tesla model s engineering efforts reuse in the day and age of "platforms"

Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the highest bidder
who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood or into the trunk
and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their electric models combined.

wrote in
:

> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
> electric models combined.



Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
generate the same tax largesse.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/

Excerpt:
"Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
or $11,400 per car."

--
Tegger

On 8/26/2013 11:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>> electric models combined.
>
>
>
> Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
> tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
> generate the same tax largesse.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>
> Excerpt:
> "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
> selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
> California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
> like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
> and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
> that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
> shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
> or $11,400 per car."
>
Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not
"zero emissions vehicles".

I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie
whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the
smug driver.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:39:58 AM UTC+3, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 8/26/2013 11:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
>
> > wrote in
>
> > :
>
> >
>
> >> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>
> >> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>
> >> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>
> >> electric models combined.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
>
> > tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
>
> > generate the same tax largesse.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>
> >
>
> > Excerpt:
>
> > "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
>
> > selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
>
> > California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
>
> > like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
>
> > and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
>
> > that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
>
> > shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
>
> > or $11,400 per car."
>
> >
>
> Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not
>
> "zero emissions vehicles".
>

My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to
another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline
engine in it cause I could not care less for a remote emissions car.

> I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie
>
> whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the
>
> smug driver.
>
I pulled a stoppie on my bicycle recently. Was not a big one,
the rear wheel was off the ground about 4", but,
since I did not expect it (and it was my first stoppie ever) I farted.
So bicycles are not as green as some people think due to scarefarts.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:51:18 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:39:58 AM UTC+3, T0m $herman wrote:
>
> > On 8/26/2013 11:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > wrote in
>
> >
>
> > > :
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>
> >
>
> > >> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>
> >
>
> > >> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>
> >
>
> > >> electric models combined.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
>
> >
>
> > > tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
>
> >
>
> > > generate the same tax largesse.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Excerpt:
>
> >
>
> > > "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
>
> >
>
> > > selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
>
> >
>
> > > California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
>
> >
>
> > > like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
>
> >
>
> > > and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
>
> >
>
> > > that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
>
> >
>
> > > shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
>
> >
>
> > > or $11,400 per car."
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not
>
> >
>
> > "zero emissions vehicles".
>
> >
>
>
>
> My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to
>
> another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline
>
> engine in it cause I could not care less for a remote emissions car.
>
>
>
> > I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie
>
> >
>
> > whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the
>
> >
>
> > smug driver.
>
> >
>
> I pulled a stoppie on my bicycle recently. Was not a big one,
>
> the rear wheel was off the ground about 4", but,
>
> since I did not expect it (and it was my first stoppie ever) I farted.
>
> So bicycles are not as green as some people think due to scarefarts.

Back in the 1950s when I was riding my bicycle with a buddy sitting on the handlebars, he happened to get one of his bare feet too close to the front wheel, instant stoppie!

On 08/26/2013 09:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>> electric models combined.
>
>
>
> Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
> tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
> generate the same tax largesse.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>
> Excerpt:
> "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
> selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
> California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
> like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
> and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
> that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
> shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
> or $11,400 per car."
>

exactly right. i particularly love how musk managed to get the
political mandate to have nasa donate all their rocket technology, then
a multi-billion dollar launch contract, so he can get paid for doing
what we gave nasa the money to do in the first place!!! the guy gets
full points for audaciousness, that's for sure.


--
fact check required

On 08/26/2013 11:51 PM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:39:58 AM UTC+3, T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 8/26/2013 11:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in
>>
>>> :
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>>
>>>> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>>
>>>> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>>
>>>> electric models combined.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
>>
>>> tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
>>
>>> generate the same tax largesse.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Excerpt:
>>
>>> "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
>>
>>> selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
>>
>>> California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
>>
>>> like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
>>
>>> and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
>>
>>> that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
>>
>>> shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
>>
>>> or $11,400 per car."
>>
>>>
>>
>> Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not
>>
>> "zero emissions vehicles".
>>
>
> My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to
> another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline
> engine in it

not that simple. besides, there's no point - if you're going to make a
car, you may as well just program the design into solidworks, and
design/build virtually. the tesla "chassis" is built for a completely
different load distribution to a conventional car.


