[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Honda announces changes for 2019 Civic, including new Sport trim
More.......................
When is the 2019 Accord arriving in showrooms? Maybe not until 2019
More.......................
American Honda Reports July Sales Results
More.......................
Official statement from Honda concerning flooding of Celaya factory
More.......................
News from the dealer side: 2019 HR-V, Fit, and Insight production impacted due to flooding in Celaya
More.......................
2019 Honda HR-V updated with styling tweaks, Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, and available Honda Sensing
More.......................
2019 Acura MDX Arrives with Luxury and Performance Upgrades Plus First A-Spec Variant
More.......................
SPIED IN EUROPE! Civic Type R refresh
More.......................
Today's Reading Links --> Re: 2009 Honda S2000 Edition 100
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: Odds of a hatchback SiR?
Join Discussion......
Sales Experiences --> Re: Questions regarding: lease, then buy option
Join Discussion......
Fuel Cell Technology --> Re: The FB Clarity FCEV group is full of shit
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: C&D,The 2019 Honda Pilot Looks Tougher and Drives Better
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: Sat in an Advance - Complaints
Join Discussion......
Clarity --> Re: Clarity BEV
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Red Bull Racing Confirms Gasly for 2019
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - General Talk --> Re: Ridgeline outlasts Taco in Death Valley Torture Test
Join Discussion......
Photoshops --> hodge·podge
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Cash incentives for the Canadian Accord?
Join Discussion......
Strictly Technical --> Re: CEL problems
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Accord 2.0 touring or TLX V6 Tech FWD
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Alonso Quits F1
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Alaska Airlines plane hijacked
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > Political Lounge > > Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5]
Author
  Post New Thread
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 03:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
notyper wrote:Cmon now, really? While I agree that genius approaches the limit of insanity asymptotically as intelligence increases, I think calling Musk batshit insane is out there. The guy has been very effective at getting things done in industries that have felled far more experienced men.

I do think trying to run multiple leading edge companies is too much for any man to handle, but I don't think the guy is nuts. And he's not at good as trolling his detractors as Trump is.

SC


This is the major point of contention here at ToV where Elon Musk is concerned.

Based on many of the heated debates I've participated in here, a number of ToV members appear to believe that Musk has not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy.



That's a shamefully constructed straw man and you know it.

The difference is NOT whether he has done anything "noteworthy" and is instead about the magnitude of his accomplishments.


You are making no sense.

"Noteworthy" by definition has to do with magnitude of something, often excellence:

": worthy of or attracting attention especially because of some special excellence * a noteworthy contribution" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noteworthy

"deserving attention because of being important or interesting:"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/noteworthy



Some on here *cough* want to pretend he has reinvented the universe. Some prefer more perspective.

But hey, data is fake if it doesn't agree with your bias right?


If you are going to accuse people of making up "straw men", it doesn't help your argument that you then do this yourself in the same post.

For the record, I don't believe that Musk has "reinvented" the universe. My belief is that he has cleverly combined existing technologies to push several different industries (money transfer, automobiles, and orbital launches) in new directions.

Steve Jobs did not invent the cellular phone, computer, or touch screen display, but he did combine them into something far different and more functional than what had previously existed in the mobile device market. Likewise, Elon Musk did not invent rockets, titanium machining, hydraulics, ablative coatings, or servos, but he did piece these and other technologies together to create a relatively inexpensive 1st stage orbital booster that could land itself back on Earth and be reused. So your hypocritical insinuation that I think Musk has "reinvented the universe" is complete bunk.



No Atomic, I didn't create a strawman, which is something that resembles what you said, but never actually said, which IS what you did in your quote right here:

Based on many of the heated debates I've participated in here, a number of ToV members appear to believe that Musk has not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy.


I haven't seen really anybody even attempt to say that Musk hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy.

The REAL difference (and the one which you are again refusing to acknowledge) is HOW noteworthy the accomplishments are.

I don't speak for others, so I will use myself as an example.

1) I did NOT say that SpaceX was not an accomplishment or was not a noteworthy one.

What I DID say is that their launch safety record leaves a lot to be desired. That was mathematically verified, and then mathematically verified again to your criteria.

2) I did NOT say that Tesla was not an accomplishment or wasn't a noteworthy one.

What I DID say was that their finances are a sham (I personally think they are a SCAM and you can disagree all you want, but I have seen enough data to form my opinion and I have more than backed it up).

I DID say that Tesla has not made any significant timelines with success and I DID say they had major quality issues.

That is not the same as stating that he made no noteworthy accomplishments, which is why your argument is a straw man. It APPEARS to be similar to what I actually said, but is not.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 10:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I was actually surprised to see Jeff post here to be honest.


This site should be renamed Temple of Tesla


Sorry, didn't really read any further than this.

1) The majority of threads posted and discussed are still about Honda, even if they aren't good.


My comment about Temple of Tesla was related to my earlier post in this thread @ 05-22-2018 19:45, where I stated that 5 of the top 10 threads in the "Today's Reading Links" forum were Tesla related.

"Today's Reading Links" is a heavily trafficked area of the forum. The fact that there is so much discussion about Tesla says a lot: people are discussing Tesla a lot more than Honda in this section.


2) The Tesla threads are popular here because it is fun to brow beat the zealots.


You think it is fun to intimidate and bully people? Because that is what brow beating is.



Nope. It isn't bullying just because you don't agree with it.



Browbeating is by definition bullying.

"to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech : bully * likes to browbeat the waitstaff" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/browbeat

You said you think it is fun to browbeat people. Therefore, you think it is fun to intimidate and bully people.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 10:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
No Atomic, I didn't create a strawman, which is something that resembles what you said, but never actually said, which IS what you did in your quote right here:

Based on many of the heated debates I've participated in here, a number of ToV members appear to believe that Musk has not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy.


I haven't seen really anybody even attempt to say that Musk hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy.


I have.

YOU.

Less than a year ago, you wrote, regarding SpaceX:

""Musk can acknowledge NASA and the deep debt they owe, but their performance is unimpressive."

Source: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1322717&page_number=2& @ 06-29-2017 00:38

In that thread, you further explained in a post @ 07-07-2017 01:03, that SpaceX basically hadn't done much, and that NASA was responsible for all the technology that SpaceX has:

"The reality is that NASA did all of the R&D, NASA did a better job of keeping ships together on a per launch basis (and they had systemic safety issues, which caused both Challenger AND Columbia under similar circumstances of causal factors) and then SpaceX largely "downloaded" that technology."

