fuel) and abstract costs (depreciation), drivers have a
non-zero chance of death, injury, or plain old fender benders. And I'd bet most drivers don't
take that into account.
Zero workers comp, zero disability, and Uber's collision insurance has a high deductible
that guarantees risk is shifted onto its drivers, but for the long-tail crashes.
Not to mention drivers have only a vague idea what demand is like at any given time, while
Uber HQ has 100% perfect information on the level of demand and its algos can make a
reasonable guess as to the near-term expected demand.
The biased Research that you take apart here, is part of a wider and worrying phenomenon.
Uber Money is dominating economic Research on ride-hauling platforms. Uber is contracting
with many top-economists with their close links to prestigous publication channels. Even
reputable journals publish the resulting PR as if it was science. Critical Researchers have
no chance to compete, because they will not get the exclusive Uber-data, which Uber-loving
researchers like Angrist and Levitt can work with.
From Uber's perspective, why not game academia as well to help build the social values
they desire. Further proof that, despite the libertarian truisms, markets are absolutely a
product of politics and society rather than a natural phenomenon.
The embedded assumption for this analysis is that the average uber driver owns their car
outright (i.e. no vehicle finance/ lease repayments) and is available to work during peak
demand hours. This idealised "be your own boss, set your own hours and make lots of money"
myth has been shown up to be marketing fluff to attract gullible drivers who aren't savvy
enough to see through the obfuscated numbers uber presents at its driver recruitment
seminars. I'd wager that depreciation and dead miles, because they bite ever so silently by
piling on hour by hour, mile by mile without seemingly affecting earnings dropping down into
drivers "bottom lines", aren't ever mentioned at such seminars. IOW, drivers naively believe
that their net earnings are 75%, when they're anything but.
In my neck of the woods the situation is even more dire because uber has partnered with
South African banks and car dealerships to offer leases to unsuspecting drivers seduced by
the marketing cool aid and exaggerated earnings potential, with lease terms transferring the
bulk (read all) of the transaction risk to the driver. This has the effect of immediately
exploding the "work part time/set your own hours" myth because said drivers are now tethered
to uber (and have their free time rapaciously confiscated) in order to make their monthly
repayments to the banks. With obligations to the banks on a monthly basis top of mind, asset
down time becomes the bane of most of these drivers tenures with uber, with dead mile upon
dead mile driven in the hope of positioning oneself close enough to areas of peak demand
(leading to oversupply in such areas), artificially boosting supply for uber while wearing
out both asset and driver.
These drivers are overworked, underpaid, deceived, exploited employees of uber all but in
name, the independent contractor nonsense is bulls***. Tell me how this is a win for the
driver??
The assumption goes further than that. If you are depreciating an asset (wearing out your
car), that's a cost. Replacing tires more often, paying for a commercial car rider (which
Uber riders are supposed to do but Uber does not enforce) are all costs that need to be
included even if the driver owns his car outright.
I totally agree, and I should have made it explicitly clear that even if you own your car
outright the economics are junk owing to "hidden costs". I was addressing specifically the
tacit assumption this analysis hinges on to arrive at its conclusion that uber should be a no
brainer in the decision calculus of a driver looking to drive part time. That depreciation
and upwardly trending running costs are ommited in the analysis seems to me to be gross
incompetence or willful deception by the authors.
So though Uber says you can drive whenever you want, drivers often only work from, say,
7 a.m. to 11 a.m. or from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m., because fares are too low at other times.
That is my buddy in Seattle's experience with Lyft. He got laid off from his tech job and
started driving after a lengthy unsuccessful job search but has no illusions about the "gig
economy", doing it mostly just to get out of the house. The other day he told be he'd driven
over 4 hours for slightly over $50. That's below the Seattle minimum wage and that's before
accounting for his expenses.
He rarely even tries to drive during non-peak hours as there's
no money in it. Some fares earn him around $3 which is less than what it takes to ride the
damn bus. I would never have dreamed of getting in a cab in Seattle and paying less than $5
to get anywhere in Seattle, and that was 25 years ago.
People may like the cheap fares, but that's only because they are heavily subsidized by
flushing VC down the toilet and drivers working basically at a loss once expenses are
considered.
I'm not a frequent Uber user, but when I do I ask the driver what it's like. All say that
it's much harder to make money now than it used to be. One driver actually attributed that to
the ouster of Kalanick, on the belief that Kalanick had been ousted because he was
pro-driver. (I didn't argue). That same driver told me he was getting $8 of my $22 Friday
night fare.
I agree with the takedown of this piece, and the points previously made here about the
economics of ride-sharing and the implausibility of Uber ever deriving Amazon-like network
effects. I do think their app was a huge improvement over pre-Uber taxi dispatching (here in
DC, call a phone number, hope someone answers, then hope a taxi shows up). Also, I think that
it's at least possible that a demand-based per-ride fare structure would (assuming good
faith) better match supply and demand than traditional taxi time and distance-based fares.
Operating the system that enables the demand-based fares wouldn't be a ticket to world
domination, but it might improve utility for drivers and riders.
I do think their app was a huge improvement over pre-Uber taxi dispatching
The bar for "tech-disruption" is set pretty low with Uber. The local taxi companies (Taxi
Skåne) all have one, even in backwards Germany, where they might not take any card
payments but there is an app for getting a taxi wherever you are.
*Anyone*, literally, doing steady business can afford to have a decent "Rendevous-app"
made. Give a bunch of Norwegian teenagers err App Development Company three, six months and
about 15-50 kEUR and it is Done.
I can probably even get one to track my retriever on the app-store – but I don't
need it since she is a proper retriever, she finds stuff and comes back with it.
So, I think The Point with Uber it that it is mostly a political research project. What
those VC investors actually pay for is to test to what extent they can get away with
undercutting wages, how agressive and blatant one can cut corners on legal compliance, what
the consequences for doing this are in different regions. What are the stakeholders? How
should these be managed/manipulated?
The information gathered until Uber craters will be used to better tailor more serious
parasitic business ventures. It is an investment in the Next-Thing.
People complain about bitcoin energy use? Let's talk about uber deadhead miles/idling. If
you're in a city where uber cars must wear trade dress Just stand at a downtown corner and
watch all the empty cars drive by.
Certainly not convinced ridehail is a net plus. Uber HQ would have that data and if it is
not a talking point, the data must not be good
What a shame Uber is not a listed company. That is a short-indicator if there ever was
one. At least Iceland could afford a real Harward Professor write a paper declaring the
robust health of their economy right before it tanked.
The money mustache guy in Longmont, CO recently posted his experience as an "underground"
uber guy. Seems to confirm what I've heard around here (Berkeley/SF) about it not being the
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Certainly has added to the snarled traffic as people
use them to avoid walking short distances and as drivers carry on like amateurs. They drive
like part timers and stop in the middle of streets, rather than pulling to the side of
streets. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache-uber-driver/
Recently in Australia I've noticed when my friends have been catching Ubers that they have
been subject to surge pricing for little-to-no reason. I couldn't help but wonder if this is
a concerted effort by Uber to get their customers more accustomed to paying surge rates, for
when Uber can no longer afford to subsidise the rides.
It has always seemed to me that the Uber business model could only exist in a transient
economic situation -- that is, a time where the economy had done poorly enough to leave many
people unemployed, but before then had done well enough that many of those hard up people
owned a private car. A business model that depends on transient conditions will yield, of
course, transient business.
the Boston market, which has a particularly high level of licensed cabs per capita, nearly
twice as high as New York City.
They're talking about the City of Boston, which is only a tiny % of the Combined
Statistical Area and has far more people than population during the workday. A better
comparison than City of Boston-NYC would be City of Boston-Manhattan. I'm surprised that the
City of Boston doesn't have a much higher number of taxis per resident.
Comparing different municipalities in the US rarely makes sense since the size of a
municipality is so arbitrary. Combined Statistical Areas is a better focus since they're
standardized by social scientists working for the government.
When a ride is requested the customer knows where they are going and about how much it
will cost. Uber and Lyft have the same information. But the driver only gets a customer
rating and an estimated time to pick up, and 10-15 seconds to decide if they will accept the
ride. They are not allowed to call the customer and ask for the destination. If they cancel
the ride, they are punished. When the driver shows up, the customer has up to five minutes to
get in the vehicle before the driver can cancel on that person, and five minutes is a
horrible waste of time to someone who is compensated pennies per minute for waiting. The
driver has no idea how much the customer is actually paying (which is often a violation of
state laws requiring full disclosure of fares). Drivers have no information, a very unfair
economic reality.
The service is a terrific idea, but the economics of it are not realistic. Currently the
discounts are all being subsidized by a combination of VC money and drivers' lack of
knowledge.
The companies are praying that elimination of drivers via automated vehicles will solve
their financial problems, however I suspect that these companies are going to learn a hard
lesson about the true cost of maintaining a fleet of hi tech vehicles.
The question that has always confused me: since Uber offers a nicer "experience" than
taxis, why didn't they charge a premium for that from the beginning? Why dedicate yourself to
such an extreme burn rate?
Out in San Francisco proper the number of ridehailing vehicles with expired registrations
has increased dramatically. Savvy taxi drivers and ridehailing drivers are earning less
across the board. Drivers are coming from San Diego to drive in the SF Bay Area. Plateless
toll evasion on the toll bridges has skyrocketed since ridehailing came on the scene.
The situation is not sustainable. There are way too many vehicles out there. Generally
there are less rides too now. Services like Chariot or Ford Bike share have reduced ridership
for taxi/ridehailing. Apps like Tinder/Grinder reduce the need for barhopping. Services like
Munchery or Uber Eats eliminate a round trip for going out to eat.
Oddly enough Uber Eats competes against itself, UberX, as every delivery takes away two
rides from the livery side of the equation. People that get a ride out to eat need a ride
home.
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
Posted on December 4,
2017 by Jerri-Lynn ScofieldBy
Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author,
with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street
Today was the monthly moment of truth for automakers in the US. They reported the number of
new vehicles that their dealers delivered to their customers and that the automakers delivered
directly to large fleet customers. These are unit sales, not dollar sales, and they're
religiously followed by the industry.
Total sales in November rose 0.9% from a year ago to 1,393,010 new vehicles, according to
Autodata, which tracks these sales as they're reported by the automakers. Sales of cars dropped
8.2%. Sales of trucks – which include SUVs, crossovers, pickups, and vans – rose
6.6%. Strong replacement demand from the hurricane-affected areas in Texas papered over
weaknesses elsewhere. As always, there were winners and losers.
And one of the losers was Tesla.
First things first: There is nothing wrong with a tiny automaker trying to design, make, and
sell cool but expensive cars that a few thousand Americans might buy every month, and trying to
do so on a battleground dominated by giants. Porsche has been doing that for years. Porsche AG
is owned by Volkswagen AG, which is itself majority-owned by Porsche Automobil Holding SE.
Tesla is out there by itself.
And Tesla has put electric vehicles on the map. That was a
huge feat. EVs have been around since the 1800s, but given the challenges that batteries posed,
they simply didn't catch on until Tesla made EVs cool. Yet Tesla has to buy the battery cells
from battery makers, such as Panasonic.
Tesla isn't quite out there by itself, though. The Wall Street hype machine backs it up,
dousing it with billions of dollars on a regular basis to burn through as fast as it can. This
masterful hype has created a giant market capitalization of about $52 billion, more than most
automakers, including Ford ($50 billion). It's not far behind GM ($61 billion).
But Tesla – which
lost $619 million in Q3 – delivered only 3,590 vehicles in November in the US, down
18% from a year ago.
There are all kinds of interesting aspects about this.
One: 3,590 vehicles amounts to a market share of only 0.26% , of the 1,393,010 new cars and
trucks sold in the US in November. Porsche outsold Tesla by 55% (5,555 new vehicles).
Two: Tesla doesn't report monthly deliveries . It wants to play with the big boys, but it
doesn't want people to know on a monthly basis just how crummy and by comparison
inconsequential its US sales numbers are. Opaque and dedicated to hype, it refuses to disclose
how many vehicles it delivered that month in the US. So the industry is estimating
Tesla's monthly US sales.
Tesla discloses unit sales data in its quarterly earnings reports, long after everyone has
already forgotten about the months in which they occurred.
Three: So how are Model 3 sales doing? Since Tesla doesn't disclose its monthly deliveries
in the US, the industry is guessing. The assembly line still isn't working. "Manufacturing
bottlenecks," as Tesla calls it, and "manufacturing hell," as Elon Musk calls it, rule the
day.
In Q3, Tesla delivered 220 handmade Model 3's. In October, it delivered about 145 handmade
units. In November, the assembly line still wasn't assembling cars. Inside
EVs estimates that Tesla delivered a whopping 345 units in November.
Four: This is where hype goes to die. In February 2017, Tesla hyped
these Model 3 production numbers for 2017:
Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to
steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth
quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018.
November is solidly in the fourth quarter. 5,000 vehicles per week would mean over 20,000 a
month. OK, this is November and not December, so maybe 4,000 a week for a total of 16,000. We
got 345.
Even if the estimate of 345 is off by 100 units up or down, it doesn't even matter. And
December isn't looking much better. Because there is still no mass-produced Model 3.
Five: The bestselling Model S isn't best-selling anymore. Inside EVs estimates that
Tesla delivered 1,335 Model S in the US. This was far outpaced by the humble Model-3-killer the
Chevy Bolt. GM sold 2,987 Bolts in November. Tesla is also estimated to have delivered 1,875
Model X SUVs in the US. It took the Model S and the Model X combined to beat the humble
Bolt.
Six: The unglamorous Model-3-killer is number one . The Chevy Bolt faces no "production
bottlenecks" and no "manufacturing hell." It was rolled out gradually, starting in October 2016
in California and Oregon, with other states being added to the distribution plan over time. By
August 2017, the Bolt was available in all states. By September, 2,632 Bolts were sold in the
US; in October 2,781; and in November 2,987.
The Bolt became the best-selling EV in October and retained that crown in November. Nothing
was even close. November was the ninth month in a row of rising sales, as it should be for a
brand-new vehicle line. GM has sold 20,070 Bolts so far this year.
Seven: But the Bolt is just a flyspeck for GM. It's something to build the foundation for a
larger shift to EVs. It represented just 1.2% of GM's total deliveries in the US in November.
EVs are still just a niche product. And yet, even this flyspeck crushed every Tesla model
without fanfare.
Every automaker is preparing a lineup of EVs. Unlike Tesla, they have their supply chains
down pat, and they know how to get their assembly lines to function, and they know how to
mass-produce vehicles. There are already about two dozen EV models on the market in the US.
Like GM, these automakers are just using their EVs to lay the groundwork for the broader
shift.
Tesla has used two years of hype surrounding the Model 3 as a way to boost its share price.
This allows it to raise many more billions by selling more ludicrously overpriced shares to
gullible investors, and by selling more debt to institutional investors who believe that
Tesla's ability to sell still more ludicrously overpriced shares to gullible retail investors
will in effect guarantee the junk-rated debt they just bought. Few companies have ever been
able to perform that scheme at this masterful level.
Serious delinquencies in subprime auto loans have reached Lehman Moment proportions. But
there is no Financial Crisis. These are the boom times. Read Auto-Loan
Subprime Blows Up Lehman-Moment-Like
Elon Musk is little more than a snake-oil salesman. Not only is there the Tesla fiasco,
but there are his plans to send people to Mars by 2024. If that ever comes to fruition, those
who are sent will almost certainly die in the attempt. We simply do not know enough about the
dangers of space travel, and how to counteract them. Then there is the boondoggle that is the
Hyperloop. That is little more than science fiction, as this video shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
Yes, and on the flip side, becoming supremely efficient at handling a supply chain with
only 25 moving parts sounds like it would be a total walk in the park for automakers who've
mastered handling one with "10000 moving parts" no?? Unless if you believe the PR that says
these giant "archaic" automakers will just stand by and watch as they're being "disrupted"
into oblivion, doubling down on ICE even as the nimble startup that is Tesla moves the market
in a different direction.
Catch phrases, sound bites and "David downs Goliath" tales that play well in the land of
software startups don't transfer well to industrial scale manufacturing. Tesla will require
more than hype to play with the big boys (who have massive balance sheets, supply chain
management,production and distribution know how not to be sneered at), much less become a big
boy itself. The giant automakers are not stupid, they're making their own forays into EVs (as
the chevy bolt case mentioned in the article illustrates) while recognizing that ICE, much as
we'd all like them to disappear tomorrow, will be around for a while to come still, that's
just the reality. While Tesla's potential isn't to be dismissed, it better not suffer from
the type of hubris that will be its undoing in the end.
PS: There was an article here a while back that made a persuasive argument about how
advances in battery technology won't necessarily be the biggest impediment to Tesla (and
other EV manufacturers) hitting their projected production outputs, but rather the locking up
of offtake agreements to guarantee the supply of sufficient raw materials (e.g. cobalt).
Tesla itself – Musk is what he is, opinions differ – has done quite a service
bringing EVs into the limelight. It would be helpful if the idiot market didn't overvalue his
company so much that the car part can't be spun off into the possession of a "real" car
company/companies.
If, for example, GM/Nissan got together and acquired Tesla's car stuff for what it is
really worth (pretty much the company-sized version of that "needs work" Corvette you are
eyeing in the local Craigslist) then with the Bolt/Leaf/Mod3 in a single showroom, and all
the IP now free to distribute among dedicated engineers, you would now have something.
But you can't get it for "what it's worth" due to the market idiocy. "It's the future"
doesn't mean you still won't go broke overpaying for it.
The entire push to EV's is such a misdirection. If we could have a 'do-over', go back to
1910 or so, and have Henry Ford chose and market an electric vehicle rather than a petroleum
powered vehicle, maybe our current situation would be better.
As it is, we're proposing that we take these millions of solo vehicles, all of which are
manufactured out of finite resources, using vast amounts of energy to manufacture and
transport to point of sale, and clogging the streets of our cities with grid-locking traffic,
thus generating calls to build more roads and overpasses, which use more scarce resources. So
what if they all become self-driving? Our local roads would become quieter and cleaner . but
what will happen back along the supply train?
We're all in denial. We don't want to let go of our lifestyle that allows us to get in our
car and drive off toward the horizon, adventure and a better life. Only, the horizon has
become a gigantic stinking tar sands wasteland and the better life a shaky mirage.
There were plenty of electric vehicles around back around 1910. The US had a fairly
extensive trolley system. The auto industry put them out of business, most likely
deliberately.
Now the 'sharing economy' is trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak, but in a far worse
manner than what already existed a century ago. Putting tens or hundreds of millions of
electric cars on the road to be 'shared' by app users is clearly not the answer.
What has been most distressing for me is how many renewable advocates and professionals
have put their hope in the Howard Hughes of the 21st century to help (or single-handedly
according to some) deliver us into a renewable energy future. Turns out he is a confidence
man of the highest order, scatterbrained to all hell, a union buster, tone deaf, possibly
racist/sexist based on employees, etc. etc. As far as being a leader for renewable energy
development he is more Ahab than Jean-Luc Picard.
Give me a federal program over an eccentric billionaire any day.
"Tesla – which lost $619 million in Q3 – delivered only 3,590 vehicles in
November in the US, down 18% from a year ago."
Wolf goes on to note that in February Tesla predicted "to steadily ramp production [of the
Model 3] to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000
vehicles per week at some point in 2018." In other words, their total all-models sales are
running at under 1000 per week, less than one-fifth the production rate they predicted for
the Model 3 alone as recently as February. Making Tesla's valuation downright
Bitcoinesque in its ludicrousness. And like BTC, it will surely ramp quite a ways higher
before the whole manic bubble collapses. And speaking of Bubble 3.0, another Wolf Street
piece:
Simple arrogance. Limited production of high margin luxury vehicles is an entirely
different business than mass production of no margin vehicles. There are 10s of thousands of
mechanical, civil, operational, industrial, and electrical engineers in the Detroit metro.
There are hundreds of independent tool-making firms employing 10s of thousands experienced
machinists. Rust-belt universities and community colleges add 1000s more talented workers
every year. They are capable of a billion dollar factory retooling in a few months. Tesla
lacks talent, experience, suppliers, and experience with suppliers to compete in the
mass-production side of the automotive industry.
Tesla is a very good example of why you don't offshore manufacturing. The relationship
networks between suppliers, experienced staff, and training institutions are incredibly
difficult to recreate.
"... Musk treats Tesla workers like garbage . For some, that's a problem. I don't applaud "pushing" that sort of "boundary" (although its common with Silicon Valley firms; see Amazon). ..."
"... Tesla's Newest Promises Break the Laws of Batteries ..."
"... even with mirrors ..."
"... interior design ..."
"... truck test driver ..."
"... it could compete on cost with trains. ..."
"... Please permit me a moment of dystopian tongue-in-cheek ;-) ..."
In this simple post I'm going to consider the Tesla Semi truck -- which Tesla CEO Elon Musk
announced November 16 to predictably credulous
laudable coverage , along with statements that
were said to be orders but were, in fact, not -- as a vehicle , and not a
financial vehicle[1]. (I also won't address the role for which the Semi may be most
appropriate: Line haul, short haul, port duty, etc., though I may address these supply chain
issues at a later date.) First, I'll look at the Semi's cab and wheels; then, I'll look at the
Semi at the truck stop and on the dock. In each case I'll rely heavily on the informed
commentary of the NC commentariat, as well as the wisdom of Hurbert Horan. First, though,
here's a look at the thing:
Starting with the cab, I'll requote this, from AutoBlog :
[W]e'll start with the central seating position.
A second reason I picked the image above: It shows that central seating position
clearly.
I don't see how that helps a trucker. I already get "a commanding view of the road" in a
traditional truck because I sit six feet above traffic. What I need is a commanding view of
my own truck, which the central seating position compromises. The worst [1]blind spot in a
tractor is next to the doors; in the Tesla Semi, I can't lean over to see if there's a Toyota
Corolla camped out beside me.
I just hope I'm not in that Toyota Corolla, even if it is a robot car!
The central seating position hampers my commanding view when I need that view most: when I
[2]back up. For any backing maneuver, I watch both sides of the trailer in my mirrors to make
sure I don't clobber anything, or I lean out of the truck to watch the trailer as I back.
Being able to physically watch the trailer – not camera images on screens – can
be the difference between making a clean back-up or making an insurance claim.
Furthermore, I can't see around [3]trucks in front of me without pulling halfway into
another lane. When I need to [4]exchange paperwork with the guard at a terminal, or the
police, I can't lean out the window to do so. Speaking of which, I have to believe one of the
windows on the Tesla Semi [5]rolls down, but I can't figure out which one. If, as it appears
from the renderings, the windows only vent, well that's unacceptable.
I've helpfully numbered the driver use cases that seem not to have been considered in the
design of the Tesla Semi's cab; five ([5]) seems like rather a lot, particularly since I get
the sense that the writer was just getting started.
NC commenter altandmain raises a second issue, again, visible from the Semi image: Clearance
(
see here as well ), also visible in the photograph above:
Look at the front and rear axles. It was no doubt for the sake of aerodynamics, but a
production version would have to have it raised or else the semi simply cannot operate as is.
Particularly in [1]hilly terrain, even trucks today can get stuck on the crest of a very
steep hill (it does happen in the industry). Very simply put, the production version cannot
be as aerodynamic.
[2]Snow will also be an issue with low clearance. This might be a big problem in Canada,
the northern US, Alaska, and northern Europe. Russia too, if Tesla ever intends to sell to
the Russians. Also, notice that the rear wheels are concealed. This could be an issue [3]if
the vehicle is stuck in the snow (ever see a car get stuck in the snow)? Trucks have more
ground pressure and as a result, are at a larger risk for "getting stuck" .
There must also be the ability to attach [4]moose bumpers. That is necessary in Canada and
northern US. I did not see anything on the images that would imply that a bumper provision
was available.
Here, too, I have helpfully numbered the use cases that the Tesla Semi's designers ignored;
four (4) also seems like rather a lot. No snow in Fremont, California, eh? Or moose, for that
matter.
Now, the suggestion has been made that getting us lost in the weeds like I just did is a
clever scheme by Tesla. Hubert writes:
Objective is to get people discussing minor design/implementation details in order to
convince people that these vehicles are inevitable and only a few years away from mass
production and widespread acceptance, and to distract from the fact that the underlying
technology doesn't exist, and even if it did the underlying economics are abysmal.
Plausible, but to me, this is a variation of The Eternal Question in DC: "Stupid, or
evil?"[2]. And frankly, I'd consider going with stupid. Tesla is a creature of Silicon Valley,
and there are plenty of software types who'd try -- and even succeed! I've watched it
happen! -- to take a wireframe that "looked cool" all the way through to production while
ignoring any and all User Interface/User Experiece inputs, out of sheer arrogance and
indifference to the needs of others. And when I look at all the obvious use cases Tesla missed
-- nine really obvious ones, after a pretty shallow examination -- it looks like one of those
software types was in charge of this project.[3] (Lots of these types work on the Internet of
Things.)
The Truck Stop and the Dock
One thing I've noticed about trucks is that they do a lot of parking and backing up and
maneuvering around obstacles. That makes mirrors very important. The Semi doesn't have mirrors.
It has cameras that display on screens. From fan site Teslarati :
Because the Tesla Semi doesn't have any side mirrors, video from these cameras likely
provide the driver with a birds eye view of both sides of the truck as seen from the interior
touchscreen displays. Kman also discovered a row of cameras mounted below and above the
massive windshield, and even more cameras discreetly mounted within Tesla Semi's headlight
assembly.
Some docks are easy to back into and the cameras would be fine for those. But a large
number of docks are extremely challenging to back into. Lighting at night causes glare and
cameras would have trouble with that, even with mirrors you occasionally have trouble. Really
difficult docks are the covered ones where you must back into a dark building from the sunny
outdoors and hit a dock while narrowly missing poles, walls and doors. The only way to see
anything is to get out and look and then stick your head out the window and look straight
back while backing in. The Tesla appears useless for that. Warehouses in underground caves
are especially difficult in this regard and you may have to back up quite a distance around
obstacles like rock pillars. I could tell you some stories about long distance backing a
semi, sometimes I do it from the highway up a half mile of twisting County road to my
driveway.
Altandmain makes an additional point. No backups:
one issue I see is that there are no manual backups. A camera can be covered by mud. If
you own a car and you have a backup camera on your car, you have some idea of the
limitations. There should be mirrors. Otherwise, the cameras don't always work in all
conditions. Plus the camera can die or face other problems.
No backups? For a computer system? Kidding, right?
And then, besides the cameras, there are those screens (Indignant programmer: "But
I work with screens all the time!") Autoblog once more
:
Another reason to have physical mirrors: so I can turn off, or turn down, the two giant
screens in the cab (screens which, by the way, hinder my view of the corners of my truck).
The light required to provide a useful camera image at night would kill my eyes during a full
drive shift. Doing an 11-hour stint in a dark cockpit in the glow of large digital screens
only works in anime and "Battlestar Galactica." I had one computer in both trucks I drove,
and unless I was using it, I turned the screen off.
I gained a tremendous respect for people who drive trucks for a living. It's difficult and
demanding work, and there are great dangers in driving an 80,000 lb vehicle in heavy traffic,
rain, snow, and city streets. The pay is low, the stress high, and long-haul drivers are
frequently away from home for weeks at a time. Despite all this, the truckers I met had
tremendous professionalism and pride in their work, and saw themselves as part of a
collective effort to get everyone (not just their own load) where they are going quickly and
safely.
Those are Musk's users, and if the Tesla is to be a real product -- instead of a bright
shiny object[4] dangled before the Wall Street touts analysts to detract from
the
Model 3's production woes , not that I'm cynical -- he could start by listening to them. If
you hose away all the technobabblish froth, and consider the truck as a truck , it
becomes readily apparent he hasn't. I'm sure I'll have more to say on this topic in the future,
especially on larger issues like batteries, charging, and the supply chain generally, but I
thought it was important to kick the Semi's tires first. As usual, comments from drivers and
allied professions most welcome!
It's probably best to view Thursday night's truck-and-pony show Hawthorne as a bit of
savvy marketing move, plus a down payment on the future of transport. "Given the production
issues around Tesla and its significant cash burn, it might be easy to discount this
announcement as more marketing than substance, but I expect Tesla will build this truck
eventually," said Michael Ramsey, an analyst at Gartner. "If the future is electric -- and it
likely will be at some point -- then laying the groundwork now is not a waste of time."
I'd expect more puffery from Gartner. Or perhaps that is the puffery?
Great summary. Ive seen a lot of articles telling me I should be afraid of autonomous
vehicles. I also s*** myself when I saw the cgi video of this bully steaming past a sedan on
a thin two lane road.
Maybe ill spend less leisure time on the road, leave it for work.
I mean to pose neurotic question: could they be scaring me on purpose?
While it may not be perfect, I applaud Tesla for trying to push boundaries and move us
away from fossil fuels. Even if Tesla fails as a company, they are pushing the traditional
car companies to offer electric cars at a much faster rate than anyone expected. I have a
sister in law in Texas whose family made their fortune in the oil business. She is
considering buying a Model X because it is the new status symbol. Well done Tesla.
Musk treats Tesla workers like garbage
. For some, that's a problem. I don't applaud "pushing" that sort of "boundary" (although its
common with Silicon Valley firms; see Amazon).
I haven't researched how electric vehicles net out environmentally.
Dear Lambert, if you have "proof" that Tesla workers are being treated like garbage, you
need to show us. It is NOT "common" in Silicon Valley to treat people like garbage. My wife
worked at Apple. She commuted by train to the valley. She was picked up at the train by
Apple, free of charge. They provide free child daycare. They have an extensive cafeteria
where employees eat very well at low rates. Their wages are above average and "flex hours"
allow employees to arrive any time in a wide window. Maybe you were referring to another
Silicone Valley since Amazon's headquarters is in Washington State. Please try to do more
research before you rush to publish.It makes you appear to be sort of "pushing something".
P.S. Tesla is not in Silicon Valley. It's in the east bay, Fremont to be exact.
Do consider reading the two links I supplied; feel free to take issue with them. After
that, consider getting your knee seen to.
* * *
On "Silicon Valley," let's not be tediously literal-minded. Wikipedia :
"Silicon Valley" has come to have two definitions: a geographic one, referring to Santa
Clara County, and a metonymical one, referring to all high-tech businesses in the Bay Area
or even in the United States.
Here's the definition of metonymy . I hope this helps.
I mentioned this vehicle with a relative, who has some experience with trucking (as do
others, actually). I brought up the central seating position, and he had the exact same
reaction. It's almost like Tesla is not concerned with testing this out with people who have
practical experience with trucking.
I am not kidding, or proud, when I say that I had the idea for center seating in a car
when I was five years old. That doesn't say much about this truck.
The only cars that I can think of with center seating are racing vehicles like the Mclaren
F1.
I've been thinking about this, and if I invert the bugs into features, it means the "Semi"
is designed for (future) automation, and the driver is sitting in the center to handle any
emergencies, so ultimately we're looking at a robot truck. (Which is still dumb, because that
Toyota is an emergency.)
But it's really not clear to me that robot trucks are a thing, any more than robot cars,
if we look at the use cases readers keep supplying. Of course, the object could be that every
business not accessible by robot truck should wither and die .
Everybody is focused on visual mirrors and cameras. However, if this is to be
semi-autonomous or autonomous, then other sensors like radar will be necessary and may be the
justification for the center seating. The radar should provide continuous coverage around the
truck in all but the worst weather conditions. So the camera images would provide a visual
depiction of the object, but the radar would tell the driver where it is and should eliminate
blind spots. If needed, they could even do IR sensors or night vision cameras as well.
The only way a central driving position makes sense is if Tesla plans to make the vehicle
autonomous from the very beginning. That way the 'driver' is just another passenger,
conveniently redundant in the glorious digital future! All the issues mentioned about cameras
would apply to self driving as well. Why do I suddenly feel even less comfortable with the
prospect of sharing the road or loading dock with self driving trucks in bad weather?
Looking at the issues pointed out, it's not just the truck driver expected to be
eliminated from the road.
"Why do I suddenly feel even less comfortable with the prospect of sharing the road or
loading dock with self driving trucks in bad weather?"
These appear to be designs that are expected to work with no human drivers on the road, with
ideal conditions being other autonomous vehicles on the roads (with infrastructure changed to
adapt to them).
They'll weed out human drivers through insurance costs
So, when it's time, that's where all the infrastructure money will go! (as opposed to,
say, schools, or public wifi, or )
> They'll weed out human drivers through insurance costs
Of course they will (though I don't know how you do actuarial calculations for
robot AIs. Perhaps they'll just jigger the numbers for the desired outcome )
I have seen quite a few 18-wheelers buried deep in the woods along interstates in the
northeast over the past year. I think the human drivers are working very long hours and
literally falling asleep at the wheel. That is the only explanation for 18-wheelers that have
gone 100 feet off the road along a flat, straight interstate and not stopped until only the
rear door of the trailer was sticking out form the trees. In August, I had one four-hour
drive where I saw three of these. It was pretty scary because there were a lot of trucks
around me.
It's one thing to rush to market a concept "with bugs." It's another to rush to market a
concept that's not even designed to work (center seating; no mirrors; low bottom-clearance)
!
See, when the truck gets stuck in the snow, all the little robots will jump out and lift
the truck up with their tiny little metal hands. Same with waving away the moose.
There are also fundamental technical issues with the announced truck: its entire power
subsystem is simply unfeasible with current technology. The article Tesla's Newest Promises Break the Laws of Batteries gives an explanation.
And when I look at all the obvious use cases Tesla missed -- nine really obvious ones,
after a pretty shallow examination -- it looks like one of those software types was in
charge of this project.
Actually Jerome Guillen, formerly of Daimler Trucks North America, led development of the
Tesla Semi. Previously he led development of DTNA's popular Freightliner Cascadia line of
trucks. Shallow examination indeed.
I have no interest in Tesla's financial success -- arguably the opposite -- but I have
taken a test drive in a Tesla Semi, talked to some of its developers and prospective
customers, experienced its acceleration and turns and I consider it to be a commercially
viable product, perhaps as soon as 2019. We'll see.
I've been a loyal reader of NC, including the comments, for much of the last 10 years. I
greatly enjoyed the Hubert Horan series of articles on Uber's economics; virtually of his
points rang true with respect to my knowledge as a practitioner in the ground vehicle
technology sector. But NC's recent expedition into technology-based criticism of Tesla and
vehicle automation strikes me as overreach. Strong ethical and economic criticism of these
subjects is ripe for the making -- and would be consistent with my reading of NC's general
editorial perspective and leadership -- and yet the temptation to deem oneself more knowing
than scores of technical practitioners is apparently what's driving the sector coverage most
prominent of late. A few related points:
– automated and electric vehicles are designed for specific use cases
– the Tesla Semi's center seating may indeed be gimmicky but still practical in many
use cases; mirrors can certainly be added to expand the scope of viable use cases, with a
small sacrifice in aerodynamics
– to suggest that any vehicle as a whole is somehow not "real" because its prototype
interior design seems gimmicky or otherwise flawed is to throw the baby out with the
bathwater
– to suggest that a Tesla vehicle specifically is not "real" because Elon Musk is an
arrogant and/or desperate CEO is to ignore a history of overpromising but eventually
delivering; even in bankruptcy, the vehicle designs will remain
– to be reflexively against partially-automated electric vehicles powered by solar
(see Tesla Semi charging station plans) and promulgated by Silicon Valley technologists is
fine, and maybe wise if it coincides with opposition to resource-intensive human industry in
general, but it would be more interesting at least to this reader to see that vision
evaluated against the alternatives, and not just damned out of skepticism
– finally, to cherrypick the members of the commentariat you say you rely on is
off-putting and potentially a disservice
Well said. Although it is certainly possible that many of Musk's ideas will not come to
fruition in their current form it seems likely to me that he is moving the mark, as noted
above, toward a good future. IMHO the carping about the inefficiencies experienced by
innovators – many false starts and wrong turns – society never progresses without
them.
Musk is an extremely innovative marketer, that's true. However, I don't think that
"innovation" (the Juicero) or "progress" (Fukushima) are concepts that should be accepted
unexamined.
One of the things that I've been reading quite a bit lately, beside your observations, is
that these types of commercial vehicles are not intended to be used for "last mile"
deliveries. The odds are very strong that there would be outskirt warehousing built that
would take into consideration the negatives like loading dock access, etc.
Warehouses are relatively inexpensive to build, Amazon can have one up, running and fully
functional within a year without batting an eyelash.
I don't find "autonomous" vehicles a good thing for a number of reasons (many of them
covered here), but they will be everywhere soon enough at some level of autonomy, and just
like infrastructure being built and/or modified for present day cars and trucks, future
infrastructure, as it is built out, will take commercial autonomous vehicles and their
requirements/limitations into consideration, particularly considering the strong drive in our
times to reduce both human labor and its cost.
It may not be Tesla, but BAE, Mercedes, Volvo,and others are already well on the road to
autonomous, electric/hybrid commercial vehicles.
Just out of curiosity, in what circumstances is the center seating position practical? The
column referenced in the above article had a very pointed critique of that feature, based on
real-world experience.
