That would be Congress as soon as they killed Glass Steagull. That law, enacted after the Great Depression opened the door for precisely what happened. The math added up where the number of forfeits in the subprime would be absorbed through the bundling. The failures were a result of people being up to their eyeballs in debt such that when jobs were lost there was zero cushion.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Latest Price Drop Discussion
- Thread starter Sutton 3P
- Start date
Agreed, the gearing is a trade off for sure. The car is really strong down low but once you hit highways speeds it lacks that punch. It will be interesting to see when we see more performance EVs hit the market how they will work on gaining more top end power. If they can create some sort of gearing without too much complexity and cost it may be fun on performance oriented EVs.
This was a pretty good article.
Do Electric Cars Have Gears? No. Here's Why - The Green Optimistic
But that was my point. There are MORE Model 3’s on the road than Cadillac XT5’s, yet, a hugely disproportionate amount of XT5’s available on the used market. The Model 3’s that do come up seem to be selling quickly, for high prices.
All that said - I don’t disagree with your theory. I’m sure there’s a bunch of people who made an emotional instead of rational decision to buy the P3D. I avoided the P and got a plain-Jane LR AWD. Truth be told, if I made a wholly rational decision, I’d be driving a Hyundai Sonata or something like that. I was able to justify the Model 3 to myself because it was a) less expensive than my lease payment on the Cadillac; b) gave me a big tax break (both fed & state sales) that wouldn’t last; c) will get handed down to my son when he starts driving, so I can be sure he’s in a safe and environmentally friendly vehicle; and d) most of all - I wanted it and have an income to support it.
I have not, in the almost 9 months I've owned my Model 3, ever 'punched it'. I've have done hard accelerations but never put it to the floor. Not from 0, not from 65. I have, however done hard acceleration at speed ~ 65 and it's a little jack rabbit. Bear in mind though I come from 13 yrs of Prius (05, 08, 12). At speed, it's got punch. But 'punch' is relative. In a standard one downshifts and floors it. While the Tesla has no gears, it also has virtually no lag no hesitation, almost instant torque.
Ditto, if I was totally rational I'd be in a 2019 Prius Prime getting 20 miles on electric charge. But my main motivation that no other car would provide is future proofing mobility. Plus, I really felt we needed at least one AWD given the slope and length of this driveway. I was panicked watching my wife lose control as the car did a series of 360s down the driveway. I can't imagine what she was feeling. In trying to facilitate her getting up the driveway I was trying to lead the car throwing out a calcium chloride / sand mixture in front of her left tire. That was right up until I realized if the car lost traction, I could die. I toyed with a P3D for a bit but concluded my 'Fast and Furious' days were 40 yrs behind me. I preferred to spend that money on EAP and FSD. As of last summer wasn't a fully loaded P3D around $85,000? Mine was $63k, as I recall before taxes and misc expenses.But that was my point. There are MORE Model 3’s on the road than Cadillac XT5’s, yet, a hugely disproportionate amount of XT5’s available on the used market. The Model 3’s that do come up seem to be selling quickly, for high prices.
All that said - I don’t disagree with your theory. I’m sure there’s a bunch of people who made an emotional instead of rational decision to buy the P3D. I avoided the P and got a plain-Jane LR AWD. Truth be told, if I made a wholly rational decision, I’d be driving a Hyundai Sonata or something like that. I was able to justify the Model 3 to myself because it was a) less expensive than my lease payment on the Cadillac; b) gave me a big tax break (both fed & state sales) that wouldn’t last; c) will get handed down to my son when he starts driving, so I can be sure he’s in a safe and environmentally friendly vehicle; and d) most of all - I wanted it and have an income to support it.
That explains a lot.
Any Tesla is going to feel like a rocket to you. I am coming from performance cars so like you said it is all relative to what you are used to.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Surely you mean VW right?
BMW has been pretty roundly mocked for not doing that- it's one of the most cited reasons the outgoing CEO is outgoing.... and the new one doesn't sound like he plans to change much.
