Why are Teslafags so retarded? They're the macbookfags of the car world

>Supercharging isn't free anymore
It is if you bought before 2017

>tfw bought a Tesla in Dec 2016
Just barely made it lol

What if stop-using-transmissions-man lends some of his tech to Tesla? Could they create an actual GODMACHINE that doesn't simply have fast 0-60 acceleration, but also do 60-120 or 120-180 in two seconds each?

Same.
didn't take possession until February, but still

Its not impossible to engineer a godmachine EV but economics and the inconveniences of daily driving would make it nigh unfordable for even the wealthy and suck all the fun out of driving it.

>economics and the inconveniences of daily driving would make it nigh unfordable for even the wealthy and suck all the fun out of driving it.
Sounds like a Bugatti.

>tfw trucks/off road vehicles are probably safe from ev cuckery
The tesla model x's range drops so much when towing there's no way it would be practical in a work vehicle.

Precisely, and that is part of the reason Tesla is sinking. In the time they spent trying to build the supply chain for the model 3, they could have 3 generations of the roadsters or made really brilliant luxury/sports EVs.

scania.com/group/en/worlds-first-electric-road-opens-in-sweden/

> Be New Zealand
> Get rid of trolley buses
> 30 years later
> Everyone wants trolley buses.

Seriously, this is like 40 years too late.

It would also help if Musk stopped investing money into SpaceX. Tesla hasn't even made a dime yet. The technology is definitely there, but Musk won't consolidate it all into one company.

These plebbit cartoons and 'dinosaur' buzzwords are so naive.

Completely ignores the economics of lithium band power demand. Tesla can't feasibly ever be more than a niche vehicle because the power grid can't handle 100,000 lithium batteries charging

Just install more solar panels and wind mills!

Early adopters and technofetishists have always been cringe inducing and retarded.

Realistically what we'd wind up with if Tesla market share exploded right now would be a demand-limiters, so you'd plug your car in for a charge but wait demand is really high right now so the smartbox has reduced your charging current to trickle mode and you're paying 2x normal cost for that power because it's peak demand charge time. So basically if you didn't charge your car overnight when demand is lower because people air conditioning units aren't running as much and they aren't using their appliances you'd be screwed except charging the batteries of all of the cars in the neighborhood draws more current than everyone's daytime appliances do so now nighttime is peak demand time too.

Basically the grid can't handle electric cars right now, and without a huge improvement in solar/wind or anti nuclear retards deciding that maybe nuclear is the answer after all it's going to be a long time before the grid can handle millions of people charging their electric cars at the same time.

so you're saying it isnt free then. right.

SpaceX is basically Musk's escape plan. He knows Tesla can't last forever if it doesnt turn a profit. So when it crashes and burns, he'll just move to SpaceX in full, since that is something that DOES produce a profit, since it's basically government contracting work. As long as NASA continues to not build it's own space shuttles or capsules, they will need to either hitch a ride with the russians, or secure a private provider. And considering there aren't that many private space companies, much less ones that can actually build a rocket or high altitude vehicle of any kind, there's little in their way

>Elon Musk betrays Teslafags like nobody's business.

:^)

>make 100k in Cuckfornia
>it's equivalent to making minimum wage in fly over even though I want to kill myself because of the stress
lmao

SpaceX's only option is to steal goverment contracts (market share) from already established manufacturers.

This is completely based on his reusable rocket idea out competeting the rest of the field on cost.

The thing is, I don't think Elon realizes why nobody else has done this. He is like a new team showing up in Top Fuel Dragsters, preaching that he is going to beat everyone with a car that doesn't have it's engine rebuilt all season. In order to make that happen he is going to have to leave so much performance on the table to get that durability, it ain't going to happen.

Rocket engines are on the bleeding edge of materials science. Their service life is a couple hundred seconds. If he thinks he is going to make them last a couple hundred minutes, he better have invented some radical new materials.

The question is whether rebuilding the engines repeatedly and refurbishing the rocket itself is cheaper than using a single use vehicle, and it probably is. Reusable engines were cheaper than using new SSMEs on the shuttle for every launch, but can spacex come in cheaper than existing systems when it comes to paying for the R&D? It's hard to know.

Tesla will die when the Germans can be bothered to make a competitor to the model S. Which won't be hard as it's just a bland 0-60 machine.

the 918 doesn't even beat the model s. LOL

Might as well just have a train at this point

First of all, it isn't a full electric car

Second of all, the Model S is literally just good at going from 0-60 quickly. It's track performance is pitiful.

0-60 is the only important day to day metric. nobody cares about track times, autist

>0-60 is the only important day to day metric
No it isn't. Are you some stop light racer or something?

it is though.

Keep being wrong you fucking bus rider

stay obsolete, ICE cuckhold

You're only going to go from 0-60 once. If you care about performance in any form, then you need to take track performance into account as well. The fact is the S isn't fast beyond 60, another car with decent power will out run it on a highway.