It is obviously contradictory when you argue that Musk's accomplishments in SpaceX are "unimpressive", and then later deny that you claimed they weren't noteworthy.

If something is unimpressive, it cannot by definition also be noteworthy.



The REAL difference (and the one which you are again refusing to acknowledge) is HOW noteworthy the accomplishments are.

I don't speak for others, so I will use myself as an example.

1) I did NOT say that SpaceX was not an accomplishment or was not a noteworthy one.

What I DID say is that their launch safety record leaves a lot to be desired. That was mathematically verified, and then mathematically verified again to your criteria.

2) I did NOT say that Tesla was not an accomplishment or wasn't a noteworthy one.

What I DID say was that their finances are a sham (I personally think they are a SCAM and you can disagree all you want, but I have seen enough data to form my opinion and I have more than backed it up).

I DID say that Tesla has not made any significant timelines with success and I DID say they had major quality issues.

That is not the same as stating that he made no noteworthy accomplishments, which is why your argument is a straw man. It APPEARS to be similar to what I actually said, but is not.




Tying yourself into a pretzel trying to explain this away doesn't work.

It is logically contradictory to for you to say that Tesla is (1) A financial scam (2) Makes poor quality product and (3) cannot meet its goals,

and then simultaneously turn around and say that you are not claiming that they are not noteworthy.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 11:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I was actually surprised to see Jeff post here to be honest.


This site should be renamed Temple of Tesla


Sorry, didn't really read any further than this.

1) The majority of threads posted and discussed are still about Honda, even if they aren't good.


My comment about Temple of Tesla was related to my earlier post in this thread @ 05-22-2018 19:45, where I stated that 5 of the top 10 threads in the "Today's Reading Links" forum were Tesla related.

"Today's Reading Links" is a heavily trafficked area of the forum. The fact that there is so much discussion about Tesla says a lot: people are discussing Tesla a lot more than Honda in this section.


2) The Tesla threads are popular here because it is fun to brow beat the zealots.


You think it is fun to intimidate and bully people? Because that is what brow beating is.



Nope. It isn't bullying just because you don't agree with it.



Browbeating is by definition bullying.

"to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech : bully * likes to browbeat the waitstaff" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/browbeat

You said you think it is fun to browbeat people. Therefore, you think it is fun to intimidate and bully people.



Also, I note that you never go after Notyper on Tesla or SpaceX the way you go after anyone else, and his views on Musk's ventures are fairly similar to mine.

What's the diff? Notyper could easily ban you if you tried to gaslight him, like you appear to have attempted with me a few months ago: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1339163&page_number=7& @ 12-24-2017 09:33

Bullies never confront the powerful. They only go after people who they think they can push around.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 13:51
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
No Atomic, I didn't create a strawman, which is something that resembles what you said, but never actually said, which IS what you did in your quote right here:

Based on many of the heated debates I've participated in here, a number of ToV members appear to believe that Musk has not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy.


I haven't seen really anybody even attempt to say that Musk hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy.


I have.

YOU.

Less than a year ago, you wrote, regarding SpaceX:

""Musk can acknowledge NASA and the deep debt they owe, but their performance is unimpressive."

Source: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1322717&page_number=2& @ 06-29-2017 00:38

In that thread, you further explained in a post @ 07-07-2017 01:03, that SpaceX basically hadn't done much, and that NASA was responsible for all the technology that SpaceX has:

"The reality is that NASA did all of the R&D, NASA did a better job of keeping ships together on a per launch basis (and they had systemic safety issues, which caused both Challenger AND Columbia under similar circumstances of causal factors) and then SpaceX largely "downloaded" that technology."

It is obviously contradictory when you argue that Musk's accomplishments in SpaceX are "unimpressive", and then later deny that you claimed they weren't noteworthy.

If something is unimpressive, it cannot by definition also be noteworthy.



The REAL difference (and the one which you are again refusing to acknowledge) is HOW noteworthy the accomplishments are.

I don't speak for others, so I will use myself as an example.

1) I did NOT say that SpaceX was not an accomplishment or was not a noteworthy one.

What I DID say is that their launch safety record leaves a lot to be desired. That was mathematically verified, and then mathematically verified again to your criteria.

2) I did NOT say that Tesla was not an accomplishment or wasn't a noteworthy one.

What I DID say was that their finances are a sham (I personally think they are a SCAM and you can disagree all you want, but I have seen enough data to form my opinion and I have more than backed it up).

I DID say that Tesla has not made any significant timelines with success and I DID say they had major quality issues.

That is not the same as stating that he made no noteworthy accomplishments, which is why your argument is a straw man. It APPEARS to be similar to what I actually said, but is not.




Tying yourself into a pretzel trying to explain this away doesn't work.

It is logically contradictory to for you to say that Tesla is (1) A financial scam (2) Makes poor quality product and (3) cannot meet its goals,

and then simultaneously turn around and say that you are not claiming that they are not noteworthy.



The only logical pretzel here is you.

I actually CAN claim that because while the Model S was a social and technological leap forward for the BEV, the financials of Tesla and the safety record of Space X, as well as the quality issues that Tesla is having are not questionable.

In fact, noteworthy accomplishment and successful are totally different things and are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you want to link everything when it is convenient for your argument and separate them when it is not says all that needs to be said.

I have been 100% consistent in my stance since we started these discussions.

1) Tesla financials are highly questionable.

2) Tesla has had a long string of missed targets, missed projections, missed timelines, missed financial goals and quality issues. Those are facts.

3) Tesla has also greatly increased acceptance and eagerness about BEV's. However, that ACCOMPLISHMENT does NOT negate or invalidate the other facts.

4) I personally and directly question Musk's motives when they HAVE to know at this point that they aren't going to meet their metrics. And sorry, but I do not and WILL NOT accept that these metrics are not churched up for the benefit of the stock price. To much factual evidence to the contrary.

I also will not buy that Musk is altruistic. He has too much ego and I simply know better.

5) I never denied that SpaceX accomplished things that hadn't been done before (namely landing a rocket). I also never said he wasn't reducing the cost. What I DID say is that he hasn't reduced it as much as he promised and SpaceX sacrificed launch success rate (and thus safety) in exchange for that lower cost. Those are also factual statements.