EVs being even 25% of new cars sold is further away than that- there's simply not enough batteries in the world, nor enough battery plants on the books or in design, to get there in less than a couple decades.
Tesla is already battery limited and they allegedly produce more ghw of batteries than everyone else combined.... and at absolute MAX build rate they hope to build, maybe 400,000 cars.
VW, the most all-in of the legacy companies on EVs at this point, is converting an entire giant factory over... and they hope, maybe in a couple of years, to be making a little over 300,000 EVs there...and they're still trying to figure out where the hell the batteries will come from.
But hey let's say there's somehow TEN car companies ALL making -3 times- the max Tesla can in EVs in 10 years.
That's 12 million cars.
There's over 88 million new cars a year sold.
ICE isn't going anywhere for a generation or more unless someone figures out some 2 levels ahead battery magic.
Well, you are right. It does. However, what I didn't say is I also come from a manual TR-7 and manual 92 Prelude. And in the earlier days, Mustangs and 'Vettes. So, I actually do know something about performance cars as well.That explains a lot.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
eh...the TR7 0-60 was like 8-11 seconds depending on trim... a 92 prelude was like ~8 seconds if it was the higher performance version.... and earlier days than '92 puts you in Mustangs and Vettes from the 80s that strugged to do it much quicker than 7-something and 6-something respectively...(or the 70s which were even worse for the most part)
So... do you?
eh...the TR7 0-60 was like 8-11 seconds depending on trim... a 92 prelude was like ~8 seconds if it was the higher performance version.... and earlier days than '92 puts you in Mustangs and Vettes from the 80s that strugged to do it much quicker than 7-something and 6-something respectively...(or the 70s which were even worse for the most part)
So... do you?
This times a thousand
92 prelude a performance car - LMAO
The transition time from driving a hybrid to a Tesla, in terms of acceleration and "G-forces" is measured in days. As I've said, over the last 50+ years I've driven large and small bore 8s, 6s, and 4s, mostly all 5-speed manuals.That explains a lot.
So after the latest quarterly report with shrinking margins and $400M loss shall we re-evaluate the idea that Tesla lowered prices due to rapid technological innovation greatly reducing manufacturing costs?
It looks like Tesla is truly hanging on by a thread and were forced to lower prices due to decreasing model 3 demand after the tax incentive reduction. I mean when you lose $400m in a quarter normally you don’t respond by slashing margins.
I am somewhat consoled that this isn’t a cash grab and it certainly isn’t because their tech improves at the rate transistors did in the 90s, though I’m sure some jokers are gonna show up to rehash that.
It looks like Tesla is truly hanging on by a thread and were forced to lower prices due to decreasing model 3 demand after the tax incentive reduction. I mean when you lose $400m in a quarter normally you don’t respond by slashing margins.
I am somewhat consoled that this isn’t a cash grab and it certainly isn’t because their tech improves at the rate transistors did in the 90s, though I’m sure some jokers are gonna show up to rehash that.
It is hard to get your head wrapped around how a company can lose so much money when they have a great products that are in high demand. That suggests poor management.
Or, a huge capital demand in reinvesting while maintaining free cash flow. Same thing, right?
davewill
Active Member
Simply scraping a bare profit won't work. Tesla has to reach their target production levels and margins. If that means losing money now, in order to continue to expand demand, then that's what they are going to do...it's a hell of a balancing act, though. They have to manage the expansion without burning through capital too quickly.
Me too .... it feels very reminiscent of the Amazon rampup period - except Tesla is a lot more open in a brutal industry. Amazon was able to pull their dozen-years-without-profit off while tech was still Mystical Voodoo.
The problem with Tesla is that the Model 3 is TOO GOOD. It’s siphoning sales off the Model S which is needed for profitability. The tech is better, the performance similar, the price 40% lower. No way Tesla becomes profitable until the S and X are refreshed. Or until the 3 reaches massive scale like 1mm per year which Tesla cannot do without the capex of new factories. Actually it’s quite a pickle.
Could also use a Democratic president to push the Green New Deal.
Could also use a Democratic president to push the Green New Deal.
Similar threads
