# Teslarati confirms high expectations



## Michael Russo

As Teslarati confirms, a lot is riding on a successful Model ≡ launch & delivery!! The 'upper middle class' is a demanding bunch... yet I am convinced we WON'T be disappointed! 

Tesla Model 3 has an important upper middle class audience to please
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-important-upper-middle-class-target-audience/


----------



## Red Sage

I am an American. That means I have no class. This isn't a feudal society.

The people who truly think that acquiring things allows them to trumpet their _'status'_ in society all remind of the folks that hang out in trendy nightclubs, who all remind me of the people I didn't like and couldn't get along with in high school.


----------



## Michael Russo

Red Sage said:


> I am an American. That means I have no class. This isn't a feudal society.
> 
> The people who truly think that acquiring things allows them to trumpet their _'status'_ in society all remind of the folks that hang out in trendy nightclubs, who all remind me of the people I didn't like and couldn't get along with in high school.


Of course, @Red Sage , I fully agree with you... just funny that Teslarati is in California...


----------



## Red Sage

Michael Russo said:


> Of course, @Red Sage , I fully agree with you... just funny that Teslarati is in California...


Many Californians are absolutely obsessed with _'status'_ for some reason. I don't know why. It seems weird to me. I'd have thought it would be more important to those in Chicago, Detroit, or New York. Idunno. Maybe it is a universal thing, and I just never really noticed how important it was to others, because it is of no consequence to me at all.


----------



## Michael Russo

Red Sage said:


> Many Californians are absolutely obsessed with _'status'_ for some reason. I don't know why. It seems weird to me. I'd have thought it would be more important to those in Chicago, Detroit, or New York. Idunno. Maybe it is a universal thing, and I just never really noticed how important it was to others, because it is of no consequence to me at all.


Yeah, I guess that's what they call diversity....everywhere... and that's good too...! Then we decide who we want to hang out with!


----------



## Red Sage

Michael Russo said:


> Yeah, I guess that's what they call diversity....everywhere... and that's good too...! Then we decide who we want to hang out with!


Yeah. I made my best Friends while in college. Those guys are still close and dear to me. I haven't bothered to go to any of my high school reunions over the past 31 years.


----------



## MichelT3

Let's please go back to the origin of this ramble about status. Which is nothing more than showing who we are.

The Teslarati article said: _"The Tesla Model 3 may very well become one of the most significant markers of status stability, with its associated components of having a college education, white-collar work, economic security, and home ownership. Soon, many upwardly mobile consumers will be adding "owning a Tesla" to that definition."_

The interesting point not being that people in general attach much value to status - which can't be denied - but that "owning a Tesla" is already seen as status by a large group of the professional population. An 'upstart' and 'deviant' American (which is not seen as an advantage in the rest of the world) car company achieving this position in a few years almost worldwide is a huge acomplishment. Evidence of the huge steps that Tesla is ahead of the other car makers.


----------



## BigBri

Overall disliked the tone of the article. I get what shes saying but the 3 is going to be a car almost anyone can afford. You can use the ride sharing to offset costs or just the general savings of an EV alone will enable the car to almost pay for itself given time. I think most of us want one because it's such a compelling EV, not to try and show off to the neighbors.


----------



## Red Sage

MichelT3 said:


> Let's please go back to the origin of this ramble about status. Which is nothing more than showing who we are.
> 
> The Teslarati article said: _"The Tesla Model 3 may very well become one of the most significant markers of status stability, with its associated components of having a college education, white-collar work, economic security, and home ownership. Soon, many upwardly mobile consumers will be adding "owning a Tesla" to that definition."_
> 
> The interesting point not being that people in general attach much value to status - which can't be denied - *but that "owning a Tesla" is already seen as status by a large group of the professional population.* An 'upstart' and 'deviant' American (which is not seen as an advantage in the rest of the world) car company [achieving] this position in a few years almost worldwide is a huge [accomplishment]. Evidence of the huge steps that Tesla is ahead of the other car makers.


I do not deny that there are, from a certain perspective, definite advantages to that perception being held by potential Tesla Motors Customers. Nothing at all wrong with having a product line and brand image that is in many ways desirable to those who can afford to purchase them. Mostly, I'm noting that the concept of _'status'_ is not a motivating factor for _*ME*_ at all, never has been, never will be. What this article does do is that it exposes something I had not considered _(because I wouldn't)_ and that is how others will perceive the purchase once I have the Model ☰.

A friend of mine chastised me for buying a Honda Accord EX Coupe a little over 25 years ago. He did so, because he presumed my reasons for doing so were entirely about _'status'_. He assumed that I was _'part of the problem'_ where Americans were buying foreign cars and abandoning The BIG Three automakers in Detroit without due cause. He also went on and on about unions and jobs and other stuff... I eventually managed to stop his diatribe and note: 1) I don't give a [FLAMING FIG FART] about 'status' and that if I did I would have purchased something crappy like a Mercedes-Benz 190D or BMW 318i; 2) That I did MONTHS of research before getting the Accord comparing a wide range of vehicles before making the final decision; 3) I grew up in what was practically _'GM Land'_ and was a big fan of Chevrolet vehicles in particular, but in all the ways that matter most _(price, fuel economy, emissions, performance, safety, reliability...)_ the Accord was simply the best vehicle available; 4) Certain cars were eliminated from contention either because they were ugly or only available as Sedans, when I wanted a proper five-place Coupe, not a 2+2 hatchback or luxoboat; and 5) I actually _'settled'_ for my *FIRST* choice, as I would have got an Acura Legend Coupe instead if I could afford it. Further, I pointed out that the main reason I got the Accord was that of all the foreign brand cars on the market, it was actually built in MARYSVILLE, OHIO and to my eye it LOOKED the most AMERICAN.

