Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should look at the Slate... https://www.slate.auto/en
Not falling for that again, I'll consider it when it actually exists
Should be shipping next year
Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
641–650 of 836 posts
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#642I know there’s a lot of Tesla/Elon hate here. I’m not denying any of it. I’m just sharing a genuinely strange experience I wasn’t expecting. We needed a car again. Sold ours a year ago and got by with Uber, rentals, taxis. Life changed a bit and we needed something more predictable. I was planning to buy something used and boring and didn’t really care what. My wife asked, “What about an EV?” We can’t charge in our r…
Tesla drivers, the road is for everyone and the road is not an experiment. Please drive carefully & responsibly as accidents can destroy families.
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#643Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would buy a Cybertruck tomorrow if it had a gas engine. I would buy a $10,000 or $15,000 gas generator add-on if it enabled unlimited range (provided I have gasoline). There are just too many places, even in California, where I have to limit my trip because of electric range. I'm surprised no one has done the generator.
It's ugly, poorly built, expensive and not very good as a truck. A gas engine will not fix all these flaws.
i actually love the way it looks. i dont own it but i find it some inspiring that a company had to have audacity to create something so futuristic - what are you driving that is so beautiful ?
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#644Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no “subject to interpretation”. The costs they charge for launches are lower than any other provider by a significant margin. And fundraising docs have shown many times that the Falcon launches make money and Starlink was just starting to make money about 1.5 years ago. > What we clearly know is that using software development methodologies to building critical hardware is as a bad idea as it sounds. This me…
Spacex is a private company; this means "we" know nothing about actual costs. Fundraising documents dont show this either, as they are a washed-down version for, well, fundraising purposes. As an investor, it is common practice to sign an NDA just to get access to actual somewhat relevant numbers, so any actual relevant info isnt public. Also it seems you conflate "making money" with being profitable - its not the sa…
> Spacex is a private company; this means "we" know nothing about actual costs. Fundraising documents dont show this either, as they are a washed-down version for, well, fundraising purposes. As an investor, it is common practice to sign an NDA just to get access to actual somewhat relevant numbers, so any actual relevant info isnt public.
None of this is correct. You don’t get fidelity as an investor repeatedly publishing fraudulent documents.
Also, it’s not like spacex can hide costs. There is no other supply of money to cover operations.
> You also seem to not be aware that there are multiple internet satellite providers with south pole coverage, as well as other regions in the globe.
They are a joke. Completely different leagues of access. Coverage of the South Pole (not McMurdo) got effective continuous bandwidth around the throughput of dialup and periodic passes from a polar sat to upload scientific data.
GEO is absolutely terrible in terms of latency and cost. Starlink is currently the only good option for the entire ocean and any remote place on earth not reachable by fiber infra.
The only up and coming potential competitor is Amazon’s Kuiper/Leo. China is also experimenting here but it’s not clear that will be available to the world.
Claiming there are alternatives to Starlink is extremely ignorant. It only takes a brief glimpse of what it’s doing to both maritime and aviation to understand that it’s unique.
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#645Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is it had the range of a golf cart. So it basically ruled out 98% of the population that needs a car that can go on road trips. Tesla was the first to take range seriously.
> The issue is it had the range of a golf cart. So it basically ruled out 98% of the population that needs a car that can go on road trips. You're trying to use weasel words to try to hide the fact that the Nissan Leaf, which was released in 2010 and elected world car of the year, was the world's most successful electric car and top-selling electric car until 2020. That does not happen if 98% of anything doesn't like…
> That does not happen if 98% of anything doesn't like it.
Actually it does. Electric car sales were so anemic during that time claiming the title made it trivial to be supported by 2% of the population.
> Any claim involving "road trips" is a red herring because the Nissan Leaf was designed as a city car used in daily commutes, which means a daily driver for your 1h trips. This is by far the most popular use of a car in the world.
No it’s not. “Range anxiety” was a constant refrain for anything mentioning electric cars during the first 20 years of the century.
A “city car” isn’t a concept in the US. Only when you get into upper middle class where people can afford multiple cars per household is when you could sacrifice one car like this.
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called fraud, the editor was a victim of fraud. At least he clued on late I guess..
Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters? Referral credits are legal fictions, much like how Tesla Roadsters are physical fictions. Trading one fiction for another isn’t fraud, it’s cosplay.
>Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters?
Is it fraud if you worked for a startup that promised you options, and then refused to honor/issue those said options? After all, because those options never existed, you also "paid $0 for non-existent [options]"?
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#647Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is it had the range of a golf cart. So it basically ruled out 98% of the population that needs a car that can go on road trips. Tesla was the first to take range seriously.
Sure, but the original Tesla car received exactly 0 Musk input. That was pretty much a done design when he bought the company. And ofc he ousted the original designers and tried to erase them from history. And the model 3 is pretty much building upon that.
The OG roadster tesla was junk. The early model S was overpriced.
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#648Take anything on electrek.co with a grain of salt, it is a wildly anti-Tesla, pro-China website.
I don't have any comments on their supposed slant, but I do know electrek.co articles often contain mistakes or inaccuracies.
When I comment on the articles or email their authors/editors about the inaccuracies they never respond, nor fix the article.
So yeah... Take anything on electrek.co with a grain of salt.
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#649Take anything on electrek.co with a grain of salt, it is a wildly anti-Tesla, pro-China website.
Is there something you disagree with in the article or you just don’t like the author?
Whenever I see people decry it as "anti Tesla" or "anti Elon" I just wonder "what have they done they can be covered positively?"
While I'm an out and proud "Tesla hater" and freely admit my own bias. The defenders never actually seem to have any "look here's something good that [site] overlooked!" It's just whining about the site being anti-Tesla
Re: Tesla’s 4680 battery supply chain collapses as partner writes down deal by 99%
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm with the other poster. You're comparing apples to oranges in a 20k vs 60k car. I assume people spending that much on vehicles do want the fancy electronics.
20k cars do not exist any longer :)
lol. My resposne was going to be, find me a car for $20k.