It's just fucking fusion. 20 years out, eternally. Worse, it's a bad fucking idea in the first place.
I don't want drivers on the road paying LESS attention to driving.
There is no situation where a 2 foot following distance at 70mph will be safe. Jesus fucking Christ himself might be controlling those cars, that's still an unsafe distance. There's too many things that could *just happen*, and cause many many collisions. It's a bad deal.
Many people never deal with that kind of congestion, either. So what do they care?
Dunno. My car's got a pretty advanced early warning system that uses some fairly high-frequency wavelengths, namely the visible portion of the spectrum.
Random traffic jams are only an issue when jackasses are following too closely in the first place, and not paying attention in the second.
The "excess heat" that would be pumped to the Atlantic, here, would be the ambient temperature -- you'd use the cool seawater to lower the temperature inside.
you can't use the ambient temperature to boil water, no matter how much of it you 'pump' to one location.. you can only raise other things to its temperature.
but yeah, he was talking about waste heat. which i didn't really notice when i wrote that.
That window-blind-slat thing is actually rather clever.. never heard of it before. I'd assume it might also have a "summer" setting that keeps the light outside, too.. heating uses a lot of energy, but at least you can use the waste heat as, well, heat. cooling's just an exercise in losses..
and while I'm ranting on slashdot, is it just me or are modern buildings, offices and the like, just fucking AWFUL when it comes to their HVAC systems? I'm talking about serious hot/cold spot issues. i just really thought that hey, you're putting up a new building. the math isn't all that fucking hard. insulate the ventilation, DO THE MATH, get an even distribution of air to every room (not air volume, of course - the nearest outlets would have warmer or cooler air than the furthest depending on losses which can be calculated, and would need a lesser volume to adjust a given room temperature..). and individual room control isn't too hard, given an overall 'master' building temperature setting it's trivial to put a variable shutter on the vent for each room (say the master temp is 72, no room can go above but can be cooler (for winter; for summer, warmer)).
That just really bothers me, and I'm not in and out of new buildings all day every day but it seems every time I am, they have noticeably poor climate control systems. does no one sit down and do any figuring on this, is it all just slapdash? >:| who knows. mod me kvetching
About a year ago coming down an off-ramp a semi pulled out from the shoulder, unexpectedly, and I had to lay on my brakes hard.
I stopped, but in stopping they began shaking the car something fierce, and then began to grind periodically as I drove.
I pulled over and called a mechanic.
My car stopped, but my brakes were broken. They worked, and stopped my car, but they were broken. I got them fixed, AFTER I drove it home, because though I could still use them to stop my car THEY WERE FUCKING BROKEN.
A mug with the handle missing is a broken mug, even though it still holds liquid. Still broke.
I'm the asshole.. yeah, I am an asshole, but you're a deceptive fucking tool.
Christ they had to replace a fucking fuse to get the brakes working properly again. In what world do you live that things work one way, and then stop working that way, and get a part replaced so they may again work in the original manner, but at no point was anything broken?
I've got a broken mug, it's missing the handle. IT'S FUCKING BROKEN BUT IT STILL HOLDS LIQUID WHAAAAAAAAAA? OMG! It must not be broken I guess! But it's clearly broken! OH JESUS CHRIST I'M SO CONFUS oh wait, no, it's a broken fucking mug.
It's not even cooking up results. Anybody who has an all-electric car who runs it until it's dead faces the same problem, which is lightyears beyond the problem facing the driver of a vehicle which burns up dino juice when they run it until it's dead.
You can't detail anything because you're being a pedantic twat and like the Tesla and are mad it was shown in a bad light. Period.
There was no journalistic dishonesty, EXCEPT THE PART WHERE THEY TRUSTED AT FACE VALUE THE RANGE ESTIMATES GIVEN TO THEM BY TESLA'S ENGINEERS. There's every chance that had they driven it the full distance, it would have stopped short -- and then they could have ripped on Tesla for being bad with math, too.