Sure, I get emotional. But I make decisions in a manner I consider to be rational. I have wanted an electric car since I was five or six years old. The WANT is emotional. The REASON is rational. The other _'status'_ cars the Model ☰ will compete against, from Acura, Alfa Romeo, AUDI, BMW, Cadillac, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and Mercedes-Benz are not vehicles I would even begin to consider as a NEW purchase for myself. I might have got a used Cadillac ATS-V Coupe, BMW M235i, or Mercedes-AMG C63 Coupe if I could get a good deal on them perhaps five years from now, had Tesla not come along. But now? TESLA ALL THE WAY, BABY!


----------



## Red Sage

Brian_North said:


> Overall disliked the tone of the article. I get what shes saying but the 3 is going to be a car almost anyone can afford. You can use the ride sharing to offset costs or just the general savings of an EV alone will enable the car to almost pay for itself given time. I think most of us want one because it's such a compelling EV, not to try and show off to the neighbors.


+42! EXACTLY. The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything about _"Why Is the Tone, Timbre, and Twist of this Article So... WRONG?"_ Yes. The Model ☰ has a tough audience to win. Yes. A lot of the heavy lifting has already been taken care of due to the success of the Tesla Roadster, Model S, and Model X. But even if some people have a mental checklist of acquisitions to achieve or arrive at a perceived level of _'status'_ that is a PERSONAL problem and has nothing to do with the product itself or the company that makes it.


----------



## MichelT3

It really surprises me what negative associations you guys attach to the term 'status'. Which in my eyes is nothing but a normal human emotion to compare ourselves with other people. 
Coming from people from the US, one of the most status oriented societies in the world, where everything is put in terms of money. "How much I'm worth" is something we Europeans would never say. 
Anyway, I leave it at this. I will stop posting in this thread.


----------



## Red Sage

MichelT3 said:


> It really surprises me what negative associations you guys attach to the term 'status'. Which in my eyes is nothing but a normal human emotion to compare ourselves with other people.
> Coming from people from the US, one of the most status oriented societies in the world, where everything is put in terms of money. "How much I'm worth" is something we Europeans would never say.
> Anyway, I leave it at this. I will stop posting in this thread.


Interesting. Goodbye.


----------



## Red Sage

Red Sage said:


> A friend of mine chastised me for buying a Honda Accord EX Coupe a little over 25 years ago.


By the way...? The same friend chastised me a couple of years ago for being a Tesla Motors fan.

He expressed his belief that I probably only liked them because of the technology. I explained this was nothing new. I've always been technologically adept, but drivetrain agnostic as a _'car guy'_. I reminded him that _HE_ is the one that argues in favor of rear wheel drive, live axle leaf spring suspensions, with pushrod high displacement V8s as the epitome of fun driving. While I could accept a V16, V12, V10, V8, V6, Inline 6, Inline 5, Inline 4, Inline 3, Horizontal 4, Horizontal 6, Wankel... Front engine, mid engine, or rear engine... Front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, all wheel drive... I don't have an allegiance to a specific motor format, beyond preferring a normally aspirated ICE to a turbocharged, supercharged, or otherwise _'squeezed'_ power plant. Even with that, I don't really care what's under the hood, I care about _RESULTS_. I give credit where it is due and a hearty thumbs up to whomever manages to make the most of an engine design or drive format that others consider a dead end.

But I also noted that long before I knew the difference between a water cooled engine and an air cooled one, I had wanted an ELECTRIC CAR. That was nothing new at all, I had known instinctively since early childhood that there was something WRONG with the idea that you must BURN SOMETHING to make a vehicle move. I had been waiting ever since I was about six for someone to prove the concept of electric vehicles viable, and I was ecstatic that someone finally had. I pointed out this is precisely the sort of thing I had wanted, and expected, to see out of either Honda or Chevrolet, but they just hadn't done it. Heck, I absolute _HATE_ Porsche vehicles and I would have been ecstatic had they released something like the Model S.

I also reminded him that I, of all people, have always DESPISED the very CONCEPT of a _'Sports Sedan'_. So for me to sing the praises of a four door liftback _'luxury sports sedan'_ is a serious thing. He knows full well that is I don't like the cars from companies like AUDI, BMW, Jaguar, and Mercedes-Benz. For those companies most, if not all of their product lines have been primarily Sedans. I find those boring, stodgy, and often ugly. I like Coupes, Convertibles, and Two-Seaters. For the longest time the two-door versions of the German cars were just Sedans with two fewer doors. They were not actually Coupes at all. Until the Model S, I held firmly that the term _'Sports Sedan'_ was a misnomer, a waste of time and money at best. It has been the first full sized Sedan I have seen that lived up to the hype, while being quiet, powerful, and efficient.

