The numbers on the semi destroyed what anyone thought possible.
- 0-60 in 5 sec
- 0-60 in 20 sec under max gross payload of 80k lbs
- 65mph up 5% grade under max lied, compared to 45mph for ICE semi
- 500 mile range
- 400 miles of additional range after 30 min charge
- Guaranteed 7¢/kWh fuel cost(solar) compared to volatile oil
- Nuclear explosion proof glass(apparently cracked windshield takes semi off road)
- 1 million mile guarantee it won't breakdown
- Will never need a brake change
- "Impossible" to jacknife
- Beats semis on economics day 1
- In convoy mode, beats rail on economics
300 miles of range: $150,000
500 miles of range: $180,000
Founders series: $200,000
https://youtu.be/CBTQnmUolas
The Roadster was a complete surprise, and the numbers given destroy any production car you can think of, even a Koenisegg.
- 0-60 in 1.9 sec (this is faster than most Formula 1 cars)
- 0-100 in 4.2
- 1/4 mile in 8.9 sec
- 250+ mph top speed
- 621 mile range (That's Kansas City to Denver without fueling)
- 10,000 nm torque
and that's the base model. Starting at $200k and Founders series at $250k. Destroys million dollar cars.
Also teased a rendering image of a consumer pickup truck with a normal truck in the bed.
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Exactamundo. Media eats it up ever time a Tesla is involved in an accident. And they don't even know if it is on auto pilot or not in that previous. Very few people use Auto Pilot when there are stop lights present.
My autopilot actually saved me from an accident the other day on Ridgeview. Some guy tried to pull out of the car wash and go COMPLETELY to the otherside of the street to a business. And the car stopped in time. Combine this all with the fact that this is the first autonomous optioned car, ever (meaning they will constantly make improvements every year) it is a great success. Auto Pilot enabled Tesla's have been found to be 3-4 times safer than older non AP Teslas.....
This isn't Tesla, but is one of the most laughable ones of these I've seen so far.
Headline: A Waymo self-driving van was involved in a crash in Arizona
If you read the detail, the car 1) wasn't on auto-pilot at the time and 2) was only involved because another car RAN A RED LIGHT AND SWERVED INTO ITS LANE. I mean, seriously? Why is this a story in the national news?
I mean, I get it when there are stories where auto-pilot was clearly on and where there is an accident that a human probably would have avoided. There haven't been many of those, but I can think of two at least. Sure, it's interesting to know when the tech didn't work right to gain an understanding of where the tech is these days. But I don't understand why stories like the one Bwana posted are published before someone actually knows if autopilot played a role.
To further prove the point, this site estimates that there are roughly 15k accidents PER DAY in the U.S., yet a random accident where the only injury is a broken ankle makes national news? It doesn't make any objective sense unless your viewpoint is that self-driving cars are bad, full stop, and any evidence that MIGHT serve that position should be shouted from the rooftops. [Reply]
I think the autopilot feature, if it was in use, makes the story newsworthy. The concept of self-driving cars and Tesla's autopilot specifically has been the subject of plenty of discussion in other accidents, some involving fatalities. The question of whether cars should have the feature in the first place is a valid question. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
I think the autopilot feature, if it was in use, makes the story newsworthy. The concept of self-driving cars and Tesla's autopilot specifically has been the subject of plenty of discussion in other accidents, some involving fatalities. The question of whether cars should have the feature in the first place is a valid question.
But the problem is that the question has basically already been answered without much room for debate. You can Google around all you want, and you'll find that every single study that has examined the safety of Autopilot has found that people get in far fewer accidents when it is turned on than when it's not. Here's one just as an example.
As I said before, I agree that it is newsworthy when there is an accident where autopilot clearly IS at fault. My criticism is that pretty much every time a Tesla (or other self-driving car) is in an accident, it makes the news regardless of whether autopilot was involved or not. It's news orgs reaching for sensationalist headlines that give the impression that self-driving cars aren't safe, when the reality is quite the opposite.
When it comes down to it, the "debate" about whether self-driving cars are safer than human drivers is already closed. The question moving forward is more about HOW MUCH safer they are and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES self-driving cars might struggle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
But the problem is that the question has basically already been answered without much room for debate. You can Google around all you want, and you'll find that every single study that has examined the safety of Autopilot has found that people get in far fewer accidents when it is turned on than when it's not. Here's one just as an example.
As I said before, I agree that it is newsworthy when there is an accident where autopilot clearly IS at fault. My criticism is that pretty much every time a Tesla (or other self-driving car) is in an accident, it makes the news regardless of whether autopilot was involved or not. It's news orgs reaching for sensationalist headlines that give the impression that self-driving cars aren't safe, when the reality is quite the opposite.
When it comes down to it, the "debate" about whether self-driving cars are safer than human drivers is already closed. The question moving forward is more about HOW MUCH safer they are and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES self-driving cars might struggle.
I don’t know the motive of the dudes posting up the wrecks, but that is a huge setback for the industry.
If I go plow into a bus load of kids because I ran a stoplight I’m liable. Problem is that if you remove the driver there is no one to be liable. That leaves....the manufacturer. Nobody is going to eat that kind of liability.
