Tesla Model 3 Announcement tonight

[denverpilot]

They get no more benefit from fleet percentage than Ford or anyone else. It's a black and white thing, you either meet it or you don't.

That's not entirely true. For a company that has a highly successful gas powered line-up, the fleet percentages force a massive investment they may or may not have wanted to make. A properly free market would simply let Tesla (I really like calling them "Edison" now, it's much more historically accurate... GRIN...) build whatever the hell they wanted, and Ford, Chevy, whoever, to build whatever they want, and simply compete normally. Musk WANTED to start an electric car company, and WANTED to make those investments, and was handed government money to off-set his costs by making his product appear cheaper than it really is to produce. The fleet percentage along with Musk making a "sports car" also forces the luxury manufacturer with a high end/high dollar gas vehicle to compete against themselves in many ways... they're not going to bring an econo-box to market for their first electric, they have to bring a direct competitor to their own sports line-up to market, and cutting off your nose in spite of your face, isn't too smart in business.

Re-tooling and re-vamping to build a direct competitor to your existing model line-up while still having to build and support that line-up is WAY harder than starting from scratch without anything to support. The folks who designed the percentage system KNEW this. It's not hard to figure out that an "all electric" company has an advantage: It doesn't have to compete with ITSELF.

Remember, there's also percentages for econo-boxes vs. gas-guzzlers too, levied on the "legacy" manufacturers. The "easiest" to tool up for (including your Ford) is the economy end of the line-up because more of them are sold overall. Ford could make your Energi easier than they could make a competitor to the Tesla/Edison, because it wouldn't destroy their own luxury/high-end line-up, but profit margin on the economy end is VERY low. And they'd been focusing BIG BIG MONEY on making the gas stuff more efficient (EcoBoost) to meet the percentage rules INSIDE the gas line-up.

So yes, the regulators stacked the deck against the existing manufacturers by using a quota system both for gas efficiency, and also for number of electrics (Which are really the same rules, but the existing manufacturers had to tackle both problems, Musk only had to tackle being a start-up.)

No, it's not. I don't think anyone who bought an S gives a crap about the tax incentive. They have plenty of money if they're buying it, they don't need the incentive. They just want a really cool, fun car!

Doesn't matter if they "wanted" it. They GOT it. That creates an economic lean toward Musk whether the new owners care or not. And the politicians knew they were doing it, at best. At worst, they didn't read jack crap about what happens in industries where quotas are enacted. There's absolutely no POSSIBLE way to have quotas and not have MAJOR unintended consequences.

No, they started where they were selling cars. Lots of states have mandated-dealer laws in place that prevent Tesla from selling there. If there's not going to be any cars there, why would you build infrastructure for them there first? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Missed the point completely, I see. If you're not yet building infrastructure in an area, why would the Citizens of that area be demanded to pay ANY portion of your business costs? SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE is paid for by taxes. Musks TOYS are being paid for by everyone, and yet, only the rich appear to be benefitting. You know I'm not much of a label person, and don't like the whiny stuff that begets politicians creating massive government programs, etc... but you have to admit, Tesla/Edison isn't exactly catering to the AVERAGE Citizen. Especially before the announcement of the latest model, and even then, selling a car that costs more than the mean income of Americans, while having all Americans pay for decades for the loan interest on the tax credits -- pretty much seems like the most selfish crap morally, that anyone's ever seen in a new car manufacturer.

The jibes at "where the charging stations are installed' was basically pointing out that Tesla/Edison is catering to the dense population centers and well above average income Citizens, a really poor excuse for a government hand-out, overall.

Aspen and Vail aren't on the way to anywhere, so it makes no sense to install a supercharger there. You can plug into a regular charger in your garage and it'll be charged long before you leave, so what's the point of a Supercharger? Or are you really frothing at the mouth so much you can't make sense any more?

Same commentary as above. It's examples of "put stuff where the voters... cough... population are...", the voters who voted for these subsidies specifically, if you notice. The Aspen/Vail comment was more subtle, it was "Well, except for these rich folks... they'll just install superchargers in their garages and anyone traveling I-70 won't be stopping anywhere to charge up."

As far as those two towns "not being on the way to anywhere", are you FKM? I-70 is a MAJOR transportation route! Replace "Aspen/Vail" with "Summit County" if you like, the point was -- why was the major way through the middle of the US not provided the technology. Surely Denverites who go to Aspen/Vail paid their fair share of these subsidies?

The Gigafactory is the difference. Musk himself said that making money on the Model 3 requires a fully operational Gigafactory. Considering they'll be more than doubling the world's Li-Ion battery production, that gives them a huge advantage.

Also, I highly doubt Ford is losing money on any sales, or they wouldn't be selling them nationwide. And they do - I have a Ford Fusion Energi and I know others with Focus Electrics that were all purchased here in Wisconsin. They're a little hard to get because our charging infrastructure isn't as good as it is on the coasts, but they do sell them nationwide so I can't believe that they'd be losing money on them, especially not that much. And Nissan has sold a ton more Leafs, if they were losing that much money on them it'd sink them.

The Tesla factory, when it belonged to GM/Toyota joint venture NUMMI, cranked out 500,000 cars a year. They'll certainly take some time to ramp up to that kind of production, but I think they should be able to get through 200,000 by maybe mid-2019. Of course, now they're up to 325,000 so I would imagine new orders now are probably into 2020 delivery times!

You missed the overall point again here, also -- the point is... Musk wouldn't be nearly as far along toward even needing a "GigaFactory" if he hadn't gotten a guarantee that his product would be able to be sold to his buyers at a SIGNIFICANT discount, funded by taxpayers. That the new owners supposedly "don't care", I seriously doubt... people don't just say, "Oh well, this electric car costs $10,000 more than the gas one, but I 'don't care'. Try it.