Once again he went on a tirade about how Fremont didn't have a unionized workforce... To which I noted that Tesla has been open to a union since day one, but the UAW has never been able to convince employees to join. I explained Tesla even granted the UAW an office on the premises. Having been there since 2010, no dice. Mostly because the employees are perfectly happy to work there and are treated well. Basically, the employees share the same feelings about unions as I do, that in a modern society they aren't needed much because smart companies realize that happy employees do better work. Companies get the unions they deserve. Tesla has a strict _'NO @$$#0L3$'_ hiring policy, so employees don't have to worry about being harassed and treated unfairly by supervisors or management. Sure, some companies may do well with @$$wipes in charge, but that happens DESPITE their actions, not _BECAUSE_ of them.

He said that he wasn't impressed with the interior of the Model S. Said he thought it wasn't appropriate for the amount the car costs. I reminded him I have NEVER been a _'luxury car'_ guy. I don't care about that stuff, never have. The interiors of cars are naught more than window dressing. You can make any car look any way you like, as they are basically the same beneath the thin veneer of _'luxury'_ features. Point of order: Cadillac Cimarron versus Chevrolet Citation; or Toyota Camry versus Lexus ES.

He said that it was _EASY_ to make _'an expensive electric car'_ and that _'anybody could do it'_. I said that if it is so _'easy'_ why haven't Cadillac, Lincoln, Chrysler, or Mercedes-Benz done so? Tesla has shown there is a market for awesome, if expensive, electric cars. Surely those much larger companies could show them how to do it right, and thereby BETTER. Right? At the very least, there should be a fully electric long range Buick Electra to challenge Tesla's position among American automakers.

He stated that he would be more impressed if Tesla had come out with an inexpensive car, around $25,000 that _'anybody could buy'_ instead. That would prove to him that they knew what they were doing, by getting into the mix and fighting real competition on all sides. I noted that Elon's goal from the outset has been to make electric cars ubiquitous and affordable. I mentioned the Tesla Master Plan had been written six years before the Model S launched. How it had outlined the progression from a high end, low volume sports car to a mid-level high volume car, and how the Model S was just the second stage of the three phase plan. I noted that Elon's pitch was originally for the exact same dollar amount as a target that he himself had specified: $25,000. But that as cars had become more expensive overall _(the average price of a new car then was right about $31,000 then)_ that had increased to $35,000 and the Tesla Generation III vehicle was due to arrive in 2017.

He poo-pooed the Performance aspects of the Model S. This was before the _'D'_ had arrived. Somehow, it didn't matter to him that the numbers were better for the Model S P85 than for AUDI, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz flagship vehicles. And sometime later, after seeing my posts about Tesla on Facebook, we had a long conversation there where I deflected each of his criticisms with solid facts.

It turned out though, that the bottom line was not that he had a problem with Tesla, or their cars, so much as he didn't like Elon Musk. He felt that he had been too loud, boisterous, and arrogant while also being disrespectful to established traditional automobile manufacturers. I thought that was curious, because honestly, in all the time I had ever known him the people he most admired were all loud, boisterous, and arrogant... disrespectful of any and all who disagreed with them. You know, like STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN or The ROCK. I pointed out I had seen video of where both Elon Musk and Bob Lutz had been on the _Charlie Rose_ show and Elon had expressed deep respect for Bob and his accomplishments in the automobile industry. And ultimately, you aren't arrogant if you can DO it. Elon does what he says he will, even in the face of a multitude of doubters. I like that.

For all of this, he refused to watch any video that would prove him wrong. Didn't want to see any direct comparisons on my computer as to Performance, Range, or any other statistics. He had already formed his opinion and wanted to stick to it. So I let him. I strongly believe that if the Model S had Cadillac badges on it, but was entirely manufactured by Tesla Motors, he'd be its biggest fan. But I did decide that when I get my Tesla he will not be allowed to drive it. Ever. I won't even let him sit in the front seat. That way he won't have to risk changing his mind.


----------



## Jayc

Red Sage said:


> By the way...? The same friend chastised me a couple of years ago for being a Tesla Motors fan.
> 
> He expressed his belief that I probably only liked them because of the technology. I explained this was nothing new. I've always been technologically adept, but drivetrain agnostic as a _'car guy'_. I reminded him that _HE_ is the one that argues in favor of rear wheel drive, live axle leaf spring suspensions, with pushrod high displacement V8s as the epitome of fun driving. While I could accept a V16, V12, V10, V8, V6, Inline 6, Inline 5, Inline 4, Inline 3, Horizontal 4, Horizontal 6, Wankel... Front engine, mid engine, or rear engine... Front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, all wheel drive... I don't have an allegiance to a specific motor format, beyond preferring a normally aspirated ICE to a turbocharged, supercharged, or otherwise _'squeezed'_ power plant. Even with that, I don't really care what's under the hood, I care about _RESULTS_. I give credit where it is due and a hearty thumbs up to whomever manages to make the most of an engine design or drive format that others consider a dead end.
> 
> But I also noted that long before I knew the difference between a water cooled engine and an air cooled one, I had wanted an ELECTRIC CAR. That was nothing new at all, I had known instinctively since early childhood that there was something WRONG with the idea that you must BURN SOMETHING to make a vehicle move. I had been waiting ever since I was about six for someone to prove the concept of electric vehicles viable, and I was ecstatic that someone finally had. I pointed out this is precisely the sort of thing I had wanted, and expected, to see out of either Honda or Chevrolet, but they just hadn't done it. Heck, I absolute _HATE_ Porsche vehicles and I would have been ecstatic had they released something like the Model S.
> 
> I also reminded him that I, of all people, have always DESPISED the very CONCEPT of a _'Sports Sedan'_. So for me to sing the praises of a four door liftback _'luxury sports sedan'_ is a serious thing. He knows full well that is I don't like the cars from companies like AUDI, BMW, Jaguar, and Mercedes-Benz. For those companies most, if not all of their product lines have been primarily Sedans. I find those boring, stodgy, and often ugly. I like Coupes, Convertibles, and Two-Seaters. For the longest time the two-door versions of the German cars were just Sedans with two fewer doors. They were not actually Coupes at all. Until the Model S, I held firmly that the term _'Sports Sedan'_ was a misnomer, a waste of time and money at best. It has been the first full sized Sedan I have seen that lived up to the hype, while being quiet, powerful, and efficient.
> 
> Once again he went on a tirade about how Fremont didn't have a unionized workforce... To which I noted that Tesla has been open to a union since day one, but the UAW has never been able to convince employees to join. I explained Tesla even granted the UAW an office on the premises. Having been there since 2010, no dice. Mostly because the employees are perfectly happy to work there and are treated well. Basically, the employees share the same feelings about unions as I do, that in a modern society they aren't needed much because smart companies realize that happy employees do better work. Companies get the unions they deserve. Tesla has a strict _'NO @$$#0L3$'_ hiring policy, so employees don't have to worry about being harassed and treated unfairly by supervisors or management. Sure, some companies may do well with @$$wipes in charge, but that happens DESPITE their actions, not _BECAUSE_ of them.
> 
> He said that he wasn't impressed with the interior of the Model S. Said he thought it wasn't appropriate for the amount the car costs. I reminded him I have NEVER been a _'luxury car'_ guy. I don't care about that stuff, never have. The interiors of cars are naught more than window dressing. You can make any car look any way you like, as they are basically the same beneath the thin veneer of _'luxury'_ features. Point of order: Cadillac Cimarron versus Chevrolet Citation; or Toyota Camry versus Lexus ES.
> 
> He said that it was _EASY_ to make _'an expensive electric car'_ and that _'anybody could do it'_. I said that if it is so _'easy'_ why haven't Cadillac, Lincoln, Chrysler, or Mercedes-Benz done so? Tesla has shown there is a market for awesome, if expensive, electric cars. Surely those much larger companies could show them how to do it right, and thereby BETTER. Right? At the very least, there should be a fully electric long range Buick Electra to challenge Tesla's position among American automakers.
> 
> He stated that he would be more impressed if Tesla had come out with an inexpensive car, around $25,000 that _'anybody could buy'_ instead. That would prove to him that they knew what they were doing, by getting into the mix and fighting real competition on all sides. I noted that Elon's goal from the outset has been to make electric cars ubiquitous and affordable. I mentioned the Tesla Master Plan had been written six years before the Model S launched. How it had outlined the progression from a high end, low volume sports car to a mid-level high volume car, and how the Model S was just the second stage of the three phase plan. I noted that Elon's pitch was originally for the exact same dollar amount as a target that he himself had specified: $25,000. But that as cars had become more expensive overall _(the average price of a new car then was right about $31,000 then)_ that had increased to $35,000 and the Tesla Generation III vehicle was due to arrive in 2017.
> 
> He poo-pooed the Performance aspects of the Model S. This was before the _'D'_ had arrived. Somehow, it didn't matter to him that the numbers were better for the Model S P85 than for AUDI, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz flagship vehicles. And sometime later, after seeing my posts about Tesla on Facebook, we had a long conversation there where I deflected each of his criticisms with solid facts.
> 
> It turned out though, that the bottom line was not that he had a problem with Tesla, or their cars, so much as he didn't like Elon Musk. He felt that he had been too loud, boisterous, and arrogant while also being disrespectful to established traditional automobile manufacturers. I thought that was curious, because honestly, in all the time I had ever known him the people he most admired were all loud, boisterous, and arrogant... disrespectful of any and all who disagreed with them. You know, like STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN or The ROCK. I pointed out I had seen video of where both Elon Musk and Bob Lutz had been on the _Charlie Rose_ show and Elon had expressed deep respect for Bob and his accomplishments in the automobile industry. And ultimately, you aren't arrogant if you can DO it. Elon does what he says he will, even in the face of a multitude of doubters. I like that.
> 
> For all of this, he refused to watch any video that would prove him wrong. Didn't want to see any direct comparisons on my computer as to Performance, Range, or any other statistics. He had already formed his opinion and wanted to stick to it. So I let him. I strongly believe that if the Model S had Cadillac badges on it, but was entirely manufactured by Tesla Motors, he'd be its biggest fan. But I did decide that when I get my Tesla he will not be allowed to drive it. Ever. I won't even let him sit in the front seat. That way he won't have to risk changing his mind.