> cause I could not care less for a remote emissions car.
>
>> I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie
>>
>> whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the
>>
>> smug driver.
>>
> I pulled a stoppie on my bicycle recently. Was not a big one,
> the rear wheel was off the ground about 4", but,
> since I did not expect it (and it was my first stoppie ever) I farted.
> So bicycles are not as green as some people think due to scarefarts.
>


--
fact check required

On 08/26/2013 06:39 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 8/26/2013 11:30 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Now that tesla has a useful cage in model s it could sell it to the
>>> highest bidder who can promptly plunk a gasoline engine under the hood
>>> or into the trunk and sell 10x cars than tesla would for all their
>>> electric models combined.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't work that way. Tesla makes all of its profit on gaming
>> tax rules and federal/state credits. Gas engines would not
>> generate the same tax largesse.
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ve-some-money/
>>
>>
>> Excerpt:
>> "Tesla didn't generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by
>> selling sleazy emissions "credits," mandated by the state of
>> California's electric vehicle requirements. The competition,
>> like Honda, doesn't have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate
>> and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company
>> that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this
>> shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million,
>> or $11,400 per car."
>>
> Electrical vehicles should be called "remote emissions vehicles" and not
> "zero emissions vehicles".

+1 - exactly right.


>
> I make it a point to rev my engine constantly and then pull a wheelie
> whenever I am next to a hybrid or electrical vehicle, so as to annoy the
> smug driver.
>


--
fact check required

[trimmed mercilessly]
> > My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to
>
> > another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline
>
> > engine in it
>
>
>
> not that simple. besides, there's no point - if you're going to make a
>
> car, you may as well just program the design into solidworks, and
>
> design/build virtually. the tesla "chassis" is built for a completely

Xcept noone managed to break the root rigidity testing equipment
with their car before model s.

>
> different load distribution to a conventional car.

That might be. In theory. Just like in "theory" electric steering
has better potential than hydraulics.

Problem is few people have a clear idea how to map
theory into practice successfully.

Which means we are likely in for a loooooong wait to have caddy ATS grade
steering feel in the [very] premium and (hopefully compact)
"sports" sedan segment (or the return of bmw 3xx hydraulic steering feel)

But I got carried away. Tesla seem to have proved that sn average idiot
with a mechanical engineering degree at the prompt of solidworks is no different from a disinterested underpaid monkey at the prompt.

Show my another chassis that can match 4+ tons riding on its roof
without collapsing. Something that model s had no problem achieving
which says something about the person who was operating solidworks
one very milestone day.

On 08/28/2013 06:45 AM, wrote:
> [trimmed mercilessly]
>>> My point was that tesla could sell the chassis of model s to
>>
>>> another car maker who won't have a problem installing a gasoline
>>
>>> engine in it
>>
>>
>>
>> not that simple. besides, there's no point - if you're going to make a
>>
>> car, you may as well just program the design into solidworks, and
>>
>> design/build virtually. the tesla "chassis" is built for a completely
>
> Xcept noone managed to break the root rigidity testing equipment
> with their car before model s.

you really believe that crap?

1. i saw a 911 ad back in the day with a truck container rolled on top
of it. from a real accident. it was a great ad, used to great effect.

2. any testing equipment that breaks within its testing range has
something wrong with it. so i don't believe that crap. nor should you.


>
>>
>> different load distribution to a conventional car.
>
> That might be. In theory. Just like in "theory" electric steering
> has better potential than hydraulics.

it's not theory, it's fact. you wouldn't attach suspension to any part
of the frame not designed for it any more than you would attach several
hundred pounds of leverage producing traction device.


>
> Problem is few people have a clear idea how to map
> theory into practice successfully.

not true. you draw the frame, and if you pay for the right f.e.a.
packages, you can test it, both fatigue and crash. we're living in a
totally different era of design.


>
> Which means we are likely in for a loooooong wait to have caddy ATS grade
> steering feel in the [very] premium and (hopefully compact)
> "sports" sedan segment (or the return of bmw 3xx hydraulic steering feel)

why on earth would you want that??? it's completely vague. what you
really want is manual steering feel, only without the load.


>
> But I got carried away. Tesla seem to have proved that sn average idiot
> with a mechanical engineering degree at the prompt of solidworks is no different from a disinterested underpaid monkey at the prompt.

musk is an average idiot when it comes to engineering. he is however a
brilliant politician - all his hype and self-promotion is entirely
taxpayer funded.


>
> Show my another chassis that can match 4+ tons riding on its roof
> without collapsing. Something that model s had no problem achieving
> which says something about the person who was operating solidworks
> one very milestone day.

don't buy that propaganda dude.


--
fact check required