Let's say magically overnight some politician decides to go against populism and wreck their career, and they introduce a bill to claw back every electric car tax break given thus far, and it somehow gained enough traction to make it to a Congressional vote... imagine the absolute freak out that would ensue. I think that adequately covers your assertion that people "wouldn't care"... they'd lose their minds.

Without those hand-outs of tax breaks paid for by increasing government debt, Musk wouldn't be where he is today.

Should he be? Only the populists know for sure from minute to minute. Handing him the money certainly wasn't based in any particular moral decision. Politicians created him a market and handed him profitability a decade sooner than he would have seen if he had to do it without subsidies.

He's the "new normal", he's not a truly private capital funded business, and he's not a government contractor -- he's somewhere in-between, needing both to make his nut.

Whether he deserves his customer's money, there is no question: He does. They could always have purchased whatever they wanted. Especially Model S owners. They're not the low-end.

Whether he deserves a subsidy from every Citizen: Murky. Likely downright immoral, considering his vehicles aren't anywhere near the "transportation needs" level, and are way closer to "transportation wants" on the need vs want scale. I can't think of a reason that anyone NEEDS a Tesla/Edison. And they're not priced or built in such a way as to be "generic transportation" for the masses... and yet, the masses will be paying for him to be profitable, to a degree. Seems like ANY degree of public support for a toy, is more morally wrong than it is right.

 

[Dav8or]

Seems like ANY degree of public support for a toy, is more morally wrong than it is right.

That could equally apply to all of general aviation. If you really believe this, you should take the moral high ground and sell your toy with wings.

 

[denverpilot]

That could equally apply to all of general aviation. If you really believe this, you should take the moral high ground and sell your toy with wings.

I've said I would begrudgingly accept user fees, but I do not ascribe to the idea that the aviation infrastructure I utilize is not benefitting the public far more than I.

To be clear, my sentence should have read: "Seems like ANY degree of public support to BUY a toy, is more morally wrong than it is right."

That said, I can fly VFR just fine without talking to anyone in ATC, EXCEPT where the airlines have made traffic too thick, if we're going to "go there". I can utilize my airplane without ANY public infrastructure if folks don't mind not having standards, not having traffic control and airspace to keep me away from their airliners they're flying on/in, etc...

There's absolutely nothing about one of these rich guy's and gal's Teslas that the public can utilize. Unless of course, they're mandated to leave them sitting out with the keyfob in them so any taxpayer can borrow the thing for a few hours. LOL... yeah, right...

A PERSONAL CAR... is not at all the same as a public INFRASTRUCTURE.

You're trying to equate paying for roads with paying for the car that operates on them. Not the same thing. I'm pretty cool with public roads, overall. I also chewed my rural county commissioner's butts for spending $2.3M on 4 miles of dirt road being paved... that wasn't needed.

They didn't listen (and even said that they were insulted I told them they weren't "conservatives" at all... haha...), but I DID tell them THAT PARTICULAR PUBLIC EXPENDITURE was unnecessary, and I'm one of only about 400 people who could possibly benefit from that road being paved... seriously, they wasted taxpayer money... but... that's what they all do.

We had a paved road going the other direction. One was plenty.

 

[EdFred]

Still short of getting there from 75.


Also the 85 percent number for electricity generation was coal AND hydrocarbons. Your pretty picture even confirmed that

 

[peppy]

It'll melt the battery in just 15 minutes! LOL

I'll believe it when I see it. They probably said this just to try to stop hemorrhaging customers to Tesla. Tesla has really put the hurt on Porsche, Audi, et al.

I agree it is trying to blunt Tesla but Porsche has excellent engineers and they know more than a little about electric drivetrains. 800 volts cuts the current down and allows thinner wires. As for charge time that will be battery chemistry dependent along with configurations (cells in series). I think making a statement that the battery will melt shows more than a little hubris as far as your knowledge relative to the engineers at Porsche.
--------------------

The problem with those opposing subsidies is that they rarely truly oppose ALL subsidies. Hence the market is still skewed. Were oil priced where it included defending the middle east (Saudi Arabia not Israel) and environmental costs then we would be much further along toward using renewable energy.

As an aside, the government loan to Tesla comes up often. The loan accomplished its purpose. It created jobs. If that program had been a separate VC fund it would have been one of the most successful during the last 20 years. Despite failures like Solyndra and Fisker, the fund was, overall, very successful and made money for the taxpayers.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Porsche is a pretty serious company, and tends to do what it says it will do. I wouldn't bet against them on this. After all, the hybrid 919 was first and second at LeMans.
But that aside.
The point is the competition provided in part by Tesla, and by extension the seed money from Gov't loans, is having the desired effect...the ev and battery technology is advancing at a far more rapid rate than it would have without the program. Much like electronics and miniaturization did via the space program.
It's not really about the cars.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Something wrong with your number. Using LL graphic's numbers, I come up with 43.2%. Also that's 2013, and doesn't account for what happens with an increase in base load vs. peak load.

39 didn't come from LL, I was lazy and used another source. But 43's pretty close. You're right about base vs. peak, but since electric cars do most of their charging in way-off-peak hours, they'll be on the cleaner end of that spectrum as long as more peak load is handled by gas turbines than solar.

You don't have to take it, you know.

That would be truly idiotic. The credit exists, why on earth would I not take it if it's available? Nobody will notice their 3/10,000ths of a cent (yes, that's what it costs the average taxpayer to pay for "my" credit) or get it back.

That's not entirely true. For a company that has a highly successful gas powered line-up, the fleet percentages force a massive investment they may or may not have wanted to make. A properly free market would simply let Tesla (I really like calling them "Edison" now, it's much more historically accurate... GRIN...) build whatever the hell they wanted, and Ford, Chevy, whoever, to build whatever they want, and simply compete normally.

The problem with pure free-market competition is that it isn't always good for us. Without some incentives and requirements, Tesla would be the ONLY company building electric cars. Without any competition, they probably wouldn't be as good, but what really matters is that we not keep burning the finite amount of fossil fuels we have on things that there are alternatives for. As of yet we have no alternative to jet engines, for example, so if we keep burning all of the oil on all of the things until the day we run out, there is likely to be a massive, terrible world war as the end approaches. Weaning ourselves will make what's left last longer for those purposes where we haven't yet found an alternative, and hopefully long enough that the alternatives we do find come down in price enough that someday the only thing we use oil for is CAF airplanes.

Musk WANTED to start an electric car company, and WANTED to make those investments, and was handed government money to off-set his costs by making his product appear cheaper than it really is to produce. The fleet percentage along with Musk making a "sports car" also forces the luxury manufacturer with a high end/high dollar gas vehicle to compete against themselves in many ways... they're not going to bring an econo-box to market for their first electric, they have to bring a direct competitor to their own sports line-up to market, and cutting off your nose in spite of your face, isn't too smart in business.

They don't have to do anything in any particular way. They're free to move into the electric market via whatever means they choose, and it doesn't have to compete with their existing ICE fleet or Tesla. BMW in particular has done a pretty good job of this, and has likely increased their customer base as a result.

Doesn't matter if they "wanted" it. They GOT it. That creates an economic lean toward Musk whether the new owners care or not.

Not really. Ask any Tesla owner if they would have bought a Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. instead if they didn't get the credit. They didn't. That isn't why people buy a Tesla. The tax credit helps the Leaf end of the market, not the Tesla end.

Missed the point completely, I see. If you're not yet building infrastructure in an area, why would the Citizens of that area be demanded to pay ANY portion of your business costs? SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE is paid for by taxes. Musks TOYS are being paid for by everyone, and yet, only the rich appear to be benefitting.

So you're saying that because everybody "paid for" the Superchargers (they didn't), that the Superchargers have to be installed EVERYWHERE simultaneously, even if they won't be used? That's the most socialist thing I've ever heard out of you.

You know I'm not much of a label person, and don't like the whiny stuff that begets politicians creating massive government programs, etc... but you have to admit, Tesla/Edison isn't exactly catering to the AVERAGE Citizen. Especially before the announcement of the latest model

Tesla has ALWAYS planned to build up in three stages: First, build a high-end sports car that's really expensive and has a high margin. That was the Tesla Roadster, which funded Step 2: Build a still-expensive, but less so, family car that will still have a big margin but will be more useful and less expensive and thus sell in larger numbers. That was the Model S (and now X), which is funding Step 3: The car for the masses that everyone can afford and will disrupt the industry enough to make a major push toward sustainable transportation (the Model 3).

Elon Musk announced that plan, to the public, in 2006 - Two years before the Roadster came out. He wouldn't have been able to just come straight out with the Model 3. Building the model 3 profitably requires the Gigafactory and the Tesla factory to both be at full production, which simply would not have been possible without bringing in the revenue from the S, X, and Roadster.

The jibes at "where the charging stations are installed' was basically pointing out that Tesla/Edison is catering to the dense population centers and well above average income Citizens, a really poor excuse for a government hand-out, overall.

No, they were catering to their customers, who by definition had to be rich until now or the company never would have made it without a much bigger government handout.

The Aspen/Vail comment was more subtle, it was "Well, except for these rich folks... they'll just install superchargers in their garages and anyone traveling I-70 won't be stopping anywhere to charge up."

It makes no sense because you can't "install a supercharger in your garage." Nor would you want to. You can't just go and buy one, and it would make no sense. You don't need a supercharger at any place where you're going to be for any length of time, just a regular one. Tesla has the regular L1/L2 charger that comes with it for free, the "HPWC" L2 charger that can go up to 80 amps given a sufficient input pipe and a car with dual onboard chargers, and then the Supercharger. One of the first two is what the rich guys will have in their garage... The Supercharger will be out by the Interstate for everyone.

As far as those two towns "not being on the way to anywhere", are you FKM? I-70 is a MAJOR transportation route! Replace "Aspen/Vail" with "Summit County" if you like, the point was -- why was the major way through the middle of the US not provided the technology. Surely Denverites who go to Aspen/Vail paid their fair share of these subsidies?

Aspen is not on the way to anywhere. Vail can be, but Vail is more of a destination than a waypoint. It makes no sense to put Superchargers at destinations - That's what the destination chargers are for! (I believe those are HPWCs, but they might be different.) So, you put Superchargers in Denver and Silverthorne, so those who are going to Aspen or Vail have plenty of juice to get there and then plug into a regular charger while they're there. (Oh, and looking at the Supercharger map - That's EXACTLY what Tesla has done. Glenwood Springs, Silverthorne, Denver.)

You missed the overall point again here, also -- the point is... Musk wouldn't be nearly as far along toward even needing a "GigaFactory" if he hadn't gotten a guarantee that his product would be able to be sold to his buyers at a SIGNIFICANT discount, funded by taxpayers. That the new owners supposedly "don't care", I seriously doubt... people don't just say, "Oh well, this electric car costs $10,000 more than the gas one, but I 'don't care'. Try it.

We need Musk to be building the Gigafactory and the Model 3, not the other way around. And yes, owners don't care. Nearly every one of them will tell you that they'll never buy a gas car again. Driving electric is that much better. And I say that too, as someone who has to burn gas to go more than 20 miles right now.

