[Clark_Kent]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I’m so confused, this is like the 4th or 5th EV/Tesla thread, do we need more than 1?

We do, because there are too many people on BP who want nothing more than EVs to be a failed experiment. Too many losers get so excited when there's negative EV related news, especially Tesla. Not sure why they care so much, but here we are.

[Clark_Kent]

Originally Posted by NYG

Idk but if someone did, you all know who it is on this forum.

I don't, that's why I'm asking. Is it a secret?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Clark_Kent

We do, because there are too many people on BP who want nothing more than EVs to be a failed experiment. Too many losers get so excited when there's negative EV related news, especially Tesla. Not sure why they care so much, but here we are.

A bunch of these guys are not that bright and/or don't value their time. They manually repost whatever crap comes up on their news feed, which is already predetermined to be this way by whatever algorithm serves them.

Originally Posted by Clark_Kent

I don't, that's why I'm asking. Is it a secret?

I guess he's referring to BGM-M3COMP who is a big Tesla fan.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by chris719

I guess he's referring to BGM-M3COMP who is a big Tesla fan.

Last post 12/11, last activity on the forum 12/24.

He got tired of trolling.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Clark_Kent

We do, because there are too many people on BP who want nothing more than EVs to be a failed experiment. Too many losers get so excited when there's negative EV related news, especially Tesla. Not sure why they care so much, but here we are.

I think it's great that an American company like Tesla has led the way into resurrecting the EV into a modern platform. I don't want to see the EV market fail nor Tesla fail, but on the other hand I don't want BEV mandated by the Government as the ONLY personal transportation platform available to the consumer. As an automotive enthusiast, I'd prefer to have diversity of drivetrain architectures and body styles in the marketplace. Let the consumer decide what type of drivetrain, body style, and safety level he prefers that meets his personal needs.

As an enthusiast, to me it is no more different than the Feds mandating how automobiles are crash tested and what safety systems are mandated, which limits model diversification regarding transmission types used (read that as death of the manual transmission). I'd prefer that the future automotive marketplace celebrate diversity and be tolerant with and inclusive of the internal combustion engine as well as battery electric.

I think that is what most of us enthusiasts are saying. We'd prefer Tesla to be treated like a real manufacturer and not have an artificial stock price 5X of the legacy automakers.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Last post 12/11, last activity on the forum 12/24.

He got tired of trolling.

I think he simply just finally annihilated the last ICE-driving soccer mom with his Model 3 on the way to the hospital he works at by the NJ Turnpike...

[kyriian]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Last post 12/11, last activity on the forum 12/24.

He got tired of “winning”.

Fixed it for you

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think it's great that an American company like Tesla has led the way into resurrecting the EV into a modern platform. I don't want to see the EV market fail nor Tesla fail, but on the other hand I don't want BEV mandated by the Government as the ONLY personal transportation platform available to the consumer. As an automotive enthusiast, I'd prefer to have diversity of drivetrain architectures and body styles in the marketplace. Let the consumer decide what type of drivetrain, body style, and safety level he prefers that meets his personal needs.

As an enthusiast to me, it is no more different than the Feds mandating how automobiles are crash tested and what safety systems are mandated, which limits model diversification regarding transmission types used (read that as death of the manual transmission). I'd prefer that the future automotive marketplace celebrate diversity and be tolerant with and inclusive of the internal combustion engine as well as battery electric.

I think that is what most of us enthusiasts are saying. We'd prefer Tesla to be treated like a real manufacturer and not have an artificial stock price 5X of the legacy automakers.

That's not how the govt works nor forced introduction of a new technology

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think it's great that an American company like Tesla has led the way into resurrecting the EV into a modern platform. I don't want to see the EV market fail nor Tesla fail, but on the other hand I don't want BEV mandated by the Government as the ONLY personal transportation platform available to the consumer. As an automotive enthusiast, I'd prefer to have diversity of drivetrain architectures and body styles in the marketplace. Let the consumer decide what type of drivetrain, body style, and safety level he prefers that meets his personal needs.

As an enthusiast to me, it is no more different than the Feds mandating how automobiles are crash tested and what safety systems are mandated, which limits model diversification regarding transmission types used (read that as death of the manual transmission). I'd prefer that the future automotive marketplace celebrate diversity and be tolerant with and inclusive of the internal combustion engine as well as battery electric.

