Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but paid users have great benefits. Paid member benefits:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2024 SX, MX, and SMX series (regularly $30).
What are people afraid of?
And they currently have over 250k reservations already made. Who knows how many ppl will actually proceed to an actual purchase but regardless it is an impressive stat.
That would be like me saying all trucks should be abolished because Trophy Trucks get about 3mpg.
I believe Formula E racing does the same for EVs as Formula 1 does for ICE cars. You push the envelope of what the vehicle can do and use that data to trickle down a tamer version to the production line. And bring awareness to your brand. Racing is marketing and R&D. Nobody is trying to save the world.
And drilling, pumping, transporting to refinery, refining, and then transporting to the gas station, and then eventually burning fossil fuel absolutely nets you more harm to the environment that a battery powered car. And does anyone really think drilling for fossil fuels does not kill wildlife, harm water tables, and harm agriculture? I swear some people just think someone puts a siphon into a hole in the ground and out comes 93 octane for their car.
And if carbon monoxide is fixable and controllable why haven't we fixed it and controlled it?
We can purify waste water for use already so the argument of using all that water (which I doubt is accurate) is not an issue.
The electric grid gets cleaner every day with more renewable energy going live while processing fossil fuel doesn't.
Just to let eveyone know, nobody with half a brain thinks the batteries are produced out of thin air with no by products. We know there are emissions. Nothing is perfect. However, over the life of a car EVs are definitely more environmentally friendly than the alternative and as each year passes the gap widens.
The only person EVs don't work for are people that routinely haul a shit ton of stuff more than 100 miles or drive more than 200 miles a day.
There are about 2 dozen trucks in my neighborhood. I don't think I've seen a single one of them do more than haul about 10 bags of mulch ever.
Do I think this makes all ICE trucks obsolete? No, but to say it is not competitive is false. It is not competitive under certain parameters that are not typical of the majority of truck owners.
The Shop
I do not need to haul a trailer full of cattle or a 5th wheel camper half way across country. My needs are to haul a bike, load of 2”x4”s, some mulch, and the occasional mattress/bed springs kind of thing. There is a very large segment of truck owners with these same needs.
My daily round trip commute is roughly 100-150 miles a day. For comparison’s sake, my current truck is a GMC Sierra. Four wheel drive, four door, 5.3L Z-71 and towing package. It gets just over 20mpg in the summer and about 17mpg in the winter. At $2.50/gallon, my fuel price is between $250-$375/month. At my current electric rate, the equivalent mileage is about ¼ the price of gasoline, so $63-$94/month. I could come home, plug in, and have my range back in a few hours. Repeat the next day. When you factor in things like the technological updates that get pushed over the air, and that you will never get a door ding (my current vehicle looks like someone took a ball peen hammer up the sides from public parking), it becomes even more appealing. So for my personal needs and experiences, the Cybertruck is tailor made for what I need in a truck.
From a price standpoint, the Cybertruck falls right in line with the other manufactures. I don’t understand how people can look at it and think otherwise. When I bought my GMC, my “must haves” were 4x4, crew cab, and a bigger engine. It stickered at $49K, right where the comparable Cybertruck lands. If I were to go truck shopping today, I would be looking at something “nicer” since I am not a contractor with those particular needs. Anyone that has shopped a F-150 Platinum or a Raptor knows that you can get north of $70K really quickly, right up there with the Tri-Motor Cybertruck. Also, you can’t compare the lowest end Cybertruck to a 2WD, standard cab, 8’ bed “work truck”. That is not what it is intended to match up against.
I think people will come around to EVs in the future simply because of the performance, reduced maintenance, and vehicle longevity perspectives, for good reason. I wish the companies would drop the "environmental" angle (same for the solar market) as it immediately alienates ~50% of the population's interest, which isn't good for business development. We all need to be as environmentally responsible as possible - but not based on bullshit science with the intent of funneling money to a select class of elites. I still love the sound and feel of a well tuned combustion engine vehicle, but I look forward to what technology of the future brings. Just focus on making a better product/technology at a lower cost of ownership to market and business growth will follow (same applies to solar power companies). Simple as that.
there's no way to get there without the use of fossil fuels.
--> Is there really anyone that isn't a total tool bag claiming an entire car is built w no by product or use of any petroleum?? Come on.
Furthermore, EVs have many parts that are built off of hydrocarbon based materials (plastic parts, tires, hoses, etc.). Fossil fuels will always be needed to a certain degree - so they need to be sourced and processed as responsibly as possible
--> Yeah, it's a car. Built basically with similar parts as ICE cars except the part that actually burns fossil fuel. Again, only a complete tool thinks the entire car is made out of recycled coke bottles and hemp.
cradle to grave process to build any EV, its not as "clean" as its made out to be by the marketing folks
--> This is what I hear all the time as if it the car shouldn't be made unless it leaves zero footprint from start to finish. This is a ridiculous standard. I think the marketing could be clearer but even so I don't hear anyone trying to claim much beyond the actual "cleaner" aspect is from the fact it is NOT burning fossil fuels to go A to B.