If one thing happens, there is a result. They showed the result of what happens when you drive a Tesla dry. The bit wasn't about the RANGE of the Tesla, which is actually pretty much in line with the range you get from ANY FUCKING supercar -- that is, very, very, very short. Tesla was supposed to last, IIRC, 55 miles -- well, a supercar drinking down the shit fast and hard, 5mpg isn't unreasonable and a 12gal tank puts you at 60miles/tank. Yeah.. pretty close.
The range was not the issue or important. It was what happens AFTER you've driven that range -- if you're not near a charging station, you need a tow. If you are, you need another car or to wait for several hours.
Even if the car had not gone dead, it still would've needed several hours to charge. Them pushing a state-of-the-art futurecar into a garage is a pretty amusing image, which is why they did it in that particular way, but the whole point was to illustrate the major drawback to an all-electric vehicle. It's not all fucking roses and fairy dust, there are issues, bam they showed the issues.
Cooking up results in advance... c'mon. They didn't know the brakes would fail, or how the car would handle, or feel. They did know battery powered cars have issues with recharging times, and showed that.
I never said the brakes were only a little broken. I said they were *broken, fucking period, end of story*. If my driver side mirror is hanging off the side of my car, but I can still use it to see behind me, IT'S NOT FUCKING WORKING, it's fucking broken. Even though it still kinda, sorta, sure why not, is doing its intended job. Still broken. The brakes failed. They were broken. They failed *gracefully*, fortunately, but the brakes were still fucking broken. If that's the sort of semantic gymnastics you undertake when talking yourself out of fixing things on your own vehicle that "aren't broken".. well, the end of this sentence is irrelevant, because you've probably just died in a horrible fiery car crash. But hey, keep trying to redefine "broke" as nothing shy of "catastrophic failure".. keep grasping and one day you might just catch that straw, grasshopper.
Unless, I don't know, you think there's a reason why GM would develop a way of powering their cars that makes the rest of the auto industry look like carriage whip makers? A tech they could profit from enormously, license to other companies, probably get gov't-enforced green mandates to require its use even?
I mean, maybe I'm just one jaded bitter fucker, but I'm pretty sure GM would eat babies if it would make them money.
(there is no conspiracies anywhere burying game-changing engines, motors, or any components thereof. period.)
Or, I dunno. Maybe you're the guy who's gonna be OK driving his supercar around a race track with a braking system that isn't working as intended.
Sounds safe to me boss!
Please detail the difference between them driving the Tesla around the track two or three more times and actually having to push the thing into the garage and them simply claiming that that is exactly what they did. The negative part was still the same. You get a couple laps out of the Tesla and then hours of downtime, whereas with a normal supercar you get a couple of laps and then a few minutes of downtime.
So where's the deception, again? Where did they paint the Tesla unfairly? What exactly happened that would not have happened had they done things differently?
When I push down on my brake pedal, and when my car does not then brake, my brakes are broken.
I don't give a shit if it's the brake pad, the brake fuse, or if the brake pedal grew fucking wings and flew away.
You're arguing semantics in a most idiotic way and I hope that you can see that.
BRAKES THAT DON'T WORK ARE BROKEN BRAKES.
And the 'breakdown'? That was running dry of charge, which was TV magic and make-believe -- but it is an actual thing that actually happens, and was actually pretty fucking irrelevant. All cars can do that.
What was relevant and what they wanted to show was that it wasn't a simple matter of dumping a few gallons down into the tank from a jerrycan to get it running again, that once you've had your laps with it you've gotta sit it down for hours while it recharges. That was the relevant bit, and was entirely factual. And as far as the car not having a drained battery.. do you know how far they drove around the track? Did they show every lap or lead you to believe that every lap was shown? They used the range estimates given to them by Tesla motors, took them as fact, and stopped short of those numbers to save everyone the headache of actually dealing with a dead Tesla car.
Again, Tesla's engineers told them how far it would go on their track -- and they unquestionably believed those numbers, and gave them as facts.
Are you sure they weren't TOO forgiving? Maybe they should have driven it out, and then complained about the actual range being lower than the lowered range estimate given to them by Tesla's engineers? Would THAT have been more to your liking?
