Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Model S Floats Well Enough To Act As a Boat, According To Elon Musk
It appears a Tesla Model S car can float and effectively drive on water. Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a video of a Model S car which was able to float well through a flooded tunnel in Kazakhstan. Musk also noted that the company "definitely" doesn't recommend trying this -- but still vouched for the availability of this feature. The Guardian reports: The car appears to power through the water using the thrust of the wheels turning in the water, as the bow wave laps over the car's bonnet. Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof. Electric cars don't suffer from that particular issue, but how the rest of the car will react is unknown.
Jay Leno had some interesting things to say about Tesla.
I've noticed the same thing (as Jay): people are falling over themselves to try to bring Tesla down, and I haven't the first idea why.
GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.
Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).
Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.
Jay mentions that "we like noble failures more than we reward success". I think that's true, but it's also baffling.
It actually has enough power to, versus its weight, if one were to retrofit the drivetrain to turn a prop and affix some reasonably efficient wings and flight surfaces. A typical Cessna weighs a bit over a tonne and has an engine in the ballpark of 120kW or so. Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.
Heck, you could probably fly one with just a big parasail for lift - the L/D ratio of 4-5 is probably good enough, at least for the mid-range versions and possibly the low-end as well. You just need to find a good way to get that motor power going to one or more props.
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
But it's not specially for Tesla, nor is it Tesla's fault the government subsidizes it. It's the governments' fault. And in a democracy where the government is chosen, it is, thus, the citizens' fault. Basically: it's your fault. ;-)
Well, ok, I'm sure you voted for the good guys who never give out subsidies, but still...
Point being, the parent poster was specifically calling out Tesla, and thus implied they were getting some sort of unfair and unethical advantage. But it's not limited to Tesla, and it's debatable whether it's unethical. If the government gave you a taxbreak so you'd only have to pay half your taxes, would you refuse because you thought it unfair? I very much doubt it. I know I wouldn't.
So... is it necessary and a good thing the government masively subsidises stuff like electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc. Hell no. It costs loads of money and often just keeps non-profitable companies afloat with taxpayers' money. Not saying it's always the case, and maybe Tesla would survive without the subsidies, but that's what it boils down to most of the time.
However, the ones to blame is the government allowing, nay, stimulating such squander. NOT the companies who just make use of the money that is thrown at them.
In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one. I mean, if you're rich enough to buy one in the first place, and they want one, they will buy one, regardless of whether they get a 3000 euro reduction. This is just an added bonus to the rich, which don't really need them. so the theory that it's need to 'stimulate' innovative technologies so they break through on the market, is basically bull. It doesn't really help, and it costs the populace dearly anyway.
When an electric car will go down to 15-20000 euro, and becomes viable for ordinary citizens, THEN it would matter in deciding to buy one or not. But at that time, they'll undoubtedly stop giving subsidies, as they always do. Because it's beginning to cost too much, and the rich elite (many of whom are the same politicians that voted for the subsidies in the first place) has already got one anyway. Of course, the official explanation by then is that 'the goal has been achieved' and thus no more subsidies are necessary.
It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich. There are very few technologies that have inherent advantages, and yet that need heavy subsidies to stay afloat, certainly for longer than a few years. After that, it just becomes a monetary black hole where you pour in taxpayers' money endlessly, so a company which isn't competitive stays afloat while we're paying for it - often doubly so.
It's a distortion of the free market, and I believe the disadvantages of such a system are far bigger than the occasional advantage of having a new technology that might or might not have broken through without it, for the simple reason that most WOULD have broken through eventually anyway, if they're really that good and better than old technology.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---