Let's say magically overnight some politician decides to go against populism and wreck their career, and they introduce a bill to claw back every electric car tax break given thus far, and it somehow gained enough traction to make it to a Congressional vote... imagine the absolute freak out that would ensue. I think that adequately covers your assertion that people "wouldn't care"... they'd lose their minds.

Ask any current Tesla owner if they'd rather trade their Tesla for an Audi or BMW straight up, or pay the $7500 back to keep their Tesla. In fact, I'll bet that if we make that offer to 100 Tesla owners, that you could easily buy the Audis and BMWs with the $7500 paybacks, were they required to pick one of those two options.

I can't think of a reason that anyone NEEDS a Tesla/Edison.

I can't think of a reason that anyone NEEDS a car at all, at the end of the day.

And they're not priced or built in such a way as to be "generic transportation" for the masses... and yet, the masses will be paying for him to be profitable, to a degree. Seems like ANY degree of public support for a toy, is more morally wrong than it is right.

Since people will buy cars one way or the other, and it's better for all of us if electric cars become a much bigger thing, and he is close to building a car that is for the masses, and it would have taken WAY more government help to get here without the high end cars, and Tesla is the ONLY company where the car is both designed and built entirely in the USA, I think it would be foolish NOT to have the government help them along.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've said I would begrudgingly accept user fees, but I do not ascribe to the idea that the aviation infrastructure I utilize is not benefitting the public far more than I.

There's some benefit, but why should every American have to pay for your "toy" to be able to be used? Yeah, they didn't buy you the airplane, but they did buy you the airports.

That said, I can fly VFR just fine without talking to anyone in ATC, EXCEPT where the airlines have made traffic too thick, if we're going to "go there". I can utilize my airplane without ANY public infrastructure if folks don't mind not having standards, not having traffic control and airspace to keep me away from their airliners they're flying on/in, etc...

Not true at all. You can't fly VFR if you don't have a runway... And most of us can't come anywhere close to being able to afford one.

There's absolutely nothing about one of these rich guy's and gal's Teslas that the public can utilize.

Except the peace, quiet, and clean air.

Still short of getting there from 75.

229 miles from the Mackinac Bridge to Sidnaw. Plenty doable in an S if they don't put the Supercharger too far from the bridge. Remains to be seen where it'll be, and how long the long-range version of the Model 3 will be able to go. Not something I'd attempt with the base model 3 or in the dead of winter, tho.

But keep in mind, we're still in the very early stages. They don't even have all the interstates covered yet. It's gonna take a while to get more infrastructure in places where there aren't even US highways (or very many people), but in 5 years there'll probably be additional Superchargers up there.

I agree it is trying to blunt Tesla but Porsche has excellent engineers and they know more than a little about electric drivetrains. 800 volts cuts the current down and allows thinner wires. As for charge time that will be battery chemistry dependent along with configurations (cells in series). I think making a statement that the battery will melt shows more than a little hubris as far as your knowledge relative to the engineers at Porsche.

That's why I said "LOL" as I was joking. Somewhat, at least - Getting a long-range battery to charge that fast is going to introduce a lot more obstacles for those engineers to overcome - Electrical, chemical, thermal, and probably others! I hope they do make those specs, that'd be pretty cool.

 

[cessna182b]

But can it drive itself?

No doubt that is coming. In somewhat related matters I took a test drive in a Chevrolet Volt recently - and was impressed. I was even more impressed when shown that it will park itself!

Looking through this thread (while skipping over some of the blather on display), I didn't see the Volt mentioned. IMHO it is worthy of consideration - and avoids entirely the matter of Range Anxiety.
A Volt would fulfill 90% of my driving needs running on battery - and when that is not the case - just run it on gasoline!

I do think the electric car is the coming thing - and intend to own one as soon as I can get my ducks lined up. As we all know, the state of battery technology still leaves much to be desired. Hopefully
that will improve over time. However, there are viable products that one can buy today - and there is no longer any reason to wait. Just my .02.

Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking through this thread (while skipping over some of the blather on display), I didn't see the Volt mentioned. IMHO it is worthy of consideration - and avoids entirely the matter of Range Anxiety.
A Volt would fulfill 90% of my driving needs running on battery - and when that is not the case - just run it on gasoline!

I think I gave a nod to the Volt when mentioning my Ford Fusion Energi, which is somewhat similar. Just a warning, you will get spoiled on electric driving! I bought the Fusion Energi for exactly the reason you specify - Get in with no range anxiety! But now I can't wait for my Tesla to be here!

 

[denverpilot]

There's some benefit, but why should every American have to pay for your "toy" to be able to be used? Yeah, they didn't buy you the airplane, but they did buy you the airports.

I can land on dirt. That's how my home airport started and if the public wants it to go back to that, I don't mind. Mari's jet may have to be based elsewhere, though.

Not true at all. You can't fly VFR if you don't have a runway... And most of us can't come anywhere close to being able to afford one.

Quite simply: BS. Damn near anything anyone here flies doesn't need a modern airport with all of the stuff that comes with one. It's nice and all, but not a requirement.

Pavement isn't that expensive. If you need it to meet some huge pile of standards, you'll need government money to meet the government standards (ironic), but bulldozing a flat chunk of land and asphalting it is not rocket science.

Except the peace, quiet, and clean air.

Ooh. Does it come with unicorn farts too, that smell like potpourri?

Obviously we couldn't have those things without buying a significant chunk of someone else's personal vehicle via government money?

229 miles from the Mackinac Bridge to Sidnaw. Plenty doable in an S if they don't put the Supercharger too far from the bridge. Remains to be seen where it'll be, and how long the long-range version of the Model 3 will be able to go. Not something I'd attempt with the base model 3 or in the dead of winter, tho.