The REAL problem here is that you can't seem to separate fact from opinion, you can't seem to acknowledge that opinion can be based on fact, and that just because it doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it false, invalid or a lie.

Steph01
Profile for Steph01
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 14:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
To be clear, a small strip of double sided adhesive is not typical operating procedure for a vanity mirror:




No one said typical, but double sided adhesives are fairly common in autos these days. Of course, we could be worse off, like those poor Lotus Elise/Exige owners. If you've ever taken apart the interior of one of those cars, the concept of "poorly built kit car" comes quickly to mind.

SC



No they do not. I worked on BMW/Mini's for more that a decade, ive never seen something so shoddy on a 35-80k car, never. The shitbox Mini wasnt even that bad (was unique from BMW because the interior pieces could be switched out to another color, kinda lego-ish). Yeah you can attach your HFP side skirt with double sided tape and screws, thats fine. The E36 M3 wing was also doulbe sided tape, you cant see that shit and its an accessory not a built in piece.

if you install stereos and screens or do interior work on high end cars you know pretty much how to take the interior out of anycar, there is never double sided tape in a area like that, common sense.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 17:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
The only logical pretzel here is you.

I actually CAN claim that because while the Model S was a social and technological leap forward for the BEV, the financials of Tesla and the safety record of Space X, as well as the quality issues that Tesla is having are not questionable.

In fact, noteworthy accomplishment and successful are totally different things and are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you want to link everything when it is convenient for your argument and separate them when it is not says all that needs to be said.


This is getting ridiculous.

"Successful" in the business sense (I assume this is what you mean, based on the context of the rest of your post) is a logical subset of "Noteworthy Accomplishment". They are NOT "totally different". One encompasses the other.

The fact of the matter is that within the last year, you stated, in your own words, that SpaceX had an unimpressive record, and that NASA was responsible for all of their R&D, which they "downloaded". This wasn't just about safety. The links I provided to the posts you wrote, show this very clearly. This was about everything, from safety, to R&D, to business success (launch costs, speculation that SpaceX was "sandbagging" -- thread linked above, your post @ 07-10-2017 23:47).

You've previously bashed virtually every aspect of SpaceX's existence. This is a fact. The words you wrote are there for everyone to read.

You try to get out of this by writing:

5) I never denied that SpaceX accomplished things that hadn't been done before (namely landing a rocket). I also never said he wasn't reducing the cost. What I DID say is that he hasn't reduced it as much as he promised and SpaceX sacrificed launch success rate (and thus safety) in exchange for that lower cost. Those are also factual statements.


But the fact is that you (1) Never acknowledged this accomplishment before as far as I can remember and (2) In fact actively and wrongly used SpaceX's early failed experimental landings to criticize their overall safety record.

This sure as hell does not look like you thought ANY of this was noteworthy accomplishment.



I have been 100% consistent in my stance since we started these discussions.

1) Tesla financials are highly questionable.

2) Tesla has had a long string of missed targets, missed projections, missed timelines, missed financial goals and quality issues. Those are facts.

3) Tesla has also greatly increased acceptance and eagerness about BEV's. However, that ACCOMPLISHMENT does NOT negate or invalidate the other facts.

4) I personally and directly question Musk's motives when they HAVE to know at this point that they aren't going to meet their metrics. And sorry, but I do not and WILL NOT accept that these metrics are not churched up for the benefit of the stock price. To much factual evidence to the contrary.



I do not dispute 1), 2), or 3).

I do dispute 4), because everything I have read about Musk, suggests that he has an over-optimistic personality, and that this, rather than a nefarious attempt to juice the stock price, is the reason Musk tends to make insane projections for the progress of his companies.

Musk himself has said on different occasions that Tesla stock is priced "too high".

Less than 1 year ago, he went on record saying:

"I do believe this market cap is higher than we have any right to deserve," he said in an interview with The Guardian, pointing out his company produces just 1% of GM's total output. "We're a money losing company."

Source: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-too-high-elon-musk-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

And he said the same in 2013: ""The stock price that we have is more than we have any right to deserve," he said in London Thursday at the opening of a Tesla showroom in London. And he's got a point. Shares are up 400% this year and are trading a nearly 100 times 2014 earnings estimates.

It's not the first time Musk has said that Tesla (TSLA) shares are flying too high, but investors haven't really bothered to pay attention."


Source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/25/investing/tesla-netflix-momentum-stocks/index.html

People need to keep in mind that Musk has ALWAYS made wild projections, even when there was no stock price at risk.

In 2002, Musk stated that SpaceX would have an orbital rocket by late 2003. It took until late 2008 for SpaceX to get its first payload to orbit. There was no stock price to "church up".






I also will not buy that Musk is altruistic. He has too much ego and I simply know better.

The REAL problem here is that you can't seem to separate fact from opinion, you can't seem to acknowledge that opinion can be based on fact, and that just because it doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it false, invalid or a lie.



And as I said before, altruism and ego are not mutually exclusive. As you stated before about people like Trump and Musk, they tend to care about their legacy. That does not mean they can't care about what happens to the rest of us. Musk has clearly said that he doesn't want humans to fall victim to an extinction event, and that this is the reason for SpaceX.


The REAL problem


The real problem, is that you tend to say this:

owequitit wrote:I simply know better.


When you actually don't know.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-28-2018 18:28
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
3) Tesla has also greatly increased acceptance and eagerness about BEV's. However, that ACCOMPLISHMENT does NOT negate or invalidate the other facts.


There is one thing that bothers me about this statement.

I am not entirely sure that you actually believe this accomplishment is "noteworthy" in the way I intended to use the word, as "noteworthy" generally connotes some kind of special excellence. Meriam Webster's definition is pretty clear about this ("...especially because of some special excellence").

When I stated many posts ago that "a number of ToV members appear to believe that Musk has not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy.", I intended to convey that I believed that some people here thought that Musk's ventures overall were mediocre or failures (plainly stated: he hasn't done anything good). This is certainly the impression I get from your extensive post history regarding every aspect of SpaceX.

Of course, the word "noteworthy" could be used in the context of something really bad, as in the Fukushima reactor disaster being noteworthy in the history of nuclear energy, or Takata's airbags being noteworthy in the history of automotive safety equipment. I probably should have chosen syntax that was more unambiguously positive. As a programmer, I know there is no ambiguity in the value of a properly declared Boolean, but as an English speaker, I don't always remember that the subtleties of language can often result in non-deterministic results.

