Cadillac News: Cadillac Electrifies an Icon with the Cadillac Escalade IQ

[Robert Hall]

Given how Tesla is known for poorly engineering their cars, I would think they would just do a cut down, stripped out variation of the Model 3 and sell it cheap.. put normal door handles, analog gauges, get rid of the nonsense..

Edited August 31, 2023 by Robert Hall

[ccap41]

51 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Tesla been producin' what is now to be an old platform on the Model 3 and STILL cant afford to drop the Model 3 is MSRP to 30 000 dollars.    Surely, the Model 3/Model Y platform has been paid off right about now to undercut its current MSRP to sink and drown its competition, right?

just because they could, doesn't mean they should. They're constantly battling a maximum production to demand ratio (like every company does). If they could drop the MSRP to 25k and had 10,000,000 units of demand they'd just lose money because they could not produce enough to meet demand and the margins would be waaay tighter by dropping the price that much. 

The D3 trucks supposedly have crazy margins on them but they're not dropping the prices to 30-50k. 

13 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Given how Tesla is known for poorly engineering their cars, I would think they would just do a cut down, stripped out variation of the Model 3 and sell it cheap.. put normal door handles, analog gauges, get rid of the nonsense..

I've never heard of poor engineering from Tesla. They have poor fit and finish but I've never heard of them having poorly engineered vehicles. 

[Robert Hall]

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

 

I've never heard of poor engineering from Tesla. They have poor fit and finish but I've never heard of them having poorly engineered vehicles. 

Phrasing was wrong..was thinking of the poor quality..poor fit and finish... though some of the engineering is certainly questionable, like the 'self driving' feature that is crash prone, etc....they are too complex for their own good.. 

[oldshurst442]

12 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

just because they could, doesn't mean they should. They're constantly battling a maximum production to demand ratio (like every company does). If they could drop the MSRP to 25k and had 10,000,000 units of demand they'd just lose money because they could not produce enough to meet demand and the margins would be waaay tighter by dropping the price that much. 

The D3 trucks supposedly have crazy margins on them but they're not dropping the prices to 30-50k. 

 

EXACTLY!!!

I wanted somebody to point that out so I could say this:

Tesla does not need to produce a 30 000 dollar model BECAUSE the Model Y sells at a VERY high rate just BEING at the price that it is.    There is NO incentive for Tesla to produce a 30 000 dollar model because they already HAVE a bread and butter, high volume HIT on their roster.   Two models at that.

To spend BILLIONS on a NEW platform does NOT make any sense either. The Model 2 would just goggle up sales from the Model 3 and Model Y JUST like how the Model 3 and model Y gobbled up sales from the Model S.     And so they wont.   Tesla is better off with spending those billions on a NEW Model 3 and Model Y.  Keep the price tags as they are.  Tesla has their niche and their fans.  They do NOT need to go downmarket.  Their MSRP market is doing JUST fine where they are.    

A little side note:  Funny how the Model S is NEVER spoken about today when talking about Tesla and THAT is what Tesla was ALL about even just 3 years ago...    (Minus the vaporware hooplah like the Cybertruck or roadster...)

The Model S is just a speed comparo with the enthusiasts.   The Model S is not on anybody else's radar...

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

If Im not mistaken, the Model 3 and Model Y are of the same platform, right?   Same construction, right?  More or less the same battery components and structure for the vehicles.  Even the same structure hard points but the Model Y being just a tad longer, right?

 

Why cant there be a less of everything Model 3 and Model Y to get to 30 000 dollars?   Same hard points, but less of whatever less constitutes to bring the MSRP to 30 000 dollars?

 

GM done it with the Bolt and Bolt EUV.   They took the Bolt, made it a tad longer, etc and added just a bit more to the MSRP.   Surely Tesla could do the same but in reverse manner.   

I thought the Model 3 platform was scalable in some form?  hence the Model Y?

But Elon is not doing that.

He is content with blabbering on about Model 2, so he could get the investor thing going so the market shares of Tesla keep up so he could finance glass houses and Twitter purchases and go to the moon. I mean Mars. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

5 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

It does NOT exist and it WILL NOT exist...

So why do you keep on repeating this?

And you know its Elon Musk bullshyte.  Because you wouldnt admit to this:

 

Originally,  as you know, and I know YOU know,  

The Model 3 was this mythical 30 000 dollar EV.

The Model 3, SEVERAL times in its production run, including INITIALLY. but ESPECIALLY when Elon Musk said that new techniques of producing it will make it so, has not even come CLOSE in being a 30 000 dollar MSRP vehicle INCLUDING governmental incentives.

So I ask, why do you INSIST with this nonsense of saying a 30 000 dollar Model 2 will exist?

 Simply cut this nonsense out.    

 

Put a $7500 tax credit on these and you are under $30k for a Tesla Model 3.  In 2018 they talked about a $35k Tesla, and look at what Inflation has done since then.   The future Model 2 is said to be 40% lower manufacturing cost than a Model 3.  They can easily get an MSRP under $30,000 before the tax credit.  Mexico and India aren't going to make Model 3 or Y, they are making a class below that.

[smk4565]

4 hours ago, David said:

I would give GM a better chance of selling a $20K mass produced EV to the masses before Tesla does if Tesla does at all. They still owe many who gave them a free loan with the crazy reservation price a 2.0 roadster. Plenty of commercial companies reserved Semi trucks and still do not have them. Quality is a joke and other than hard core Tesla Kool-Aid drinking fans, the Cybertruck is dead on delivery.

Tesla has a dated looking 4 auto portfolio and clearly needs some style updates on top of their quality has much to be desired.

GM can't make a profit on a $100,000 EV, will be a while before they can make a profit on a $20,000 EV.  

The Model Y outsells any vehicle GM has worldwide, and every GM vehicle except the Silverado in the USA.  And the Model Y is closing that gap, the Cybertruck will sell as fast as they can make them for years, 1.8 million reservations and they probably won't hit a 375,000 a year run rate until 2025 maybe even 2026.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

EXACTLY!!!

I wanted somebody to point that out so I could say this:

Tesla does not need to produce a 30 000 dollar model BECAUSE the Model Y sells at a VERY high rate just BEING at the price that it is.    There is NO incentive for Tesla to produce a 30 000 dollar model because they already HAVE a bread and butter, high volume HIT on their roster.   Two models at that.

To spend BILLIONS on a NEW platform does NOT make any sense either. The Model 2 would just goggle up sales from the Model 3 and Model Y JUST like how the Model 3 and model Y gobbled up sales from the Model S.     And so they wont.   Tesla is better off with spending those billions on a NEW Model 3 and Model Y.  Keep the price tags as they are.  Tesla has their niche and their fans.  They do NOT need to go downmarket.  Their MSRP market is doing JUST fine where they are.    

A little side note:  Funny how the Model S is NEVER spoken about today when talking about Tesla and THAT is what Tesla was ALL about even just 3 years ago...    (Minus the vaporware hooplah like the Cybertruck or roadster...)