But keep in mind, we're still in the very early stages. They don't even have all the interstates covered yet. It's gonna take a while to get more infrastructure in places where there aren't even US highways (or very many people), but in 5 years there'll probably be additional Superchargers up there.

Same old story: Rural area people pay taxes at the same rates as everyone else, but can "wait" for services. "We have to take care of the city dwellers first. You won't mind, right? It only makes 'sense'..."

We need to buy rich kids toys in the city! Pay up you folks that live on a dirt road! It's "progress"!

Not so much for you, but you pay up anyway. We're all one big happy collective here in town.

They need a new car! Don't you see he utopia we are creating in the city, you greedy selfish rural person?!

 

[deonb]

Obviously we couldn't have those things without buying a significant chunk of someone else's personal vehicle via government money?

Let's get real here. The Tesla tax credit for their entire line will cost the average American $5. In the time you ranted about this, if you even worked a minimum wage job, you would have earned more than that.

On the other hand, the average cost that an American will have to pay for the gulf wars is $12'300.

I'm personally paying more for the gulf wars than would be my Model S and Model 3 combined - just so that you can drive your choice of car. You're paying the equivalent of a somewhere between a cup of coffee and a tank of gas, so that I can drive my choice.

Mmm... Want to trade?

 

[denverpilot]

Let's get real here. The Tesla tax credit for their entire line will cost the average American $5. In the time you ranted about this, if you even worked a minimum wage job, you would have earned more than that.

On the other hand, the average cost that an American will have to pay for the gulf wars is $12'300.

I'm personally paying more for the gulf wars than would be my Model S and Model 3 combined - just so that you can drive your choice of car. You're paying the equivalent of a somewhere between a cup of coffee and a tank of gas, so that I can drive my choice.

Mmm... Want to trade?

Ah yes, the "two wrongs make one right" argument. Boy, that'll convince me that I should ignore the immorality of socializing the profit margins of car toy manufacturers.

(Let's not even discuss that GM should be long dead and gone and their assets sold to the highest bidder. I'm very consistent in my beliefs on whether government should be picking winners and losers in business opinions. AIG should be gone, too.)

And, no... None of the petroleum going into my vehicle comes from the Gulf. Unfortunately you've run into someone who knows which refinery serves his area and which fields feed that refinery, and it's exceedingly rare for them to run any OPEC crude. It's actually very difficult to even get it here. So, you can check your BS at the door on that one.

You'll probably miss some of the other things a barrel of oil produces more than gasoline, considering you'll need the process still for diesel, Jet-A, base stocks for almost all plastics, heating oil, etc etc etc. Might want to check in with the other industries with your angst over gasoline and see if they can operate without those other products. Going to be a little hard for you to eat, without diesel for farming, transport, etc.

I'm gonna take a guess here, just a guess mind you, and say that my gasoline use is pretty much a non-issue to anyone going to secure petroleum by force.

But before you get too riled up about that, let's also talk about how this myth that we're over there for oil, considering that imports from OPEC countries are lower than imports from Africa, which are lower than Latin America, which are lower than Canada, and have been for many years.

Got any other populist crap that isn't backed in facts to spew? I'm certainly not pro-war, burning any OPEC crude, or costing you any $12K with the tiny amount of fuel I burn. See if you can find an airline exec or trucking exec to whine about.

Or maybe you like your pharmaceuticals and sterile instruments wrapped in wax paper?

Don't forget to also complain to every plastic, paint, polymer, medical, and every other industry that uses more petroleum to make your life better, than I burn in any car.

Keep reaching for an excuse for socialized sports car purchases. This should continue to be really entertaining. Especially when mixed with goofy garbage like Congress fighting an illegal undeclared war just so I can drive a 2000 Subaru... Hahaha. You're freaking hilarious. Should go into comedy with that stuff.

 

[peppy]

Denverpilot - I buy that your petroleum doesn't come from the gulf region. That doesn't change the fact that you are paying so some guy in Europe can get it.

You must have hated the interstate system. That's another tax dollar program that benefitted the country as a whole but didn't reach out to some areas till late in the game. That one was totally tax payer funded. Tesla has had a little money thrown at it by comparison with most of their money coming from the private sector.

The tax credit will help the model 3 but I doubt it had much to do with model S sales. A difference of $7500 doesn't make a person pick one car over another when both are north of $100K in price.

I don't own an electric car but a good friend has two model S vehicles. His biggest fear is that something happens to Tesla and he has to go back to driving an ICE car. I have driven the S several times and the lack of latency is amazing. It was a great driving experience.

 

[deonb]

Don't forget to also complain to every plastic, paint, polymer, medical, and every other industry that uses more petroleum to make your life better, than I burn in any car.

The 2.5% of oil use by the petrochemical industry isn't why we went to war. Neither is the 9% used by jet fuel (which would have been even less in Reagan's time when he got the briefings that directly led to the U.S build-up of military power in the gulf). The fact is that if it wasn't for the automotive sector, the U.S. alone would have had enough oil to supply itself and all of its allies. And the response to the invasion of Kuwait would have been restricted to: "Lets get the Americans out of there".

And no, agreeing with peppy here - you don't get to say that because your particular vehicle uses non-gulf petroleum that therefore it's not responsible. It just causes another vehicle somewhere else to as a result depend on gulf petroleum. That would be like me refuting your 43.2% coal number just because my own personal electric consumption is less than 0.3% coal (we're mostly Hydro in my area).

