Tesla unveils new Semi with a 500 mile range, Roadster that can hit 250 miles per hour

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 140
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,052member
    tmay said:
    bikertwin said:
    tmay said:
    I forgot to mention that those tax credits that Tesla has been living on, here and worldwide, are drying up, and early evidence is that fewer or no tax credits substantially affects sales.

    The whole point of the tax credits is to incentivize early sales, so that the technology could be improved until it’s price-competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles.

    We are rapidly approaching that point.
    I agree.

    I'm stating that Tesla is seeing reduced sales when those incentives are removed. See Norway, Hong Kong, and the EU in general.
    This is the main reason Musk is introducing two new models to recapture the heavily government subsidized tax credit and adding on to national debt.
  • Reply 62 of 140
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,052member
    MacPro said:

    lukei said:
    flydog said:
    How is this article relevant to Apple products?
    Because Elon Musk will Be Apple CEO after they buy his businesses?
    Nah ... Tim will be CEO and Elon head of R&D in the vehicle and space divisions ;)
    No way!  Musk will leave soon after contract expires. Apple is a highly profited company.  It is not a place for dreamers like Musk or Googlers. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 63 of 140
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    SendMcjak said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    I have no faith in whatever Elon Musk says. Believe it when I see it. Same goes for the Tesla 3
    ... says rando dude on the internet about the self-made billionaire who has created three multi-billion dollar companies.
    That aren't profitable...the money will eventually dry up for something. I can give him kudos for trying something though. 
    tmaybrucemcStrangeDays
  • Reply 64 of 140
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,052member
    Musk is a dreamer.  He doesn't care about making money for Tesla. He can do this because the US government and the Feds have flooded the market with trillions and trillions of dollars. Tesla is funded by the investors who profited from the free spending US government and willing helper Feds. 
    tmay
  • Reply 65 of 140
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    bikertwin said:
    Soli said:
    timmillea said:
    The future profit is in eliminating the need to travel or transport. Testorone-driven marketing of this kind looks very last century in retrospect.
    Let us know what you can produce a teleporter that will be in every location so that nothing ever needs to be transported. Until then, we're still going to have about 80% of all cargo moved by trucks,
    While we’ll always need to move things like food to distant markets, the future is density instead of sprawl in our cities.

    So, per capita, we’ll need to move stuff around less, as people are much closer together. With self-driving cars, there’s no need for performance, as you don’t want your car slinging you around the cabin while you’re doing work or socializing. And cities are pushing for fewer (or no) cars in their densest centers; instead, walking, biking, & transit are the future there.

    So we’re in a transition period, where people still buy & own cars individually, so you need performance to market them. But that will change.
    The future is density is bogus unless you long for a dystopian future.  People with wealth don't want to be jam packed and vastly increasing population density leads to all sorts of problems that massively outweighs the problem with sprawl.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/04/why-americas-population-density-is-falling/
    Soli
  • Reply 66 of 140
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,381member
    nht said:
    bikertwin said:
    Soli said:
    timmillea said:
    The future profit is in eliminating the need to travel or transport. Testorone-driven marketing of this kind looks very last century in retrospect.
    Let us know what you can produce a teleporter that will be in every location so that nothing ever needs to be transported. Until then, we're still going to have about 80% of all cargo moved by trucks,
    While we’ll always need to move things like food to distant markets, the future is density instead of sprawl in our cities.

    So, per capita, we’ll need to move stuff around less, as people are much closer together. With self-driving cars, there’s no need for performance, as you don’t want your car slinging you around the cabin while you’re doing work or socializing. And cities are pushing for fewer (or no) cars in their densest centers; instead, walking, biking, & transit are the future there.

    So we’re in a transition period, where people still buy & own cars individually, so you need performance to market them. But that will change.
    The future is density is bogus unless you long for a dystopian future.  People with wealth don't want to be jam packed and vastly increasing population density leads to all sorts of problems that massively outweighs the problem with sprawl.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/04/why-americas-population-density-is-falling/
    I haven't read your link so I don't know if it's addressed, but our modern communication systems paired with our modern transportation options and other technologies, like solar power, are making the condensed, high cost urban environment less of a necessity.


