This is Aaron Turpen's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Aaron Turpen's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Aaron Turpen
Recent Activity
Weather does not equal climate, Harvey.
So CARB extorts money from VW for causing air quality issues and then instead of helping the people that supposedly harmed, CARB then uses the money to expand its operations. Nice.
Lad, your miopic view is amusing. Cadillac sales are up not just in the U.S., but globally. And have been since the recession. GM has EVs.. the Bolt, the Volt, the Spark, and the ELR to name a few. GM is also the recognized leader in fuel cell technologies and just JV'd with Honda for production. Your statement that the ICE is "obsolete" is also hilarious. We have at least another 50 years of ICE dominance in automotive. Battery electrics currently make up about 1% of the overall market and electrified vehicles about 3-4% of it. Automotive moves in decades, not weeks.
Tesla isn't "years ahead" and certainly isn't actively promoting their cars as being capable of fully automated driving. Tesla has little to lose if their cars get into trouble, which is happening, because of the misnamed "Auto Pilot" system. It's called BETA software for a reason. Note that the promotional page you quote uses FUTURE tense, not present. You also poignantly left out the huge disclaimer below that which clearly states that IT'S NOT REALLY AVAILABLE YET. That doesn't even look at liability. Tesla makes a couple of thousand cars a month. Volkswagen makes tens of thousands. If VW put Tesla's systems into their cars and put it out to the public, they'd face billions in potential lawsuits and jeopardizes hundreds of billions in assets and tens of thousand of jobs globally. Tesla faces only a few million in losses and maybe bankruptcy and the loss of a few hundred jobs in California. I'm sorry, but given their track records, I'd trust the safety systems in a long-awaited VW system over the "F the consequences" bulldog approach of Tesla any day. Between the low reliability findings for Tesla's vehicles and the human life consequences involved, I think prudence is far more justified. Cars aren't smartphones.
@CheeseEater88 They do it for both emissions and because high compression engines have a tendency to pre-burn (misfire) if the fuel is not vaporized enough and injected at exactly the right time. The extra control over fuel dispersion port injection adds gives them a better burn rate. Which results in better emissions, lower fuel usage, and controlled timing.
If these work as expected, they'd be perfect for tanker vessels hauling oil, compressed gasses, etc. as well as for many very large fishing vessels and the like. As mahonj points out, not so much for most cargo and passenger vessels.
I suppose that this puts them "18 months away" from production like every other press release they've put out over the last six years has done?
What? An EV story that doesn't fawn over Tesla? OUTRAGEOUS! BLASPHEMY!
Obviously CheeseEater88 is the definitive source for truck ownership. And typical of most battery electric EVangelists. No clue what the real market wants, only what he thinks it should want.
Ya, Nick, that V6 is great.. until you try to tow or haul something heavy. Which is kind of the point of a truck.
@CheeseEater88 - GM did idle the LG plant a few years ago, but it's been up and running since mid-year last year and just underwent a small expansion to add another production shift. The Bolt is coming soon and LG is building those batteries. They also build the electronics in most OnStar systems. They're a very integral part of the Bolt, supplying a lot of parts for it.
(Insert inevitable Tesla comment here. Oh! Too late!) The LG plant is in CHINA because in CHINA you have to build there or you cannot sell there. Pretty simple why they're doing this.
Your post, electric-car-insider.com, proves that green car proponents: 1) Have no idea how automotive marketing works. 2) Have no idea what advertising's goals usually are. 3) Are clueless about who the target market is. 4) You think you have a superior knowledge of how to make a 16-second commercial people will actually watch.. but don't. 5) Can draw conclusions based on nothing tangible. The ad is clearly aimed at a younger market. Probably a lot younger than you. The Focus has sporty driving and a fast pace as its primary selling points in this BEV, unlike teh LEAF. Unbeknownst to most EVangelists who cannot fathom anything beyond their mother's basement, most car buyers are emotional buyers, not logical ones. You get people into dealerships by showing off the cool factor. This is why most automotive commercials (or any other commercial that actually sells) show unrealistic scenarios. How often does the soccer mom really "save the day" by having a miniature school bus at her disposal to get the entire soccer team to the game on a moment's notice? How often does the truck owner actually go to a jobsite and load a bunch of heavy crap into his otherwise pristine pickup and haul it around on dirt roads before meeting his beautiful model wife at the barn? How often do sports car buyers actually, realistically, take their cars to the track and blow away the competition in drifting and performance driving? Ya, so, by all means, pretend that commercials as documentaries about a car will actually sell it. They don't. BTW, when all of those used Focus cars hit the market, they'll sell like five-day-old dead fish. Just like all of the other used EVs do.
Or the commercial could be a 16-second spot designed to SELL A CAR. If you want a documentary, go friggin make one. Ford is in the business of selling cars, not promoting Henrik's green agenda.
Henrik the Tesla champion strikes out again. Not only is he comparing apples to oranges and claiming the Tesla warranty to be "superior," he's doing so with a statement that only propounds his obvious ignorance. Hyundai and Kia both offer 100,000 mile powertrain warranties on their vehicles and for a full TEN years, not just eight. They were pioneers in doing so, offering this before Tesla was even incorporated, let alone producing a car. Oh and on vehicles that cost less than a 1/4 of what the Model S does. DOH!
"Blah blah blah" says the guy who's never driven one. This car outruns the Tesla Model S or Roadster, is built in a far more sustainable manner than the Model S or Roadster, and has a far longer range than the Model S or Roadster. It's also a better drive, gets fuel economy that even a Prius would envy, and is one of the coolest looking cars on the planet. But it's not "cool" enough for Dr. Strangelove.
@Brent: "High fracturing water use or consumption alone does not necessarily result in impacts to drinking water resources, the reviewers found."
Too bad this entire report is completely irrelevant. The CAFE measurements are made using NHTSA MPG numbers, which are completely different from those produced by the EPA via manufacturers. When I reached out to the professor in charge of producing this report a few days ago, I got no response. This report is nothing more than headline fodder from the UofM.
You mean "The right products, in the right place, at the right time AND PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENT may be the secret.."
You know why that is, sheckyvegas? It's because all of the hype and political tripe around AGW is based on these models that are continually being shown to be false. That's why. If you cannot model any of the warming that's occurring without making the science look dodgy and slanted, people are going to assume you have an agenda.
Is this is same stupid Obama plan that couldn't get the number of counties in Hawaii right and the one that thinks that a 0.00004% increase in asthma attacks is somehow significant? Ya, thanks but no thanks. I think we need someone intelligent and capable of basic research (at least the ability to Google, for hell's sakes) making decisions. Not that chump.
Read: "Hey guys, all these disparate models are showing contradictions and making us look bad. We need to unify so we can make all of our conclusions the same so it seems more scientific."
Harvey: I note you never ask that question when the results are pro-warming. Rick: you mean the study on MINERS? Hardly representative of the general population.. Here's what I see.. yet ANOTHER scientific study, published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal, that shows the global warming scare mongers are full of crap. Then a bunch of responses from the usual warmists questioning the integrity of the study's authors, throwing out strawmen, and otherwise ignoring the science and actual debate. Business as usual in climatology.