Unless you literally have a oil well in your back yard, and you go Amish-style on it, your actions have global consequences. Your car wasn't created by Bob "with the welder", and fueled by Frank "with the bucket". It's entire economic sectors that come together - without that, you would have still rode a horse. Same with EV subsidies. It's not about putting one or other person in a car. It's not about getting 200'000 x number of car manufacturers EV's out on the road, and at EV number 200'001 the manufacturer was suppose to just close down their plant - game over, thanks for playing. As if getting 1 million EV's out on the road would make any difference to either energy usage or pollution levels. The intent of it has always been to spur the creation of an entire industry. And in that the policy succeeded. If Tesla can hit their manufacturing targets (and they most probably will), in 2 to 3 years Tesla alone will create more unsubsidized EV's per year than was paid for by the program in its entire lifetime across all manufacturers.

It's actually quite foreseeable that in 5 to 10 years Tesla will export more vehicles per year than was ever paid for by the program. Heck, maybe this was the master plan all along and the government just found the most ingenious way ever to get around WTO trade rules and turning an import into an export without either directly taxing the import or subsidizing the export.


I do agree with you that the deck is stacked in Tesla's favor though. Tesla would never have been able to sell vehicles if they had to go through the traditional dealer model. My wife bought a Nissan Leaf in December and we had to go to 4 dealers before one was willing to sell us one. It's a freakin bizarre experience going to an auto dealer and getting responses like: "Oh, the guy that sells that car only works 4 days a week", and "Well, we know we have the car on the lot somewhere but we can't find it right now. Sorry.". And then not getting your calls returned. Can you just imagine you'd ever get that experience trying to buy any other type of car? But dealers don't make any money of EV servicing, and it takes longer for them to sell an EV, so they just don't care about selling it. The manufacturers actually give substantial kickbacks to the dealers to sell their EVs.

There is no way Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, BMW etc. could ever lobby for a change in this dealer model, so they're stuck with it. Tesla isn't - and the ways that the laws passed in the states would forever only allow Tesla (or pure EV manufacturers) to sell direct. This tips the scale more in Tesla's favor than all of the subsidies combined.

 

[denverpilot]

And no, agreeing with peppy here - you don't get to say that because your particular vehicle uses non-gulf petroleum that therefore it's not responsible. It just causes another vehicle somewhere else to as a result depend on gulf petroleum.

Garbage socialist thought process. Anyone can choose or demand their supplier use whatever they want them to. There's no such thing as me "forcing" anyone to live somewhere they need gulf oil. Ask where yours comes from. Vote with your dollar. But don't act like you care if you didn't.

So yes, I do get to state how it works in reality against your fantasy land where I forced someone to buy something. Nope. Didn't happen.

But it's another really detailed deflection about why society should be buying sports cars for rich people.

 

[ggroves]

There's no rationalizing with a fanatical Libertarian.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deonb]

Garbage socialist thought process. Anyone can choose or demand their supplier use whatever they want them to.

They cannot force their seller to only sell to them. What, do you think that if you simply don't buy from one refinery they're simply going to send the oil back to the Middle East and it gets pumped down into the well again?

Unless your local refinery has a policy of not selling anything outside of your county, and shutting down production each year as soon as the county needs are satisfied, they're going to be sending their product somewhere else. So every time you buy a gallon from your local refinery, it means someone somewhere else is going to have to buy their gallon from another source.

This isn't socialism - it's free trade. And it's how the real world works.


PS: The same principle applies to people who buy green energy packages from their local power companies btw. A lot of times with these, you're just bumping someone else into getting dirtier energy.

 

[deonb]

There's no rationalizing with a fanatical Libertarian.....

He's not a Libertarian. If only.

 

[JoseCuervo]

When somebody claims their oil has nothing to do with oil in the Middle East, it makes me believe the studies that regularly show Fox News viewers to be the least informed.

 

[Dav8or]

There's a new way to sell gasoline and charge a premium for it! Advertise it as certified Middle East Oil free! Kind of like organic food in the market!

 

[timwinters]

There's a new way to sell gasoline and charge a premium for it! Advertise it as certified Middle East Oil free! Kind of like organic food in the market!

You know, when I was working up in Appleton Wi, it seems like there was a chain that did just that. They were Canadian.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

What do you need a pickup for ? Most of them I see on the road have one person in them and nothing in the bed but some fast food trash.

I kinda laugh about that too. Trucks cost a fair bit more to buy and maintain yet I have several friends that own them and never use the capability they pay so much to have. That said, I'm thinking about dropping another turbo in my dodge.

 

[EdFred]

229 miles from the Mackinac Bridge to Sidnaw.

You often land the Mooney with less than an hour of fuel too?

 

[denverpilot]

They cannot force their seller to only sell to them. What, do you think that if you simply don't buy from one refinery they're simply going to send the oil back to the Middle East and it gets pumped down into the well again?

Unless your local refinery has a policy of not selling anything outside of your county, and shutting down production each year as soon as the county needs are satisfied, they're going to be sending their product somewhere else. So every time you buy a gallon from your local refinery, it means someone somewhere else is going to have to buy their gallon from another source.

This isn't socialism - it's free trade. And it's how the real world works.


PS: The same principle applies to people who buy green energy packages from their local power companies btw. A lot of times with these, you're just bumping someone else into getting dirtier energy.

So all those "I'm offended by your company" whiny bitchfests don't actually work against all of those other companies after all? Couldn't have an Occupy Refineries (bowel) movement?

I'm shocked a globalization expert like you doesn't know the power of smelly people sleeping in tents in city parks, while walking to Starbucks for their morning coffee.

Still not buying it. Free people buy what they want. Don't want OPEC oil products, don't buy them. Your assertion that I'm forcing you to, is untrue.

And it still isn't a moral justification for me or anyone else to pay for your sports car. Which you still haven't addressed.

You can keep going off into side topics like politicians waging undeclared illegal wars, but it doesn't answer the question of why rich suburbanites need tax breaks to buy sports cars. There's no societal need for that.

