Glad you agree stall torque is irrelevant because it says nothing. It's as bad as a voltage rating on a drill or a c discharge rate on a battery. The stats you give for acceleration can be had at a lesser price also so I'm glad you are helping me prove a point, thanks.
yes i freely admit I am biased against electrics. It's because people, the media, poorly informed enviornmentalists, etc, have been lying for years. No one seems to want to talk about co2/distance and the fact in the majority of population centers electrics are nearly as bad at polluting as gas cars and underperform economy cars especially diesels. This misinformation hurts the environment by people thinking they are doing the most good when they are not. Note I said nothing about the charging network, but yes the recharge time also hurts performance.
while the tesla is a good car, what gets me is saying it is good for the environment. Just like the SUV that tesla is going to make. It's not, it will likely also underperform an economy gas car.
Condoms, when used correctly, are around 70% effective. Besides a vasectomy males have basically no other options. This, along with a condom, would finally give males a chance at being responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancy on their own.
if you actually cared about stds you probably should be promoting banning alcohol as I'm quite sure that leads to the majority of bad decisions
The claim that a male birth control pill is in stages of awaiting approval for testing are likely true. Many other types of pill have been tried, it's quite plausible one will come soon. I'm not astroturfing. If you read the comment i said 'when the day comes' meaning it will likely be someday. Perhaps you are getting paid by a women's group to detract from the benefits of a male pill.
false rape claims are between 2 and 40% depending on who you listen to, personally I think its around 10% despite no real conclusive research done on it. Given the castrate and murder then check facts mentality America has degenerated into (thinking of rolling stone here) its a serious concern for males everywhere (at least in the us)
This could really help men everywhere, there are a ton of options for women but very few for men. I can only hope when the day comes that it's viewed as a positive direction from all rights groups. Doubtful, but one can dream.
Good job posting that your own claim of stall torque is irrelevant. Most people wouldn't prove themselves wrong and admit it. I'm changing my mind and commend you on your honesty.
Can't help but think of douglas Adams when i read about this venture:
These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
nice try lol. You must be homeschooled or something. With no movement the static force gives no acceleration - might as well say a section of a tree trunk is providing thousands of pounds of thrust and make a free energy machine. Or gear down a hobby servo motor ten billion times and 'prove' you can generate more torque than any tesla with a 1.5V AAA battery. Or you may realize you lack a basic grasp of physics. Electric motors have higher torque than internal combustion motors of a similar size only at lower speeds.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 sAudi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s
Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
The tesla 60 gets a 0-60 of 5.9 seconds but acceleration isn't the only performance metric. The 208 (60) to 270 (85D) mile range puts it at the bottom of the list. Handling and braking are also important - its a fact you can get a comparable performing vehicle for less money if you forgo electric.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really?Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8%
2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Lmao you have no idea - your link shows the power plant effciency, not the transmission losses, charging losses or the efficiency of the electric vehicle. By that logic gas vehicles are 100% efficient as they require no power plant for recharging. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... you can get the same or better emissions with a economy gas car and far better co2/mile emissions from a modern diesel vehicle, in the vast majority of locations that people live around the entire planet, and at less than half the cost. Not to mention that site is highly biased toward electric cars and if anything have overestimated things. People would buy them if they got the crazy subsidy electric vehicles get, if you could get one new for 5-10k usd instead of 15-20k usd people would line up around the block.
The main difference is people are led to believe the tesla is environmentally friendly. Everyone knows SUVs aren't. In reality, depending on where you live, the tesla gets 25-40 mpg co2 equivalent. A modern diesel can do much lower co2 in the vast majority of electrical markets.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
So explain to me why electric cars get 25-30mpg in co2 emissions when many economy cars to better for half or one third the cost? The FACT is electric cars are bad for the environment. Further, if you mean http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... Canada, yes I always suspected them of being turrest's. It dosent make sense to buy electric today when 10 years from now things will be marginally different - major power plant installations take decades. cars last less than 10 years on average - replacing those tesla -s batteries is gona be a 20k paycheck before subsidy. Then again you must care more about dogma than actual impartial facts.
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
I did look at the specifications. Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement. lithium batteries are heavy and electric motors aren't any more powerful per unit mass than gas. The model S is under 420 hp no matter the model and weighs 4700 lbs, that's not really very good for the environment or performance. The tesla s is a good car, yes. But its not the panacea for all people lie and say it is. All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration, top speed, range, handling, braking, etc...