The Model S is just a speed comparo with the enthusiasts.   The Model S is not on anybody else's radar...

 

Tesla wants to sell 20 million car per year, which would be 25-30% of the global market.  They can't do that with 4 models, or with the 4 they have and the Cybertruck and a low volume roadster.  They have to have a volume car that can be sold in Europe, South America, China, Southeast Asia etc that are shopping in that price point.  And they are doing new Model 3 and Y also because they need that volume to keep increasing.  

Tesla for the first half of 2023 has generated more net profit than GM or Ford, they have the money to expand.  

Edited August 31, 2023 by smk4565

[oldshurst442]

@Drew Dowdell has already explained how its virtually impossible for Tesla to produce 20 million cars in one year. And year after year after that.  Actually sell 20 million in one year to customers is even MORE impossible.   Especially for Tesla...

 

In 1965.  WORLD WIDE CAR PRODUCTION was aprox. 20 million units.   GM had aprox. 50%  US market share in 1965.  JUST about the most it has ever had.  GM touched just about 51% US market share in 1961.  US car production was aprox 10 million units in 1965.  Slightly less but all numbers rounded for my numbers to work nicer.  

GM had a GLOBAL market share of 5 million on 20 million = to aprox. 25% GLOBAL market share.

 

Elon wants...does NOT mean Elon will get.  Its a fairlytale. 

Elon says Tesla is capable of 20 million units sold?

In the 2020s...aprox.  global production slowed to 60 million units.  It did hit a high of 70 some odd million.  Anyway, keep numbers round for easy computation.

Elon wants 20 million units out of 60 million.   THAT is 33% GLOBAL market share...

WTF???!!!!

GM at its HIGHEST couldnt hit that much and GM in 1965 was a force that Elon could only DREAM of.   And HE could dream big. VERY big.

GM done those numbers with MANY brands and ALL brands were firing on ALL cylinders.  EACH brand had models that were hotter than the next.    Literally hundreds of models across 6 or 7 or 8 brands  (6 of them in North America) with ALL kinds of trim levels and engine configs and when the WORLD didnt have as many car makers as it has today...  

Elon wants 28%-33% GLOBAL market share on the strength of 4 now ancient models, 1 useless pick-up truck, one vaporware Roadster and a phantom 30 000 dollar MSRP Model 2?

The Semi production run is inly 50 000 units...Elon projected.  So that wont be enough to include in the 20 million unit dream.  

Yes...many OEMs WILL go under.  But the big ones wont.   GM, Hyundai (which IS the biggest company in the world), Toyota, VW. Ford will not go under.   Mercedes might go under.  But 2-4 million units per year and some of those buyers will go to Tesla.  But some will go to GM and Hyundai and VW etc...    The pie will not magically split up and Tesla will swallow it up.  NOT on 4 ancient models.  

Tesla will have to spend LOTS of BILLIONS to get NEW platforms.  And THOSE future models do NOT guarantee success both engineering wise and market share wise.  Especially when the world right now is producing EVs...     33%???!!!   

Stellantis might lose a brand.  GM might lose Buick.   VW might lose Audi.  Toyota might lose Lexus.  Hyundai might KIA.  Ford might lose Lincoln.   But all those OEMs will not lose market share to Tesla.   Those OEMs have built-in customers that date back 120 years.     It took GM 60 years to get that brand loyalty to dominate in 1965.   Tesla has made a dent...in the EV world.  Tesla is MINISCULE in the grand scheme of car making things.   

Tesla has a huuuuge competition problem and the EVs presented by the others are decent EVs.  Tesla is not 1965 GM.  Tesla is huuuuuge with brand recognition.  But even if that, Tesla is not GM of 1965.  

Edited September 1, 2023 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

My math is worng

5% divided by 20% =  4% 

Elon wants 33% when GM at its height was a mere 20% with less world competition and car manufacturing competence...

I aint sayin' its impossible. Anything can happen.  But what a tall feat to accomplish on so little.   

 

 

[G. David Felt]

6 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

My math is worng

5% divided by 20% =  4% 

Elon wants 33% when GM at its height was a mere 20% with less world competition and car manufacturing competence...

I aint sayin' its impossible. Anything can happen.  But what a tall feat to accomplish on so little.   

 

 

End result is Musk and Tesla have delivered a fraction of all they blow about. Semi Trucks, Roadster 2.0, Cheap Tesla 3, Cybertruck, etc. 

What is interesting is that Musk has stated that Mexico could produce a cheaper Tesla model, but no defined model has been set for the plant yet.

Tesla 3 & Y are on the same platform and with that, they are having issues still in regards to Quality. Just like they never have had a true self driving mode, but a driving mode they sold as self driving that has killed people.

Tesla could be in big trouble come 2025/2026 as battery cell production for many OEMs comes online and new EVs come out.

Heck after only a couple years Hyundai is already refreshing their EVs. Tesla is still on Stale Models and the heavy discounts tells a story that they are hurting for sales.

[G. David Felt]

Just as GM is ramping up Battery production to support more models of EVs on various brands. Every other OEM is also investing in battery plants to increase EV production. Hyundai just signed an expansion agreement with LG Energy Solutions to expand battery production to allow for 300,000 more EVs a year to be built in this country by the end of this year for 2024. This has since 2018 per Hyundai brought 30,000 new jobs to Georgia. Clearly this kind of investment and production will allow competition against everyone from Tesla to Cadillac as these batteries will go into Genesis as well.

Hyundai Motor Group and LG Energy Solution to Invest Additional $2B in Bryan County - Hyundai Newsroom

[A Horse With No Name]

On 8/30/2023 at 1:18 PM, David said:

EV 442 = AWD, AWS, A2B (All 2 butts)  

AWD, AWS, A2B, A2C (all two cracks. )

9 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

My math is worng

5% divided by 20% =  4% 

Elon wants 33% when GM at its height was a mere 20% with less world competition and car manufacturing competence...

I aint sayin' its impossible. Anything can happen.  But what a tall feat to accomplish on so little.   

 

 

Elon is a blow hard

17 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Phrasing was wrong..was thinking of the poor quality..poor fit and finish... though some of the engineering is certainly questionable, like the 'self driving' feature that is crash prone, etc....they are too complex for their own good.. 

Or too complex for Tesla to make properly. 

[oldshurst442]

And I, not being the one NOT to stop beating a dead horse

 

I did quick research.  Like quick.  

VW and Toyota in the 2000s have emerged to be legit global car makers.  Moreso than GM.  I mentioned GM of 1965, but Toyota and VW have best sellers in EVERY region of the planet. Especially in the 2000s up until today.   

They got hits like Priuses and Corollas and Camrys and Rav4s and smnall pickup trucks and Jettas/Boras and Golfs/Rabits and all kinds of other stuff like Polos and shyte we simply dont get here in the US and Canada but are quite the buzz everywhere else in the world.  And the MOST GLOBAL market share...REAL GLOBAL MARKET share unlike GM in 1965 that Toyota and VW could muster is 13%.     Toyota's and VW's global market ranges between, it fluxes, 9%-13%.