  • Reply 67 of 140
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    bikertwin said:
    Soli said:
    timmillea said:
    The future profit is in eliminating the need to travel or transport. Testorone-driven marketing of this kind looks very last century in retrospect.
    Let us know what you can produce a teleporter that will be in every location so that nothing ever needs to be transported. Until then, we're still going to have about 80% of all cargo moved by trucks,
    While we’ll always need to move things like food to distant markets, the future is density instead of sprawl in our cities.

    So, per capita, we’ll need to move stuff around less, as people are much closer together. With self-driving cars, there’s no need for performance, as you don’t want your car slinging you around the cabin while you’re doing work or socializing. And cities are pushing for fewer (or no) cars in their densest centers; instead, walking, biking, & transit are the future there.

    So we’re in a transition period, where people still buy & own cars individually, so you need performance to market them. But that will change.
    The future is density is bogus unless you long for a dystopian future.  People with wealth don't want to be jam packed and vastly increasing population density leads to all sorts of problems that massively outweighs the problem with sprawl.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/04/why-americas-population-density-is-falling/
    I haven't read your link so I don't know if it's addressed, but our modern communication systems paired with our modern transportation options and other technologies, like solar power, are making the condensed, high cost urban environment less of a necessity.


    And there's the pragmatic, common sense, back of the envelope analysis...would you REALLY want to live in Mumbai or Manilla?  Ignoring small enclaves inside of other cities like Levallois-Perret, France or Guttenberg, New Jersey the cities on the highest density lists are nowhere I want to live.
    Soli
  • Reply 68 of 140
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,381member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    bikertwin said:
    Soli said:
    timmillea said:
    The future profit is in eliminating the need to travel or transport. Testorone-driven marketing of this kind looks very last century in retrospect.
    Let us know what you can produce a teleporter that will be in every location so that nothing ever needs to be transported. Until then, we're still going to have about 80% of all cargo moved by trucks,
    While we’ll always need to move things like food to distant markets, the future is density instead of sprawl in our cities.

    So, per capita, we’ll need to move stuff around less, as people are much closer together. With self-driving cars, there’s no need for performance, as you don’t want your car slinging you around the cabin while you’re doing work or socializing. And cities are pushing for fewer (or no) cars in their densest centers; instead, walking, biking, & transit are the future there.

    So we’re in a transition period, where people still buy & own cars individually, so you need performance to market them. But that will change.
    The future is density is bogus unless you long for a dystopian future.  People with wealth don't want to be jam packed and vastly increasing population density leads to all sorts of problems that massively outweighs the problem with sprawl.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/04/why-americas-population-density-is-falling/
    I haven't read your link so I don't know if it's addressed, but our modern communication systems paired with our modern transportation options and other technologies, like solar power, are making the condensed, high cost urban environment less of a necessity.


    And there's the pragmatic, common sense, back of the envelope analysis...would you REALLY want to live in Mumbai or Manilla?  Ignoring small enclaves inside of other cities like Levallois-Perret, France or Guttenberg, New Jersey the cities on the highest density lists are nowhere I want to live.
    This one might be more apropos as it addresses how cities developed differently when technology was vastly different. Despite population growths we're actually spreading out more than we're clumping together.


    edited November 2017 lostkiwi
  • Reply 69 of 140
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    lukei said:
    flydog said:
    How is this article relevant to Apple products?
    Because Elon Musk will Be Apple CEO after they buy his businesses?
    For the love of God, I hope not!  Do you actually pay attention to how Tesla is doing financially, and in terms of meeting commitments?  Not just the flashy product promises?
    edited November 2017 tmay
  • Reply 70 of 140
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    The Roadster price starts at $200,000...
    Just confirms my opinion that Tesla builds expensive things much like Apple really.
    The Model 3 is supposed to start at $35K yet it seems that average configurations are $40K+.
    A Used Model X where I live starts at £80,000 and up. ($103K)

    I can afford most Apple stuff but there is no way that I can afford a Tesla (even a £35K Model 3)

    However and IMHO Apple should have bought Tesla 2-3 years ago when the price was right if Apple were ever truly serious about cars.

    Tesla is nothing like Apple.  Apple ships, is (insanely) profitable, doesn't require government subsidies to have a business, and (almost always) meets their commitments to product releases and features.