It's just crony capitalism wrapped in a VERY thin layer of fake "green" tissue paper. Got to have the tissue paper wrapping so folks can rationalize away their theft from others to maintain whatever lifestyle the marketers claim you "need".

Nobody needs an electric car. People want them, but that's not a reason to subsidize them with long term Federal debt.

 

[JimNtexas]

I can't follow this thread clearly (too low a s/n ratio), but for all practical purposes, until Hillary shuts down fracking the United States is a net oil exporter. We certainly don't need imported oil at all.

Also, while I agree a $7500 tax credit on a $120K car is kind of ridiculous, I think Tesla is close to hitting the upper limit of the number of cars that can get the credit.

 

[deonb]

And it still isn't a moral justification for me or anyone else to pay for your sports car. Which you still haven't addressed.

Well I have, but I'll do it again. The intent was never to put certain people in certain cars, or even put a certain number of cars on the road and that's it, but to jump-start an industry which will eventually benefit everybody. (Just like it worked for virtually every other industry that was formed... ever).

This specific subsidy will not cost you a cent. Not a single cent. I'll put my money where my mouth is - PM me your Tax Returns since 2010, and I'll refund you everything that you paid for my Tesla.

Better than that - I'll refund you everything that EVERY Tesla has ever costed you or will cost you personally, even adding 30 years of compound interest to that, IF you in return send me your part of the tax discount you've earned and will earn as a result of the federal taxes paid directly and indirectly by Tesla, its employees and its suppliers, since Tesla was formed, until Tesla stops to exist.

We can restrict that to only money earned from Tesla exports, less you think that Tesla's existence simply causes another American manufacturer or another American job to lose out.

Want to take that deal? I wouldn't if I were you... by the time Tesla has gone through just the Model 3 pre-orders they already have, you'd be way in the red. BUT, if YOU'RE so sure that Tesla is going to cost you money, put your money where your mouth is.

I can't follow this thread clearly (too low a s/n ratio), but for all practical purposes, until Hillary shuts down fracking the United States is a net oil exporter. We certainly don't need imported oil at all.

No, but our allies do. If we didn't use up all of our oil, we would have been able to supply to our allies, and they wouldn't had to buy from the Gulf. Approximately the same situation as now was actually true at the time of the Reagan briefings in 1984. Unless the U.S. prevented free trade (which Reagon was never going to do), oil companies would simply sell to the highest bidder, and if you shut down the flow from the Gulf, those highest bidders would be in Europe and Japan, which in turn would have caused domestic oil prices to rise.

The escalation of arms in the gulf was literally to keep the price of oil low: "Under the worst circumstances, oil prices could triple, triggering a new recession, increased unemployment, higher inflation, and a further deterioration of the debt crises".

Note that it didn't say oil would be unavailable, but that oil prices would triple. And that's why we fought the wars we did.

Just like it doesn't matter which power plant your electron comes from, it doesn't matter which specific well your drop of oil comes from. The system is global with global effects.

 

[EppyGA]

IF you in return send me your part of the tax discount you've earned and will earn as a result of the federal taxes paid directly and indirectly by Tesla, its employees and its suppliers, since Tesla was formed, until Tesla stops to exist.

Where the "F" do you think the money those companies pay in taxes come from? Let's also not forget that the money that the government hands out must first be taken from a hard working individual. Without citizens working your all wonderful government ain't got chit.

 

[JimNtexas]

The escalation of arms in the gulf was literally to keep the price of oil low


That makes no sense when you think about it. They way to keep prices low was to just buy it from Sadaam! He'd have been overjoyed to sell us all the oil he could pump!

Did you think blowing up all those oil wells in Iraq and Kuwait somehow made the price of oil drop?!"

Obama clearly knows this, keeping oil prices low is probably the biggest reason we dropped the sanctions against that country, rather than bombing them back to the stone age.

 

[deonb]

Where the "F" do you think the money those companies pay in taxes come from? Let's also not forget that the money that the government hands out must first be taken from a hard working individual. Without citizens working your all wonderful government ain't got chit.

From people in China, Japan, Europe, Australia and New Zealand? Or do you care about them? That's why I specifically qualified: "restrict that to only money earned from Tesla exports".

This isn't money that initially came from a US taxpayer. In fact it prevents US taxpayer money from going to other countries. Tesla exported ~24014 vehicles in 2015, and even for the ~26566 vehicles they sold in the US, the sales that it took it away from were virtually all imports. If Tesla didn't exist, that money simply would not exist in our economy to be spent or to be taxed.

It's always interesting to me that people have so much hatred for their government that they can't celebrate an American car company kicking the but of the Germans at their own game.

 

[deonb]

The escalation of arms in the gulf was literally to keep the price of oil low

That makes no sense when you think about it. They way to keep prices low was to just buy it from Sadaam! He'd have been overjoyed to sell us all the oil he could pump!

Read the paper I linked to above. US just came from oil disruptions in 1973-74 and 79-80 and was concerned about the actions of Iran & Iraq in the gulf. Specifically by the disruptions caused by the Iranian revolution as well as the Iran/Iraq war. So there was prior experience with the pricing going up as a result of stability issues in the gulf, which led to recession, unemployment and higher inflation in 1980.

People were for sure buying from Iran & Iraq (they weren't sanctioned at the time), but every instability in the region created chaos.

Heck, if I was in Reagan's shoes I'd have recommended the same course of action - put bases & defense in the gulf to at least protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. (I would have ALSO however at the same time invested in technology to try and get rid of that dependency, which he didn't do).

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush (the first), had really no other option than to use it to defend Kuwait - the stage was already set. Everything thereafter is history.

 

[patrick wentworth]

There are a couple of long reads which are intriguing starting with :
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html#part1
is a good history and the Lawrence Livermore Lab charts are helpful in looking at the issue as Elon sees it.