Toyota in 2022  sits at 11.7% 

That is with multiple brands.  With again...a literal HUNDRED of models.  Ditto for VW.  

Its good to be a dreamer.  Elon is a celebrity of the highest order.  And he has made things happen.  Paypal, Tesla, Space X,  buying twitter and literally become THE talk of the town worldwide...  

But there ARE limits to which dreams CAN come true if the proper and necessary steps are not taken.   Tesla is not where it should be to be able to get 10% market share, let alone 33%.  

Shyte, GM has a 6% global marker share in 2022 and Elon is far from gaining on GM.

Model & sells 1 million units.

GM has the pick-up trucks.  

But GM has plenty of other units to be where its at...  

Tesla has not.

GM invests billions on NEW platforms.  

Tesla has not entered that realm yet to offer 2nd gen models.

The Roadster is MIA.

 

[smk4565]

12 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

My math is worng

5% divided by 20% =  4% 

Elon wants 33% when GM at its height was a mere 20% with less world competition and car manufacturing competence...

I aint sayin' its impossible. Anything can happen.  But what a tall feat to accomplish on so little.   

 

 

GM at its height wasn’t nearly as dangerous to competitors as Tesla is now. 
 

Because GM didn’t also own the gas stations, own the taxi companies, own energy storage and production, own data and AI, etc.  Tesla can make billions on charging, solar, robo-taxi, Tesla Bot, and AI.  Tesla also doesn’t have to worry about the dealers in the middle taking profit or putting dealer markups on cars or offering poor service to customers.  
 

Most of these other EV’s aren’t competitive that is why a ton came on market and Tesla still is rising in sales and still has over 60% market share.  I think 30% of the global car volume is very doable because no one else is going to make a car that does everything the Tesla does with the charge network Tesla has.

New Model 3 just debuted, Mode Y next year.  The Model S/X are dated but they just dropped the price.  The 670 hp awd Model S has the same price as the 288 hp rear wheel drive EQE350 as one example.  The Mach-E is a sales dud compared to Tesla Model Y.  Legacy OEM better seriously step their game up if they want to be here in 10 years.

Think of this, the top 5 most valuable car companies in the world are:

1.  Tesla

2.  Toyota 

3.  VinFast

4.  Mercedes-Benz

5.  Volkswagen

The ones down lower need to step their game up because I think half of the rest go under and half survive.

[oldshurst442]

General Motors is not even in SMK's top 5.       Vinfast is @ #3.  Sold just 7000 units...      Mercedes did generate 150 billion Euros.   GM generated a tad more though.  Not forgetting that GM generated 156 billion in American dough.  American dough is worth more than the Euro...  

If anything...Vinfast may go away.  Rivian.  Lucid.    Even Mercedes.   Tesla.  Probably not as they have the one thing that saves them.  The supercharger superhighway.  They got loads of them suckers and I have been saying this for a long time that Tesla might NOT be around making cars, but they got 3 things going for them that makes them survive. 

1. Motors.   Their motors are still the best in the business.

2. Electronic hardware and the software that goes with it.     So much so that NHSTA just demanded Elon to fork over data that may suggest folk could override autopilot that forces drivers to keep hands on the wheel enabling drivers to have their hands free...

3. them superchargers.   They got loads of those.  They work and they got a monopoly on the connectors now.  Plus with the amounts they have all over the world, Tesla has become THE defacto supercharger chain.  Like Esso, Gulf,  Exxon/Mobil, Shell etc...  

But make no mistake about it.   Tesla needs to invest billions to get the folk 2nd generations of their 4 models.  And none of that guarantees future success and/or survival in producing automobiles...

 

Its funny though, Tesla generates just slightly more than half of GM's revenue, yet is more valuable?   Sure, to Wallstreet snake oil salesmen, sure.    Same with Vinfast.   But that does not last long in this game.  Kinda like the mafia restaurant owner.  They squeeze all they can from the restaurant's credit and collateral and when they cant no more, up in smoke the restaurant goes.  Unlike the insurance fraud cases though, white collar crime from Wallstreet is not as closely checked upon... 

 

Im done talking about this subject.   back to the Escalade IQ...

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gm-releases-2022-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-results-and-2023-guidance-301734091.html#:~:text=GM's full-year 2022 revenue,revised EBIT-adjusted guidance range.

 

---

DETROIT, Jan. 31, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) today reported fourth-quarter 2022 revenue of $43.1 billion, net income attributable to stockholders of $2.0 billion and EBIT-adjusted of $3.8 billion.

GM's full-year 2022 revenue was $156.7 billion, net income attributable to stockholders was $9.9 billion and EBIT-adjusted was a record $14.5 billion. Results were at the high-end of the company's revised EBIT-adjusted guidance range.

 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/tesla-made-an-annual-profit-of-12-6-billion-in-2022/

 

That means Tesla had an excellent 2022, despite missing its sales forecast. Automotive revenues grew by 51 percent compared to 2021, bringing in $71.5 billion. Total revenues were up by the same percentage year over year at $81.4 billion.

 

[smk4565]

4 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

General Motors is not even in SMK's top 5.       Vinfast is @ #3.  Sold just 7000 units...      Mercedes did generate 150 billion Euros.   GM generated a tad more though.  Not forgetting that GM generated 156 billion in American dough.  American dough is worth more than the Euro...  

If anything...Vinfast may go away.  Rivian.  Lucid.    Even Mercedes.   Tesla.  Probably not as they have the one thing that saves them.  The supercharger superhighway.  They got loads of them suckers and I have been saying this for a long time that Tesla might NOT be around making cars, but they got 3 things going for them that makes them survive. 

1. Motors.   Their motors are still the best in the business.

2. Electronic hardware and the software that goes with it.     So much so that NHSTA just demanded Elon to fork over data that may suggest folk could override autopilot that forces drivers to keep hands on the wheel enabling drivers to have their hands free...

3. them superchargers.   They got loads of those.  They work and they got a monopoly on the connectors now.  Plus with the amounts they have all over the world, Tesla has become THE defacto supercharger chain.  Like Esso, Gulf,  Exxon/Mobil, Shell etc...  

But make no mistake about it.   Tesla needs to invest billions to get the folk 2nd generations of their 4 models.  And none of that guarantees future success and/or survival in producing automobiles...

 

Its funny though, Tesla generates just slightly more than half of GM's revenue, yet is more valuable?   Sure, to Wallstreet snake oil salesmen, sure.    Same with Vinfast.   But that does not last long in this game.  Kinda like the mafia restaurant owner.  They squeeze all they can from the restaurant's credit and collateral and when they cant no more, up in smoke the restaurant goes.  Unlike the insurance fraud cases though, white collar crime from Wallstreet is not as closely checked upon... 