Carbon monoxide is easily converted to CO2, which is an inert trace element gas that humans exhale in every breath to the tune of about 50,000 ppm. To think CO2 is a harm to the environment is scientifically laughable for about a dozen different scientific reasons. Legitimate scientists know this.
--> What humans exhale likely does no damage but just like anything in nature it is a delicate balance. I would think (and plenty of legit scientists agree) that adding the monumentally more CO2 from exhaust throws off the natural balance and this is what the issue is.
The biggest issue I have with Elon Musk and the main reason I wouldn't buy one of his vehicles is, the guy has become a Billionaire in his business before it ever made $0.01 of profit. Billionaire with a "B" without making profit - let that sink in.
--> Have you heard of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, or that small retailer Amazon... All those people became billionaires (or damn close to it) before turning a profit. It's not like he's cracked some rubicon and is tricking the system.
I have an issue with that. He's worked the government subsidy process to his favor and it has greatly benefited him personally, financially. I just don't agree with that, nor do I agree with govt subsidies for the oil and gas industry. Go out and compete on your own merit and make it happen, sink or swim.
The only subsidy he is taking advantage is the federal tax credit for buying an EV and that is for the end user, not him. And every single car manufacturer gets this. It is not unique to Tesla. He did get a loan, which he paid back ahead of schedule and with interest. Did you forget about the auto bailout? Almost all the other manufacturers got loans as well. Again, not soemething unique to Tesla. And I am not sure why you have an issue cause you use oil and gas all the time and you admit they get subsidies so why would you have an issue with any car manufacturer getting subsidy?
Having said all that I am happy to hear you're open to the idea but I can't get on board with your distrust of the science.
You may need the stainless bodies once the trucks start offering 2500 mile ranges and a battery life that could potentially allow a 250 million mile lifespan (2,500 miles X 100K charge cycles). If they're correct in saying that they can be recharged up to 100,000 times without significant degradation.
Batteries like this, connected to the grid and linked together. Could very well bring about a complete revolution in the design of our current energy distribution systems. With their ability to store excess wind and solar energy for later use and the wide geographic distribution of batteries helping to reduce the transmission losses, it could change everything.
You may one day power your home from your neighbor's car at night, while he offsets his electrical bill by providing both storage and supply to your local grid.
As for electric vehicles in general, I think that they are great for the people who want them (and are willing to pay the FULL price for them). What I am 100% against is people who don't want them, being forced to subsidize their purchase price through taxes. I also don't like the idea of the government telling automobile manufacturers what they can/can't or should/shouldn't build. Let the free and open market decide.
Neat rig though, and like I said, I think that this is the direction that Tesla should have gone. Then again, I am likely not one of Tesla's targeted consumers.
Pit Row
And for those wondering the Supercharger network that Tesla has built out allows ocean to ocean and North/South border to border travel possible. It's primary design is to facilitate long distance travel. It is not designed for daily charging needs. The expectation is that you charge at home every night and never need to use a supercharger unless you're actually making a trip. The exception are the urban superchargers. These are for apartment dwellers, house renters, or just for people that don't have some way to install home charging.
The chargers are spaced roughly 100-150miles apart (exceptions would be densely populated areas) and to cover the most ground in the least amount of time you should plan to stop at each charger even if you could skip one. The batteries charge the absolute fastest from 20% to 80% capacity and the car sends you a push alert when it has sufficient charge to make the next supercharger. If you use the chargers correctly, you only spend 15-25mins charging for every 90-120mins of driving. Driving the car to 5% battery then charging back up to 90% would take you about 45-60mins. Going from 90% to 100% takes another 25mins or so. So, you need to lose the drive it to 5 miles to go mentality that you have with your ICE car.
For the life of me, I DO NOT understand why GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc... have not teamed up and built their own nationwide charging infrastructure. This is the biggest shortcoming in features for the EVs they build. With their resources, they could crush Tesla if they teamed up and did this. Teslas use a proprietary plug so no other EV can use the Tesla chargers. However, all other EVs use the same plug so this would be simple to do for them. It would inadvertently help Tesla cause they offer an adaptor so Tesla can use their superchargers as well as all other public chargers.
FWIW oil companies that produce your gasoline essentially have a monopoly on the market so it's really not much different
It's much easier to generate your own electricity than your own non government-involved refined oil.
Hell, Tesla will sell you that option right along with your Cybertruck if you are that antsy about politicians.
I was just stating that this is possibly an even more politician-free option than oil. All from the same vendor as the truck.
Post a reply to: Would you buy a cybertruck to haul your ride?