He says while riding his internal combustion powered bus

the ICE is literally obsolete though

track performance isn't relevant. 0-60 is. cry more retard

>touting 0-60 times
>on public roads where traffic will dictate how fast you accelerate
>on highways where everyone does 80mph and will fly by a Tesla going much father on a single tank that only needs to be refilled in a couple minutes

How often do you actually accelerate from 0-60? Most roads with stop lights on have speed limits far lower than that. If you're going to race anyone, it's going to be on a highway/motorway. Tesla owners don't even floor it everywhere. I spend all day surrounded by the things and the drivers move around like old people. They don't want to break their necks at every stop.

>nobody cares about track times, autist
you know that Tesla is pretty bad at track times.
>It's track performance is pitiful

all the time? you literally accelerate all the time you braindead moron. that's why it's a relevant metric

No one floors it to get to 60 in 3 seconds all of the time you moron, otherwise that Tesla would barely make it 100 miles

>reading comprehension
more proof ice fags are morons

...

Why does everyone who talks up Teslas like they're God's gift to mankind never post their own?

You're commenting on his reading comprehension but completely missed my point about not constantly stopping and flooring it?

you literally accelerate all the time though
sperg more

Better daily a drag car then

no???
ICEs are obsolete

But a drag car beats a tesla in a stop light race.

The only thing that matters is 0-60, so therefor a drag car is superior.

except it doesnt???
also a Tesla is infinitely more comfortable and practical, plus it has AutoPilot so you can shitpost while the car drives you to your destination

Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy source if you manage the wastes well

It does. Plenty of drag cars out there that accelerate from 0-60 in less than 2 seconds. Even some Rally cars will pull it off.

and theyre not production so theyre irrelevant

>0-60 is all that matter!
>a-actually it isn't all that matters!
>Help me God Emperor Musk!

We used to dump that shit into the ocean, is that good management? You can't manage it adequately, thats the problem. Think about the mining as well. Nuclear power is only safe for the wallets of the operating company.

Who has ever made money off nuclear energy? In the UK and the US, cost overruns on nuclear plants contributed to the bankruptcies of several utility companies.

Nissan Leaf owner here.

Bought a 2013 Leaf 2 months ago. 41k miles. Great condition for $6000.

Tesla car enthusiasts, a lot of the time, were not car people until the Tesla. The Tesla is the car that wowed them, making them think "Wow, electric cars are here!" even though the Nissan Leaf is 100% viable and came two years earlier.

They fell for the Apple tier marketing. Just like macbookfags. You are right, OP.

Now on to general EV talk

>Still charging with coal generated power
Coal generated power is still much cleaner per mile than even a hybrid car. Coal fired plants are so overregulated and forced to be so clean that they produce energy far more efficiently and cleanly than even the best gasoline engines.
>Charging from nuclear plant
This is good, we need more of these. New designs that make more power and are even safer than the ones we already have.

>tfw trucks/off road vehicles are probably safe from ev cuckery
Not for long. EV 18 wheelers are already on the verge of reality.
computerworld.com/article/3147405/sustainable-it/nikola-motor-unveils-its-hydrogen-fuel-cell-18-wheeler.html
nikolamotor.com/
The Nikola Zero, One, and Two threaten all that you hold dear.
These are hydrogen-electric hybrids. A likely future of large vehicles.

The grid will be upgraded to meet demand. The free market always gets what it needs, in the end. Also with more and more people installing solar panels and power storage systems in their homes, grid demand will be padded a bit. This is an excellent reason to build more, new nuclear plants.

Because storing hydrogen is easy

A.

FUCKING.

LEAF.

Where there is a need, there is a way. Its already being done all day every day in California.

>Coal generated power is still much cleaner per mile than even a hybrid car. Coal fired plants are so overregulated and forced to be so clean that they produce energy far more efficiently and cleanly than even the best gasoline engines.

What about losses in the grid?

Have a small generator attached to each home to minimize losses like Tesla's solar panel roof tiles

Kind of ironic how a company called Tesla is advocating Edison's original idea

Two people in my family own them, and they tried really hard to get me to be the third.

My dad's neighbour has been trying to convince him to "upgrade" from a diesel S Class to a Model S for like the past year. He even threw ugly ass solar panel in his roof, in Canada where they'll be useless half the year

The pretentiousness is other worldly

>implying Applefags aren't driving the industry.

>Living in Cali
I have a solution to your problem, user...

Tesla will be self sustaining by 2020

...

SUPER POWER BY 2020

>You can't manage it adequately, thats the problem.
Sticking it in holes in the ground out in the middle of nowhere works pretty well, imo.

>company is literally being propped up by government subsidies and hasn't made any money since it's inception
>S-SELF SUFFICIENT BY 2020
Yeah okay buddy, and Brazil will be a super power in 2030

Where are all the... Controls?

AutoPilot is standard equipment

This. It's literally built for retards.