I'd say let him sit on his poo poo and once you get your Model 3, don't even bother explaining to him how good it is. I've seen many of these characters and most of them thrive on dismissing EVs and especially Tesla. The more you try to convince him, the more he gets a kick out of it by not allowing you to correct his misinformed view. If you look at it from his perspective, if he surrenders to your point of view, from that day onward he will have nothing left. Everything he ever stood for will be lost and he will become a nobody so he will try all he can to stand his ground. So there you go, the human mind works in very fascinating ways and when you know that, you are on top of the world


----------



## Red Sage

Jayc said:


> I'd say let him sit on his poo poo and once you get your Model 3, don't even bother explaining to him how good it is. I've seen many of these characters and most of them thrive on dismissing EVs and especially Tesla. The more you try to convince him, the more he gets a kick out of it by not allowing you to correct his misinformed view. If you look at it from his perspective, if he surrenders to your point of view, from that day onward he will have nothing left. Everything he ever stood for will be lost and he will become a nobody so he will try all he can to stand his ground. So there you go, the human mind works in very fascinating ways and when you know that, you are on top of the world


Exactly. This is why I have taken to saying that if you want me to cheer for ICE again, things will have to change. Give me that instant torque. Give me immediate acceleration. Give me zero emissions. Give me 100+ MPG.

Surely, someone could construct a 1.5 liter 12-cylinder 60 valve quad-cam VTEC engine with an 18,000 RPM redline that can be dropped into a Civic and run circles around a Model ☰, right? Low displacement, multicam, fuel injection, variable valve timing and lift, high RPM... That should make for smooth, quiet, efficient operation with snappy acceleration and tremendous fuel economy, right? You could even throw a couple of superchargers and quad turbos on it for good measure, complete with intercoolers.

The problem is, when it comes to ICE, all the _'tricks'_ are over and done with. There is nothing new that can be done to improve them. Even hybrid technology only manages to improve overall fuel economy of Midsize cars to about where a Honda CR-X HF was 25+ years ago. All they can do is use the technologies they used to hold back for higher end cars _(multicams, turbos, superchargers, etc)_ and use them on everything.

They can't make the cars lighter in weight because market demands for crash testing require you be able to get an IIHS Top Safety Pick rating -- without passengers wearing helmets and using five point seat belts. Tesla has proven that weight reduction is not so big a deal for an electric vehicle as it is for an ICE, due to the instantaneous torque. And after decades of being told _'bigger is better'_ it would be hard as [FLOCK] to convince the public at large to accept a barebones interior with exposed tube frame construction in a Camry just to reach 100 MPG. For those that insist they must have an ICE for _'fun'_ driving on the weekends, they can go to the track and pay well for the privilege, while the rest of that vintage technology sits in a museum somewhere.

Because what the EV Naysayers most sternly refuse to admit is that they will improve, dramatically. They will only get better with time, and pretty much all of the points in the favor of ICE, no matter how ridiculous they may be will eventually be overcome. There's no way to stop it. Range will increase. Battery packs will have higher capacity. Resistance to temperature change will not be a problem. It doesn't matter that the best of the best ICE is _'better'_ than the worst of the worst EV at this point in time, because this is the end of the line for ICE, and just the beginning for EV.


----------



## Jayc

That's a great point you make @Red Sage, at this point in time we are looking at the best(end) of ICE vs the possibly worst (infancy) of EV and EV is already winning. I say Elon deserves the very best of success for making the EV motoring a true reality for us.


----------



## Red Sage

Red Sage said:


> Because what the EV Naysayers most sternly refuse to admit is that they will improve, dramatically. They will only get better with time, and pretty much all of the points in the favor of ICE, no matter how ridiculous they may be will eventually be overcome. There's no way to stop it.


Well, I guess they do admit it, just not in a direct, conscious manner. Because their argument is always something to the effect of, _"Electric vehicles are not ready for prime time... YET."_ This is typically phrased as a determination that for whatever trumped up reason an electric vehicle cannot do some specific task that they personally believe can only be accomplished by an ICE. They don't realize that by including the word _'yet'_ they are giving an admission that even their fringe element pet peeve case may be, as they continually move the goalposts time-after-time, eventually electric vehicles will burst through that barrier too. It is only a matter of time.

The thing is...? They thought that _'time'_ would be a long, long time from _NOW_. They thought it might happen decades later, maybe as much as 100 years away, and that they wouldn't be around to witness the transition to EVs from ICE. And, they thought that _'change'_, should it happen during their lifetime, would be brought to market by one of their well known tried and true ICE manufacturers. They never expected that some outsider would appear, so very soon, to dispel that dream of nigh eternal ICE dominance. They might have preferred it be Chevrolet, Ford, or Chrysler, and could possibly accept it being Mercedes-Benz, AUDI, or BMW; they would have been surprised if it had been Honda, Toyota, or Nissan... But all-in-all they would have been able to deal with it. Having such a revolution in automotive excellence come by way of a small upstart firm out of Silicon Valley in California just simply never crossed their minds. That is very hard for them to deal with.

