Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[tyr_13]

And Subaru does have an EV.

It's a good example of how interconnected the motor vehicle industry is. It's being assembled (for 2024) at Toyota's Motomachi plant in Aichi. When I toured the Tsutsumi plant I mainly was looking at the Prius line, but there were parts under production for other manufactures too.

(Toyota has a lot of plants in Aichi, around Toyota City, sometimes called Toyoda city incorrectly under the belief that the Toyoda who founded Toyota go the name from the city. The city used to be named Koromo.)

 

[ZirconBlue]

PRE-ORDER YOUR SOLTERRA

Why do you keep linking NZ sites as if they were representative? You do understand that not every model is available to every country, right? The .com link I provided was for the 2023 model, available in the US.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why do you keep linking NZ sites as if they were representative? You do understand that not every model is available to every country, right? The .com link I provided was for the 2023 model, available in the US.

Because I live in New Zealand.

All I was showing the lineup available here. Other countries no doubt have different models available, but I don't have the time or patience to check them all out (and it would be a waste of time anyway, since the haters would just ignore it and move on to something else).

Toyota used to make a RAV4 EV (with a little help from Tesla and Panasonic). But you couldn't buy them in New Zealand. Actually you couldn't buy them anywhere except California. Do you think it's fair to say that Toyota has had an EV in their lineup since 2012, when you could only buy them in California? If that's fair then its fair to add the Cybertruck and Semi to the list of vehicles Tesla make.

 

[Dabop]

Tesla actually use BYD manufactured 'blade batteries' for their T3 model, rather than using their own inhouse or Panasonic made ones- they give better (faster) charging performance, far longer life cycles, and the only drawback being a slightly shorter range for the same weight...
Not an issue for 99% of driving done by most people...

(ironically, the Model 3 Tesla in NZ actually uses BYD batteries lol- only US manufactured ones (LHD) use the Tesla batteries in their model 3's...)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Letter to FTC on Toyota’s Misleading Advertising

Public Citizen asks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”) to investigate and take enforcement action against Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor North America (“Toyota”) for its misleading marketing of gasoline-powered vehicles as electric vehicles (“EVs”)...

Toyota is the world’s largest automaker. As the maker of the Prius hybrid vehicle, it was long considered a leader in the field of clean cars. But now the market is shifting rapidly toward electric vehicles. Toyota long ignored this technology, and today it lags far behind other automakers in a market that is growing exponentially.

In response to this market shift, Toyota has launched a marketing campaign that uses the term “electrified” to paint its existing hybrid models—which are gasoline-powered—as electric vehicles. Through its “Beyond Zero,” “Electrified Diversified,” and “To Each Their Own Electric” marketing campaigns and other advertising practices, Toyota is mendaciously relabeling a number of cars with internal combustion engines “EVs” and representing vehicles that run on fossil fuels as “electric” and “electrified.” These representations are misleading consumers about the climate and economic benefits of Toyota’s hybrid cars as compared to EVs...

Toyota has begun resorting to deception and unfair competition, the subject of this complaint. Precisely because EV sales are growing “exponentially” and Toyota barely offers any for sale, it has decided to pretend many of the cars it sells are electric vehicles. Toyota is now marketing hybrids and plug-in hybrid cars that run primarily or entirely on gasoline as “EVs.”
Consumers are primed to believe that if Toyota is offering a new Prius called an “HEV” instead of a “hybrid,” the car must employ new, more advanced, electric or EV technology. But these rebrandings do not correspond to a change in the engine or any other technology in these cars...

in one 30-second television spot titled “E-AWD Headquarters” a giant capital “E” is lifted by a crane while a voiceover declares... “Toyota is electrified, diversified, with more electrified all-wheel drive or four-wheel drive models than any other brand.”...

In fact, Toyota sells only one model of electric vehicle for which all-wheel drive is available as an option (and only one EV at all)—the bZ4X, for which it targeted sales of just 10,000 in the U.S for 2023.

Toyota are scared. The company with the largest debt in the world is losing market share to Tesla. Their latest attempt to produce a competing EV resulted in recalling them because the wheels were literally falling off.

But they have a cunning plan - relabel gas cars as EVs! This may be the worst case of 'greenwashing' ever! In New Zealand Toyota are being even more mendacious, putting ads on TV that talk in vague terms about how much they care for the environment - when in reality their products are doing the exact opposite.

It sickens me to see global corporations get away with such lies. I hope the FTC smacks them down hard.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

(ironically, the Model 3 Tesla in NZ actually uses BYD batteries lol- only US manufactured ones (LHD) use the Tesla batteries in their model 3's...)

I don't see the irony. Tesla originally used Panasonic batteries, but started making them themselves to cut costs. If the world's largest battery maker can do it cheaper, why not use them instead? Especially when the Tesla factory is in China.