If the model is that the driver will just sit on the throne, waiting for the robots to
tell him there's an emergency, I think people doing human factors analysis for aircraft
pilots might wish to have a word.
Companies that don't have to make a profit have a different idea of what's "commercially
viable" than the rest of us. Trucking companies have to make a profit, and in a low-margin
business.
I would hardly call "NC's recent expedition into technology-based criticism of Tesla and
vehicle automation" being a case of overreach. Remember, one day we may be seeing these
things come barrelling up behind us in our rear-view mirrors like something out of "Duel" so
if people take a closer look at Ford or Toyota, then why should Tesla get a free pass? Tesla
cops a lot of flak for its awful treatment of the people that work for it and not listening
to them so if people, especially truckers, are looking a a concept design (probably with
input from the marketing droids) and saying "not gunna work" as is, maybe it is time to
listen to the people that will actually have to deal with these things. There are other
problems external to this design as well.
Not long ago there was a story of some hapless city in the US where one of those autonomous
cars was being tested out. It wasn't working out so well for the car as the roads had been
run down and lines were not being repainted so the car was having difficulty recognizing
where it was supposed to go. The car exec was complaining bitterly to the city officials how
they should be repairing & painting more. Now I am not going to go into the aspect of how
corporations have rigged things where they are putting in little or no money into taxes
leading to budget shortfalls across the nation – and thus cutbacks into such things as
road maintenance (that is another rant for another time) but how are these you-beaut trucks
supposed to navigate on roads that are being increasingly being run down? California Bob
brought up the valid point of crossing wildlife as well.
Also, here in Australia a coupla years ago the trucking industry was busted for forcing their
drivers to exceed the speed limits to get cargoes delivered. The trucking companies were
regarding the fines as a cost-of-doing-business but the drivers were dosing themselves up to
the gills on drugs to stay awake and alert. Would these autonomous trucks be programed to
have trucks with special cargo (read Amazon) exceed speed limits to meet deadlines? It's all
fun and profit until the first autonomous truck wipes out a school bus. The only solution
that I can see to help avoid collisions with these things would be to force all cars to have
transponders like aircraft so that these trucks know who and what is around them. And even
then with aircraft you still get midairs.
> temptation to deem oneself more knowing than scores of technical practitioners
I'm uncertain how looking to actual truck drivers means that I "deem myself more knowing."
Unless you don't regard truck drivers as "technical practitioners," of course (but see the
Conclusion) which would drive home my point on over-valuing software engineering rather
neatly.
> Acutally, Guillen, formerly of Daimler Trucks North America, led development of the
Tesla Semi. Previously he led development of DTNA's popular Freightliner Cascadia line of
trucks. Shallow examination indeed.
Actually, I wrote:
And when I look at all the obvious use cases Tesla missed -- nine really obvious ones,
after a pretty shallow examination -- it looks like one of those software types
was in charge of this project.[3]
You are familiar with the American idiom "looks like"? Surely -- speaking of shallow --
it's possible that even the most gifted mechanical engineer could produce results that "look
like" they were produced by an arrogant and ignorant software engineer? Much in the same way
that a master chef could produce a dish that "looks like" it came out of a reheated plastic
bag?
* * *
To your other points:
> – automated and electric vehicles are designed for specific use cases
It would be helpful if you would adduce the use cases for which the "Semi" is actually
useful, as designed. I agree that you can simply turn bugs into requirements; no snow, no
backing up, and so forth
> – the Tesla Semi's center seating may indeed be gimmicky but still practical in
many use cases; mirrors can certainly be added to expand the scope of viable use cases, with
a small sacrifice in aerodynamics
Yes, the product as released can be redesigned to eliminate all the sloppiness and
stupidity. Is that your point? The real issue is why the design was released as it was.
They're actually trying to market the thing, as you know; it's not a prototype or a mockup or
an alpha version.
> – to suggest that any vehicle as a whole is somehow not "real" because its
prototype interior design seems gimmicky or otherwise flawed is to throw the baby out with
the bathwater
If you think adequate clearance for snow is a "gimmick," I suggest you consult with actual
drivers.
> – to suggest that a Tesla vehicle specifically is not "real" because Elon Musk
is an arrogant and/or desperate CEO is to ignore a history of overpromising but eventually
delivering; even in bankruptcy, the vehicle designs will remain
Er, no. "To suggest A is to ignore B" just is not so. The vehicle could well be (A) not
"real" as serious and knowledgeable people in the field suggest and Tesla could (B)
ultimately deliver something. As for eventually delivering, your claim is (for example) that
because Lockheed delivered the P-38 (a prop-driven fighter), it also would have delivered the
Lockheed L-2000 (a jet supersonic transport). I think it makes more sense to make concrete
evaluations of products, rather than resort to vague hand-waving about company history. As
for the designs, why assume they're any good?
> – to be reflexively against partially-automated electric vehicles powered by
solar (see Tesla Semi charging station plans) and promulgated by Silicon Valley technologists
is fine, and maybe wise if it coincides with opposition to resource-intensive human industry
in general, but it would be more interesting at least to this reader to see that vision
evaluated against the alternatives, and not just damned out of skepticism
Ah, yes, the old "the author wrote a book about seagulls, but I've got to give it low
marks because I would rather it were about penguins." Which is all fine, and other posts will
be forthcoming. (The question begging here is: "just damned out of skepticism," and
"reflexively against," and the answer to the first is that I adduce data. The answer to the
second is that it's an obvious ad hominem.)
I appreciate your willingness to accept the original critical comment.
The real issue is why the design was released as it was.
I'd start with fuel savings / range extension. As presented*, the Tesla Semi has a drag
coefficient of 0.36, compared to a Cd of ~0.6-1.0 of typical tractor-trailers (e.g.
Peterbilt's aerodynamic 579 with a box trailer at the low end). This is an important design
factor because about 2/3 of tractor-trailers' fuel consumption at highway speeds goes to
overcoming aerodynamic drag. (* As presented: including with just-above-grade skirting that,
if it's inflexible, would need to be removed to avoid damage at railroad crossings, etc.) I'd
suppose -- all I can do -- that the greater curvature of the windshield and the inset from
the wheelbase at the level where the driver sits, which contribute to drag reduction, both
support moving the driver's position towards the center of the cab. Once the designers
elected to use video screens -- not just as an alternative to mirrors, but also to cover
blind spots that are problematic even with mirrors -- then they may have figured
that center positioning would create adequate and well-balanced space for large-screen
displays on both sides of the driver. I say all this to answer your question. I also
acknowledge the trade-offs of unfamiliarity and problem-causing for drivers, and uncertain
(at least to us) performance in heavy weather. I think though that Tesla is probably aware of
these tradeoffs yet is banking on (has reason to believe?) that they will be mitigated by
driver training and counteracted by coverage of blind spots left uncovered by mirrors alone
(notable that there is no mention in the AutoBlog piece that tractor mirrors leave blind
spots)
If you think adequate clearance for snow is a "gimmick," I suggest you consult with
actual drivers.
I don't think clearance is a gimmick; I was plainly (but unfairly?) characterizing your
view of the interior design of the vehicle. Indeed I have spoken with many a driver
about clearance with respect to trailer skirting (again, this is my business!). Ramps and
railroad crossings pose problems even where snow does not. Thermoplastic skirting can be
quite flexible and hold up to a lot of wear and tear. Flexibility though not be of any help
when turning in the snow. I haven't had the chance to look closely at Tesla's materials, but
agreed that they look precariously low to the ground. Some skirting is readily removable
(5-15 minutes). Again I don't know about Tesla's.
I think it makes more sense to make concrete evaluations of products, rather than resort
to vague hand-waving about company history. As for the designs, why assume they're any
good?
My point is that this evaluation does not seem well-hardened. As for company history, you
recount only back to last month's Model S news. Is that also hand-waving or something else?
In any case, I agree that past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
It would be helpful if you would adduce the use cases for which the "Semi" is actually
useful.
– Short- to regional-haul / out-and-back runs with ranges up to ~400 miles (no
sleeper option yet presented); charging station locations will be a big factor in identifying
suitable regional haul routes
– Urban areas with emission-mitigation rules/goals
– Confident, experienced drivers interested in learning / using new equipment (same
approach used with adoption of forward collision avoidance systems); converse, don't ask
drivers who aren't comfortable using screens for docking to do so. These parameters are a
function of driver interest / acceptance and training, not absolute good or bad fits for the
vehicle.
– Since I don't know how flexible the skirting is or whether it's removable, I could
hardly guess at whether grade variance or snow will be significant limitations
– For peak vehicle efficiency, private / dedicated routes with limited or no trailer
switching to hold together the tractor-trailer aero package
– Unless and until drivers are comfortable operating the truck in heavy weather, urban
driving, etc., don't adopt for routes where these conditions are common
I'm sure that doesn't cover it all but it's an honest effort. I don't think the vehicle is
perfect. It's just better in significant ways, based on my own adducement of data, than any
truck I've ever observed -- in fact ridden in. And if I were a blind technology enthusiast,
than it would be surpassingly strange for me to spend so much of my leisure time at this
site. More data to adduce.
In closing I'd like to add again that I appreciate your thoughtful response, as well as
the perspectives of others who have addressed issues including labor practices and sharing
the road with robo-trucks; all important, and not my focus in these comments about technology
coverage.
> converse, don't ask drivers who aren't comfortable using screens for docking to do
so
Since you have some expertise in this field, can you some current examples in the
transportation world where backing-up or any parking is done with ONLY screens? Some cars and
trucks have backup screens, but this only as supplemental assist. I don't know about the
aviation world, but the airliners I have seen backed-up do so with the "human assist" of guys
walking behind waving orange "stick lights!" Ocean liners have "navigation cameras," but I
don't think captains have ever tried to dock their ocean liner from their windowless quarters
with no other human assist. And by the way, Autoagri, have you ever driven a big truck?
Unless you have access to some interesting prototypes, and are a " truck test driver
, I don't think you have ever backed up a big truck using just a screen.
You know what kind of vehicle I think Tesla ought to design? School buses !
School buses run relatively short routes, shorter hours than city buses, and are parked at
the bus barn every night, which would be great for charging. Blue Bird has already unveiled a
design for it's ubiquitous yellow student-mover. Why shouldn't Tesla dip a toe in that
market?
You may be onto something. Every lawyer's nightmare is defending a client who
center-punched a school bus full of nuns. Said lawyers will influence system design, hence,
school buses may very well be the safest way to travel soon.
Perhaps for the European and Japanese market – but given that Betsy DeVos is
Secretary of Education, and the lamentable state of public education infrastructure in the
United States in general, I can't see too many orders being placed for school buses in the
near future, at least. Since the current U.S. military budget is $611 billion (CNBC), it
would make more sense, fiscally, to produce electric military vehicles.
I'm not sure if that calls for a sarcasm tag or not. . .
bid purchase by govt, razor thin margins historically.
others are heavily into this. damlier owns thomas bus in NC, and is putting big $ into
electrifying.
Although not so much when dealing with tractor trailers, I do rely on seeing the movement
of the driver's face/head in their mirror when deciding to pass on the driver's side in my
car or on my bike.
I don't know, but would guess that it is very little, how much thought has gone into the
reliance upon what would be face to face communications that occur very often between vehicle
drivers to signal awareness and negotiate whether or not one has clear passage. This as
everyone knows occurs at traffic signal-less intersections on regular basis. One even relies
on subtle signals of intermittent usage of turn signals as when one turns it off to give up
on a particular lane change until the other vehicle passes. Head movement (eye movement is
more problematical as they are not all that visible) of the other driver as well as your own
is a communications tool when driving and negotiating traffic. Autonomous vehicles would
simply barge along on basis of what it thinks is safe without a clue as to what would be
normally very predictable behavior of other vehicles on the road, the drivers of which
communicate with head movement and sometimes by nudging their vehicle in a direction that
says intent.
I see myself flailing madly at another car, trying to give them the right of way at a four
way stop, not knowing that it is a robot with zero awareness.
> It will be your fault if you are run over by one of these robots.
Yes, that's where we're going to come out. OTOH, none of our young people can afford cars,
and many don't seem to want them, so perhaps this is a problem that will solve itself.
I don't know, but would guess that it is very little, how much thought has gone into the
reliance upon what would be face to face communications that occur very often between
vehicle drivers to signal awareness and negotiate whether or not one has clear passage.
This is one of the few cases I can remember where this aspect of autonomous vehicles has
been discussed.
Bad as it is for car and bicycle drivers, the situation is worse for pedestrians who are
interacting with cars. We have all had the situation where we are trying to decide whether to
walk in front of a stopped car, and relying on eye contact with the driver to conclude that
it safe to proceed. This happens almost daily. Would anyone on foot care to cross in front of
a stopped car if there were no human driver? Or if the driver were obviously heads-down,
tweeting on his phone and the vehicle under command of an AI driving system? This extremely
common situation gives me the chills.
Driving is very much a social and human activity, something the autonomous vehicle people
can't seem to get.
You'd think a central issue would be the difference in fuel costs versus electricity costs
per mile, and that those numbers would be prominent in any discussion of the virtues of
electric vs. fossil-fueled semis – it's such an obvious point, that a lack of
discussion is really disappointing.
Obviously, the fossil fuel industry doesn't like the idea of the loss of revenue from
trucking fuel sales that electric semis would represent; but an analysis of the scale of such
losses seems appropriate. A little searching turns up Musk's claims:
More significantly for trucking companies, Musk said that a standard diesel truck would
be 20% more expensive to operate than a Tesla truck: $1.26 per mile compared to $1.51 per
mile.
Musk said that if Tesla Semis were to drive in a convoy, in which trucks can draft off
each other while letting computers and sensors keep them just feet apart at highway speeds,
it could compete on cost with trains. "This beats rail," said Musk, throwing up an 85 cents
per mile cost. – USA Today
So if these claims are incorrect, I'd expect to see a lot of push-back. Does this mean
that's an accurate estimate, or is this just a topic that fossil fuel investors don't want to
talk about?
Currently diesel accounts for about 21% of the petroleum-based fuel consumed in the United
States, so a significant shift to electric semis would seriously impact demand for fossil
fuels. Given that so many fossil fuel production strategies – fracking, tar sands, etc.
– are near-margin in terms of profitability (i.e. if production costs are on the order
of $60 a barrel, greater than current crude oil pricing, they are losing money), any slump in
global fossil fuel demand makes a significant fraction of these strategies economic
losers.
This also brings up the topic of how investment funds operate – if they're investing
in fossil fuels, and also in auto and truck manufacturers, then where do they see the balance
sheet – i.e. if they choose to invest in electric vehicles, then the smart move is to
also get out of their fossil fuel investments – but if they're heavily into fossil
fuels, the last thing they want to see is truck manufacturers shifting over to electric
manufacturing. Given that the large shareholders appoint the corporate board members who make
such decisions – well, is this really a winning strategy in the long run?
This is also a strong argument for employees of the corporation being the majority
shareholders, so that their company can remain competitive as the world transitions to
electric vehicles. Given that China is going to implement bans on fossil fueled-vehicles (for
reasons of local air pollution), demand for fossil fuels and fossil-fueled vehicles has
nowhere to go but down. This doesn't bode well for expensive fossil fuel production projects,
either.
Oil refineries have a huge degree of control over what they convert crude oil into, but it
does depend on the characteristics of the crude oil – lighter is easier. But this is
certainly a problem with the heavier crudes (tar sand, high-sulfur heavy, etc), which already
require lots of processing and have huge up-front production costs. The solution then is to
stop producing heavy crudes – leave them in the ground.
Well, trains run on rails that are privately funded, trucks on the Interstate only pay a
portion of the cost of the highway. In fact, if the Interstate carried just passenger car
traffic the cost of road building would be substantially cheaper. (The depth of road base and
concrete/asphalt is a function of the weight and number of vehicles being carried.)
Putting 40,000 lb. trucks in close convoy is not only dangerous (accidents happen) but
puts increased stress on the road surface/base. And convoys are only legal in a few states.
(Nevada allows them but only on the Interstate and only in restricted zones.)
A final point: trains are not powered directly by diesel engines. A modern locomotive is
run on electric motors connected directly to the drive-wheels; the electricity comes from a
diesel powered electric generator that runs very efficiently between about 75 and 250 RPM.
Yeah, they are the original hybrid vehicle.
Yes, always look for the subsidy. The public will end up paying for every single one of
the infrastructural improvements needed to get robot cars and robot trucks to work.
Seems like a shift to electric vehicles only makes ecological sense if there's a
corresponding shift to renewable/non-polluting ways of generating electricity. Otherwise
you're just burning more fossil fuels to make the additional electricity needed, maybe with
less overall efficiency than you'd get by having the vehicles burn the fossil fuels
directly
> if Tesla Semis were to drive in a convoy, in which trucks can draft off each other
while letting computers and sensors keep them just feet apart at highway speeds
Sounds like "civilians" on the road might have a hard time with this. There's enough
resistance to adding additional trailers already.
On the economics generally, I'm sure there will be plenty of pushback. As I said in the
beginning of this post, I wanted to focus on the Semi as a vehicle . I like
assessing the quality of a work product, since (IMNSHO) it's the best possible indication of
the nature of the institution that produced it (at least for a humanities major).
The potential of 'convoying' has been researched for quite some time – it was a
central part of the European Prometheus Projec t,
arguably the first major study into autonomous vehicles. Its many years ago since I sat in
lectures on transport engineering, but I recall that there were very impressive fuel savings
reached with convoying, although it was considered at the time that the technology wasn't
established enough to go commercial (this was back in the early 1990's) and there were of
course regulatory obstacles. Its a very obvious potential advantage for partially automonous
trucks, especially in areas with big distances and good quality highways.
This is one (of many) reasons why I think we'll see semi-autonomous trucks on the road
many years before it will ever be viable for cars. The potential economic benefits are very
real while the technological obstacles for fixed route deliveries are significantly less than
for private cars or Ubers or whatever.
There was, a few years back (I believe well before any passenger self-driving cars were
allowed on the street), a cross-europe automated convoy experiment. It didn't raise much news
as I remember.. I agree with you that truckies should be the one worried, not taxi drivers
– althought the system I heard of as most promising was as you say semi-autonomous,
basically a highway-based convoys, where trucks would split off/merge in closer to the local
delivery. Sort of not dissimilar to loading the truck(s) on a train ;)
PlutoniumKun, I've read a lot of your comments about the European Prometheus Project and
would love to pick your brain about it and "autonomous" vehicles.
Don't suppose there's anyway to reach you over email or something?
Musk said that if Tesla Semis were to drive in a convoy, in which trucks can draft off
each other while letting computers and sensors keep them just feet apart at highway speeds,
it could compete on cost with trains. "This beats rail," said Musk, throwing up an 85 cents
per mile cost. – USA Today
Until one of them hits a deer. Somehow, I doubt his fancy computers can override the laws
of physics sufficiently to immediately stop a convoy of trucks driving feet apart at 60+ mph.
There are all kinds of safety reasons that hypermiling is illegal.
There is one other very big problem that Tesla has.
They have this far been selling to customers who are very enthusiastic about Tesla cars.
These buyers, although small in numbers are very vocal about their car choice and quite
willing to overlook the flaws of existing Tesla cars. One quite bluntly confessed to me that
fit and finish does not match a car like the top trim of the Chevy Impala, much less a luxury
vehicle in the same price category as the Model S or X. The reliability issues have been
forgiven, as gave the missed deadlines and the fact that the self driving feature is way
below true self driving capabilities.
This will be a lot more difficult in the B2B market, where the customers are from a very
conservative industry. If there are major flaws between the concept and the reality, that
could cost sales. Likewise, the long warranty that Tesla is promising – there will be a
lot higher standards in the trucking industry because downtime is expensive (simply put if
the truck is not on the road, it is not making money and is actually costing money in
repairs, along with depreciation costs).
This is also true of the Model 3. The lower you go down the price chain, the less
forgiving the general public is. If the Model 3 wants mainstream appeal, then it will have to
have rock solid reliability. Compounding the issue is that Tesla right now does not have that
much cash to try to get the car to market and to try to implement a truck which would be
another very expensive proposition.
'"Anime and 'Battlestar Galactica.'" Ouch!' That is a key comment. The image shows not so
much a vehicle as a cartoon version of a vehicle. Measured against the basic principles of
functional product design, one finds all of them violated and that as a result this 'product'
is not a product at all. It's merely an image. Its aesthetics, which emphasize curvature, are
remarkably similar to those that dominated the digital-animated classic, Toy Story. Like Toy
Story, the Tesla Semi-Truck has a retro look, harking back to those early horseless-carriages
of ca. 1900 steered by a centrally position rudder but at the same time the Depression-era
visions of Norman Bel Geddes. Hence contemplating it we get a whiff of Back to the Future,
another filmed fantasy. The semi-truck's closest cultural equivalent may be the scenographic
'house' in the film, Mon Oncle. Its not merely retro but actually reactionary politics,
meanwhile, are revealed by the centralized 'control' position to be absolutist (the
historical reference being Versailles, where all of nature and all of culture converged upon
the singular person of the Sun King).
If they have developed cars that can park themselves (with sensors, LIDAR, etc) what makes
people think this truck couldn't back itself up with minimal help from a human driver? As to
the blind spots, why assume the cab and trailer aren't bristling with collision avoidance
sensors that would allow a driver to know what's on either side of a truck at the same time?
Can your truck do that? You know that most drivers ed courses tell you not to pass a truck on
the right? So much for the excellent situational awareness and lack of blind spots.
I concur with the poster above that tech criticism might not be in NC's wheelhouse:
critique Tesla as a business but leave the products alone.
what makes people think this truck couldn't back itself up with minimal help from a
human driver?
There are about three semi-trailers for every semi-tractor, so unless you're hooked up to
a Tesla-specific trailer you will be limited to the bottleneck of the standardized CAN
communication link between the tractor and trailer barring an extraordinarily expensive
retrofit for every trailer you plan on hauling (to add additional sensing elements like
cameras or LIDARs together with a viable communication link). I've worked with some function
developers for automated or partially automated backing functions, and it's not an easy
problem because even things like the articulation angle between the tractor and trailer
require new sensing elements and don't come "for free" and worst of all you're running blind
on the trailer unless you make it easier for yourself by equipping it with expensive
hardware.
Often it's the case that the tractor operator doesn't own the trailer. It could be done
for a test trailer, but then it would just give even more credence to Hubert Horan's
criticism that the underlying economics are abysmal because someone would have to add all
this junk to any beat-up old trailer you'd want to haul around to use the functions.
> If they have developed cars that can park themselves (with sensors, LIDAR, etc)
what makes people think this truck couldn't back itself up with minimal help from
a human driver ? As to the blind spots, why assume the cab and
trailer aren't bristling with collision avoidance sensors that would
allow a driver to know what's on either side of a truck at the same time? Can your truck
do that? You know that most drivers ed courses tell you not to pass a truck on the right? So
much for the excellent situational awareness and lack of blind spots.
Does this help? (I eliminated the handwaving to expose the essential logic.)
Please permit me a moment of dystopian tongue-in-cheek ;-)
Once you understand/accept/believe that Tesla isn't positioning itself for a future where
its semi product needs "drivers", the departure from actual human ergonomics is not
surprising here. Musk and his ilk are all about "robots" replacing humans – although
Tesla won't fully succeed in that endeavor here yet. The center seat is really designed for
the next generation of passive human assist – there to
reboot/triage/recharge/protect-the-package, but not actually manage the motor function as it
were. Non unionized, semi-stowaways working for less than a living wage without benefits
should fit the bill. It'll be touted as easy work:
– Get to travel and America's far flung interstate destinations!
– Comfortable spacious interior!
– No background or credit-check required!
Training for the job will be two days:
– One to prove you can learn and execute the trouble-shooting scripts
– And another for signing forms, waivers and peeing in a cup
Gee, that's odd. Elon's not marketing the Semi that way!
I guess a detailed examination of the Semi as an artifact does pay off, doesn't it? No
wonder I keep getting told not to do it; "not in my wheelhouse," etc.
Lambert wrote: Elon's not marketing the Semi that way!
Come on, Lambert. However Musk markets his Semi (should he actually bring it to fruition),
clearly any human on board an autonomous truck will be there in a supernumerary role as a
watchman/guard. That's the point of the technology.
More generally, because you don't like the idea of AVs, you're clearly trying to find
objections to them. But because it's 2017 and you're an older guy who doesn't go to AI trade
shows, you imagine that the technology is far less advanced than it actually is. As a result,
you're asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answers about where the
problems are/will be. Let's forget Musk and look at Mercedes Benz's efforts with AVs --
However, the world's oldest automaker has just announced it doesn't view the trolley
problem as a problem. To the contrary: Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany,
claims that when it starts selling autonomous cars this year, their 'moral algorithm' will
always prioritize their occupants' safety over any number of pedestrians' lives. What's up
with that?
[2] The CEO of Mercedes-Benz USA, Dietmar Exler, gestured in the general direction of the
answer when he claimed that what's really delaying autonomous vehicles "is humans." If
autonomous cars were deployed today, Exler said, they'd share the road with human-driven cars
and humans would "bully" driverless cars (which will be programmed to follow laws and avoid
obstructions) by speeding, driving erratically and cutting in line in traffic.
Exler is being somewhat ingenuous. But basically he's right. Consider some of the
problems, especially from an auto-manufacturer's POV.
[3] For starters, one study, 'The Social Dilemma of Autonomous
Vehicles, ' found that people favor minimizing number of deaths as a general principle,
even if that jeopardizes an autonomous car's passengers. Yet when asked what autonomous cars
they'd personally buy, the same people want one that prioritizes protecting them and their
passengers.
[4] This is a classic cooperate-or-defect social problem. Furthermore, in any and all
potential scenarios involving AVs versus human drivers, reflexivity will be central to
whatever real-world outcomes ensue. (Reflexivity, meaning that each actor's next action will
be predicated on the previous actors' actions.) In short, we're in the realm of game
theory.
[5] So what's that mean? Here's a very simple example: an autonomous vehicle is parked at the
curb but preparing to pull out into a busy street. Though its indicators are on, human
drivers nevertheless keep coming: the autonomous vehicle, programmed to keep specific safe
distances between itself and other cars, can't move into traffic. (This has actually
happened).
[6] Now let's reconsider trucks. If all it takes to slow and stop an autonomous vehicle is
to drive too close or throw on the brakes ahead of it, large trucks transporting expensive
goods will be easily stopped and looted by thieves, and kidnappers will have straight shots
at those wealthy one-percenters who comprise the upper end of Mercedes-Benz's customer
base.
So manufacturers will be in the business of offering different versions of their 'moral
algorithms.' After all, simple physics tells us that just different vehicles' weights and
braking times will require variations in how their moral algorithms perform. Large trucks, in
the same way that they'll require longer braking times, will be programmed with a wider range
of avoidance strategies than just stopping dead when another vehicle gets too close. The risk
of criminal attack will be factored in, too.
[7] But then consider the sorts of questions that arise. If manufacturers offer different
versions of their moral algorithm and a buyer knowingly chooses one version over another, is
that buyer to blame for any harmful consequences of the algorithm's decisions? Why would the
blame not necessarily attach to a manufacturer that created different, 'more aggressive'
versions of that algorithm in the first place?
Because manufacturers are going to compete to offer 'better' AV algorithms and AI. Do you
begin to see the problems?
(And yes, the insurance industry is going to factor in to how this all plays out.)
Every time I read an article about autonomous vehicles I have the same thought.
Does anyone else remember back (in the 70's) when they instituted the 55 mph national
speed limit.
Three guys drove exactly at 55 mph three abreast going across country on route 80. The
traffic back up behind them was monumental. Of course they did it in protest
But I see monumental traffic jams all over the country when all these autonomous vehicles
obey traffic laws to the letter.
Just a couple of thoughts.
When, if ever, will the infrastructure such as interstate highways be upgraded or expanded.
Who's going to pay when politicians don't usually drive our congested roads. They fly.
Not enough money is spent now so how do we expect the government or, god forbid, private
companies to build new roads or expand highways to three lanes etc.
Truckers here along interstate 5 in California continue to pass other trucks and leave a long
trail of cars behind them until they finally pass the "slow" truck. The CHP never ticket
them.
Don't you think the Tesla semis would have a self back up system? Cars parallel park today so
why can't trucks auto back up? They would also have side car and blind spot warning systems
installed.
I'd rather take my chances with an automated computer driven semi than with an over worked,
stressed out, low paid(which may be debatable), lane cutting person driving a semi.
Where will we get all the electricity used on electric vehicles and trucks.
Automated computer assisted or self driving trucks will be safer for the other drivers on the
highways and byways.
Safe driving all.
"I'd rather take my chances with an automated computer driven semi than with an over
worked, stressed out, low paid(which may be debatable), lane cutting person driving a
semi."
sounds like you have some priors here. Maybe you should tell us your income so we know where
to place the ostensilby low paid kajillionaire driving a semi back and forth across the
country in a randian self sufficient manner. Funny that in your place as an american consumer
you feel wronged when one of the trucks carrying your goods to wal mart, (where you must shop
because cheap, right?) gets in the way while you live the consumptive california lifestyle
relying on cheap labor and cheap energy. I have driven up and down I-5 countless times in my
57 years and have not experienced the pain that you refer to in having to wait your turn on
the interstate. You close with the fantasy that a self driving semi will be safer when today,
nov 28 2017, there is no safe self driving vehicle, as in no human, in existence, and
numerous fantasy land assessents of what they will be able to do with features that have not
yet been invented f-35 anyone? Why don't you just say I hate truck drivers and humans in
general and can't wait until anyone I think is stupid is replaced by a robot " bristling with
sensors" as a previous poster put it. And as someone who has navigated siskiyou summit and
driven down past ashland in a snowstorm I would much rather have a person in control of that
80,000 lb plus projectile hurtling will ye or nill ye down that hill. Just arrogance and
hubris to claim that you drive great and everybody else is the problem. If you drive in
california, you cut people off, impossible not to. Your self driving technology is not as
competent as that deplorable behind the wheel (who, by the way, is actually bristling with
sensors). You are probably more at risk from mexican trucks being allowed to drive on us
highways, which you certainly favor as you are a californian and every californian knows that
mexicans are cheaper, and cheap is what you're after. And since we're on the topic of cheap,
where are these trucking companies with barely legal rigs going to get the money to buy a
fleet of tesla semi's? I'm in construction and every company almost has some real POS unsafe
trucks because that's what they could afford to buy, transfer that reality over to your
fantasy and see what it looks like. How about all those tomato trucks in the CVBB, yeah,
those guys will all be self driving once archer daniels owns every acre of land in the valley
and can scale their self driving fleet globally, but at some point there will be a demand
issue (as you pointed out, truck drivers must get paid, and then they buy stuff), but I
imagine that can be solved with mandatory purchasing, as it was with obamacare. Having been
cheated by numerous cheapskate californians (I'm not rich, bill in the mansion next door is
rich), I seem to have some priors myself. All for me and none for thee. As cali goes, so goes
the nation, and cali is corrupt to the core (see CalPers, see difi's husband selling post
offices for actual kajillions, not truck driver kajillions, I could easily go on). The tesla
semi center console looks to me exactly how my programmer friends look like at their desks
(feature?), as a matter of fact, if you're a programmer and the self driving semi could
actually be your office and you could get paid a truck drivers kajillion and a programmers
actual kajillion and if you added the two together you would have more kalillions and not
have to share the highway or anything else in true california style And in closing I will
implore you, should your self driving semi actually take the road in numbers, please do not
cut off the self driving semi just because you can. Wait your turn, it's safer.
In response to your comments. In no particular order.
Well, you and I both pay for the insanely overpriced and under performing F-35. A fantastic
waste of money. Why do we spend $600 billion on the military and another $200+ billion on our
intelligence and black box agencies?
Through my respective elected politicians I have voiced my displeasure with the military and
intelligence agency budgets and the F-35 in particular.
I live on Social Security and a pension. I am not rich, don't have a million dollar beach
front home or a mansion on a hilltop. I will have one when I meet my maker for he has many
mansions.
If I live on cheap labor here in California and also from other third world countries I guess
you do to.
I drive 400 miles a couple of times a month to help care for my mother who is suffering from
Alzheimer's disease and my father, a 32 year Army highly decorated combat veteran. Silver
star, Bronze star with V for valor and 4 Purple hearts. He doesn't brag about it but he is a
hero to me and is happy to see me arrive home safe.
I prayed every day for two years that he come home safely. My father has Multiple
Myeloma(look it up) caused in part by being exposed to agent orange. Helping them is my
duty.
Cheap labor. How about you, or one of your kids or any friends you have try working the
agricultural fields for a few weeks. You won't last. My father(a Mexican born a US citizen)
worked the cotton fields in New Mexico and my mom, along with my bother and me, worked
bunching onions,cauliflower and broccoli in the fields of the Salinas valley. Oh, we got paid
"piece" rate.
The field workers should get a fair and living wage. Just like everyone of us who is willing
to work.
I never said I was a great driver or that everyone else is the problem.I have one driving
ticket.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations have allowed your "Mexican truckers" drive in the
U.S.
Looks to me like you don't like Californians, stereotype all of us as cheap and at the same
time rich millionaires, hate Mexican truck drivers and those who work our fields.
As one decent American once said, "Have you no sense of decency".
Oh don't get me wrong the mexicans and I get along great, we're just workers trying to
make it and none of us responsible for the policies enacted which created the current
paradigm upon which we gaze in wonder. My issue with mexican trucks is the regulatory
arbitrage where maintaining your fleet in mexico may be at a lower standard and also is
intended to pressure american wages since as I recall you mentioned overpaid truckers. You're
also correct that I have "issues" regarding California. I still say that self driving
technology has significant obstacles that call it's inevitability into question.
Doing an 11-hour stint in a dark cockpit in the glow of large digital screens only works
in anime and "Battlestar Galactica."
Actually, not so different from flying a modern airliner at night.
It makes sense that Semi Truck cockpits resemble (in design and operation) their airliners
counterparts, with the computer does the rutinary work while the human monitors and acts on
abnormal conditions.
So, I do not see why the design principles and human factors considerations that have
improved airliner safety during the last decades cannot also do it for Semi Trucks. Of
course, with proper adaptation.
I know unions aren't what they used to be -- but wasn't the teamsters union one of the
unions often inclined toward physical confrontations with scabs? The new autonomous trucks
might need to include autonomous systems for self-defense.
The more I think about the more electric trucks -- human driven or autonomous -- trucking
goods all over the country just seems so retro. The near future without cheap petroleum will
probably end all that whether the motor runs on electric, hydrogen, natural gas, gasoline or
diesel. I suppose if we plant enough fast growing trees we could always run steam engines --
if we are still spending our energy and energies on transport to exploit cheap labor from
across the oceans and far far away.
Both V$ and V6 engines come paired with a new eight-speed automatic transmission
But the most impressive safety feature on this new Camry has to be the standard inclusion of
the Toyota Safety Sense-P, which means that even the cheapest 2018 Camry will have
traffic-adapting cruise control, automatic emergency braking in case of an imminent forward
collision, lane departure warning and mitigation, and auto-dimming LED headlights.
From Edmunds review: "Go for the SE trim for its more satisfying driving dynamics and more
buttoned-down demeanor. Its ride quality is still quite agreeable, too. As for options, it's
largely about your budget, but we recommend springing for the Audio package and the Convenience
package. The former has a larger touchscreen, connectivity enhancements, dual-zone climate
control and rear vents, while the latter's keyless ignition and auto-dimming rearview mirror live
up to the package's billing. We also suggest sticking with the four-cylinder engine since it's
fuel-efficient and respectably powerful. "
The four-cylinder delivers both performance and economy with a best 41-mpg highway rating,
but the engine sounds grainy and is loud as you wring it past 4,000 rpm.
Revving that high is mostly unnecessary with competitors' turbocharged engines, or at least
less frequent, with their broad power and torque range.
Base L models are rated at 29/41/34 mpg, while the LE, SE, XLE and XSE are 28/39/32 mpg !
both at least 2 mpg better in combined ratings than a four-cylinder
Honda Accord
, Mazda6, Fusion and
Sonata.
Higher-end Camrys have an interesting collection of features found in other cars but not
available all in one place like in the Camry:
A 360-degree "bird's eye" camera system for easier parking, found on many Nissans;
4G LTE in-car wireless internet like Chevrolet;
and a head-up display like on the Mazda6 are all available in the 2018 Camry.
"... The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is still created mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand would spike to unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more pollution. Even natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon engines are still far more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per dollar. ..."
"... Almost 90,ooo,ooo car were sold last year. Tesla did 90,ooo units. Electric cars are not even close to being out of infancy. ..."
"... Musk is a good salesman though. ..."
"... America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop on every corner, add a few million autonomous minibuses that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will dispense with a car altogether. ..."
The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is still created
mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand would spike to
unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more pollution. Even
natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon engines are still far
more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per dollar.
Don't tell your hippie neighbor driving a Prius, though.
With the exception of solar panels, all electricity is created by spinning magnets inside
a copper coil. Only the manner of spinning the coil changes between hydroelectric, coal,
nuclear, and natural gas.
