I can't stop hurling... (Tesla CyberTruck Megathread)

[P. A. Schilke]

Hi Folks,

Ford Motor Co. response to Tesla:

Ford Motor Company has issued the following statement in response to Tesla's new Cybertruck:
“With America's best-selling truck for 42 years, we've always focused on serving our truck customers regardless of what others say or do. We look forward to our all-new F-150 hybrid coming next year and all-electric F-150 in a few years.”

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Sponsored

 

[DeathRanger]

Tesla does really well at certain things traditional car companies really suck at, but they still have serious issues delivering other things that traditional car companies have been doing as a matter of course for a hundred years. Financially they still seem more like a Ponzi scheme then a real company.

Agreed Tesla does have some issues. I think most of them are growing pains. Some of the complaints I've seen on Tesla forums are 100% first world problems. We've had no issues in 30k miles and 7 months with our model 3 besides flat tires and a winshield replacement. I'm pretty sure the stock tires are magentic because the amount of nails we picked up.

It does seem when people have issues they can't really get in touch with someone at Tesla to escalate their problem whereas if my new Ranger crapped out I'd be yelling at people at the dealership I bought from and it's pretty easy to run issues up the chain to Ford.

 

[DeathRanger]

Hi Folks,

Ford Motor Co. response to Tesla:

Ford Motor Company has issued the following statement in response to Tesla's new Cybertruck:
“With America's best-selling truck for 42 years, we've always focused on serving our truck customers regardless of what others say or do. We look forward to our all-new F-150 hybrid coming next year and all-electric F-150 in a few years.”

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

I hope the best for the new f150's. I don't think we've seen much for numbers on expected range or anything that would help compare them better. I would still expect a hybrid version to sell better than the full electric especially if mileage specs are bad.

If we use the new Mach-E as example for possible specs when they release the f150's, they're saying ~300 mile range. That will only be worse in truck shape and even worse if you tow anything.

I just really hope they do better than same car makers putting our hybrids with 20 miles electric range backed up by normal gas engine. That just seems like they weren't even trying.

 

[VAMike]

It does seem when people have issues they can't really get in touch with someone at Tesla to escalate their problem whereas if my new Ranger crapped out I'd be yelling at people at the dealership I bought from and it's pretty easy to run issues up the chain to Ford.

Yes, it's the "what if it isn't perfect" issues that tesla is really bad at. Parts & distribution is non-glamorous work that needs to be done, and car companies do those things and tesla mostly skips it. I'm not convinced tesla will remain as lean and mean and nimble and high P/E if/when it starts doing those things. And without those things, it really sucks if you need to get parts if your tesla is in a crash. Let's face it, nobody makes 100% perfect anything--so "what if it isn't perfect" is an important question in the real world. Heck, people were losing their shit when Ford took a couple of months to ramp up parts on the ranger, but in tesla land it's been literally years for some models, and they still haven't figure out parts.

I could see getting a tesla as a second/third car, but I would never consider getting one as my only car.

 

[Floyd]

I get a letter every month from Commonwealth Edison grading my use of electricity...demanding that I conserve if I care about the environment. They even try to shame us by comparing our electricity use to our more responsible neighbors...
Then along comes Tesla, telling me to buy an electric car to save the environment!

 

[Floyd]

Each one? No, of course not. In aggregate, they're over 5% of US total and upwards of 20% on some grids.

Maybe someday, but for now not actually true, It doesn't work that way
...at least not yet.

 

[RedlandRanger]

Maybe someday, but for now not actually true, It doesn't work that way
...at least not yet.

I was curious, so I did some googling. According to this chart (from the US Energy Information Administration):

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Wind is 6.5% of total US power generation and solar is 1.5% - Solar just barely outpaces biomass generation which is 1.4%

So taken together, they are 8% of total US Power generation currently.

 

[Floyd]

I was curious, so I did some googling. According to this chart (from the US Energy Information Administration):

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Wind is 6.5% of total US power generation and solar is 1.5% - Solar just barely outpaces biomass generation which is 1.4%

So taken together, they are 8% of total US Power generation currently.

Maybe true enough, but the caveat is in the loss of efficiency in conventional power generation due to the required cutbacks to accommodate the contributions from wind and solar. These losses are greater than the contributions... at least for now.
I don't claim to be an expert, and I'm sure you can't either, but there is for sure more to this subject than either of us knows.

In the end, a proper consensus can only be reached when all the facts are examined by all parties concerned.

 

[VAMike]

I see facts cited for only some claims!

 

[Floyd]

I see facts cited for only some claims!

So do I, that's about half the point.

 

[VAMike]

So do I, that's about half the point.

your point is that the facts that redland ranger quickly found and posted are more relevant than some bs theory that you floated?

 

[RedlandRanger]

Maybe true enough, but the caveat is in the loss of efficiency in conventional power generation due to the required cutbacks to accommodate the contributions from wind and solar. These losses are greater than the contributions... at least for now.
I don't claim to be an expert, and I'm sure you can't either, but there is for sure more to this subject than either of us knows.

In the end, a proper consensus can only be reached when all the facts are examined by all parties concerned.

I'm curious how you know that - that the losses are greater than the contributions? Do you have a source to support that statement? You are correct, I'm no expert on our power generation grid, but it is my understanding that most power grids have gotten MUCH better at dynamically adjusting to power needs and have gone to more (and smaller) generation facilities to be able to respond to demand quicker. The move to cheap natural gas generation (35.2% of total generation - the largest of any single source) has accelerated the trend I think.

 

[Floyd]

your point is that the facts that redland ranger quickly found and posted are more relevant than some bs theory that you floated?

Can you carry on a civil conversation in good faith? Your passion is admirable, but your vitriol is misdirected.
One of the sources on which I was relying was material published by Commonwealth Edison as it related to the production of windfarms across Livingston County here in IllAnnoy.
Those farms have been approved and continue to be built as I type, without consideration of your opinion or mine.

I believe that wind and solar will continue to play an important role going forward, but not without considering all factors pertaining to its development objectively.

 

[Floyd]

I'm curious how you know that - that the losses are greater than the contributions? Do you have a source to support that statement? You are correct, I'm no expert on our power generation grid, but it is my understanding that most power grids have gotten MUCH better at dynamically adjusting to power needs and have gone to more (and smaller) generation facilities to be able to respond to demand quicker. The move to cheap natural gas generation (35.2% of total generation - the largest of any single source) has accelerated the trend I think.

This is not an academic venue.
So, just as you have done above, I have submitted considerations based on accumulated knowledge in the public domain without asking you or others to cite sources.
Let's fairly consider what you claim....
Progress on dynamic adjustment to balance input and demand while conserving efficiency is being made.
This could not be accomplished without first acknowledging that the issue exists.

 

[RedlandRanger]

This is not an academic venue.
So, just as you have done above, I have submitted considerations based on accumulated knowledge in the public domain without asking you or others to cite sources.
Let's fairly consider what you claim....
Progress on dynamic adjustment to balance input and demand while conserving efficiency is being made.
This could not be accomplished without first acknowledging that the issue exists.

I only ask for sources because I like to expand my knowledge and like to verify sources of information instead of spreading mis-information.

Sponsored