I do not believe, based on your previous post history, that you think "increased acceptance and eagerness about BEV's" is a good thing.

I think you are sincere in stating that Musk has accomplished something in Tesla.

So I don't think you believe that what Musk and Tesla has done is noteworthy in a positive sense.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-29-2018 00:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Steph01 wrote:
notyper wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
To be clear, a small strip of double sided adhesive is not typical operating procedure for a vanity mirror:




No one said typical, but double sided adhesives are fairly common in autos these days. Of course, we could be worse off, like those poor Lotus Elise/Exige owners. If you've ever taken apart the interior of one of those cars, the concept of "poorly built kit car" comes quickly to mind.

SC



No they do not. I worked on BMW/Mini's for more that a decade, ive never seen something so shoddy on a 35-80k car, never. The shitbox Mini wasnt even that bad (was unique from BMW because the interior pieces could be switched out to another color, kinda lego-ish). Yeah you can attach your HFP side skirt with double sided tape and screws, thats fine. The E36 M3 wing was also doulbe sided tape, you cant see that shit and its an accessory not a built in piece.

if you install stereos and screens or do interior work on high end cars you know pretty much how to take the interior out of anycar, there is never double sided tape in a area like that, common sense.



I'm really fascinated by how upset some people are that Tesla used 2 pieces of double sided tape to hold a vanity mirror on. Adhesives are used to hold on wings, body trim pieces, pretty much every badge mounted to a painted surface, etc. Some cars now use structural adhesives in the frame construction.

You may not like that Tesla uses tape here, but if I was going to be upset by someone using double sided tape, this would probably be the least offensive application of it in my book. Holding on a wing or body pieces (subject to water, road salt, etc.) would be more concerning to me. Fortunately, I'm not concerned by any of it nor would I be if I was interested in any Tesla product (which I'm not).

SC

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-29-2018 08:42
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
This is getting ridiculous.


I find it a little concerning that it took you 5 pages to come to that conclusion. :)

DCR
Profile for DCR
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-30-2018 00:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
More and more, probably driver error yet again.

http://ktla.com/2018/05/29/tesla-on-autopilot-crashes-into-laguna-beach-police-patrol-vehicle/

A Tesla that was in autopilot mode crashed into a Laguna Beach police patrol vehicle Tuesday morning, totaling the SUV and leaving the sedan's driver injured, an official said.

The crash occurred along Laguna Canyon Road shortly after 11 a.m., Laguna Beach Police Department Sgt. Jim Cota tweeted.

The officer was not in the police SUV at the time of the crash, Cota said in the tweet. The Tesla driver sustained minor injuries, but declined transport to a hospital, the sergeant told the Los Angeles Times.

Photos from the scene showed the Tesla with front end damage. The police SUV had damage to the driver's side, the photos showed.

"Thankfully there was not an officer at the time in the police car," Cota told the newspaper. "The police car is totaled."

A Tesla on autopilot crashed into a semi-truck in the exact same area on April 10, 2017, Cota told KTLA.

"Why do these vehicles keep doing that?" Cota told the Times. "We're just lucky that people aren't getting injured."

The same traffic investigator who responded to last year’s incident also responded to Tuesday's incident, Cota said. He added that the incidents involved different drivers.

It is unclear what led up to the latest crash.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-30-2018 02:13
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
The only logical pretzel here is you.

I actually CAN claim that because while the Model S was a social and technological leap forward for the BEV, the financials of Tesla and the safety record of Space X, as well as the quality issues that Tesla is having are not questionable.

In fact, noteworthy accomplishment and successful are totally different things and are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you want to link everything when it is convenient for your argument and separate them when it is not says all that needs to be said.


This is getting ridiculous.

"Successful" in the business sense (I assume this is what you mean, based on the context of the rest of your post) is a logical subset of "Noteworthy Accomplishment". They are NOT "totally different". One encompasses the other.

The fact of the matter is that within the last year, you stated, in your own words, that SpaceX had an unimpressive record, and that NASA was responsible for all of their R&D, which they "downloaded". This wasn't just about safety. The links I provided to the posts you wrote, show this very clearly. This was about everything, from safety, to R&D, to business success (launch costs, speculation that SpaceX was "sandbagging" -- thread linked above, your post @ 07-10-2017 23:47).

You've previously bashed virtually every aspect of SpaceX's existence. This is a fact. The words you wrote are there for everyone to read.

You try to get out of this by writing:

5) I never denied that SpaceX accomplished things that hadn't been done before (namely landing a rocket). I also never said he wasn't reducing the cost. What I DID say is that he hasn't reduced it as much as he promised and SpaceX sacrificed launch success rate (and thus safety) in exchange for that lower cost. Those are also factual statements.


But the fact is that you (1) Never acknowledged this accomplishment before as far as I can remember and (2) In fact actively and wrongly used SpaceX's early failed experimental landings to criticize their overall safety record.

This sure as hell does not look like you thought ANY of this was noteworthy accomplishment.



I have been 100% consistent in my stance since we started these discussions.

1) Tesla financials are highly questionable.

2) Tesla has had a long string of missed targets, missed projections, missed timelines, missed financial goals and quality issues. Those are facts.

3) Tesla has also greatly increased acceptance and eagerness about BEV's. However, that ACCOMPLISHMENT does NOT negate or invalidate the other facts.

4) I personally and directly question Musk's motives when they HAVE to know at this point that they aren't going to meet their metrics. And sorry, but I do not and WILL NOT accept that these metrics are not churched up for the benefit of the stock price. To much factual evidence to the contrary.



I do not dispute 1), 2), or 3).

I do dispute 4), because everything I have read about Musk, suggests that he has an over-optimistic personality, and that this, rather than a nefarious attempt to juice the stock price, is the reason Musk tends to make insane projections for the progress of his companies.

Musk himself has said on different occasions that Tesla stock is priced "too high".

Less than 1 year ago, he went on record saying:

"I do believe this market cap is higher than we have any right to deserve," he said in an interview with The Guardian, pointing out his company produces just 1% of GM's total output. "We're a money losing company."

Source: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-too-high-elon-musk-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

And he said the same in 2013: ""The stock price that we have is more than we have any right to deserve," he said in London Thursday at the opening of a Tesla showroom in London. And he's got a point. Shares are up 400% this year and are trading a nearly 100 times 2014 earnings estimates.