All of it is inefficient in that the electricity is produced not to match demands, but to
match peak demands. It's not acquirable on an as-needed basis, such as turning on a faucet
for water, but must be fed to the grid continuously, whether it's used or not. It's like
leaving the faucet on 24/7/365.
How about self driving automobiles, Fred? They are a complete farce. Billions are being
spent by corporations, Google, Apple, with more cash than they know what to do with. They are
spending for a hipper than thou image.
I can see small areas like Palo Alto being retrofitted for self driving automobiles. Their
accidents and miscalculations will be a lawyer's dream. You will not see extensive use of
self drivers for at least 100 years.
@RebelWriter
The conundrum of electric cars is that they require electricity which is
still created mostly with coal or natural gas. If everyone went electric, the power demand
would spike to unbelievable heights, leading to more power plants, leading to even more
pollution. Even natural gas emits CO2 from combustion. Internal combustion hydrocarbon
engines are still far more efficient than electric cars, in so far as power generation per
dollar. Don't tell your hippie neighbor driving a Prius, though.
With the exception of solar panels, all electricity is created by spinning magnets inside a
copper coil. Only the manner of spinning the coil changes between hydroelectric, coal,
nuclear, and natural gas. All of it is inefficient in that the electricity is produced not to
match demands, but to match peak demands. It's not acquirable on an as-needed basis, such as
turning on a faucet for water, but must be fed to the grid continuously, whether it's used or
not. It's like leaving the faucet on 24/7/365.
With the exception of solar panels
Solar panel will pay off for itself (the expense of energy to make it) in terms of energy
in about 5 years. Was the energy that was used to produce it clean energy? If not, then for
the first 5 years of using solar panel you do not contribute anything to reduction of
CO2.
One solar panel can give a birth to another once every five years.
If we switched completely to clean (no CO2) energy (including all cars and machines) how
many years we need to wait before we have enough energy produced by solar panels?
Now what is the lifespan of solar panels? 20 years? So one solar panel can have maximum 4
babies when it uses all energy it produces just for reproduction.
I am afraid that solar panels are just a pipe dream. Which is always a great opportunity
to make money by some. The believers in the dream willingly hand the money to the
opportunists.
Here in the Netherlands we have small roads with curves, city lay outs and canals developed
hundreds of years ago. Almost no private parking spaces in cities, so the Chevrolet caprice I
owned would stick out 5 feet when parked diagonally to the canal. So some of the hundreds of
bicyclists would crash into it. Gasoline being 5,- euro per gallon and the car-owner tax
going by weight. I was quickly cured of owning an American car.
Until recently, because of all the enviromental subsidies, CO2 and ownership taxes, etc,
buying a 85k Tesla did not cost you anything after taxes for 5 years.
Buying a Chevrolet camaro in the usa starts at 26k, here at 65k. It is all about Taxes!!
@(((They))) Live
Good Solar PV panels should last far longer than 20 years, you usually
get a guarantee that the panel will produce 80% of its rated output after 20/25 years, but
they will continue to work for years after that
Also Fred the Tesla Model 3 costs $35K batteries included, 200 mile range and fast
charging, and the batteries in the Tesla should last longer than the car
People keep betting against Musk and they keep losing
With oil/gas fracking plus EVs it looks to me that the Saudis are finished, they run out
of cash sometime around 2020, Yuge war on the way when that happens, I hope the US stays out
of it World population is stil growing by 1.5 million per week!
Almost 90,ooo,ooo car were sold last year. Tesla did 90,ooo units.
Electric cars are not even close to being out of infancy.
Musk is a good salesman though.
Besides Hitler I havent seen a man who can so mesmerise
people with his promises .
@Anonymous
For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is
fusion-powered rail or maglev. Needed real soon, too. Fusion is within reach, where Seebeck
generation is not.
For human urban concentrations on Planet Earth, the only long-term solution is
fusion-powered rail or maglev.
For the Western nations the only long-term [energy] solution for "human urban
concentrations" is more concentration.
America's post-WW2 urban sprawl, said to have been promoted to reduce casualties in a
nuclear war, means vast areas of blacktop and hundreds of millions of automobiles racking up
tens of thousands of kilometers a years. Rebuild the cities (and solve the unemployment
problem for a generation) at high density, with tree-lined avenues, and a decent coffee shop
on every corner, add a few million
autonomous minibuses
that can be summoned with a cell phone app, and most Americans will
dispense with a car altogether.
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday February 26, 2017 @08:37PM
When
an Uber self-driving car ran a red light last year, they blamed and suspended the car's driver, even
though it was the car's software that malfunctioned, according to two former employees, ultimately
causing
Uber cars to run six different red lights . But technical issues may be only the beginning.
An anonymous reader writes:
Jalopnik points out that in 2016 Uber "burned through more than $2
billion, amid findings that rider fares
only cover roughly 40% of a ride
, with the remainder subsidized by venture capitalists" (covering
even less than the fares of government-subsidized mass transit systems). So despite
Google's lawsuit
and
other recent bad publicity
, "even when those factors are removed, it's becoming more evident
that Uber will collapse on
its own ."
Their long analysis argues that the problems are already becoming apparent. "Uber,
which didn't respond to questions from Jalopnik about its viability, recently paid $20 million
to settle claims that it
grossly misled how much drivers could earn
on Craigslist ads.
The company's explosive growth
also fundamentally required it to begin
offering subprime auto loans
to prospective drivers without a vehicle."
In Chicago, Walter Laquian Howard sleeps most nights at the "Uber Terminal." "I
left my job thinking this would work, and it's getting harder and harder," Howard said. "They have
to understand that some of us have decided to make this a full-time career."
Howard has been parking
and sleeping at the 7-Eleven four to five nights a week since March 2015, when he began leasing a
car from Uber and needed to work more hours to make his minimum payments. Now that it's gotten cold,
he wakes up every three hours to turn on the heater.
He's rarely alone. Most nights, two to three
other ride-hailing drivers sleep in cars parked next to his. It's safe, he said, and the employees
let the drivers use the restroom. Howard has gotten to know the convenience store's staff -- Daddy-O
and Uncle Mike -- over the past two years while driving for this global ride-hailing gargantuan,
valued at $69 billion.
"These guys have become my extended family," said Howard, 53. "It's my second
home. We have this joke that I'm the resident. I keep asking them: 'Hey, did my mail come in yet?'"
"... Uber took this to the extreme, fighting all forms of regulation everywhere, whereas Airbnb and most of the other sharing economies have generally tried to reach accommodations with regulators. (Interesting exception: In New York City, though Uber flooded the market and undercut yellow cabs on pricing, they technically abided by the stringent rules of the Taxi & Limousine Commission. Airbnb, meantime, got its foothold enabling activity that was against the city's hotel laws.) ..."
"... But Uber forced the issue by plunging ahead with its service and completely ignoring the rules governing the taxi industry. It quickly gained a following of loyal customers, which made politicians in most cities reluctant to challenge the company.... ..."
Travis Kalanick's forced resignation as the CEO of Uber is a great symbolic end to the adolescence
of the "sharing" economy. Uber and other companies that claimed space in this invented arena may
now have to acknowledge that they are not actually new and different from everything that went before
them. And the rules that apply to their competitors also apply to them.
Uber under Kalanick was in many ways the poster child for the sharing economy. The company insisted
that all the rules that governments had put in place to regulate the taxi industry - to protect workers
and to prevent discrimination - didn't make sense for the new model, because they were Uber.
The company's effective motto, that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, seemed
to cry out for a swift slap to the face. Taxis are hardly new, but the Uber gang claimed that the
whole set of regulations developed around the industry didn't apply to them because they were an
app-based "ride hailing" platform, not a taxi company.
This was, and is, garbage; as are most of the claims for the "newness" and "uniqueness" of the
sharing economy companies. There is very little that is genuinely unique about this set of companies,
but they insistently claim that they are reinventing everything but the wheel.
Take, for example, Airbnb, the other towering pillar of the sharing economy. What exactly is new
and unique about renting out rooms in a house, or even about renting whole apartments? This one probably
dates back to pre-historic times. Airbnb has people marketing this service over the Internet, in
a single, easily organized directory. That is certainly newer, but the Internet has been around for
two decades and so has been the practice of using it as a way to market rooms for rent.
The only thing that was really new about Uber, Airbnb and the other sharing economy companies
was the claim that they should be exempt from longstanding rules and regulations.
Uber took this to the extreme, fighting all forms of regulation everywhere, whereas Airbnb and
most of the other sharing economies have generally tried to reach accommodations with regulators.
(Interesting exception: In New York City, though Uber flooded the market and undercut yellow cabs
on pricing, they technically abided by the stringent rules of the Taxi & Limousine Commission. Airbnb,
meantime, got its foothold enabling activity that was against the city's hotel laws.)
Just to be clear, there were and are real problems with the regulatory structure in many sectors,
especially the taxi industry. Uber performed a valuable service by directly challenging a framework
that largely served to protect the incumbent industry. The structure limited supply and in this way
had the predictable result of giving bad service and high prices.
This regulatory environment needs to be modernized - thoughtfully, not by a profit-making competitor,
but by government.
But Uber forced the issue by plunging ahead with its service and completely ignoring the rules
governing the taxi industry. It quickly gained a following of loyal customers, which made politicians
in most cities reluctant to challenge the company....
"... Hmmmmm, I think he'd be perfect, especially as he has 8 years of experience being an empty suit covering for an evil organization, but I also think he's smart enough to avoid jumping on a sinking ship. ..."
"... an illegal endgame - Uber only wins if it becomes a monopoly ..."
"... Self-driving cars in the future means that developing the AI, sensors, and vehicles themselves will require a lot of investment and knowledge. It will not surprise me if the big mergers a few years from now are companies like Google and Apple merging/acquiring/partnering with old-school vehicles to bring their AI, mapping, and electronics design experience to bear on vehicles. The car companies are already buying the electronic interfaces for their radios/phones from Apple etc.now. Extending that partnership to the entire vehicle is likely coming. ..."
"... deployable wings and a new source of energy and propulsion ..."
"... The notion of practical self driving cars might as well include technology that can exploit the third dimension. They will need a volume rather than an area to function. Think BladeRunner ..."
"... I think you've done something very good here. The timespan of the world that you are considering in your example necessarily spans the lifespan of Uber AND a future taking place after Uber is dead. ..."
"... Another interesting place to find this out was in a hearing convened by senators Reed and Bunning on "alternative investments". They were mostly concerned with systemically dangerous institutions, which meant they were focusing on leverage. There was a VC guy at the table who constantly said "we don't do that. We're on the side of the angels. We put in literal cash. I think you want to be talking to THEM." (gestures to the private equity and hedge fund representatives.) ..."
"... The Airbnb business model transfers the property rights of neighbors of the Airbnb location to the owners/renters of the Airbnb listing. This is unfair and illegal. In the parlance of Municipality Zoning it is "Spot Zoning" which is completely illegal. ..."
"... After Travis Kalanick's Resignation, Will Uber Really Change? ..."
Hmmmmm, I think he'd be perfect, especially as he has 8 years of experience being an empty
suit covering for an evil organization, but I also think he's smart enough to avoid jumping on
a sinking ship.
I think that even here on NC we might be falling short in reviewing Uber.
The "Ah HA!" of Uber isn't that it's a "tech company" (it isn't), or the "shar(ecropp)ing economy"
(nothing new there either). The Ah HA of Uber is that it was formed and operates strictly to establish
what factors are needed to make an expressly-illegal business de-facto legal.
It's a recipe, and here are the ingredients:
– an illegal endgame - Uber only wins if it becomes a monopoly
– a war chest ($13B raised!) big enough to
– win wars of attrition against any "little people" that bring suit
– subsidize pricing to drive cab companies out of markets
– pay "protection" money to prosecutors that could cause issues
– buy legislators to make today's crimes tomorrow's "Best Practices"
– Media support - board-member Ariana Huffington
– VC support - board-member Bill Gurley makes this a "High Tech" investment
– Political support - David Plouffe was Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager
– a hated enemy - nobody likes cabs, cab company economics are lousy, NOBODY defends cabs!
– a psychopathic CEO who will attract "bad boy" press, rather than the "criminal" press he should
draw. Nobody will miss a psychopath when you throw him under the bus when the experiment is over.
With all the scandals, Uber now has too much smell for its backers to continue with it. So
shut it down and throw Travis under the bus. Use the lessons of Uber to advance all the little
"Uber-of-xxx" businesses still littering VC portfolios. In that sense, the "Uber experiment" is
just beginning. As Balzac wrote (incidentally the epigraph to The Godfather):
Ultimately, the big risk with Uber is that it is really just a software company, which means
new software can be developed to replace it.
Self-driving cars in the future means that developing the AI, sensors, and vehicles themselves
will require a lot of investment and knowledge. It will not surprise me if the big mergers a few
years from now are companies like Google and Apple merging/acquiring/partnering with old-school
vehicles to bring their AI, mapping, and electronics design experience to bear on vehicles. The
car companies are already buying the electronic interfaces for their radios/phones from Apple
etc.now. Extending that partnership to the entire vehicle is likely coming.
If the future for vehicles in cities is corporate-owned self-driving electric vehicle
fleets, then that is going to require huge capital investments which will only be available to
companies with many of the major components under the belt. That is a completely different business
model than a phone app.
Uber/AirBNB also have the fundamental ethical and behavioral baggage of ignoring long-standing
laws in cities, similar to the banking industry developing MERS to do end-runs around county clerks
and their fees/paperwork/delays. I think there is a lot to be said by periodically challenging
the status quo but in general, that will be most successful if other laws and societal norms other
than the targeted one are scrupulously followed. This was a cornerstone of the civil rights movement
where everybody tried to behave impeccably while breaking racist laws so they would not simply
look like hoodlums and looters, which is where the banking and Uber's reputations have ended up.
"Self-driving cars in the future means that developing deployable wings and a new source
of energy and propulsion will require
The notion of practical self driving cars might as well include technology that can exploit
the third dimension. They will need a volume rather than an area to function.
Think BladeRunner
I think you've done something very good here. The timespan of the world that you are considering
in your example necessarily spans the lifespan of Uber AND a future taking place after Uber is
dead.
Which means that there are people a level up who use and deploy these pilot-project entities
possibly not just for a traditional IPO story, but also for your idea of a recon or research project.
If what you're describing could be demonstrated, maybe this could change society's views on VC.
The fact that they use equity and not debt usually seems to be the basis for an argument that
they are "on the side of the angels" (as in this very interesting post by Yves,
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/02/private-equity-slugfest-managing-partner-sequoia-slams-blackstone-chief-steve-schwarzman-new-york-times-op-ed.html
).
Another interesting place to find this out was in a hearing convened by senators Reed and
Bunning on "alternative investments". They were mostly concerned with systemically dangerous institutions,
which meant they were focusing on leverage. There was a VC guy at the table who constantly said
"we don't do that. We're on the side of the angels. We put in literal cash. I think you want to
be talking to THEM." (gestures to the private equity and hedge fund representatives.)
If it was more clear that the portfolio entities can be rolled out for the type of larger project
or experiment you are describing here, it would be another way of criticizing VC which can't be
shut down based on whether or not they use leverage.
Ah, the mysterious markets! Invisible to my eyes they have caused me a painful bunion and a
emotionally devastating depression! I did not do anything to them and they did everything to me!
The Airbnb business model transfers the property rights of neighbors of the Airbnb location
to the owners/renters of the Airbnb listing. This is unfair and illegal. In the parlance of Municipality
Zoning it is "Spot Zoning" which is completely illegal.
The purpose of our Zoning Laws is so all are protected; commercial, industrial, residential
and multi-family. Airbnb destroys those protections and the company's income is a direct result
of illegal activities. What part of unfair and illegal don't people understand?
I understand the concerns about Airbnb and share some of them. However, I question the rosy
view that zoning codes protect all interests equitably. Zoning laws are written by the powerful
to their advantage - always. They protect property owners whose wealth and influence frequently
was purchased by taking advantage of others, if not thanks to outright illegal activities.
What part of unfair and illegal don't people understand? Some of us see the demonizing of little
people just trying to survive in this neoliberal world, while bankers and their protectors crash
the world economy, crushing the lives of millions, and face no consequences at all, but emerge
even richer and more powerful than before. That's the part of unfair and illegal I don't understand.
So yeah. I can see more than one side to this story.
The following, linked over at The Automatic Earth, has my point buried within it - I have put
the critical point in upper case for emphasis. It wasn't the Greek pensioner or the American sub-prime
borrower who tanked the world economy in 2008. And it isn't Uber drivers or AirBnb hosts who will
be responsible for the next Big One. The power elite have got that covered. The richer brethren
of the same people who, at the local level, write the zoning laws.
"Illinois is in a death spiral, but it's not alone. Illinois is merely the canary in the coal
mine.
We're only hearing about Illinois right now because the percentage of their pensions that have
been funded is the lowest in the nation. However, there are plenty of states that aren't too far
behind Illinois And it's not just public pensions. The pension funds for every company in the
the S&P 500 are underfunded by $375 billion. BEFORE THE LAST FINANCIAL CRISIS, THEY WERE FULLY
FUNDED. And globally, the problem is far worse. 20 countries in the OECD, whose members include
every western and developed nation, have a combined $78 trillion in unfunded liabilities, from
both private and public pensions."
"In the days after Travis Kalanick stunned Uber Technologies Inc.'s more than 15,000 employees
by resigning as chief executive, the company's senior leaders made impassioned pleas reassuring
them it is worth sticking around"
Given the way Uber structured employee stock options it seems like the vested employees are
basically"handcuffed" to the company. What a surprise if only the very senior management walks
out of this debacle with significant riches.
I dimly recall reports of onerous employee tax liability stuff from the old 2000 DotCom crash
days, relating to vested stock options. Something having to do with being taxed at the once-"peak"
values of subsequently worthless stock. Anyone?
Yes - this is where we cover the joy of the "same day" transaction. I believe the story is
basically this: When your options vest, you can exercise your options - your options become stock
by your paying the strike price, and shares of stock (at the current price) are yours. This creates
a taxable event. If you do a "same day" transaction then your options-conversion is paid-for out
of the proceeds of the sale of the shares, which are sold immediately. You are subject to the
full income tax rate if you do it this way, but nobody ever went broke paying for gains Or, you
can continue to hold your shares and try to "wait out" the better Capital Gains Rate. The problems
come when your $70 shares crash to $2 - now you still owe tax based on the gains up to $70, but
you have pennies stock fund to cover it. Poor You!
I had commented on the FT site re if uber can make money. Based on the what press sources released
for uber q416 and q117 u could guess that uber needs about 20b in annual rev to break even or
make a bit of money. Uber's opex looks like 3.8b per qtr and based on sequential growth from q1
to q4 is growing at like 6pct vs uber top line growth of 17pct. Seems like there is some scaling
so if it gets to 18-19b they prob break even.
Problem is they have 2 quarters of cash left before needing more funds at a v lofty valuation.
Two quarters? My understanding from this posting and previous Horan posts is that Uber had
about 6-7 B left of startup capital at the beginning of Q1 '17. At the rate they are losing money,
they should last until the end of Q4 '18, assuming losses in the range of 3.5B per year. At that
point, I doubt that they will still have that open line of credit, nor will they have the lofty
valuation they now enjoy.
This is a company that can never go public, as they can't show how they can make a profit without
destroying all competing cab and livery services. Who, or what entity, in their right mind, would
pour more billions into this fiasco after watching 13 B go poof in subsidies to Uber
passengers?
Uber also has over $2 billion in credit lines but no (normal) company draws on them in full
when it is going down. Bear Stearns didn't, for instance.
Uber might be able to raise money at a much lower valuation and the early stage investors would
still be fine, but that would really demoralize the employees, and some of the later investors
might not be ones the early VCs want to burn (like the dumb Saudis). So I don't know how this
works.
Also Amit's # are meaningless since the "opex" isn't a fixed cost and consists to a significant
degree of driver subsidies. If those aren't kept at the same level, revenue will fall, potentially
by a lot.
I had commented on the FT site re if uber can make money. Based on the what press sources released
for uber q416 and q117 u could guess that uber needs about 20b in annual rev to break even or
make a bit of money. Uber's opex looks like 3.8b per qtr and based on sequential growth from q1
to q4 is growing at like 6pct vs uber top line growth of 17pct. Seems like there is some scaling
so if it gets to 18-19b they prob break even.
Problem is they have 2 quarters of cash left before needing more funds at a v lofty valuation.
Two quarters? My understanding from this posting and previous Horan posts is that Uber had
about 6-7 B left of startup capital at the beginning of Q1 '17. At the rate they are losing money,
they should last until the end of Q4 '18, assuming losses in the range of 3.5B per year. At that
point, I doubt that they will still have that open line of credit, nor will they have the lofty
valuation they now enjoy.
This is a company that can never go public, as they can't show how they can make a profit without
destroying all competing cab and livery services. Who, or what entity, in their right mind, would
pour more billions into this fiasco after watching 13 B go poof in subsidies to Uber
passengers?
Uber also has over $2 billion in credit lines but no (normal) company draws on them in full
when it is going down. Bear Stearns didn't, for instance.
Uber might be able to raise money at a much lower valuation and the early stage investors would
still be fine, but that would really demoralize the employees, and some of the later investors
might not be ones the early VCs want to burn (like the dumb Saudis). So I don't know how this
works.
Also Amit's # are meaningless since the "opex" isn't a fixed cost and consists to a significant
degree of driver subsidies. If those aren't kept at the same level, revenue will fall, potentially
by a lot.
Your entire amazing Uber series has utterly persuaded me . Were they publicly traded,
I'd be shorting them big-time. Some CNBC OpEd guy whined today about how the (allusively metaphorically
"deep state") media anti-Travis/Uber Feeding Frenzy reflects The Death Of U.S. Innovation As We
Know It. Which, of course, is what got said about the poignant (relative rounding error) Elizabeth
Holmes/Theranos.
It is not so much that the MSM got it wrong as that they did not give an opinion one way or
the other on Uber's prospects. MSM are dependent on large corporations for advertising income
and it is not in their interest to make comments that reflect negatively on present or prospective
customers. It has always been thus, those who have the gold make the rules written or unwritten.
Uber is likely to survive but it is not likely to turn into a money spinner like Amazon, Apple,
Google or Facebook. I see those four facing more competition from the likes of Alibaba, Aliexpress,
Ten Cent, WhatsApp, Xiaomi, BBKElectronics, Dalian Wanda. China is racing up the value chain and
has passed the point at which it can be stopped by competitors from smaller economies. China is
everywhere these days, the house next door to me was bought by Chinese a year ago and sits there
unoccupied but well maintained. The STEM programs in Canadian Universities have large Chinese
student contingents. A grandson of mine recently entered a primary school in Canada with a competitive
entry exam, 2600 applicants for 23 places. The students are 3/4 Asian with a majority of those
being Chinese. This was an Irish school associated with a cathedral which opened up to French
Canadians and Italians so it is unlikely that the Chinese are getting on anything but pure merit.
"With enough thrusts pigs can fly. It is just dangerous to
stand were they are going to land." This quote is perfectly
applicable to OPEC and Russia oil production now.
Neglecting maintenances and using "in fill" drilling just
shorten the life of the traditional oil fields. And new large
oil fields are difficult to come by.
My impression is that most of "cuts" in production by
Russia and OPEC are "forced moves". Production was declining
from mid 2016 when old investment were already all put into
production and few new investments were made since late 2014.
If we assume the lag period of two years, than in mid 2018
we will feel the results of decisions to cut investments made
in 2016.
In this situation announcing cuts allow to save face.
The net result is the same -- the oil price should rise to
the level when it is economical to develop "more expensive
oil" (deep see drilling, Arctic oil and such) as replacement
rate in traditional fields is insufficient to maintain the
production.
As long as The US government allow shale companies to
generate junk bonds (which will never be repaid representing
kind of hidden subsidy) along with "subprime oil", shale can
slightly compensate the decline in production, but my
impression is that this card was already played. Despite all
hoopla from WSJ and other major MSM.
The fact that oil production for some time was
artificially kept flat or slightly rising is strange and
might be politically motivated (Saudi) which put other
producers in situation when they were force to follow Saudi
lead or lose customers. China played Russians against Saudi
pretty well and got what they want at lower prices.
Those "intensification of production" were short term
measures which in a long run are detrimental to old oil
fields output.
They might even lessen the total amount of oil that can be
extracted from a given field.
The key question here is: Does Russian oil firms has the
amount of money needed to maintain production on the current
level (at the current oil price levels ) or not.
Obama has a chance to move the US personal fleet to hybrid
and more economical cars. He lost this chance. SUV is now
dominant type of personal cars int he USA, the trend opposite
to what it should be. Even hybrid SUVs like RAV4 hybrid get
only around 33 miles highway, less in city traffic.
Transition to Prius type cars (with their around 50 miles
per gallon) would allow US consumers to save almost half of
oil spend on personal transportation (which probably
represent around 60% of total US consumption
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-use/transportation/
)
Many people have "energy efficient" (hybrid/electric) cars as
"second cars" or "commute cars". In order to get good
mileage, they are small(ish) and aerodynamically shaped, with
low ground clearance and tight or covered wheel boxes, which
make them inherently "nice weather cars". You better not try
to get on the road in winter conditions. (With some models
you cannot put on snow chains, plus the low ground clearance
will get you stuck in snow more easily.) Plug-in hybrids also
have little trunk space as the additional battery has to take
up part of the trunk, severely limiting their utility for
transporting stuff or even traveling with luggage.
Regarding advertised mileage, you only get the high mileage
in sustained driving with little acceleration and at limited
speeds (air resistance! - this is why freeway mileage is
lower than city mileage). In typical city driving
(stopping/accelerating at intersections or temporary
congestions), accelerating as required by traffic and
politeness will kick in the combustion engine, lowering
mileage - on battery you can only accelerate unreasonably
slowly, which is in any case rude to drivers behind you, and
can easily lead to swerving and road rage incidents.
Accelerating and braking according to medium to high density
traffic conditions will easily take up to 20% off your "best
achievable" mileage - but of course the same is true for
non-hybrids.
On top of that, as hybrids have an engine, they are
subject to the same engine warmup effects (lower mileage on
very short trips on cold engine that are not entirely on
battery) as non-hybrids.
I have a hybrid and know what I'm talking about. Still, I
get 1.5-2X better mileage in city driving compared to by
previous non-hybrid car, and 1.3-1.5X for long distance
freeway driving.
For an SUV form factor, 33 mpg for freeway actually looks
pretty good (but it's probably the advertised mileage). Also
with a Prius, 50 mpg is probably a stretch - more realistic
in actual city traffic is ~45 mpg, unless you want to be
"that guy" that everybody is cursing and swerving around (due
to slow acceleration and leaving ample distance in an attempt
to brake slowly without mechanical brakes engaging - energy
recovery; easily foiled by people cutting in).
A web search suggests that there are hybrid SUV models that
come with four or all wheel drive. But their stated mileage
seems to be around 30 mpg (probably still 1.5X of the
corresponding non-hybrid model).
Differential locks, or the
drive train even being designed with the option, are quite
the efficiency killer. I once rented a 4WD SUV (not hybrid)
to go to the mountains during winter. It was a very nice and
comfortable drive, I had to use the 4WD feature, and couldn't
resist testing it a bit beyond what was required - I was very
impressed, based on my prior experience with manual
differential locks. The overall mileage (including a good
stretch of freeway) came in under 20 mpg - still pretty good
for the usage I would say. This was only for driving there
and back, within a few days. I wouldn't want to drive this
kind of thing on a daily basis. But a hypothetical hybrid
version would probably get 1.5X or more mileage.
libezkova -> to cm...
"But their stated mileage seems to be around 30 mpg (probably still 1.5X of the
corresponding non-hybrid model)."
True. IMHO hybrid AWD SUVs make sense only with independent electrical motors, not with the
mechanical differential (RAV4 Hybrid). RAV4 can be get around 30-33 mpg: the battery is
heavy and drive the mileage down.
'you only get the high mileage in sustained driving with
little acceleration and at limited speeds (air resistance! -
this is why freeway mileage is lower than city mileage).'
Huh? Hybrids get better mileage in
city driving than on the highways,
but still get good highway mileage.
Largely due to regenerative braking,
for stop & go city driving.
(My neighbor drives a *smallish*
Lincoln hybrid that consistently
gets ~45MPG, not much different
from his wife's Prius.)
City mileage improvement comes largely from regenerative
braking and not idling the engine when stopped (except to
charge the battery). Energy recovery from regenerative
braking depends on braking only by generator resistance
without mechanical brakes engaging. When you have to brake
relatively hard, the mechanical brakes will engage and your
kinetic energy will be converted to heat. In sufficiently
high density traffic, how hard you have to brake is not
entirely up to you.
Aside from that, you will still see a
noticeable difference between accelerating "gently" vs.
"normally". My hybrid has a display mode where it shows how
conducive to energy savings your driving is (acceleration,
braking, cruising). On roads that have speed limits around 40
mph, to get "good grades" on acceleration, you have to
accelerate impossibly slowly.
I'm still getting good mileage - but to get the "best"
mileage I have to drive in a way that would be inconsiderate
and probably ticketable (i.e. driving far below the posted
speed limit for much of the distance until the next light).
You will probably not get a ticket for accelerating a bit
slowly, but it's still rude.
On the freeway I usually keep close to the posted speed
limit, but at speeds over about 60 mph, while the car will
still drive in EV mode, the engine runs for much more of the
time.
I maintain that the best mileage is obtained driving
continuously at low speeds (up to 40 or a bit above) on even
terrain.
"... There is disconnect between the real world and Central Banks fantasy world represented by stock market valuations. That is all. CB can't even normalize the rates. Even A 50bp hike would be a "monetary shock". So, CB are left only to blow real state bubbles and print extraction of remaining uneconomical oil from the ground. ..."
I do not know if I am kidding or not, I am not smart enough to know what future oil demand
will be.
I noticed this week a big push by the media to get Tony Seba's predictions out there of $25
oil and demand down to 70 million BOPD worldwide in 10 years.
I have a hard time envisioning all of this EV, ride sharing, autonomous stuff, but I do note:
Toyota Motor Corporation P/E 9.92 Market Cap: $159 billion
Ford Motor Company P/E 11.62 Market Cap: $43.63 billion
General Motors Company P/E 5.10 Market Cap: $49.79 billion
Telsa, Inc. P/E: no earnings Market Cap: $53.33 billion
It is really kind of like shale, makes no sense in terms of making money, but that does not
matter. It is a disruptive technology, like Facebook, Google, etc. That seems to be the big thing.
There is disconnect between the real world and Central Banks fantasy world represented by stock
market valuations. That is all. CB can't even normalize the rates. Even A 50bp hike would be a
"monetary shock". So, CB are left only to blow real state bubbles and print extraction of remaining
uneconomical oil from the ground.
And you know probably more than anybody else (when looking at shale balance sheet) that is
bleak picture when even crap shale appeals attractive for CB/Fed to throw money in order to keep
those fairy tale of FB, Tesla sky high valuations. Society is throwing real resources to keep
fantasy world of market valuations alive. Total insanity.
In almost all sectors now retail, computing, pharmaceuticals, banks, there is a top heavy model
where a small group of companies dominate almost every sector. There are various reasons for this,
but it is not helped by well meaning politicians interfering in the market through regulation
and tax policy, and wage subsidy for certain firms. Walmart gets govt money to subsides the wages
it pays its staff. While this is well meaning to improve the lot of the low paid workers it has
a knock on effect.
Why should tax payers subsidy Walmart? The money should be coming out of the Walton families
fortune. And if they won't pay their workers more money perhaps that may make it easier for mum
and pop stores to compete. After all they don't get the same help paying their staff. Walmart
may find it more difficult to retain and keep staff. Endless regulations also don't help small
business compete. It's well known inside the belt way and in the EU that the big boys like regulations,
and often lobby behind the scenes to help make it hard for their smaller competitors.
And then we come to the biggest interference of all. The federal reserve, and the ECB and the
ability to crate endless amounts of free money for the elites. How do you think these companies
are able to stay afloat for years as investors throw endless amounts of money at these companies
even though they are not making much profit? Amazon has returned very poor amounts back to share
holders, and its owner's greatest skill has been to keep convincing his shareholders to keep piling
more and more freshly printed fiat into keeping the company going. All this endless free money
also encourages endless merges and acquisitions which reduces competition for the customer. No
so easy to take over your competitors if you have to actually have the money to buy them out.
A great example of this crazy market is the car company Tesla. The Company burned over $1.5
billion in in 2016. This was provided by cheap credit and equity markets which ponied over a net
$2.7 billion to the Company in 2016. In addition Telsa was given huge tax advantages for the first
200,000 vehicles. In effect Telsa's sales are being subsided by the U.S. Tax payer. The company
also operates a buyback scheme where it guarantees the resale value on its sales up to 2016. That
could be a liability of some $2-3 billion in the future. Comically Wall Street values Telsa at
$5 billion more than Ford. Yet Ford sold 2.5million cars last year compared to Telsa's 79 thousand.
Now obviously investors are betting on new technology eventually coming good, and replacing the
oil fired engine. But without all the smoke and mirrors of funny money this could not continue
for very long.
As CNET reports,
the problem lies with the electric parking
brakes that help secure the vehicles when placed in Park.
The parking brakes
contain a small gear that might fracture, which would prevent the parking brake from
releasing. Thus, a car that enters Park may not be able to move again. This has no
bearing on the vehicles' regular brakes, and Tesla has received no reports of the
parking brake system failing to hold a car in place.
Tesla estimates that
about 2 percent of the vehicles recalled contain the improperly manufactured gear.
It should be noted that the parking brake assembly is from a third-party supplier, as
well.
And additionally,
as
Fortune reports,
Tesla
owners
filed a class-action lawsuit against the automaker for allegedly mischaracterizing the
capabilities of its
Autopilot
2
feature to consumers.
The lawsuit,
filed
by
law firm Hagens Berman on Wednesday in California's Northern district court, said
Tesla's
partial
autopilot technology
was advertised as safe and "stress-free," but instead
"is essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous."
"Unwittingly, buyers of the affected vehicles have become beta
testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged," the
lawsuit says.
Tesla cars with the Autopilot 2 features were first sold in
October 2016. The first generation of the system was first unveiled in 2014. The
Autopilot 2, or Enhanced Autopilot, feature costs consumers $5,000.
"What consumers received were cars without standard
safety enhancements featured by cars costing less than half the price of a new Tesla,
and a purported 'Enhanced Autopilot' that operates in an erratic and dangerous manner,"
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman,
said
in a statement
.
"... Tesla now trades at 271 times projected 2018 adjusted earnings, according to FactSet. Ford and GM, in contrast, trade at less than seven and six times the 2018 estimate, respectively. Tesla gets that valuation because it is expected to upend the auto industry, while earning big profits that would bring down the multiple. ..."
"... Is that possible? Here is Grant's math on what Tesla, which sold about 76,000 cars in 2016 and lost $675 million on sales of $7 billion, would need to do: ..."
"... CEO Elon Musk forecasts Tesla can produce 500,000 cars in 2018, while analysts, a bullish lot, peg the number of deliveries at 302,000. Let's say the delivery number is 380,000. Pencil in an average selling price of $50,000-Tesla will still be selling high-priced Model S and Model X vehicles along with the Model 3. That scenario yields just under $21 billion in automotive revenue. Add another $2 billion in sales from its residential solar and energy businesses. If Tesla gets the same 5.4% operating margin that GM and Ford averaged last year, it would generate operating income of $1.1 billion. Subtract $200 million for interest expense and tax the remainder at 25%: The result is $700 million in net income, giving Tesla a multiple roughly 10 times bigger than GM and Ford. ..."
"... The bottom line: "the company would have to quintuple the number of cars it sells, earn margins equivalent to those of its highly efficient competitors and not sell new shares." It is also priced to perfection: should any of these variables be adversely revised, be it lower sales, lower margin, lower selling price, and Tesla doesn't come close to earning enough to get to 10 times the multiple of its bigger rivals by the end of 2018. ..."
Finally, in today's
Heard on
the Street
, the WSJ's Charlie Grant once again looks at the age old question: "what
is Tesla really worth", noting that even as Tesla becomes the most valuable US carmaker
by market cap, its profits remain far behind:
"Tesla now trades at 271 times projected 2018 adjusted earnings, according to
FactSet. Ford and GM, in contrast, trade at less than seven and six times the 2018
estimate, respectively. Tesla gets that valuation because it is expected to upend the
auto industry, while earning big profits that would bring down the multiple.
"
Is that possible? Here is Grant's math on what Tesla, which sold about 76,000 cars in
2016 and lost $675 million on sales of $7 billion, would need to do:
... to actually earn enough profits to reduce Tesla's multiple to something in the
realm of reasonable would require almost heroic assumptions. First, the basics: Say
Tesla's valuation should be 10 times higher than GM and Ford's, and say Tesla's share
price stays constant at about $300. That means Tesla would need to earn $4.29 a share
in 2018, which equals $700 million in total net income, assuming the current share
count doesn't change.
And the assumptions:
CEO Elon Musk forecasts Tesla can produce 500,000 cars in 2018, while analysts, a
bullish lot, peg the number of deliveries at 302,000. Let's say the delivery number
is 380,000. Pencil in an average selling price of $50,000-Tesla will still be selling
high-priced Model S and Model X vehicles along with the Model 3. That scenario
yields just under $21 billion in automotive revenue. Add another $2 billion in sales
from its residential solar and energy businesses. If Tesla gets the same 5.4%
operating margin that GM and Ford averaged last year, it would generate operating
income of $1.1 billion. Subtract $200 million for interest expense and tax the
remainder at 25%:
The result is $700 million in net income, giving Tesla a
multiple roughly 10 times bigger than GM and Ford.
The bottom line:
"the company would have to quintuple the number of cars it
sells, earn margins equivalent to those of its highly efficient competitors and not sell
new shares."
It is also priced to perfection: should any of these variables be
adversely revised, be it lower sales, lower margin, lower selling price, and Tesla
doesn't come close to earning enough to get to 10 times the multiple of its bigger
rivals by the end of 2018.
Oh well, as Grant concludes that just like during the dot com bubble, "valuation has
never mattered before for Tesla's investors and it may not matter at the end of next
year. Shareholders may be willing to wait five years instead of two for Tesla to
generate big profits, or they may continue to figure that valuation doesn't matter for a
game-changer like Tesla."
One thing is clear: the longer TSLA shareholders wait to take Musk to task, giving
him the benfit of the doubt, the more tweets such as these will hit Musk' timeline,
which instead of focusing on fundamentals...
Tesla Semi truck unveil set for September. Team has done an
amazing job. Seriously next level.
... suggest that the genius inventor is more interested in even greater boondoggles
and even more burned cash, even as Musk's personal vendetta with shorts and competitors
grows.
For now, judging by Tesla's record price, it's working.
Finally, in today's
Heard on
the Street
, the WSJ's Charlie Grant once again looks at the age old question: "what
is Tesla really worth", noting that even as Tesla becomes the most valuable US carmaker
by market cap, its profits remain far behind:
"T
esla now trades at 271 times projected 2018 adjusted earnings, according to
FactSet. Ford and GM, in contrast, trade at less than seven and six times the 2018
estimate, respectively. Tesla gets that valuation because it is expected to upend the
auto industry, while earning big profits that would bring down the multiple.
"
Is that possible? Here is Grant's math on what Tesla, which sold about 76,000 cars in
2016 and lost $675 million on sales of $7 billion, would need to do:
... to actually earn enough profits to reduce Tesla's multiple to something in the
realm of reasonable would require almost heroic assumptions. First, the basics: Say
Tesla's valuation should be 10 times higher than GM and Ford's, and say Tesla's share
price stays constant at about $300. That means Tesla would need to earn $4.29 a share
in 2018, which equals $700 million in total net income, assuming the current share
count doesn't change.
And the assumptions:
CEO Elon Musk forecasts Tesla can produce 500,000 cars in 2018, while analysts, a
bullish lot, peg the number of deliveries at 302,000. Let's say the delivery number
is 380,000. Pencil in an average selling price of $50,000-Tesla will still be selling
high-priced Model S and Model X vehicles along with the Model 3. That scenario
yields just under $21 billion in automotive revenue. Add another $2 billion in sales
from its residential solar and energy businesses. If Tesla gets the same 5.4%
operating margin that GM and Ford averaged last year, it would generate operating
income of $1.1 billion. Subtract $200 million for interest expense and tax the
remainder at 25%:
The result is $700 million in net income, giving Tesla a
multiple roughly 10 times bigger than GM and Ford.
The bottom line:
"the company would have to quintuple the number of cars it
sells, earn margins equivalent to those of its highly efficient competitors and not sell
new shares."
It is also priced to perfection: should any of these variables be
adversely revised, be it lower sales, lower margin, lower selling price, and Tesla
doesn't come close to earning enough to get to 10 times the multiple of its bigger
rivals by the end of 2018.
Oh well, as Grant concludes that just like during the dot com bubble, "valuation has
never mattered before for Tesla's investors and it may not matter at the end of next
year. Shareholders may be willing to wait five years instead of two for Tesla to
generate big profits, or they may continue to figure that valuation doesn't matter for a
game-changer like Tesla."
One thing is clear: the longer TSLA shareholders wait to take Musk to task, giving
him the benfit of the doubt, the more tweets such as these will hit Musk' timeline,
which instead of focusing on fundamentals...
Tesla Semi truck unveil set for September. Team has done an
amazing job. Seriously next level.
... suggest that the genius inventor is more interested in even greater boondoggles
and even more burned cash, even as Musk's personal vendetta with shorts and competitors
grows.
No worries, mate, there are enough dupes who will put an $85,000 deposit on
a Tesla truck, for Musk to pyramid the wages at Fremont and Gohrmann, then
get Trump MAGA tax credits to bail out the whole thing, as Tesla 3s flood
the market with pyrotechnical battery failures, which Musk will bail out
with the announcement of the new Tesla commuter gyrocopter that drops you
off at your office, then returns as a UAV at your e-battery house, much like
the Jetsons.
What's the per car subsidy from the tax payer for every Tesla? I think it's
either $7,000 or $11,000 And this asshat still hasn't broken even yet? Time to
pull ALL subsidies and let him shit the bed. None of this faggotry should be on
the tax payer's heads.
People who can afford $50K+ cars don't need an
innocent bystander's pay check at the point of Uncle Sham's gun to subsidize a
demand that just isn't there at realistic prices.
As unintuitive as it sounds, this comment is right on the money. Given
the radical impact this will have on transportation and the ideal fit for
American society (our current interstate highway system, reliance on
personal vehicles, etc.) then Tesla is a massive game changer, in concert
with autonomous vehicle technology. That subsidy may in fact be on the
low side, as much as it irks me to admit it.
It might well be that troubles just started for Musk.
== quote ==
SAN FRANCISCO/DETROIT (Reuters) - A group of Tesla Inc investors has urged the luxury electric
car maker to add two new independent directors to its board, without ties to Chief Executive Elon
Musk, to "provide a critical check on possible dysfunctional group dynamics."
For those who may have missed it, GM's former Vice Chairman Bob Lutz dropped a whole lot of reality
on some unsuspecting Tesla cheerleaders on CNBC this morning. A rather blunt Lutz shared his views,
as have we on several occasions, that Tesla's constant cash burn combined with a barrage of competitive
models that are about to hit the market likely indicate that the company is "doomed." As for Tesla's
gravity-defying stock price, Lutz attributed the company's soaring market cap solely to Musk being
the "greatest salesman in the world" along with his being "aided and abetted by some analysts."
"I am a well known Tesla skeptic. Somehow it's levitating and I think it's Elon Musk is the greatest
salesman in the world. He paints this vision of an unlimited future, aided and abetted by some analysts.
It's like Elon Musk has been beamed down from another planet to show us mortals how to run a company."
"The fact is it's a constant cash drain. They're highly dependent on federal government and state
incentives for money which constantly flows in. They have capital raises all the time."
"Even the high-end cars that they build now cost more to build than they're able to sell them
for."
"Mercedes, BWM, Volkswagen, GM, Audi and Porsche are all coming out with 300-mile [range] electric
luxury sedans... I think they're doomed."
At that point, an incredulous CNBC host was forced to step in asking "what does doomed mean?"
"What does doomed mean? Their stock price comes in? They go out of business? They have regular
competition like other companies? What do you mean by doomed?"
Fortunately, Lutz was happy to entertain the question and explained to the shocked CNBC hosts
that when your variable production costs exceed your products sales price...well, that's a problem.
"Their upside on pricing is limited because everybody else sells electric vehicles at a loss to
get the credits to be able to sell the sport utility vehicles and the pickup trucks. So that puts
a ceiling on your possible pricing."
"And if he can't make money on the high-end Model S and Model X's which sell up to $100,000, how
in the world is he going to make money on a $35,000 small car? Because I have news for you, 42 years
of experience, the cost of a car doesn't come down proportional to it's price."
"If you have a situation where the cost of producing a car, labor and materials, is higher than
your sell price, your business model is flawed. And it's doomed and it's going to fail."
Finally, the stunned CNBC anchors offered up one more defense by highlighting the massive value
of Tesla's battery and solar operations, but were once again shut down in epic fashion...
"The battery plant, in my estimation, is a joke. There are no cost savings from making a lithium
ion plant bigger than other people lithium ion plants, because making lithium ion cells is a fully
automated process anyway. So, whether you got full automative in a small building or 10x full automation
in a big building, you're not saving any money."
Tesla stole their factory from GM when GM was in bankruptcy
and was forced by the government to sell it to Tesla for 42
mln when it cost 2.5 bln new. Talk about a government
subsidy. Musk is no visionary. I would be one too if the
government gave me a gift of 2.5bln.
He is of course
different in that he loses 20,000 dollars on each 100,000
dollar car he sells.
Are you representing GM in a lawsuit? I'll let you and mulp
detail the particulars of your latest.
And yea - startups often have early recorded operating
losses as they are investing in the future. Quite often -
those investments eventually pan out wonderfully.
I know better than to short sell Tesla. You dont short sell a
government sponsored company. He has friends in high places.
Gary Cohn sounds like he will fund Musk's next brain fart -
maglev trains.
"And yea - startups often have early recorded operating
losses as they are investing in the future"
You such a
naïve dreamer.
Tesla has little or no future unless government updates
the grid to accommodate charging cars at night (let's assume
30 KW per night (out of 60KW/h battery). That's around 3 KW/h
load assuming 10 hour change period. Not a pocket change).
It is completing in BMW dominated stort luxity car
segment. I think it will be crushed because nobody undersnd
this business beter then BMW.
I would bet the BMW either buy during some mishap, when it
will be cheap, or most probably drive it out of business.
Mask is too preoccupied with his other ventures to be
successful.
I have a douther of a friend working in Tesla. From what I
heard Tesla is a badly managed company and the cars, while
very nice, are very expensive and have a lot of problems.
The company is running on hype like dot-com startup. At
some point the hype smoke screen will no longer work.
Some of them like one guy on Youtube has with steering can
be deadly. That an interesting proposition for $100K car.
"Tesla has little or no future unless government updates the
grid to accommodate charging cars at night (let's assume 30
KW per night (out of 60KW/h battery). That's around 3 KW/h
load assuming 10 hour change period. Not a pocket change)."
That's a massive overestimate of average demand for each
electric car.
The median commute in the US is less than 10 miles each
way. The 90th percentile is around 30 miles each way.
Considering the current teslas have a 265 mile capacity,
the average driver would not deplete it by half every day.
Not even close.
You are right. I contradict myself in two way but the problem
still exists.
1. If we assume that the car belong to the luxury segment,
then those people by definition will get as many KW/h as
necessary.
2. If average is 10 miles each way (20 miles per day) then
10 KW/h per night (on average) is not a problem, unless it is
a hot night and all air conditioners are up. It is like
leaving one burner in electrical stove up all night.
Also large companies usually have chargers at their
parking lots and this practice will be more widespread as
more people use electrical cars. Some supermarkets now have
changers to (mainly in CA).
But it would remain a problem, if most commuters in
particular area commute 60 miles each way to the nearby large
city. So this problem can be just the local problem of
municipalities, which belong to "remote metropolitan suburbs
without nearby trains" category.
In any case the level of penetration of hybrids and
electrical cars in personal transportation segment in the USA
is dismal, and here government efforts are badly required.
The top selling hybrid electric vehicle in the country is
the conventional Toyota Prius, which has sold 1,643,000 units
since 2000 through April 2016, representing a 40.8% market
share of all hybrids sold in the U.S. since 1999.[6]
Cumulative sales of the Prius nameplate totaled 1,932,805
units delivered through April 2016, representing a 48.0%
market share of total hybrid sales in the
U.S.[1][2][3][4][5][7][8] As of April 2016, the conventional
Prius is followed by the Toyota Camry Hybrid, with 345,640
units sold since 2006, the Honda Civic Hybrid, with
cumulative sales of 234,610 vehicles since 2002, the Ford
Fusion Hybrid with 166,341 units since 2009, and the Toyota
Prius c with 165,075 units since 2012.[6]
With current battery technology, battery performance or load
retention declines noticeably in cold weather. During the
cold season, electric power per mile will increase.
The
problem with company charging stations is that it doesn't
scale - it works when relatively few people have electric
cars (that they need to charge).
Then I doubt the 10 mile median commute to begin with -
specifically for people who can afford an electric car.
Where I work, a large number (not sure whether majority)
of people made no secret that they bought the electric car to
be able to ride alone in the car pool lane (without paying
toll), not for environmental reasons or fuel saving.
I'm hearing some companies charge money for charging, or
"encourage" owners to move their car when it is charged or
after a certain time. This works when you can leave your work
station at will to move your car - not a reality for many
workers.
But one can always find no end of problems with
anything.
no one takes the time to check out simple facts. much easier
to go with narratives that line up with your ideology.
Unfortunate thing about facts - they do not line up with with
popular narratives. And those like me who try to fit a
different narrative are derided by those on the left and the
right. I do not really mind it.
"... To clear lots and buoy demand for new autos, manufacturers have been spending an average of more than $4,000 on incentives per vehicle, a record, according to J.D. Power. ..."
"... Industry sales results are "being driven by recession-era level of incentives," King said. "You can't have those two things coexist in a definition of a healthy industry." ..."
"... Passenger cars won't go back to outselling SUVs, though the arrival of redesigned versions of Toyota's Camry and Honda's Accord sedans may keep the segment from declining further, he predicted. ..."
by Gabrielle Coppola and Anne Riley Moffat...April 11,
2017,...4:53 PM EDT
> Industry sales may drop to 17 million, Toyota executive
says
> J.D. Power analyst warns incentives at 'recession-era
level'
"The U.S. auto market has peaked and will shrink this
year, with manufacturers using unprecedented incentives to
support passenger cars through slumping demand, a Toyota
Motor Corp. executive said.
Industrywide deliveries may decline to as low as 17
million vehicles from last year's record of about 17.5
million, according to Bob Carter, president of Toyota's U.S.
sales unit. A rapid shift in demand toward sport utility
vehicles at the expense of sedans is the main factor driving
automakers' heavy discounts, he said.
"Once the industry starts to get their pipelines lined up
to where the consumer demand is, perhaps we'll see a little
bit of relaxing on some of these high incentives," Carter
said Tuesday at a conference in New York hosted by the
National Automobile Dealers Association and J.D. Power.
Toyota's discounts are "higher than we've ever experienced,"
driven by light trucks reaching about 65 percent of industry
sales, up from roughly half.
After seven straight years of growth, U.S. auto sales have
declined in each of the first three months of 2017. The
slowdown has contributed to a new-vehicle inventory glut,
plus a flood of cars returning to the used market after their
leases expire has started to depress their prices.
To
clear lots and buoy demand for new autos, manufacturers have
been spending an average of more than $4,000 on incentives
per vehicle, a record, according to J.D. Power.
Maintaining last year's record sales place would do
long-term damage to the industry, Thomas King, a J.D. Power
analyst, said at the conference. The researcher projects
deliveries will likely match last year's levels because of
discount offers equal to about 10 percent of the average
price for new vehicles.
Industry sales results are "being driven by
recession-era level of incentives," King said. "You can't
have those two things coexist in a definition of a healthy
industry."
Toyota's Carter said the company is expecting industry
sales will finish the year at 17 million to 17.2 million
vehicles. The company was projecting the higher end of that
range as of January. A decline to the low point would be the
equivalent of about two large auto plants' worth of
production.
Passenger cars won't go back to outselling SUVs,
though the arrival of redesigned versions of Toyota's Camry
and Honda's Accord sedans may keep the segment from declining
further, he predicted.
"We do believe the industry is over the top, but that
doesn't mean we're on a sled ride down from here," Carter
said. "After what we all collectively went through in 2009
and 2010, it's going to be fine."
libezkova -> pgl...
April 01, 2017 at 05:31 PM
Do you think Tesla might survive for next 10 years as an
independent company. I doubt it.
Tesla cars are luxury cars
competing mainly with cars like BMW and are still of somewhat
limited value outside California. IMHO a good hybrid beats
Tesla in all important parameters for less price.
Technical problems are abound and remember that you are
traveling is what can be called a hand grenade: powerful
lithium battery that has tendency to explode if overheated or
punched by fast moving object.
I could site the economic
literature on the hold up
problem and how the
traditional car dealerships
screwed both consumers and
the car companies (and hence
taxpayers ala the 2008
bailout) but Motley Fool's
discussion of Telsa does a
really good job of making
the point on why Tesla is
awesome:
This morning I got sucked into a vortex looking at funding EV
operation through PV. I wondered, just how much solar plant
do you need to run a Tesla? That answer is not too hard,
about 200 sqft, a lot less than I expected. (That's for 5000
kWh annually, 14 kWh per day, with a yield of .66 kWh per sq
meter you need 21 sq meters.) And that's the conventional
number out there, too.
But then, what if you want to fund the replacement of the
PV plant? Well, the numbers turn out to be somewhat more than
6% energy yield annually on the energy investment of about
1100 kWh to make the panel per sq meter. If the life is 30
years (conventional assumption), then you have to fund
replacement at a bit more than 3% annually. The algebra
worked out to roughly twice the plant necessary to both run
an EV and to replace the plant.
I didn't calculate how much plant is required to also fund
the replacement of the EV, but it looks like depreciation is
more than three times operating cost. So we can estimate.
So it takes 200 sqft to run the EV.
Another 200 sqft to replace the plant.
Then maybe 660 sqft to replace the EV.
And another 660 sqft to replace the plant to replace the EV.
Totals, 1720 sqft of plant to keep your EV going.
You can fund your other energy needs off the rest of your
roof.
Currently we're funding the solar buildout by burning
fossil. At some point solar has to build solar.
So I guess I have my doubts about Mr. Musk's endeavors
representing sustainable activity. But as business, wow, what
a guy.
HuntingtonBeach
says:
02/09/2017 at 3:29 am
CHEVROLET BOLT EV IS THE 2017 MOTOR TREND CAR OF THE YEAR
Two numbers-238 and
29,995-are why. The first is the number of miles the EPA has certified the Bolt
EV will travel on a full charge. The second is the price, in dollars, of the
Bolt EV, after allowing for a $7,500 federal tax rebate. By offering that range
at that price, the Bolt EV has made just about every other electric vehicle on
sale obsolete. "Simply put, it's twice the car for half the price of a BMW i3,"
guest judge Chris Theodore said. "A better car, better package, much better
handling, with twice the range."
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the Bolt EV is there are no caveats,
no "for an electric car" qualifiers needed in any discussion. It is, simply, a
world-class small car, and that's before you factor in the benefits inherent in
the smoothness, silence, and instant-on torque provided by the electric motor.
The ride is firm and sporty, but transmitted road noise is very well damped.
The steering has slightly artificial weighting, but brake feel is natural, and
once you learn to use the higher regenerative braking modes, you can pretty
much drive all the time without touching the friction brakes at all.
The battery is expected to last the life of the Bolt EV, and it's covered by
an eight-year/100,000-mile warranty.
The available 240-volt charging unit (professional installation
required) is the fastest way to recharge your battery at home and
offers more power than the standard 120-volt outlet. This
higher-voltage system can provide up to 25 miles of range per hour of
charge time.
You can even delay charging until utility rates are at their
lowest off-peak prices, which is usually at night while you sleep.
While they are rare and do not overburden the grid, they might be
practical for programmers and other IT personnel, who are mad about
modern gadgets and own $500 smartphones :-). Although for them Tesla is a
more suitable status symbol.
25 miles per hour charging time means that you can probably charge the
car using only low night rates (say from midnight to 5AM). It's just
enough time to charge for 60 miles each way daily commute. if you drive
at stable 60 miles per hour speed, a 5KW heater consumes per hour more
then 15% electricity consumed by electrical motors, 3 KW air conditioner
- exactly 10% (assuming 60 miles per hour, 0.5 KW per mile, 30 KWh
total). In a realistic scenario your mileage will be 10% less then
advertised. Still enough for commute if you assume that it will run
180-200 miles on a full charge.
Most people commute less each way so they can even afford running air
conditioner, or heater a large part of the trip (unless they are stuck in
traffic for hours like happens in LA, SF or NYC).
Also buying a pack of ice in summer and a small fan that can be
directed at this pack might help too :-). A canister with hot water can
help in winter too. Bags of ice at Walmart can range in price from $3.00-
$6.00 depending of size. Can last several hours.
GM probably should sell a canister for the hot water and a tray for
ice with the car.
Click to Edit
Delete
(47
minutes and 51 seconds)
Reply
augjohnson
:
"What don't people understand about $27K not being cheap for many people?!
Also, the $7500 tax credit isn't meaningful if you don't pay that much in
taxes! It's not a subsidy, it's a reduction in FED taxes that doesn't go
below zero. It doesn't come off SS or FICA taxes. No lower income person
pays anywhere near $7500/year FED taxes. They don't get what you are calling
a 'subsidy'.
NO EV is cheap for many of your 'common' folk.
As I said in a response to Nick and he totally ignores
,
if you don't have stellar credit and have a low income, it's impossible to
buy this supposedly 'cheap' car that saves you '$1K+/year' in gas. They
won't get any financing, they have to pay cash. Many, many people are stuck,
it's no different if your monthly income is just enough to pay rent. That
doesn't mean you can just go out and buy a house even if the payment would
be lower than your rent. Ain't gonna happen!
Why is it that most
people who are decently well off are totally blind to how anybody less well
off lives?
"
POBox
:
"Well said. A year-old used Honda Accord is $17K in these parts. Civics are
$12K and get 37MPG. Both will last 10+ years with very low maintenance.
The math would favor the hybrid when gas reaches $7/gallon, but
we aren't there yet
I think augjohnson is probably referring to the
very large groups
of people who can't afford a new car at all
. Not to be critical,
but most aren't getting one year old used cars either – they buy cars that
are several years old.
A $5000 car is a major expense that many
people can barely afford
, and many people finance at even very low
levels (so they pay more but less per-month, it makes no sense but neither
does a mortgage).
And then there are the people below THAT – people buying beaters. And
below that are the people who buy a bus pass and/or ride a bike.
I think many people forget how easy it is to be poor, and how hard it is
to do much of anything when you are poor.
Lots of people make less
than $30k, even less than $20k, here in the US
. I think I remember
a certain presidential candidate complaining that 47% didn't pay any taxes
(the vast majority because they don't make enough money, unlike said
presidential candidate who paid 13% in taxes on millions of dollars a year).
Seriously, there are lots of poor people.
You don't see them if
you make enough money, it's like the movie 'The Sixth Sense'. The thing is,
they are there, right across the counter from you at Starbucks, working the
register at the grocery store, etc.
."
Twilight
:
"Well said. I don't think many understand the nature of our predicament, and
that
we will not be buying our way out of it
."
Michael Dawson
:
"Exactly. And
buying any new car is out of the question for probably
2/3 of the U.S. population. The lack of consciousness of the crushing
expense of the whole cars-first system is one of its most important side
effects. People live in their own little bubble worlds, dreaming their own
little dreams
. 'Mobile privatization" was Raymond Williams' term.
I'm also greatly disturbed by the argument that you get to assess the
impact of EVs based on your local region's generation sources. Cars-first is
a thoroughly national policy and reality. Hence, promoting EVs in
hydro-heavy Oregon or NG-heavy SF is not separable from pushing them
everywhere. It's not like the transportation system is somehow going to get
sane in pieces. We either talk cold turkey about national reality,
or we continue driving to Carmageddon
."
benamery21
:
"Last time I checked the median American was driving a 3rd owner car with
over a decade on it."
FMagyar
:
"Thanks, augjohnson, for clearly stating a
major beef of mine!
A very large group of Americans aren't able to afford food and healthcare,
right now. Buying a $27,000.00 EV even with a $7,500 tax credit is
completely beyond their reach. They are lucky if they can buy a $3,500 ten
year old ICE beater."
But maybe salaries and employment-levels have
shot up!
,
the middle-class has been
reinvigorated!
, and the so-called
economy has
new-and-improved!
since then and will continue to
do so for the foreseeable future! ^u^
"An electric car subsidy will be a flash in the pan, not the silver
bullet against climate change that the German government is seeking. From a
public policy standpoint, it's also rather dubious, says DW's Rolf Wenkel."
"... That calculation is similar to one I heard about the use of a bicycle. It was said that the average commute in a car, starting from the time one turns the key until it's parked only achieves (roughly) 25 mph effective speed. The driver must then work (again, roughly) 1 hour to pay for every hour of automobile travel, so the real effective speed is only 12.5 mph . ..."
"That calculation is similar to one I heard about the use of
a bicycle. It was said that the average commute in a car,
starting from the time one turns the key until it's parked only
achieves (roughly) 25 mph effective speed. The driver must then
work (again, roughly) 1 hour to pay for every hour of automobile
travel,
so the real effective speed is only 12.5 mph
.
A bicycle ridden over relatively mild terrain can easily produce
this speed and the rider gets added benefits from the exercise.
Of course, this only works over short commutes with good roads
and tolerable weather, but it shows how much more efficient
transport systems can be
Air
conditioning and heat are
not always needed, real
world experience of EV
owners suggests your numbers
are not accurate. At
$2.50/gallon a prius costs 5
cents per mile.
where author gets 5.4
miles per kWhr, if we assume
0.12 cents per kWhr that is
0.022 cents per mile, less
than half the cost of a
Prius at 50 MPG and
$2.50/gallon gasoline.
8,232.2 miles with
1,513.2 kW used = 5.4
Miles-per-kWh
I agree that my previous
example is too extreme
and involve standing a
lot in traffic as in NYC
(say 60 miles each way
with half in heavy
traffic - 2 hour commute
one way) plus eating
lunch in the car as well
as
pre-heating/pre-cooling
the car for 10 min each
day in winter and summer
(say, 200 days a year)
Let's assume less drastic
case when you commute 30
miles spending in traffic
on average 1 hour (each
way) with either air
conditioner or heating
on, and do not eat in the
car. With the consumption
of electricity for travel
only around 0.5 kW per
mile (0.38/(0.9*0.85))
That will bring us to
probably around $3.5 per
gallon price at which
Prius is still
competitive with EV.
I would repeat that we
probably need $4 per
gallon for mass adoption
of EV.
Click to Edit
Delete
(29
minutes and 42 seconds)
Please also note that
we should compare
apples to apples and
for its price Prius is
much better car in
comparison with Leaf.
And Lexus GS 450h
($63K) is a much
better car the Tesla S
60 ($71,300, lease
$845 /mo.)
With the EV growth than I wish to see how the government will make money that
they earn from gas taxation. The government is not affording to lose the money
from gas tax. They will tax the electricity? How? I think this will skyrocket!
I think also is going to be a long war till the EV will win.
Fred Lambert, electrek.co, Jan. 31st 2017
7:52 am ET
The [Audi of America President Scott Keogh] expects that most of the
industry will go entirely "battery-electric" within the next 10 years:
"All this fright about where am I going to get a charge is going to go
away extremely fast. The technology on this front is moving at a staggering
pace. You're going to be looking at a marketplace in the next seven, eight,
nine, 10 years where for 30 or 40 some brands their entire business is going
to be battery-electric vehicles."
"
Electric cars offer no savings in energy, money, or emissions at present
.
Electricity supply from renewables cannot cover but an insignificant portion of road vehicles
Should electric cars become ubiquitous,
electricity will be taxed to yield that revenue
As a side issue related to the electrification of the U.S., it may interest you that should
all the cars (200 million of them) be the electric Leafs, and driven as today for 15 000 km annually,
their charging would draw some 80 billion watts based on the earlier MJ/km number. Of course,
not everybody will be satisfied driving a small car so the
overall consumption will be
higher, say 100 GW
.
To put that number into perspective, the present electricity consumption of the whole
country amounts to 450 GW
. That wattage powers everything, from toasters and air conditioners
to factories, hospitals and cities.
Adding that new generating and grid capacity any time
soon is of concern when considering that the present level was being developed since the time
of Edison
."
"As most people are, I too am subjected daily to the mass media reports that broadcast the
need for building renewable, clean energy sources. Those sources are usually identified as 'wind,
solar and others'
followed by a hint at their rapidly increasing output
.
Suspicious, I looked up the sources and their annual output as compiled by our Department of
Energy (doe.eia.gov)
Do renewables matter? Can wind and solar impact global climate change measurably?
Apparently not. There is also no chance
that the US, or individual states,
will meet the repetitious commitments for 20, 50 or 100 percent of energy to 'be derived from
renewable, clean sources' in the usual 5, 10 or 20 years timetable,
numbers repeatedly
proposed by the facts-ignorant politicians and prejudiced media in cohorts with the 'Big Wind
and Big Solar' interests
The above numbers, the graphs, and the proper meaning of terms should help us challenge the
'green' media and the
other-people-money-spending politicians
."
"I have found the subject of
renewable energy
(wind and solar) maddening.
It
simply doesn't work. At all.
I've come at the problem every way I can think
of, and the bottom line is that transforming diffuse, intermittent, weak energy sources into
reliable, powerful energy sources is simply not possible.
For most power sources we are doing the opposite – taking extremely powerful sources of
energy (hydrocarbons, falling water, nuclear energy) and downscaling it to my electrical socket.
In such an effort, inefficiencies and loses don't matter much. In the case of wind and solar,
I'm trying to upscale the energy – take low energy solar power and make it strong enough to
boil water on my stove.
Entropy just doesn't work that way
." ~ Frustrated
Scientist
"
'Clean Energy' is a rhetorical device of unprecedented scope. A poorly defined but
effective shield for any pundit, mouthpiece or messaging agent to use when speaking of a seemingly
uncertain energy future
. 'Clean Energy' has given its name to many formal processes,
organisations, and campaigns. Our climate leaders use the term when they talk about targets, and
renewables, and 'low carbon' futures
As someone who is hellbent on finding a way to destroy fossil fools there is one thing that
is certain,
this juggernaut will not rest till it's all gone. That's how fossil fools
have always played their cronyistic, monopolistic, deeply networked game
. That's how
I look at motive and likelihoods
When I discovered that some of the very same people who were presenting the most popular arguments
for why we should #keepitintheground were also paving the way for carbon capture and storage I
began asking questions about the development of this particular form of energy generation. Questions
like:
Why would organisations that are telling us about carbon bubbles, carbon budgets,
unburnable carbon, and stranded assets be supporting the continued burning of gas, coal, and trees,
and the expansion of geological storage of CO2
under the North Sea in old oil and gas
fields owned by Shell and Statoil? Surely they care about ending the destruction?
I quickly realised I was asking the wrong questions
"
"A fundamental, generally implicit, assumption is that each unit of energy supplied by non-fossil-fuel
sources takes the place of a unit of energy supplied by fossil-fuel sources. However,
owing to the complexity of economic systems and human behaviour, it is often the case that changes
aimed at reducing one type of resource consumption, either through improvements in efficiency
of use or by developing substitutes, do not lead to the intended outcome when net effects are
considered
. Here, I show that the average pattern across most nations of the world over
the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel
sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically
on electricity,
each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced
less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity
. These results challenge
conventional thinking in that they indicate that
suppressing the use of fossil fuel will
require changes other than simply technical ones
such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy
production."
Hi George, I'm assuming that you are referring to the calculations in the exercise I linked to,
so to I have copied and pasted it here with each step in the calculation numbered. I myself was
a little confused when I looked back at step 5 so, I converted the TWh figure in step 4 to GWh
(in bold) for clarity. Is that where you are saying "A TWh is 1000 GWh not 100″?
Also at the end in bold, I have added that the assumption that there would be " no reduction
in electricity use to refine the needed motor fuels from crude oil", is not a reasonable assumption.
1) US 2014 Light duty vehicle, short wheel-base Vehicle Miles Traveled – 2,072,071 million
miles (Source US DOT BTS)
2) Worst case EV power consumption 340 Wh/mile (Tesla Model S)
So if all VMT for the US in 2014 were traveled in EVs with the consumption of a Tesla Model
S, the total electricity required would be:
3) 2,072,071 x 1,000,000 x 340 = 704,504,140,000,000 Wh = 704.5 TWh
4) Total Generation at Utility Scale Facilities in the US for 2014 – 4,093,606 GWh = 4,093.606
TWh (Source EIA EPM)
Increase required on top of 2014 total generation to power all Light Vehicle VMT in 2014 if
traveled by EVs nwith the consumption of a Tesla Model S:
5) 704.5 x 100 ÷ 4,093.606 = 17.2%
So, according to the above calculations, if all VMT by light vehicles in the US in 2014,
had been using EVs with the power consumption of a Tesla Model S it would have required the production
of 17% more electricity. This assumes that there is no reduction in electricity use to refine
the needed motor fuels from crude oil, not a reasonable assumption so actually less than 17%
would be required .
The only thing I can see is no inclusion of "charging losses".
Typically about 90% of the energy from the outlet makes it into the battery as there are losses
as the AC voltage is converted to DC to charge the battery and probably some thermal losses in
the charging process.
This may indeed be offset by the electricity consumed by the refining process, extraction,
transport, and distribution processes in the petroleum industry. More wind and solar can certainly
be built and it is not as though the process will happen overnight, it will take 25 to 35 years
before most personal transportation will be replaced by plugin vehicles.
I took the basic US driving statistics and scenario you presented (item 1) and then did NOT
look at your calculations below it, but did my own back-of-the-envelope independent estimate (using
my OWN assumptions based on what my own first-hand EV drving experience has shown me, and my own
calculation process). I came up with 750 TWH/year of EV energy required (at the metered, not at
the battery). I was happy to then look at your calcs and see you had about 705 TWh – just 6% different
from my calcs. So, independent confirmation. Your numbers look good.
Why did not put just 0.1Kw per mile for simplicity? If you do not question the data what is the
value of reproducing the calculations.
Click to Edit
Delete (56 minutes and 54 seconds)
As Dennis pointed out, there's also the issue of charging losses, which I completely ignored.
I'm curious as to why you say the UK grid would need 30% more energy (TWh). Is it that the energy
intensity of the UK economy is lower, such that that the energy required by cars would make up
a larger share of the total electricity consumption than the US?
On the other hand, the UK is so much smaller than the US and I imagine commutes are shorter
resulting in significantly lower VMT per capita. Plus the mass transit systems are so much better.
(On a visit a few years ago, I commuted from London to the NEC in Birmingham by train to attend
a solar trade show rather than stay in Birmingham. It cost me less). In addition, EVs are much
more efficient in slow moving, stop and go traffic if climate control, especially heating, is
not being used.
The issue of intermittency is something else altogether. I expect that the UK will eventually
get most of it's renewable energy from wind since the wind resources in the UK are good (see
http://globalwindatlas.com/map.html
). The profile of the wind resource makes a huge difference. When is it strongest? How much
does it vary? Is it strong at night? It is the general profile of the intermittent resources compared
to the demand profile that is going to determine how much storage will be needed and how much
excess capacity will be needed. Someone with a fairly intimate knowledge of the nature of the
renewable resources in the UK would be best equipped to make that determination.
Current grid has roughly 2 times as much capacity as average load. Transmission already exists.
So for the most part does not need replacing. Existing capacity serves as backup to intermittent
wind and solar. As long as the wind is widely dispersed there would not be too much of an intermitency
issue.
Undersea cable to Ireland and France would reduce the problem further. Offshore wind would help.
Expensive though, nuclear is also an option.
This is definitely a way too optimistic calculation. Probably by a factor of two or three.
You probably should use 0.6-0.7 KW/h per mile at the level of generating stations due to losses
(10% in transmission, 15% in conversion, 10% in battery itself as it has the impedance).
Everything else is just a wishful thinking. But even this is way too optimistic. My feeling
is that 1 Kw/h per mile is more realistic for summer time if you add air conditioning costs.
Double that in winter as battery efficiency drops and heating of the cabin is required.
Add "vampire losses" when the electric car is parked and drop of efficiency of the litium battery
with age when 90% efficiency becomes 80% on the second or third year.
There are a lot of problems with your calculation (which actually assumes that Tesla S is as
efficient as Leaf – a much smaller car).
What I mentioned is just a tip of the iceberg. For gas powered car we can calculate what the
well-to-wheel efficiency is. For electric car this is more difficult as parameters of battery
change with its age and influence of air conditioning and heating is far more greater.
In this sense, with air conditioning and heating factored in, Prius 50 mpg per gallon might
still be quite competitive with 15 cents per kilowatt and three years old Tesla S.
In addition, my car's "vampire" power draw while parked and shut down averaged about 4.5 kWh
per day for the first 10 months, and then about 1 kWh per day after a software update two months
ago. I estimate the vampire draw sucked up an additional 1,400 kWh or so.
That brings total actual energy usage for the year: about 7,100 kWh–putting efficiency at about
466 Wh/mile, or about 2.1 miles/kWh.
The vampire and charging losses bumped the year's real fuel cost up to $820, or about 5.3 cents
per mile. Which is still barely a quarter of the fuel cost of a comparable gasoline car.