I think that is what most of us enthusiasts are saying. We'd prefer Tesla to be treated like a real manufacturer and not have an artificial stock price 5X of the legacy automakers.

That all sounds reasonable, but the Government has a duty to nudge things into the right direction. The current structure of our markets don’t encourage companies to focus on the long term. The market expects the companies to die off when they are no longer useful and for a new upstart to replace them. It is why you see Tesla shares trading higher than traditional automakers who aren’t getting any serious valuation increases while making steady, and arguably better, progress than Tesla on the EV transition.

Like it or not. EVs are the only way ICE enthusiasts will be able to enjoy ICE cars in the long term. Every EV that’s placed on the road reduces the demand placed on limited oil reserves that are running low. China is the world’s largest EV market and that has extended the life of oil reserves as a result.

Oil isn’t infinite and we need a viable transportation market for when it is no longer an option.

That’s a fact irrespective of your concern for the environment.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

That all sounds reasonable, but the Government has a duty to nudge things into the right direction. The current structure of our markets donÂ’t encourage companies to focus on the long term. The market expects the companies to die off when they are no longer useful and for a new upstart to replace them. It is why you see Tesla shares trading higher than traditional automakers who arenÂ’t getting any serious valuation increases while making steady, and arguably better, progress than Tesla on the EV transition.

Like it or not. EVs are the only way ICE enthusiasts will be able to enjoy ICE cars in the long term. Every EV thatÂ’s placed on the road reduces the demand placed on limited oil reserves that are running low. China is the worldÂ’s largest EV market and that has extended the life of oil reserves as a result.

Oil isnÂ’t infinite and we need a viable transportation market for when it is no longer an option.

ThatÂ’s a fact irrespective of your concern for the environment.

Where is it written the Government has the "duty to nudge things in the right direction"? I've not seen that written anywhere in the US Constitution, so you'd have to make that argument I would think. There are numerous available methodologies to manufacture synthetic fuels, so running out of petroleum to power automobiles is really not a large concern.

And yeah, I've been hearing and reading the world is running out of oil since I was 10 years old in the early 1970s. Search the internet and the latest estimate of remaining recoverable oil reserves is just a mere 50 years. In the 1970s when the Government/Media complex tried to scare us young people about the coming change in the environment*, the gasoline supply was supposed to run out as soon as the mid 1980's to as far away as the late 1990's. It never happened; in fact gas got less expensive for a few decades, and when looked at over time from the 1970s until now, in constant dollars gasoline has pretty much remained flat price wise for the past 50 years. So that will be the next BIG SCARE, to convince everyone we have to switch to EV because we will run out of gasoline in just 50 years. Just like three years ago the BIG SCARE was the rate of climate change was speeding up and we have only 12 years (8 years now...) until the earth's climate reaches the "point of no return" and the effects of anthropogenic climate change will not be "reversable" (whatever that really means - LOL).

Based on my professional experience (dealing with GOMEX oil platforms) I'm more of the mindset to consider Abiotic Oil Theory will continue to produce oil rather than anthropogenic climate change is bringing us to the irreversible brink of future climatic catastrophe in just 8 short years. It's a race of the fear-mongers on the racetrack of Big Tech-controlled social media! Soon to-be-available as a 1:43 EV slot-track kit, fun for the entire climate-fearing family! Race the Twitter-sponsored scale Tesla Plaid against the Facebook-sponsored scale Lucid Air; 1:43 scale sponsor car-wraps included! Solar-powered power kit sold separately... Some assembly required.

* in the 1970's the climate narrative was global cooling and mass starvation due to curtailed food supplies. Yes, it is true despite what the internet says.

Can't we all just calm down a bit and not scare ourselves shitless. Please.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

That all sounds reasonable, but the Government has a duty to nudge things into the right direction. The current structure of our markets don’t encourage companies to focus on the long term. The market expects the companies to die off when they are no longer useful and for a new upstart to replace them. It is why you see Tesla shares trading higher than traditional automakers who aren’t getting any serious valuation increases while making steady, and arguably better, progress than Tesla on the EV transition.

Like it or not. EVs are the only way ICE enthusiasts will be able to enjoy ICE cars in the long term. Every EV that’s placed on the road reduces the demand placed on limited oil reserves that are running low. China is the world’s largest EV market and that has extended the life of oil reserves as a result.

Oil isn’t infinite and we need a viable transportation market for when it is no longer an option.

That’s a fact irrespective of your concern for the environment.

