Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Feb 25, 2015.
It's not under 50g yet, but by the time I can afford one it will be
Another thing people in Australia need to consider a bit more due to our hot summers is overheating. Even though the top model Tesla "can" do 0-100 kmh in 3 seconds doesn't mean it can be driven like a sports car, the reality is it's only designed to be driven as a family car. Also the car is a fat bastard in weight! Wish Musk stopped using speed as a selling point.
So in somewhere like Australia where we have a lot of hot weather, a Tesla is going to go into low power mode or even shut off if you try to drive it hard for to long on a warm day. This is the MAJOR down fall of lithium ion batteries. (7000+ 18650 batteries) And just want to make it clear Tesla DO NOT develop battery technology, they only design the battery management system. They use pre existing battery tech, the same batteries that are used in many torches and e cigarettes.
wouldn't u rather a car that looks like a bug I can just imagine the kind of people driving this car.
its going to be this all over again!
The kind of people who arent teenagers frothing over some slow peice of shit ft86 or the average person who just needs a car for transport.
It will be interesting to see if the likes of porsche and bwm can provide some competition in performance and nissan, toyota, gm etc in cost and mileage/battery capacity.
So dirty hippies? Nope not even they would buy something as crap as the model 3. :lol:
Ultimately yes until we see production electric cars lapping the Nurburgring under 8 minutes reliably, just straight line speed isn't something to get too excited about, but today I learned the Tesla S has a lower drag coefficient and centre of gravity than an FT86 and a nissan GTR
Let me just quote me again from above:
Black and white - a subsidy given to oil/gas companies. In fact it's the biggest subsidy and makes up the majority of government handouts to oil and gas. Now I'm happy if you want to advocate for the cancellation of that subsidy if you like, some $3billion or so.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the oil/gas/nuclear industry eclipses the renewable energy industry in terms of economic activity now would it? :/
But that's all by-and-by. My point is that it's no good complaining that the government assists the oil/gas/nuclear industries, if you are at the same time comfortable with or actively lobbying in favour of government assistance for renewable energy. If Elon wants to make money from cars, he shouldn't be getting cheap loans or favourable treatment from the government, especially when he doesn't turn a profit. The government is gambling with money that does not belong to them.
True, i know they spent a lot of time on this consideration. Though this number only becomes important at higher speeds, nevertheless still good to have less drag.
This beats all above at 0.14.
Yeah but it fails at corners & suspension department
And shopping centre speed bumps.
So subsidies are ok if the industry is big enough. Gotcha.
Remove 'em all and let the market sort things out. But that won't happen.
Now why didn't I think of that!!!??????? :lol: :lol:
Just returning the favour:
Yes but what do you expect from a 2000kg+ large sedan
I've put a deposit down on a Model 3. Ideal second car for our family, and worthwhile from a cost perspective even with the low gasoline prices here in the US. Basically an electric WRX
Seem to recall that without subsidies, the Australian car industry isn't viable. The US manufacturers needed *huge* loans to survive and ended up in the hands of the unions, not the tax payers who funded it.
I just spent some time in an ER in the US dealing with pneumonia, and got to watch an endless stream of low/zero income Medicaid recipients walk in expecting an immediate hospital response to things literally as small as a bleeding nick on the finger that needed a bandaid, as opposed to the genuine emergency cases like several people with broken bones from a car accident and an elderly fall (nice bone sticking out of the wrist there) - I'm already subsidising those people with my tax dollars who flagrantly waste them and get no net benefit, so if some of my tax spend gets spent on the development of a new industry that could literally change the planet (any climate change arguments aside, ask a Beijing resident if they think petrol cars are good for their health), I'm okay with it.
In an age where many on this forum have grown up with rotary phone land lines to having the Internet literally in the palm of our hand, or from vacuum tubes in their CRT televisions to 80 inch curved 3D home theatres, why is there such resistance to new, better tech in the car industry?
This is the crux of the problem. You think it is technology that will change the planet for the better, so you think it's okay for governments to use other people's money to support a corporation in its quest for profit. But the government is not just using your money, it is using money that once belonged to other people - and some of those other people may have a different opinion to yours, but you justify your position in the belief that it will save the planet.
Don't you see the problem there? You're making a value judgment and not only putting your money on the line, but money which belongs to other people. Now it's fine if you want to support Musk and his vision of a world powered by solar as opposed to fossil fuels or nuclear energy, but for someone who doesn't value cars, or values congestion free cities, or mass transport systems, or anything else that may have an alternative to Musk's vision, they are being forced to support an industry that that they may not value. And that is the problem with democracy and the State, as long as the costs can be externalised, and people can justify spending public money in the name of some "common good", there will always be individuals or groups that are forced to share the burden of that cost even if they don't share the same views.
That makes absolutely no sense especially Mona Swanson. But then, you've got a history of accusing me of holding certain beliefs because you can't read properly.
And yet you benefit from past investment in the common good while denying its very existence. Shiny, time to let go of this festering indignation that someone, somewhere may be getting something they are not "entitled" to.
@SP: Are you in the "No government funding for industry" camp or the "Government funding for industries you like" camp?
Separate names with a comma.