 

Im done talking about this subject.   back to the Escalade IQ...

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gm-releases-2022-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-results-and-2023-guidance-301734091.html#:~:text=GM's full-year 2022 revenue,revised EBIT-adjusted guidance range.

 

---

DETROIT, Jan. 31, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) today reported fourth-quarter 2022 revenue of $43.1 billion, net income attributable to stockholders of $2.0 billion and EBIT-adjusted of $3.8 billion.

GM's full-year 2022 revenue was $156.7 billion, net income attributable to stockholders was $9.9 billion and EBIT-adjusted was a record $14.5 billion. Results were at the high-end of the company's revised EBIT-adjusted guidance range.

 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/tesla-made-an-annual-profit-of-12-6-billion-in-2022/

 

That means Tesla had an excellent 2022, despite missing its sales forecast. Automotive revenues grew by 51 percent compared to 2021, bringing in $71.5 billion. Total revenues were up by the same percentage year over year at $81.4 billion.

 

VinFast is the 3rd most value car company in the world.  I think that is nuts and stockholder speculation although there are very few publicly traded shares.  But the value is there because it is EV, ICE vehicle revenue is worthless to an investor.

Mercedes slots below them because they have 5 EV's on market now and something like 14% of global Mercedes sales are EV and it is quickly rising.  Mercedes also is making over $11,000 per car profit first half of 2023 when BMW and Tesla are around $5-6,000 per car and are the next best.  Profit margin and EV has them up there.  

Volkswagen has size and and EV push going that has them as 5th most valuable, but their EV's aren't any good, the Taycan Turbo S for $200k gets smoked by the newly prices $89,900 Model S Plaid.  If the Bentley-Lamborghini-Porsche money printing machine ever stops they could be in some trouble.  

 

Back to the Escalade though, I think GM should kill the ICE Escalade and every other ICE Cadillac at the end of their current life cycles.  Time to sink or swim going all EV with that brand.

[G. David Felt]

On 9/1/2023 at 4:30 PM, smk4565 said:

VinFast is the 3rd most value car company in the world.  I think that is nuts and stockholder speculation although there are very few publicly traded shares.  But the value is there because it is EV, ICE vehicle revenue is worthless to an investor.

Mercedes slots below them because they have 5 EV's on market now and something like 14% of global Mercedes sales are EV and it is quickly rising.  Mercedes also is making over $11,000 per car profit first half of 2023 when BMW and Tesla are around $5-6,000 per car and are the next best.  Profit margin and EV has them up there.  

Volkswagen has size and and EV push going that has them as 5th most valuable, but their EV's aren't any good, the Taycan Turbo S for $200k gets smoked by the newly prices $89,900 Model S Plaid.  If the Bentley-Lamborghini-Porsche money printing machine ever stops they could be in some trouble.  

 

Back to the Escalade though, I think GM should kill the ICE Escalade and every other ICE Cadillac at the end of their current life cycles.  Time to sink or swim going all EV with that brand.

Based on your view above, Mercedes should kill off all ICE now and just rely on EVs since they are the best. 

VinFast is snake oil and has proven nothing yet, over valued by poker playing idiots on wallstreet.

Your missing the point on blue chip, long life stocks and investing clearly you do not understand except for worth more, so better company. ?

[smk4565]

5 hours ago, David said:

Based on your view above, Mercedes should kill off all ICE now and just rely on EVs since they are the best. 

VinFast is snake oil and has proven nothing yet, over valued by poker playing idiots on wallstreet.

Your missing the point on blue chip, long life stocks and investing clearly you do not understand except for worth more, so better company. ?

VinFast is for sure a sham, but there is money flowing in there, when no one wants to put money in Ford or GM except the government it seems.

And Mercedes should kill off every ICE car at the end of their life cycle, now the E-class is new for 2024 so that will run to 2030, no reason to make anything ICE after that with maybe the exception of a CLA/GLA/GLB that is small 4 cylinder hybrid for markets that aren't EV heavy yet.  

Cadillac can easily kill all their ICE cars at the end of their cycle, that is probably still 2-5 years depending on which model it is, and GM has other ICE powered cars.

I am not saying kill ICE sales now, I am saying stop spending money on ICE car development now.  There is no point in dumping money into a dying technology to just be farther behind in 5 years time. 

[Anthony Fongaro]

Maybe the styling will grow on me when I see it in person…but I’m not a fan of the rear. The interior looks splendid but like what Drew said, those screens can be really distracting and difficult to use.

[oldshurst442]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:20 AM, David said:

Just like how we have idiots in their rolling Coal trucks that ICE charging stations, you are right in that we do not have enough large data to know one way or another. Just like the Ship that sunk and the fires on ships that people are jumping to saying it was EVs that caused it. We have no idea if it was the EV battery packs, human error, human hatred of EVs that started the fires on the ships or what.

Yes, poor battery cell design can lead to fire issues as was proven in the BOLT battery pack recall. Yet enough also has been done to know that over all with less flammable fluids in an auto, EVs tend to be safer from fires than ICE.

Time will prove this out and of course fire departments around the world are learning how to deal with an EV fire issue and like you said, the by-pass of the battery pack to make it safe for emergency personal to extract folks from an accident also help.

 

Id like to show you that I can retract certain opinions that I hold.

This is regarding the issue I had with battery fires especial in instances of accidents. I said that battery fires maybe a huge problem that maybe kinda nobody wants to talk about. 

 I said that there are not enough EVs getting into accidents to actually say that there is no issue for EV battery fires. I said that battery fires could be a huge concern.

  Your assesment of this situation is correct, Id say!   You said calmly that there is no issue...  

Mercedes Benz proves that their EVs at least and their batteries,  are safe in accidents.  

 

[G. David Felt]

11 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

Id like to show you that I can retract certain opinions that I hold.

This is regarding the issue I had with battery fires especial in instances of accidents. I said that battery fires maybe a huge problem that maybe kinda nobody wants to talk about. 

 I said that there are not enough EVs getting into accidents to actually say that there is no issue for EV battery fires. I said that battery fires could be a huge concern.

  Your assesment of this situation is correct, Id say!   You said calmly that there is no issue...  

Mercedes Benz proves that their EVs at least and their batteries,  are safe in accidents.  

 

Thank you for posting this, great video! Should be watched by all.

[ccap41]

11 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

Id like to show you that I can retract certain opinions that I hold.

This is regarding the issue I had with battery fires especial in instances of accidents. I said that battery fires maybe a huge problem that maybe kinda nobody wants to talk about. 

 I said that there are not enough EVs getting into accidents to actually say that there is no issue for EV battery fires. I said that battery fires could be a huge concern.

  Your assesment of this situation is correct, Id say!   You said calmly that there is no issue...  

Mercedes Benz proves that their EVs at least and their batteries,  are safe in accidents.  

 

While I don't exactly think there is a "problem", I also don't exactly think a manufacture-produced video proves much of anything. Obviously the manufacturers are working to avoid fires but this doesn't really prove that there isn't currently a problem. 

[oldshurst442]

7 hours ago, ccap41 said:

While I don't exactly think there is a "problem", I also don't exactly think a manufacture-produced video proves much of anything. Obviously the manufacturers are working to avoid fires but this doesn't really prove that there isn't currently a problem. 

Well...it just proves that Mercedes-Benz EVs are engineered not to flame up uncontrollably. 

Im surelike you, dont think the other EV manufacurers are not willfully trying to BBQ their drivers either, but my concerns about this are slightly dissipated knowing that at least with not only Mercedes, but with other EVs as well, that an EV wont just go up in flames when in a collision.  A collision that is at least calculated.  Calculated as in accounted for in a controlled collision.  

Ill be cautious about collisions that havent been engineered. Because sometimes collisions dont exactly happen like in the tests they do.  Same goes for internal combustion engines. 

 The thing is, a battery fire seems to be more intense and harder to put out.  And water just doesnt cut it.  And those two things are what concerns me.    And this is what I originally meant by 'elephant in the room'.  Mercedes just proved that a collision is not enough short the batteries to ignite and cause a fire.  Mercedes proved with this test that batteries can and are protected just as well as gasoline is in a gas tank in a car.  

 

[G. David Felt]

On 10/13/2023 at 3:30 PM, oldshurst442 said:

Well...it just proves that Mercedes-Benz EVs are engineered not to flame up uncontrollably. 

Im surelike you, dont think the other EV manufacurers are not willfully trying to BBQ their drivers either, but my concerns about this are slightly dissipated knowing that at least with not only Mercedes, but with other EVs as well, that an EV wont just go up in flames when in a collision.  A collision that is at least calculated.  Calculated as in accounted for in a controlled collision.  

Ill be cautious about collisions that havent been engineered. Because sometimes collisions dont exactly happen like in the tests they do.  Same goes for internal combustion engines. 

 The thing is, a battery fire seems to be more intense and harder to put out.  And water just doesnt cut it.  And those two things are what concerns me.    And this is what I originally meant by 'elephant in the room'.  Mercedes just proved that a collision is not enough short the batteries to ignite and cause a fire.  Mercedes proved with this test that batteries can and are protected just as well as gasoline is in a gas tank in a car.  

 

Just as fire departments have learned how to use gasoline foam to put out an auto fire, I have read that the fire departments are working with suppliers to understand the updated foam needs to deal with EVs.

My take is that like anything, we learn how best to deal with the new type of fires. Just like in the early 1900's when an auto did catch on fire, water did not always put it out and as such investment into new processes had to be done to find a better way to deal with a gas fire. I believe the same is here with batteries, new ways will be figured out.

Course like Mercedes, even GM is working to ensure that the battery cells have minimal ability to ignite. Solid-state batteries will remove this fire issue all together I believe.

[Drew Dowdell]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:16 PM, smk4565 said:

GM at its height wasn’t nearly as dangerous to competitors as Tesla is now. 
 

Because GM didn’t also own the gas stations, own the taxi companies, own energy storage and production, own data and AI, etc.  Tesla can make billions on charging, solar, robo-taxi, Tesla Bot, and AI.  Tesla also doesn’t have to worry about the dealers in the middle taking profit or putting dealer markups on cars or offering poor service to customers.  
 

Most of these other EV’s aren’t competitive that is why a ton came on market and Tesla still is rising in sales and still has over 60% market share.  I think 30% of the global car volume is very doable because no one else is going to make a car that does everything the Tesla does with the charge network Tesla has.

New Model 3 just debuted, Mode Y next year.  The Model S/X are dated but they just dropped the price.  The 670 hp awd Model S has the same price as the 288 hp rear wheel drive EQE350 as one example.  The Mach-E is a sales dud compared to Tesla Model Y.  Legacy OEM better seriously step their game up if they want to be here in 10 years.

Think of this, the top 5 most valuable car companies in the world are:

1.  Tesla

2.  Toyota 

3.  VinFast

4.  Mercedes-Benz

5.  Volkswagen

The ones down lower need to step their game up because I think half of the rest go under and half survive.

Stock market valuation has little to do with the actual balance sheet these days.  Tesla was losing billions for years and they had crazy high valuations. Furthermore, ever since Reagan allowed companies to buy back stock, all of the companies have been manipulating their stock value.  When it comes to Assets minus Liabilities, do you really think VinFast or Tesla are above Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen?

Weather reports are far more accurate than stock valuations.

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Stock market valuation has little to do with the actual balance sheet these days.  Tesla was losing billions for years and they had crazy high valuations. Furthermore, ever since Reagan allowed companies to buy back stock, all of the companies have been manipulating their stock value.  When it comes to Assets minus Liabilities, do you really think VinFast or Tesla are above Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen?

Weather reports are far more accurate than stock valuations.

VinFast is all speculation, but Tesla has $23 billion cash on hand, about 1/3 what VW or Toyota have but Tesla is smaller and with less debt.

Tesla has a ton of growth potential, Toyota and VW have already had their peak sales years and probably neither one will get back to 10 million units a year. And most car companies have hit their volume peak, so only way to grow sales is raise prices but eventually you run out of room to do that.  

[G. David Felt]

Make what you will of it, but I think Tesla is still way overpriced for what they do and GM and Ford are underpriced in a stock market.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

VinFast is all speculation, but Tesla has $23 billion cash on hand, about 1/3 what VW or Toyota have but Tesla is smaller and with less debt.

Tesla has a ton of growth potential, Toyota and VW have already had their peak sales years and probably neither one will get back to 10 million units a year. And most car companies have hit their volume peak, so only way to grow sales is raise prices but eventually you run out of room to do that.  

You're almost making my point for me.  Toyota has twice as much equity as they have debt, and they're net positive in the $100b range with $72b cash on hand.  Though they have low debt, Tesla is relatively cash-poor with most of their equity tied up in non-cash items. Net shareholder equity is only $50b.... so a market cap of $797b on net incomes of $12b is way into the speculator zone.  There is zero way to add up to a $797b valuation with those numbers.

[smk4565]

43 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're almost making my point for me.  Toyota has twice as much equity as they have debt, and they're net positive in the $100b range with $72b cash on hand.  Though they have low debt, Tesla is relatively cash-poor with most of their equity tied up in non-cash items. Net shareholder equity is only $50b.... so a market cap of $797b on net incomes of $12b is way into the speculator zone.  There is zero way to add up to a $797b valuation with those numbers.

And how much will Tesla make off charging stations that millions of cars in the future will use?  What if Tesla licenses FSD to other car companies for $12,000 per car?  If they sell just 1 million FSD software packages, which is virtually all profit, to Toyota or Ford that is $12 billion in profit for Tesla.  
 

