• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
Overloaded caravans are dangerous. They are more likely to cause a crash.
Click to expand...
Overloaded, or improperly loaded...

Don't max out the (limited) payload capacity (check the compliance plate!!!), keep heavy loads centered on the axle and down low, and 10%-15% of the vans loaded weight DOWN force on the tongue as a minimum (and don't exceed the tongue capacity of the tow vehicle- and DEFINITELY NEVER have 'upforce' on the tongue!!!!)

or else...

Screenshot-from-2023-12-02-23-21-38.png


Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWkc6UIBTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhM9FZOW9rY
(both under a minute)

This applies of course to any trailer- boat/box/caravan/car trailer
(personally- I recommend not using the 'fixed' hitches found on many trailers- if the trailer flips, it pulls the tow vehicle over too in many cases (as happened in the first video)- use a 'rotating' style hitch (commonly found on trailers fitted with 'overider' braking systems... at least that way you only lose the trailer, not the car as well (4wd's in particular are very prone to rolling over when a van rolls with a fixed hitch) the one in the second video obviously had a overrider brake style hitch on it- unlike the first video, the tow vehicle stayed 'on its feet' instead of being rolled by the van...

These good...
Screenshot-from-2023-12-02-23-10-00.png

These bad...
Screenshot-from-2023-12-02-23-13-36.png
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Or perhaps there isn't any fraud and Musk isn't being 'greedy'. Perhaps the liars are the ones who insist Starlink is a ripoff without evidence.
Click to expand...

i can accuse him of fraud because he's committed it in the past and paid a $10M fine for it. he pulled a crypto scam. he uses every tax evasion scheme in the book. i don't believe anything he says, so private figures from their mouths are useless.

thanks for the rest of your post though. i would have liked the crumple zone explanation if you'd like to give it a shot. as far as i'm concerned until some trustworthy 3rd parties start taking a look at this stuff, it's branding and marketing info. i don't not trust you, it's at him.
 
dirtywick said:
i can accuse him of fraud because he's committed it in the past and paid a $10M fine for it. he pulled a crypto scam. he uses every tax evasion scheme in the book. i don't believe anything he says, so private figures from their mouths are useless.

thanks for the rest of your post though. i would have liked the crumple zone explanation if you'd like to give it a shot. as far as i'm concerned until some trustworthy 3rd parties start taking a look at this stuff, it's branding and marketing info. i don't not trust you, it's at him.
Click to expand...

Starlink isn't a scam. If anything, I would question whether its customers are paying enough to cover the costs.

Solar City was a scam and it's a fair point that pretty much everything Musk says is a lie. He lied about the Spolar City roof tiles. He lied about the release date of the Model 3, Cybertruck, Semi, and new Roadster. He lied about the development schedule of Crew Dragon and Starship. He lied about Hype Loop. He lied about the Loop. He lied about the Tesla Robot. He lied about FSD. He is probably lying about his AI initiative.

Up thread there is a video of a Cybertruck hitting a solid wall at 35mph. It looks like it stopped dead in about a foot, so he's probably lying about its crumple zones.
 
Starlink is a scam because it's not sustainable.
But like so many billionaire vanity projects, it's a scam on the company more than on the users.
 
Marcus said:
"pavement princesses" lol. True. Here it's commonly referred to as a cybercamino, for it's resemblance to an El Camino.
Click to expand...

Actually an electric modernized El Camino sounds pretty sweet.




___________________________________________


I don't remember seeing the crash test video before but seeing some aftermath. Now having seen the 35 mph into static test, there are some, interesting, things going on.

The front impact completely buckles the rear suspension. That means the energy is very effectively being transferred that far back along the bottom at the least. That can be a very good way to deal with the forces and keep the occupants safe...if the passenger compartment is breakaway. Which it isn't on the Cybertruck.
 
tyr_13 said:
Actually an electric modernized El Camino sounds pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

Actually, does anyone remember the Subaru Baja (wiki)? Or the older BRAT?

It was very similar in design brief of the El Camino. An electric version of that, with a better interior (I liked my Subaru, but it wasted so much cab space on bad design), would be a very nice vehicle for the electric niche of 'small pickup/snow friendly consumer vehicle'. Make a standard cab version with a full bed, and a lot of small shops/hobbiest/hikers/outdoors types could get in on it. It'd be pretty well suited to towing light trailers too.


EDIT: I'm definitely not the first one to think this.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Cite?
Click to expand...

On the fraud claim, the best I can find is that he settled with the SEC over a fraud charge at Tesla, without admitting guilt. Since the settlement included structural changes to Tesla's governance, the SEC probably preferred it over a conviction. He was also sued by Tesla's investors for fraud, apparently over the same allegations that the SEC brought. But he won that lawsuit, and was found not guilty.

Make of that mixed message what you will. What I make of it, in this context, is that the Musk-hate is special pleading. It is absolutely bog standard corporate gamesmanship to color outside the lines until caught, and then settle with the regulators before going back to all the other ways you haven't yet been caught coloring outside the lines. Musk is not a notable supervillain in this regard.

I think the real reason people hate Musk is the same reason people who hate celebrities hate celebrities: Because they're celebrities.
 
tyr_13 said:
Actually, does anyone remember the Subaru Baja (wiki)? Or the older BRAT?

It was very similar in design brief of the El Camino. An electric version of that, with a better interior (I liked my Subaru, but it wasted so much cab space on bad design), would be a very nice vehicle for the electric niche of 'small pickup/snow friendly consumer vehicle'. Make a standard cab version with a full bed, and a lot of small shops/hobbiest/hikers/outdoors types could get in on it. It'd be pretty well suited to towing light trailers too.