Winter vs summer
As with all electric cars, my efficiency was much lower in cold weather. For the April-to-October
period, I averaged 301 Wh/mi, compared to 371 Wh/mi for November to February.
Although I didn't measure month by month, these numbers imply that energy usage in July–the
hottest month–was probably in the range of 290 Wh/mi, while January's was close to 400 Wh/mi.
Earlier this winter, during my first January with the car–which was followed by the coldest
February in recent history around these parts–I found that my energy usage nearly doubled for
the short local trips that I usually take.
Time after time, I'd come home from a run to the grocery store or the chiropractor with an
average consumption of well over 500 Wh/mile. (That's before counting vampire and charging losses.)
Although I didn't measure month by month, these numbers imply that energy usage in July–the
hottest month–was probably in the range of 290 Wh/mi, while January's was close to 400 Wh/mi.
Earlier this winter, during my first January with the car–which was followed by the coldest
February in recent history around these parts–I found that my energy usage nearly doubled for
the short local trips that I usually take.
Time after time, I'd come home from a run to the grocery store or the chiropractor with an
average consumption of well over 500 Wh/mile. (That's before counting vampire and charging losses.)
Hooray for Professor McLeod and his fight against a traffic camera ticket.
These infernal devices are a nexus of political corruption and corporatism. If
public safety rather than revenue enhancement are really the goal then there
are equally, if not more, effective ways of enforcing speed limits that do not
involve entering into these highly questionable partnerships with private
corporations. Aside from highly dubious legalities that McLeod outlines the
need for making the deal profitable for the corporate partners and the
documented practice of local governments depending on the revenue from traffic
cameras make it obvious that the rights of citizens are being trampled on in
the guise of "public safety".
In Montgomery County MD where I live the local government has gone all in on
traffic cameras but their protestations about public safety are belied by their
routine inclusion of traffic camera revenue in their budgets (if reducing
speeding is the goal shouldn't you
not rely
on this source of revenue)
and the obvious strategy of making the changes in speed limits, notices of
photo enforcement and the actual cameras so unobtrusive that the are easy to
miss. If reducing speeding rather than introducing a "tax" on it were the goal
there should be large flashing lights announcing the speed limit changes and
photo enforcement (you know, just like the old-style school zone warning signs
that still exist in certain parts of the county). But Montco apparently
prioritizes revenue over safety.
Also, the placement of the speed zones, while nominally supposed to be
restricted to school zones and construction zones seem to be, in some cases,
forced. I once got a speed camera ticket where the sign announcing the speed
zone ( from 40 mph to 30 mph) was hidden behind tree branches and while located
"near" a school was on a section of road with no sidewalks and no foot traffic
and the school was located far from the road down a long driveway. In other
words, no students would be walking on the road to get to or from the school.
And this ticket was issued on a Saturday morning in late July so the school
wasn't even open for business!
I ended up paying the ticket because the county essentially has presumption
of guilt stance with respect to these tickets. The only way to fight them is to
challenge the calibration, maintenance and operation of the camera and they
charge as much to get the required documentation as they do to pay the ticket
(which is a civil violation with no insurance notification).
These infernal devices are a nexus of political corruption and
corporatism.
One startling quote from the Mayor as he defended the use of traffic
cameras really caught my eye (bf added):
The story continues. Lovers of liberty in Alabama kept political
pressure on the state legislature, and earlier this year the legislature
repealed the traffic-camera law. Yet Montgomery's defiant mayor announced
that the city would continue to operate the program.
Curiously,
he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city's contract
with American Traffic Solutions.
One wonders how many tickets
the city is contractually obligated to issue.
Was there also a non-compete clause to prevent uniformed traffic cops
from pulling over and ticketing motorists beyond a certain maximum number?
How about language preventing the city from conducting traffic safety
programs in schools? Wouldn't surprise me - gotta protect that revenue
stream for your private partners, doncha know?
That's no solution. It simply moves the incentive for collecting the
fines to the public instead of government. What makes you think that the
citizenry would any less likely to see the fines as free money and
maintain the design of the system to maximize revenue collection rather
than increasing public safety? And if we're still talking about a
privatized traffic camera system the private partners still need their
cut – they're not going to donate their services.
1. we do away with those cameras
2. fines via human police officers are to be distributed to citizens.
We the people are not directly involved in issuing citations nor
convictions. And we have no immediate (distribution is at least 12
month into the future) or significant (what maybe $1.50 per person in
the city per year?) conflict of interest.
(To sum: Not direct, not immediate and not significant. More over,
or in fact, the only relevant question – what to do with those fines,
if not the people? Put to some infrastructure use, to be decided by
the city officials you don't trust now?)
The same amount, shared by much fewer people (police and courts),
creates a significant conflict of interest for the officers and the
courts.
Might be some unintended consequences, though:
Passenger: Slow down, we're coming up on a school zone.
Driver: Sorry, I gotta floor it - baby needs a new pair of shoes! Hold
on!!
The sun makes the Sony cmos cam I have in my quadcopter go white.
There is a high dynamic range setting which cuts down the washout
somewhat, but it increases the amount of time it takes for an image to
recover when the cam gets pointed towards a lower light area again. Kinda
like an eyeball.
A laser pointer is narrow, so may affect a smaller part of the image.
But then how much power it is would matter. At some power level it may
permanently destroy the sensor, but I haven't seen the answer anywhere
yet on that. I have been thinking we'll invent a whole new class of
vandalism once self driving cars hit the road.
Ah. That looks like a good idea. But now we don't need it in AZ
anymore. Actually, I was kinda liking our traffic cams at stop
light intersections because before we had a lot of "run the light"
traffic accidents. And the only time I ever got a speeding ticket
around here was in a speed trap. They had an unmarked school
crossing across a 45mph 6 lane blvd that also had a traffic light
and pedestrian crossing. We're just supposed to know when the light
is green weekdays between 2:25 and 2:45, the posted speed limit
isn't so – it's 15mph. 'Course the hidden cop couldn't ever
understand why he was always pulling people over. I wonder how many
kiddies had to die for the ticket revenue.
As robotics are given personhood, it will not be misdemeanor
vandalism people will be prosecuted for felony assault. Yes, people
sitting on juries will fall back on 'but it's the law'.
With a higher powered laser, or perhaps simply by exposing the camera
to a laser pointer for a longer period of time, one could permanently
destroy the CCD or CMOS sensor. Also, I feel compelled to explicitly
state: experiment with this at your own risk.
Note, full sensor damage was not possible, except if the entire
sensor could be swept by the beam, which I could imagine would be very
difficult for a driver to do manually..
This test used 200mW and 500mW lasers, which are 40x and 100x the
power of the typical 5mW laser pointer.
Experimentation risk is not limited to just the experimenter's
risk.
Thanks for the link and I agree about the dangers of using high
powered lasers in public. Dave did ask about surveillance cameras
rather than speed/traffic cameras though, so I'm not sure that
wielding a laser while driving was ever being considered. Taking
driving out of the equation would result in it being relatively
easy to sweep the laser across the sensor, as it could be
accomplished by simply "painting" the front element of the camera's
lens.
I remember someone on the D.C. city council complaining when their
revenue from those speed cameras didn't meet their projections. It turns out
that they didn't account for people actually driving slower in those areas.
Also, a few years ago a bunch of tickets issued from a D.C. speed camera
were thrown out, when some enterprising people figured out that the camera
in question was actually installed just over the city line, in Maryland.
I recently read an article related to self driving cars and trucks which
will be very bad to this kinda of obscure/inconspicuous activity by the
police departments. Although I am curious to see what is the motivation for
this kind of activity. I understand greed. To what extent of greed? Can we
deploy Artificial Intelligence on the minds of these mayors to understand
what are the objectives they are trying to meet? Obviously the more money
the better I assume. But it would be nice what are the benefits of bringing
in additional tainted capital exactly.
These third quarter results (and the fourth quarter projection) reaffirm the major conclusions of
Part One of the Uber series – Uber's operations and growth has depended on unsustainable, multi-billion
dollar investor subsidies, and in Uber's seventh year of operations there is still no evidence of
the strong, steady P&L margin gains needed to show a clear path to breakeven, much less the roughly
$5 billion in annual P&L improvements needed to generate meaningful investor returns.
One of the two reporters that published the leaked data (Efrati) argued that "Uber's departure
from China in the middle of the quarter helped slow the growth rate of its losses" and that the losses
"reflects its increased investment in areas like self-driving car technology and mapping." Neither
of those claims is credible. Both impacts of the sale of Uber's shareholding in the failed Uber China
venture (which include a multi-billion dollar gain from Uber's new shareholding in Didi Chuxing)
and investments in speculative future ventures like driverless cars would impact cash flow and balance
sheet statements, but not 2012-16 quarterly operating P&L statements, and it is not clear that the
reporter understands the difference.
Stephen Levitt's Bogus Claim that Uber Creates Massive Consumer Welfare Benefits
The first four parts of Naked Capitalism's Uber series (
Part One ,
Part Two ,
Part Three ,
Part Four ) focused on the question of whether the growth and eventual industry dominance of
Uber has (or could in the near future) create sustainable improvements in overall economic welfare.
Neither the bleak P&L results of any other single piece of evidence is isolation could answer this
question, but the range of evidence presented consistently supported the conclusion that Uber had,
and would continue to reduce welfare.
Uber is a substantially less efficient producer of urban car services than the incumbents they
have been driving out, so its growth reduces overall industry efficiency. All of Uber's apparent
price and service advantages depend on unsustainable investor subsidies. Uber has not introduced
any significant efficiency or product breakthroughs and lacks the scale economies that could quickly
generate billions in P&L improvements, and all of Uber's behavior suggests it fully understands that
it could not provide returns to investors without achieving exploiting significant levels of welfare
reducing anti-competitive market power.
And Subaru hasn't squandered the profits drinking booze and rolling dice. Instead, it has
plowed a significant pile of that enhanced revenue into an all-new, soon to be ubiquitous
architecture given the sexy name of Subaru Global Platform. It makes its debut inside the 2017
Impreza, which now comes exclusively from Subaru's U.S. plant in Indiana.
We're told that 95 percent of the Impreza is new, from the curved skeletal members baked into the
floor and designed to better manage impact pulses, to the super-stiff firewall that laughs at the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's narrow-offset crash test, to the stouter yet no heavier
suspension subframes, to the flowing exterior lines. Those looking to Subaru for design
leadership, like those looking to the San Diego Padres for a World Series victory, will be
disappointed yet again. But the new Impreza, unlike the bug-eyed monsters of the past, is
handsome and sleek in a conventional way and drives like a worthy sequel from the company that
brought you the BRZ (and the Toyota 86).
a price escalator that starts with the base $19,715 2.0i manual and ends with the $24,915
Limited automatic, the Impreza is gunning up to be a serious challenger to the Honda Civic and
the Mazda 3, two compacts we consider as good alternatives for those who can't or won't pay for
an Audi A3.
Rated at 152 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 145 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, the peaky, normally
aspirated 2.0 is not exactly ate up with power despite its lofty 12.5:1 compression ratio. The
power ratings are about on par with the other base engines in compact-class competitors.
(electrek.co)
156
Posted by
BeauHD
on Thursday December 22, 2016 @05:45PM
from the
follow-the-rules
dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek:
Before a recent update
that is being gradually pushed to Tesla owners, the automaker allowed its
Autopilot to be set at a higher speed than the speed limit on all roads where
the driver assist system could be enabled, but now Tesla is
pushing
a new update to make Autopilot follow the rules of the road more closely
.
Owners of Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot have, up until now, been able
to set the speed of the Autopilot's 'Traffic-Aware Cruise Control' feature to
up to 5 mph over the speed limit on roads and non-divided highways. Now they
are restricted to following the speed limit exactly, without the 5 mph leeway.
On highways, the speed limit doesn't have a direct effect on the Autopilot's
speed. The speed is still limited by the Autopilot's overall 90 mph speed
limit. Every time Tesla introduces new restrictions to its Autopilot system, it
gets a mixed response from owners. While the new restrictions are often coming
from the aspiration of making the system safer, some owners always see them as
taking away capabilities that they already had and had paid for. With the
introduction of the software update v8.0 in September, Tesla
introduced a more aggressive "Autopilot nag
," which prompts more 'Hold
Steering Wheel' alerts.
"... ...Rather than programing endless if-then-else statements, they instead simply asked the AI to predict: "What would a human driver do?" They outfitted vehicles with a variety of sensors – cameras, lidar, radar, etc. – and then collected millions of miles of human driving data... ..."
"... a deer runs across the road in front of you; will the AI know that more are fairly likely to follow? ..."
"... jumps into the road 30 feet in front of the car; does the AI grit its teeth and hit the animal, slam on the brakes and hit it, slam on brakes and turn sharply left thereby rolling the car after hitting it, or...? ..."
"... another minor little problem with driverless vehicles is security. there already have been demonstrations that remotely pull a car off the road and turn off the engine. what if it had turned into traffic instead? ..."
"... the possibilities are endless and the target too tempting to ignore. what would be the ransom if software used in 10 million cars was demonstrated to be remotely controllable? if the manufacturer can update or manipulate the running software so can someone else. what are the proposed security measures? for starters kill all the developers once the software is installed? ..."
...Rather than programing endless if-then-else statements, they instead simply asked the AI to
predict: "What would a human driver do?" They outfitted vehicles with a variety of sensors – cameras,
lidar, radar, etc. – and then collected millions of miles of human driving data...
of course those millions of miles will have near zero exceptional incidents, e.g.:
1) a deer runs across the road in front of you; will the AI know that more are fairly likely to
follow?
2) jumps into the road 30 feet in front of the car; does the AI grit its teeth and hit the animal,
slam on the brakes and hit it, slam on brakes and turn sharply left thereby rolling the car after
hitting it, or...?
3) while driving along in commuter traffic at maybe 5F on salted snow the temperature drops enough
that the water freezes; traffic doesn't notice this (because ice and water can look just alike if
the ice is very smooth) until it rounds a slight bend and sees a pile of 25 cars who have already
discovered brakes and steering are inoperable if applied together or too extremely; I successfully
missed the pile by roughly 2 inches by signaling left and crowding the driver approaching from behind
going a little fast; he kept his head and also eased left onto the shoulder and slowed slightly thus
didn't hit me by about 6 inches; two cars went through space for about one and one half with no room
to spare (this was a once in a lifetime experience...how to get it into the AI's data)? my alternatives
were going off the road to the right into the pile of cars already down in the borrow pit or simply
t-boning the pile directly. my thought was glancing off the left side of the pile and then off the
guy catching up were the least bad choices. how would an AI prepare for that?
4) driving on very slick road at moderate speed the car in front of you, without brake lights
or any visible provocation, begins to slowly spin; what I did is let off the throttle slightly (a
lot made me start to spin also) and waited to see which way the spinning car would go off the road,
then eased to the left and missed him without spinning myself; what does the AI do?
incidents like this become burned into the brain but are unlikely to be repeated. all of them
are if/then/else scenarios if they were the sum of all hazards, but they are not...the number of
actual things that can go wrong might as well be infinite, hence the desire to use learning instead.
my point is exceptional circumstances really do happen, and with millions of cars they very likely
will happen.
the problem with learning is once in a lifetime situations are quite likely to not get into the
AI's data. how does it respond to something not in its database? throw up its metaphorical hands?
slam on the brakes and crash like many human drivers would? how often does the AI run into something
it can't handle (yes, I know human drivers aren't perfect). after a driverless car loses the first
big lawsuit, then what?
I spent 30 years as a software developer and I can confidently assert at least two things:
1) bug free large systems do not exist 2) it is impossible to test by exercising both sides of every branch in a large system
note: a program to "prove" the functioning of another program is subject to both rules.
multithreaded programming with multiple cpus has made the problem hugely worse because now the
execution path through the code may not be reproducible even if it is known.
I really enjoyed "...they instead simply asked the AI to predict...". there is nothing simple
about that, neither the problem discussed nor the software solution to it.
another minor little problem with driverless vehicles is security. there already have been
demonstrations that remotely pull a car off the road and turn off the engine. what if it had turned
into traffic instead?
the possibilities are endless and the target too tempting to ignore. what would be the ransom
if software used in 10 million cars was demonstrated to be remotely controllable? if the manufacturer
can update or manipulate the running software so can someone else. what are the proposed security
measures? for starters kill all the developers once the software is installed?
"... My nightmare is when cars are treated like ipads. You are only as safe as your ability to pay for the next upgrade. ..."
"... When autonomous vehicles are really synced up, they'll work with highways that speak only to them, with approved software, cars that can't talk to each other using the latest requirements aren't allowed on highways because of the potential danger. ..."
"... Soon after that, we won't have to worry about the rotting of middle America. Because no one will even be allowed to see it, and no one from there will be allowed to get on the highway to come to the bigger cities. ..."
I used to own a rural gas station and pumped the customers gas, cleaned their windshield and
checked their oil.
No, gas stations don't do that anymore.
But if we all refuse to use the 'self service' apps such as the one at Sam's Club, their new "service"
won't get off the ground, will it?
I've also worked for the two biggest trucking companies in the nation as well as two intrastate
firms (in the office or dispatch).
I remember a driver calling me in dispatch one day saying he'd been robbed. A car 'bumped'
him and when our driver got out of the cab, the thieves accomplice hopped in and they both took
off with the loaded truck full of TV's and stereos, with the one in the car following him, leaving
our driver standing there.
I wonder how a 'self-driving' truck would handle such a situation as that?
I think it's only a matter of time before we find out, as it seems they'd be easy targets once
thieves figure out how to take advantage of 'em.
My nightmare is when cars are treated like ipads. You are only as safe as your ability to pay
for the next upgrade.
When autonomous vehicles are really synced up, they'll work with highways that speak only to
them, with approved software, cars that can't talk to each other using the latest requirements
aren't allowed on highways because of the potential danger. Towns which can't support on ramps
and exits capable of accommodating sizeable convoys will just be passed over.
Soon after that,
we won't have to worry about the rotting of middle America. Because no one will even be allowed
to see it, and no one from there will be allowed to get on the highway to come to the bigger cities.
People probably won't notice though, because they'll have purchased their vehicles with the
supported versions that include streaming audio and ads whenever they have the radio or entertainment
service turned off. Kind of like a kindle.
"... Lithium-ion batteries last only 3 years, less in hot conditions, and a new set will cost $35,000. If this is so then in effect you will have to pay as much as would buy you two new small cars every three years ..."
"... If all these factors could be quantified and taken into account, especially those to do with the batteries, the net lifetime energy efficiency of an electric car [under conservative assumptions] might be no better than that of a modern diesel ..."
This seems to be misleading because it doesn't take into account several relevant factors…
a full accounting would include:
o The weight and size differences. The average petrol driven car might get 9 km per litre,
but it will be 3-4 times the weight and internal space of a typical electric car. Size and weight
cab[sic] be important for security in crashes.
o The loss of energy getting energy to the vehicle. The energy-return for petrol is quite high;
only a small amount of energy is needed to produce it and to get the petrol to the service station
and the petrol tank. For electric cars the amount is much higher. Large scale renewable systems
[this assumes that they will be in place and powering things like EV-charging] will probably have
to depend heavily on solar thermal farms thousands of km from users, meaning considerable embodied
energy costs in building the plant (maybe 10% of energy produced in its lifetime), and maybe 15%
energy lost in the long distance transmission and city reticulation.
o Losses at the tank or battery. For petrol cars there is no loss in filling the tank, leaving
petrol in the tank, or drawing petrol out. However to charge a battery and get energy
out again will involve a 30-40% loss of energy , and there will be a further slight loss
as the battery stands idle.
o Replacement of the tank or battery. Petrol tanks do not deteriorate significantly and do
not have to be replaced during the life of the car. Smil (2010) says
Lithium-ion batteries last only 3 years, less in hot conditions, and a new set will cost
$35,000. If this is so then in effect you will have to pay as much as would buy you two new
small cars every three years . [Who will be able to afford, and in a shrinking economy, 2 new small cars every 3 years?]
More important here is the embodied energy cost of a battery, containing fairly scarce
Lithium . A minor consideration would be deterioration in battery performance as it approaches
the end of its life, meaning less efficiency and more energy needed to charge it.
o What will be the energy cost of producing and recycling the special plastics from
which the new light bodies of electric vehicles are made , compared with the costs for
metals etc? Mateja (2000) claims these costs are high. Plastics in general take maybe
4+ times as much energy to make than steel, tend to be difficult to recycle, and to be made from
petroleum .
If all these factors could be quantified and taken into account, especially those to do with
the batteries, the net lifetime energy efficiency of an electric car [under conservative assumptions]
might be no better than that of a modern diesel." ~ Ted Trainer
- - - - - - - - - - - -
" 'Cost of repair crazy high" is how one Model S owner puts it in a thread on the Tesla Motor
Club online owners forum.
He describes a minor front-end collision, from which he was able to drive away, that cost him
$20,327 to repair. Visible damage was limited to the front left fender, lights, and the corner of the hood. But
the bill listed 92 hours of labor and almost $8,000 in parts, including a single self-piercing
rivet billed at $35.
A Friend who owns the Harley, Indian, etc Dealer just stopped by on way to see Blue Angles Show.
. I've been leaning on him to check into ZERO Electric Motorcycles. He said Factory brought 3
to review and the ride was incredibly thrilling. Must have one for Himself. But after reviewing
maintenance schedules, Not a chance consider handling the line since his bread and butter is servicing
super techno high maintenance machines that consume expensive parts. An army of techs are required
to keep these beasts performing and safe. Dealer must perform the majority of work. Right to repair
– WTF?. Maintenance free electric machines are of ZERO Interest. While eCars are the Future, eMotocycles
are making sense, considering that many cars get better fuel economy than many bikes.
That's pretty much been Tesla Motor's argument all along for why the dealership model does not
work for their cars hasn't it?
Traditional dealerships primary revenue is from parts and service. They are not particularly
keen to promote vehicles that undermine their profit model.
I just bought a Chevy Volt. After 1400 miles I have used about 4 gallons of gasoline. My energy
equivalent average mileage is about 90 mpge. That is the combination of something like 105 mpge
electric and 41 gas. I routinely obtain 60 miles on pure electric with overnight charging and
special nighttime rates from the utility. I have yet to get enough billing information to see
how much or if I'm saving any money.
Except for the pointless electronic gee-gaws apparently necessary to sell cars to the unwashed
masses the car is an engineering marvel; smooth, quiet, adequate power. Hopfully it will be more
reliable than my last Chevy from 1983. It certainly is different and I believe the format is the
transition car into the future.
"…in practical terms, it would seem that electricity can make wheels go round, but it cannot
make wheels, or provide an ongoing purpose for their rotation.
Of course, given a full backup of industrial infrastructure, almost anything is doable. But
in a SHTF situation, we are not going to have backup industry-and that is the problem
that fantasy engineers and physicists choose to ignore …
Perhaps the ultimate fantasy lies in the purpose of it all.
Our civilisation exists through our ability to trade with one another. In the 10 millenia since
hunter gatherers enclosed land and became farmers, any kind of prosperity has depended on trading
of excess. We trade by buying and selling, and moving stuff (including ourselves) from A to
B in order to facilitate that. The faster and more efficiently we shift 'stuff' the wealthier
we have become. Problem is that we have come to regard 'movement' itself as being a wealth creator,
rather than the goods and services (effectively forms of energy) themselves.
Hence our focus on the necessity for wheeled transport: 'as long as our cars and trucks
run–we will be ok' is the basic mantra.
Missing the point, that in the SHTF situation, no one will be shifting 40 tons of melons
from CA to NY, or (and this is the ultimate fantasy) have an 'ongoing purpose' to drive anywhere.
The delusion persists that wheels (on the scale we use them) have brought us prosperity,
when in fact it has been our (temporary) prosperity that has allowed us to have wheels.
-Therefore if we continue to produce wheeled transport able to travel great distances,
our prosperous lifestyle will continue undiminished. -we will still drive to 'work'. Get real!!!!!
Prior to the industrial revolution, travelling 150 miles on wheels might take a month's
wages– Now we can do it for a few minute's wages–that is our concept of 'prosperity'.
Ford figured out that by paying his workers high wages, they would go into debt to buy his
cars-ad infinitum. His workers became 'rich' by any historical measure. They too could travel
anywhere they wanted to.
What Ford was actually doing was extracting cheap materials out of the ground, and selling
it as wheeled transport, feeding the delusion that it would go on forever. Right now
we are at 'forever', scrambling desperatly to find the means to keep that delusion alive. This
is why we must have wheels at any cost, it allows us to deny that we have run out of road
." ~
Norman Pagett
Team Ludd seems to be on a roll this week. Some quality humor.
But my favorite is still this line from Ves,
"All you need is electric scooter, flip flops and pair of shades on the tropical island."
But there is still a long way to catch up with this season's leading team, Team Koch.
A classic from Fernando Leanme,
"I'm the team Koch quarterback coach, we emphasize handing off to the halfback, who follows right
behind a full back who is tossing AAA batteries on the ground, ahead of a hard run right up the
middle. The Team EV gets distracted looking at the batteries and we score about 70 % of the time
using this rather simple play scheme."
"I believe the format is the transition car into the future."
I agree JJHMAN. You can see it happening rapidly. GM, Toyota, and BMW are all taking different
approaches with their respective hybrid offerings of the Volt, Prius Prime, and the i3rx, but
the result is largely the same: cars that can run on petrol when going long distances, but that
the majority of the time are in electric mode. OFM has pointed out several times that a VOLT at
200,000 miles may have very little run time on its engine and other ICE components. These cars
may very easily hit half a million miles.
Elite manufacturers like McLaren, Lamborghini, and Ferrari are starting to add electric motors
into their supercars for the instant acceleration that they provide, and they are calling them
hypercars. It's very interesting to see both high performance and high efficiency converging on
the same solution; electrification of power trains.
In the near future, two car households with a pure battery electric EV and a PHEV will be common.
Such households won't have any distance constraints on their car travel, but the day to day reality
will be that they burn very little petrol.
It isn't hard to imagine that within something like 25-35 years that maps of gas station locations
will look similar to what the Tesla Supercharger network looks like now: Interstate locations
to facilitate long distance travel.
There simply won't be enough demand for petrol to support the number of gas stations that we
have now. People will be typically leaving both home and work with fully charged cars. Wind power
will charge cars at night, and solar power will charge them during the day. Solar canopies will
become common over car parks. Electric cars will provide load balancing services.
Within 50 years, gas stations will likely no longer be a thing.
"... brings the safety and diagnostic capabilities of a brand-new car to models that have already been on the road for nearly two decades. ..."
"... The visor module has a speaker, and communicates with the dongle for hands-free calling. ..."
"... but more important emergency roadside assistance goes even further. If a crash is detected, Verizon's emergency personnel will call directly to the vehicle, to find out if assistance is required. They can dispatch help as well, pinpointing your location thanks to GPS. ..."
"... Other unique features kick in during other situations. If your car is stolen, GPS enables Verizon to track your car if it's stolen. Parking assistance helps locate your car in a crowded parking lot. ..."
"... There's a downside to all that connectivity, of course, underscored by the recent Chrysler recall of 1.4 million Jeeps when it was revealed that a security flaw could let hackers access a moving car in frightening ways . GM had a similar issue. And a Tesla hack revealed earlier this month let hackers completely shut down a moving car ..."
... to any 1996-or-newer vehicles for just $15 a month. Dubbed Hum, the little
gizmo with the friendly name brings the safety and diagnostic capabilities of
a brand-new car to models that have already been on the road for nearly two
decades.
Hum plugs into a car's ODB-II port, the same connector used by a service
technician when you come in complaining that the check-engine light is on. While
many gizmos have offered to read codes from the ODB port in the past (just
search for them on Amazon) the info they convey is usually hard to parse. Hum
makes it easy by offering human translators.
The
Hum device consists of two parts: a dongle to connect to your ODB port, which
includes a cellular antenna and a GPS chip, and a clip-on visor module that looks
not unlike an old-school radar detector. The visor module has a speaker, and
communicates with the dongle for hands-free calling. It also ties directly
into Verizon's new call center: Push its blue, customer-service button for
roadside assistance and diagnostic help from ASE-Certified mechanics trained to
tell you what those obscure codes actually mean.
... we tested it in a vehicle more representative of where the Hum will
actually serve its tour of duty: a somewhat battered Jeep. From the back seat,
Maddux showed me where it connects and where to place the visor module in place.
An app on his phone (Android
or iOS) read data from the Hum to display a wealth of data about the car,
including auto health, diagnostics, and historical mileage information. It had an
alert: An obscure engine code warned of some danger, but who knew what it was?
... but more important emergency roadside assistance goes even further. If
a crash is detected, Verizon's emergency personnel will call directly to the
vehicle, to find out if assistance is required. They can dispatch help as well,
pinpointing your location thanks to GPS.
Other unique features kick in during other situations. If your car is
stolen, GPS enables Verizon to track your car if it's stolen. Parking assistance
helps locate your car in a crowded parking lot.
... ... ...
There's a downside to all that connectivity, of course, underscored by the
recent Chrysler recall of 1.4 million Jeeps when it was revealed that a security
flaw could
let hackers access a moving car in frightening ways. GM had a similar issue.
And a Tesla hack revealed earlier this month let hackers completely shut down a
moving car.
Every honeymoon comes to an end sooner or later, and so it was with
Consumer Reports
and its former paramour, the Tesla Model S electric
car.
As part of its yearly reliability report on cars sold in the U.S.
market, the respected consumer magazine said it could no longer recommend
the Model S because the car's predicted reliability is below average.
Specifically, CR said, "The main problem areas involved the drivetrain,
power equipment, charging equipment, giant iPad-like center console, and
body and sunroof squeaks, rattles, and leaks."
... ... ...
This year, climate control, steering, and suspension systems all appeared to have more
problems than they did during the 2014 model year. And complaints about the drive system from
owners of older 2013 cars have risen as well, CR said.
The most common problems involve replacement of the electric motors, warped brake rotors, door
handles that fail to slide out as a driver approaches, and numerous squeaks and rattles, which
may be more apparent given the very quiet nature of electric propulsion.
Other problem areas cited by Tesla owners are leaking cooling pumps for the battery pack, dead
windshield wipers, persistent alignment issues with the wheels, and misaligned latches for the
front trunklid and the rear liftgate.
Thus far, all such problems have been handled under Tesla's four-year/50,000-mile warranty (it's
eight years and unlimited mileage on the powertrain) -- and owners appear to be pleased with the
level of attentiveness and customer service they have received.
But Consumer Reports notes that once the car is out of warranty, such problems could become
expensive for owners of older Teslas to fix.
"... I understand that economies of scale may lower unit costs, improve financials and allow paying down of debt. Or may not. In real life, not all Davids win a fight against Goliaths. ..."
"... In my opinion, the world is now just full of financial BS artists. I believe that in the not too distant past, when Carnegie started the new steel industry, or Rockefeller with oil, or the railroads with Vanderbilt, or Henry Ford with the auto, or Bill Gates with computers, or Steve Jobs with computers, or any number of thousands of people – that their view, nor that of their backers was -"net losses, negative cash flows and rising debt" was NOT viewed as NORMAL. But, today's BS artists seem to think so. ..."
"... Here is Tesla's major, major problem – well, one of them. Their production division is a train wreck. They are having huge problems even rolling out 50K per year. They only shipped 800 vehicles in March. ..."
"... FYI, even with a well-oiled-mass-market vehicle production machine like GM, it takes about 8-9 months of pre-production assembly line runs to get the product tweaks and the line up to full retail production capacity. GM started pre-production on the Bolt about 2 months ago. For Tesla to be hitting 7/1/17 mass production, they need have the line re-tooled for their high-volume and doing pre-production runs by this October. Yeah, right. ..."
As I said above, "I know that this is a new, high-growth industry, so net losses, negative
cash flows and rising debt should be viewed as something normal."
I understand that economies of scale may lower unit costs, improve financials and allow
paying down of debt. Or may not. In real life, not all Davids win a fight against Goliaths.
My question is: how many years a company in a new industry can remain loss-making before the
market recognizes that it is in financial trouble?
5 years, 10 years, 15 years?
Meanwhile, Tesla's plans are becoming even more ambitious
AlexS says "I know that this is a new, high-growth industry, so net losses, negative cash flows
and rising debt should be viewed as something normal."
In my opinion, the world is now just full of financial BS artists. I believe that in the not
too distant past, when Carnegie started the new steel industry, or Rockefeller with oil, or the
railroads with Vanderbilt, or Henry Ford with the auto, or Bill Gates with computers, or Steve
Jobs with computers, or any number of thousands of people – that their view, nor that of their
backers was -"net losses, negative cash flows and rising debt" was NOT viewed as NORMAL. But,
today's BS artists seem to think so.
I am not criticizing AlexS, although he may have been influenced by such propaganda. The NORMAL
would be for a new industry to have windfall profits, protected by patents, that would eventually
wane away as other competitors, and new technology came onto the scene. Think – Xerox, Polaroid,
Eastman Kodak, Alcoa, Gateway Computer, Bomar Brain, etc.
Remember, normal is an average, so there are examples on both ends of the spectrum.
shallow sand, 05/05/2016 at 5:00 pm
Seems like after hearing Musk on the CC today, even some of the believers are starting to waiver.
The one that got me was that they took all of these $1000 REFUNDABLE deposits and applied them
to their line.
Has anyone there ever heard of escrow or trust account?
Ves, 05/05/2016 at 5:54 pm
" applied them to their line."
It's free money :) almost like QE from the Fed :)
HVACman, 05/05/2016 at 7:46 pm
Here is Tesla's major, major problem – well, one of them. Their production division is
a train wreck. They are having huge problems even rolling out 50K per year. They only shipped
800 vehicles in March.
The current excuse given is "supplier problems" And they think they can ramp up this broken
production unit to roll out 10x more – 500K per year – in just two years? With cash problems?
With product engineering problems? (elsewhere in the earnings comments, the Model X is noted as
the most difficult-to-build vehicle in the world. That is an engineering problem- not production
or parts.)
They are desperate for cash flow. You'd think job 1 would to to keep their inventory/parts ordering/production
processes all tightly linked so every single vehicle that is ordered is shipped ASAP. You don't
get paid until you ship. Even one-man businesses understand that.
Below is an actual excerpt from Musk's comments about the Model 3 delivery date (nominally 7/1/17
and why he already says it will slip), vehicle assembly complexity, and Tesla's parts supplier
problems. Pathetic. If a CEO at GM/Ford/BMW/Kia/everyone else ever said their production/inventory
control was this out of control, their board would immediately fire them for incompetence. Oh,
wait, Elon is the largest stockholder and controls the board.
"The date, I'm sure this will leak, it's hard to keep a secret really, the date we are setting
with suppliers to get to volume production capability with the Model 3 is July 1 next year.
Now, will we actually be able to achieve volume production on July 1 next year? Of course not.
The reason is that even if 99% of the internally produced items and supplier items are available
on July 1, we still cannot produce the car because you cannot produce a car that is missing
1% of its components. Nonetheless, we need to, both internally and with suppliers, take that
date seriously, and there need to be some penalties for anyone, internally or externally, who
does not meet that timeframe. This has to be the case because there's just no way that you
have several thousand components, all of whom make it on a particular date."
FYI, even with a well-oiled-mass-market vehicle production machine like GM, it takes about
8-9 months of pre-production assembly line runs to get the product tweaks and the line up to full
retail production capacity. GM started pre-production on the Bolt about 2 months ago. For Tesla
to be hitting 7/1/17 mass production, they need have the line re-tooled for their high-volume
and doing pre-production runs by this October. Yeah, right.
"... There are limits of battery technology in the energy per unit of weight metric that can principally achieved and IMHO lithium batteries are close to this limit: that's why they are so dangerous if overheated - a lot of energy is stored in a relatively small volume/weight. That also means that going further this path increases the danger of fire. ..."
"... This is already a mature production, so further reductions of costs are problematic. ..."
"... That Tesla business model probably won't work out that way. I can't find the link, but recently read that the lithium won't be cheap enough. The lithium miners so far have refused to sell their product at the low prices "demanded by Tesla." If those miners continue to be unreasonable by refusing to sell cheap (below their cost of production), our whole dream of cheap, long range electric cars for the masses to continue BAU will turn out to be a pipe dream. ..."
"... Or have we high-graded lithium, just like oil, so new mines will work lower grade ore in tougher places, while magically and dramatically reducing their costs? (Sarcasm intended). ..."
"... Those projections of 30% price reductions are probably ignoring the geology, similar to projections of perpetual oil abundance. ..."
"... So why do we think electric cars are so great for our future? Can't figure that one out. Disconnect in thinking? Hopium? ..."
"... "For 2015 the Mercedes S class sold 21,934 vehicles in the US" "The best selling Mercedes is the C class with 89,080 cars sold in the US in 2015" ..."
I'll let folks go see the disaster that is Nissan Leaf sales themselves. Freefall. April sales
787. Not 787K. 787.
The curse of rapidly advancing technology. The Chevy Bolt, and Tesla 3 are likely making prospective
EV buyers keep their powder dry or put it towards a 2017 Chevy Volt.
