They’re also a data company, all the info they get about your travel habits, road maps/data etc…
My bad, thought you were one of the relentless anti ev trolls
Who do so many V8 guys, just HATE on Tesla?
- Thread starter Intervention302
- Start date
I think the thing that is the toughest to accept is how boring and sterile it looks...it's not really driving anymore...step on the gas and steer...miss shifts are part of driving...not perfectly rev matching is part of driving...and to me the worst part is the sound or lack there of...for people who love cars the sound has always been such a huge piece of it...exhaust, supercharger whine, turbos etc...Elon is a marketing genius and the technology is impressive but there is alot missing from a sensory perspective
Short, sweet and to the point. lol
Last edited:
No worries.
While I couldn't care less about EV, I'm not a relentless troll.
Sometimes when one of these posts come up, I join the conversation and pretty much say the same thing.
One thing remains constant however,
Last edited:
Amen brother. The logic used by some in here is so asinine and backwards, that it's hard to even think how they put it together in their head and truly believe it.
Maybe Elon should just hire some of these folks in here as engineers? They have some really great ideas.
But they probably already know more than he does.
With that, I'm done in this thread.
I never thought there be this much action in here, both good and bad. I think it's run its course.
Have a good night folks and continue to enjoy our appreciating Cobras
I never thought there be this much action in here, both good and bad. I think it's run its course.
Have a good night folks and continue to enjoy our appreciating Cobras
You keep loving on your EV. Bye!
Hmmm didn’t see this coming at all…
*Intervention302 - Asks ford performance enthusiast website why they hate libs forcing EVs down our throats.
*SVTP - F that, here’s our reasons why.
*Intervention302 - gets surprised when we present tons of reasons to support our feelings answering his question. Feelings hurt, he wallows back to have his model 3 auto pilot him to pick up more tampons.
No hard feelings, and I love your cobra and YouTube vids but you HAD to see this playing out exactly like it did.
*Intervention302 - Asks ford performance enthusiast website why they hate libs forcing EVs down our throats.
*SVTP - F that, here’s our reasons why.
*Intervention302 - gets surprised when we present tons of reasons to support our feelings answering his question. Feelings hurt, he wallows back to have his model 3 auto pilot him to pick up more tampons.
No hard feelings, and I love your cobra and YouTube vids but you HAD to see this playing out exactly like it did.
Thread, title, video, op, all seem like click bait. Is the thread worth reading, were feelings hurt?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
LONG but a good read!
This is an excellent breakdown.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Obviously copied/pasted. I encourage you to pass it along too.
1Jessica Bailey
This is an excellent breakdown.
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.
"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Obviously copied/pasted. I encourage you to pass it along too.
1Jessica Bailey
I get the impression that the hang up for pro EV people in the car enthusiasts community is that the people who are hardcore against EV’s have never drove one and experienced the almighty acceleration. I have. Many kinds. Lots of miles. Sorry but I really don’t like them. IMO, they are great for a lifeless commute. That’s pretty much it.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
That’s a very interesting read. I’m in a 2 day lock out block refresher class at work so I might just read the thread and hope for a laugh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
There is no place in the EV/green movement utopian fantasy for all these facts!
C’mon Man! Let’s go buy a ****ing Tesla.
I'm looking forward to seeing Dodge's entry into the electric world, particularly their SRT replacements. If the replacement for the Hellcat sounds like Darth Vader's tie fighter, I MAY be converted from my Hellcat!!!
I’ve driven one. The acceleration is insane for sure. The other 99% of it sucks.
Back in the mid-90s, my wife and I went to CA to visit my cousin in Hawthorne (LA). While we were there, we drove to a local town that had an dragster ride. I thought they were gas powered (like a supercharged go-kart) with a controlled but loud/shaking ride. They were electric battery powered and very quiet. You basically are on a rail and you travel maybe 40'. My wife and I "raced" each other. You stab the pedal and maybe 3-4 seconds later it stops on its own. Let's just say it was a quick but boring experience. That's how I see EVs, even high performance EVs. No excitement. It just isn't right that you can launch the Plaid on a track (or highway) and talk to the passenger like you were parked. Very silent. No soul. Many who own them like them a lot. That's great. But don't expect the ICE crowd to swoon when the subject of EVs comes up here.
THIS is what excites me at the track. Skip to :17 and pump up the volume!!
Inside WOT in a 2003 Cobra. Start at :17. Yeah, baby!
This is what DOESN'T excite me at the track. Skip to :13 and don't bother pumping up the volume. LOL.
Dead quiet inside cabin launch. Start at 1:53.
Last edited:
I dunno, I guess everything has it's place. If money were no object I wouldnt mind having say a Plaid for a to and from work DD, a diesel super duty for road trips/toy hauling and a muscle car in the garage for the weekend. At this point in time a DD with basically zero upkeep certainly has some appeal. I have no delusions about how environmentally friendly it isn't.
Because they're already at 100% capacity with the four vehicles they currently produce.
Users who are viewing this thread