And none of their denials changes the fact of how many benchmarks electric vehicles have already passed. Eventually, they just might realize that _'YET'_... Was actually yesterday.



Jayc said:


> That's a great point you make @Red Sage, at this point in time we are looking at the best(end) of ICE vs the possibly worst (infancy) of EV and EV is already winning. I say Elon deserves the very best of success for making the EV motoring a true reality for us.


Thanks, but I was really just paraphrasing Jay Leno. In an episode of his show _'Jay Leno's Garage'_, which appears largely on YouTube, he noted during a review of an electric vehicle that the last days of old technology are always better than the first days of new technology. That always changes though, always. Because as the new technology matures, it becomes far better than anyone could have expected might be possible. For quite some time, automobiles were still seen as inferior to horses, and there was plenty of evidence to support the notion. To my mind, just as horses were put out to pasture, much the same will happen to ICE vehicles. They'll still be used of course, for recreation, law enforcement, limited government assignments & military engagements... But mostly they'll be trotted out on the weekends for use by rich guys on a track or displayed in parades on a closed course.


----------



## TrevP

@Red Sage is correct about old tech vs new tech. This is a great talk on automotive disruption that everyone should watch.


----------



## KennethK

@TrevP , my solar installer sent me that link last week. It reminded me of this interesting video too...


----------



## Red Sage

Yes! I've seen both of those videos before, and love them from beginning to end! Absolutely required viewing for EV Enthusiasts!


----------



## Badback

Kenneth klemczak said:


> @TrevP , my solar installer sent me that link last week. It reminded me of this interesting video too...


This video is such a poor production that it is painful to watch no matter if you agree with the conclusions.

Everything about it is bad except the content and the conclusion. Bad lighting, video, audio, graphics and presenter.


----------



## Red Sage

Badback said:


> This video is such a poor production that it is painful to watch no matter if you agree with the conclusions.
> 
> Everything about it is bad except the content and the conclusion. Bad lighting, video, audio, graphics and presenter.


Which is why it is such a good thing they went with that content and conclusion!


----------



## MichelT3

TrevP said:


> @Red Sage is correct about old tech vs new tech. This is a great talk on automotive disruption that everyone should watch.


Really impressive. Confirming our / my beliefs. I hope there are no flaws. Because it would make the world a better place and much more prosperous in the long run.


----------



## Michael Russo

TrevP said:


> @Red Sage is correct about old tech vs new tech. This is a great talk on automotive disruption that everyone should watch.


Thanks, @TrevP . True must see! 2 things struck me particularly:
1. T≡SLA is _smack in the middle_ of the 4 key elements of technology change in energy & transportation, which will accelerate the net disruption...
2. They seem to be waaay ahead of Tony Seba's cost downward curve in terms of $/kWh ahead of Model ≡ launch, if I read the curve right! Wow!



MichelT3 said:


> Really impressive. Confirming our / my beliefs. I hope there are no flaws. Because it would make the world a better place an much more prosperous.


Indeed, @MichelT3 ... if anything, as Tony Seba himself seems to suggest, he may even be underestimating the speed of the disruption... no more ICE horses soon!


----------



## MichelT3

Kenneth klemczak said:


> @TrevP , my solar installer sent me that link last week. It reminded me of this interesting video too...


Extremely nervous and chaotic presentation, but on the other hand extremely to the point and very disturbing / exhilarating about the consequences.
Very impressive!


----------



## KennethK

I agree about the quality of that video... It was pretty bad. Near the end he mentioned the good slides of Tony Seba and said that he hopes Tony gets the whole picture. The guy in the video you could tell he was a genius like Elon, same way of talking and he had so much to say he didn't know what points to bring out.


----------



## Red Sage

I think someone may have mentioned that guy was banned from TMC.


----------



## Michael Russo

Last one before I call it a night... yet I can't pass on sharing this one with y'all on the other side of the pond... 
_Killer article_ from Forbes (courtesy of Evannex ) in which the writer expands on the concept of _disruption_ (which is why I put it here in connection to earlier posts on the Bruno Seba speech) to call for courageous _self-destruction_ of a major ICE carmaker... so, who will that be...? 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817479605359702016Good night...


----------



## Watts4me

That was a good read Russo. And a very true outlook on these auto makers.


----------



## Red Sage

I like the title and concept behind the article.

I had been hoping that maybe Volvo, Mitsubishi, or Mazda might be so courageous as to abandon ICE in favor of EV. I was encouraged somewhat to learn the entity that had purchased *SAAB* intended to switch its operations to *fully electric*. But with so many of the _'big boys'_ going with hybrids, ie _'electrified'_ cars, it has become clear that those that are struggling for market share won't be taking any so-called _'risks'_ at all. None of these companies has the ability to assess risk factors for potential benefit. They are all a bunch of followers, masquerading as leaders.

It will be awesome when Tesla releases a fully electric full-sized pickup truck to overwhelming positive acceptance and major sales levels.


