Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#241

Post by thetinguy »

namirez wrote: post #84

Sadly Boom is doomed and it’s been a writing on the wall all along. They never had a good engine option. The military engines are not safe enough and developing a new civilian engine makes sense only if you make hundreds of them. Their net-zero emission claim is also bogus. Their pricing model doesn’t make much sense either unless they’re willing to lose money for a decade or so. There is not much innovation in aerod…

>Their only innovation compared to Concorde is the use of composite materials which is just not enough to hit their targets.

There’s been 50 years of commercial aviation development since the Concorde. Composite materials is only one thing on a list of differences between Concorde and boom.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#242

Post by mrtksn »

panick21_ wrote: post #240
mrtksn wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment itself is an example of forgiving customers. If we agree to not make it a big deal of people not receiving the products they paid for and if we agree not to make it a big deal for delays and low quality then sure, Tesla is just as any other company. If people didn't make it a big deal that Theranos runs its test on Siemens machines we wouldn't have had a Theranos scandal too! If we not make it a big deal…

I have never spent a single $ on a Tesla product so I have nothing to forgive. People should be able to get their money back for the FSD package, I totally agree. I don't know what the status of that is. In my opinion that it should legally clear that you can get your money back as it clearly does not does what it said on sale but I have not read the contract. As a costumer that would piss me off if I couldn't get my…

Sure, if you forgive every wrongdoing and if you omit every action of Musk that does not fit the narrative what is left is a honest cars manufacturer that succeeded purely on its own merits.

I can't really argue against that.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#243

Post by purim »

dang wrote: post #206
purim wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think I remember lot of comments here criticizing Boom being downvoted and flagged. Is Boom part of YC by any chance?

That's a clever insinuation, and since you've had many HN accounts in the past, and used them to abuse the site in similar ways, I'm going to be a notch less charitable than usual and conclude that you meant this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771519 as an innocent-sounding smear. For anyone worried about this kind of thing: what the commenter is insinuating is, in fact, just what we don't do. Here's tons…

> since you've had many HN accounts in the past

well aren't you the one now making big insinuations? I feel you are invading my privacy and making me feel unsafe so I guess I will use a VPN next time, thanks for making me aware.

I don't think I'm alone with my assessment. I've seen threads where comments were downvoted and flagged when they were critical of certain YC companies, and I can't recall 100% is why I suggested the likelihood of the same pattern. I didn't say YOU removed it but the people in that thread for whatever reason felt justified to censor those comments.

> we flagged zero comments in this thread and unkilled a bunch of comments that users had flagged.

Incorrect, you've removed my original comment which you completely took out of context and just assumed malice. This is a pretty aggressive stance, and it just reinforces what I've pointed out.

"hey i think theres censorship"

flagged and removed

to the outsider doesn't it seem pretty clear? you should at least allow some discussion around this, maybe I was wrong, maybe I'm not but claiming you removed zero comments is incorrect here. It only adds fuel to the suspicion.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#244

Post by jjk166 »

fakethenews2022 wrote: post #217
jjk166 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the shelf means buying something already available for sale. Paying someone to develop something for you is the opposite. Going back to the analogy from before, you can go to companies which specialize in chip design and development, and you can pay them to design a chip that will meet your specifications and make it in small quantities. It is economical for these companies to keep the technical staff and equipme…

RR is not some contract designer. It is one of less than a handful of engine designer/manufacturers that could do it. This is more like asking some combination of Intel/AMD/Nvidia to design a custom chip and TSMC/Samsung to build it for you. Sure RR would love to do preliminary investigation. But what is the opportunity cost for RR to design and manufacture these engines versus devoting those resources to engines for…

> But what is the opportunity cost for RR to design and manufacture these engines versus devoting those resources to engines for Boeing and Airbus?

Less than what you offer to pay them to divert those resources, which is in turn less than what it would cost to acquire those resources by another means.

> This is more like asking some combination of Intel/AMD/Nvidia to design a custom chip and TSMC/Samsung to build it for you.

Exactly. You don't see Ford building their own fab to make the chips that go in their cars, they pay existing fabs like TSMC to make their chips.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#245

Post by dang »

purim wrote: post #243
dang wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a clever insinuation, and since you've had many HN accounts in the past, and used them to abuse the site in similar ways, I'm going to be a notch less charitable than usual and conclude that you meant this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771519 as an innocent-sounding smear. For anyone worried about this kind of thing: what the commenter is insinuating is, in fact, just what we don't do. Here's tons…

> since you've had many HN accounts in the past well aren't you the one now making big insinuations? I feel you are invading my privacy and making me feel unsafe so I guess I will use a VPN next time, thanks for making me aware. I don't think I'm alone with my assessment. I've seen threads where comments were downvoted and flagged when they were critical of certain YC companies, and I can't recall 100% is why I sugge…

Users have done the flagging. The only thing we did was unkill some of those comments.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#246

Post by jeffreyrogers »

frozencell wrote: post #209
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that is a refutation of what I wrote. For every example that people can point to of how government funding creates innovation you can point to a private example too. Heavier than air flight was mostly private money, jet engines were mostly government. The transistor was mostly private (Bell Labs) the IC was mostly government. In terms of energy the two most important things in the last few decades are…

> The transistor was mostly private (Bell Labs) Wasn't Bell Labs indirectly funded by the French Government?

I think that's a pretty big stretch. I don't see a direct link between the award Alexander Graham Bell got in 1880 and the research output of Bell Labs in the 1940s. Bell Telephone existed as a corporation prior to the award from the French government. "Bell Labs" didn't exist as a separate entity with that name until the 1920s.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#247

Post by gamblor956 »

panick21_ wrote: post #221
gamblor956 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to goose profit margins when you don't use automotive grade parts and skip quality control. Consumer Reports stopped recommending Teslas because of the abysmal quality of their vehicles. And every Tesla owner I personally know has said their first Tesla will also be their last.