It's not the first time Musk has said that Tesla (TSLA) shares are flying too high, but investors haven't really bothered to pay attention."


Source: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/25/investing/tesla-netflix-momentum-stocks/index.html

People need to keep in mind that Musk has ALWAYS made wild projections, even when there was no stock price at risk.

In 2002, Musk stated that SpaceX would have an orbital rocket by late 2003. It took until late 2008 for SpaceX to get its first payload to orbit. There was no stock price to "church up".






I also will not buy that Musk is altruistic. He has too much ego and I simply know better.

The REAL problem here is that you can't seem to separate fact from opinion, you can't seem to acknowledge that opinion can be based on fact, and that just because it doesn't agree with you, doesn't make it false, invalid or a lie.



And as I said before, altruism and ego are not mutually exclusive. As you stated before about people like Trump and Musk, they tend to care about their legacy. That does not mean they can't care about what happens to the rest of us. Musk has clearly said that he doesn't want humans to fall victim to an extinction event, and that this is the reason for SpaceX.


The REAL problem


The real problem, is that you tend to say this:

owequitit wrote:I simply know better.


When you actually don't know.



1) You have previously in the past VEHEMENTLY disputed 1,2 and 3 which is why they became heated topics of discussion. You don't dispute them now because you factually can't. But you did.

2) Yes I did. Because it is true. Their safety record is unimpressive. And I have stood by and factually defended that statement (successfully) since I made it.

Also, SpaceX did, in fact, have access to NASA's vast databases of information and technology, most of which is publicly available, and some of which is controlled. They got access to that information as soon as they began to work with NASA in an official capacity, if not before. What that means is that while it benefits everyone, it also benefits SpaceX. So I also stand by that statement. Look up the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 which pushed NASA to aid development of the private space sector, as well as putting tight controls on the companies they helped, since the technology can be used for many things other than space exploration.

I have clarified time and again (which you continually deny and try to reinvent into a straw man) that their SAFETY record is unimpressive. The statement that you quoted as DIRECTLY speaking of their safety record.

I also stand by my position that their cost improvements are "unimpressive." Not because they didn't reduce costs, but because (in typical Musk fashion) they have yet to deliver the cost improvements PROMISED. So again, you have done absolutely ZERO to discredit ANY of my previous stances on the issue.

3) You didn't initially accept #1, #2 or #3 that I posted and you are now accepting. #1 started years ago with you posting endless links to Tesla press releases. You didn't even begin to accept it until I broke out their balance sheet for you and then you still weren't 100% on board until I started posting literally hundreds of links showing that Wall Street was starting to question the very same metrics I pointed out years ago.

You have repeatedly tried to attack ANYBODY (not just me) that has questioned Tesla's business targets. In fact, you just did in the other thread about Tesla 3 production when I stated that production was supposed to be 10,000 per week by the end of 2017, which was revised to 5,000 per week, which was then revised again to 2,500 per week by end of Q1 2018 and 5,000 per week by end of Q2 2018. They have already started making statements about hitting 5,000 per week sometime in Q3 2018, which I have also linked more than once in the other thread.

You are no longer questioning it because you no longer can.

You dispute #3 constantly and are almost doing it now. Being an industry disruptor or increasing interest in your segment does not mean you run a good business, it does not mean you aren't losing money and it does not mean you can hit a production target even if your life depends on it. You are NOT disputing these now because they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.

That said, you are now trying to construct it into another straw man that attempts to assert that because I said those other things, I can't possibly acknowledge what Tesla has done, which patently and demonstrably false.

As for #4, the great thing is that you aren't REQUIRED to get behind it. Your approval is not needed for my opinion to be valid. The fact is that no business person worth a shit misses 100% of their targets and remains credible. You can believe what you want, but the reality is that every time Musk needs to raise cash, he promises something that they end up not being able to deliver on. And he doesn't miss by a little bit. He misses by years and orders of magnitude. Not even a Meteorologist can be that wrong and remain credible. That means that either Musk is telling the best version of his own story (which is apparently nowhere near reality) or he is patently stupid. I refuse to believe he is patently stupid, so that means he is telling his own best story. The fact that it is NEVER backed up by reality tells me that he is stretching the truth. When that truth alters people's investing habits and it happens time and again, I question the integrity of it. Period.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I simply don't believe in repetitive coincidence because the data always reveals a different truth. The fact that there just happens to always be a new production promise, a new financial promise, a new product promise or some other interest generating promise right at the moment of potential chaos pretty much proves it as far as I am concerned. You can sit there and drink all the Musk Kool-Aid you can swallow, but I simply will not join in. The fact that his antics are getting increasingly desperate in direct proportion to their financial desperation simply shores up my position.

4) My psychologist father disagrees with you and we have talked about it extensively.

Altruism is the direct neglect of ego. By its very definition altruism means doing something that has nothing to do with you. Contrarily, being a megalomanic or only caring about your legacy is the very opposite of altruism, so you can continue to try to convince yourself that is true, but thousands of years of documented history prove you dead wrong. You show me an altruistic megalomanic.

Contrary to Musk not wanting humans to fall victim to extinction, I am pretty sure it is beyond his control. Everything becomes extinct eventually, and while he might actually believe he can solve it, who is to say that he doesn't help create the very extinction event he is trying to avoid? No way to see the future.

Musk is also the guy that thinks the evolution of robots to replace humans is inevitable and he has simultaneously said that AI will probably take over and yet, he has pushed for the increased automation of humanity and has pushed for maximum automation in his own business... Hmmm.

You can call it what you want, but if it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and tastes like bullshit, then it is probably still bullshit.

Frankly, you are trying awfully hard to discredit 3 basic points by trying to discredit me through ad hominem attack:

1) Tesla's poor financial position and failure to deliver on product promises.

2) SpaceX's launch safety history and its profound effect on legitimate risk assessment.

3) My direct questioning whether it is intentional by Musk.

Try as you might, it just isn't working. I have substantiated my position, I have more than backed up my position, and I have linked the ever loving hell out of all of it (except the Musk's intention part which is just intuitive opinion). You now have nothing to resort to but circular linking of hand picked (and sometimes out of context statements) to try and lead the whole thing in circles so that it appears you still have a valid defense.


atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-30-2018 20:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit,

Either your memory is faulty, or you are yet again attempting to gaslight by stating things that are not true.