But in the US they use their own batteries because... EVs not made wholly in the US don't qualify for incentives.

In New Zealand we don't have that issue because no cars are made here so there's no local industry to protect, and the Clean Car Discount is being scrapped so there won't be any incentives anyway. I bet that won't stop people buying Teslas though. EVs currently account for 23% of new cars sold here, with another 10% being plug-in hybrids. Tesla currently leads the EV pack with the model Y, followed by the MG 4 and BYD Atto 3.

 

[Aridas]

This is historically naive. "Late you come, yet you do come!" Every out-of-power unpopular fringe group always discovers the value of free speech, because it's always the unpopular speech that people try to suppress. In the 1950's, it was the communists. Now it's the far right. To the extent that the communists are not longer clamoring for free speech, it's only because they don't need it anymore since their views are now tolerated. And yeah, a lot of people will abandon principles when they no longer directly benefit from them, but again, that's not peculiar to the right, the left does it too. It's a human failure, and the left has been just as cynical in its application of free speech as the right.

You do have some points there. Still, we should probably be clear that your comparison is fundamentally problematic. For example, the suppression in these two cases is quite different in nature and effects.

To take things to a related extreme only slightly removed from reality, if even that - "Stop trying to infringe on my right to enslave and/or murder you!" IS unpopular speech that is entirely reasonable and good for a society to actually act to suppress in some ways. The whole thing with "The left is so intolerant because it doesn't wholeheartedly tolerate all intolerance" is also still BS.

Also of note is the part where proponents of what you just called an unpopular fringe group just keep trying to loudly pretend that the only reason that they're unpopular is that they're being suppressed and use deeply flawed arguments to try to prove such, rather than accepting that the unpopular really is unpopular.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do have some points there. Still, we should probably be clear that your comparison is fundamentally problematic. For example, the suppression in these two cases is quite different in nature and effects.

I don't think it is. I think you're cherry picking from the two cases to try to make that argument, but I don't think it will hold up to scrutiny.

To take things to a related extreme only slightly removed from reality, if even that - "Stop trying to infringe on my right to enslave and/or murder you!" IS unpopular speech that is entirely reasonable and good for a society to actually act to suppress in some ways.

This is kind of incoherent. Claiming the right to murder someone (without threatening to) actually is protected speech, and I'm not sure what specific harm is actually supposed to come from such speech. Perhaps you can explain. Threatening to murder someone is not protected speech, and the principles behind that distinction are well established, not controversial, and not really at play here. And actually murdering someone isn't speech at all.

And I would ague that speech in favor of communism basically WAS speech claiming a right to murder people.

 

[Aridas]

I don't think it is. I think you're cherry picking from the two cases to try to make that argument, but I don't think it will hold up to scrutiny.



This is kind of incoherent. Claiming the right to murder someone (without threatening to) actually is protected speech, and I'm not sure what specific harm is actually supposed to come from such speech. Perhaps you can explain. Threatening to murder someone is not protected speech, and the principles behind that distinction are well established, not controversial, and not really at play here. And actually murdering someone isn't speech at all.

And I would ague that speech in favor of communism basically WAS speech claiming a right to murder people.

Ehh. As tempted as I am to go further here, I think that this is as far as this bit of OT should go, because I don't see any good way to tie it back to the main thread topic at this point and to address it properly would likely require going much more in depth on entirely OT matters. You can take it as your victory or not.

 

[theprestige]

Ehh. As tempted as I am to go further here, I think that this is as far as this bit of OT should go, because I don't see any good way to tie it back to the main thread topic at this point and to address it properly would likely require going much more in depth on entirely OT matters. You can take it as your victory or not.

Ah, the classic, "I'm not allowed to defend here the allegation I made here" dodge. The right thing for you to do is concede the point, apologize for spouting nonsense, and report yourself for posting off topic.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I’m sure the law differs from state to state, but I’m familiar with Florida:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Note that the threat alone is generally not a crime, and is free speech.

“If you don’t stop messing with my girl, I swear I will stab you in the face”.

NOT a crime, unless possibly if the subject is holding a knife and making a motion towards the victim.

Stipulated a threat against the President, let’s say, or some hate crime legislation may encompass what seems to be free speech but may be criminal.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I’m sure the law differs from state to state, but I’m familiar with Florida:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Note that the threat alone is generally not a crime, and is free speech.

“If you don’t stop messing with my girl, I swear I will stab you in the face”.

NOT a crime, unless possibly if the subject is holding a knife and making a motion towards the victim.

Stipulated a threat against the President, let’s say, or some hate crime legislation may encompass what seems to be free speech but may be criminal.