EDIT: I'm definitely not the first one to think this.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the Baja but a friend of mine had an El Camino and it was a beast, I think it must have been one of the ones with a 454 in it. If you stomped on the gas you could see the gas gauge move. I doubt it was 2.6 seconds fast, but it sure sounded better than a cybertruck.
 
jeremyp said:
Starlink isn't a scam. If anything, I would question whether its customers are paying enough to cover the costs.

Solar City was a scam and it's a fair point that pretty much everything Musk says is a lie. He lied about the Spolar City roof tiles. He lied about the release date of the Model 3, Cybertruck, Semi, and new Roadster. He lied about the development schedule of Crew Dragon and Starship. He lied about Hype Loop. He lied about the Loop. He lied about the Tesla Robot. He lied about FSD. He is probably lying about his AI initiative.

Up thread there is a video of a Cybertruck hitting a solid wall at 35mph. It looks like it stopped dead in about a foot, so he's probably lying about its crumple zones.
Click to expand...

to be more clear, which i should more often it seems admittedly, i said he was ripping people off. it's not necessarily a scam to do so (although the dogecoin rug pull absolutely was), but when you've got a trillion extra dollars after all said and done, it's just not posssible to do without ripping someone off. when i go to a vending machine and buy a sandwich and there's only one piece of ham folded over to look like a full sandwich in the display, i've been ripped off. that's how i'm looking at this.

if it's not a rip off, where is it coming from then? if spacex is barely making money, twitter is losing it, tesla is what? where did it come from?
 
dirtywick said:
if it's not a rip off, where is it coming from then?
Click to expand...

Where is what coming from?

Most of Musk's wealth is in the stock he owns, which, until he sells it, is unrealized gains, and might never be realized. Its value comes from the price that investors, not customers, are willing to pay for it.

if spacex is barely making money,
Click to expand...

Who said that?

Starlink probably isn't making money yet. Starship isn't making money yet. But Falcon is making **** tons of money. And they aren't ripping anyone off. How does SpaceX do that? I already explained how: by doing it at far lower cost (not to be confused with price) than any competitor. You don't have to rip anyone off to make **** tons of money. There's basically three ways: incredible volume, lower costs, or unique value. SpaceX is aiming for all three.
 
since you don't have a problem with my $20 water bottles after a hurricane example earlier i don't think your explanation is going to land with me. completely different view on ethics on this.

but i do appreciate you as a person
 
dirtywick said:
since you don't have a problem with my $20 water bottles after a hurricane example earlier i don't think your explanation is going to land with me. completely different view on ethics on this.

but i do appreciate you as a person
Click to expand...

But SpaceX's business model isn't analogous to $20 water bottles after a hurricane. They offering the same service as other companies at a lower price, and are able to do so at higher volumes for even lower cost. Of course they're making money.

Where's the hurricane in the launch industry here? Your analogy requires that SpaceX is charging higher prices in a time of increased demand. But that's not what happened. They lowered costs, while at the same being able to increase volume (the number of launches). The thing that makes this possible is reusability with (relatively) cost and high turnover. They are making money by doing the opposite of the thing you are opposed to.

Whatever your views on price gouging, they aren't relevant to the case of spaceX.
 
ziggaraut is refering to an earlier part of the thread when the topic at the time was the starlink contract with regards to ukraine and i was making a more general point about in which i asked if there would even be a problem with selling $20 water bottles after a hurricane, which he seemed to think may be a smart business move. i think people that don't view that as an ethical problem probably wouldn't have much of a problem with many of the other things i'm critical of musk about. which is fine, i don't expect many people agree with me on it anyway.

you can go back and read it in context if you'd like and it might make more sense.
 
dirtywick said:
ziggaraut is refering to an earlier part of the thread when the topic at the time was the starlink contract with regards to ukraine and i was making a more general point about in which i asked if there would even be a problem with selling $20 water bottles after a hurricane, which he seemed to think may be a smart business move. i think people that don't view that as an ethical problem probably wouldn't have much of a problem with many of the other things i'm critical of musk about. which is fine, i don't expect many people agree with me on it anyway.

you can go back and read it in context if you'd like and it might make more sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought we'd already established that there's no evidence that the contract for Starlink is actually overcharging for their services, and there are good reasons to think they aren't.

For what it's worth, I think there are good reasons to charge $20 for water bottles in a hurricane, it helps both to incentivize more people to bring water where it's needed, and to distribute the water to those who need it most (for instance it prevents hoarding, someone with ten bottles probably won't be willing to pay $20 for an 11th, but someone with 0 bottles will pay $20 for the water that will save their life). But that's actually not relevant here, because I actually would agree with you on the moral question if SpaceX was overcharging for starlink services in the Ukraine. Neither of those factors are actually at play there. But we have no evidence that they are overcharging, except for "Musk is bad in general so he must be bad in this particular way".
 
It's the rare reverse appeal to analogy. Normally you'd see an appeal of the form, "since you agree that price gouging on bottles of water in a water shortage is immoral, you must by analogy agree that SpaceX offering Starlink service in Ukraine at its usual rate is immoral."

But here we see the reverse. Dirtywick is arguing that because Ziggurat thinks that offering Starlink in Ukraine at normal rates is okay, he must by analogy also think that price gouging during a shortage is okay.

Either way, it's a bad argument. Zig probably ignored the water bottle analogy not because he believes in price gouging, but because it's an analogy, and analogies are a waste of time in these kinds of discussions. But dirtywick, like Fox Mulder, wants to believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom