Dirty Tesla covers all Cybertruck updates after Investor day...

[JBee]

No one refers to biomass emissions as "fossil fuel", because they're not. Neither is firewood, or charcoal, or cow farts. Those are all things that are part of the natural carbon cycle.

Methane contributes to the greenhouse effect far more than CO2, so thank you for repurposing that waste.

My point is simply that demonising fossils is not helpful in our pursuit of achieving sustainability. Likewise, so is neglecting the importance of leveraging fossils to get there.

I for one absolutely do not buy into the media propagated fearmongering of a impending anthropogenic climate catastrophe. Fossils are actually "renewable" if you apply the appropriate timescale or technology. But that doesn't stop me knowing that pumping fossil fuel emissions from underground into our atmosphere via unclean and un-efficient combustion is something we should stop as soon as we can.

The biggest hurdle is how fake currency promotes the use of unethical distribution of centralised fossil based energy. If we overcome that, renewables is easy, but sustainability is still a way off.

 

[JBee]

Yes. ^^^ I spent 20 years in O&G and wife still has senior role in world's biggest O&G company. The "what do you think plastics and lubricants are made from" retort is tiresome and foolish. Yes, everyone knows that fertilizer and polymers etc come mostly from hydrocarbons. And everyone knows that the (very clever, btw) "uses no" license refers to the fact that CT runs on electricity. And pointing out that it still uses other hydrocarbon-derived materials like some sort of sanctimonious "gotcha" just makes you and the industry look like hyper-defensive fools.

I think the flip side is that it obviously triggered some here to justify EV's in such a way that they too needed a reality check.

Carrying a confirmation bias for to long actually leads to blindness in my experience, no matter the side of the argument one chooses. Reality lies somewhere in the nuance of extremes.

 

[anionic1]

Yeah, tho that doesn't mean there's not unusually deep demand even at a high price.

But the first year's worth of orders is only going to be what, twice the highest S+X deliveries?

-Crissa

Crissa, are you starting to accept that the price might go up. I am shocked.

its interesting to see all the YouTube experts coming out of the woodworks with all their inside knowledge. Just sounds like, “bla, bla, bla”, to me. He kept mentioning CTs over $80k. Maybe $100k.If Elon and Tesla don’t come out with a CT at least in the $60k to $70k range they are going to have some serious egg on their face. Yes the economy has shifted 20 to 30%, so we should be seeing options in the $50k to $70k range. And with the EV rebate set at $80k they would seem nuts not to offer one close to that.

I heard some YouTube experts say there will be a trimotor option still. I think we will see a dual motor standard range at $65- 69k and a trimotor standard range at $75k-$79k. There may be a crazy quad motor plaid whatever but looking at their other vehicles makes me think it will be a small part of the demand and I would expect that to land around $100k.

Also, he is wrong about the reservation. I was at a Tesla store last week and specifically asked and they said they would be offering the CT in the order of your reservation. I am very positive we will see CT priced around $70k and we will have some respect for the reservation order.

 

[anionic1]

EVs have fossils derived lubricants and consumables. Plastics are extra.

That’s like judging the Niagara Falls visitor center for having a drinking fountain compared to the water used by the falls itself. The lubricants used in an EV could be measured in fractions of a pint compared to hundreds of barrels of fossil fuels for an ICE vehicle.

 

[anionic1]

My point is simply that demonising fossils is not helpful in our pursuit of achieving sustainability. Likewise, so is neglecting the importance of leveraging fossils to get there.

I for one absolutely do not buy into the media propagated fearmongering of a impending anthropogenic climate catastrophe. Fossils are actually "renewable" if you apply the appropriate timescale or technology. But that doesn't stop me knowing that pumping fossil fuel emissions from underground into our atmosphere via unclean and un-efficient combustion is something we should stop as soon as we can.

The biggest hurdle is how fake currency promotes the use of unethical distribution of centralised fossil based energy. If we overcome that, renewables is easy, but sustainability is still a way off.

At this point the damage we have done by allowing the burning of fossil fuels to create a run away green house effect and devastate the ecology of our planet, we really need to push to completely remove fossil fuel use as an option. We truly have devastated the planet and we risk devastating problems

 

[JBee]

At this point the damage we have done by allowing the burning of fossil fuels to create a run away green house effect and devastate the ecology of our planet, we really need to push to completely remove fossil fuel use as an option. We truly have devastated the planet and we risk devastating problems

It's not run away or irreversible, that's a fallacy. A lot of the damage to ecology is not directly because of fossil emissions, rather over consumption. But without fossils we would also have 4-5billion starving people, and we wouldn't be able to increase the productivity and capacity of our land. You could also produce virtually none of the renewables we have today without the fossil derived processes and resources. So you need to also consider the flip side of your argument as well.