I am starting to think that your memory is actually faulty, given the numerous past examples where you (1) mis-attributed statements I made to yourself and (2) Got many many facts wrong, such as attributing an Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK) accident to SpaceX, making claims about Apple being supported by HP, etc etc. If this is the case, then I think it is probably best that I stop responding to your posts altogether.

But alternatively, if you are playing mind games, that would constitute trolling. You've essentially admitted in this thread that you find bullying/browbeating to be fun, which is basically trolling. If this is truly the case, then Notyper or Jeff should ban you permanently from ToV. As I've noted before, I'm far from the only person you lash out at like this.

Whatever the case, the record is here for everyone to see. They can read all of our posts, and decide for themselves who has the better reasoned arguments.

In a few years, everyone will see how this panned out, with regards to Tesla, SpaceX, and BEVs.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-30-2018 21:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
I am starting to think that your memory is actually faulty, given the numerous past examples where you (1) mis-attributed statements I made to yourself and (2) Got many many facts wrong, such as attributing an Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK) accident to SpaceX, making claims about Apple being supported by HP, etc etc. If this is the case, then I think it is probably best that I stop responding to your posts altogether.


owequitit, to explain this a bit more:

A lot of times, I read stuff you write, and it seems a bit off. When I conduct some research, it often turns out that your statements are actually incorrect. Arguments based on false information, tend to fail badly.

This happens over, and over, and over again.

For example, you continually stated, incorrectly, that I claimed that Tesla had general "packaging superiority" over other cars (for example: your post, located here: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=9& @ 05-11-2018 04:29)

My actual claim was that Tesla's BEV powertrain had packaging superiority over FCEVs, as I explained in my post in that thread @ 05-11-2018 20:41. I even went back and looked at threads from past years, and the arguments I made with regards to packaging was in the context of BEV vs. FCEV.


A related example: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=3& @ 04-03-2018 02:56

You claimed that there was hardware failure in the Tesla Autopilot system, without even knowing the specific hardware platform that Tesla uses, and without knowing that this is the same hardware platform currently used by top tier manufacturers like Audi and Toyota (from my post https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=4& @ 04-05-2018 18:28.)

This is not a "memory" problem per se, but it is another example of where you stated something as fact, when it was actually demonstrably false.

You often reply by spewing numerous pieces of information, which, based on your post history, may or may not be true (my post https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1322717&page_number=3& @ 07-10-2017 18:23, has no less than SIX (6) examples where you were caught stating information that was demonstrably false).


It is pointless for me to continue to argue with you like this. No matter what I say, you just keep arguing based on information that often isn't true. Your viewpoint is thus severely compromised, and therefore not very illuminating on the subject being discussed.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 01:14
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit,

Either your memory is faulty, or you are yet again attempting to gaslight by stating things that are not true.

I am starting to think that your memory is actually faulty, given the numerous past examples where you (1) mis-attributed statements I made to yourself and (2) Got many many facts wrong, such as attributing an Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK) accident to SpaceX, making claims about Apple being supported by HP, etc etc. If this is the case, then I think it is probably best that I stop responding to your posts altogether.

But alternatively, if you are playing mind games, that would constitute trolling. You've essentially admitted in this thread that you find bullying/browbeating to be fun, which is basically trolling. If this is truly the case, then Notyper or Jeff should ban you permanently from ToV. As I've noted before, I'm far from the only person you lash out at like this.

Whatever the case, the record is here for everyone to see. They can read all of our posts, and decide for themselves who has the better reasoned arguments.

In a few years, everyone will see how this panned out, with regards to Tesla, SpaceX, and BEVs.



You are right. The facts are here to see. The calculations, the links, and the data. You on the other hand resort to out-of-context statements cross-linked from multiple other threads in an attempt to make your argument look credible.

Enough said. The only thing "faulty" here is your argument. The faster you admit that and move on, the sooner the nightmare will end. You have been literally buried under several hundred credible links at this point ranging from Tesla's quality issues, to their production issues, to their financial issues. You have been completely obliterated on ALL of my statements about SpaceX and their relative safety records and economics. You have been provided with not only multiple scenarios where either or both of Musk's companies go bankrupt and he keeps a fortune, but they have also been substantiated with links.

You are beat by my relative experience and knowledge in the safety field and I have substantiated every single thing I have said.

The only thing you can manage on the other hand, is to go back to threads that are, in some cases, multiple years old and try to find any inconsistency in any little thing I said to try and build it into a fundamental contradiction, which it is not. My points, my reasoning, my logic and my factual support are all still completely credible. If you think your statements from 1-3 years ago are completely consistent with what you said back then, you are fooling yourself. The difference is that I address the root issue each time you bring it up, while you simply try to convince yourself that I contradicted some minor detail, and thus my entire point is invalid. It simply isn't true.

In fact, your behavior lately reminds me a lot of what the media is doing with Trump in trying to turn any little thing they can get their hands on into some kind of major scandal. It is actually pretty laughable at this point.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 02:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
I am starting to think that your memory is actually faulty, given the numerous past examples where you (1) mis-attributed statements I made to yourself and (2) Got many many facts wrong, such as attributing an Orbital Sciences (now Orbital ATK) accident to SpaceX, making claims about Apple being supported by HP, etc etc. If this is the case, then I think it is probably best that I stop responding to your posts altogether.


owequitit, to explain this a bit more:

A lot of times, I read stuff you write, and it seems a bit off. When I conduct some research, it often turns out that your statements are actually incorrect. Arguments based on false information, tend to fail badly.

This happens over, and over, and over again.

For example, you continually stated, incorrectly, that I claimed that Tesla had general "packaging superiority" over other cars (for example: your post, located here: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=9& @ 05-11-2018 04:29)

My actual claim was that Tesla's BEV powertrain had packaging superiority over FCEVs, as I explained in my post in that thread @ 05-11-2018 20:41. I even went back and looked at threads from past years, and the arguments I made with regards to packaging was in the context of BEV vs. FCEV.


A related example: https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=3& @ 04-03-2018 02:56

You claimed that there was hardware failure in the Tesla Autopilot system, without even knowing the specific hardware platform that Tesla uses, and without knowing that this is the same hardware platform currently used by top tier manufacturers like Audi and Toyota (from my post https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1351828&page_number=4& @ 04-05-2018 18:28.)

This is not a "memory" problem per se, but it is another example of where you stated something as fact, when it was actually demonstrably false.

