Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their electric models combined.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not generate the same tax largesse.
Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not "zero emissions vehicles".
I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the smug driver.
My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline engine in it cause I could not care less for a remote emissions car.
I pulled a stoppie on my bicycle recently. Was not a big one, the rear wheel was off the ground about 4", but, since I did not expect it (and it was my first stoppie ever) I farted. So bicycles are not as green as some people think due to scarefarts.
Back in the 1950s when I was riding my bicycle with a buddy sitting on the handlebars, he happened to get one of his bare feet too close to the front wheel, instant stoppie!
exactly right. i particularly love how musk managed to get the political mandate to have nasa donate all their rocket technology, then a multi-billion dollar launch contract, so he can get paid for doing what we gave nasa the money to do in the first place!!! the guy gets full points for audaciousness, that's for sure.
not that simple. besides, there's no point - if you're going to make a car, you may as well just program the design into solidworks, and design/build virtually. the tesla "chassis" is built for a completely different load distribution to a conventional car.
+1 - exactly right.
Xcept noone managed to break the root rigidity testing equipment with their car before model s.
That might be. In theory. Just like in "theory" electric steering has better potential than hydraulics.
Problem is few people have a clear idea how to map theory into practice successfully.
Which means we are likely in for a loooooong wait to have caddy ATS grade steering feel in the [very] premium and (hopefully compact) "sports" sedan segment (or the return of bmw 3xx hydraulic steering feel)
But I got carried away. Tesla seem to have proved that sn average idiot with a mechanical engineering degree at the prompt of solidworks is no different from a disinterested underpaid monkey at the prompt.
Show my another chassis that can match 4+ tons riding on its roof without collapsing. Something that model s had no problem achieving which says something about the person who was operating solidworks one very milestone day.
you really believe that crap?
it's not theory, it's fact. you wouldn't attach suspension to any part of the frame not designed for it any more than you would attach several hundred pounds of leverage producing traction device.
not true. you draw the frame, and if you pay for the right f.e.a. packages, you can test it, both fatigue and crash. we're living in a totally different era of design.
why on earth would you want that??? it's completely vague. what you really want is manual steering feel, only without the load.
musk is an average idiot when it comes to engineering. he is however a brilliant politician - all his hype and self-promotion is entirely taxpayer funded.
don't buy that propaganda dude.
You'd be surprised what load a perfect, undamaged pop can will support under just the right conditions. Then ping a coin off the side wall and watch it collapse. Now if the second part isn't demonstrated people would be awed by the strength of the common beverage can.
I've seen cars stacked at salvage yards three and four high without the bottom one having its roof collapse. But what you're talking about is a specific government test. There is always designing to the test. As the government becomes more and more controlling over the products we buy we are seeing more and more the results of designing to the tests in those products. Traits which are annoying or make no sense in the real world. The reason is that government tests are more detacted from reality than internal manufacturer's tests. Furthermore when an internal test is spinning a design away from reality the test is usually modified, dropped, pass/fail changed, etc. Government tests don't allow for that.
It's very easy to fool the masses with little tricks. Those who employ the political means know this quite well and have been doing it for thousands upon thousands of years. Musk uses the political means. Tesla motors is a young company and I would expect the car to be designed to the government tests. Also I would expect areas to be overdesigned because they lack the internal knowledge to hit the mark or simply use 'bash until broken' type testing internally which forces over designing the product.
The fact that Tesla motors had to learn the hard way how to make a proper BMS for li-ion cells and then blamed their customers for the batteries' demise tells me what I need to know about them.
how could you possibly overdesign the roof pillars? though lots of tanks including caddy 300 are a proof that you actually could...
not that even c300 would help much in case you are about to kiss a butt of a semi trailer without the rear safety bars (hello chineese trucks)
Ok, I guess you along with JB managed to put the last nails into the coffin of that discussion.
I never missed not having power steering in my Spridget - that car taught me not to aimlessly wiggle the steering wheel.
It's parking lot diddling around that makes you appreciate the power steering.
I did drive a POS '73 Oldmobile (sic) with a broken power steering pump for a bit. Had to put my whole body into it to do U-turns.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.