Ignoring the tax credit as I am (late in the lines to sign up for the Model 3) I would like to be part of a trend that will perhaps slow a potentially damaging process.
I am not a Greenie -- Hell I drive a Corvette and fly a Plane, but here is a chance to purchase a car with style and speed rivaling my Vette.
I would have bought a S but it was way to big and the infrastructure just was not there.

There are political debates ongoing and we have gone through some questionable times (yes I fought in Vietnam) and manufacturing fled overseas ( I was in Manufacturing cost analysis and fought the moves to no avail) and our governance has moved to a strange strange polarized 1%ers and overly religious place, but along comes a guy that has a positive view and can do spirit in multiple venues and he likes America ......... I'm IN!!!!!!!!

Space, Solar, Batteries, Paypal, Electric Cars. This should spark our business and political leadership if it sees some 250,000 folks from all walks putting out a $1000 interest free loan to an idea because they (we) think it is cool and may help.

If we could only interest him in GA

 

[patrick wentworth]

And for a bit of humor:

http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/

 

[denverpilot]

So now the excuse for everyone paying for execs sports cars is that our allies needed oil? And that's a response to the question about the *morality* of same?

This keeps me entertained but is pretty sad really.

Here's a thought: Our allies can go secure their own damned oil supplies with their own dead teenagers.

Whether one wants our country to be imperialists or isolationists or somewhere in-between, it's a pretty poor excuse for a domestic tax break on sports cars for millionaires to say "our allies need oil".

You really went there. Ha. Wow.

How about you don't bother refunding me the Tesla money and send it to a homeless shelter in whatever US city you like. If we're going to hand out debt money like its candy, might as well feed some disadvantaged Citizens with it, instead of handing it to people who could already afford sports cars.

I know. It won't "build demand" for lesser folk who'll think it's a good idea to buy a $40K version on nearly a decade of personal debt.

I also don't have any particular interest in supplying said allies with oil directly, something you alluded to. "We could supply them..." Not interested at all.

One of them already owns two of the largest US oil producers through the inept behavior of our SEC, so they're doing just fine if their oil prices climb. They're pocketing the profits we used to keep here for ourselves. (BP and Shell)

Like I said waaaaaay up there in the thread... Musk isn't a genius engineer. He's a genius social engineer.

Waited for politicians to give him the rules that say there's no limit on what kind of car he can build, and use every penny of the government's money to sell sports cars to rich people. Brilliant.

Use the "mandate" to bust the dealership system other manufacturers are required to have under "consumer protection" law, and get the wage slaves drooling over the sports cars of the rich and famous.

Then build an expensive but not as expensive sports car for the city masses who'll either be well above middle class or willing to mortgage the things for over half a decade, and make out like he's done some brilliant engineering... with that wrapper of green around it. And pocket millions.

Truly better than Edison at his own game.

Edison was damned good at it too. No grass growing under that guy. Was it Edison or was it Westinghouse that convinced everyone that electric chairs powered by AC were better than DC ones? Government mandated his version.

Gotta be humane when you're zapping convicts, you know. Always thought that one was impressive marketing. Bzzzzzzt. Clunk. Next!

I do get a kick out of watching whiners on TV claiming big businesses that they don't like -- have "too many loopholes" that should be closed -- while cheering on the businesses they do like -- using loopholes ten miles wide.

Absolutely masterful at manipulation. Check out how they managed to get you to reach all the way to saying we need electric sports cars subsidized for millionaires -- so the UK and Oz can have oil.

ROFL. Seriously. And it's all my fault, burning Wyoming crude in my 16 year old paid off four banger. Hahaha.

We need some "think of the children" to round out this sermon, don't you think? I'm sure there's a small girl somewhere in the UK wishing her mommy and daddy could put petrol in the car because mean old Nate in Colorado drove his Subaru to town. ROFLMAO.

And if mean old Nate doesn't "invest" in electric car tech soon, there will be a crying boy in Sydney wishing the same. Poor boy.

We may need a famous actor or actress to do some informercials that say, "If only you would go buy a sports car from Elon Musk, this child could have been saved. For only the cost of much of your disposable income for seven years, and a healthy profit to Elon, this tragedy could have been avoided. Won't you sign up to buy an electric car, now? Operators are standing by..."

 

[deonb]

Here's a thought: Our allies can go secure their own damned oil supplies with their own dead teenagers... "our allies need oil"

We are in the same oil market as our allies, so our price of oil has as much to do with their availability of oil as it does with ours. Unless you want to make an argument against free trade? I know you could care less if someone in the UK has petrol or not, but you sure care about what you pay at the pump.

I'm sure there's a small girl somewhere in the UK wishing her mommy and daddy could put petrol in the car because mean old Nate in Colorado drove his Subaru to town.

And they're friends with that couple in Pennsylvania that could have put their daughter through college if only they didn't have to pay the $0.00002205 so that mean old Deon in Washington can drive his Tesla, right?

Dumb hyperbole work both ways...

 

[denverpilot]

[QUOTE="deonb, post: 2053982, member: 26215]


And they're friends with that couple in Pennsylvania that could have put their daughter through college if only they didn't have to pay the $0.00002205 so that mean old Deon in Washington can drive his Tesla, right?

Dumb hyperbole work both ways...[/QUOTE]

Significant difference is, one is immoral. Stealing money to own a sports car from lots of others to make the amount small enough per person, is still stealing, and not an appropriate use of government money, especially when that government is operating on debt.

It's a very efficient way to hide the theft though.

Micro-payment embezzlers do the same thing and have the same thought processes. "Nobody will even notice this... It's sooooo small. Everyone can afford a few pennies for meeeeeeee me me."

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Thread is closed for MC review.