You often reply by spewing numerous pieces of information, which, based on your post history, may or may not be true (my post https://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1322717&page_number=3& @ 07-10-2017 18:23, has no less than SIX (6) examples where you were caught stating information that was demonstrably false).


It is pointless for me to continue to argue with you like this. No matter what I say, you just keep arguing based on information that often isn't true. Your viewpoint is thus severely compromised, and therefore not very illuminating on the subject being discussed.



Would you be talking about things like this:

https://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1327370&page_number=2& (Reference my post 7-31-2017 22:23pm)

Where I posted numerous links of Musk and Tesla's statements, and then you tried to turn them around as me making the statements in your subsequent posts?

I have already followed your charades from thread to thread, which is one reason I started hitting you so hard.

What I want to know is how much is Tesla paying you to schlep their product on a Honda forum? All of the links I posted made the statement for me. I didn't make up words, just like I didn't make up SpaceX's launch record (and even revised it according to your criteria in THIS thread) and you are still trying to call me a liar.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 02:22
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Have a look at the latest promise from SpaceX:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/05/17/elon-musks-plan-for-transport-system-to-get-anywhere-on-earth-in-hour-definitely-going-to-happen.html

Not sure how Musk plans to refurbish a rocket several dozen times per day, but it will be interesting to see.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 11:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
DCR wrote:
More and more, probably driver error yet again.

http://ktla.com/2018/05/29/tesla-on-autopilot-crashes-into-laguna-beach-police-patrol-vehicle/

A Tesla that was in autopilot mode crashed into a Laguna Beach police patrol vehicle Tuesday morning, totaling the SUV and leaving the sedan's driver injured, an official said.

The crash occurred along Laguna Canyon Road shortly after 11 a.m., Laguna Beach Police Department Sgt. Jim Cota tweeted.

The officer was not in the police SUV at the time of the crash, Cota said in the tweet. The Tesla driver sustained minor injuries, but declined transport to a hospital, the sergeant told the Los Angeles Times.

Photos from the scene showed the Tesla with front end damage. The police SUV had damage to the driver's side, the photos showed.

"Thankfully there was not an officer at the time in the police car," Cota told the newspaper. "The police car is totaled."

A Tesla on autopilot crashed into a semi-truck in the exact same area on April 10, 2017, Cota told KTLA.

"Why do these vehicles keep doing that?" Cota told the Times. "We're just lucky that people aren't getting injured."

The same traffic investigator who responded to last year’s incident also responded to Tuesday's incident, Cota said. He added that the incidents involved different drivers.

It is unclear what led up to the latest crash.




Tesla has always been clear that autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents, and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that ‘Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear markings.


They are probably going to amend this to "Autopilot must be used on perfect roads in perfect weather conditions in a controlled environment".

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 13:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
DCR wrote:
More and more, probably driver error yet again.

http://ktla.com/2018/05/29/tesla-on-autopilot-crashes-into-laguna-beach-police-patrol-vehicle/

A Tesla that was in autopilot mode crashed into a Laguna Beach police patrol vehicle Tuesday morning, totaling the SUV and leaving the sedan's driver injured, an official said.

The crash occurred along Laguna Canyon Road shortly after 11 a.m., Laguna Beach Police Department Sgt. Jim Cota tweeted.

The officer was not in the police SUV at the time of the crash, Cota said in the tweet. The Tesla driver sustained minor injuries, but declined transport to a hospital, the sergeant told the Los Angeles Times.

Photos from the scene showed the Tesla with front end damage. The police SUV had damage to the driver's side, the photos showed.

"Thankfully there was not an officer at the time in the police car," Cota told the newspaper. "The police car is totaled."

A Tesla on autopilot crashed into a semi-truck in the exact same area on April 10, 2017, Cota told KTLA.

"Why do these vehicles keep doing that?" Cota told the Times. "We're just lucky that people aren't getting injured."

The same traffic investigator who responded to last year’s incident also responded to Tuesday's incident, Cota said. He added that the incidents involved different drivers.

It is unclear what led up to the latest crash.




Tesla has always been clear that autopilot doesn’t make the car impervious to all accidents, and before a driver can use Autopilot, they must accept a dialogue box which states that ‘Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear markings.


They are probably going to amend this to "Autopilot must be used on perfect roads in perfect weather conditions in a controlled environment".



Apparently the location of the crash earlier this week is the EXACT same location where another Tesla on autopilot crashed last year. 🤔

Self-driving Tesla car crashes in same California location as 2017 accident


atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-31-2018 19:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
Would you be talking about things like this:

https://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1327370&page_number=2& (Reference my post 7-31-2017 22:23pm)

Where I posted numerous links of Musk and Tesla's statements, and then you tried to turn them around as me making the statements in your subsequent posts?

I have already followed your charades from thread to thread, which is one reason I started hitting you so hard.



Consider that the mainstream media often gets things wrong.

In that prior exchange with you, I linked directly back to Elon's official statement at the Tesla website from 2006, so we could see exactly what his plan was, rather than taking the liberal media's word for it. The fact that one of these articles stated that Model X was supposed to be the 30k car is clear evidence that reporters often don't know what they are writing about.

Posting endless pages of links doesn't mean anything. Are the articles actually correct? Are they credible? You don't seem to understand this.



What I want to know is how much is Tesla paying you to schlep their product on a Honda forum? All of the links I posted made the statement for me. I didn't make up words, just like I didn't make up SpaceX's launch record (and even revised it according to your criteria in THIS thread).


Nobody is paying me anything.

I've been an active member of ToV since early 2007, as Jeff or Notyper can probably verify. At that time, almost everyone (including myself) though Tesla was probably going out of business, because they didn't even have a working product and the management was in complete chaos. At that time, I believed that FCEV was the future, because I was impressed by the FCX Clarity.

I didn't even participate in many of the early Tesla threads from 2012 here at ToV, when the Model S began shipping. It would be ridiculous to believe that Tesla had the $ in 2007 to hire me as a "sleeper agent" to do some ineffective promotional work in a very specific car forum like ToV. If they were going to hire people to shill for their company, YouTube and Reddit are infinitely more influential platforms than a specialized site like ToV.


and you are still trying to call me a liar.


The record is pretty clear. Much of your information is consistently incorrect. I don't know why this is the case.

Whether your research skills aren't good, or your memory is faulty, or you are indeed a liar, may not mater much to people reading this forum.

