181–190 of 279 posts
Sell oil, buy electric cars. Is this the definition of hypocrisy? At least it is better than the alternative, sell oil and buy fossile fuel cars. Edit: I would like to rephrase the last sentence as "At least it is better than _an_ alternative, which is to sell oil and buy fossile fuel cars." which is a fairer categorisation of the problem space and less consumerist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What precisely should I think again about? If the VW was priced at the same level as a Tesla, do you believe it would generate the same sales?
I have no idea what you're trying to say
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we allow a free market to continue producing vehicles that contribute to the degradation of the planet?
Can we not pretend that electric cars don't pollute the planet? To be clear, I am a big fan of electric cars. But this seems to have become another one of those things that has become so polarised you're not even allowed to express healthy skepticism.
The pitch has always been that they pollute less globally (and that how much depends on the electric energy mix, but will generally decrease over time) and way less locally. EVs is also the only solution to have a viable path to net zero lifetime CO2 impact. It'll take a zero-emission grid and zero-emission mining, but we need those anyway, and EV tech will help make mining zero-emission.
This is almost completely a result of artificial government imposed constraints that make ICE vehicles exceedingly more expensive there. It really has nothing to do with free market choice. A new Tesla Model 3 costs less than a Subaru Outback or Mini Cooper [0]. A VW eGolf also costs less than a base model ICE Golf. [0] https://www.skatteetaten.no/globalassets/tabeller-og-satser/...
Are you comparing a large car, Subaru Outback, to a small car, Model 3? Model X would be a fairer comparison, where model X is 300k NOK more in base model.
They are almost identical dimensions
Model 3: 185" L x 73" W
Outback: 191″ L x 73″ W
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you're trying to say
We're talking about whether or not price is a signal of desirability. You suggested a good point about the Leaf is the ability to buy a used one for $7k. I believe the way pricing works suggests that the Leaf has low desirability, because you can get one for so cheap. What you're implying appears to violate the law of demand, and I'm hoping you can explain what I'm missing.
The leaf's entertainment system, for example, does the job it's intended to do fine, the tesla one is designed to innovate.
They are empirically desirable because they've sold half a million of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just sums up how tax payers subsidise EVs and some meme company takes the credit
As awful as Tesla is, all the other car manufacturing companies are far far worse. Even with massive government incentives, even with their massive war chests, even with their massive production capacity, even with their access to capital markets for big investments, even then , they didn't make the smart move and had to be shown the path by an annoying megalomaniac who gets way too much attention. So yes, I regret g…
I haven't even mentioned how Tesla is the only company that doesn't sponsor at least one (I think they all sponsor multiple) traditionally powered racing teams, whose development goes into premium powered, traditional gas powered automobiles. Plus the advertisement of said vehicles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with the Leaf? Some people just want a car that goes from A to B rather than a to flex on the plebs in a musk-mobile, good as they are.
Range, battery longevity (older versions), lack of fast charge network and charge experience, no OTA software updates, no lane keeping (“autopilot”) on older versions. One can appreciate Tesla and not like Musk. Even as a Tesla investor, not a huge fan. I see him as a necessary evil. The cars sells, and that’s all that’s important.
Feature. It's a car and software should be finished when it leaves the factory. Any other excuse is nonsense.
> no lane keeping (“autopilot”) on older versions.
That's your job and its called driving. If you cant handle that simple task then you should not be driving.
BTW, as of late Tesla isn't at all the big leader over there: https://eu-evs.com/marketShare
trend line is badly misleading since 2021Q1 just started and tesla delivers their cars at the end of the quarter
https://eu-evs.com/CLASSIC/index.html
Volkswagen had the first and third best selling cars in Norway in 2020, the Audi e-tron and the VW ID.3.
The ID.3 didn't get a full year of sales because it has only been available since September.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is more likely to be right? You and your cheap used car use case or sophisticated capital markets and the valuation they’ve assigned to Tesla based on future expectations? Tesla can’t build 3s and Ys fast enough to keep up with demand, and they’re $40k-$50k (roughly) vehicles.
Have I touched a nerve? All I was saying is that Tesla's are very good but they're also expensive for a European market which is why the Leaf is a perfectly good EV for driving to the shops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Range, battery longevity (older versions), lack of fast charge network and charge experience, no OTA software updates, no lane keeping (“autopilot”) on older versions. One can appreciate Tesla and not like Musk. Even as a Tesla investor, not a huge fan. I see him as a necessary evil. The cars sells, and that’s all that’s important.
> no OTA software updates Feature. It's a car and software should be finished when it leaves the factory. Any other excuse is nonsense. > no lane keeping (“autopilot”) on older versions. That's your job and its called driving. If you cant handle that simple task then you should not be driving.
Ah, the "just suck it up and man up" argument. Lovely. I hope you drive a manual car with no power steering no power brakes and no abs. Heaven forbid the car helped you with the sacred art of driving, right?