Kinda dumb. They weren't reviewing its range, just the car, and running out of power is something you can realistically expect. Even if you don't drain it down to the point you have to push it into the garage, it's STILL a long wait until you can drive it again.
What part of that is not true? Should they NOT have shown the primary downside to the Tesla and other electrics? Would ignoring the most serious flaw of an item be the more honest way of reviewing it?
Top Gear's a entertainment primarily and review secondarily, but jesus christ. You're tilting at them for.. actually touching on the negative points of something they were reviewing. Good god. That's what is supposed to happen.
They didn't say the Tesla's range was any less than what Tesla's engineers told them it would be, they didn't say it would take 3 days to charge, they didn't say you have to charge it with the soul of a murdered street urchin.
They just pretended they drove 2 or 3 laps that we didn't see, and proceeded from that point as if those laps had been driven.
They are positive about some US cars, though. They drove a Focus through a mall while being chased by a baddy in a corvette IIRC. Every time they get on classic muscle cars, right after decrying how almost good but kinda terrible they are, they always mention that despite the car really not being technically great it's still a car you smile while driving.
They really hadn't treated Tesla unfairly, at all.
No. All they did was save themselves time. Tesla's engineers told them the estimated range they'd get on the Top Gear track. Top Gear drove a few laps, but did not drive to the maximum range they were quoted.
They then ACTED as if they drove that distance, and proceeded to show viewers what would have happened had they driven the distance Tesla told them the car would go. There was no deception, all they did was act like they drove it until it died so they could then show the problems with the car. Namely, the PRIMARY problem, that running out of fuel isn't just a hike with a jerrycan to fix.
What, you think only going a few laps around the track is bad? That's really not different from any other supercar. That's not the bad side to the Tesla. The bad side is that if you drain the battery, you're pretty much fucked. Call the tow truck, you're not driving again any time soon.
Top Gear has never shown every single lap a car would drive before it went dry, because it's TV and that would be boring to watch. They never claimed the range would be any less than what Tesla's engineers calculated it would be -- yeah, they actually simply *assumed Tesla was right* about the range.
lmao. I knew those idjits telling me the batteries for one would only run ~10k were idjits.
So in summation: You'll have to re-buy 1/3 of your car before too many years are up (rich people won't keep them that long). You can't use it all the time, because it takes a long while to charge. You can't go too far, because you can't actually completely charge the battery (no shock there, all Li-ions only charge to 90%). AND, you can't NOT use it for too long, or the battery will just leak charge and kill itself.
Fantastic!
(Still do not understand how people don't get that Top Gear illustrating what would happen had they driven the car to its max range as given to them by Tesla's engineers isn't Top Gear lying about the Tesla's abilities. I don't recall them once saying that it went one mile shorter than Tesla's engineers believed it would!)
No, you're a fucking idiot. They didn't claim they only drove it half as far as Tesla told them it would go. They believed Tesla's range claims, and rather than fully drain the car's battery (which is a bad fucking thing, and would have required pushing or towing the damn thing through the rest of the track), they simply pretended they ran the rest of the laps. They then showed exactly what would have happened, had they run the additional laps.
They didn't say the Tesla's range was any shorter than Tesla said the range would be.
ALL they did was show what would have REALISTICALLY HAPPENED had they run the car til it died.
Tell me, what's the problem there?
It sure looks to me, given this story, that the problem was that Top Gear should have ran it until it died -- as it likely would have been much shorter than the range given to them by Tesla's engineers.
Top Gear didn't misrepresent anything of substance. What they did was drive the car for a few laps, and then pretend that they had run it several more laps and that it ran out of charge.
They used the figures from Tesla (which, apparently, are *highly idealized* range figures..) to say how far they got before it died. A couple laps more than they took it.
How is that deceptive? All they did was trust that Tesla's numbers were accurate, and rather than ACTUALLY run the car dry on the track they drove it back and assumed it would have run out of when Tesla said it would run out.