The money isn’t really in the cars, it is in the software and services.  That is why Tesla is with 10-20 times more than these other car companies that are loaded with legacy costs and aren’t growing.  Many car companies revenues now are worse now than they were in 2013 if you adjust for inflation.

[Drew Dowdell]

25 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

And how much will Tesla make off charging stations that millions of cars in the future will use?  What if Tesla licenses FSD to other car companies for $12,000 per car?  If they sell just 1 million FSD software packages, which is virtually all profit, to Toyota or Ford that is $12 billion in profit for Tesla.  
 

The money isn’t really in the cars, it is in the software and services.  That is why Tesla is with 10-20 times more than these other car companies that are loaded with legacy costs and aren’t growing.  Many car companies revenues now are worse now than they were in 2013 if you adjust for inflation.

Tesla FSD is PR poison right now.  GM's SuperCruise is more likely to be licensed, first by Honda most likely.

Yes, Tesla will make money on charging stations, but as soon as it becomes profitable, others (who aren't under court order) will jump in as well.

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

And how much will Tesla make off charging stations that millions of cars in the future will use?  What if Tesla licenses FSD to other car companies for $12,000 per car?  If they sell just 1 million FSD software packages, which is virtually all profit, to Toyota or Ford that is $12 billion in profit for Tesla.  
 

The money isn’t really in the cars, it is in the software and services.  That is why Tesla is with 10-20 times more than these other car companies that are loaded with legacy costs and aren’t growing.  Many car companies revenues now are worse now than they were in 2013 if you adjust for inflation.

FSD is pure FUD with deaths and lawsuits to match. It will never happen with the camera only approach Musk has directed them to go as this cheapness is also what has caused the deaths and lawsuits. Until they get a real software/tech leader, Musk is a poison to the company now. He is too focused on his FUD X domain.

[smk4565]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Tesla FSD is PR poison right now.  GM's SuperCruise is more likely to be licensed, first by Honda most likely.

Yes, Tesla will make money on charging stations, but as soon as it becomes profitable, others (who aren't under court order) will jump in as well.

Not sure why anyone would want to license level 2 tech.  And that is just lines of code, easily copied, and Mercedes already has level 3.

Tesla is going to run off AI, having the link to the AI supercomputer is where the money will be at.  Much like the money in Google, Apple, and Microsoft is in the software.    And maybe Tesla won't license it to anyone, which gives Tesla a huge advantage vs others.

[G. David Felt]

6 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Not sure why anyone would want to license level 2 tech.  And that is just lines of code, easily copied, and Mercedes already has level 3.

Tesla is going to run off AI, having the link to the AI supercomputer is where the money will be at.  Much like the money in Google, Apple, and Microsoft is in the software.    And maybe Tesla won't license it to anyone, which gives Tesla a huge advantage vs others.

Tesla FSD and GM Supercruise are both Level 2, but unlike FSD which only allows 3 minutes of hands off driving before it goes into panic mode about putting your hands back on the wheel, GM Supercruise is actually hands free driving.

Mercedes is a LIMITED Level 3 driving up to 40 mph only in Nevada and California and both states have heavy stipulations. 

Mercedes-Benz Level 3 autonomous driving first to be US certified (electrek.co)

Mercedes Preparing for Autonomous Driving in U.S. With Drive Pilot Level 3 (motortrend.com)

Full paperwork for those two states are supposedly filed, but no confirmation and Mercedes says they hope to have all of the U.S. by the end of 2023 filed so 2024 the whole U.S. will have Level 3 self driving up to 40 MPH. Yet nothing is finalized yet, so right now Mercedes can only advertise as a SAE certified Level 2 with Level 3 coming.

Mercedes might get there first, but it does not mean it will be the best. I would not say a level 3 self driving with speed limit of 40 mph is anything to brag about.

[Drew Dowdell]

Plus, the litigation surrounding fault with Level 3 has not been sorted out yet. 

[smk4565]

13 hours ago, David said:

Tesla FSD and GM Supercruise are both Level 2, but unlike FSD which only allows 3 minutes of hands off driving before it goes into panic mode about putting your hands back on the wheel, GM Supercruise is actually hands free driving.

Mercedes is a LIMITED Level 3 driving up to 40 mph only in Nevada and California and both states have heavy stipulations. 

Mercedes-Benz Level 3 autonomous driving first to be US certified (electrek.co)

Mercedes Preparing for Autonomous Driving in U.S. With Drive Pilot Level 3 (motortrend.com)

Full paperwork for those two states are supposedly filed, but no confirmation and Mercedes says they hope to have all of the U.S. by the end of 2023 filed so 2024 the whole U.S. will have Level 3 self driving up to 40 MPH. Yet nothing is finalized yet, so right now Mercedes can only advertise as a SAE certified Level 2 with Level 3 coming.

Mercedes might get there first, but it does not mean it will be the best. I would not say a level 3 self driving with speed limit of 40 mph is anything to brag about.

The current FSD version 11 is level 2 and that runs on lines of code like these other systems.  FSD version 12 that Elon did his livestream in the car, runs off AI and the supercomputer interpreting what the cameras see.  Thus you can drop a car anywhere on an unmapped road and set a destination and the car can still drive to it.   And it is hands free, vision free, driver doesn’t have to do anything.

That is where Tesla leapfrogs Mercedes because FSD v12 looks like a Level 4 system and that could be out before Mercedes gets level 3 under 40 mph nationwide.

[surreal1272]

9 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The current FSD version 11 is level 2 and that runs on lines of code like these other systems.  FSD version 12 that Elon did his livestream in the car, runs off AI and the supercomputer interpreting what the cameras see.  Thus you can drop a car anywhere on an unmapped road and set a destination and the car can still drive to it.   And it is hands free, vision free, driver doesn’t have to do anything.

That is where Tesla leapfrogs Mercedes because FSD v12 looks like a Level 4 system and that could be out before Mercedes gets level 3 under 40 mph nationwide.

You mean this hot mess that is still in the experimental (i.e. buggy garbage) phase that almost got Elon killed? That AI based FSD nonsense?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/28/23848882/elon-musk-tesla-fsd-v12-demo-red-light-zuckerberg-house

 

You would have to be out of your ever loving mind to trust AI based FSD in ANY form! They haven't even worked out the kinks in their current self driving systems but you are sitting there trying to convince everyone here that this is the way to go and that only Tesla can pull this off (version 12 AI FSD)?

Edited October 18, 2023 by surreal1272

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

You mean this hot mess that is still in the experimental (i.e. buggy garbage) phase that almost got Elon killed? That AI based FSD nonsense?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/28/23848882/elon-musk-tesla-fsd-v12-demo-red-light-zuckerberg-house

 

You would have to be out of your ever loving mind to trust AI based FSD in ANY form! They haven't even worked out the kinks in their current self driving systems but you are sitting there trying to convince everyone here that this is the way to go and that only Tesla can pull this off (version 12 AI FSD)?