It is interesting that Watcher dismisses the Volt as a gasoline powered car. It has a range
of 53 miles on battery when fully charged. As the charging network improves the effective range
for a round trip becomes 106 miles. It may be "gas powered", but for a lot of people the fuel
economy (for gasoline only) may be about 1100 miles per gallon (that would be about one 10 gallon
tank of gas per 11,000 miles driven). For longer trips people will use their F150 :-) .
Battery cost has been falling by 15%/year, so cheaper is coming, lighter, probably not so much,
though there is research on better battery technology and as demand increases energy density may
increase as well with further technological improvements.
Those expectations of progress in car batteries are somewhat similar to LTO dreams.
There are limits of battery technology in the energy per unit of weight metric that can principally
achieved and IMHO lithium batteries are close to this limit: that's why they are so dangerous
if overheated - a lot of energy is stored in a relatively small volume/weight. That also means
that going further this path increases the danger of fire.
The technology is 25 years old. "First lithium-ion battery prototype was produced in 1985,
a rechargeable and more stable version of the lithium battery; Sony commercialized the lithium-ion
battery in 1991. [37]"
Cost of production plants and cost of the pack as well as variables involved are well researched.
Including by US government. See for example:
It is seen that the plant requires a total of 90 workers per shift, $127,450,000 worth of
capital equipment, and 15,425 square meters of plant area to manufacture the baseline battery
at a rate of 100,000 battery packs per year.
Look at Table 5.9. Summary of results for cost of baseline battery and that of similar batteries
with double the power and double the capacity of the baseline battery to understand limits of
efficiency of production.
I think that the economy of scale is already fully in, so further reductions of costs at the
rate of 15% per year (45% in three years) are unrealistic. Where did you got those forecasts?
Price might even increase if components cost increase.
This is already a mature production, so further reductions of costs are problematic.
A youtube video that Fred posted had battery research, it does not have to be lithium ion,
but it looks like continued improvements are possible. Over the past 10 years of so costs have
been reduced at 14%/year.
Economies of scale as battery production ramps up further for EVs will lead to further reductions
in cost, possibly this rate will slow, but recently the rate of decrease in cost has increased
to 16% (past 3 years), we could use some lower future rate of decrease, but for another 10 years
I would expect at least a 10%/year decrease in battery costs.
Elon Musk is confident that battery pack costs can be reduced by 30% when the Gigafactory is
fully operational in 2019 (that is only a 9%/year decrease). If we assume a 9%/year drop in battery
costs, then the cost falls by 75% by 2030.
Generally the cost of Li ion batteries have been falling faster than projected. The 2012 McKinsey
report projected a cost of $160 per kWhr by 2025, but GM claims in October 2015 to have already
achieved $145 per kWhr (for cells rather than the battery pack).
The McKinsey piece was likely using pack cost rather than Cell cost. GM's pack cost is currently
estimated at about $220 per kWhr and Tesla claims its pack cost is currently $190 per kWhr. If
Musk's estimate of a 30% reduction in cost by 2019 is correct then the pack cost drops to $133
per kWhr by 2019.
The McKinsey report suggests that an EV is competitive with the ICEV at $2/gallon gasoline
with a battery cost of $150 per kWhr.
I do not foresee gasoline dropping under $2/gallon long term, but battery cost are likely to
continue falling.
That study is pretty old and cost reductions below suggested by that paper have already been
achieved. The 14-16% annual cost reductions are what have been achieved over the past 15 years
or so. I agree future rates will be lower, but thinking that costs will not fall further is unlikely.
The Tesla Giga factory is expected to reach full capacity in 2020 and battery costs are expected
to decrease 30% by 2020 (only 7%/year). Pack costs would fall by 52% from 2015 to 2015 if a 7%/year
cost reduction is achieved. Pack cost would be under $100 per kWhr by 2025.
That Tesla business model probably won't work out that way. I can't find the link, but recently
read that the lithium won't be cheap enough. The lithium miners so far have refused to sell their
product at the low prices "demanded by Tesla." If those miners continue to be unreasonable by
refusing to sell cheap (below their cost of production), our whole dream of cheap, long range
electric cars for the masses to continue BAU will turn out to be a pipe dream.
Someone better open a new super high quality lithium mine ASAP. Surely there is a high grade
ore deposit with all necessary infrastructure just waiting for the price of lithium to drop so
low that only the new mine can sell at Tesla's demanded price and make profit. Once the new mine
opens, it should be able to put the higher cost miners out of business, create a shortage, and
raise the price beyond Tesla's reach. Or have we high-graded lithium, just like oil, so new mines
will work lower grade ore in tougher places, while magically and dramatically reducing their costs?
(Sarcasm intended).
Those projections of 30% price reductions are probably ignoring the geology, similar to
projections of perpetual oil abundance.
It seems that global population is in overshoot and that BAU probably can't continue for the
masses, or grow to include lots more masses in developing countries. Then there is climate change
and degradation of environmental systems that we depend on for life services.
So why do we think electric cars are so great for our future? Can't figure that one out.
Disconnect in thinking? Hopium?
Thanks for your optimism. It is a stark contrast to many unpleasant alternatives that, frankly,
seem more likely. I doubt that much of what you foresee will turn out the way you think, but I
do hope you are at least partly right:-)
The reduced price of the battery is not based on falling lithium prices, it is based on lower
cost of production due to economies of scale. The cost of lithium ion battery packs have been
falling at 11.3% per year for the past 15 years. From $1150 per kWhr in 2000 to $190 per kWhr
in 2015 (battery pack cost).
For Tesla to achieve a 30% reduction in battery pack cost from 2015 to 2020 will require an
annual rate of decrease of 6.9%. I think it likely this goal will be met even if Lithium prices
don't decrease just due to efficiencies in large scale manufacturing in the Gigafactory (a joint
venture between Tesla and Panasonic).
This is already a mature production so further reductions of costs are problematic.
I very highly doubt that is even remotely true. I recently posted a link about the current
state of the art and where the research is heading. Here it is again.
Batteries
A lithium-ion battery's chemistry and electricity storage are governed by four key components
– the anode, cathode, separator and electrolyte. Lithium-ion battery cells are then combined
into larger modules that are packaged in housings, often referred to as the battery pack, which
utilize cooling systems, electronic interfaces and controls.
EVs can be the cost catalyst for energy storage. EV sales perpetuate lower battery costs,
leading to more cars sold, leading to lower batteries, and so on.
UBS lists the following as the key drivers for a reduction in total cost of the lithium-ion
battery:
(1) Increasing manufacturing scale and productivity;
(2) Reducing the cost of battery materials and components;
(3) Increasing battery energy density and lifespan (minimizing battery fade/maximising the
number of charge cycles).
baterry costs
Where the cost go
Cell manufacturing alone contributes to nearly a third of the battery cost. Economies of scale
will begin to take a heavy bite from this slice of the pie reducing significantly the cost.
Cathode material developments are the second largest cost and for that reason have been a key
area of focus. Still, cost savings in all areas of the battery are being optimised which contributes
to the continuing falling price of the battery.
Lithium-ion battery costs for automotive applications have already come down aggressively
in the past three years, with pack costs having fallen from US$500/kWh in 2013 to US$360/kWh
today. Umicore believes that this total pack cost will fall to below US$200/kWh by 2020. Tesla
sees a pack cost of less than US$100/kWh within 10 years
The battery packs have been getting cheaper, they have decreased from $1150 per kWhr in 2000
to $190 per kWhr in 2015, so slightly more than a factor of 5, costs will continue to fall as
production of larger battery packs for cars ramps up due to economies of scale. They may not be
able to increase the specific energy much further as we don't want to break any physical laws.
:-)
For 2015 the Mercedes S class sold 21,934 vehicles in the US, the Tesla Model S sold 25,202
cars in the US. The best selling Mercedes is the C class with 89,080 cars sold in the US in 2015.
It will be interesting to see how long it will be before Tesla beats the C class with the model
3, maybe in 2018 unless there are delays in the release of the Model 3. It will be interesting
to see the sales of the Chevy Bolt in 2017, that car is the reason the Nissan Leaf is not selling,
people are waiting for the Bolt.
I don't judge, people can spend their money as they choose. The average selling price of a
new light duty vehicle in the US is $33,000. The $80,000 Tesla Model S might last a very long
time, if it lasted 3 times as long as the average $33,000 car and saves $27,000 in fuel costs
over its 450,000 mile life, then with no discounting we would come out $47,000 ahead with the
30 year old Tesla, and for the first 15 years or so you would have a very nice car, it might get
a little old from year 16 to 30 though.
"... EV will never became competitive with ICEV at $2/gallon. First of all Tesla might be bankrupt sooner then 2019. Mask's aura might some point disappear, but debts remain. Remember that Tesla S is $70K car and as such this is a "no go" for mass market. So this guy might build the factory, but people will not buy his cars. Adventurism can't always be compensated by slick marketing. Then what? ..."
"... Also at below $4/gallon gasoline the incentives to buy EV other then status symbol are minimal. You need oil at or above $5/gallon for any substantial volume of sales increase. ..."
Amazon lost money for years and they aren't even in a capital intensive industry.
Continental is nothing new, but if lithium ion battery costs fall to under $150 per kWhr (pack
level cost) EVs become competitive with ICEV even at $2/gallon gasoline (2015$) and Tesla might
be a big deal when they reach 500,000 Model 3 vehicles per year (maybe in 2019, but more likely
2020).
I imagine gasoline will be at $3/gallon in 2019, though if EVs take off oil prices may never
reach $100/b due to lack of demand.
EV will never became competitive with ICEV at $2/gallon. First of all Tesla might be bankrupt
sooner then 2019. Mask's aura might some point disappear, but debts remain. Remember that Tesla
S is $70K car and as such this is a "no go" for mass market. So this guy might build the factory, but
people will not buy his cars. Adventurism can't always be compensated by slick marketing. Then
what?
If oil price rise substantially, lithium battery costs might also rise because mining costs
will rise. And reserves of improving technology and cutting price are not that great, far less
then your super bold (and pretty unrealistic) 15% a year estimate (45% in three years).
Also at below $4/gallon gasoline the incentives to buy EV other then status symbol are minimal.
You need oil at or above $5/gallon for any substantial volume of sales increase.
As electricity consumption in the US stands around 10 billion kWh per day, a replacement of
1 mill barrels of gasoline per day (out of roughly 9 mill bbl/) means an increase of 15 % of electricity
consumption.
If all of the gasoline consumption would be replaced by electric cars, this would be roughly
a doubling of electricity consumption.
Electric cars would require much less electricity consumption as the oil equivalent, yet the
conversion factor for natgas to electricity is at a maximum of 50%.
An electric car gets 3-5 miles/KWh from the batteries. (my Nissan leaf, real world
figures). The most efficient diesels get about 1.5 miles/KWh. (My car, 1.2l engine) The latest
designs of combined cycle gas turbine power station are over 60% efficient. There are transmission
and battery charging losses. The higher mileage figures for the electric are partly thermodynamics,
partly aerodynamics, partly regenerative braking and partly driving style to maximise range .
The latter will decline as electric car ranges increase and drivers lose range anxiety and start
racing the lights again.
USA VMT is 3 * 10e12 miles per year so full electric conversion would require about
10e12 / 365 ~= 3 billion KWh (excluding heavy trucks and buses, etc). a 30% increase, not a doubling.
Did you also consider that electric cars have up to ten times less milage during the winter?
In addition, the average car has much more weight than the average electric car. Then there are
also transmission losses and you have to calculate electricity generated from the utility.
I guess doubling electricity demand is still a good estimate.
As most electricity is generated by 60% with fossil fuels at a conversion factor of 50%, it
is probably better to use natgas or NGL for cars rather than produce more electricity. To use
electric cars in a grand scale would make sense only if the complete electric supply is in wind
and solar and hydro pumping storage. Yet this may take a few decades and requires enormous capital.
10 times worse mileage in winter, I am doubtful that is a good estimate, sounds like someone
from a warm climate driving in winter with the heat on maximum.
The ice gets about 20% of the energy to the wheels, the EV about 90%.
If we use natural gas to produce electricity and get 50% efficiency and 8% is list in transmission
and distribution and another 8% charging losses. then we have 0.5*.92*.92*.9=38% of the energy
goes to the wheels. We still get twice as much energy to the Wheels in an EV as we do using natural
gas to power an ice where efficiency would be no greater than 20% gas tank to wheels. We would
also need to build out a lot of infrastructure for natural gas or propane fueling.
We have to convert from AC to DC using a charger. Let's assume that it is 95% efficient.
But not all energy from changer is stored in the battery. We need to consider leakage of energy
during conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy first and then back converting chemical
energy into electricity. Battery also have some ohmic resistance, so part of the energy is converted
to heat. I do not have real figures by I think a typical loss here is 10 to 15%.
Depending on the chosen drive train technology, the DC power is converted to frequency-modulated
AC or to voltage-adjusted DC, before motors can provide motion for the wheels. There are losses
here too.
Also high efficiency of electrical motor is possible only when it directly rotates the wheels.
If there is a mechanical component in between like a differential it is less.
By multiplying the efficiency numbers one obtains for the maximum possible efficiency of EV
car. It is much less then claimed.
A very important part of the study then, was to show where the electricity is going: to
the motor, or the auxiliaries (for example, heating/cooling, battery management system, and
lights). For each car, the share of the energy consumption going to auxiliaries (in percentage)
is as follows. 40.1 ; 35.8 ; 21.6 ; 22.0 ; 36.4.
… … …
Overall, the energy efficiency of each car, plug to wheel, is as follows. 47.0% ; 49.7% ; 63.2%
; 59.1% ; 51.6%. That's much better than any gas or diesel could achieve, even with the addition
of a hybrid powertrain.
Heinrich, you're wrong because electric cars are so much more efficient (90%) than gasoline cars
(about 20%).
Calculating based on actual real-world mileage rates of the Tesla Model S, replacing all gasoline
consumption in the US with EVs would add about 1 billion kwh/day. About 10% of US electrical demand.
A bit less actually.
I think that is the wrong question to be asking. The answer might actually be very little if any
at all. EVs might end up working as a battery storage system for the grid.
…"[The cars] essentially act as batteries for the grid," he said. During periods of low
demand, the batteries charge on low-cost electricity, and they can later sell that power back
to the grid when prices rise during periods of high demand, making a profit, he said.
The grid benefits from the arrangement as well. It is cheaper than cycling on and off thermal
power plants and can be deployed more quickly, said Michael Kormos, senior vice president of operations
at PJM.
"... This wet dream about mass usage of EV is pretty annoying. The elementary thing: the capacity of the grid to charge them is not taken into account. They are OK if and only if when there are only few of them in a given neighborhood. As soon as they get critical mass they kill the grid. Those naïve souls who are salivating about EV can't even calculate how much energy in kilowatt hours contains a regular 15 gallon gas tank and how similar amount of energy (let's say half) can be transferred to charging stations via electrical grid taking into account the density of population. If put against the wall they start mumbling something about solar charging stations for each house, etc. For which you need space and considerable additional investment and they do not work well in winter in many regions and never work in bad weather. ..."
"... All this talk about advantages of Leaf is incompetent to the extent it is disgusting to read. Leaf is technological dead end as battery does not scale and will not without some technological break through; as such it can't in reality compete with Prius and similar hybrids as a passenger car even in case of very short commutes as there always a few cases during a year when a short commute become a long commute (problems with trains, etc). It can complete only as a fashionable gadget for enthusiasts, who are ready to live with its shortcomings (and in winter it is a bad, inferior car by all parameters; while in extremely hot days in summer it is a dangerous car due to lithium battery used). ..."
"... Hybrids from all technological parameters eat pure EV for lunch. There is nothing even to speak about in engineering terms here, but again and again some enthusiasts try to push EV into our throats. Unless clear engineering advantages over hybrids can be demonstrated this proselytizing of another stupid techocult probably should be stopped. ..."
"... Very well said Likbez. If you really want to have a an impact on gasoline use nationwide, hybrids and PHEVs are the only way. Pure EVs just won't scale due to grid and climate considerations. And it's also possible for ICE powered vehicles to come close to hybrids in MPG but at a much lower cost. A PHEV runs in electric mode for most trips but still has unlimited range eliminating the need for a second car and all the environmental damage and expense an extra vehicle imposes. ..."
I don't know which non-sequitur to address first. That a decline in the age of oil = proof that
the world is transforming to EV? That the fact that I don't use a flip phone phone means … what?
I live in ground zero for EVs. The Tesla factory is twenty minutes from my home. There is no
place more EV-friendly than Silicon Valley. Even so, EVs are relatively few and far between. The
few people know who have an EV also has an ICE vehicle. The EV is of an eco status symbol pure
and simple.
Now let's talk about reality. About people in my home town area in upstate New York where unemployment
and underemployment are reampant, where cold winters would put huge stress on EV batteries (think
heaters), where people struggle to put food on the table much less spend the money needed to buy
an EV.
Now lets talk about people in cities like NYC (where I moved from) and other high density areas
that would seem perfect locations for EVs. Except there aren't places to plug in on the street
and most people don't have garages. Where the hell do they get the juice? And there's plenty of
public transportation anyway.
So who do EVs help? Pretty much they help relatively well-off people in suburban locations
where they have a garage to charge the car in overnight. In other words, EVs are aimed straight
at keeping affluent suburbia running in a BAU manner. But even in suburbia most people can't afford
(or don't see the point in buying) an EV as an extra vehicle - and even at 200 mile range it's
still an extra vehicle. People do need to travel more than 200 miles at times.
The cost of an EV at $35K plus would buy an awful lot of gas even at much higher prices.
This wet dream about mass usage of EV is pretty annoying. The elementary thing: the capacity
of the grid to charge them is not taken into account. They are OK if and only if when there are
only few of them in a given neighborhood. As soon as they get critical mass they kill the grid.
Those naïve souls who are salivating about EV can't even calculate how much energy in kilowatt
hours contains a regular 15 gallon gas tank and how similar amount of energy (let's say half)
can be transferred to charging stations via electrical grid taking into account the density of
population. If put against the wall they start mumbling something about solar charging stations
for each house, etc. For which you need space and considerable additional investment and they
do not work well in winter in many regions and never work in bad weather.
They are probably OK for top 1% or 10%. Tesla cars are a nice prestige symbol. And in a sense
might be a better deal then to spend comparable amount of money on Mercedes (although less safe).
That's it.
All this talk about advantages of Leaf is incompetent to the extent it is disgusting to
read. Leaf is technological dead end as battery does not scale and will not without some technological
break through; as such it can't in reality compete with Prius and similar hybrids as a passenger
car even in case of very short commutes as there always a few cases during a year when a short
commute become a long commute (problems with trains, etc). It can complete only as a fashionable
gadget for enthusiasts, who are ready to live with its shortcomings (and in winter it is a bad,
inferior car by all parameters; while in extremely hot days in summer it is a dangerous car due
to lithium battery used).
Hybrids from all technological parameters eat pure EV for lunch. There is nothing even
to speak about in engineering terms here, but again and again some enthusiasts try to push EV
into our throats. Unless clear engineering advantages over hybrids can be demonstrated this proselytizing
of another stupid techocult probably should be stopped.
Very well said Likbez. If you really want to have a an impact on gasoline use nationwide,
hybrids and PHEVs are the only way. Pure EVs just won't scale due to grid and climate considerations.
And it's also possible for ICE powered vehicles to come close to hybrids in MPG but at a much
lower cost. A PHEV runs in electric mode for most trips but still has unlimited range eliminating
the need for a second car and all the environmental damage and expense an extra vehicle imposes.
But if you live in California, you might still want an EV so you can use the POV lanes. That's
a compelling reason.
Subaru is leading the crossover market this coming year with the 2016 Crosstrek XV lineup!
With options ranging from standard to Premium, Limited and Hybrid Touring models, there's a
Crosstrek to suit the needs of just about any crossover lover on the market for a new crossover.
The revamped 2016 Subaru Crosstrek lineup offers several upgraded features over last year,
including additional ground clearance, improved fuel-efficiency and performance upgrades that
will appeal to everyone from daily commuters to weekend warriors.
The 2016 Subaru crossovers sport a sleek, stylish look, but underneath the shiny exterior lies
a vehicle that can easily out-perform many SUVs and other crossovers on the market! When deciding
which 2016 Subaru Crosstrek XV model is right for you, be sure to ask the following questions!
While most Crosstrek models get respectable highway fuel economy at around EPA 34 MPG hwy
(with the exception of the base model, which gets 31), the hybrid models will boost your city MPG
to EPA 34 MPG city.
The 2016 Crosstrek models all have a five-star overall NHTSA safety rating, making the
Crosstrek one of the safest crossovers you can buy. Some models do include additional features
that can make driving safer, however, including collision-avoidance and blind-spot detection.
Talk to your local Subaru dealer to learn which models include these additional features as part
of the standard package, and which would require an add-on.
Has the Subaru Crosstrek won any awards?
Subaru is known for reliability and performance, and the Crosstrek is no exception. The 2016
Crosstrek was awarded as the compact vehicle that retains its value longer than any other vehicle
in the compact segment, according to ALG. In addition, the Crosstrek is also among the list of
Consumer Reports Best New Cars Under $25,000, Kelley Blue Book's Best 10 Hybrid Cars Under
$30,000 and Leader in Fuel Efficiency by IHS Automotive. Automotive reviewers everywhere have
praised the Subaru Crosstrek for being one of the best vehicles you can buy.
How many airbags do the 2016 Crosstrek models have?
All 2016 Subaru Crosstrek models come with a total of seven airbags, including front, front seat
side, pelvis and torso, side-curtain and driver knee airbags. The Crosstrek airbag system uses a
variety of advanced sensors to deploy airbags in the most effective way possible, for optimal
safety.
"... I am all for electrical cars but unfortunately technology is not here and hybrids will eat electrical cars for lunch for now. Repeat after me: pure electrical cars cant compete with hybrids in the current car marketplace with the current level of technology. And it is not clear to me that they will ever be able to complete with hybrids. ..."
"... Are you aware that there are serious scientific limitations of battery technology (amount of energy that can be stored chemically per kilogram of battery weight) that disallow battery storage of energy to become competitive with hydrocarbon fuels (ever). So outside limited applications like small personal cars with short range (less then 200 miles per charge; currently twice less then that within $30K per car cost limit) this technology has little or no chances. Google is your friend. ..."
"... Also battery powered cars are bad for winters as battery capacity falls when the temperature decrease; while the cost of electrical air conditioning dramatically increases cutting the range and creating health risks - think about Alaska climate and risk to be frozen is the snow when battery is out of juice, ..."
"... So they are more suitable for southern states. But for southern states the danger is battery fires, which is especially high for high capacity lithium based batteries that need to be air conditioned to decrease this risk. ..."
Always the argument is between the trend and the status quo. BAUists will insist we look backwards
by demanding data which of course can only be historical. This is an important corrective to theory
but never shows the whole picture, because it always of course supports no change, or at most
an extrapolation of the past. Never fundamental change.
Why won't oil's future follow where coal is now? I find this at least a highly plausible possibility.
It is not unlikely that a combination of electric supply and climate policies will strand a great
deal of oil at any price. How, economics of course:
What is always less clear is how long this takes, if I have learnt anything following global
change is that it usually both takes way longer than I first think, and then can also happen very
suddenly: Straws do break camels' backs.
"Why won't oil's future follow where coal is now?"
Because predictions are difficult, especially about the future. So far coal was partially replaced
in the only role where new technologies are somewhat competitive - electrical power generation
- and this happened not only because the rise of wind and solar, but also because the price of
natural gas dropped so substantially. Without the last factor the situation might reverse itself.
Not everywhere coal is replaced. High quality coal is indispensable in metallurgy.
Everything depends on technologies available. Actually the initial idea of diesel engine was
to run it on coal powder. It failed. But now with the new level of technology achieved I wonder
if something along those lines ("nanoparticles") might be feasible at least for large ships.
At some level of oil prices coal might also be used to produce liquid fuels for transportation
like Germany did during the WWII.
Natural gas is also well positioned to penetrate heavy truck and marine fuel markets if the
price remains low.
Nah, you're not really trying. Predictions are especially hard if you refuse to use your imagination.
Yes coal has been substituted by gas and renewables, that's right, oil too has been substituted
where possible by other Fossil Fuels, but why won't that substitution continue through battery
technology? I see no barriers. The cost curve will out. Over time, and not 100% anytime soon or
even ever, but enough to deal with, or even cause, a decline in production.
I like Dennis and probably everyone else here assumed the mechanism of transition would be
high oil price, but I can now see how low price can also have the similar effect, and perhaps
quicker. It quite literally leaves the stuff in the ground, as we know ever rising production
as predicted by WoodMac et al requires massive new investment, and low price kills that.
Or, what I now think is most likely, a volatile and uncertain price trajectory, demand drifting
away at the hint of price rise, but supply shrinking on each price retreat. The kind of scene
that will make it easier for fund managers to acquiesce to Climate pressure and disinvest in the
sector….
> I can now see how low price can also have the similar effect, and perhaps quicker.
Looks like wishful thinking along the lines of proponents of "peak oil consumption" hypothesis.
I think it was first voiced by Gail Tverberg. While oil consumption can really stagnate I strongly
doubt that this will happen at prices below $200 per barrel. At least it did not happen at price
over $100 per barrel. In other words there are not much facts that can support this hypothesis
and it remains in the domain of wishful thinking.
One supporting fact is that Western Europe oil consumption is pretty stagnant, but price of
gas is Western Europe is extremely high in comparison with the USA and as a result an average
personal car is much smaller. Europe is also much smaller and trips are shorter. 60 miles (roundtrip)
commute to work is unusual for Europe. So this is the price mechanism that limits consumption.
If current low oil price regime continues indefinitely in the USA and gas shortages arise,
the rise of price is the most plausible solution. Otherwise people might well soon start killing
each other to get a full trunk of gas instead of switching to hybrids or electrical cars. Also
quick increase of the amount of electrical cars on the roads will kill the US grid, especially
at summer when air conditioning is on.
I personally think that this hypothesis is wrong and the only way to limit consumption of hydrocarbon
fuels is to raise oil prices dramatically (say, above $100 per barrel).
> "why won't that substitution continue through battery technology? I see no barriers. The cost
curve will out."
I am all for electrical cars but unfortunately technology is not here and hybrids will eat
electrical cars for lunch for now. Repeat after me: pure electrical cars can't compete with hybrids
in the current car marketplace with the current level of technology. And it is not clear to me
that they will ever be able to complete with hybrids.
Are you aware that there are serious scientific limitations of battery technology (amount of
energy that can be stored chemically per kilogram of battery weight) that disallow battery storage
of energy to become competitive with hydrocarbon fuels (ever). So outside limited applications
like small personal cars with short range (less then 200 miles per charge; currently twice less then
that within $30K per car cost limit) this technology has little or no chances. Google is your
friend.
Also battery powered cars are bad for winters as battery capacity falls when the temperature
decrease; while the cost of electrical air conditioning dramatically increases cutting the range
and creating health risks - think about Alaska climate and risk to be frozen is the snow when
battery is out of juice,
So they are more suitable for southern states. But for southern states
the danger is battery fires, which is especially high for high capacity lithium based batteries
that need to be air conditioned to decrease this risk.
This is an endless and fruitless discussion that can't change mind of "red eye electrical car
enthusiasts" and I kind of regret that I wrote this reply.
"... Just check out the latest December car sales figure for China http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/total-vehicle-sales . Sales were soaring to an all time high of 2785500 cars per month, which is at least 50% higher than in the US. ..."
"... Despite the recent increase in short-term interest rates by the Federal Reserve, interest rates across the globe remain ultra-low and most central banks continue to add liquidity, providing support for global financial conditions and car sales. ..."
Glen, Patrick said sales were softening, he didn't say they had stopped. They are softening because
the entire Chinese economy is slowing down. Do you really expect a 7% growth rate year over year
to continue? You do realize that such a growth rate means a doubling of the Chinese economy every
decade. As the late Professor Albert Bartlett used to say: "The greatest shortcoming of the
human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Just check out the latest December car sales figure for China
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/total-vehicle-sales
. Sales were soaring to an all time high of 2785500 cars per month, which is at least 50%
higher than in the US. Also other economic numbers in China are staggering strong: House prices
are up again, oil, iron and copper ore at all time highs… Low oil prices trigger already high
economic growth worldwide.
Here's what Scotiabank has to say in its most recent Global Auto Report:
Global car sales are expected to strengthen over the coming year, extending gains to a seventh
consecutive annual record and surpassing the length of the previous up cycle which lasted six
years….
Despite the recent increase in short-term interest rates by the Federal Reserve, interest
rates across the globe remain ultra-low and most central banks continue to add liquidity, providing
support for global financial conditions and car sales. However, there is some concern that
the sharp plunge in oil prices could lead to rising defaults for highly-indebted energy companies.
These fears have led to an increase in several risk metrics and financial market volatility
in recent months, including a spike in interest rates for high yield energy bonds to the highest
level since mid-2009.
There are those that talk about technological "revolutions" that are nothing of the sort . Hz
drilling and fracking comes to mind. But it is the truth about batteries. We are in the middle
of a revolution that is turning upside down the long-held understanding of battery charge/discharge
cycles, depth of charge/discharge, power vs energy, temperature, etc. More billions of $ have
flowed to all kinds of electrochemical storage research and engineering in the last 10 years than
probably have flowed in the entire century before.
Here's a link to LG Chem's advanced automotive battery site. They are making the traction batteries
for the Volt, the Bolt, and a lot of other auto manufacturers.
Automotive LiON traction batteries now have a longer warrantied life (in California, 10 years/150,000
miles) than any ICE engine made. That does say something, doesn't it?
You are mixing warranty for the engine with the warranty for the gas tank.
For a gas tank 10 years/150,000 miles) is just a warmup ;-). I think 100 years, unlimited miles
are achievable. There are still some Ford Model T cars with original tanks.
Well, the if you want to compare apples and apples, the warranty on the Tesla drive train, that
is, the electric motor , reduction gear and differential, is eight years/unlimited miles. That's
right, unlimited miles. It is unlikely that honoring this warranty is going to cost Tesla a great
deal.
Think of all the motors in elevators, escalators and moving walkways in airports and other
buildings all over the world that basically run non stop every day. The only parts in a three
phase induction motor that can wear out, are the bearings at either end of the motor shaft. I
put it to you that, any time you see an escalator, elevator or moving walkway closed for maintenance
it is NOT a motor issue but, some other mechanical part.
Your typical ICE will start showing signs of wear between 200-300 thousand miles or less if
not properly maintained and will invariably need an extensive engine overhaul at some point thereafter.
Similarly the battery is the main part of the EV that will degrade over time with batteries being
rated by the number of charge/discharge cycles before they degrade to a point where their performance
is considered inadequate, at which point the battery must be replaced.
So, in a BEV, your battery replacement is the equivalent of your ICE engine overhaul. The only
thing is, engine overhauls have not become less expensive over the years while it is likely that
replacement batteries will.
With over 200 thousand Nissan Leafs out there in the wild, there is going to be a huge market
for replacement batteries once the warranties on the batteries start expiring. It is very likely
that the replacement batteries will be better than the original and will also have to have warranties
of their own.
"... The rear camera mirror uses a new lens on the back of the liftgate to provide a wide-angle view behind the car, which is projected across the entire rear view mirror. ..."
"... Surround vision uses four cameras to create a 360 degree view around the vehicle that a driver can use while parking. ..."
"... the vehicle is "optimal" for GM's partnership with ride-sharing service Lyft. ..."
"... Karl Brauer, senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book, said the Bolt represents "the first serious electric vehicle available to mainstream consumers. "It will be interesting test to see how the market embraces the Bolt in this era of cheap gas, but from a value and function standpoint it sets a new benchmark in alternative fuel options." ..."
"... Customers have been slow to embrace electric cars. ..."
"... Chevy until now has been touting a 200-mile figure, but Gesse said that the vehicle's range will actually be greater than that number. ..."
Las Vegas - Chevrolet hopes its all-new Bolt EV will be an affordable option that will eliminate
electric car range anxiety.
The Detroit automaker unveiled the Bolt at a Wednesday press conference at the CES technology
show.
The five-seat car will have a range of more than 200 miles and take nine hours to fully charge,
according to General Motors Co. officials. It can get to an 80 percent charge in 60 minutes. The
Bolt starts at $30,000 - including a federal tax credit - and will go into production late next year
at the automaker's Orion Township plant alongside the Chevy Sonic.
"It's the first EV that cracks the code of long range and affordable price," GM Chairman and CEO
Mary Barra said. "We see the Bolt as more than a car. It's an upgradable platform for new technology."
Barra said the Bolt can be updated as autonomous technology comes out, and the car could serve
as the ideal option for its partnership with ride-sharing service Lyft. The automaker earlier this
week announced it was investing $500 million in the service.
Chevy is waiting to unveil more details about the battery and performance until next week at the
North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Some parts of the car, including the headlamps
and tail lamps, were still wrapped in camouflage packaging during the media drives on Tuesday.
"It's bringing 200 mile-range to everybody," said Darin Gesse, product manager for the Bolt. "It's
for the masses."
Officials touted the Bolt's large interior space - 94.4 cubic feet - and roominess in the front
and back. It features a deep center console that's big enough to store an iPad or purse and there's
plenty of space underneath its 10.2-inch color touchscreen, which offers a new version of Chevy's
MyLink infotainment system.
"You won't make any compromises when it comes to space in the Bolt EV," Barra said.
The two front seats also use a thinner seat-back, which leads to more legroom and space for the
rear passengers. The battery is packaged below the vehicle for even more room and a flat floor.
Gesse said the Bolt will feature two technological firsts for Chevy: a rear camera mirror and
surround vision.
The rear camera mirror uses a new lens on the back of the liftgate to provide a wide-angle view
behind the car, which is projected across the entire rear view mirror.
Surround vision uses four cameras to create a 360 degree view around the vehicle that a driver
can use while parking.
The car will allow customers to post their one-charge range and best efficiency numbers online
to compete against others.
Pam Fletcher, GM's executive chief engineer for electrified vehicles, said
the vehicle is "optimal"
for GM's partnership with ride-sharing service Lyft.
Alan Batey, GM's head of the Chevrolet brand, said he doesn't expect the Bolt will eat into Volt
sales.
"We think they're very different vehicles," Batey said. "We wanted the Bolt to move more into
the crossover space."
Karl Brauer, senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book, said the Bolt represents "the first serious
electric vehicle available to mainstream consumers. "It will be interesting test to see how the market
embraces the Bolt in this era of cheap gas, but from a value and function standpoint it sets a new
benchmark in alternative fuel options."
Customers have been slow to embrace electric cars.
In the much of the Midwest, the charging infrastructure
is still lacking, but Gesse said the 200-mile Bolt will help ease some of that concern.
"It's almost like treating it like your cellphone," Gesse said. "You come home, plug it in and
it's ready for you the next day. You can make a long-distance trip and make those extra errands you
wouldn't be able to in a normal EV."
Chevy until now has been touting a 200-mile figure, but Gesse said that the vehicle's range will
actually be greater than that number.
"We know we'll be over (200 miles), we just don't know how far we'll be over," he said.
GM's Executive VP of Global Product Development, Purchasing & Supply Chain Mark Reuss
"... Try wrapping your mind around that. The oil age is dying by a million cuts and you keep telling me things I already know not to be so! The old economic model is dying and all you have to offer is a lashing out at windmills such as Team Green! ..."
"... I already heard such statements during dot-com boom. So in a way you can be considered as the second generation of red eye dot-com enthusiasts. ..."
"... Are you sure that your driverless cars will consume less fuel then regular cars ? If not then this is just increase of rate of profit for Uber and trucking companies and increased poverty of people who became unemployed as a result. ..."
"... And crashes while more rare can be more severe and involve more cars simultaneously. Complex software always has bugs so in complex situations it will misbehave. BTW who will be the guilty party in this case? Google? ..."
"... As for your desire to change the existing economic model, I am with you, but good luck. As Margaret Thatcher said neoliberalism is here to stay (probably until hydrocarbons are gone). She formulated this principle as TINA ("there is no alternative") and it is connected with the power of the alliance of transnational elites and financialization of the economy that neither driverless car not alterative sources of electricity are capable to break. ..."
"... Driverless cars will be subject to and vulnerable to vandalism. Raising hell just for the hell of it has always been a sport, so slashed tires, broken windshields, tail lights, deliberate accidents just to make driverless vehicles useless will probably take place, so the idea will be abandoned due to idiocy and nonsense. In the final analysis, the costs will be higher, repairs, more tires, windshields, vehicles disabled etc. will end up the norm. Humans know how to make it all an unbelievable mess and don't care. ..."
And just where are these consecrated "alternatives to fossil fuels," other than in your very
active imagination?
You keep thinking I'm talking about things that I'm not all that concerned
about. My focus is on disruption which you apparently don't want to or are unable to grasp.
You are either delusional, an ideologue or suffering from early onset dementia if you want
to ignore the potential consequences of the kinds of disruption that are happening everywhere,
right now.
You keep saying things about Team Green and that I am divorced from reality by talking about
a "Glorious Future" based on alternative energy or some other such nonsense!
