[Frozen]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Even if there is empirical data that show the Earth has warmed for the last 20 years doesn't mean that humans are causing it, or that the Earth will stay "warmer". All it means is the Earth was warmer than some other observed point in time.

OK it's clear you don't understand it. Please go do some research, perhaps watch the 6 min video I posted and then come back and let's continue the discussion. I say this with Empathy.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by e90m305

OK it's clear you don't understand it. Please go do some research, perhaps watch the 6 min video I posted and then come back and let's continue the discussion. I say this with Empathy.

I'll write a longer response later, but in short... the video basically said celestial mechanics change the climate but not affect the Earth's average temperature. Yet the global warming argument is that a change (rise) in average temperature will affect the climate. The video is full of scientific gaps and is incongruent.

Nice video... for children maybe. It was nice that the video pointed out some of the celestial mechanics at work; real observations of axial precession and orbit permutation, but the video just kind of skipped over the point that both phenomenon do affect and change the climate; only stating the phenomenon (possibly) do not change the mean temperature of the Earth. So that may be possible, but as possible as much as we do not yet have enough real correlative data that show a periodic rise in carbon gas in the atmosphere will affect the mean temperature of the Earth. And this is the point, the climate prediction models are only predictions; there is not yet been one that has been validated. The supposed runaway greenhouse effect and the affect it will have on the climate is still theory. And I will still stand on that a few hundreds of years of haphazardly collected temperature data, mostly collected unscientifically until modern times and at a far greater level of sophistication and consistency than 300 years ago (and not with direct correlation to greenhouse gas presence in the atmosphere), is far too short of a time period to conclusively prove any (detrimental) climate hypothesis. And my point has always been about the concept of the "mean" temperature of the Earth. There is no "mean" temperature of the Earth, as the average always changes.

The globalwarmingclimatechangists have decided to pick an estimated "good" Earth mean temperature (theoretically calculated based on indirectly-observed historical climate data - i.e. air in 10,000 year old ice bubbles) as a starting point. This means the scientists have theoretical "good" mean temperature of the Earth and then apply theoretical climate modeling to it, which results in a theoretical estimation of what the climate will be in the future. And all of this is relative to the human species life span timetable, which is even further truncated when accounting for time past the age of enlightenment and the advent of scientific study. We are merely directly observing the climate today and can only theoretically predict backwards based on indirectly observed historical data (such as the great lakes being formed form during the last ice age glacier movement) and can only predict forward, all based on data correlated in the present (temperature vs. greenhouse gasses). The term "good" I use as that what Earth temperature is determined to support human life. So for me, the scientific study of the Earth's climate I find extremely fascinating, but at the same time I understand the level of precision is at best theoretical and not accurate enough to base political policy from. What is well understood is the fossil record shows that 99% of the species to inhabit the Earth have gone extinct. The geological record shows the Earth's climate changes and has been drastically different on parts of the globe than it is today. There is data correlation between species mass extinctions and geological events. To think that somehow the human species is exempt from or immune to extinction on this planet, that almost all the other species of life have experienced, seems a bit anti-scientific.
To further think that we are above the natural cycle and can alter it to save ourselves from extinction is really the stuff beautiful imagination; we are the natural cycle, what we do to the planet is the natural cycle. What is different is we think we understand the natural cycle, but that doesn't mean if we play with it will change the outcome. My issue is with this thought process we screw the coal miner in West Virginia, which is unfair to him and prevents the creation of his grandchildren; but isn't that the point, to save the planet for the children?

[eluded]

Is the rate of Global warming inversely proportional to Teslas cash flow ?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by eluded

Is the rate of Global warming inversely proportional to Teslas cash flow ?

