I'll be interested in the Slate when I can actually buy one. I've seen far too many startup car companies fail to launch to ever get my hopes up. Also, the hopes that the very first vehicle from a brand new company will be affordable are not realistic. Making affordable vehicles requires production at large scale, and that requires enormous capital investment, which generally means your company needs to already have income. Even if it just to prove to potential investors that you have basic competence.

Don't think that just because a billionaire is interested in the project that the funding will be easy. Billionaires don't like to spend their own money and can be easily distracted by newer and shinier projects.

▲

iancmceachern 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This.

When the cyber truck was announced we decided to buy a Super Duty instead. That was 5 years ago. It's now paid off and driven us and our RV all over the country, and still worth more than half it's purchase price with many more miles to go, and no issues at all (knock on wood).

A lightning, cyber truck, or even rivian can't do those things.

Instead of waiting for a slate just buy a little gas pickup and GO USE IT, live you life!!!

▲

tracker1 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be clear, I'm not waiting for it at all... I'm not that interested in EVs for my own use so much... I work from home and not going to buy a new vehicle any time soon. I'm just more interested in it conceptually. Much like I was interested in the Local Motors Rally Fighter, I wasn't ever going to buy one, just thought it was cool. Well, maybe not the same, as the Slate could be something I would actually buy if/when it hits market in any numbers.

If it's got a good level of repairability beyond the body/form, then the company collapsing may be a lot less of an issue. The way it's being done does remind me a lot of the original GP (General Purpose) vehicle. Though not necessarily fit for military/combat environments; As fuel is easier to transport than electricity to the middle of nowhere.

▲

wffurr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> no issues at all

Other than all the CO2, CO, and NOx you've emitted over that time period.

The government should have started taxing barrels of oil in the 70s.

	▲	jandrese 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If you want to kill coal and oil just tax them the fair market price of carbon sequestration for the amount of carbon they ultimately emit. Use that money to sequester the carbon. This is how carbon markets should have been set up, but unfortunately that would have killed the modern economy.
	▲	iancmceachern an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Look at the same specs for the cyber truck. There is about twice the carbon in the manufacturing of these, so it counts on people driving them for hundreds of thousands of miles, I don't see that happening with them because you can't even take a normal road trip while towing. These things just aren't going to see the miles, because they can't. They're just not usable as trucks. https://insideevs.com/news/719434/tesla-cybertruck-awd-vs-ra... Also the power plants and diesel generators for the data centers... https://www.selc.org/press-release/new-images-reveal-elon-mu...
	▲	tracker1 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If that was the goal, then killing nuclear power and holding it back for the past 4 decades was probably the wrong move. Solar and other "renewable" sources aren't enough to meet energy needs now, let alone the near future.
	▲	horsawlarway 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The government started taxing fuel (both gas and diesel) at the federal level in 1932. Individual states go back to 1919.