It's standard on all cars, but you have to pay extra to use it

I'm from new Zealand and I have no idea what you're talking about

Any energy source is the cleanest if you manage the wastes well, that's the definition of it being clean.

So how do you manage all of the pollution that burning coal dumps into the atmosphere?

I think he means it has better emissions for the same efforts.

>tfw no quad-motor EV godmachine with falcon-wing doors and four-wheel steering

How exactly do they accomplish that when they haven't made any type of profit? Tesla is only alive because of Elon Musk's ability to charm investors.

You can try sucking it up your ass

I'd pick my 5-speed OBD-I shitbox over this smartphone on wheels any day.

Drag racers don't even give a shit about 0-60 times. It's just not relevant because it happens so quickly. Why can a $20k drag car out-accelerate "the fastest car in the world"?

>also needing 4wd to get a pathetic 2.2sec 0-60

By going with natural gas, solar, hydropower, wind, etc, which don't produce radioactive waste.

You mean the things that can't meet our rising energy demands? Germany tried going renewable with wind and solar bullshit and ended up buying nuclear power from France
How do you think that will work out when everyone is trying to charge electric cars?

>The question is whether rebuilding the engines repeatedly and refurbishing the rocket itself is cheaper than using a single use vehicle, and it probably is.
Musk thinks it is. Every other space agency and rocket engine manufacturer on the planet except for Blue Orgin thinks reusing engines is inviting additional cost.

The Space Shuttle was a demonstrater to everybody that until there is a huge leap in materials it doesn't make sense. Too much of the engine needs to be disassembled and replaced between flights. There are too many questions about things that aren't replaced, how do you guarentee their properties?

Ultimately it comes down to this:
>If Musk wants his rockets to have the same reliability as state of the art single use rockets, he is going to have to give up some combination of cost or performance.

People need to remember that we BARELY make it to space. The fact that we need so much fuel, such a large machine, and NOTHING can go wrong with that machine is why space launch is so expensive.

Personally I think Musk is completely wrong. As I just stated one of the reasons space launch is so expensive is the ammount of effort put into controlling variables. Attepting to use a once run rocket is introducing a gigantic volume of unkowns.

But like most CA scam artists... you don't really need to understand how to make a car to make a good car, you just need to convince people your golf kart it is a good car.

>The free market always gets what it needs, in the end.
This is a total fucking falacy and you need to unfuck yourself.

This has never, and will not EVER happen in free markets. What happens is that an equlibrium is met between supply and demand. Supply is never enough because sufficient supply reduces value, reducing profits. Supply is going to lag demand as well, being proactive does not pay for itself in free markets.

I mean fuck... do you not understand that the entire basis of making profit is engineer scarcity?

Say you are a power company and you see this coming. Are you going to rush out and invest in a whole bunch of new infrastructure so you can charge people the same ammount per kw/h. Or are you going to sit on the same capacity and charge people more and more as they use more and more until it becomes a slam dunk business case to add more capacity because it will guarenteed make more profit while you are still CEO.

>a company which has literally never turned a profit will be self-sustaining within five years

You can't be fucking serious

>Elon Musk
>charming anything
pick one

the guy probably can't manage to get a dog to like him

We've had good advances in technology since the SSMEs were designed and built, there's no question that reusable rocket engines can be built now. Rebuilding an engine and refurbishing a rocket is undoubtedly going to be cheaper than building a new one, only if it's comparing to a liquid fueled rocket of course, but the thing that is putting the feasibility of the venture up in the air cost wise is the massive R&D costs. Other launch vehicles are already old and proven, so their cost goes down over time, but the reusable spacex rockets are more expensive to develop and build, that's what hurts it in the end.

Musk is a technophile dipshit, anyone who looks at the absurd idea called hyperloop can see that, but reusable rockets are not something that should be ignored because of that.

>I have no understanding of metalurgy or physics but my boy Elon says it can be done, so it can be done.
baka

>Rebuilding an engine and refurbishing a rocket is undoubtedly going to be cheaper than building a new one, only if it's comparing to a liquid fueled rocket of course, but the thing that is putting the feasibility of the venture up in the air cost wise is the massive R&D costs.
No it isn't the R&D costs. It has nothing to do with the R&D costs.

It has everything to do with gambling on what parts are not going to fail and wishful thinking that a similar machine, built from similar materials is not going to be the mantenance boondogle the SSME was. If you have to tear down the entire engine and inspect it, it is going to cost more than building a new engine so then the question becomes what corners can we cut. And again, we are talking about hardware built within an inch of its life because if it is overbuilt it is too heavy to function. There are some metal parts that are under so much stress that a tiny scratch or nick on the surface will cause them to fail.

It's a common fallacy to think that technology everywhere has made the same jump computers did in the past 20 years. It hasn't. As far as rocket engines and metals for aerospace go, we haven't really had advances in technology since the 60s. IoT and the Cloud hasn't somehow magically freed us from the Performance-Cost-Weight-Reliability compromise.