 

[TBONO]

That’s like judging the Niagara Falls visitor center for having a drinking fountain compared to the water used by the falls itself. The lubricants used in an EV could be measured in fractions of a pint compared to hundreds of barrels of fossil fuels for an ICE vehicle.

I wonder what % of EV sales lead it to being an extra car for the household that may have not been the case before due to limited range of EVs.? e.g. keep the older ICE suv for longer family trips vs replacing it with a model Y.

intentions are fine to use EVs for running around but what’s the net impact by increasing avg # of cars per family? And associated energy to support that.

this is why we need a 500 mi CT

 

[Luke42]

I wonder what % of EV sales lead it to being an extra car for the household that may have not been the case before due to limited range of EVs.? e.g. keep the older ICE suv for longer family trips vs replacing it with a model Y.

intentions are fine to use EVs for running around but what’s the net impact by increasing avg # of cars per family? And associated energy to support that.

this is why we need a 500 mi CT

I've been using my Model Y for those "longer family trips".

I knew that my around-town trips are short and my roadtrips are long, but seeing the charging stats is surprising.

Something like 40% of my charging has been supercharging over the 6 months and 8k miles that I've had the car. The supercharging is mostly because of 2 really long roadtrips -- where the car just ate highway miles hour after hour.

Roadtripping works just fine in my 330-mile MYLR. With the 330-mile battery, the planning-range with all of the safety-margins in place is more like 220 miles - which is a solid 4 hours of road time. This is a big win over burning dollars and driving a noisy/smelly/slow vehicle for long periods of time - but it had required some adaptation on my part.

For instance, it would be easier to change exclusively at mealtimes on this sort of monster road trip with a 500+ mile battery, and it would be less important to find a hotel with an L2 (overnight) charger. With a longer-range battery, the trip-planing would be more like the gasoline driving experience. But the 500+-mile battery is far from necessary -- my MYLR has made round trips to Florida and New York from my home Illinois.

The fact that I can quibble over whether we need a 330-mile or 500+-mile battery to roadtrip is awesome. Would a 500+-mile battery be better? of course. Is it necessary? 330-miles is just fine in my experience.

I love living in the future!

P.S. FSD may not live up to the hype, but the Supercharger Network really is as good as everyone says it is.

 

[cvalue13]

I wonder what % of EV sales lead it to being an extra car for the household that may have not been the case before due to limited range of EVs.?

I don’t know about an extra car, as aren’t a lot of households affording EVs already two car households? Are you thinking two car homes now add a BEV third?

But on a related point: a person wanting to purchase the most environmentally friendly vehicle, should probably just purchase a used Honda civic - effectively “recycling” that already-produced, relatively efficient, vehicle.

But if one has already decided to make the environmentally sub-optimal choice of purchasing a new vehicle, going BEV is voting with your dollars.

 

[TBONO]

I've been using my Model Y for those "longer family trips".

I knew that my around-town trips are short and my roadtrips are long, but seeing the charging stats is surprising.

Something like 40% of my charging has been supercharging over the 6 months and 8k miles that I've had the car. The supercharging is mostly because of 2 really long roadtrips -- where the car just ate highway miles hour after hour.

Roadtripping works just fine in my 330-mile MYLR. With the 330-mile battery, the planning-range with all of the safety-margins in place is more like 220 miles - which is a solid 4 hours of road time. This is a big win over burning dollars and driving a noisy/smelly/slow vehicle for long periods of time - but it had required some adaptation on my part.

For instance, it would be easier to change exclusively at mealtimes on this sort of monster road trip with a 500+ mile battery, and it would be less important to find a hotel with an L2 (overnight) charger. With a longer-range battery, the trip-planing would be more like the gasoline driving experience. But the 500+-mile battery is far from necessary -- my MYLR has made round trips to Florida and New York from my home Illinois.

The fact that I can quibble over whether we need a 330-mile or 500+-mile battery to roadtrip is awesome. Would a 500+-mile battery be better? of course. Is it necessary? 330-miles is just fine in my experience.

I love living in the future!

P.S. FSD may not live up to the hype, but the Supercharger Network really is as good as everyone says it is.