I keep telling you that is NOT what I'm talking about nor do I in any way shape or form think
that the future is destined to be glorious. I have repeatedly said that I am completely agnostic
about what will happen because I don't have a clue as to how things will actually shake out. But
to completely ignore what is happening right now, like you and a few others here is a sign that
you really don't understand what is happening! You are in denial of reality.
Here's an example of the tip of the iceberg of what I'm talking about. And Uber is already
100% committed to a driverless future.
Try wrapping your mind around that. The oil age is dying by a million cuts and you keep telling
me things I already know not to be so! The old economic model is dying and all you have to offer
is a lashing out at windmills such as Team Green!
Even Don Quixote eventually figured it out but you have your head so deep in the sand you can't
distinguish reality from what you wish were true.
BTW, just to be clear when I say the only way forward is to build an economy based on alternatives
to fossil fuel what I mean is that the economic model which includes things like private car ownership
and all the industries, especially the oil industry and infrastructure that go along with it and
the financial system that needs infinite growth to keep it going can't and won't be able to continue.
So you and I are as clueless as toddlers that have wandered off into the woods!
Did you ever read Douglas Adam's books?
It's been a long time for me, but dead black glasses were very popular in his imaginary worlds
, as they enabled people worried about things to simply NOT SEE what worried them.
You keep thinking I'm talking about things that I'm not all that concerned
about. My focus is on disruption which you apparently don't want to or are unable to grasp.
Oh there's going to be disruption alright, but my focus is on energy, because I was under the
impression that this is a peak oil blog, and not something akin to the Royal Academy of Lagado,
with its solemn "projectors" laboring to extract sunbeams from cucumbers, build houses from the
roof down, and restore the nutritive value of human shit, all convinced of the value of their
work.
And when it comes to energy, the Uber comparison doesn't cut it. It's a paralogalism called
false equivalence. Producing energy, or any commodity as far as that is concerned, isn't the same
as marketing a service.
And when it comes to energy, the Uber comparison doesn't cut it. It's a paralogalism called
false equivalence. Producing energy, or any commodity as far as that is concerned, isn't the same
as marketing a service.
If you think that disruptions caused by Uber have nothing to do
with energy consumption and therefore energy production or demand collapse then I will leave you
alone because you are an example of one of the blind men examining the elephant. You just can't
imagine what the whole elephant is like and you keep insisting that it's a tree, or a snake, or
a wall.
And while this is certainly a blog about 'Peak Oil' that has never, at least as I understand
it, been it's sole focus. But for what it's worth I would love to learn more about extracting
sunbeams from cucumbers, please tell us more!
"The old economic model is dying and all you have to offer is a lashing out at windmills such
as Team Green!"
I already heard such statements during dot-com boom. So in a way you can be
considered as the second generation of red eye dot-com enthusiasts.
Are you sure that your driverless cars will consume less fuel then regular cars ? If not then
this is just increase of rate of profit for Uber and trucking companies and increased poverty
of people who became unemployed as a result.
What will fundamentally change, if you remove the driver from the car? You just eliminate salary
of the driver if he/she is an employee. That will not solve the problems of congestions of traffic
in the morning, or the problem of fuel efficiency of the cars/trucks. Home office (telecommuting)
solves this problem for some categories of workers, but for some reason you do not advocate it.
And crashes while more rare can be more severe and involve more cars simultaneously. Complex
software always has bugs so in complex situations it will misbehave. BTW who will be the guilty
party in this case? Google?
As for your desire to change the existing economic model, I am with you, but good luck. As
Margaret Thatcher said neoliberalism is here to stay (probably until hydrocarbons are gone). She
formulated this principle as TINA ("there is no alternative") and it is connected with the power
of the alliance of transnational elites and financialization of the economy that neither driverless
car not alterative sources of electricity are capable to break.
Not even the guy who wrote the Bible on disruption, Harvard scholar Clayton Christensen,
believes Uber is a disruptive undertaking, as he explains in an article in the Harvard Business
Review:
Is Uber a Disruptive Innovation?
Uber is clearly transforming the taxi business in the United States. But is it disrupting the
taxi business?
According to the theory, the answer is no. Uber's financial and strategic achievements do not
qualify the company as genuinely disruptive-although the company is almost always described that
way. Here are two reasons why the label doesn't fit.
Disruptive innovations originate in low-end or new-market footholds.
Disruptive innovations are made possible because they get started in two types of markets that
incumbents overlook. Low-end footholds exist because incumbents typically try to provide their
most profitable and demanding customers with ever-improving products and services, and they pay
less attention to less-demanding customers. In fact, incumbents' offerings often overshoot the
performance requirements of the latter. This opens the door to a disrupter focused (at first)
on providing those low-end customers with a "good enough" product.
In the case of new-market footholds, disrupters create a market where none existed….
A disruptive innovation, by definition, starts from one of those two footholds. But Uber did
not originate in either one. It is difficult to claim that the company found a low-end opportunity:
That would have meant taxi service providers had overshot the needs of a material number of customers
by making cabs too plentiful, too easy to use, and too clean. Neither did Uber primarily target
nonconsumers-people who found the existing alternatives so expensive or inconvenient that they
took public transit or drove themselves instead: Uber was launched in San Francisco (a well-served
taxi market), and Uber's customers were generally people already in the habit of hiring rides.
Uber has quite arguably been increasing total demand-that's what happens when you develop a
better, less-expensive solution to a widespread customer need. But disrupters start by appealing
to low-end or unserved consumers and then migrate to the mainstream market. Uber has gone in exactly
the opposite direction: building a position in the mainstream market first and subsequently appealing
to historically overlooked segments.
Disruptive innovations don't catch on with mainstream customers until quality catches up
to their standards.
Disruption theory differentiates disruptive innovations from what are called "sustaining innovations."
The latter make good products better in the eyes of an incumbent's existing customers: the fifth
blade in a razor, the clearer TV picture, better mobile phone reception. These improvements can
be incremental advances or major breakthroughs, but they all enable firms to sell more products
to their most profitable customers.
Disruptive innovations, on the other hand, are initially considered inferior by most of an
incumbent's customers. Typically, customers are not willing to switch to the new offering merely
because it is less expensive. Instead, they wait until its quality rises enough to satisfy them.
Once that's happened, they adopt the new product and happily accept its lower price. (This is
how disruption drives prices down in a market.)
Most of the elements of Uber's strategy seem to be sustaining innovations.
Are you sure that your driverless cars will consume less fuel then regular cars ? If not then
this is just increase of rate of profit for Uber and trucking companies and increased poverty
of people who became unemployed as a result.
No, and it doesn't matter, this is what you
guys don't seem to get. What we are talking about is the complete elimination of private car ownership
and a massive reduction of cars on the road. At that point how much fuel a particular vehicle
employed in transportation consumes in fuel, or if it is an EV that uses no fossil fuel at all,
becomes almost irrelevant and moot.
Cars if they exist at all will not be owned they will be shared so there won't be a need for
billions of them. So global demand for fossil fuels, assuming these vehicles are still using fossil
fuels will cause global demand for such fuels to plummet. This is just one of many many nails
in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry.
We aren't talking about Uber disrupting the taxi business, sure it is doing that right now.
But that is not the ultimate consequence of the disruption it is causing. We are talking about
the end of the automobile industry as we know it today. And all the ripples that will cause throughout
the current global economy.
R Walter, 12/27/2015 at 12:28 pm
Driverless cars will be subject to and vulnerable to vandalism. Raising hell just for
the hell of it has always been a sport, so slashed tires, broken windshields, tail lights,
deliberate accidents just to make driverless vehicles useless will probably take place, so the
idea will be abandoned due to idiocy and nonsense. In the final analysis, the costs will be
higher, repairs, more tires, windshields, vehicles disabled etc. will end up the norm. Humans
know how to make it all an unbelievable mess and don't care.
That is the way it will go moving west.
Uber is another dead man walking.
Fred Magyar, 12/27/2015 at 12:52 pm
Hmm, perhaps, I know subways in New York used to be covered with graffiti…
But what makes you think driverless cars will also be defenseless and therefore vulnerable to
attack? I don't think it is much of a stretch to imagine they might be able to take matters
into their own hands and fight back and defend themselves or at the very least call the cops.
Zip Car seems to do OK and many countries in Europe have public bicycle programs and while I'm
sure there is some theft and vandalism, as far as I know it isn't a major issue.
I dunno, but I don't think Uber can be a 'Dead Man Walking', because one, it drives, and two,
there is no man to kill if it goes driverless… :-)
Paulo, 12/27/2015 at 2:08 pm
Drove home yesterday after a Christmas visit at my daughters. It was snowing pretty hard
and the highway over 'the mountain' was packed snow, slippery, and quite treacherous. Not only
are there not enough sensors in the world to compensate for the nuances of winter driving
demands, there is such a thing as experience and judgement inherent in choosing speed, gear
used, and planning for conditions further along.
Computers can't do that, sorry. They react or act according to set parameters.
The day there are driverless cars on the highway is when I outfit my car like James Bond and
run them off the road.
The fallacy of peak oil demand is mainly due to the fact that it limit itself to the G7. which
might well exprence peak demand soon. Demand will be growing with the growth of world population and
the number of cars on the roads, which continue to increase. The main drivers will be India and
China but Arab countries also experience explosive demand. Generally Muslim world will grow
oil demand faster then the rest of the world as growth of population is concentrated predominantly
in those countries.
Notable quotes:
"... Biofuels are certainly not growing at a fast enough rate to meet world demand – much less cut into petroleum's dominance. Further, there isn't enough available arable land in the world for biofuels to ever make more than a tiny contribution to the world's oil supply. Advanced biofuels which many advocates assured us could deliver us from our oil dependence have failed to deliver. ..."
"... According to Inside EVs, a website that reports on EV sales, through the first 11 months of 2014 there were 110,011 EVs sold in the U.S. This year, sales in the first 11 months have fallen to 102,898 vehicles - a decline of 6.5%. Annual EV sales did grow rapidly from 2011 to 2013, but haven't grown much beyond 2013 s 97,507 vehicles sold. ..."
"... According to Automotive News, the first 11 months of 2014 saw overall vehicle sales in the U.S. of 15,015,434 automobiles (cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs). ..."
"... Thus, in one year the number of cars sold in the U.S. has increased by 811,200 vehicles. ..."
"... That's a one-year increase that's more than double the total EV sales of the past 5 years - and almost all of those vehicles run on petroleum. ..."
What about biofuels? The world currently consumes about 92 million barrels of oil per day. The
world produces about 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of biofuels per day. Since 2005,
biofuel production in the world has grown by 1 million barrels a day, while crude oil production
has grown by nearly 7 million barrels a day. Biofuels are certainly not growing at a fast enough
rate to meet world demand – much less cut into petroleum's dominance. Further, there isn't enough
available arable land in the world for biofuels to ever make more than a tiny contribution to the
world's oil supply. Advanced biofuels which many advocates assured us could deliver us from our oil
dependence have failed to deliver.
That brings me to the other primary contender often mentioned as a crude oil killer: the electric
vehicle (EV). In theory, as the world switches to EVs, our crude oil consumption will peak and fall.
But what is actually happening?
According to Inside EVs, a website that reports on EV sales, through the first 11 months of 2014
there were 110,011 EVs sold in the U.S. This year, sales in the first 11 months have fallen to 102,898
vehicles - a decline of 6.5%. Annual EV sales did grow rapidly from 2011 to 2013, but haven't grown
much beyond 2013′s 97,507 vehicles sold.
But 100,000 vehicles per year is nothing to sneeze at, right? Well, let's compare that against
overall vehicle sales. According to Automotive News, the first 11 months of 2014 saw overall vehicle
sales in the U.S. of 15,015,434 automobiles (cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs). That means that
electric cars sales accounted for about 0.7% of the market. But what's much more revealing is that
overall vehicle sales in the U.S. this year through November were 15,826,634 automobiles. Thus, in
one year the number of cars sold in the U.S. has increased by 811,200 vehicles.
That's a one-year
increase that's more than double the total EV sales of the past 5 years - and almost all of those
vehicles run on petroleum.
...there is still nothing on the horizon that signals even the beginning of the end of the oil
age.
"... the internal-combustion side of things is left to a slightly larger 1.8-liter I4, over the Volts 1.5-liter. ..."
"... solid numbers for a midsize sedan: 45 mpg highway, 48 mpg city and a combined fuel efficiency of 47 mpg. Range on battery alone is 55 miles. ..."
"... The combined effort of the gas engine and electric motors net 182 hp -- not quite in the realm of hybrid supercars, but a significant leap over the smaller Volt. ..."
Wesley Wren is an associate editor at Autoweek, a sister publication
of Automotive News.
Other blogs
Chevrolet announced pricing for its 2016 Malibu Hybrid -- $29,520, including an $875 destination
charge. With the base model available for less than $30K, the new Malibu costs less than the Volt
-- even though it uses a lot of modified Volt hardware.
The powertrain from the Volt is adapted to the Malibu chassis – the electric motors and drive
unit are massaged into submission in the new body. However, the internal-combustion side of things
is left to a slightly larger 1.8-liter I4, over the Volt's 1.5-liter.
The new hybrid Chevy boasts
solid numbers for a midsize sedan: 45 mpg highway, 48 mpg city and a combined fuel efficiency of
47 mpg. Range on battery alone is 55 miles.
The combined effort of the gas engine and electric motors net 182 hp -- not quite in the realm
of hybrid supercars, but a significant leap over the smaller Volt.
The 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid's lithium ion battery system, 1.8-liter engine and drive unit.
In order to scavenge as much energy as possible, the 2016 Malibu is Chevy's first shot at using
Exhaust Gas Heat Recovery -- a system that recycles heat from the exhaust to warm the cabin as well
as to keep cold-weather operation up to snuff. Normal hybrid features like regenerative braking are,
of course, equipped.
This Malibu hybrid should be better than the previous generations, thanks to the addition of next-generation
Volt technology. However, it also falls into a heated midsize hybrid bout, with the Ford Fusion,
Kia Optima and Toyota Camry all fighting for customers. And, the price itself puts it in competition
with the Malibu's most upscale trim levels.
As these start to roll out this spring, it'll be interesting to see if the new Hybrid Malibu is
as good as it needs to be.
Nissan Leaf got EPA rating of 99 combined city/highway. 34 kW per 100 miles. Which is equal to
$4/ 100 miles or 25 miles per dollar at 0.12 per kw/h.
Assuming 40 miles per gallon and $2 per gallon price we have 20 miles per dollar for ICE small
car like Spark. Hybrid gives you around 50 miles per gallon, so it is equally efficient as
Leaf and price is also approximately equal but you get larger more comfortable car.
In case of Malibu hybrid ($30) you get a midsize car.
That means that at $2 dollars per gallon hybrids will eat "pure" electrical cars for lunch.
The situation will change if gas is priced above $4 per gallon.
"... I have one question here: why not natural gas? Personal cars can run on natural gas and taxies, small delivery trucks and town buses that are running on natural gas are common in Europe. Why "green crowd" is so stubbornly and stupidly push electrical cars ? Are they a new modern cult like Seventh Day Aventists ? ..."
"... the new Malibu costs less than the Volt - even though it uses a lot of modified Volt hardware. ..."
"... The new hybrid Chevy boasts solid numbers for a midsize sedan: 45 mpg highway, 48 mpg city and a combined fuel efficiency of 47 mpg. Range on battery alone is 55 miles. ..."
What about biofuels? The world currently consumes about 92 million barrels of oil per day.
The world produces about 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of biofuels per day. Since 2005,
biofuel production in the world has grown by 1 million barrels a day, while crude oil production
has grown by nearly 7 million barrels a day. Biofuels are certainly not growing at a fast enough
rate to meet world demand – much less cut into petroleum's dominance. Further, there isn't enough
available arable land in the world for biofuels to ever make more than a tiny contribution to the
world's oil supply. Advanced biofuels which many advocates assured us could deliver us from our oil
dependence have failed to deliver.
That brings me to the other primary contender often mentioned as a crude oil killer: the electric
vehicle (EV). In theory, as the world switches to EVs, our crude oil consumption will peak and fall.
But what is actually happening? ……
It may very well be that the twilight of the coal age is upon us, because scalable replacements
are available. But there is still nothing on the horizon that signals even the beginning of the end
of the oil age.
He quotes a lot of other stats that seem to say, "The age of EVs is not upon us." But all EV fans
should read the article and give us your opinion.
I am a huge EV fan, but the battery technology is not here yet. As
well as price level and safety (lithium battery is like a bomb in your
car).
At the current battery technology level hybrids will eat "pure"
electrical cars for lunch, except for luxury brands, where "price does
not matter", "Pure" cars simply do not have any chance against them no
matter how you calculate efficiency (best hybrid give you around 50
miles per gallon).
Also it will take many years to build infrastructure to recharge
such cars in supermarkets and such. CA is ahead of other states in
this regard and might be the first state were electric cars have a
chance for a certain category of customers if gas price goes above $4.
I have one question here: why not natural gas? Personal cars can
run on natural gas and taxies, small delivery trucks and town buses
that are running on natural gas are common in Europe. Why "green
crowd" is so stubbornly and stupidly push electrical cars ? Are they a
new modern cult like Seventh Day Aventists ?
But unlike the technology for "pure" electrical cars, the
technology of hybrid cars is pretty solid "as is". We just need return
to above $4 price of gas and some of newest models are "good enough"
with the current tax incentives (I think $3.5K) if you a want midsize
sedan.
This category might continue to advance after the slump of 2015,
although low gas prices and mass switch to SUVs significantly slow
down the trend. I remember that those people in the suburbs who
commuted 50 miles or more one way started to switch to Prius when gas
price had been above $4 per gallon. This situation might repeat.
If gas price return to above $4 per gallon, this type of cars might
have a chance with its 45 mpg highway, 48 mpg city and a combined fuel
efficiency of 47 mpg for a midsize sedan.
=== quote === December 15, 2015
Chevrolet announced pricing for its 2016 Malibu Hybrid - $29,520,
including an $875 destination charge. With the base model available
for less than $30K, the new Malibu costs less than the Volt - even
though it uses a lot of modified Volt hardware.
The powertrain from the Volt is adapted to the Malibu chassis – the
electric motors and drive unit are massaged into submission in the new
body. However, the internal-combustion side of things is left to a
slightly larger 1.8-liter I4, over the Volt's 1.5-liter.
The new hybrid Chevy boasts solid numbers for a midsize sedan: 45
mpg highway, 48 mpg city and a combined fuel efficiency of 47 mpg.
Range on battery alone is 55 miles.
The combined effort of the gas engine and electric motors net 182
hp - not quite in the realm of hybrid supercars, but a significant
leap over the smaller Volt.
"... Most modern houses have at least one dedicated twenty amp 120 volt circuit. Extend that circuit outside, and you have 2.4 kilowatts – enough to drive forty or fifty miles easily after charging overnight. ..."
"There is a possibility that a supersized battery and electric motor will cost LESS in ten years
than a conventional engine, transmission , and all the related engine accessories such as gasoline
tank, exhaust system, etc."
I am all for electrical cars, but neither technology nor infrastructure
(charging stations) are present. And probably you need not $4 per gallon gas but much higher for
the switch to materialize. Probably close to $8 per gallon (European price before oil price slump)
Right now they are limited to home owners who can install special charging sockets. For apartment
dwellers they are out of reach. And the most attractive use is as the second car for short commutes
(for example daily commute to to work or train) when you own regular car, or SUV, or truck for
other needs.
With the current cost of rare metals and copper you might be right as far the gap between the
costs or regular drivetrain and electrical drivetrain, but costs of rare metals and copper can
increase dramatically in 10 years.
The EV battery is a very expensive proposition. The cost of replacing batteries in Prius is
$3,000. Leaf battery is around $5,500. Also some cells are dying during normal exploitation period
(10 years I think for Prius). Regular gas engine and transmission last longer. Assuming 10K miles
per year they can probably last 20 years (200K total).
If we assume $5000, then most probably for next decade small car drivetrain complete rebuild
costs less. Actually for $6000 you can buy a decent three years old Chevy Spark with, say, less
then 50K mileage now.
I will add that when and if electrics pure or plug in hybrid get to be just a little
more common, the number of business establishments that install chargers for their
customers will rise sharply. The business may charge for charging, think Walmart,
or provide complimentary charging, think high end restaurant or clothing store.
Ditto owners of apartment buildings and landlords who rent single family housing.
I do my own electrical work, so I know what it actually costs to install a 240
volt weather proof outlet, near a driveway or curbside. Excluding labor, which can
be outrageous in some unionized localities, five hundred dollars is more than generous.
Labor would typically be two men for a day, occasionally two days.
I would be very happy to provide a charging plug for a tenant willing to pay an
extra forty a month in rent, plus his consumption of course. I would achieve break
even in twenty four months or less on average.
A lot of landlords are mean spirited, but most understand making money occasionally
requires spending some money.
Of course labor is considerably cheaper here in Va than in a place such as Connecticut.
Otoh, the typical tenant in Connecticut could easily afford to pay a much larger
rent premium.
Most electric vehicles have their own on board charge controllers, and if you charge
at home, you really don't need a FAST charge. Overnight is FINE.
You are maybe a little optimistic about an ordinary 120 volt circuit being adequate
as a general rule, but most commuters could plug in for at least eight to ten hours
a day no problem at all, and a lot of people (retirees, stay at home house husbands
or wives, home based business people, owners of small businesses who own their own
premises ) could stay plugged in more or less continuously, except when actually driving
and shopping. Most modern houses have at least one dedicated twenty amp 120 volt circuit.
Extend that circuit outside, and you have 2.4 kilowatts – enough to drive forty or
fifty miles easily after charging overnight.
"... Through early September, Wall Street firms issued nearly $70 billion in securities backed by auto loans, up 9% from the same period a year ago, according to J.P. Morgan. About $21 billion of those were backed by subprime loans to relatively risky borrowers. ..."
How do average people afford a $33,560 car when they make $28,031 in a year? Debt, of course!
Through early September, Wall Street firms issued nearly $70 billion in securities backed by
auto loans, up 9% from the same period a year ago, according to J.P. Morgan. About $21 billion
of those were backed by subprime loans to relatively risky borrowers.
Subprime car-loan originations have taken off in recent years as lenders have loosened underwriting
criteria in this sector, allowing for borrowers with low, and often no, credit scores to get access
to financing. During the first half of 2015, lenders gave out $56.4 billion in subprime auto loans,
up 13% from the same period a year ago and up 181% from the first half of 2009, when the market
for these loans bottomed out, according to credit-reporting firm Equifax Inc.
Eight years ago, an Israeli company called Mobileye began outfitting consumer vehicles with vision-based
collision avoidance technology that uses sensors, pattern recognition and artificial intelligence
to warn drivers of risks that could lead to an accident. Its features can now be found in over 100
models across most major vehicle manufacturers (including Audi AG, BMW, Chrysler, General Motors,
Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mitsubishi, Tesla and more), and now, after proving
its capable to reduce accidents by <span style=" font-weight: 400;"> 39 percent, Mobileye is busy
working with the MTA, the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission and Ambu-Trans to bring the system to
public transportation and medical vehicles in NYC.
The small digital display sits on your dashboard and provides visual collision alerts. (Screengrab:
Mobileye.com)
Mobileye is the underlying infrastructure for autonomous vehicles, and the way it works is simple.
Just drive as you normally would and the system will alert you with auditory and visual warnings
(via a small screen on the dashboard) if you're in a situation that could lead to a collision. Using
AI technology, the Mobileye computer can measure how many seconds you are from crashing, differentiate
moving hazards like pedestrians and cyclists from immobile objects and can even detect which
direction a person is heading. In total, this allows the system to give drivers six different types
of alerts:
Forward collision warning. The system will provide an alert 2.7 seconds before
an impending collision with a vehicle. This is for when you're driving and when you're stopped
at a red light, inching closer to the car in front of you.
Pedestrian and bicycle collision warning. For impending collisions with pedestrians
or cyclists, it issues alerts 2.0 seconds before the collision.
Lane departure warning. "Some call it 'electronic rumble strip,'" Michael
Backman, vice president and general manager of Mobileye US operations, told the Observer. It provides
an alert if the vehicle is about to enter another lane without the use of a turn signal. This
can be fine-tuned for sensitivity and only functions when the car is traveling 33 MPH or more
in order to eliminate unnecessary alerts in parking lots and other places of the sort.
Headway monitoring/following time. This feature helps drivers keep a safe
distance from cars ahead of them by tracking following time, travel speed and the distance between
the vehicles. This feature is activated at 19 MPH, and if you're too close, there will be an alert.
Intelligent high beam control. To keep driving conditions safe for others
on the road at night, this feature will automatically turn high beams on and off depending on
the surrounding traffic. When tail lights are detected in front of the host vehicle up to 1,312
feet, the system will automatically turn off high beams. It will do the same when an oncoming
vehicle is detected up to 3,280 feet. When deemed safe, the system turns the high beams back on
again.
Speed limit indicator. This feature automatically recognizes speed limit signs
and alerts you if you're speeding, also displaying your speed on the dashboard screen. This can
be fine-tined, so you can choose if you want to be alerted going 5 MPH, 10 MPH or just 1 MPH over
the limit.
"There's a handful of features. Some are very valuable in urban areas, and some are better in
rural areas," Christopher Ritter, the company's regional sales manager, said as we drove around Central
Park and Manhattan's west side in a Mobileye-equipped car, testing the different features. He explained
the importance of the timing and frequency of the alerts, citing that four seconds before an impending
crash, for example, is too much time, would result in many 'false alarms' and would eventually lead
drivers to ignore the alerts.
(Go to 2:42 in the video to see how the system operates in action)
For years, consumer vehicles and freight trucks have been using Mobileye. Car manufacturers want
five-star safety ratings they can tout in their ads, and this helps them achieve that. According
to Mr. Backman, one in five fleet vehicles get into an accident each year. "Businesses see this pay
off. There's no trade off. It only helps," he said.
As mentioned, Mobileye has been shown to reduce accidents by 39 percent. When looking at only
accidents caused by the driver using the system, that number is 50 percent, according to the company.
Besides just stopping accidents in the moment, Mobileye also encourages and enforces safer driving
habits. Within Mr. Backman's first month driving with the system, he had about 280 lane departures
because he'd often change lanes without signaling. "It changed my habits," he said.
This success caught the eye of Christopher Hart, the chairman of the U.S. National Transportation
Safety Board, who said this technology should be mandated in all vehicles.
NYC is taking steps in that direction. This past summer, Mobileye began a pilot program with the
Taxi and Limousine Commission and equipped 20 official city cabs and limousines with the technology.
The MTA is on phase two of a Mobileye program and is also using the company's additional system called
Shield Plus, which uses extra cameras on the sides and backs of the buses for added protection against
pedestrian and cyclist collisions. Select city trash trucks as well as vehicles for City Administration
Services and other various agencies are now equipped with Mobileye as well and are currently collecting
data on accident rates.
Today, Ambu-Trans, a leading provider of non-emergency medical transportation serving the greater
New York metropolitan area, announced its putting the system in more than 60 vehicles.
"The safety of our drivers and passengers is of utmost importance." Neal Kalish, President of
Ambu-Trans, said in a release. "With its real-time alert system, Mobileye's Aftermarket system
is an important addition to our fleet safety program."
Going forward, the company is looking to expand their pilot programs with more businesses and
citywide departments in NYC and other major U.S. cities. They're looking to get involved with ride
sharing apps, as well.
Our three experts remind us that collision-repair facilities and insurance companies use one of three
systems for estimating repair jobs to arrive at standardized, impartial quotes. Theoretically, this
means three different shops will present similar estimates. But insurance companies will sometimes
present their policyholders with a low quote that bears no relationship to the product of these estimating
systems, Brian says. And if the consumer decides he can live with minor body damage and elects to
pocket the check rather than pay to have the damage repaired, the carrier has quickly cleared another
claim.
It's increasingly tough for body shop owners to provide an accurate cost estimate that will cover
the expense to fix the car properly and still make a profit. Brian says automakers frequently change
vehicle designs as the Environmental Protection Agency raises fuel-efficiency standards. They are
increasingly using lighter materials like aluminum and high-strength metals like ultra-hard boron
steel, particularly in the frame and suspension parts. Such parts are expensive.
... ... ...
Neal gives an example: Say you have a dent in your quarter panel. One shop might write a simple
four-line estimate to repair the panel and repaint it. (Each line on the quote constitutes another
charge.) Another shop might write a 20-line estimate that includes removing the taillight and bumper,
instead of just taping them off. "There can be 20 steps for the repair if you want to do them all
and if you want to charge for them all," he says.
If a consumer doesn't understand the steps, the estimate makes little sense. And many body shops
don't take the time to explain it, Brian adds. "There are a lot of shops that print their estimate,
throw it at the consumer and say 'Call me if you want me to do it,'" he says. Instead, he recommends
looking for the shop with a staff that listens patiently and replies with reasonable answers.
Andy says consumers should be aware that some shops write lowball estimates just to "seize the
keys" - get the car owner's commitment to do the job. Once the car is dismantled, the body shop owner
calls the consumer and lists additional charges, claiming that the shop discovered new damage after
it started work.
Yeah. I would not be too surprised if at some level in the organization this was sold as a
debugging or trouble shooting measure, or some other benign reason was given for branching on detection
of emissions tests.
Folks, you have to branch on emissions (and dyno) tests in the ECU solely because otherwise
the safety side of things will bring everything to a halt. The most obvious reason (assume FWD) is
that if the front wheels are going 65MPH and the rear wheels are going 0MPH, the traction control
system is going to have a major freak out and say "HOLY CRAP WE ARE SKIDDING OUT OF CONTROL BRAKE
FRONT UNTIL THE DIFFERENCE IS LESSENED". The
procedure
[hellcat.org] to enter
dyno mode [bimmerforums.com] is not itself a secret.
So it's not a secret and it's not illegal for the ECU to detect and behave differently during
the test, and everyone would know about this above-board feature. The secret-and-illegal part is
modifying the behavior of things measured by the test while the test is running. That is a
lot easier to keep secret and requires a lot less involvement from teams directly outside the module
that is responsible for emissions.
[ Source: Tuner people that dyno fancy cars and have to solve these sort of issues. ]
Yes, but this might even have been sold as a compliance issue - we must by law make sure
that the full emissions package is in place for any emissions test, even if the service tech turned
it off for reason XYZ. What engineer would blink at that? Meanwhile, over in another department,
the engineers are being told, these emissions packages must by default be off, as not all
jurisdictions require them, and we are using an opt-in type system to turn them on when required.
Again, who would blink at that? But by such stratagems, they could set up to that one person or
a few people could flip a virtual switch, and the hack would be in place.
Somebody knew, somebody
high up knew, but I rather doubt that everyone on the engineering bench knew, and that means that
they had to be fed plausible stories along the way.
Somebody knew, somebody high up knew, but I rather doubt that everyone on the engineering bench
knew, and that means that they had to be fed plausible stories along the way.
Spare me. The engineers were the ones that eventually spilled the beans on this. They weren't
fooled by some clever management strategy. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew
or should have known that it was illegal. While maybe not every engineer involved knew, more than
a few certainly did without question. The engineers at VW aren't dumb. I know a few personally.
Please stop with the attempts to find clever ways to not have to blame the engineers who were
guilty of helping to commit fraud. Management may have ordered the crime but the engineers were
the ones that carried it out.
Is it not possible that years after these things were made by two different development groups
as the GP suggested, these two groups happened to discuss the work they had done, blinked, and
realized how those two things worked together. Or given this started back in 2009, there's probably
been some turnover, no one in charge knew anymore this was happening and had to be kept secret,
and one person was given full access to the code to add a few new snippets - and HE realized what
it was actually doing.
That's how C-level executives in civilized countries behave - it's a symbolic beheading of the
culprit to show atonement. In this country, they get bigger bonuses for this stuff.
From the article itself, (I know, I am not supposed to read the article), the traction control
is mandated to be turned off when testing the emissions. So you already have a need to check that
emissions testing is being done. Once that flag is set in the code other areas can use it and
they may not even be aware of the ethical dilemma that arises. Perhaps someone was told to lower
the fuel flow when the test_mode flag was on. Why would they feel that something does not "smell
quite right" in that case? Someone else turned the flag on with a code change several years previously.
There is plenty of other things being changed or turned off when in test_mode, so adjusting the
fuel flow can fit right in with that. Unless they realized that test_mode was used to determine
that emissions testing was being performed (it could be used for other tests also) and that the
changes they are making will cheat the emissions test they might not even realize that something
is wrong with what they are doing.
The engineers who coded the software for the engine
computer? Why would they know what this does? The software is enabling a signal, hell the signal
might even have a vague name, when a condition is met. The condition's name might not very clear.
Yes, a spec saying "when the car is undergoing a test then enabled the cheat mode to get past
the test" would clearly implicate the developers.
But most likely it was: "when sig_x and sig_y and indicator_a are set, then set sig_Z to 1
in pattern P for n nanoseconds blah blah blah"
Someone knew what they were doing, and it probably went like this:
Engineer: We can't make this engine pass NOx tests.
Message goes up the chain to a certain decision making level, possibly the board. Marketing chimes
in: We can't have this, we're already sending out teasers about our new urea-less engine technology,
etc, etc.
Eventually a message comes down to fix it, in vague terms, entirely forgetting the original message
that it's unfixable.
Engineers: struggle for ages.
In pub: Well, we could enable a special testing mode to pass the tests?
In work: Shall we do this -> up the chain. Original context is half forgotten. Approved.
Engineer: We can't make this engine pass NOx tests.
Ah, but that wasn't the situation. The engine could pass fine, which is what was happening
when the software detected the test conditions. The problem is when running like that the engine
didn't have as much power or fuel economy as when operating in dirty mode. This hack was to make
the car more appealing to consumers by (in a virtual sense) selling one car to the public, and
having the EPA test a different one. This was pure deceit.
All varieties of IC vehicles will be gone soon enough, NG, diesel and gasoline. Not because
they pollute. Because they're enormously less efficient than electrical vehicles. The only benefit
IC vehicles have right now is that gasoline, NG and diesel store larger amounts of energy by volume
and weight than electrical storage does, and offer less maintainance of the energy supply for
the vehicle. But those advantages continue to erode. Eventually the benefits will fall the other
side of the line, and that'll be the end of that.
True.
One of the obvious consequences of this inevitability is that the very small amount of extra exhaust
products generated by VW's software methodology in actual vehicle use isn't likely to make an
actual difference to anyone in terms of pollution.
Non-sequiteur. Possibly you haven't appreciated
that this isn't mainly about greenhouse gasses, but about pollutants that cause local heath problems
in cities, and thus directly harm and even kill people. That most certainly *IS* a difference.
Yeah, I worked for a large bank. I was told my task was to implement tax calculation code in javascript,
so it would update on the page immediately. While I balked at the request, it was made pretty
clear that either I do it or I would get fired. I was not given a javascript library that knew
how to handle financial values. Javascript doesn't support integer-only values, so you're doing
financial calculations with floating point roundoffs and errors. I happened to know about them
but was not given any instructions that they were a problem. I wasn't given any instructions on
how to make sure they didn't cause issues. As far as I know no more than basic testing was done
on the code. I did get an email verifying that I had questioned it, but then I found out that
all our emails are automatically deleted after 6 months or something like that. You get fired
now, or you implement something dubious - what do you choose?
You get fired now, or you implement something dubious - what do you choose?
You get fired. Then you sue for wrongful termination. Then you expose the company in court
(public record) about how shitty they are threatening you with termination (you have proof? right?)
for doing something dubious.
One thing I have learned is you always say "Can I get that in writing?". This alone stops a
huge number of stupid decisions, especially when you're protesting.
Even if you have to write it... "Per our conversation regarding _______ I am doing _______ at your request. Please
let me know if you change your mind". In civil court, all you need is 50+%. It doesn't take much
to get to 50+%. Self documentation is perfectly acceptable.
It has saved my bacon a number of times.
Anonymous Coward
writes: on Thursday September
24, 2015 @12:51PM (#50590345)
IANAL, but this is what I heard from an employment lawyer (paraphrasing): As long as you wrote
and sent the e-mail, the onus is on the employer to show that they have replied to it in a reasonable
fashion. Courts tend to throw out "I didn't see it" excuses and expect replies. And even if they
replied verbally, oh well, too bad, they should've done so in writing.
One thing I have learned is you always say "Can I get that in writing?". This alone stops a
huge number of stupid decisions, especially when you're protesting.
That worked on one of my tasks where I was asked to do something counter to standards. After
I tried to argue them down for some time, my coworker (I wish I could take credit but I've made
use of this since then) simply asked for them to send us an e-mail stating what we were being
asked to do. At that point, the other person's manager told him to stop asking us to do it the
wrong way.
I did get an email verifying that I had questioned it, but then I found out that all our emails
are automatically deleted after 6 months or something like that.
Nothing prevents you from printing emails of instructions to implement dubious decisions. I've
done this from time to time just to protect myself when I worked at a large company.
You get fired now, or you implement something dubious - what do you choose?
If it is clearly
illegal or will be very likely to cause major problems then you should seriously consider walking.