The point was not to test the range of the Tesla, but rather to viscerally demonstrate to the audience one of the problems with electrics. Their range isn't as great as a petrochem engine, although it can be very close -- but more than that, if they die out on the road YOU ARE FUCKED MAN, YOU'RE JUST TOTALLY FUCKED.
You can't grab a jerrycan and walk enough fuel back to your car to get *anywhere*. You're fucked. You run your car dry, and it's out of commission for no short period of time while it recharges.
Yeah. That's a shortcoming of the vehicle, and the PRIMARY shortcoming of the vehicle in fact. Do you, uh, expect them to pretend that doesn't exist? That it's all fucking roses and cherries on top? C'mon man. You're being disingenuous. Top Gear showed what would have *actually happened*, had they run a few more laps with the car. The only deception was that they didn't actually run those laps -- because they didn't want to have to actually push the goddamned car through half the fucking track!
Tesla was throwing a temper tantrum because Top Gear didn't kiss their car's ass. Period. That's the entire story. The rest of the details are pretty easily understood by anyone who doesn't have their nose buried somewhere around Tesla's appendix.
leaning towards Musk not having a valid reason. Tesla gets pretty pissy about any negative PR -- recall the debacle between them and Top Gear, which amounted to nothing more than Tesla being crybabies.
Yep, I agree. Simply taking payments from something you speak out against is, then, not hypocritical -- not by itself. That was the point I was making. You're forced to participate in the program, there is no option to not participate, and refusing all payments (which are, actually, RE-payments of the money you had been paying while working) is not refusing the system but rather it is participating in the system by funding it and then refusing to take back what you gave.
In fact, if you don't like Social Security, not taking any payments at all is actually supportive of the system -- since it would lead to more money in the system than had you actually not participated.
I'm not even going to weigh in on whether it's good or bad. I'm just not going to sit back while someone makes logically flawed arguments to denigrate somebody they don't like, that's all.
You're playing an idiot. If it's not needed, then you should not pay into it. You are forced to pay into it, and thus at the very least you must withdraw the amount you put in and leave yourself even.
To not withdraw anything would be providing money into the system that you disagree with, thus funding it, thus supporting it.
Taking more than you put in? That could be hypocrisy.. but in light of the fact that you MUST contribute, you are already supporting the system, and you can't NOT withdraw else you leave yourself in a poorer position than you would have otherwise been in had you not been required to contribute to the system.
You're very lucky.. I no longer know of anywhere that sells E0. Used to know a place, but about a year and a half, two years back, they switched over. Didn't want to, but E10 was cheaper for them, and E0 had gone up the last time and they weren't going to be able to make money if their gas was priced accordingly..
Pretty sad times. I used to get 24/30 mpg in my car, with E0. Up to 33mpg with favorable conditions.. now? 19/27 is about as good as I can expect to get..
Well of course not -- if you want to have your money taken from you and then not receive it back when offered, you're free to be your own fool.
But it's too late at that point, because you've already participated.
Actually, taking payments is NOT participating. When you're taking Social Security payments, you are *no longer* participating in Social Security, but rather simply receiving the money which you previously had been forced to hand over to the government -- it is that money coming off your paycheck that is participating in Social Security, not withdrawing that money.
You are forced to participate, and only an idiot would not seek to regain the money they were forced to hand over to Social Security.
Hypocrisy would be decrying the Social Security system and then participating were there an option to not participate -- but there is not, there is only an option to not receive payments, but that's after your participation in the program has ended.
The defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is as follows.
You take money from people and tell them they'll get more back later. In order to pay those people back, you use money you've taken from other people, using the same promises.
And that's it! That's your Ponzi scheme. Take money, skim some off the top, just make sure you keep getting more money from either old customers or new money from new ones so that you stay solvent....in other words, Social Security.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-driving cars.
It's just fucking fusion. 20 years out, eternally. Worse, it's a bad fucking idea in the first place.
I don't want drivers on the road paying LESS attention to driving.
