Market Disses Tesla Truck

November 23, 2019

UPDATE:

Posted by greenman3610
Filed in Crock of the Week
47 Comments »

47 Responses to “Market Disses Tesla Truck”

  1. ecoquant Says:

    November 25, 2019 at 11:06 am

    @dumboldguy,

    Don’t know what happened to my comment in response. I can’t see it in the queue any longer, even though it was held for moderation. (Maybe moderators didn’t like the photos of what running a multiple wheeled truck into the back of a Model S did to it.) Anyway, here’s the justification for the claim regarding the luxury car market. It’s from Capital One and, as I said in my original reply, “What’s in your garage?”

    Reply
  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    November 25, 2019 at 12:07 pm

    A few cool things I learned about the Cybertruck (CT) today:

    1) The glass broke because it had slid down after the door bashing demo. Remember, just before, they demoed those windows by dropping the steel ball from various heights. After each hit, they re-tightened the perimeter clamps holding the glass.

    So the glass IS strong, but it needs to be fully supported around its rim to function optimally. (Obviously!)

    2) The CT will have stock on-board air compressor, 120v and 240v AC outlets

    3) Testers raved about the seat comfort. The front bench is 6 feet wide. A fellow who was 6’4″ tall said he has several inches of headspace in the rear seat, and the back seats have as much legroom as the front seats – truly spacious.

    4) The cargo bed has built-in LED lighting. The bed sidewalls each have a built-in full-length slot (standard in aerospace tech) that accept a slew of anchoring point options.

    5) The cargo bed floor’s stripes are actually T-track rails that also accept a variety of anchorable devices.

    6) The rear-view mirror is actually a LED monitor from the rear cameras = no blind spots. Side mirrors may have to be added unless the rules change to allow camera/monitors.

    7) There is method to the madness. Significant overall manufacturing costs savings supposedly achieved by using that high-tech steel as a structural monocoque cage, as it eliminates the need for body on frame or chassis construction that other large trucks use.

    Reply
  3. ecoquant Says:

    November 25, 2019 at 2:53 pm

    Another wonderful fact, this time, Of The Week: “All-Electric Vehicles Have the Lowest Estimated Annual Fuel Cost of All Light-Duty Vehicles“.

    As far as fires go, ICEs burn a lot, too, and while I could not find a proper count, since the number of EVs is much smaller that the number of ICEs, and, therefore, the incidence of fires needs to be both adjusted by number and age, studies of the matter, by NTSB and GM have found that risk of fire to LiONs is less than that for gasoline. (Surprise, surprise.)

    I would also draw attention to Lam, et al, 2016, “Full-Scale Fire Testing of Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles“, in Fires in Vehicles – FIVE 2016, October 5-6, Baltimore, USA. That, at least, reports a controlled experiment.

    No doubt EVs are a new technology, and there are lessons to new, safety or otherwise. But I would and will trust my safety and those of people I love to computers and electric drives powered by LiON rather than to an explosive keg of petrol feeding a contraption which is trying to blow itself apart, any day.

    There’s also every reason to believe that reports critiquing EVs are biased by people whose self-image and livelihoods depend upon the continuance of the ICE industry, its fuelers, and its supply chains. That’s because they are under threat, by a superior product. And I simply consider their whining to be no different than, as I mentioned above, the half racist propaganda mounted against Japanese cars when they were coming into the mainstream in the United States. (I elected and drove those, too. I still drive a 2005 Corolla, but just to the train station.) No matter, they will lose.

    Reply
  4. jimbills Says:

    November 26, 2019 at 10:21 am

    Related, commentary from the president of GM about EVs in general:
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/perspectives/gm-electric-cars/index.html

    Basically, for EVs to become widespread, battery range, charging infrastructure, and initial cost all need a little improvement – hard to argue with that. He mentions at the end that choice in vehicle style is also important – I would add that to the above list.

    If you’re someone who thinks everyone will have EVs in 5-10 years, that article might appear negative, but I think it should be taken as a real sign that GM has it firmly in mind that EVs are the future of personal transport.

    Old article, but it ties in:
    https://www.wired.com/story/general-motors-electric-cars-plan-gm/

    Reply
  5. jimbills Says:

    December 7, 2019 at 1:38 pm

    Updated release dates:
    https://news.yahoo.com/tesla-changed-release-dates-most-160915179.html

    $70K model sometime in 2021, $40K model in late 2022.

    Reply
« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: