Taycan't.

Haha, astroturfing gone wrong. Although I find it a bit weird I love how Toothsayer has the energy and patience to keep responding with quality to all the BS despacito throws out there. Everytime despacito throws out a jab, he is getting a right hook in the face, like if the bear case wasn't clear for some before, it certainly is now. I don't even blame despacito. He is doing a decent job working with what he has, there is just isn't much to be done in Tesla's case.

edit: P.S. despacito I'd like to bet on whether the Tesla robotaxis are a reality in 2020. I can be very flexible on the details of the terms and I'm sure we can find a reliable escrow that works for us both. 5k minimum bet for it to be worth going through all the trouble.

Have you even Finnished reading this thread? Do you realize this is not PLO? You can't just mash pot and rely on luck to win a decent % of the time. The robotaxis are secured.

Your insanity plea is secured.

In all honesty though thank you for joining this thread. Thanks to you I've deep dived and looked at the actual data in the a number of things where I believed Musk claims, like fires and accidents - and found them all to be bullshit and 100% the other way. I'm not sure why I believed a liar and fraud to begin with, but there you go.

Today a major consumer auto safety body is calling for Teslas to be recalled after the NTSB report two days ago, calling them unsafe:

How about just considering the possibility of ONE other probability stream in which different technical decisions were taken, even if you ignore the infinite galaxy of other streams.

Also multiple false narratives and post hoc ergo propta hoc.

You've launched a full-scale blitzkrieg*** on logic.

*** a loser strategy favored by your loser buddies at Porsche

Deft change of topic btw.

You're a magnificent genius that is somehow too ****ing stupid to post your source again and again. You're slower than a porsche and thicker than the toxic exhaust fumes from a VW (or maybe just covering up your lies, like VW management).

If you're referencing the firetruck crash...

here's one advantage they really have over other automakers:
they could just deactivate autopilot via over the air update (and add a few thousand lawsuits onto the pile, obv).

they don't have the money for a "real" recall.

According to the 10 year old child who just discovered philosophy and now Anything Is Possible if you just philosophize away what you don't like, Porsche could quite possibly have made a battery electric car work around 1900 and cornered the market if they had only tried harder! Never mind that quantum chemistry wasn't discovered for another 40 years, and the scanning electron microscope until 1975, or the advances in manufacturing needed for the cell design and packaging to achieve modern energy density.

You are the dumbest poster on 2p2 and I don't think there are many people who disagree at this point.

You're having a Musk-level meltdown here. Elon, is that you? Like I said:

You've got it backwards.

Innovation (R&D) goes where business wants it to go. It's that simple.

You make the mistake of approaching it as an inevitable and ineluctable process, as if business sits around waiting for scientists to figure it out (don't feel bad, this is a common mistake made by stupid, ineffectual people). The reality is business objectives drive the direction and pace of R&D. It's nuanced and there are decisions and discretion every step of the way. But that's the rough idea.

You're doing all of the following:

• overstating the conditions precedent to ANY battery (not specifically Li-on)
• underestimating the potential of large scale capital intensive efforts
• underestimating the potential for discovery by small groups of pioneers
• ignoring various possible scenarios and focusing on ONE only
• copy/pasting a high school textbook (to borrow your expression, like a "cuck")

Imagine WW2 had not occurred, for instance. Would your analysis differ? It should. Ferdinand Porsche's life certainly would have gone differently. He might even have had scope to drive the cost curve down on his charming hybrid EV horseless carriage (with lead acid batteries, which date back to 1859). Imagine the US went all in on batteries instead of the Manhattan Project.

You're not capable of doing any of this but at least scratch the surface, wake up, and smell the Li-on inferno that is toasting your marshmellow.

No it's not, or the ancient Romans would have machine guns for their armies and refrigerators for their housewives and secure radios for their generals. And people in 1950 would have computers made of transistors rather than house-filling vacuum tubes and could have built their AI.

Simple question. The transistor was invented in 1947, yet it took 60 years to make a transistor count sufficient to run the first iPhone. Why did it take that long? Businesses and government had thrown vast resources at computing power for both business and military purposes. Yet it took 60 years. Why?

The same is true for batteries - vast improvements across a broad range of industries and basic molecular level understanding were required before we could make a battery that could power even an iPhone reliably.

I haven't made any mistakes on this topic, you're just an utter ****** who understands absolutely nothing about the world or engineering, which is why you've said stupid stuff like "Musk is putting solar panels on his superchargers and unplugging from the grid". If you weren't incredibly ignorant, you'd know this was impossible, for example.

The world just doesn't work like that. Improving hard basic tech (like batteries, transistor miniaturization, solar cell power output, pixels on a screen, etc) has taken half a century or more each to reach commercial viability. And battery tech has been slower than most despite massive demand - it's just the nature of the medium, trying to chip away at halting the chaotic processes of basic entropy at a tiny molecular level you couldn't even see in 1950 let alone 1900, and even once we could see, took another 40 years to get an energy density that can run a car at even remotely viable economics.