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles. Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Yes if you live next to a solar or nuclear plant it is a better co2 option. However the majority of people in the world, including the USA, Europe and china do not. In the vast majority of electric markets diesel and gas powered economy cars not only get less co2/distance (such as 80-200 g/km) but cost 1/2 to 1/3 or even less than electrics (200-300 g co2/mile in usa, china, india) when you consider subsidies come from somewhere.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution. Hybrids are still too expensive for the money to do the most good. Our best bet is still clean diesel. Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
China gets 72% of its power from fossil fuels - electric cars like the tesla actually pollute more than regular economy cars. 420hp 4700lbs is niether 'green' nor 'efficient'. It will take many decades to wean ourselves off fossil fueled electricity - cars last a decade or less
tl:dr while teslas are a nice car, fully electric cars pollute more co2 per mile than electrics in the vast majority of electric power markets, which by they way, cost 2-3x as much before subsidy. You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric. Given finite money and actually wanting to reduce co2 the factual answer is efficient fossil fuel cars. Lying to people and hiding the tailpipe fifty miles away under fifty feet of bs is part of the problem, not solution.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics. Moreover there isn't infinite money to spend on lowering co2 emissions. In factual reality economy cars, esp modern diesels, get lower co2 per mile in the vast majority of markets where fully electric cars are used because electricity is fossil fuel powered. tl:dr for a set amout of money to reduce pollution the answer is cheap fossil fuel cars and possibly hybrids if they can be made cheaper. It will take decades to phase out fossil fuels from electric generation and until then its disingenuous to fool people by hiding the tailpipe under 50 feet of bs.
I'm not sure why you would bring race or medical conditions into this argument. I'm sick of people using ad hominem on our son. You, sir, are a horrible person!
The average account size is 2.5 to 10 million dollars. It's a we hide your identity and ask no questions banking system. Outside of that they offer no special perks. How many people would chose to bank half way around the earth for no reason? What does your gut say?
I actually read it yesterday on another site it's kind of older news. Does it really suprise anyone? All those billions of dollars are from only 10k accounts so the % of shady customers probably is reaching 100.
when I was in grade school i was pretty damn sure earth like planets were very common. There had to be countless quadrillions of them at a minimum. It's actually a pretty obvious assumption. But a surprising number of people, given a total lack of evidence at the time of other planets outside our solar system, told me there were none at all. Whenever you have such large systems it isn't really a stretch to take evidence you have from a small sample and extend it to the whole - true it's not proof but you can't rule it out and pretty much by definition is plausible.
Sounds like a phone it in solution compared to the language used in stating the problem. Although given what they pay teachers compared to what you could get actually working in cs it's not too surprising. On the plus side at least they haven't tried to offer online gym classes.
Slashdot Mirror
yes i freely admit I am biased against electrics. It's because people, the media, poorly informed enviornmentalists, etc, have been lying for years. No one seems to want to talk about co2/distance and the fact in the majority of population centers electrics are nearly as bad at polluting as gas cars and underperform economy cars especially diesels. This misinformation hurts the environment by people thinking they are doing the most good when they are not. Note I said nothing about the charging network, but yes the recharge time also hurts performance.
while the tesla is a good car, what gets me is saying it is good for the environment. Just like the SUV that tesla is going to make. It's not, it will likely also underperform an economy gas car.
if you actually cared about stds you probably should be promoting banning alcohol as I'm quite sure that leads to the majority of bad decisions
The claim that a male birth control pill is in stages of awaiting approval for testing are likely true. Many other types of pill have been tried, it's quite plausible one will come soon. I'm not astroturfing. If you read the comment i said 'when the day comes' meaning it will likely be someday. Perhaps you are getting paid by a women's group to detract from the benefits of a male pill.
false rape claims are between 2 and 40% depending on who you listen to, personally I think its around 10% despite no real conclusive research done on it. Given the castrate and murder then check facts mentality America has degenerated into (thinking of rolling stone here) its a serious concern for males everywhere (at least in the us)
If it passed fda I would definitely use it. It's much less permanent than a vasectomy, and even minor surgery carries risks.
This could really help men everywhere, there are a ton of options for women but very few for men. I can only hope when the day comes that it's viewed as a positive direction from all rights groups. Doubtful, but one can dream.
Good job posting that your own claim of stall torque is irrelevant. Most people wouldn't prove themselves wrong and admit it. I'm changing my mind and commend you on your honesty.
Can't help but think of douglas Adams when i read about this venture: These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.
da da dum. I'll be here all day folks
a 12,000 USD battery every 8 years may throw off your napkin calculation. You are probably spending more on the electric even with oil changes.
http://my.teslamotors.com/it_I... don't forget a 12 thousand dollar battery pack every 8 years. That may throw a damper in your napkin calculations.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
nice try lol. You must be homeschooled or something. With no movement the static force gives no acceleration - might as well say a section of a tree trunk is providing thousands of pounds of thrust and make a free energy machine. Or gear down a hobby servo motor ten billion times and 'prove' you can generate more torque than any tesla with a 1.5V AAA battery. Or you may realize you lack a basic grasp of physics. Electric motors have higher torque than internal combustion motors of a similar size only at lower speeds.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
The tesla 60 gets a 0-60 of 5.9 seconds but acceleration isn't the only performance metric. The 208 (60) to 270 (85D) mile range puts it at the bottom of the list. Handling and braking are also important - its a fact you can get a comparable performing vehicle for less money if you forgo electric.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8% 2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Lmao you have no idea - your link shows the power plant effciency, not the transmission losses, charging losses or the efficiency of the electric vehicle. By that logic gas vehicles are 100% efficient as they require no power plant for recharging. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... you can get the same or better emissions with a economy gas car and far better co2/mile emissions from a modern diesel vehicle, in the vast majority of locations that people live around the entire planet, and at less than half the cost. Not to mention that site is highly biased toward electric cars and if anything have overestimated things. People would buy them if they got the crazy subsidy electric vehicles get, if you could get one new for 5-10k usd instead of 15-20k usd people would line up around the block.