I agree with you although not sure if oil is really running low anytime soon. They always seem to find more, though obviously it is not infinite.

People who are anti-EV will always come out with the lithium mining bogeyman but conveniently ignore the consequences of sourcing oil. Including drilling in new and exciting places, and having to tolerate and make deals with govts like the Saudis, (formerly) the Russians, etc. Chile and Australia dominate known global Lithium reserves. I think those sound like better people to deal with.

This section seems to be conservative, so you're going to get a change-resistant response.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Where is it written the Government has the "duty to nudge things in the right direction"? I've not seen that written anywhere in the US Constitution, so you'd have to make that argument I would think. There are numerous available methodologies to manufacture synthetic fuels, so running out of petroleum to power automobiles is really not a large concern.

And yeah, I've been hearing and reading the world is running out of oil since I was 10 years old in the early 1970s. Search the internet and the latest estimate of remaining recoverable oil reserves is just a mere 50 years. In the 1970s when the Government/Media complex tried to scare us young people about the coming change in the environment*, the gasoline supply was supposed to run out as soon as the mid 1980's to as far away as the late 1990's. It never happened; in fact gas got less expensive for a few decades, and when looked at over time from the 1970s until now, in constant dollars gasoline has pretty much remained flat price wise for the past 50 years. So that will be the next BIG SCARE, to convince everyone we have to switch to EV because we will run out of gasoline in just 50 years. Just like three years ago the BIG SCARE was the rate of climate change was speeding up and we have only 12 years (8 years now...) until the earth's climate reaches the "point of no return" and the effects of anthropogenic climate change will not be "reversable" (whatever that really means - LOL).

Based on my professional experience (dealing with GOMEX oil platforms) I'm more of the mindset to consider Abiotic Oil Theory will continue to produce oil rather than anthropogenic climate change is bringing us to the irreversible brink of future climatic catastrophe in just 8 short years. It's a race of the fear-mongers on the racetrack of Big Tech-controlled social media! Soon to-be-available as a 1:43 EV slot-track kit, fun for the entire climate-fearing family! Race the Twitter-sponsored scale Tesla Plaid against the Facebook-sponsored scale Lucid Air; 1:43 scale sponsor car-wraps included! Solar-powered power kit sold separately... Some assembly required.

Can't we all just calm down a bit and not scare ourselves shitless. Please.

It is written in the constitution. That’s the whole point of the preamble. To ground us in the core purpose of why we established a union of states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

Since the 1970s the US has had increasingly stringent fuel economy standards. More efficient engines reduce the demand for oil and extend the life of our existing oil supplies.

We’ve secured oil at a very high societal cost that should make every American feel uncomfortable. We’ve secured oil supplies with the lives of our service men and woman. We’ve also had to continually contort ourselves to accommodate regimes likes the Saudi’s and others. Oil is our biggest vulnerability and the oil shocks of the 70s are a grim reminder of how vulnerable we can be.

Renewable energy and even EVs offer a way to eliminate that vulnerability…

Lastly, even if the CA ban were to be made national, which it currently isn’t, and ICE new car sales were banned starting in 2035. We’re still looking at at least 12 years of new ICE cars on the road and a serviceable life of at least 50 years beyond that. The transition away from ICE via bans is a “problem” for the younger population. A population who already largely don’t want ICE vehicles!

Originally Posted by chris719

I agree with you although not sure if oil is really running low anytime soon. They always seem to find more, though obviously it is not infinite.

People who are anti-EV will always come out with the lithium mining bogeyman but conveniently ignore the consequences of sourcing oil. Including drilling in new and exciting places, and having to tolerate and make deals with govts like the Saudis, (formerly) the Russians, etc. Chile and Australia dominate known global Lithium reserves. I think those sound like better people to deal with.

This section seems to be conservative, so you're going to get a change-resistant response.

I think the timeline will constantly shift. As oil prices rise it become economically feasible to find new creative ways to extract it. Engines and other oil consumers will continue to get more efficient as well shifting the demand side needs. With the rapid adoption of EVs I can see it extending past 2100.

You are absolutely right about the ugly contortions oil has forced us into.

It confuses me why so many would prefer us to keep bending in those directions. While also throwing away American manufacturing leading the biggest shift in automotive technology in our lifetimes. You’d think American Made would be enough to get them on board too.

But, sadly, it appears Conservatives are just against anything that isn’t like their childhood. Period.