I watched about a half hour of Elon being driven by the car, he had to intervene 1 time during the part I watched, and it was all neighborhoods and regular traffic, none of it was on a divided highway.  Yes it is experimental still, but it seems pretty close.  I think Tesla gets to level 4 before Mercedes does and Tesla is going to be offering this on mainstream cars, compared to Mercedes who is doing this higher up in the luxury market.

[G. David Felt]

22 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I watched about a half hour of Elon being driven by the car, he had to intervene 1 time during the part I watched, and it was all neighborhoods and regular traffic, none of it was on a divided highway.  Yes it is experimental still, but it seems pretty close.  I think Tesla gets to level 4 before Mercedes does and Tesla is going to be offering this on mainstream cars, compared to Mercedes who is doing this higher up in the luxury market.

With all the lies of Musk and their BS FSD go ahead and buy Tesla and use it and give your life to being a beta test dummy for Musk as so many have died due to his LIES!!!

Their FSD is not Level 3 and will not be Level 4 as they have no redundancy systems that are required for those levels. Mercedes has a better system than Tesla and even then they are very much limited in how much their Level 3 in 2 states can do.

Tesla edits to give a narrow scope of what the product does, and has not shown all the problems with FSD as to why they never sell an actual working product, just you pay to be a beta tester which allows them to LIE about what FSD can actually do.

[surreal1272]

32 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I watched about a half hour of Elon being driven by the car, he had to intervene 1 time during the part I watched, and it was all neighborhoods and regular traffic, none of it was on a divided highway.  Yes it is experimental still, but it seems pretty close.  I think Tesla gets to level 4 before Mercedes does and Tesla is going to be offering this on mainstream cars, compared to Mercedes who is doing this higher up in the luxury market.

Again, missing the total point while kissing Elon's ass and trusting a system that is even ready as a level 2 system, much less level 3 to be run by the same AI that Elon criticized a year ago just so he could peddle his own AI BS. Go ahead and trust THAT.

[oldshurst442]

I think nobody even gets to level 3...

Autonomous driving is a pipe dream.

 

Wait until any system of anybody goes haywire, and this whole experiment gets shut down for good. 

LOL

Waymo has all kinds of problems and California keeps on limiting their testing boundaries...

LOL

Its criminal that ANY goverment allows Tesla or anybody else with this shyte.  But judgement day for autonomous driving is just around the corner...   Just a question of time when a real disaster will occur involving Tesla, GM, Mercedes or anybody else...  

POINT BEING... Aircraft after all these decades dont allow for level 3.  Automatic pilot for airplanes is the equivalent of level 2 in the automotive world. 

Drones are a completely different animal as there are NO humans on board...  So I do NOT want anybody mentioning drones to me. 

Although with airplanes, in the air, its a CLOSED circuit, and aircraft CAN fly autonomously, without ANY incidences, the systems in place are STILL not trusted enough.  The flight IS done 100% autonomously, but the pilots are ALWAYS looking at what the airplane is doing.   The airplanes are in fact landed by humans DESPITE the airplane being capab;e

Although  the article does claim that for airplanes...fully pilotless airplanes and flights carrying people is closer than it looks.  But keep in mind, with airplanes, the circuit for flight paths are closed.  Meaning, airplanes are programmed to fly in a specific flight path and it is predetermined.  There are NO variations.   Humans when driving do NOT at ANYTIME drive form point A to B.  They drive to Point Z and them to point G and then they decide to drive to Point X before they want to arrive at their original final destination of point B.

And all that is nice and dandy when the road conditions are perfect.  

And dont forget, airplane systems and controls are checked with EACH flight and maintenance overhauls are not only mandated but actually done at very strict and frequent intervals.

We are supposedly even today, to check are tires EACH and every time we get into the car and drive off.  

LOL

There aint NOT ONE son of a bitch that does that, let alone keep their car at optimal upkeep...  

Ive stated this multiple times.  And Ill state it a million times more. 

 

https://canadianaam.com/2022/06/07/aam-aircraft-levels-of-autonomous-flying/

 

Today’s level of autonomy

It’s well known that airplanes have autopilot. Even the 1980 movie Airplane! jokes about it, but in which level modern-day commercial airplanes are?

On a commercial airliner, nearly the entire flight is flown on autopilot. The pilots continuously monitor the computer to ensure that it follows the correct programmed course and make sure that all of the programming is in order. 

Autopilot systems cannot takeoff, so taxi, takeoff, and other ground operations are done manually. The autopilot is usually engaged a few hundred feet off of the runway after departure. 

When arriving at an airport, the autopilot is usually used until the very last segment of the approach. When the runway is in sight, the pilot flies the plane to the landing. 

Some planes do have autoland systems, but these are generally only used in poor visibility when they must be used. With a certified autopilot, some airplanes can land after an instrument approach in zero-visibility conditions.

 

[smk4565]

23 hours ago, David said:

With all the lies of Musk and their BS FSD go ahead and buy Tesla and use it and give your life to being a beta test dummy for Musk as so many have died due to his LIES!!!

Their FSD is not Level 3 and will not be Level 4 as they have no redundancy systems that are required for those levels. Mercedes has a better system than Tesla and even then they are very much limited in how much their Level 3 in 2 states can do.

Tesla edits to give a narrow scope of what the product does, and has not shown all the problems with FSD as to why they never sell an actual working product, just you pay to be a beta tester which allows them to LIE about what FSD can actually do.

I watched FSD v. 12 live and it worked except for 1 intervention.  And v12 is in a testing phase, it isn't on sale, so no one is test dummy for that.  v12 looks like the real deal to at least a use anywhere level 3 system since it doesn't need mapped roads.  And the robo-taxi they are working on would have to be level 5, and that seems to be on the horizon for 2025-26.  

FSD v.11 that they currently have is in no way worth the $12,000 cost since it is level 2, a lot of cars have level 2 systems for way less money.

[smk4565]

22 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

I think nobody even gets to level 3...

Autonomous driving is a pipe dream.

 

Wait until any system of anybody goes haywire, and this whole experiment gets shut down for good. 

LOL

Waymo has all kinds of problems and California keeps on limiting their testing boundaries...

LOL

Its criminal that ANY goverment allows Tesla or anybody else with this shyte.  But judgement day for autonomous driving is just around the corner...   Just a question of time when a real disaster will occur involving Tesla, GM, Mercedes or anybody else...  

If we had only self driving cars on the road, and no human drivers, and self driving cars led to 30,000 traffic fatalities per year, that would be an improvement over humans.  There are on average 6 million car accidents per year in the USA.  Zero chance in hell that self driving cars crash 6 million times per year.

[surreal1272]

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

If we had only self driving cars on the road, and no human drivers, and self driving cars led to 30,000 traffic fatalities per year, that would be an improvement over humans.  There are on average 6 million car accidents per year in the USA.  Zero chance in hell that self driving cars crash 6 million times per year.

And are you using Musk data to pull out these imaginary numbers about crashes and scenarios?