----------



## Michael Russo

TrevP said:


> @Red Sage is correct about old tech vs new tech. This is a great talk on automotive disruption that everyone should watch.


More on Tony Seba's recent book:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/864399553818243072


----------



## Watts4me

I think it will take longer than 8 years. If I had to guess, I would say 15-20 years for it to happen.


----------



## 3Victoria

Watts4me said:


> I think it will take longer than 8 years. If I had to guess, I would say 15-20 years for it to happen.


Depends on what you are talking about. Few new petrol cars may be available in 8 years. Older petrol cars will last longer. Reduced numbers of gas stations will make a huge dent in people's willingness to buy new petrol cars.


----------



## TrevP

There's no way gas cars will vanish in 8 years. This is a multi-generational thing. North America and Europe will certainly move faster but lots of other counties will lag behind for a long time coming. Tony is great and all but he's delusional to realities of car replacement cycles.


----------



## Rick59

TrevP said:


> There's no way gas cars will vanish in 8 years. This is a multi-generational thing. North America and Europe will certainly move faster but lots of other counties will lag behind for a long time coming. Tony is great and all but he's delusional to realities of car replacement cycles.


I think Tony is referring to building new ICE cars, not about having no ICE cars on the road.


----------



## Topher

TrevP said:


> North America and Europe will certainly move faster but lots of other counties will lag behind for a long time coming.


Once Europe, North America, and China convert to EVs, other countries will have little choice. All new cars will be EV, and the infrastructure which produces huge amounts of gasoline will just collapse. Think of how many gas stations went out of business during the gas rate rise of summer 2008. Demand dropped by only 8% during that time. Imagine what a drop of say 25% or 50% would look like, and then extend that to the entire supply line.

Plus, of course, really undeveloped countries, will just leapfrog gasoline altogether.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Demetre

Damn!!! I just realized I will have no excuse to go to WaWa's anymore. I will have to admit I'm going to a gas station to eat rather than fuel up and grab some food due to "convenience". Just when you think technology is going to improve your lifestyle, it rips your heart out!!


----------



## EVfusion

TrevP said:


> There's no way gas cars will vanish in 8 years. This is a multi-generational thing. North America and Europe will certainly move faster but lots of other counties will lag behind for a long time coming. Tony is great and all but he's delusional to realities of car replacement cycles.


 I agree with Seba's thesis that the EV revolution will result in massive disruption and at a pace that few are anticipating. But his time line is completely wrong. To manufacture just the batteries needed to move to pure EVs will require massive investments.
This can be done by new participants (Tesla and new startups) or by legacy motor companies.
If everything goes to plan Tesla will rapidly ramp up production but initially this will be just a drop in the ocean. For new players (Tesla included) to harness the required capital, material and human resources to replace global ICE manufacture within 8 years is simply not possible. Can established players make the switch, then?
Cultural change within established motor companies is proving slow and difficult. Many will simply fail and fall into bankruptcy. Those that adapt will only move with speed when the game is close to up. The speaker in the video "Precisely Why the Tesla Model 3 will upend the motor industry", KennethK, Dec 20, 2016, Post #19 above, explains the established players dilemma. Their advantage of scale only applies to existing product - produce something new and they have lost this advantage. Worse still, they have validated the potential competitor.
GM's handling of EVs illustrates the legacy manufacturer's problem well. EV1 was an expensive effort to prove that EVs were not viable (ironically at the time they were not economic and only the dramatic reduction in battery costs this century have swung the balance). Creation of the Bolt was a curious venture. Distant from Michigan, the concept and production cars were designed and created at the Holden Design Studio in Melbourne under the direction of GM International vice-president of design. Interior and exterior design were conceptualised in Korea from where many of the parts are sourced. The limited availability of the Bolt suggests that GM cannot build it profitably - without access to Tesla's battery source this is not surprising. Corporate enthusiasm for the Bolt seems about as warm as the milk in a baby's bottle.
Some European legacy producers seem be making better progress in making the cultural and strategic changes needed but no serious volume production of EVs seems likely before 2020.
Established players will either attempt the switch kicking and screaming or at best slowly dragging their heels so cannot move out of ICE car production by 2025.
Will ICE manufacture be phased out by 2030, then? Possibly, but who knows. I do however think it will be long before the mid-century that many had predicted.


----------



## Dan Detweiler

Demetre said:


> Damn!!! I just realized I will have no excuse to go to WaWa's anymore. I will have to admit I'm going to a gas station to eat rather than fuel up and grab some food due to "convenience". Just when you think technology is going to improve your lifestyle, it rips your heart out!!


True...but look at it this way.

By then you can run down to the local "Zap'n Snack" and claim the same thing! Zap'n Snack will have replaced Quick Trip by offering fast charging and snacks while you wait!.