    But sure, whatever you say...
    tmayStrangeDays
  • Reply 71 of 140
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    I don’t need to go 250 mph, but the 650 mile range is a dealmaker.  I often drive 550 miles one-way to visit relatives, and my vehicle must be able to do that without substantial recharge delays.  Either great range or turbo-recharging or both is essential for me.  Surely Im not alone. Good work Tesla!
    Must be nice to have that spare $200,000 (plus tax) sitting around...
    tmay
  • Reply 72 of 140
    I don’t need to go 250 mph, but the 650 mile range is a dealmaker.  I often drive 550 miles one-way to visit relatives, and my vehicle must be able to do that without substantial recharge delays.  Either great range or turbo-recharging or both is essential for me.  Surely Im not alone. Good work Tesla!
    Keep in mind that new roadster costs something like a quarter of a million dollars.
  • Reply 73 of 140
    macxpress said:
    SendMcjak said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    I have no faith in whatever Elon Musk says. Believe it when I see it. Same goes for the Tesla 3
    ... says rando dude on the internet about the self-made billionaire who has created three multi-billion dollar companies.
    That aren't profitable...the money will eventually dry up for something. I can give him kudos for trying something though. 
    PayPal ... profitable (and he cashed out).
    SpaceX ... profitable.
    Tesla ... not currently 

    Any capital project is initially “not profitable”, though.  A lot of people have bet against Elon...
    Solijeff_cook
  • Reply 74 of 140
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,052member
    macxpress said:
    SendMcjak said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    I have no faith in whatever Elon Musk says. Believe it when I see it. Same goes for the Tesla 3
    ... says rando dude on the internet about the self-made billionaire who has created three multi-billion dollar companies.
    That aren't profitable...the money will eventually dry up for something. I can give him kudos for trying something though. 
    PayPal ... profitable (and he cashed out).
    SpaceX ... profitable.
    Tesla ... not currently 

    Any capital project is initially “not profitable”, though.  A lot of people have bet against Elon...
    He has a solar company that loses money.  he bought it and merged with Tesla. 
  • Reply 75 of 140
    lukei said:
    flydog said:
    How is this article relevant to Apple products?
    Because Elon Musk will Be Apple CEO after they buy his businesses?
    Musk’s SpaceX is a winner, so why is Tesla having problems? Funding is probably the biggest part. But, mass production is clearly where Tesla fails; mass production is where Apple excels. 

    I hope nobody would be dumb enough to put Musk in charge of  Apple. 
    tmay
  • Reply 76 of 140
    Now the important question for Apple fans. Do the radios support CarPlay? 
  • Reply 77 of 140
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,381member
    wg45678 said:
    Now the important question for Apple fans. Do the radios support CarPlay? 
    No Tesla currently supports CarPlay or Android Auto.
  • Reply 78 of 140
    macxpress said:
    SendMcjak said:
    kkqd1337 said:
    I have no faith in whatever Elon Musk says. Believe it when I see it. Same goes for the Tesla 3
    ... says rando dude on the internet about the self-made billionaire who has created three multi-billion dollar companies.
    That aren't profitable...the money will eventually dry up for something. I can give him kudos for trying something though. 
    PayPal ... profitable (and he cashed out).
    SpaceX ... profitable.
    Tesla ... not currently 

    Any capital project is initially “not profitable”, though.  A lot of people have bet against Elon...
    there is a big push right now by people trying to short the stock.  no doubt they can afford to hire a bunch of trolls spread fud to push down the stock. sickening 

    simliar to Apple.. Tesla is DOOMED  /s
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 79 of 140
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,982member
    foggyhill said:
    Who the fuck cares. The way he's going he's to be bankrupt within 3 years.

    You want to bet on that? Look at Amazon now, same situation 20 years ago. Tesla uses current profit to reinvest in infrastructure, R&D and future projects. Look at 25% margin on Model S and X, and tell me how it will bankrupt?
    boxcatcher
  • Reply 80 of 140
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,001member
    fallenjt said:
    foggyhill said:
    Who the fuck cares. The way he's going he's to be bankrupt within 3 years.

    You want to bet on that? Look at Amazon now, same situation 20 years ago. Tesla uses current profit to reinvest in infrastructure, R&D and future projects. Look at 25% margin on Model S and X, and tell me how it will bankrupt?
    For one thing they can't get the damn cars out the door and then when they do they have countless issues with quality. As they stand now...I would never buy a Tesla. 
    tmay
Sign In or Register to comment.