There is no situation where a 2 foot following distance at 70mph will be safe. Jesus fucking Christ himself might be controlling those cars, that's still an unsafe distance. There's too many things that could *just happen*, and cause many many collisions. It's a bad deal.
Many people never deal with that kind of congestion, either. So what do they care?
Dunno. My car's got a pretty advanced early warning system that uses some fairly high-frequency wavelengths, namely the visible portion of the spectrum.
Random traffic jams are only an issue when jackasses are following too closely in the first place, and not paying attention in the second.
I think that, though you raise valid points, the outcome would not be nearly as bleak as you expect.
The "excess heat" that would be pumped to the Atlantic, here, would be the ambient temperature -- you'd use the cool seawater to lower the temperature inside.
you can't use the ambient temperature to boil water, no matter how much of it you 'pump' to one location.. you can only raise other things to its temperature.
but yeah, he was talking about waste heat. which i didn't really notice when i wrote that.
That window-blind-slat thing is actually rather clever.. never heard of it before.
I'd assume it might also have a "summer" setting that keeps the light outside, too.. heating uses a lot of energy, but at least you can use the waste heat as, well, heat. cooling's just an exercise in losses..
and while I'm ranting on slashdot, is it just me or are modern buildings, offices and the like, just fucking AWFUL when it comes to their HVAC systems? I'm talking about serious hot/cold spot issues. i just really thought that hey, you're putting up a new building. the math isn't all that fucking hard. insulate the ventilation, DO THE MATH, get an even distribution of air to every room (not air volume, of course - the nearest outlets would have warmer or cooler air than the furthest depending on losses which can be calculated, and would need a lesser volume to adjust a given room temperature..).
and individual room control isn't too hard, given an overall 'master' building temperature setting it's trivial to put a variable shutter on the vent for each room (say the master temp is 72, no room can go above but can be cooler (for winter; for summer, warmer)).
That just really bothers me, and I'm not in and out of new buildings all day every day but it seems every time I am, they have noticeably poor climate control systems. does no one sit down and do any figuring on this, is it all just slapdash? >:| who knows.
mod me kvetching
Ehm, that's..
That's not how thermodynamics works..
for the record, *I* laughed
About a year ago coming down an off-ramp a semi pulled out from the shoulder, unexpectedly, and I had to lay on my brakes hard.
I stopped, but in stopping they began shaking the car something fierce, and then began to grind periodically as I drove.
I pulled over and called a mechanic.
My car stopped, but my brakes were broken. They worked, and stopped my car, but they were broken. I got them fixed, AFTER I drove it home, because though I could still use them to stop my car THEY WERE FUCKING BROKEN.
A mug with the handle missing is a broken mug, even though it still holds liquid. Still broke.
I'm the asshole.. yeah, I am an asshole, but you're a deceptive fucking tool.
Christ they had to replace a fucking fuse to get the brakes working properly again. In what world do you live that things work one way, and then stop working that way, and get a part replaced so they may again work in the original manner, but at no point was anything broken?
I've got a broken mug, it's missing the handle. IT'S FUCKING BROKEN BUT IT STILL HOLDS LIQUID WHAAAAAAAAAA? OMG! It must not be broken I guess! But it's clearly broken! OH JESUS CHRIST I'M SO CONFUS oh wait, no, it's a broken fucking mug.
It's not even cooking up results. Anybody who has an all-electric car who runs it until it's dead faces the same problem, which is lightyears beyond the problem facing the driver of a vehicle which burns up dino juice when they run it until it's dead.
You can't detail anything because you're being a pedantic twat and like the Tesla and are mad it was shown in a bad light. Period.
There was no journalistic dishonesty, EXCEPT THE PART WHERE THEY TRUSTED AT FACE VALUE THE RANGE ESTIMATES GIVEN TO THEM BY TESLA'S ENGINEERS. There's every chance that had they driven it the full distance, it would have stopped short -- and then they could have ripped on Tesla for being bad with math, too.