The main difference is people are led to believe the tesla is environmentally friendly. Everyone knows SUVs aren't. In reality, depending on where you live, the tesla gets 25-40 mpg co2 equivalent. A modern diesel can do much lower co2 in the vast majority of electrical markets.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... So explain to me why electric cars get 25-30mpg in co2 emissions when many economy cars to better for half or one third the cost? The FACT is electric cars are bad for the environment. Further, if you mean http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... Canada, yes I always suspected them of being turrest's. It dosent make sense to buy electric today when 10 years from now things will be marginally different - major power plant installations take decades. cars last less than 10 years on average - replacing those tesla -s batteries is gona be a 20k paycheck before subsidy. Then again you must care more about dogma than actual impartial facts.
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
I did look at the specifications. Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement. lithium batteries are heavy and electric motors aren't any more powerful per unit mass than gas. The model S is under 420 hp no matter the model and weighs 4700 lbs, that's not really very good for the environment or performance. The tesla s is a good car, yes. But its not the panacea for all people lie and say it is. All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration, top speed, range, handling, braking, etc...
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles. Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Yes if you live next to a solar or nuclear plant it is a better co2 option. However the majority of people in the world, including the USA, Europe and china do not. In the vast majority of electric markets diesel and gas powered economy cars not only get less co2/distance (such as 80-200 g/km) but cost 1/2 to 1/3 or even less than electrics (200-300 g co2/mile in usa, china, india) when you consider subsidies come from somewhere.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution. Hybrids are still too expensive for the money to do the most good. Our best bet is still clean diesel. Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
Also comparing anything supposedly "green" to a SUV is pretty laughable.
Sorry but you have been misled.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/01/20150128-corsa.html
With common fossil fuel cars getting 150-200g/km co2. There are thousands of credible sources just look. My opinion means nothing the facts are facts.
China gets 72% of its power from fossil fuels - electric cars like the tesla actually pollute more than regular economy cars. 420hp 4700lbs is niether 'green' nor 'efficient'. It will take many decades to wean ourselves off fossil fueled electricity - cars last a decade or less
tl:dr while teslas are a nice car, fully electric cars pollute more co2 per mile than electrics in the vast majority of electric power markets, which by they way, cost 2-3x as much before subsidy. You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric. Given finite money and actually wanting to reduce co2 the factual answer is efficient fossil fuel cars. Lying to people and hiding the tailpipe fifty miles away under fifty feet of bs is part of the problem, not solution.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics. Moreover there isn't infinite money to spend on lowering co2 emissions. In factual reality economy cars, esp modern diesels, get lower co2 per mile in the vast majority of markets where fully electric cars are used because electricity is fossil fuel powered.
tl:dr for a set amout of money to reduce pollution the answer is cheap fossil fuel cars and possibly hybrids if they can be made cheaper. It will take decades to phase out fossil fuels from electric generation and until then its disingenuous to fool people by hiding the tailpipe under 50 feet of bs.
I'm not sure why you would bring race or medical conditions into this argument. I'm sick of people using ad hominem on our son. You, sir, are a horrible person!
The average account size is 2.5 to 10 million dollars. It's a we hide your identity and ask no questions banking system. Outside of that they offer no special perks. How many people would chose to bank half way around the earth for no reason? What does your gut say?
I actually read it yesterday on another site it's kind of older news. Does it really suprise anyone? All those billions of dollars are from only 10k accounts so the % of shady customers probably is reaching 100.
when I was in grade school i was pretty damn sure earth like planets were very common. There had to be countless quadrillions of them at a minimum. It's actually a pretty obvious assumption. But a surprising number of people, given a total lack of evidence at the time of other planets outside our solar system, told me there were none at all. Whenever you have such large systems it isn't really a stretch to take evidence you have from a small sample and extend it to the whole - true it's not proof but you can't rule it out and pretty much by definition is plausible.
It probably does sound better for them paying so much. I mean if blue pills work better than white ones why not?
I'm starting to come around and instead of thinking about how dumb these people are seeing the marketing opportunity instead.
So shady characters were using Swiss bank accounts? Really?
In other news some of the users of the pirate bay were found to be distributing copyrighted material. Also the sun found to be yellow.
Sounds like a phone it in solution compared to the language used in stating the problem. Although given what they pay teachers compared to what you could get actually working in cs it's not too surprising. On the plus side at least they haven't tried to offer online gym classes.