When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Read an article in WSJ about a Mach E owner's experience using Tesla super chargers. Apologies if this info has been posted before, but I was not aware that due to the charging port location on Ford's (maybe others as well), it causes 2 TSLA superchargers to be unusable for every Ford that is charging. Take a look at the video from 1:55 to 3:15 where she shows why this is the case. Ford is apparently considering moving the port to be driver side rear like TSLA, but for now this is something I'm sure will frustrate Tesla owners wanting to charge. V4 super chargers apparently help with this having much longer cables that prevent this from being an issue.
Tesla at the approximate stage Lucid is in currently were on their way to having sales go parabolic. Lucid's sales are 10% of what the company said they would be doing. When Elon said 500,000 that happened go back and look at Lucid's investor slide deck from 2020, 4 years later they have not even sniffed projections.
basically not worth comparing the two situations ... tesla had no competition, as you know, had a maniacal ceo on a mission, had a real chance of going out of business, and was laser focused on scale.
lucid has 'sugar daddy', has been obsessed with making an amazingly engineering luxury sedan (and succeeded!), but not so much on scale.
But what does Rawlinson care he gets $379 million/year no matter how badly Lucid tanks.
i assume there's SOME performance goals attached to that?
regardless, i suspect pif will support lucid for a while, even if they end up replacing rawlinson.
Why not just let the market decide whether all the other safety regulations are worthwhile? This is a safety and distraction issue.
good question and i think the answer is that should be the case, because i'm a libertarian. if someone is not wearing a seatbelt, they may be stupid, but it's not actually hurting others, so i don't care. of course there's a longer argument that if someone not wearing a seatbelt crashes they will obviously sustain more injuries and if needing government (i.e. publicly) funded healthcare they will burden everyone with more cost and thus should be required to wear a seatbelt. it's complicated.
if someone has no cats on the car though, i do care because that affects air quality for all.
Tesla's have virtually no buttons and are rated high for safety. I think the bigger issue is people using their phones while driving, which causes tons of accidents. Just saw one earlier this week when a woman in X3 rear ended the car in front of her at an off ramp, she clearly had her phone in her hand. Lots of buttons in an X3 as I recall.
But if it's ever the case where it's proven accidents are caused by screen distractions, than by all means, regulate it
good question and i think the answer is that should be the case, because i'm a libertarian. if someone is not wearing a seatbelt, they may be stupid, but it's not actually hurting others, so i don't care. of course there's a longer argument that if someone not wearing a seatbelt crashes they will obviously sustain more injuries and if needing government (i.e. publicly) funded healthcare they will burden everyone with more cost and thus should be required to wear a seatbelt. it's complicated.
if someone has no cats on the car though, i do care because that affects air quality for all.
I just cannot agree. Cars are much, much safer because of government regulations and crash testing, and it requires carmakers to provide safety all across their lineups and as standard.
Driver distraction is an issue for everyone, your argument that not having cats affects air quality for all, well having somebody distracted because controls are in a touchscreen where having hard buttons is less distracting impacts everyone on the road...if someone plows into the back of you because they are trying to change their radio station buried in a menu, that impacts you...
good question and i think the answer is that should be the case, because i'm a libertarian. if someone is not wearing a seatbelt, they may be stupid, but it's not actually hurting others, so i don't care. of course there's a longer argument that if someone not wearing a seatbelt crashes they will obviously sustain more injuries and if needing government (i.e. publicly) funded healthcare they will burden everyone with more cost and thus should be required to wear a seatbelt. it's complicated.
if someone has no cats on the car though, i do care because that affects air quality for all.
Remember, seat belt laws were pushed through by the insurance companies to reduce injury payouts.
On the insurance front, I officially moved back to Geico, new policy will be effective as of March 20th. $3,831 vs $5,553, same coverage, same deductibles. I had Geico in the past, and they always paid claims on time, never had an issue with them
I reset my seasonal trip meter with the time change and I averaged 2.27 mi/kwh over the winter. Given the 274 mile range with my configuration (20in AT + all-terrain upgrade), 2.27 is fantastic.
ceo on a mission, had a real chance of going out of business, and was laser focused on scale.