Dan


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

When Petroleum comes out of the ground, it is separated into a natural gas stream, a crude oil stream, and a waste/brine water stream. Petroleum from Pensilvania has long chain carbon molecules that make great lubricants, but have only a small gasoline fraction. West Texas crude have a heavy tar fraction, a modest gasoline fraction, but enough branch chain HC to be great petrochemical feedstock. Middle east crude have a higher gasoline fraction, and a lower heavies end.
These different crudes suggest that lower gasoline demand simple means the refineries of the world simply adjust their fractionating columns to produce more chemical stocks and less fuel stocks. I don't see the petrochemical industry having much heartburn over the loss of gasoline sales. They get to sell to a more profitable user.
Now the local gasoline stations, the fuel hauling trucks, and gas tax collection points will suffer. But the stations may pivot to sell electric juice and coffee. The tax man will find a way to pay for the roads. The truckers may have to find a different load to haul in a different direction, but only the tanks themselves will become obsolete.
The oil business won't be hurt, won't dry up and go away. It will simply pivot to other fractions.


----------



## garsh

AZ Desert Driver said:


> Now the local gasoline stations... will suffer. But the stations may pivot to sell electric juice and coffee.


Some will. Since most EV charging is done at home for local driving, we won't need *nearly* as many charging stations as we require gas stations. The majority will go out of business. Or convert to be only a convenience store.


----------



## Topher

AZ Desert Driver said:


> that lower gasoline demand simple means the refineries of the world simply adjust their fractionating columns to produce more chemical stocks and less fuel stocks.


I think the word 'simply' is inappropriate in this sentence, but agree oil has other places to extract wealth before it dies.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

Topher said:


> I think the word 'simply' is inappropriate in this sentence, but agree oil has other places to extract wealth before it dies.
> 
> Thank you kindly.


After having operated fractionation columns personally, I know how easy it is to adjust the operating conditions. It is quite simple to do. What is it about that word that you think is "inappropriate"?


----------



## SoFlaModel3

I wouldn't call this a car that "anyone can afford" because it's not, but if I suddenly think I have earned some kind of status by purchasing a car that 400,000 people have purchased I may be misguided.

So much ignorance out there.

Maybe as I have aged (and I'm still relatively young at 32), I have come to the realization that a car is for me and my family and not for anyone else. I am getting the car I want to drive and being seen in said car has no bearing on my purchase decision. For me this car is important because: I like the way it looks, it's "cool" from a techy nerd perspective, its safe (2 little ones will be in the back seat a lot, its fast (instant torque is fun!), it's good for the environment (because why wouldn't you want that in the end), and it's part of a bigger purpose (note I am a big believer in Elon and his vision). Nothing on that list suggests I want this car so that I can drive with the windows down and make sure everyone I drive past knows its me (though they'll see my Tesla grin anyway I'm sure).

It's funny, in college I had a relatively new Audi A4. A girl that I was interested in at the time dismissed my car as being inferior to a BMW 3 series that was roughly 10 years older than my Audi at the time. I remember that moment and realizing that in her mind a BMW was superior to an Audi, so even though my car was 10 years newer, had a fresher design, bigger rims, newer tech, etc.; in her eyes it was a competition of the tiny badge on the hood and trunk.


----------



## 3Victoria

AZ Desert Driver said:


> When Petroleum comes out of the ground, it is separated into a natural gas stream, a crude oil stream, and a waste/brine water stream. Petroleum from Pensilvania has long chain carbon molecules that make great lubricants, but have only a small gasoline fraction. West Texas crude have a heavy tar fraction, a modest gasoline fraction, but enough branch chain HC to be great petrochemical feedstock. Middle east crude have a higher gasoline fraction, and a lower heavies end.
> These different crudes suggest that lower gasoline demand simple means the refineries of the world simply adjust their fractionating columns to produce more chemical stocks and less fuel stocks. I don't see the petrochemical industry having much heartburn over the loss of gasoline sales. They get to sell to a more profitable user.
> Now the local gasoline stations, the fuel hauling trucks, and gas tax collection points will suffer. But the stations may pivot to sell electric juice and coffee. The tax man will find a way to pay for the roads. The truckers may have to find a different load to haul in a different direction, but only the tanks themselves will become obsolete.
> The oil business won't be hurt, won't dry up and go away. It will simply pivot to other fractions.


While the refineries can modify their 'streams', that doesn't mean that there is demand for those streams. Gasoline takes a very large bite of the oil production, and a reduction of gasoline demand will have significant effects on oil production. Keeping that oil available for more useful products than burning it as fuel is all to the good.


----------



## AZ Desert Driver

3Victoria said:


> While the refineries can modify their 'streams', that doesn't mean that there is demand for those streams. Gasoline takes a very large bite of the oil production, and a reduction of gasoline demand will have significant effects on oil production. Keeping that oil available for more useful products than burning it as fuel is all to the good.


I never had any trouble selling all the oil I could produce. The trouble was selling it at a price that covered my lifting costs. I had to pump oil out, pump water back in...and the competition had wells that just flowed into a pipeline. Production is price sensitive, so if there is not enough demand for petroleum-feedstock, then the price drops and I shut in my stripper wells. 
I see the local gas stations in a different light than I see the oil producing companies. Oil Production will not be hurt by EV Production, as there are too many places to use the oil. Gas stations will shift as customers shift - from selling snacks to ICE to selling snacks to EV (home charging is for Model S, local charging will be for Model 3). The folks that will be hurt by the shift is the gasoline trucking companies. They might have to use their tanks for Milk!!


----------