What people should take away from this discussion is that they shouldn't trust anything you say at face value.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 00:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Would you be talking about things like this:

https://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1327370&page_number=2& (Reference my post 7-31-2017 22:23pm)

Where I posted numerous links of Musk and Tesla's statements, and then you tried to turn them around as me making the statements in your subsequent posts?

I have already followed your charades from thread to thread, which is one reason I started hitting you so hard.



Consider that the mainstream media often gets things wrong.

In that prior exchange with you, I linked directly back to Elon's official statement at the Tesla website from 2006, so we could see exactly what his plan was, rather than taking the liberal media's word for it. The fact that one of these articles stated that Model X was supposed to be the 30k car is clear evidence that reporters often don't know what they are writing about.

Posting endless pages of links doesn't mean anything. Are the articles actually correct? Are they credible? You don't seem to understand this.



What I want to know is how much is Tesla paying you to schlep their product on a Honda forum? All of the links I posted made the statement for me. I didn't make up words, just like I didn't make up SpaceX's launch record (and even revised it according to your criteria in THIS thread).


Nobody is paying me anything.

I've been an active member of ToV since early 2007, as Jeff or Notyper can probably verify. At that time, almost everyone (including myself) though Tesla was probably going out of business, because they didn't even have a working product and the management was in complete chaos. At that time, I believed that FCEV was the future, because I was impressed by the FCX Clarity.

I didn't even participate in many of the early Tesla threads from 2012 here at ToV, when the Model S began shipping. It would be ridiculous to believe that Tesla had the $ in 2007 to hire me as a "sleeper agent" to do some ineffective promotional work in a very specific car forum like ToV. If they were going to hire people to shill for their company, YouTube and Reddit are infinitely more influential platforms than a specialized site like ToV.


and you are still trying to call me a liar.


The record is pretty clear. Much of your information is consistently incorrect. I don't know why this is the case.

Whether your research skills aren't good, or your memory is faulty, or you are indeed a liar, may not mater much to people reading this forum.

What people should take away from this discussion is that they shouldn't trust anything you say at face value.



Dead wrong again. I also notice that you have no problem insulting me in here again... I am sure that is somehow my fault though.

LOL.

You are a shill and blind fan boy. Further response isn't even worth my time, because my positions have been vastly more substantiated than yours, time and time again. You not liking that they don't resonate with your echo chamber doesn't change that.

Good day.

P.S. Don't forget that silence is not a sign of victory on your part.


CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 15:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The mainstream media does get things wrong and is often found to sensationalize certain topics.

But it's either that, or really shitty blogsites, like Electrek.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 20:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:

LOL.

You are a shill and blind fan boy. Further response isn't even worth my time, because my positions have been vastly more substantiated than yours, time and time again.


Substantiation with poor quality articles and unsubstantiated information, has little if any value in a debate.

It doesn't matter how much garbage you want to throw. It's still garbage.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-01-2018 21:08
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
The mainstream media does get things wrong and is often found to sensationalize certain topics.

But it's either that, or really shitty blogsites, like Electrek.



Although I sometimes quote Electrek, I try to avoid using them as a source, because they are an opinion blog and are openly biased with a mission of promoting BEVs and Tesla in particular.

As much as possible, I try to use original sources, where the party writing the article was actually the one to take measurements or write their firsthand experience behind the wheel.

For example, Car & Driver Instrumented Tests, Consumer Reports evaluations, findings by hackers like wk057, who disassemble Tesla hardware and software for analysis, and articles by professional drivers and car owners. Interviews with pros, hands-on industry consultants, and owners, are also useful. Sandy Munro of Munro and Associates had a very interesting analysis of an early production Model 3, which they disassembled for a cost and quality analysis.

Mainstream media (tv like CNN, Fox, CNBC, newspapers like Washington Post and Washington Times) cannot be trusted on technical issues, because the journalists writing the articles often don't have the engineering background to understand what they are writing about. Their overriding goal is to get page views, clicks, and ultimately derive advertising revenue. A high volume of low quality, sensationalized headline articles is the way they achieve this.

Go to the source.

When I wanted to find out the efficiency of a Tesla wall charger, I found an article by someone who actually used a "Kill-a-Watt" meter to measure how much energy it took from the socket to charge up his Roadster's battery.

When I wanted to find the actual capacity of Tesla's 60 and 85 kWh batteries, I went to wk057's battery teardown article and also looked at his findings from probing the low level firmware of the Model S.

When I wanted to see how BEVs compared to FCEVs from an efficiency standpoint, I created my own mathematical models based on hardware specs that are publicly available, and posted it here on ToV.

Reliance on 2nd and 3rd hand reporting will never get you anywhere as close to the truth as firsthand information from people in the trenches.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2018 00:11
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:

LOL.

You are a shill and blind fan boy. Further response isn't even worth my time, because my positions have been vastly more substantiated than yours, time and time again.


Substantiation with poor quality articles and unsubstantiated information, has little if any value in a debate.

It doesn't matter how much garbage you want to throw. It's still garbage.



I have used at least as many "direct sources" as you have and we both know it.

Your research isn't any better than anybody else's on here, even though you try to talk a good game.

You can try to downplay "media" articles all you want, but the majority of the "media" articles I posted were posted specifically because of the witness interviews, such as risk managers who worked for NASA on the shuttle programs who say that SpaceX's fueling is unsafe.

Then there were all of the scholarly links, such as the studies about cradle to grave emissions, which are AT LEAST as valid as anything you post.

So spare me the lecture on how to "research."

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2018 09:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:

LOL.

You are a shill and blind fan boy. Further response isn't even worth my time, because my positions have been vastly more substantiated than yours, time and time again.


Substantiation with poor quality articles and unsubstantiated information, has little if any value in a debate.

It doesn't matter how much garbage you want to throw. It's still garbage.



I have used at least as many "direct sources" as you have and we both know it.

Your research isn't any better than anybody else's on here, even though you try to talk a good game.

You can try to downplay "media" articles all you want, but the majority of the "media" articles I posted were posted specifically because of the witness interviews, such as risk managers who worked for NASA on the shuttle programs who say that SpaceX's fueling is unsafe.

Then there were all of the scholarly links, such as the studies about cradle to grave emissions, which are AT LEAST as valid as anything you post.

So spare me the lecture on how to "research."



If you still don't understand why the lifecycle emissions article you posted from the early 2000's doesn't directly apply to today's vehicles and power grid, there is nothing more to say.


 
Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0