| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | tzs 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why would people say the Model 3 would never be mass produced? Nissan had been mass producing EVs for years before Tesla did, so it was obvious that mass produced EVs were viable. (Tesla started selling EVs before Nissan did, but those were not mass produced). |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Model 3 was the first mass market long range EV. The Nissan Leaf models before the Tesla Model 3 had a maximum range of 107 miles. The Tesla Model 3 had a range of between 220 to 310 miles, depending on the trim. This is what made the Tesla Model 3 revolutionary. It was the first to be mass market with long range. | | |
| ▲ | tzs 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chevy Bolt had 238 miles range and was released to customers 6 months before the Model 3. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Chevy Bolt had a maximum charging speed of 50 kW (compared to 250 kW for the Model 3) and almost no widespread fast charging network (compared to widely extensive Tesla Superchargers). One of the many reasons it failed in the market while the Model 3 & its big brother the Y went on to be the highest selling EVs of all time. Plus, 238 miles was its maximum trim, compared to 310 miles for the Tesla Model 3. So let me be even more clear, since you keep missing the point: the Tesla Model 3 was the first mass-market long-range EV with a truly fast charging rate and extensive public fast charging network, making it the first truly mainstream EV. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't need long range in an urban environment if near instantaneous battery swapping is available everywhere. The Gogoro battery-swapping refueling platform for urban electric two-wheel scooters, mopeds and motorcycles started up two years before the Tesla Model 3 making it the first mass market network provider of always charged and ready EV's making it the first truly mainstream EV backbone. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | greggoB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think these are serious points, GP is likely either a bot or Elon diehard - at least, they're not giving any substantive responses. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Model 3 was the first mass market long range EV. The Nissan Leaf models before the Tesla Model 3 had a maximum range of 107 miles. The Tesla Model 3 had a range of between 220 to 310 miles, depending on the trim. This is what made the Tesla Model 3 revolutionary. It was the first to be mass market with long range. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | greggoB 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More the kinds which did the math on solar roads [0] and the Titan submersible [1]. > FSD would never work without LiDAR From what I gather, this is still a contested topic, with Tesla's Autopilot only achieving Level 2 automation [2]. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-road-panels-first-publ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tesla Autopilot hasn't been updated since 2019, it's just a lane-centering feature. You're probably thinking of FSD Supervised, which is indeed Level 2. But Tesla Cybercab, taking paid rides in Austin right now, is Level 4. And has no LiDAR. You can fly to Austin and take a ride on it right now if you don't believe me! |
|
|
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The same kind of analysts are saying extending human race to Mars is a dumb idea. |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You don't think the human race will be extended to Mars? | | |
| ▲ | petilon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think it will happen in about the same timeframe as SpaceX runs AI racks in space. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dfgknionio 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >reusable rockets would never work I am so fucking tired of people acting like we haven't had reusable rockets since the 1980s. Do you think I was hallucinating when my parents drove me to Florida to see Columbia? |
| |
| ▲ | heaney-555 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fine, let's be more clear: reusable rocket boosters that land themselves. Experts said it wouldn't work. Then they said okay maybe it works, but the economics won't. Now they say nothing. | | |
| ▲ | dfgknionio 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The shuttle had reusable boosters, but if you are talking about something reusable that takes off and lands vertically you are correct that it isn't 1980s technology. It's 1990s technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X?useskin... No one denies that SpaceX has done good work. But claiming that they have done anything others considered impossible is just wrong. The basic principles had been demonstrated decades before. You are correct that people criticized the economics. Seeing as SpaceX's prospectus shows their rocketry business loses money, I am not convinced they're winning that argument. | | |
| ▲ | heaney-555 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | The DC-X was incredible for its time, but it failed. > but if you are talking about something reusable that takes off and lands vertically No, I am talking about something that takes off and lands vertically after boosting a first stage to orbit. Suborbital is 100x easier. |
| |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who said that? NASA had plans for reusable boosters if they were ever to get funding for it before spaceX was even an idea. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There no benefit to data racks in space other than being outside of government jurisdictions, although the US and China already have demonstrated satellite killers. Every problem data centers have gets harder in space other than one small spot in orbit that can get uninterrupted solar. Heat dissipation, upgrades, repairs. All get significantly harder to perform the same work that can be done cheaper and more easily on the ground. Like really I’ll turn it around on you, what’s the benefit to AI data centers in space? |