Agreed. Your example sounds about right for most people. Our 2018 M3 with 80K mi now charges to max 275 miles.

winter for includes running snow tires, on mountains, cold weather and longer trips of 200 to 850 miles one way. So that makes usable range more challenging especially where charging stations in the burbs are more limited.

if someone goes this is even far more amplified for a CT application.

most of the people I know with an EV have an ICE for longer trips. I’m guessing a lot of times a 2 car household may end up being 3 cars due to this.

 

[TBONO]

I don’t know about an extra car, as aren’t a lot of households affording EVs already two car households? Are you thinking two car homes now add a BEV third?

But on a related point: a person wanting to purchase the most environmentally friendly vehicle, should probably just purchase a used Honda civic - effectively “recycling” that already-produced, relatively efficient, vehicle.

But if one has already decided to make the environmentally sub-optimal choice of purchasing a new vehicle, going BEV is voting with your dollars.

Yes, I think many 2 cars may end up a 2+ EV

 

[CyberGus]

I don’t know about an extra car, as aren’t a lot of households affording EVs already two car households? Are you thinking two car homes now add a BEV third?

But on a related point: a person wanting to purchase the most environmentally friendly vehicle, should probably just purchase a used Honda civic - effectively “recycling” that already-produced, relatively efficient, vehicle.

But if one has already decided to make the environmentally sub-optimal choice of purchasing a new vehicle, going BEV is voting with your dollars.

Replacing a used car with a new one is not bad environmentally, unless the used car is thrown into a volcano. When sold, it’s residual lifespan satiates demand for more newer cars elsewhere.

 

[BayouCityBob]

Yes, I think many 2 cars may end up a 2+ EV

No offense, but that is just crazy. We have been driving our two Model 3s as our only cars for five years. I take them on road trips whenever I need to do so. Last week I did a 550 mile trip on Monday and a 550 mile return on Wednesday. The car is a great road tripper and, tbh, it is realistically a 250 mile vehicle (original EPA 310).

The only reason someone familiar with an EV would want a 500 mile vehicle is if they are using it for carrying loads or towing. For everything else, the sweet spot is 350 miles (a real world 300 miles in all conditions).

Of course, all of that is only true of you have a good charging rate. A poj 100kw or less is going to be useless for road trips.

 

[Crissa]

Crissa, are you starting to accept that the price might go up. I am shocked.

its interesting to see all the YouTube experts coming out of the woodworks with all their inside knowledge. Just sounds like, “bla, bla, bla”, to me. He kept mentioning CTs over $80k. Maybe $100k.If Elon and Tesla don’t come out with a CT at least in the $60k to $70k range they are going to have some serious egg on their face. Yes the economy has shifted 20 to 30%, so we should be seeing options in the $50k to $70k range. And with the EV rebate set at $80k they would seem nuts not to offer one close to that.

I heard some YouTube experts say there will be a trimotor option still. I think we will see a dual motor standard range at $65- 69k and a trimotor standard range at $75k-$79k. There may be a crazy quad motor plaid whatever but looking at their other vehicles makes me think it will be a small part of the demand and I would expect that to land around $100k.

Also, he is wrong about the reservation. I was at a Tesla store last week and specifically asked and they said they would be offering the CT in the order of your reservation. I am very positive we will see CT priced around $70k and we will have some respect for the reservation order.

I don't think the prices will increase. Tesla would have had to make allowances for inflation, and inflation overall hasn't been as bad as people keep insinuating.

Even your suggested bottom price is an increase of over 30%!

And since the Semi came in with three, single motor axles, people have changed their estimation on whether the tri-motor would exist or not. Which is odd, since, as I pointed out, the Semi is using single-motor axles.

The reason to use *more* motors in the Semi is to avoid using *bigger* motors, but if you can get bigger, well, that's better. But the use case of the Cybertruck is more finesse than the Semi; as Ogre has repeatedly pointed out.

Either way, there's lots of space and use cases where different motor configurations are useful. That said, we're only going to see one or two at launch.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Replacing a used car with a new one is not bad environmentally, unless the used car is thrown into a volcano. When sold, it’s residual lifespan satiates demand for more newer cars elsewhere.

the decision to buy new is “not bad environmentally” only if it causes someone else to not buy a new one?

To suggest that buying a new jean jacket is environmentally neutral against buying one of the thousands of jean jackets in second hand stores because someone else will buy the ones in second hand stores is a confusing take.

I’m not trying to morally indict anyone here, as I just bought a new Lightning and if things go as planned will buy a new CT when offered.

But I’m not confused about the consumption involved.