 

Your trust is this is baffling given the buggy nature of the venture so far but hey, gotta keep on cheering for your new lord and master right?

43 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

And the robo-taxi they are working on would have to be level 5, and that seems to be on the horizon for 2025-26

Is that the time horizon they are using for the Cybertruck?

[oldshurst442]

53 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

If we had only self driving cars on the road, and no human drivers, and self driving cars led to 30,000 traffic fatalities per year, that would be an improvement over humans.  There are on average 6 million car accidents per year in the USA.  Zero chance in hell that self driving cars crash 6 million times per year.

 

Quote

Zero chance in hell that self driving cars crash 6 million times per year.

LOL

 

Computers and sensors and all kinds of electronic dood dads break down.  Even moreso in shytty climates.  And shytty when it comes to computers and electronics INCLUDE hot climates as well as cold.   

YOU are asking simple minded folk to upkeep expensive computers and sensors?

YOU have that faith in people?

The average age of cars in the US in 2022 was 12.2 years.   The average in 2023 went up to 12.5.  

A vehicle that is 6 or 7 or 8 years old, YOU think that its in good working order?  Let alone 10 or 12?

Autonomous driving to happen means that ALL systems NEED to be not just functional...these systems, software, sensors, lidars, brakes, steering, tires... ALL need to be working 100% FLAWLESSLY. 

YOU have that faith in people?

When we have ABS sensors that tell people that their tires are low on air because they are lazy to check for themselves and the tech we have today even tells us WHICH tire is low on air and we STILL dont fill it up...

How many idiot lights are on a 6 year old BMW, Mercedes, Audi?

Are the brakes and steering on a 12 year old Chevy pristine?

YOU have that faith in people?

LOL

And that is one  aspect of when talking about OLDER cars on the road.   

 

WHO will be responsible to FORCE people to MAINTAIN their vehicles SO these super sensitive, super improntant parts are working properly?

In the aviation industry, every country in the 1st world have agencies like the FAA and keep a close check-up on airlines.  When an airline has an accident, NTSB makes an investigation and it it finds that an airline cut corners in maintenance...huuuuuge problems for that airline...  

The FAA ENSURES that airlines's airplanes are safe.   

Is thsi gonna happen in the automotive industry too?  

LOL

With all the dubious, nefarious, questionable, shady, corrupt people in automotive garages, used car salesmen, rednecked folk that redneck repairs...  

LOL

The automotive industry WORLDWIDE is NOT a friendly place to follow rules and regulations for safety.  

LOL

And THAT is when the vehicles are old.

 

The tech itself is untrustworthy. 

In the air, the planes fly nicely in a vector.   Not that planes fly straight.  Winds and turbulence knock the flight path out of whack, but its easy to course correct. 

On the gprund...there are far too many obstacles for that to happen non-chalantly.    

Our softtware is waaaaaay to buggy to have a consistant safe automation let alone to course correct smoothly.

In aviation, many accidents have occured and will continue to occur to add to comptuer strategy and knowledge.   Meaning many peopel have died in airplane crashes for that data to have been collected. 

In automotive, there isnt enough data and there never WILL be enough EVEN for AI to account for everything.  Besides, humanity will NEVER tolerate THAT many computer accidents to happen so data could be collected for autonomous driving to be safe. 

I could write more things about why autonomous driving will never be a thing.  But what I DID write SHOULD be enough for ANYBODY to understand that autonomous driving is but a pipe dream... 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

59 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And are you using Musk data to pull out these imaginary numbers about crashes and scenarios?

 

Your trust is this is baffling given the buggy nature of the venture so far but hey, gotta keep on cheering for your new lord and master right?

Is that the time horizon they are using for the Cybertruck?

No, 6 million accidents and 40,000 deaths a year is about the average for the USA.  

 

November 30th for Cybertruck!

[surreal1272]

36 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

No, 6 million accidents and 40,000 deaths a year is about the average for the USA.  

 

November 30th for Cybertruck!

Good grief. Not those numbers. I’m talking about these mythical figures you have saying that AI based self driving will somehow be better despite the litany of evidence to the contrary (and, again, the fact that Elon can even get his current self driving systems right, nevermind this version 12 nonsense. 
 

And November 30th you say? Now is that full production date (it’s not btw) or the slow roll out date that everyone else not named SMK already knew?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-says-dug-own-102158965.html

 

And I quote…

”Musk said that he wanted to "temper expectations" for the electric truck's launch, which Tesla announced would be on November 30.”

Edited October 19, 2023 by surreal1272

[smk4565]

19 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Good grief. Not those numbers. I’m talking about these mythical figures you have saying that AI based self driving will somehow be better despite the litany of evidence to the contrary (and, again, the fact that Elon can even get his current self driving systems right, nevermind this version 12 nonsense. 
 

And November 30th you say? Now is that full production date (it’s not btw) or the slow roll out date that everyone else not named SMK already knew?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elon-musk-says-dug-own-102158965.html

 

And I quote…

”Musk said that he wanted to "temper expectations" for the electric truck's launch, which Tesla announced would be on November 30.”

Yes it will be slow at first, Tesla said 125,000 a year next year, but I feel like that will be the run rate at the end of 2024, and the 250,000 a year might not be until 2025.  But keep in mind the Silverado EV production at Orion is being delayed to late 2025, so looks like just low volume of Silverado work trucks until then and GM sold 13 Silverado EV's last quarter.  Cybertruck could easily be the best selling electric pick up in 2024 even with them slowly ramping, F150 Lightning sales fell off the cliff and they cut back production on those.

[surreal1272]

10 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Yes it will be slow at first, Tesla said 125,000 a year next year, but I feel like that will be the run rate at the end of 2024, and the 250,000 a year might not be until 2025.  But keep in mind the Silverado EV production at Orion is being delayed to late 2025, so looks like just low volume of Silverado work trucks until then and GM sold 13 Silverado EV's last quarter.  Cybertruck could easily be the best selling electric pick up in 2024 even with them slowly ramping, F150 Lightning sales fell off the cliff and they cut back production on those.

That's the problem here. You speak form "feelings" instead of facts. Here is more of the facts starting with this:

 

"Economies of scale won't help bring down cost for a while. The CEO still thinks Tesla will eventually build 250,000 Cybertrucks a year, but said it won't reach that production rate until sometime in 2025 at the earliest."

 

 

That is straight from your man's mouth. 2025 at the EARLIEST.

 

Source:

https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-deliveries-begin-november-elon-musk/

 

Point here is to just stop it with the feelings and cheerleading and try dealing in facts. The facts are right there above so try it on and see if it fits.

[ccap41]

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

November 30th for Cybertruck!

Just in time to be 3 or 4 years late! 

Not only are they not the first electric truck, they're not the 2nd or 3rd either. 

They better come out with a banger of a product if you're going to announce first, be 3 or 4 years late and now they're the 4th in the category. Technically, 5th, if you count the GMC Hummer.