 

[theprestige]

As far as I know, empty threats against the president aren't crimes, they just invite official scrutiny in case the threats might not be empty. Obstructing that official scrutiny, however, may well be a crime.

 

[Aridas]

Ah, the classic, "I'm not allowed to defend here the allegation I made here" dodge. The right thing for you to do is concede the point, apologize for spouting nonsense, and report yourself for posting off topic.

*shrug* If I felt that I couldn't defend what I said further, I would say such.

If you want a more selfish angle on my part, it would involve investing more time and effort than I'm willing to do right now and would be pretty well guaranteed to require more for follow-up discussion, because a tangent like that is pretty well guaranteed to spur on such as it expands to touch on a bunch of things. I'm just not all that interested in doing so in a thread where that will pretty inevitably involve that time and effort getting sent to the AAH, right now. Better to just cut it off at a point where the other party is okay with letting it lie, in that case, even if there are apparent misunderstandings.

 

[sarge]

return to the thread topic, please

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: sarge

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Do you mean mandate the unnecessary physical recall of about 2,000,000 vehicles, when the update can be done in your driveway on about 20 minutes? That makes no sense, since Tesla can easily track which vehicles are in compliance.

As far as the “unsafe” moniker, Tesla vehicles under Autopilot or Full Self Driving are actually involved in fewer accidents than other cars. Not that there’s not room for improvement.

According to Tesla. And as is well establised, following the example of the company's "founder", Tesla lies about everything.

PS Also, full self drive doesn't actually exist. What Tesla calls full self drive is only level 2, slightly better than cruise control.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

PS Also, full self drive doesn't actually exist. What Tesla calls full self drive is only level 2, slightly better than cruise control.

Of course. And the names “Autopilot”, “Enhanced Autopilot” and “Full Self Driving” are all misleading. Either intentionally so (most likely) or “aspirationally” so.

I’ve only experienced basic “Autopilot”, and it’s a long way from a real autopilot. But I think is does enhance safety, by reducing driver fatigue and giving timely warnings of driver inattentiveness. Elon’s timelines for the arrival of “real” Full Self Driving are a joke even among Tesla aficionados. But if and when it’s fully realized, it will be a game changer.

As far as Elon “lying about everything”, that’s just hyperbole. Some of the “promises” regarding the CyberTruck were not realized, but most were. And some - 48v architecture, Drive-By-Wire, rear wheel steering, powered tonneau - went beyond what had been floated at the original 2019 announcement. I’ll give credit where credit is due, neither glossing over shortcomings, nor blindly condemning Elon at every turn.

 

[tyr_13]

It was more than the names that were 'misleading'; the promises in advertising were fraudulent. From the complaint last page (PDF link):

Tesla's intemet website using the product label and descriptions:
A. 'Autopilot"
B. 'Full Self-Driving Capability"
C. The phrase: "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance
trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat."
D. The claims: "From Home - All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where
to go. If you don't say anlthing, your car will look at your calendar and take you
there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route,
navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways. To your Destination
- When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car
will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on
your phone summons it back to you."

That's more than misleading. And Musk made a lot more promises! Remember when Cybertruck was supposed to be water tight and work as a boat? He's still promising that. It's a lie. It isn't aspirational, it's just lying.

Speaking of unfulfilled promises, SpaceX will not be given the almost $900 million subsidy for Starlink rural broadband service. Why? They couldn't meet the promised requirement for the promised number of people. They were already down to nearly half the promised, and required, speeds, and trending down, and would only be able to go down as more users were added, and the required equipment was more expensive than originally planed.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's more than misleading. And Musk made a lot more promises! Remember when Cybertruck was supposed to be water tight and work as a boat?

No, I don't. But according to the designer of the Cybertruck, Franz von Holzhausen, it has a 'fording' mode that applies positive air pressure to the (sealed) battery to prevent water getting into it, and could operate as a boat 'with extra flotation'. That's the guy who designed it saying that, not Musk. I suspect that most of what Musk says about the Cybertruck is just repeating what the design team tells him - and why not? They are the ones who should know.

Edited by sarge: 

removed off-topic content

 

[jeremyp]

No, I don't. But according to the designer of the Cybertruck, Franz von Holzhausen, it has a 'fording' mode that applies positive air pressure to the (sealed) battery to prevent water getting into it, and could operate as a boat 'with extra flotation'. That's the guy who designed it saying that, not Musk. I suspect that most of what Musk says about the Cybertruck is just repeating what the design team tells him - and why not? They are the ones who should know.

Edited by sarge: 

removed off-topic content

The Cybertruck was designed?

I think Musk says exactly what comes into his head and then bullies his staff into meeting the requirements that he dreamed up. Of course, reality can't be bullied, which is why so many of his products are late, underwhelming and more expensive than promised.