If one thing happens, there is a result. They showed the result of what happens when you drive a Tesla dry. The bit wasn't about the RANGE of the Tesla, which is actually pretty much in line with the range you get from ANY FUCKING supercar -- that is, very, very, very short. Tesla was supposed to last, IIRC, 55 miles -- well, a supercar drinking down the shit fast and hard, 5mpg isn't unreasonable and a 12gal tank puts you at 60miles/tank. Yeah.. pretty close.
The range was not the issue or important. It was what happens AFTER you've driven that range -- if you're not near a charging station, you need a tow. If you are, you need another car or to wait for several hours.
Even if the car had not gone dead, it still would've needed several hours to charge. Them pushing a state-of-the-art futurecar into a garage is a pretty amusing image, which is why they did it in that particular way, but the whole point was to illustrate the major drawback to an all-electric vehicle. It's not all fucking roses and fairy dust, there are issues, bam they showed the issues.
Cooking up results in advance... c'mon. They didn't know the brakes would fail, or how the car would handle, or feel. They did know battery powered cars have issues with recharging times, and showed that.
I never said the brakes were only a little broken. I said they were *broken, fucking period, end of story*. If my driver side mirror is hanging off the side of my car, but I can still use it to see behind me, IT'S NOT FUCKING WORKING, it's fucking broken. Even though it still kinda, sorta, sure why not, is doing its intended job. Still broken.
The brakes failed. They were broken. They failed *gracefully*, fortunately, but the brakes were still fucking broken.
If that's the sort of semantic gymnastics you undertake when talking yourself out of fixing things on your own vehicle that "aren't broken".. well, the end of this sentence is irrelevant, because you've probably just died in a horrible fiery car crash.
But hey, keep trying to redefine "broke" as nothing shy of "catastrophic failure".. keep grasping and one day you might just catch that straw, grasshopper.
Likely reality didn't match theory.
Unless, I don't know, you think there's a reason why GM would develop a way of powering their cars that makes the rest of the auto industry look like carriage whip makers? A tech they could profit from enormously, license to other companies, probably get gov't-enforced green mandates to require its use even?
I mean, maybe I'm just one jaded bitter fucker, but I'm pretty sure GM would eat babies if it would make them money.
(there is no conspiracies anywhere burying game-changing engines, motors, or any components thereof. period.)
It's not temporary, and the brakes broke.
Or, I dunno. Maybe you're the guy who's gonna be OK driving his supercar around a race track with a braking system that isn't working as intended.
Sounds safe to me boss!
Please detail the difference between them driving the Tesla around the track two or three more times and actually having to push the thing into the garage and them simply claiming that that is exactly what they did.
The negative part was still the same. You get a couple laps out of the Tesla and then hours of downtime, whereas with a normal supercar you get a couple of laps and then a few minutes of downtime.
So where's the deception, again? Where did they paint the Tesla unfairly? What exactly happened that would not have happened had they done things differently?
When I push down on my brake pedal, and when my car does not then brake, my brakes are broken.
I don't give a shit if it's the brake pad, the brake fuse, or if the brake pedal grew fucking wings and flew away.
You're arguing semantics in a most idiotic way and I hope that you can see that.
BRAKES THAT DON'T WORK ARE BROKEN BRAKES.
And the 'breakdown'? That was running dry of charge, which was TV magic and make-believe -- but it is an actual thing that actually happens, and was actually pretty fucking irrelevant. All cars can do that.
What was relevant and what they wanted to show was that it wasn't a simple matter of dumping a few gallons down into the tank from a jerrycan to get it running again, that once you've had your laps with it you've gotta sit it down for hours while it recharges. That was the relevant bit, and was entirely factual.
And as far as the car not having a drained battery.. do you know how far they drove around the track? Did they show every lap or lead you to believe that every lap was shown? They used the range estimates given to them by Tesla motors, took them as fact, and stopped short of those numbers to save everyone the headache of actually dealing with a dead Tesla car.
Again, Tesla's engineers told them how far it would go on their track -- and they unquestionably believed those numbers, and gave them as facts.
Are you sure they weren't TOO forgiving? Maybe they should have driven it out, and then complained about the actual range being lower than the lowered range estimate given to them by Tesla's engineers? Would THAT have been more to your liking?