I'm not doing any of these things...you're just such an facile dope that you doesn't realize that we've already run this experiment. Batteries have been extensively tried over and over and over again for a century and the pace of progress we have is the best we can do. Cars aren't the only consumers of batteries and in fact are a fraction even today - batteries have been a huge industry for decades, and currently worth over $100 billion/year. It's not like there aren't vast and diverse research efforts at making them better, because even small improvements are worth a fortune.
The Manhattan project was orders of magnitude easier than shrinking transistors or making batteries better.
You're not even capable of seeing the surface, your head is so far up your ass on a 10-year-old's take on philosophy (Anything is Possible therefore you can't discount my wild assertions!) that you can't see how reality actually works.

And here's the cliff notes, dickhead: The experiment on how fast we can improve batteries and make them viable has been run for decades using the best minds in the world with 1950s-1990s technology and a vastly larger and more sophisticated economy and understanding of basic physics/chemistry/manufacturing processes than existed in 1900, as well as vastly more research funds than were available in 1900, and it still took us 40 years to make a battery with sufficient power density to run a mainstream car in a way that made it worth running it on a battery.

Read the above until the wisdom (obvious to everyone but you) sinks into your head. The above facts totally and completely destroy your absurd claim that if only Porsche had tried harder on batteries in 1900, he might have gotten there.

The above is completely obvious if you're not a total head-up-your-ass dickhead, and I'm embarrassed for you that I have to explain it for you.

You angry Australian idiot. I know all of this and agree, and my points are all still valid. You're taking everything that has happened for granted, not only in our world, but in every other possible scenario that could have happened but didn't.

How basic are you?

My main point is you talk in certainties when you should be talking in likelihoods and you proved my point perfectly with your last two posts. You couldn't do justice to the various macro possibilities if you tried, but you don't even try.

They make your points completely invalid.

I'm not taking anything for granted.

Hang on a sec. You said this:
You're claiming here that in 1900 they could not only have capitalized on batteries (which didn't become even marginally viable for cars despite humanity's best efforts until around 2000), but that this view is so certain that it's a "classic example".

I explain in detail why that's not possible, and show how this experiment of trying to make batteries work better has been repeated thousands of times in thousands of places by thousands of genius minds over decades in vastly better economies with vastly better understanding of the physics and chemistry behind improving batteries, and that all of those events show that your claim is absurd.

Your response to this that of a particularly dumb 10 year old who's just discovered philosophy:
This is just sad. Your own intellectual incompetence is doing all the work here; you're a near perfect self-owning package.

Why not just admit your comment was dumb and wrong? This is a particularly hilarious and absurd self-owning you're doing here.

What I'm saying is not controversial and you're an idiot for debating it. It comes directly from a theoretical quantum physicist fwiw.

Quotation needed

He didn't say the theoretical quantum physicist was any good.

laughing my ass off if this is true



waiting for them to pay a ridiculous amount for another manufacturers's timeslot only to have the car go up in flames the first time it reaches 150mph

Yeah, he had to get ahead of the narrative somehow. I was actually pretty amused to find out how horribly Teslas handle high end acceleration. 400V was a stupid decision; there isn't enough throughput at that voltage to drive a high performance car without choking on heat. Porsche creates 1/4 of the heat at the same power and it's engineered better as well which is why they don't turn into road scrap after a few acceleration events.

The trouble with 400V is that you also create 4x the heat while charging which limits charge flow which is why the Taycan can charge way faster than Tesla cars.

Tesla would need to rework their entire battery system to change the voltage. Porsche got it right first time.
Yeah, now that he's been called out as a fraud he has to deliver something. Like my favorite poster says:
Indeed. I assumed they'd at least have a custom built prototype of 800V or something they could fraud out and present as a real Model S ala Solar Roofs and battery swap, but this is Musk so the chance he's flat out lying to get ahead of the headlines is pretty high.

Just reading another article about Nürburgring. Looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

Looks like they're shipping a non-production prototype.
No P100Ds in Germany/Europe? What a fraud show.

car/transport/track/driver/engineers
for porsche this is their normal testing of a new model - but is anyone of the tesla shareholders going to ask how much of their money is being spent on this stunt?

(rhetorical question, i know they won't. when your stock is at $30, maybe remember that these would have been the questions you might have wanted to ask the guy who is setting your money on fire.)

/the real car companies should just challenge him to all kinds of ridiculous and expensive competitions all around the world for the lols. you just know he can't accept a loss.

Can we go back a minute to where donotfairplay claimed Tesla doesn't lose much money on cars?

We could but they didn't make cars at that time.

Nice, that was nice.

I love that I can literally put my argument in quotes for you, and you still say my argument is something other than I quoted. You have to be doing this on purpose because you know I'm right.

I guess I didnt use actual quotes. I totally see how that messed you up. My bad.