Even though the constitution protects their existing cars into perpetuity. They can continue to drive any ICE car they grew up with and up until 2035 (in CA) until the end of time…

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

It is written in the constitution. That’s the whole point of the preamble. To ground us in the core purpose of why we established a union of states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

Since the 1970s the US has had increasingly stringent fuel economy standards. More efficient engines reduce the demand for oil and extend the life of our existing oil supplies.

We’ve secured oil at a very high societal cost that should make every American feel uncomfortable. We’ve secured oil supplies with the lives of our service men and woman. We’ve also had to continually contort ourselves to accommodate regimes likes the Saudi’s and others. Oil is our biggest vulnerability and the oil shocks of the 70s are a grim reminder of how vulnerable we can be.

Renewable energy and even EVs offer a way to eliminate that vulnerability…

Lastly, even if the CA ban were to be made national, which it currently isn’t, and ICE new car sales were banned starting in 2035. We’re still looking at at least 12 years of new ICE cars on the road and a serviceable life of at least 50 years beyond that. The transition away from ICE via bans is a “problem” for the younger population. A population who already largely don’t want ICE vehicles!



I think the timeline will constantly shift. As oil prices rise it become economically feasible to find new creative ways to extract it. Engines and other oil consumers will continue to get more efficient as well shifting the demand side needs. With the rapid adoption of EVs I can see it extending past 2100.

You are absolutely right about the ugly contortions oil has forced us into.

It confuses me why so many would prefer us to keep bending in those directions. While also throwing away American manufacturing leading the biggest shift in automotive technology in our lifetimes. You’d think American Made would be enough to get them on board too.

But, sadly, it appears Conservatives are just against anything that isn’t like their childhood. Period.

Even though the constitution protects their existing cars into perpetuity. They can continue to drive any ICE car they grew up with and up until 2035 (in CA) until the end of time…

I simply stated from the position of an automotive enthusiast I think the market should decide on the adoption of EV rather than the Government. Not that I want turn this Thread into a debate on the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has consistently held the Preamble is not any source of substantive power conferred on the federal government (you can research that on your own). So, you really didn't make any argument for your position.

But we're getting off track so, I'll bow out. I dislike arguing on the internet with non-conservatives (keeping it clean to not trigger a political ban), because it just turns into dismissive stereotype inferences (as you and chris719 have already started on them). EV's and renewable energy extracting technologies just bring a new suite of conflict minerals to fight over. Thinking there will be no more war over minerals be they crude oil, lithium, cobalt, etc. is an unrealistic view of the situation.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I dislike arguing on the internet with non-conservatives (keeping it clean to not trigger a political ban), because it just turns into dismissive stereotype inferences

I see what you did there. The exact same thing you accuse others of.

In any case, I will say something useful:

There is an important point above. The US will never again be on top of manufacturing widgets. Developing nations will always have the ability to outdo us making widgets, they will do it cheaper, faster, better, etc. They have far more incentive to do so as they bring entire generations of people into a better life. Better doesn't mean good or great BTW, it just means better and it's a damn good incentive. We simply can't compete at that level. Our power is and has been (for a long time) in developing new technologies, new processes, new ways of doing things, breakthroughs, and so on. This is where we have to put our resources. And yes, you have to protect those too, there's a cycle where those are produced, licensed, and eventually copied. If we aren't on top of this...we will have nothing.

[Flying05]

Originally Posted by M5VanHalen

The thing that doesn't get addressed enough about EV's are they have a terrible build quality and reliability record. Just look at the recent Consumer Reports list of least reliable vehicles; EV's are at the top of the list. Tesla's are particularly bad when it comes to build quality and reliability. Considering the price you pay for a Tesla, I would never pay that amount for a vehicle so unreliable and poor build quality.

My parents have had a model S for 6 or 7 years now. Reliability has never been and issue for them, build quality is where it fails. They have had their dash replaced as that warped. The window trim had to be adjusted as it did not line up. And now, one of their daytime running lamps is out and according to tesla you have to replace the whole lamp at like $3k or something crazy like that. They decided just leave it alone. That said, out of all of the Mercedes and Porsches that they have had and currently have, the Tesla is the best car that “they have ever had” according to them. I’m not a fan, but they love it.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I argued this point with my economics teacher back in the early 1980s. If you look at the nations that have created wealth, it's been Japan, India, South East Asia, South Korea, South Vietnam, all through a growing manufacturing class. My position is once the manufacturing element of the economy leaves, soon to follow is the manufacturing engineering, then product planning, then product development. Eventually the industry evaporates altogether.