If it isn't so clear then you get them to document their instructions to you and you keep a copy
(print if you have to) for your records to cover your ass should it be a problem down the line.
Make sure you document your objections and make it clear that you have taken every reasonable
effort to ensure that what you are doing is legal. If the decision is merely dumb but legal, same
thing but don't worry so much about ensuring legality.
No "they" didn't. One team wrote code to detect an emissions test. One team wrote code for a new
emissions heavy efficiency high mode. One team wrote code to switch between emissions tests. One
dude with a beard added if( TRUE === emissionsTest ) { mode = MODE_X43_Y;} Thats all it took.
In the UK it was reported on Newsnight (TV Programme) back in November last year. So it wasn't
just engineers at VW that knew about it. What's surprising is the shit only hit the fan now.
But frankly I have a VERY hard time believing that the engineers involved did not know that
what they were doing would violate the law.
On the other hand, the code could be used to support a control test case, with the emissions
controls switched on/off, to support development and how well the emissions controls were working
on the same engine. This would allow the engine developers to test against a live performance
benchmark. On the original hand, having that switch on/off automatically is quite hinky, so it's
probably not (solely) for development testing.
Definitely been going on for at least 17 years, and many other companies besides VW are getting
caught.
"On October 22, 1998, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency
announced an $83.4 million total penalty against diesel manufacturers, the largest civil penalty
ever for violation of environmental law...The seven companies sold 1.3 million heavy duty diesel
engines containing illegal "defeat devices," which allow an engine to pass the EPA emissions test,
but then turn off emission controls during highway driving. As a result, these engines emit up
to three times the current level for NOx a harmful air pollutant."
Based on my experience with slimebag orgs and managers, it may have gone something like this:
A manager(s) asks for a software switch to deactivate the "clean" mode and also detect when smog
testing is being done "in order to study and track resources devoted to environmental issues and
make sure we understand and comply with the smog testing procedures."
Then a personal visit happens where key manager(s) ask the top-ranking technician to
leave the bypass-on-test feature "on" in production. No paper trail. Experienced slimebags don't
put such commands into writing.
When the IT lead later reveals "Executive X told me to in person", there's no written trail.
It's one person's word against another's.
Sure, the IT lead is probably suspicious of the request, but when the big bosses tell you to
do something, it's comply or hit the road.
I was once asked to cheat a client over database scalability. It was shortly after the dot-com
crash, and knowing the market was really tight in Calif. and having a young family, it was a really
difficult situation to be in. I won't go into the details here, but I was sick to my stomach over
it. The experience made me more progressive.
Anonymous Coward
writes: on Thursday September
24, 2015 @10:49AM (#50589359)
Sometimes but not always. This cheated the test both with and without a computer. It was instead
detecting when it was on a rolling road. Emissions tests are always done with the car stationary
but the wheels moving, and that'll be what the software was detecting.
From the sound it of
it wasn't actually putting the car into a special 'mode'. It was turning on all the measures to
reduce emissions. When the car was on a real road it was turning them off to get better performance
and fuel consumption at the expense of emissions. So it sounds like the car does technically meet
the regulations, but ignores them when it's on the road. So expect the recall to turn them on
at all times, which'll mean you don't need the car/engine replaced, but will mean you pay more
at the pump and see your car's less nippy than it was before.
The test mode was triggered by monitoring which wheels were turning, position of the steering
wheel, etc.
Basically they wanted to avoid the cost of installing a
urea injection
system [wikipedia.org] so they cheated instead. Honda engineers were reported to be perplexed
about how they managed to do this miraculous feat of engineering.
As a diesel emissions engineer, I was always fascinated by how Volkswagen was able to do what
they claimed. I had tried to make their technology work, it's extremely difficult. SCR is much
simpler and more economical.
I had thought for a while that other companies had some secret information that my team was missing
to get such good performance. Now I think other companies are just cheating.
According to news reports (BBC etc.) it used a combination of inputs. Steering wheel position,
barometric pressure variation over time, rate of acceleration, speed, g sensor stability etc.
Also, to enable the cheat mode the engine would have had to load a different set of operating
parameters. Those parameters must be stored somewhere, and doubtless constitute more than a single
line of code.
I wonder whether someone actually gave the order to implement a 'test defeat device' or they
just started to optimize the engine to comply with regulation and to pass the test and then they
went too far.
Someone in management made the decision to not install a urea injection system which is necessary
to keep emissions to legal levels but costs a lot of money. Reportedly something like $400/vehicle.
So it seems pretty clear that their "solution" to the problem was simply to cheat. This wasn't
a case of optimization gone awry. They flat out knew what they were doing and went ahead with
it anyway. As soon as they made the decision to not install urea injection, they effectively decided
to cheat at that time because they were asking for the technologically impossible. There is no
way they didn't know that their decision to leave off such a key piece of equipment would not
result in unacceptable emissions. The engineers at VW aren't dumb. The decision was made for financial
reasons (not surprising) but was aided and abetted by a bunch of engineers that should have known
better.
The only real question seems to be who made the decision and who was responsible for executing
it and covering it up.
The way this was discovered (*1) was by an independent university group taking purchased vehicles
and connecting it up with sensors and running it over real roads in real traffic conditions over
long periods of time and comparing it to the rolling road test results. It's not an astronomical
cost but if you are just looking for basical emission data then there are much simpler methods
(namely a rolling road).
*1 - assuming this wasn't a case of parallel construction and the real
road test data is just collecting evidence for what somebody already knew was happening.
"Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests for 11m cars means they may be responsible
for nearly 1m tonnes of air pollution every year, roughly the same as the UK's combined emissions
for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture, a Guardian analysis suggests."
http://www.theguardian.com/bus... [theguardian.com]
Most of the actual codes that disabled the emission controls would have legitimate use during
development cycle. Typically there will be a switch to put the engine in a baseline test mode,
to gather baseline data. The test engineers would turn it all off, get a sanity check baseline
runs made. Then they will turn on various switches and turn various knobs to fine tune the best
values trading off power and efficiency to reduce emissions. So the actual code turning off emission
control is not a big deal.
What would be a big deal however is the code that detects whether
the car is in test bench or on the road. Apparently it uses steering input and other such details.
So that code block is the interesting part. Proper audit of the code changes, pull request authorizations
would nail the engineer who actually did the dirty deed. But would there be code review meeting/minutes,
comments fingering higher management?
This scandal will have some salutary effect in engineers who manage code, they would refuse
to merge or pull such cheating code changes because it would leave their fingerprints indelibly
for ever. They might even add comments in code covering their tails fingering the actual perp
in the higher management.
I worked for a Small software house that made SAP type ERP software before SAP ate the majority
of the market. This was 1998 or so...
We had a customer come to us and ask for certain modifications.
Then a few more. Then a few more.
Not unusual, we made a lot of money from change orders. So the first few were done. All were
acceptable in the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices guidelines.
Somewhere along the line the GAAP accountant realized that this last modification set would,
taken in combination with all the other mods, make a check disappear from the system and become
untraceable. We refused to do it, and the customer dropped the product, saying we were too hard to deal with.
A million+ of revenue were lost, no small amount for the company.
That customer? MCI Worldcom.
They clearly had picked apart the source code and found the edge case that triggered the behavior.
I had left the company before MCI blew up, but my understanding is that they were called to give
testimony/evidence in the trial.
This could be the same thing, a series of unrelated changes that trigger a diagnostic mode
when hooked up to the test equipment. If so, it would be very hard to trace who made the ultimate decision to do this, as it might be
spread across many teams working independently.
The emissions-fixing scandal that has engulfed Volkswagen in the US could extend to other companies
and countries, one of the officials involved in uncovering the alleged behaviour has told the Guardian.
Billions of pounds have been wiped off the value of global carmakers amid growing concerns that
emissions tests may have been rigged across the industry.
"We need to ask the question, is this happening in other countries and is this happening at other
manufacturers? Some part of our reaction is not even understanding what has happened exactly," said
John German, one of the two co-leads on the US team of the International Council for Clean Transportation
(ICCT), the European-based NGO that raised the alarm.
Shares in Volkswagen
fell by almost a fifth after the world's second biggest carmaker issued a
public apology in response to US allegations that it used a defeat device to falsify emissions
data.
South Korea said on Tuesday it would investigate emissions of VW Jetta and Gold models and Audi
A3 cars produced in 2014 and 2015. If problems are found, South Korea's environment ministry said
its probe could be expanded to all German diesel imports, which have surged in popularity in recent
years in a market long dominated by local producers led by Hyundai.
US Congress confirmed it is investigating the scandal on Monday. House energy and commerce committee
chairman Fred Upton and oversight and investigations subcommittee chairman Tim Murphy
announced that the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a hearing.
The US Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation of Volkswagen admission, according
to
Bloomberg, which cited two officials familiar with the inquiry.
The company could face a fine of up to $18bn (£11.6bn), criminal charges for its executives, and
legal action from customers and shareholders. The US law firm Hagens Berman has already launched
a class-action law suit on behalf of customers who bought the affected cars.
VW shares fell by 19% in Frankfurt, wiping almost €15bn (£10.8bn) off its value.
Shares in Renault, Volkswagen's
French rival, also dropped by 4%, while Peugeot was down 2.5%, Nissan 2.5% and BMW 1.5% amid concerns
they could be caught up in investigations.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Friday that VW had
installed illegal software to cheat emission tests, allowing its diesel cars to produce up to
40 times more pollution than allowed. The US government ordered VW to recall 482,000 VW and Audi
cars produced since 2009.
DETROIT (AP) - Big U.S. recalls by General Motors and Toyota have put the auto industry on a record
pace as companies try to avoid bad publicity and punishment from an increasingly aggressive government.
On Wednesday, Toyota announced it was recalling nearly 1.8 million vehicles in the U.S. to fix a
spate of problems, including air bags that might not inflate. It's part of a worldwide recall of
6.4 million cars and trucks.
So far this year, automakers have recalled about 9 million vehicles in the U.S. If that pace continues,
the nation would break the record of 30.8 million recalled vehicles set in 2004.
Most of the recalls are from Toyota and General Motors, two automakers that are under government
scrutiny and facing bad publicity and allegations that they concealed safety issues.
Toyota's latest recalls were announced before the company even developed specific repairs. They come
two weeks after the Justice Department skewered the Japanese automaker for covering up problems that
caused unintended acceleration in some cars starting in 2009. Toyota agreed to pay $1.2 billion
to settle that case, but federal prosecutors can resurrect a wire fraud charge if the company fails
to comply with the terms of the settlement.
Toyota's actions come as rival GM recalls 2.6 million small cars for defective ignition switches
the company links to at least 13 deaths. Of those, 2.2 million are in the U.S. As that crisis unfolded,
GM announced recalls of another 3.4 million U.S. vehicles.
GM is facing a Justice Department investigation, and last week its new CEO was grilled by Congress
over its handling of the ignition recalls. It also faces fines of $7,000 per day for missing a deadline
to answer questions from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said automakers historically
have been quick to fix safety problems when faced with government investigations and bad publicity.
"The manufacturers as a whole look through their inventory of defective vehicles and recall some
of the ones that they had passed over before," he said.
After highly publicized cases in the past, such as Toyota's unintended acceleration problems and
Ford's trouble with Explorers and Firestone tires in the late 1990s, automakers at first quickly
issued recalls. But recalls dropped off as the bad publicity faded, Ditlow said.
But this time may be different because of the Justice Department's investigation of Toyota and
the prospect of criminal charges against GM and some of its employees in what lawmakers have called
a cover-up of the ignition switch problem.
"That can be a real game-changer," Ditlow said. "There's nothing that changes corporate behavior
as much as criminal prosecutions."
Jessica Caldwell, senior analyst for the Edmunds.com auto website, said things changed when NHTSA
got more aggressive with fines and enforcement against Toyota in 2009 and 2010. "But the GM recall
has compounded the fact that they have to be more proactive," she said.
The high number of recalls could also be attributed to the use of common parts across an automaker's
entire vehicle lineup, she said. When something goes wrong, more parts have to be replaced.
Through Wednesday, GM had recalled about 5.6 million cars and SUVs in the U.S. this year, while Toyota
was at 2.85 million.
Automakers in the U.S. are required to notify NHTSA and recall cars within five days of discovering
a safety defect. But corporate committees that govern recalls can take a long time to determine if
a faulty part is a safety defect. That means recalls can take longer than the five days, Ditlow said.
But now companies appear to be finding defects and acting faster. Ditlow said he expects smaller
recalls in the future as companies move quickly to fix parts and limit the impact of a problem.
Toyota's U.S. recall announced Wednesday includes the following vehicles in the U.S.:
- 1.3 million vehicles with faulty electrical connections that could cause air bags to deactivate.
Included are the 2009-2010 Corolla, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2008-2010 Highlander, 2009-2010 Tacoma, 2006-2008
RAV4, 2006-2010 Yaris and 2009-2010 Pontiac Vibe. If the air bags deactivate, they could fail to
deploy after a crash. The Vibe, which is made by General Motors Co., is included in the recall because
Toyota designed and engineered it for GM when the two companies shared a factory in California. GM
says 40,500 Vibes will be recalled.
- 472,500 small cars with defective springs in the front seat rails, which could prevent the seats
from locking in place. Included are the 2006-2010 Yaris hatchback, 2007-2010 Yaris sedan and the
2008-2010 Scion XD.
Toyota said no injuries or crashes have been reported related to the recalls. The company is working
on remedies. Dealers will replace the defective parts for free when parts are available.
The recall is one of Toyota's largest since 2009 and 2010, when the company issued a series of recalls
totaling more than 10 million vehicles for various problems including faulty brakes, sticky gas pedals
and ill-fitting floor mats.
The ignition switch recall is GM's largest individual recall this year. The switches can unexpectedly
slip out of the "run" position, shutting down the engine and cutting off power-assisted brakes and
steering. They also can deactivate the air bags. Parts are expected to start arriving at dealerships
on Friday.
The only way automakers are making sales is by lowering credit standards
to truly mind-numbing levels.... that cannot last.
China's economic collapse has crushed forecasts for the automakers. Inventories
are already at record highs. And July saw a massive surge in producton.
If they start making cars that are simply cars again, I will buy a new
one.
Not ones with wifi and bluetooth and ways to tell your friends when you
just jacked off in a traffic jam without taking your hands off the wheel.
Just make a damn car. I only need AC. That's it. I will put in my own
stereo if needed and I dont even need power windows or locks.
$30-50k for a car? Does it run on angel tears? Was it made with Cecil
mane plush seats?
Maybe they should spend more time on finding out how to make shit that
doesn't break in 4 years.
If they can re-master an ignition switch then we will talk.
pods
Hitlery_4_Dictator
I have heated seats in my 2003 king ranch...IMHO - 2003 should have
been the year to stop adding electronics and more complex bullshit
ConanTheLibertarian
Indeed. I like to work on cars as a hobby but I refuse to work on
cars made after 2000. After that it's not fun anymore.
Tinfoil Hat
Still driving the $14k kia rio from off the lot in 2007. manual transmission,
windows, locks. Hatchback and folding seats to hold lots of stuff. Perfect
little people/stuff mover. It took a while to detach my sense of self worth
from the instantly depreciating financial liability that is an automobile,
but I must say I'm glad for it now. Costs about $120/month to run all in.
It blows my mind when the young guys I work with are financing $40-50k cars
and trucks dropping $8-900/month between payments and insurance.
separating "self" from "stuff" seems to be a pretty big step to sound
personal financials.
AGuy
"Tellin you man, I've become pretty accustomed to Audi interiors
and handling."
Audi's are high maintenance and break a lot. Everyone I know that
owns an Audi had nothing but problems.
For the most part, cars have replaced boats. Cars have become a hole
in the road that you pour money into. Your better off buying a $25K
import and upgrade the interior (replace cloth seat with leather for about
$1K) and pocket the $10K to $15K difference. Generally Americans by luxury
imports to impress other people and to give themselves a bit of self-importance
and feed their narrasism.
"American cars - at least the recent ones I've driven"
American car manufacturers produced decent cars in the 1990s and early
2000s, after about 2003-2004, it all started rolling down hill, but the
prices went up. With GM, your risk your life (recall the Ignition probably
that caused the death of more than 100 people).
Compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg received 125 death claims due to the faulty switches
in older-model small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt
GM has admitted knowing about the ignition switch problem for more than a decade
It didn't begin recalling the switches in 2.6 million small cars until earlier this year
GM has estimated the cost of compensating victims at $400 million but says it could rise to
$600 million
General Motors shares rose 43 cents to $33.70 per share in afternoon trading on Monday
The faulty ignition switches can slip out of the 'run' position into 'accessory' or 'off,' cutting
off power to the engine. That can knock out power steering or brakes and disable the air bags if
there's a crash.
See explanation of GM problem
GM Ignition Switch Recall, Reduce
Your Risk. Attitude "Its cheaper to pay out the lawsuits than to fix the problem" is an interesting
approach to the problem...
By HILARY STOUT, DANIELLE IVORY and REBECCA R. RUIZ
David Friedman, N.H.T.S.A.'s acting head, indicated in a Senate hearing that he did not realize the
agency could issue subpoenas. Credit Larry Downing/Reuters
General Motors published an
article
in February on its Chevrolet website trumpeting an achievement certain to help sell a lot of
cars.
Its 2014 Chevys had earned more five-star overall safety ratings in a new car assessment program
than had any other brand.
The next day, G.M. began recalling millions of its cars for a deadly ignition defect, and by August,
six of the eight five-star Chevrolet models had been recalled for a variety of safety issues, including
defects in air bags, brakes and steering. Five had been recalled multiple times.
It was an embarrassing turn - but not just for the embattled automaker. The stellar rankings had
been awarded by the federal regulatory agency that is mandated by Congress to ensure the safety of
automobiles.
The agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has a record of missteps that
goes well beyond its failure to detect an ignition switch defect in several models of G.M. cars now
linked to at least
13 deaths.
An investigation by The New York Times into the agency's handling of major safety defects over
the past decade found that it frequently has been slow to identify problems, tentative to act and
reluctant to employ its full legal powers against companies.
Selling Safety
Even as more cars are recalled for safety problems, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has awarded an increased number of high safety ratings - two thirds of 2015 models tested so far
received the top rating, an important marketing claim. The agency spends about the same on investigating
defects as on rating cars, and is seeking a big increase in the ratings budget this year.
The Times analyzed agency correspondence, regulatory documents and public databases and interviewed
congressional and executive branch investigators, former agency employees and auto safety experts.
It found that in many of the major vehicle safety issues of recent years - including:
unintended acceleration in Toyotas,
fires in Jeep fuel tanks
air bag ruptures in Hondas,
the G.M. ignition defect
The agency did not take a leading role until well after the problems had reached a crisis level,
safety advocates had sounded alarms and motorists were injured or died.
Not only does the agency spend about as much money rating new cars - a favorite marketing tool
for automakers - as it does investigating potentially deadly manufacturing defects, but it also
has been so deferential to automakers that it made a key question it poses about fatal accidents
optional - a policy it is only now changing after inquiries from The Times.
Jean Bookout was injured, and her passenger, Barbara Schwarz, was killed in 2007 when the 2005
Toyota Camry Ms. Bookout was driving in Oklahoma suddenly accelerated through an intersection and
hit an embankment. When the safety agency inquired about the cause of the accident in 2010, the Japanese
automaker replied, "Toyota understands that this request is optional and respectfully declines to
respond at this time."
Three years later, Toyota paid $3 million in compensatory damages after having been found guilty
in a lawsuit the two women's families brought against the company. And in March, a federal judge
approved a $1.2 billion settlement of criminal charges that Toyota concealed unintended acceleration
problems in its vehicles for years.
the time General Motors began recalling cars this year for ignition defects that could
cause stalling, the agency had logged more than 2,000 complaints about the issue in the recalled
models, some from consumers who had picked up on patterns in the agency's database that its own investigators
missed or did not look for.
After Chrysler balked last year at the regulator's suggested 2.7 million vehicle recall for exploding
fuel tanks in its Jeeps, the federal agency scaled back its request by 1.1 million cars. It also
agreed to Chrysler's demand that the automaker not be required to say the vehicles had a safety defect
or that the automaker was at fault. The agency has linked 51 deaths and at least two serious
injuries to the defect over 14 years.
And four years ago, the agency cut short an investigation into rupturing air bags in Honda vehicles,
saying there was "insufficient information" to suggest that the companies had failed to take timely
action. Since then, more than 13 million more cars have been recalled by Honda and 10 other automakers
for the rupture risk, and Honda has linked two deaths to the defect.
The agency declined to make regulators available for interviews, agreeing only to reply to written
questions.
"N.H.T.S.A. has a proven record of aggressively investigating and pursuing recalls," the agency
wrote.
It added: "N.H.T.S.A. evaluates each potential safety defect issue based on the particular circumstances
involved and does not have a set threshold for opening defect investigations beyond our core mission
of reducing fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle crashes."
The agency, created in 1970, is part of the Transportation Department and has an annual budget
of about $800 million, which is split among vehicle safety, highway safety research and grants geared
toward promoting traffic safety at the state level.
While traffic fatalities have fallen considerably since its creation in part because of safety
improvements in vehicles, the agency has a history of falling short of expectations in policing automakers
and fulfilling its investigations mission.
In the late 1990s, it was sharply criticized by lawmakers and consumer advocates for failing
to detect a pattern of highway rollovers in Ford Explorers with Firestone tires that was eventually
tied to 271 fatalities. Congress passed a law in 2000 that was meant to give the agency more
leverage over the auto industry and better access to its accident data.
Yet since then, the agency has continued to show sluggishness in its investigations, feeding a
perception that it does not stand up to the politically influential, multibillion-dollar automobile
industry until it is forced to do so by outside pressure.
In a year that has included the deadly ignition scandal at G.M., the billion-dollar Toyota criminal
settlement and an ever-expanding number of air bag recalls, some consumer safety advocates are hopeful
that the record number of recalls will spur the agency to step up its vigilance. This year automakers
have recalled more than 48 million vehicles in the United States, surpassing the previous record
of about 30 million in 2004. Safety experts continue to push for a more transparent approach from
the agency, including better documenting its internal reviews of safety concerns.
On Tuesday, the Senate subcommittee that questioned G.M.'s chief executive, Mary T. Barra, in
two charged hearings on the ignition switch defect will turn its focus to the safety agency.
The session comes as the Transportation Department's inspector general is conducting an audit
of the agency's handing of the G.M. switch issue, an inquiry that people familiar with the effort
say has been widened to look at how effectively the agency carries out its mission beyond the G.M.
case.
A primary focus of the inquiry, these people said, is the so-called pre-investigation phase of
the agency's work - when the engineers and other specialists in its Office of Defects Investigation
decide whether to proceed with a full investigation of a possible safety defect.
"N.H.T.S.A. is a very critical agency," said Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors
Highway Safety Association, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that represents state highway
safety departments and administers grants from N.H.T.S.A., and whose chairman has been called to
testify at the Senate hearing. "I think it's struggling."
Spotting Problems
The Times reviewed more than 12,000 consumer complaints to the federal agency about power, speed
and ignition problems in the G.M. models recalled for ignition-related problems.
The first stalling complaints arrived in 1997, and starting in May 2000, the agency consistently
told drivers that there was insufficient evidence to open an investigation, even when drivers presented
similar complaints that they had found on the Internet and on the agency's own website.
The analysis by The Times found that before the recalls the agency had received more than 5,000
complaints about the ignition problems, including more than 2,000 about unexpected stalling, in the
models G.M. eventually recalled for an ignition defect that could lead to stalling.
As recently as a month before the recalls began, the safety agency was dismissing complaints from
drivers about such problems. In January the agency responded to a driver of a 2010 Chevrolet Impala,
who had been on the road to Tuscaloosa, Ala., when the car's power cut out. The driver had found
similar complaints of sudden stalling and passed them along, urging the agency to examine the problem.
A division chief wrote back that, based on a review of its database, there was "insufficient evidence
to warrant opening a safety defect investigation."
the time the Impala was
recalled in June, regulators had more than 1,000 complaints about ignition problems in the model.
Years earlier, Stephanie Rogers of South Lyon, Mich., had written to the agency in October 2007
cataloging a number of complaints that she had seen on the Internet about cars stalling while moving.
"This is an extremely dangerous problem, and since I am not the only one dealing with this issue
I am wondering why no letters are being sent," she wrote.
Bruce Spinney, who worked at the agency from 1970 to 2008, specializing in the cost impact of
new safety features, said he did not understand why the agency had not reacted sooner to the ignition
problems. "The consumers seem to be divining these patterns before the regulators," he said.
As of this month, G.M. has recalled nearly 16.5 million vehicles for ignition-related problems,
including 2.6 million for the defective switch that the automaker acknowledges it knew about for
years. In almost all of the ignition recalls, the problem could result in moving cars suddenly
shutting off, disabling air bags and other key systems like power steering and power brakes.
David J. Friedman, the acting N.H.T.S.A. administrator, has said in public forums that data presented
by G.M. this year would have most likely changed the regulator's approach to the issue had the information
been available earlier. The new data directly linked the ignition switch problem to the nondeployment
of air bags, which in many accidents had been the only clue that something was amiss.
But a review of the agency's complaints records shows that at least one G.M. driver, Jessica Cruickshank,
offered evidence from an OnStar diagnostic test that showed a potential link between the engine cutting
out and air bag failure - only to be rebuffed.
During the summer of 2005, it was pitch black on an interstate highway in rural West Virginia
when Ms. Cruickshank's car shut off and she had to wrestle the wheel to bring it to the side of the
road. Trucks whizzed by in the dark, and her 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix shook as they did.
In the back seat of the car, her youngest daughter began to cry.
"You can see how a child would be frightened," Ms. Cruickshank said in an interview. "I was afraid,
too."
That was the last time she drove the car. It had already been cutting out more than once a week,
she said. Her family hired a lawyer, who wrote to the safety agency in August 2005 to alert it to
the stalling problem.
Ms. Cruickshank was not injured, and no impact occurred to set off the air bags. But the lawyer
informed the agency that a diagnostic test run by OnStar, a subsidiary of G.M., indicated that there
was a "distinct probability that the air bags would either not deploy or misfire in the event of
a front-impact collision." A month later, regulators replied that a review of their database "revealed
insufficient evidence to warrant opening a safety defect investigation."
In that instance, even G.M. seemed to recognize something was not right: A few weeks later, the
company bought back the car.
Answer Optional
To give N.H.T.S.A. more muscle, Congress passed a law in 2000 requiring automakers to report
to the safety agency any claims they received blaming defects for serious injuries or deaths.
But the safety agency has allowed automakers to conceal important information in that reporting
process by not requiring full disclosures when confronted with follow-up questions. In the agency's
so-called death inquiries - requests for further information from automakers - it has made optional
a key question: What may have caused the accident?
The Times reviewed nearly 100 death inquiries obtained under the Freedom of Information Act
- including all inquiries made of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford in one quarter of 2012 - and
found only four cases in which a manufacturer responded to the question, and none in which a defect
in the vehicle was identified.
Some of Ford's responses reviewed by The Times were particularly blunt, including one regarding
an August 2011 fatal accident in which a passenger in a 2007 Ford E-350 van was inexplicably ejected
through a passenger window though the vehicle had sustained only minor damages. The claim asserted
a defect involving a "nonfixed window" or the grade of glass.
N.H.T.S.A.: At your option, provide Ford's assessment of the circumstances
that led to the incident including Ford's analysis of the claim and/or notice regarding allegations
of a defect.
FORD: Ford is not providing an assessment of the circumstances that led to
the incident, nor is it providing an analysis of the claim and/or notice regarding allegations of
a defect.
Joan Claybrook was the head of the agency from 1977 to 1981, well before the law was passed that
instituted the death inquiries. "It should not be an optional question," she said of the follow-up
request to identify the cause of an accident. "You need to show you are serious about enforcement
and be tough as nails with the manufacturers."
General Motors chose not to answer inquiries regarding at least three of the 13 fatal crashes
that the automaker has linked to its ignition switch defect. In one of those cases - the death of
a 25-year-old Texas man - G.M. responded that it
had not assessed the cause of the crash, when, in fact, it had, according to a subsequent internal
investigation at the automaker. The safety agency did not request further information about the crash,
and the defect was not made public for an additional seven years.
In interviews with former and current employees of the agency, no one was able to explain why
the question had been made optional. The agency declined to answer queries from The Times about the
death inquiries for more than a month. Late Friday, when informed of the deadline for this article,
the agency submitted a written reply.
"All inquiries now require manufacturers to provide this information," the statement said.
Late and Limited
Data on the agency's website indicates that 33 investigations from the 1990s remain open.
"The agency is dedicated to ensuring that current safety defect issues affecting the driving public
today are addressed, and is dedicating its resources to this priority, rather than to closing old
cases that did not find an unreasonable risk to safety," N.H.T.S.A. wrote in response to a question
about the open cases.
But on at least one such current issue, N.H.T.S.A. had stood on the sidelines for years. Now that
defect, involving air bags made by the Japanese supplier Takata, has mushroomed into one of the biggest
recalls in history.
A recent Times article
detailed years of delay inside Honda and Takata in assessing and disclosing the potential of
air bags to rupture on impact, spewing shrapnel and chemicals. Documents showing the agency's early
review of the problem indicate that it was lax as well.
Complaints filed with the agency as far back as 2000 allude to rupturing air bags in models carrying
Takata air bags, but the first recall did not come until eight years later, and it was relatively
tiny.
The two recalls prompted the agency to open an investigation in 2009 into the two companies' handling
of the defect, during which the safety agency asked why Honda and Takata had initially recalled so
few cars, according to filings at the time. Six months later it closed the investigation, a timetable
so swift that it appears to have taken even Takata by surprise.
The ignition defect in some of GM's small cars - which can result in the engine abruptly shutting
down, disabling the power steering, brakes and airbags - is linked to at least 13 fatalities. Like
the fuel-tank design, it appears to be a defect that is distinct with GM models. Other vehicles have
reported air bag problems, but not as a consequence of such a simple problem as ignition contact
failure.
...in the ignition switch case, GM has recalled millions of Cobalts and other small cars
Recent news reports ( NYT, April 18) have GM successfully defending a petition for an order requiring
the company to notify owners of cars with the defective ignitions to park those cars as being
too dangerous to drive. Unfortunately, a Federal District judge in Corpus Christi declined, holding
that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration was better suited to deal with
such a question. That NHTSA has no statutory authority to issue such an order apparently escaped
the attention of the judge. In any case, this sort of resistance is nothing new in GM's recent
history.
GM's disdain for the actual safety of its customers was manifest in the pickup cases when in 1994,
in spite of an ordered recall, the company instead chose to pay millions to fund a never-realized
safety design project. That left people using these vehicles out there vulnerable to a fiery death
or burn injury. In fact, the incidents of pickup fatal fires continue as I write this.
There
is, I think, an attitude developed within the GM culture that easily shifts the risk of death
or injury from the maker of a flawed product to the user. The company will not be put to such
great expense or trouble to assure that its mistake will not continue to kill or injure. The recall,
GM officials complain, has already cost billions and further steps would cost more billions.
In the pickup litigation, a memorandum written by an engineer by the name of Ivey (whose first
name I no longer recall) surfaced during discovery in one of my cases. Ivey was employed as an
engineer in what was then the Pontiac Division of the Company and that was the division that had
been tasked with the responsibility for fuel system integrity in all GM products. The memorandum
was about a study conducted by Ivey and others within Pontiac which concluded that the cost of
the repair of a fuel system defect had to be balanced by the cost of defending wrongful death
lawsuits – at some point it is cheaper to defend the lawsuits. Among lawyers involved in the
pickup litigation at the time, this memo was dubbed the "let 'em burn" analysis.
Deciding, as the company apparently has, to recall and fix cars with defective ignitions, but
to do nothing more notwithstanding the long period needed to arrange for repairs, is very similar
to the "let 'em burn" attitude of the Ivey memorandum. The company refuses to take responsibility
for whatever happens if you drive your car to a job you have to have, to classes for a degree
or certification that means everything in your life, take your kids to school, etc. In due time,
the company will provide a fix, but in the meantime, it will not discourage your use of the car.
I suppose the ignition program is a step better than that experienced by the pickup owners,
but it nonetheless is a program adapted to the world of GM's corporate culture of disdain. Apparently,
the new CEO of GM, Mary Barra, has declared that she would allow her son to drive one of these
defective cars – thereby somehow endorsing their safety. Of course, the declaration is ridiculous
as evidence of anything except the company's desperation. Who is going to call her on it? If these
cars are defective, which they are undoubtedly are, then she is not going to let her son drive
one unrepaired.
Grandstanding is not a substitute for corporate responsibility.
Why do we have so many crooked people in our country?
What happened to it? Why are so many people in business selfish and greedy. Don't these CEOs
make enough money?
EpiDemic117
that's not the right question to ask. The right question to ask is why did these fucks in congress
bail them out. Then complain and question why they are cheating and making faulty and shitty components
on their vehicles. alot of these congressmen and women are simply unqualified to ask in detail
about questions related to engineering. far more than Half of them are fucking lawyers and not
engineers.
... President Clinton's biological father
died after
being ejected in a car crash in the 1940s. As a teenage driver in the 1960s, Laura Bush
struck and killed
a family neighbor in a crash. President Obama's father died in a
car wreck in 1982. In
1972, Vice President (then U.S. Senator)Joseph Biden's wife and infant child were
killed in a car-truck collision.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as a young Mormon missionary, was
severely injured in a collision
in France that killed another passenger. These experiences mirror those of millions of ordinary Americans,
yet they have failed to prod the nation's policy leaders into aggressive action to stem the carnage.
Despite more than
30,000 deaths and more than 2.2 million crash injuries per year, highway safety has largely fallen
off the political radar screen. Since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson publicly confronted
a hostile auto industry by demanding, and getting, new laws governing the safety of automobiles,
more than two million Americans have died of crash injuries. Since then no president has taken a
forceful public stand in favor of strong government action to counter the death toll.
The laws promoted by Johnson and subsequent regulations and policies have helped, leading
to safer auto designs, better roads, and drunk driving and seat belt laws – proving that good government
can save lives and livelihoods. But crash injuries are still the leading cause of death to children,
teenagers and young adults, and a major cause of violent death for all age groups.
Since 1981 - when the Reagan administration put coal industry lobbyist Ray Peck in charge of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, attempted to
revoke air bag regulations, and cut the agency
staff by one-third - the agency has been increasingly captive to the industry it was formed to
regulate.
In place of decisive action, the government's severely underfunded, industry- influenced highway
safety efforts are routinely reactive, accomplishing too little, too late, for too many Americans.
When the auto industry began marketing unstable, top-heavy SUVs in the 1980s, NHTSA, part of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, refused to adopt vehicle regulations limiting the rollover risk
of such vehicles – which ended up contributing to some 10,000 deaths a year in rollover crashes.
When Toyota drivers experienced sudden unintended acceleration episodes, NHTSA lacked the resources
and expertise to address the complex but foreseeable risks of sudden acceleration from sophisticated
electronic controls now standard in new vehicles.
Although current Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and NHTSA Administrator David Strickland
have highlighted the perils of driver distraction, car companies still are racing to add infotainment
features to new models – some of them featuring video display screens on their instrument consoles
– that are bound to further divert drivers' eyes and attention from the road. The mounting safety
risk from infotainment systems seems to be widely viewed as inevitable and beyond society's ability
to control. Meanwhile, Texas has adopted an 85 mph speed limit for a soon-to-open toll road, a move
likely to be copied by other states, but that would be off the table if safety was a prime concern.
What underlies the widespread toleration of highway mayhem by politicians, regulators, and the
public? Political indifference has a high cost in lost lives, livelihoods and wellness.
If the commitment were there, we believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of lives could be saved
by a single measure: making electronic automatic crash notification systems standard, thus reducing
delays in treating seriously injured crash victims.
But for whatever reasons, this country lags far behind other advanced nations in coming to grips
with the problem. According to
World Health Organization estimates, per capita road deaths in many countries are well below
the U.S. Yet there is no demand to draw lessons from other countries to take tough steps that would
protect American motorists.
From 2008 until early this year, U.S. road deaths fell substantially – in part due to the great
recession - setting the stage for further complacency. But in the first quarter of this year the
deaths turned upward, doubtless signaling an increase in driving as the economy began to modestly
improve. If the upward trend continues, it will be a further signal to policymakers that the U.S.
needs to be doing much more to curb lethal violence on its highways.
(Ben Kelley, a former Department of Transportation official, is on the board of the nonprofit
advocacy group Center for Auto Safety. Louis Lombardo is an auto safety researcher who retired from
NHTSA after 27 years and now writes on the subject at www.CareForCrashVictims.com)
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Black Friday doorbusters, special deals and promotions could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
'Shortseller Enrichment Commission': Musk mocks SEC over fraud probe
Yes.
In fact, the cute little Smart Car Pure Coupe can be leased for $99 for 36 months with $1393
due at signing. This is the lowest lease payment for any promotional lease on any car in the
U.S.. It has the lowest payment of any vehicle in our monthly 
May.13.13 | About: 