It’s the same shit with tractors. All I can hear is that it is the wave of the future. Yeah. Duh, stupid. Get guys out of the seat and it will sell. I have a 20 year old tractor with the hardware to do it. But if something Happens and there was no problem in the user controlled activities the liability falls to the manufacturer. And I know Mother Deere won’t stand for that. In fact there is a screen that pops up every time you turn it on that the driver is responsible for collision avoidance. And that is why. Deere wants no part of that noise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
I think the autopilot feature, if it was in use, makes the story newsworthy. The concept of self-driving cars and Tesla's autopilot specifically has been the subject of plenty of discussion in other accidents, some involving fatalities. The question of whether cars should have the feature in the first place is a valid question.
We are scared of things we don't understand. Have you ever driven a Tesla with autopilot before? If not, go ahead and rent one. You'll have a greater understanding of it, and why it is a great safety feature. Human beings ****ing suck at driving. They are horrible at it.
Is Auto Pilot better than Jeff Gordon on two cans of Mountain Dew trying to drive as precisely as possible for a small period of time? No probably not. But computers don't get tired. They don't fatigue. They don't forget. They don't text & drive. They don't miss the brake on accident and hit the gas. They don't have to worry about a crying kid. They don't have to worry about spilling coffee on their lap and burning them. And they don't get drunk. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
But computers don't get tired. They don't fatigue. They don't forget. They don't text & drive. They don't miss the brake on accident and hit the gas. They don't have to worry about a crying kid. They don't have to worry about spilling coffee on their lap and burning them. And they don't get drunk.
They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pain or remorse or fear. And they absolutely will not stop! Ever! Until you are dead! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
I don’t know the motive of the dudes posting up the wrecks, but that is a huge setback for the industry.
If I go plow into a bus load of kids because I ran a stoplight I’m liable. Problem is that if you remove the driver there is no one to be liable. That leaves....the manufacturer. Nobody is going to eat that kind of liability.
It’s the same shit with tractors. All I can hear is that it is the wave of the future. Yeah. Duh, stupid. Get guys out of the seat and it will sell. I have a 20 year old tractor with the hardware to do it. But if something Happens and there was no problem in the user controlled activities the liability falls to the manufacturer. And I know Mother Deere won’t stand for that. In fact there is a screen that pops up every time you turn it on that the driver is responsible for collision avoidance. And that is why. Deere wants no part of that noise.
Yeah, there are issues to be worked out for sure. FWIW, I know Tesla has toyed with the idea of getting into the insurance business for this specific reason. Time will tell how that stuff gets figured out, though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet:
They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pain or remorse or fear. And they absolutely will not stop! Ever! Until you are dead!
... But computers don't get tired. They don't fatigue. They don't forget. They don't text & drive. They don't miss the brake on accident and hit the gas. They don't have to worry about a crying kid. They don't have to worry about spilling coffee on their lap and burning them. And they don't get drunk.
Originally Posted by aturnis:
I guess I don't think it remains to be seen, and I don't understand how he has a poor track record.
Tesla has MUCH better profit margins than traditional OEMs, aim for 25% across the board as o pad to the 5% industry standard. And production/profitability seems to literally be only a matter of time. At least, I can't think of any real hurdles to this. Really the hardest part is growing and managing your supply chain in unison.
As far as track records, I mean, hasn't he accomplished all of his goals since 2012 up until this point? I bet you'd be hard pressed to find others who have done so well.
$80,000+ sports cars have huge markups and relatively small production runs. Because of the high mark ups, you can have multiple recalls and still make a profit. Anyone who can afford to buy a $80,000+ car, can afford to be without it for a week while it is recalled. They already own a separate vehicle or have alternatives that aren't going to put them out.
That just isn't true of the mass produced middling priced cars. The margins are thinner. Recalls can eat up the thinner profit margin and drivers are going to be more upset about the recalls.
His track record is fine if he sticks to high markup roadsters. His track is very poor if he wants to compete with Toyota. [Reply]
There hasn't been a successful car startup in the U.S. in the past 90 years. So what is his track record being measured against that has been so much more successful?
Starting a new car company is really, really hard. I hope Tesla succeeds but I think the odds are he isn't going to succeed as an independent company making mass produced cars.
It would be a personal defeat for Musk, but a tie-up with VW would make a lot of sense for the model 3. Tesla would get a deep pocket funder that has decades of know how about mass producing reliable cars. VW would get a fast track in its switch from diesel to electric. [Reply]
I'm curious also as to why he thought it was better to jump to a full sized electric Semi instead of doing a smaller delivery truck. Long distance trucking produces all sorts of headaches regarding range and re-charging. An urban delivery truck that spends a lot of time loading/unloading and stuck in slow moving traffic wouldn't need near the same range and always returns to the same location at night for charging.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Which would make a bigger impact on reducing fossil fuel consumption and emissions? There's your answer.
It's baffling to me that people haven't figured out yet that Elon's goal isn't to make money.
Oh I totally believe that Elon's goal isn't to make money. But he is not going to have the bigger impact if he goes bankrupt. [Reply]
I wonder if people would feel better about auto-pilot if they turned their brain on and remembered every time you fly the pilot gets you off the ground and then doesn't do shit. The plane flies you, lands you etc...
And flying is so much more safe than driving it's not even funny. [Reply]