Kinda dumb. They weren't reviewing its range, just the car, and running out of power is something you can realistically expect. Even if you don't drain it down to the point you have to push it into the garage, it's STILL a long wait until you can drive it again.
What part of that is not true? Should they NOT have shown the primary downside to the Tesla and other electrics? Would ignoring the most serious flaw of an item be the more honest way of reviewing it?
Top Gear's a entertainment primarily and review secondarily, but jesus christ. You're tilting at them for.. actually touching on the negative points of something they were reviewing. Good god. That's what is supposed to happen.
They didn't say the Tesla's range was any less than what Tesla's engineers told them it would be, they didn't say it would take 3 days to charge, they didn't say you have to charge it with the soul of a murdered street urchin.
They just pretended they drove 2 or 3 laps that we didn't see, and proceeded from that point as if those laps had been driven.
They are positive about some US cars, though. They drove a Focus through a mall while being chased by a baddy in a corvette IIRC. Every time they get on classic muscle cars, right after decrying how almost good but kinda terrible they are, they always mention that despite the car really not being technically great it's still a car you smile while driving.
They really hadn't treated Tesla unfairly, at all.
No. All they did was save themselves time.
Tesla's engineers told them the estimated range they'd get on the Top Gear track.
Top Gear drove a few laps, but did not drive to the maximum range they were quoted.
They then ACTED as if they drove that distance, and proceeded to show viewers what would have happened had they driven the distance Tesla told them the car would go. There was no deception, all they did was act like they drove it until it died so they could then show the problems with the car. Namely, the PRIMARY problem, that running out of fuel isn't just a hike with a jerrycan to fix.
What, you think only going a few laps around the track is bad? That's really not different from any other supercar. That's not the bad side to the Tesla. The bad side is that if you drain the battery, you're pretty much fucked. Call the tow truck, you're not driving again any time soon.
Top Gear has never shown every single lap a car would drive before it went dry, because it's TV and that would be boring to watch. They never claimed the range would be any less than what Tesla's engineers calculated it would be -- yeah, they actually simply *assumed Tesla was right* about the range.
Teddy Roosevelt was a real O.C. (yeah, original conservationist. i just did that).
I challenge anyone to call him a tree-hugging hippy.
He will haunt your dreams. Possibly hunt them as well. Not a situation I want to be in.
lmao. I knew those idjits telling me the batteries for one would only run ~10k were idjits.
So in summation: You'll have to re-buy 1/3 of your car before too many years are up (rich people won't keep them that long). You can't use it all the time, because it takes a long while to charge. You can't go too far, because you can't actually completely charge the battery (no shock there, all Li-ions only charge to 90%). AND, you can't NOT use it for too long, or the battery will just leak charge and kill itself.
Fantastic!
(Still do not understand how people don't get that Top Gear illustrating what would happen had they driven the car to its max range as given to them by Tesla's engineers isn't Top Gear lying about the Tesla's abilities. I don't recall them once saying that it went one mile shorter than Tesla's engineers believed it would!)
No, you're a fucking idiot.
They didn't claim they only drove it half as far as Tesla told them it would go.
They believed Tesla's range claims, and rather than fully drain the car's battery (which is a bad fucking thing, and would have required pushing or towing the damn thing through the rest of the track), they simply pretended they ran the rest of the laps. They then showed exactly what would have happened, had they run the additional laps.
They didn't say the Tesla's range was any shorter than Tesla said the range would be.
ALL they did was show what would have REALISTICALLY HAPPENED had they run the car til it died.
Tell me, what's the problem there?
It sure looks to me, given this story, that the problem was that Top Gear should have ran it until it died -- as it likely would have been much shorter than the range given to them by Tesla's engineers.
Right. You're missing the point entirely.
Top Gear didn't misrepresent anything of substance. What they did was drive the car for a few laps, and then pretend that they had run it several more laps and that it ran out of charge.
They used the figures from Tesla (which, apparently, are *highly idealized* range figures..) to say how far they got before it died. A couple laps more than they took it.
How is that deceptive? All they did was trust that Tesla's numbers were accurate, and rather than ACTUALLY run the car dry on the track they drove it back and assumed it would have run out of when Tesla said it would run out.
The point was not to test the range of the Tesla, but rather to viscerally demonstrate to the audience one of the problems with electrics. Their range isn't as great as a petrochem engine, although it can be very close -- but more than that, if they die out on the road YOU ARE FUCKED MAN, YOU'RE JUST TOTALLY FUCKED.
You can't grab a jerrycan and walk enough fuel back to your car to get *anywhere*. You're fucked. You run your car dry, and it's out of commission for no short period of time while it recharges.
Yeah. That's a shortcoming of the vehicle, and the PRIMARY shortcoming of the vehicle in fact. Do you, uh, expect them to pretend that doesn't exist? That it's all fucking roses and cherries on top? C'mon man. You're being disingenuous. Top Gear showed what would have *actually happened*, had they run a few more laps with the car. The only deception was that they didn't actually run those laps -- because they didn't want to have to actually push the goddamned car through half the fucking track!
Tesla was throwing a temper tantrum because Top Gear didn't kiss their car's ass. Period. That's the entire story. The rest of the details are pretty easily understood by anyone who doesn't have their nose buried somewhere around Tesla's appendix.
leaning towards Musk not having a valid reason. Tesla gets pretty pissy about any negative PR -- recall the debacle between them and Top Gear, which amounted to nothing more than Tesla being crybabies.
Yep, I agree. Simply taking payments from something you speak out against is, then, not hypocritical -- not by itself. That was the point I was making. You're forced to participate in the program, there is no option to not participate, and refusing all payments (which are, actually, RE-payments of the money you had been paying while working) is not refusing the system but rather it is participating in the system by funding it and then refusing to take back what you gave.
In fact, if you don't like Social Security, not taking any payments at all is actually supportive of the system -- since it would lead to more money in the system than had you actually not participated.
I'm not even going to weigh in on whether it's good or bad. I'm just not going to sit back while someone makes logically flawed arguments to denigrate somebody they don't like, that's all.
You're playing an idiot. If it's not needed, then you should not pay into it. You are forced to pay into it, and thus at the very least you must withdraw the amount you put in and leave yourself even.
To not withdraw anything would be providing money into the system that you disagree with, thus funding it, thus supporting it.
Taking more than you put in? That could be hypocrisy.. but in light of the fact that you MUST contribute, you are already supporting the system, and you can't NOT withdraw else you leave yourself in a poorer position than you would have otherwise been in had you not been required to contribute to the system.
You're very lucky.. I no longer know of anywhere that sells E0. Used to know a place, but about a year and a half, two years back, they switched over. Didn't want to, but E10 was cheaper for them, and E0 had gone up the last time and they weren't going to be able to make money if their gas was priced accordingly..
Pretty sad times. I used to get 24/30 mpg in my car, with E0. Up to 33mpg with favorable conditions..
now? 19/27 is about as good as I can expect to get..
Well of course not -- if you want to have your money taken from you and then not receive it back when offered, you're free to be your own fool.
But it's too late at that point, because you've already participated.
Actually, taking payments is NOT participating. When you're taking Social Security payments, you are *no longer* participating in Social Security, but rather simply receiving the money which you previously had been forced to hand over to the government -- it is that money coming off your paycheck that is participating in Social Security, not withdrawing that money.
You are forced to participate, and only an idiot would not seek to regain the money they were forced to hand over to Social Security.
Hypocrisy would be decrying the Social Security system and then participating were there an option to not participate -- but there is not, there is only an option to not receive payments, but that's after your participation in the program has ended.
The defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is as follows.
You take money from people and tell them they'll get more back later.
In order to pay those people back, you use money you've taken from other people, using the same promises.
And that's it! That's your Ponzi scheme. Take money, skim some off the top, just make sure you keep getting more money from either old customers or new money from new ones so that you stay solvent. ...in other words, Social Security.