This is just complete nonsense. Go look at the tear-downs of Tesla where actual engineers with automotive analyses each part. The reality is Tesla is ahead in a whole number of areas and have better quality in many areas. Tesla have top ranks in safety, the best most performant interior board computer, their glass roofs are pretty amazing, their internal heating/cooling system is the best in the industry by far. The…

Ah you mean Munro, who owns a ton of Tesla stock and has a commercial interest in promoting the "quality" of Tesla vehicles?

Because, objectively speaking, Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, and thousands of actual Tesla owners think that the build quality of their cars is crap. Literal 90's era Kia crap. And notably, unlike Munro, CR and C&D buy their cars anonymously so that Tesla can't goose the reviews.

Tesla has the highest consumer satisfaction ratio and the highest costumer retention ratio in the industry.

Objectively false, and indeed Tesla's abysmal customer satisfaction (nearly the industry lowest) is one of the reasons why CR stopped recommending Teslas.

Tesla have top ranks in safety

As does every other EV with a frunk. And a number of ICE vehicles like Subarus. The safety review tests rank cars collectively, so Tesla are in the top rank but are not the top-ranked, because that's not how the safety reviews are scored. And to claim otherwise is just another example of Tesla's deceptive marketing.

Their structural engineering with their castings is ahead of anybody in the industry.

Yes, it's so good that the Cybertruck has been delayed another year because Tesla discovered that they don't actually understand how structural engineering works. (Here's a hint: car panels are shaped and curved because it provides additional strength; creased flat panels are actually the weakest design you can use for automotive purposes on the basis of mass and need tons of reinforcement.)

They have the largest global fast charging system and the single best integration of cars and charging.

This is the only true statement in your comment. It's too bad (for Tesla) that they're planning to eliminate their only competitive advantage by opening it up to everyone. (Literally the only reason the several dozen Tesla owners I know still own Teslas instead of better EVs is because the Supercharger network is 10000x better than the alternatives. They're willing to put up with the shoddy build quality of the car and the absolutely horrific customer service because the charging experience dominates.)

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#248

Post by frozencell »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #246
frozencell wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The transistor was mostly private (Bell Labs) Wasn't Bell Labs indirectly funded by the French Government?

I think that's a pretty big stretch. I don't see a direct link between the award Alexander Graham Bell got in 1880 and the research output of Bell Labs in the 1940s. Bell Telephone existed as a corporation prior to the award from the French government. "Bell Labs" didn't exist as a separate entity with that name until the 1920s.

In 1880, the French government awarded Alexander Bell about $300k which he used to fund Volta Laboratory (Alexander Graham Bell Laboratory) in Washington, D.C. but AT&T took control of its patents (Bell System) by 1889.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#249

Post by panick21_ »

mrtksn wrote: post #242
panick21_ wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never spent a single $ on a Tesla product so I have nothing to forgive. People should be able to get their money back for the FSD package, I totally agree. I don't know what the status of that is. In my opinion that it should legally clear that you can get your money back as it clearly does not does what it said on sale but I have not read the contract. As a costumer that would piss me off if I couldn't get my…

Sure, if you forgive every wrongdoing and if you omit every action of Musk that does not fit the narrative what is left is a honest cars manufacturer that succeeded purely on its own merits. I can't really argue against that.

Receiving money from the government is not a wrong doing. Taking reservation is not a wrong doing.

Literally the only point you have is that FSD does not grantee money back and I don't actually know if that is true as I don't know the details of the sales contract.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#250

Post by panick21_ »

gamblor956 wrote: post #247
panick21_ wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just complete nonsense. Go look at the tear-downs of Tesla where actual engineers with automotive analyses each part. The reality is Tesla is ahead in a whole number of areas and have better quality in many areas. Tesla have top ranks in safety, the best most performant interior board computer, their glass roofs are pretty amazing, their internal heating/cooling system is the best in the industry by far. The…

Ah you mean Munro, who owns a ton of Tesla stock and has a commercial interest in promoting the "quality" of Tesla vehicles? Because, objectively speaking, Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, and thousands of actual Tesla owners think that the build quality of their cars is crap. Literal 90's era Kia crap. And notably, unlike Munro, CR and C&D buy their cars anonymously so that Tesla can't goose the reviews. Tesla has…

Munro personally bought some Tesla stock AFTER he was critical of the company for 2 years and saw continues improvement in quality. And the company that does the breakdown does not have stock as far as we know and in fact have a far larger stack in selling honest detail reports.

Plus you can actually literally just look at the videos and look at the items themselves and compare it to other cars that are being teared down. The idea that Tesla has some uniformly inferior quality is backed up by LITERALLY NOTHING.

But I guess when you live in fantasy land where everything is some 4D stock manipulation chess

> As does every other EV with a frunk.

Facts ...

https://www.tesla.com/en_EU/blog/model-y-earns-5-star-safety...

> Tesla's abysmal customer satisfaction

Facts ...

https://electrek.co/2022/06/15/tesla-tops-list-most-satisfie...

> Yes, it's so good that the Cybertruck has been delayed ....

This paragraph literally just shows that you are utterly clueless on the topic. And what even sadder is that instead of responding to what I actually wrote you want on some uninformed rant.

> their only competitive advantage by opening it up to everyone.

Yeah because they will just give it away for free and they are totally unable to do cost-benefit calculation on that.

Post reply on HN