My Economics teacher's position was yours. The problem is and what I argued is it doesn't sustain the tax base the Politicians in the US made policy with. As companies chased cheaper manufacturing labor, they cut their own throats. Once one company makes that move, eventually the rest of the industry has to follow.

Where the US ends up is massive tent encampments and looting during blizzards.

A side note: During Christmas dinner prep we discovered our potato peeler went missing. Yesterday I found a new one, made in the USA if you can believe it. I was more than happy to buy it for $12. Of the tractor and 6 automobiles I own (one is a motorcycle) just one is not built/assembled in the USA. I try best to practice what I preach.

I see it as a balance, a balance of protectionism policies and regulation that allows for some competition on the global market. That's basically what most countries try to do. Unfortunately, governments and people have had hard lessons by business about what happens with little regulation. A good example of that is the tax base you mention, you can give all kinds of tax breaks and attract companies...but in the long game if they eventually move out or do like oil companies do, sell off their assets to smaller and smaller companies that some point do not have the funds to maintain or clean up the sites, we get left holding the ball at the end. So there are a lot of considerations that must be made and a balance of regulation and free market.

So yeah, protections have to be baked in. There need to be incentives for keeping business here and penalties for moving it or trying to move it offshore. But who owns the politicians that make policy? These same companies that basically want it both ways or not have to pay into the system.

But as you allude, people usually don't care where it's made or what the consequences and implications are. This spans the entire political spectrum. Some of the hardest-core left and right wing hold the "maximize my value"...value, beyond all else. Who wants to be told they have to downsize their way of life, spend more money, give up more stuff, just to live more "righteously"? We all know the outcome of trying to force that, again, across the entire political spectrum.

There's not really a perfect solution, just the attempt to try and keep a decent import/export balance and regulation on the businesses to try and maintain.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I argued this point with my economics teacher back in the early 1980s. If you look at the nations that have created wealth, it's been Japan, India, South East Asia, South Korea, South Vietnam, all through a growing manufacturing class. My position is once the manufacturing element of the economy leaves, soon to follow is the manufacturing engineering, then product planning, then product development. Eventually the industry evaporates altogether.

My Economics teacher's position was yours. The problem is and what I argued is it doesn't sustain the tax base the Politicians in the US made policy with. As companies chased cheaper manufacturing labor, they cut their own throats. Once one company makes that move, eventually the rest of the industry has to follow.

Where the US ends up is massive tent encampments and looting during blizzards.

A side note: During Christmas dinner prep we discovered our potato peeler went missing. Yesterday I found a new one, made in the USA if you can believe it. I was more than happy to buy it for $12. Of the tractor and 6 automobiles I own (one is a motorcycle) just one is not built/assembled in the USA. I try best to practice what I preach.

We are in this deficit due to poor economic choices we’re desperately trying to unravel. The goal was a Chinese market that was dependent enough on the US that we could unlock growth in a new untapped market and lower labor costs would be icing on the cake.

China is, and has been, playing the economic game far better than we have. Largely due to their meritocracy and stranglehold on business power. It allows them to exploit our constantly changing political climate very well.

I remember the discussion I had well with my economics professor in my undergraduate class who was touting the benefits of free trade and globalization. “It raises all boats as cheaper labor in country A frees up capital in country B to enhance their competitive industries” he said. He then explained the benefits of our trade with China. I argued that free trade is great in a vacuum. Real trade isn’t in such an environment. China doesn’t own a large amount of US sovereign debt out of a sense of pride for the US… It allows them to artificially deflate their currency to drive out competition. The same is true for their state lending freely to businesses to enable them to acquire foreign companies or resources to drive out competition.

Capitalism without regulation is madness. Even Adam Smith foresaw this in the 1700s as he documented his observations of capitalism in the Wealth of Nations.

We’re seeing manufacturers return as China is reminding them that they require business to serve the state first…

Economic discussions are fun although I am veering off topic. To reign it back in.

Tesla is the most American Made car currently and a US company.

https://www.cars.com/american-made-index/

I am not a fan of them and don’t own one. Hoping for BMW to impress me with the i5 G60.

[StradaRedlands]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

... snip ...

Hoping for BMW to impress me with the i5 G60.

Fingers crossed on a G61 i5 long roof making it over here.
That could be The One for our family!