I believe it is proportional... er... that Tesla's cash flow is proportional to Global warming.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by AndreyATC

Remember BP oil spill?
It may take quite a few Teslas to counteract that
The sad part is, I still have to inhale fumes when i drive my clean car, especially in heavy traffic
Gotta get one of those bio defense modes they put in new S and X

So, global warming aside, they all pollute and stink, especially dirty diesels
Air quality is terrible in metro areas, can't even see stars through the smog, never mind the breathing

Teslas or bio-remediation, either one.

[Newguy123]

Tesla stock is taking a shit right now..

[catchm3ifyoucann]

This is coming from someone who used to work at Tesla.

I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing marketing conducted by Tesla that boats "0-60 is now faster than X super-car / hyper-car." Its irrelevant, and comparing apples to oranges. 1 vehicle is designed to transport 5 adults along with luggage while a LaFerrari is designed to carry 2 adults due to the fact its a hyper-car designed to push the boundaries of racing technology and performance. Ok so a Tesla P100D ($10k to $20k) option can go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, so what? I find 0-60 times completely irrelevant. Performance should be looked at holistically, in terms of stopping distance, cornering ability, 'Ring lap time, reliability, and consistency. If Tesla wants to compare themselves sports cars and yet the vehicle is still yet to lap the 'Ring....

The fact you can order a Tesla and have it within a month give or take concerns me in terms of production quality. If I am ordering a $70k+ car I want to ensure that the quality is flawless and that I'm not receiving a car that has paint imperfections, functions that are not working, etc.

I find the 100D to be useless. 15 more miles of range for $10k-$20k doesn't make sense to me. What they need to be focused on is producing vehicles under $50k (such as the Model 3), and bringing those to market ASAP. Elon mentioned plans of eventually bring a truck to market and if they are not turning a profit, investors are going to be skeptical of whether or not to continue to shell money into them.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tesla. I think what they have done in terms of electric vehicle development along with semi-autonomous capabilities is truly out of this world (if you look at market indicators thats were the auto industry is heading). I get that these type of options (100D) are purely used to funnel profit into R & D, but the question is just how many people are going to pay $$$ to go from 3.0 to 2.5 seconds in terms of 0-60?

[zer0cool]

I strongly disagree with the above poster.

Speed and quickness, together with design and technology, add coolness to the brand. Coolness and brand perception are infinitely more important than usefulness. That's why Ferrari can charge twice the amount as a Porsche and Porsche can charge twice the amount as a Chevy on cars that essentially have the same performance, but vastly different usefulness (Ferrari being probably the most useless in real life).

The same goes with watches, bag, and pretty much all luxury items.

Tesla is establishing itself as a premier automotive brand. In many measures, it has succeeded. It has done this by building quick cars that are cool and fun.

In order to reinforce and maintain that image, before going the useful route, it's important to keep the coolness factor, and hella quick is cool.

Therefore I like the P100D.

The same goes with the totally useless and problem prong falcon wing doors on the Model X. I think it's totally useless, but is it cool? Hell yes.

Yesterday I asked my wife if both were free would she take a Bentley Bentayga vs a Model X, as I was watching a Bentayga review on our family room TV. Without a second thought, she said Model X, since it's just so much cooler, even tho it's not nearly as useful.

Honestly, a Toyota minivan will probably be hella more useful in everyday American life than any Tesla will be for the foreseeable future. So to Tesla, please keep the cool.

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

I strongly disagree with the above poster.

Speed and quickness, together with design and technology, add coolness to the brand. Coolness and brand perception are infinitely more important than usefulness. That's why Ferrari can charge twice the amount as a Porsche and Porsche can charge twice the amount as a Chevy on cars that essentially have the same performance, but vastly different usefulness (Ferrari being probably the most useless in real life).

The same goes with watches, bag, and pretty much all luxury items.

Tesla is establishing itself as a premier automotive brand. In many measures, it has succeeded. It has done this by building quick cars that are cool and fun.

In order to reinforce and maintain that image, before going the useful route, it's important to keep the coolness factor, and hella quick is cool.

Therefore I like the P100D.

