That horse says a lot of horse *sugar* that turns out to be misleading. No one thinks that Tesla is abandoning SuperChargers. It just is really hard to manage planning through go live without project managers and other staff to do it. People pointing out SuperChargers going live now saying see it isnt slowing are being dishonest. Lets see how permitting and moving from permitting to construction to go live slow down.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Sigh what’s wrong with these people?
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
They seem to be afflicted with a condition referred to as "moronism".
Most look like young, lost souls who are easy manipulated by others into believing that the single company that's done the most for the environment perhaps in history is somehow destroying it.
I don't see how a PR department could have helped. A PR department would need to check with Elon before putting out a statement. But Elon apparently wasn't ready to put out that clarifying statement with real numbers until now. So what would the PR department do that Elon couldn't just do himself?
Actually, they do. I've talked to Uber drivers about this topic specifically. And even more will stop commuting with their own cars when robotaxis make it cheaper.
I don't understand why people think this is such a problem.
Yes, there is rush hour twice a day where the need for robotaxis are at a peak. At those busiest times, the whole fleet needs to be out taking care of customers. At times where demand is not as high, some of the fleet will be in for charging and cleaning.
Fleet management is pretty easy to optimize with 1980's level computer technology.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Tesla could hire their own "news" people, dressed nicely and adorned with all the trappings of a professional news organization, to interview these folks on the scene, one after another. Asking them pointed questions about their claims to see if they actually know what they are talking about. Maybe hire folks from The Onion to do it?
One by one the reporter would quickly disassemble the talking points, sharing the factual information back to each interviewee in the form of a question. Then get their reaction recorded for posterity.
How much water does Tesla use compared to xxx?
How many trees has Tesla removed for construction compared to the number they have reforested elsewhere?
What company is your next target as the second-worst climate offender after Tesla?
I expect that after doing this with ten or fifteen of them it will become blatantly obvious how these people really have no idea what their cause is about, and that it isn't based in reality. Rather, it would paint a bleak picture of how they have been manipulated into their protests and have now been made fools of.
Lastly, put this mockumentary on X and YouTube with a typical click-bait headline and shocking thumbnail in order to lure others who rabidly buy into the misinformation campaign and usually drool over such media presentations to come to terms with the facts.
It could be hilarious at worse, and infocational at best.
Giving it more thought, if someone like The Onion did it, they could hire actors to play the part of protesters for this saga and really juice it up.
Is there a satire-based production company like that in Germany?
Maybe Tesla's Deutsch PR department should give them a call. /s
The building in the background that they are running towards is the new recycling centre - on the "new" patch of land.
Edit: Added pic - the building in the vid is in the blue circle I drew on this photo. Which make sense - the earlier protesters climbing trees to the right/east of the Tesla plot. They might have entered from that direction?
Edit again - added video of the recycling centre:
Last edited:
I completely agree that Tesla should mandate EV-only for anyone licensing FSD.
But I don't think that will happen. Elon will argue that FSD will save lives and it would be wrong to put an EV mandate in place. And it's not a bad argument.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Ah! Another question for them from the Onion's "reporter,"
What does Tesla do in that building you are attacking?
Lets face it, we're not dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed here. We've seen a lot of them lately in various places.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
No, there is no way. EV-only will be the only way to align FSD licensing with the Mission.
Saving lives is important, but that isn't the mission.
Saving lives by accelerating the transition to renewable energy and getting toxic ICE vehicles off the road would be more in alignment.
I agree.
But I don't think that's where Elon is right now. He will say that the transition to EVs is inevitable anyway, so it's best to start saving lives right away by allowing FSD on gas-powered cars while that transition happens. Again, it's a pretty good argument.
Of course, the obvious counter-argument is that making FSD an EV-only product could hasten that transition. But it's not a given.
Allowing FSD on ICE cars increases profits for Tesla and also increases Tesla's power in the TaaS market. Elon believes anything that's good for Tesla is also good for the mission.
As much as I want FSD to be EV-only, I'll be shocked if Elon goes for that. Hopefully, we will find out soon.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
We'll see soon enough.
The mere fact that any vehicle from another OEM to employ FSD would have to be designed from the ground up to accommodate the actuator hardware, sensors, and central processing unit for the system will be a defining factor. It is highly unlikely these could be retrofitted into an existing ICE design without negatively affecting production rate and vehicle margin.
I don't think any OEM would feel so strongly about ICE that they would back a design for a new ICE model that has "Tesla Inside" and I don't think Elon would want the Tesla name associated with such a vehicle, even if an OEM was prepared to do it.
With what? A five year development plan to get a new design into production? By then EVs will have gained a much larger share of the market and those OEMs will be shedding ICE designs like a snake sheds its skin.
As I've been told many times, "will" is aspirational. I wouldn't call this authoritative, since if/when this doesn't come to fruition you can't say he "lied."
Do people really see this as a thing for typical corner gas stations in urban areas? I can see the transit routes have better food, shopping, haircuts, etc, since someone would have to wait for about 20 minutes, but in urban/even suburbs environment, do people really want to eat/get a haircut at a supercharger location (or imagine your local BP gas station...and pay whatever is the going charge rate of the SuC operator) vs. charging at home/near the house?
I suppose I just can't see myself ever wanting that, again, outside of transit corridor chargers. These BP locations are also not the massive sites that say, a mall or something like a Buckees has.
Last edited:
You'd also never have an ICE vehicle as a Robotaxi. It would either have to be running all the time, which would kill any hope of profits, or it would have a standby mode which would drain the 12V battery pretty quickly. Even if you include PHEVs, it's unlikely they could run at a profit.
Elon said the convoy driverless technology was something they could do "now" in 2017. They have a handful of Semis in their own fleet. Are they utilizing this already solved (as of seven years ago) technology? If not, am I allowed to say he lied about that?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