The same goes with the totally useless and problem prong falcon wing doors on the Model X. I think it's totally useless, but is it cool? Hell yes.

Yesterday I asked my wife if both were free would she take a Bentley Bentayga vs a Model X, as I was watching a Bentayga review on our family room TV. Without a second thought, she said Model X, since it's just so much cooler, even tho it's not nearly as useful.

Honestly, a Toyota minivan will probably be hella more useful in everyday American life than any Tesla will be for the foreseeable future. So to Tesla, please keep the cool.

Ferrari, Porsche, and BMW can also charge more because of quality, materials used, time involved to produce, delivery experience, and customer service. BMW ED is probably one of the coolest and most unique programs out there.

The Model X doors are cool until:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/2...illotine-doors

[zer0cool]

DragTimes has P100D test results out, 0-60 in 2.54 and 0-100 in 6.52. See pic below.

[oolas3]

Here's a Tesla after only 33k miles:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-update-review

[AndreyATC]

I've owned my P85D for almost a year now
I would constantly exceed the rated range and have no idea how C&D could possibly mess this up
My weekends are often 220 mile RT with few miles driven at destination
I comeback with at least 30miles left and car full of people and load
Service is another question,
They didnt have to do it
I spent $0 with my 1st Tesla and $0 with this one
I did buy winter tires however, which are going to be used on 4th winter

Anyhow
Not everyone thinks the way C&D does

Tesla becomes most trusted auto brand in Canada, ranks 11th in all industries

[Germanauto]

I used to work for Tesla and found them to be somewhat overrated. The tech is surely impressive, but the interiors are so dumpy for the price I'm amazed people are willing to part with their cash to tolerate them. To add to that, a lot of the owners (not all) are rich geeks/nerds with some sort of superiority/smugness complex. They aren't the car enthusiast type of people that I find so often within the BMW community.

I can see the appeal though. If I weren't a car enthusiast I'd be into them too since they are so "different" from the norm. However I care too much about things like curb weight, driving dynamics (sorry the Tesla is fast in a straight line but won't even hang on a track for 5 laps before dying), exhaust note, and interior design/quality/craftsmanship.

By the way I don't understand this entire global warming debate here. Even if you don't believe GW exists, we should all be in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, having a cleaner environment, etc.

[zer0cool]

I agree Model S interior should be improved in future versions. The current interior is not terrible, on par with a well equipped 5 series, but really not good enough with 90D and above... Those cars are going into the 100 to 150k territory and should have better interiors. The new Model X interior feels vastly superior to the Model S. The new ventilated seats feel as comfortable as Lexus seats. Things just feel more premium. It's surprising that the Model X interior wasn't brought into the Model S during the refresh. Anyways, the car is selling well, best quarter ever, and there are lots of challenges for Tesla to meet demand. With better interior, demand will only be higher.

Many Tesla owners are car enthusiasts. Many on forums gave up BMWs or Porsches for their Tesla. Well some I guess kept their old cars as well since many can afford multiple expensive cars. But yes, some Tesla owners just hate ICE. But I like both EV and ICE. I really don't care about the source of power, as long as the car drives well.

[StatenEye]

Cant believe people are calling a Tesla cool. wow. Great 0-60 but they are freaking ugly ass sin. I'm outta heaaaaa.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by StatenEye

Cant believe people are calling a Tesla cool. wow. Great 0-60 but they are freaking ugly ass sin. I'm outta heaaaaa.

Have you been in a BMW dealer recently? Not a lot of pretty going on there either.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Have you been in a BMW dealer recently? Not a lot of pretty going on there either.

This x100. They don't have a single model which makes me go "wow". Let alone "WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW".

It's bad (or perhaps good?) that I wouldn't take a single present model BMW over my 2006 Z4M Roadie right now. As long as the bearings don't evacuate from the engine, or the VANOS falls apart, I'm driving this gem of a car for a loooooong time.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Have you been in a BMW dealer recently? Not a lot of pretty going on there either.

WHAT?
I guess you haven't bothered to go look at an X4 then.

[P1]

I was out with a colleague last week and we took his P90D. I'm sticking to my guns that the interior is incredibly underwhelming, and the seats are anything but comfortable. He took quite a bit of time in demo-ing the 32" plasma in the dash, and it seemed to be suffering from quite a bit of lag. Took a while once you pressed something before something actually happened.

He, of course, is over the moon with it...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

By the way I don't understand this entire global warming debate here. Even if you don't believe GW exists, we should all be in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, having a cleaner environment, etc.

Okay, that's me. Where have I said in this thread or the many others I've replied on E90 to that I'm against being not dependent on foreign oil and and against not having a clean(er) environment? I do believe global warning exists because it is a natural condition of the Earth. Humans are part of the Earth, so whatever affect they have on global warming is natural as well, just as cows, beavers, forest fires, algae, volcanoes, etc. In fact if it wasn't for global warming, humans wouldn't exist in the first place.

The problem is a bunch of scientists and politicians (who fund the scientists) think they know better than mother nature; they don't. The BS of the Politico/Science envrio-complex is what most of us "non-GW believers" are discussing and are against; we don't favor a dirtier environment and dependence on foreign oil (us USA-based guys at least...).

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, that's me. Where have I said in this thread or the many others I've replied on E90 to that I'm against being not dependent on foreign oil and and against not having a clean(er) environment? I do believe global warning exists because it is a natural condition of the Earth. Humans are part of the Earth, so whatever affect they have on global warming is natural as well, just as cows, beavers, forest fires, algae, volcanoes, etc. In fact if it wasn't for global warming, humans wouldn't exist in the first place.

The problem is a bunch of scientists and politicians (who fund the scientists) think they know better than mother nature; they don't. The BS of the Politico/Science envrio-complex is what most of us "non-GW believers" are discussing and are against; we don't favor a dirtier environment and dependence on foreign oil (us USA-based guys at least...).

I didn't make that comment specifically aimed at you it was just a general blurb I wanted to make, that's all.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

I agree Model S interior should be improved in future versions. The current interior is not terrible, on par with a well equipped 5 series, but really not good enough with 90D and above... Those cars are going into the 100 to 150k territory and should have better interiors. The new Model X interior feels vastly superior to the Model S. The new ventilated seats feel as comfortable as Lexus seats. Things just feel more premium. It's surprising that the Model X interior wasn't brought into the Model S during the refresh. Anyways, the car is selling well, best quarter ever, and there are lots of challenges for Tesla to meet demand. With better interior, demand will only be higher.

Many Tesla owners are car enthusiasts. Many on forums gave up BMWs or Porsches for their Tesla. Well some I guess kept their old cars as well since many can afford multiple expensive cars. But yes, some Tesla owners just hate ICE. But I like both EV and ICE. I really don't care about the source of power, as long as the car drives well.

I always felt that the current interior would be passable for a 5-series/E-class/A6 competitor, although it would be the worst among all those, but still "good enough" for that price range. However, higher-end models of the Model S are in S7, 6/M6 GC territory, and just look and feel like utter garbage in comparison. The leather is bad, the seats are paper thin, and the controls are out of Benzes circa 2006 (seriously look at the controls in the W204 then at the Model S). There is a lot more I could get into but I've made my point.

The Model X, in my opinion, hasn't improved in that regard. The interior is just as bad as that in the Model S. The Model X, unlike the S, is quite the ugly vehicle so there's not much going for it. People are still flocking to them for some reason. It is boring, I suppose, having to pick among the X5, soulless Q7, ugly GLE, cramped Cayenne, and RR Sport all the time for people. The Model X, while an inferior vehicle in most regards, has the "unique" factor. In a society that values flash over substance that matters, a lot.