Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Sounds like Tesla is better at marketing than previous companies that gave EV a go.

There are many facets to it. But in comes down to a deliverable, workable, affordable, available solution that people can easily understand and use. I spent time on the DVD standard and one cannot emphasize enough the importance of easy to use.

People of greatest intelligence are in the theoretical and experimental sciences and math, people just below that rung are the engineers who fuel the ability of companies like 3M, Tesla, Space-X, and DuPont, and then you have the business people another tier below them.

There are many forms of intelligence. To say that those involved in science are more intelligent across the board than anyone else in the value chain will be very tough to prove. My point is the examples of truly unique genius that we can identify...are business innovators.

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Tesla also improved the batteries, which was their single major advancement with regards to technology.

No, they didn't. What they did was to use different batteries. Which were not improved, just a lot more expensive than the rest of the industry was willing to bear for full EVs. Then he made a car that is capable of competing in a $100k market and was able to kind of sell them.

It's not as if industry battery technology was stagnant- everyone was developing plug in hybrids, but the rest of the industry was more constrained on cost. And Tesla has joined the race to a better battery.

Musk has really made a lot of mistakes in this game, and there are some that question whether he can actually dig himself out of the hole- from lack of real development to production problems- the hype at this point is more about good marketing over a good car. Someday, perhaps. But not right now.

None the less, nothing in his car is really innovative. And for that, I really don't understand why people put him on such a high pedestal. He's good, sure. Not great, and nowhere near people like Einstein.

[aparch]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Sounds like Tesla is better at marketing than previous companies that gave EV a go.

Well, it didn't help that the one Big Three company that tried to push a 100% electric vehicle was forced by it's own industry to reconsider, despite it's popularity...

[St. Clown]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

There are many forms of intelligence. To say that those involved in science are more intelligent across the board than anyone else in the value chain will be very tough to prove. My point is the examples of truly unique genius that we can identify...are business innovators.

That's because scientists who are dealing with theories that the rest of us can't begin to even pretend to comprehend won't make the front pages of a popular webpage or magazine.

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

The personal electric car did nothing for 100 years. In 2000, the concept was largely dead. Tesla launched in 2003, EVs arrived the first year of Tesla's Roadster, people buy $75B worth of EVs every year and Tesla has number one market share. Yeah, Musk didn't do anything.

You have not been paying attention all that well. The concept was far from dead in 2000. And it's also rather misleading to only include pure EV's, discounting really good plug in hybrids.

Besides, lets not overstate what's going on, I see here that Tesla sold ~30,000 2017. Which is just about 30 DAYS worth of 2017 F150 sales. Forgive me for pointing out that it's not that remarkable.

I also question your sales values, too- if every single one of those 30,000 sales in 2017 were $100,000 apiece, that is only $3B. So if they are the #1 market share, the whole market is incredibly spread around.

BTW, I'm not saying that Musk has done nothing, I'm saying that he's done nothing *really* remarkable or brilliant. It's just a freaking electric car. Big deal.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Musk is a great showman. He's a charismatic entertainer who attracts money, like a televangelist or a politician. That is certainly a talent. Presumably, somewhere there is a "genius" entertainer.

But I'll stick with Gauss and Mozart, thanks.

[burd]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I'd love to say it was a conscious choice, but nope.

Intuitive genius?

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Intuitive genius?

Never apologize. Never explain.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

You have not been paying attention all that well. The concept was far from dead in 2000. And it's also rather misleading to only include pure EV's, discounting really good plug in hybrids.

Per hybridcar.com, a half million HEVs sold in the US in 2013. In 2000, there were less than 10,000 with the top seller being the Prius. The industry grew 50 times in a little more than a decade.

Besides, lets not overstate what's going on, I see here that Tesla sold ~30,000 2017.

Tesla sold 101,312 cars in 2017.

BTW, I'm not saying that Musk has done nothing, I'm saying that he's done nothing *really* remarkable or brilliant. It's just a freaking electric car. Big deal.

I get that launching a space rocket start up, creating a $50B company in 15 years, and being a catalyst (GM's words) for a global industry is not in any way remarkable. What do you define as 'remarkable'?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Every technology is on an exponential growth curve. Musk’s companies may have made the most gains on an absolute scale, but on a log scale there’s an enormous amount of heavy lifting done by his company’s predecessors. Maybe the vast majority of work. Without the breakthroughs Honda, Toyota, and Chevy made in the last 15-20 years, Tesla is just a coil.

Most technologies aren’t... until they are.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I get that launching a space rocket start up, creating a $50B company in 15 years, and being a catalyst (GM's words) for a global industry is not in any way remarkable. What do you define as 'remarkable'?

I think in Musk's case, remarkable would be some sort of actual profit.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

There are many facets to it. But in comes down to a deliverable, workable, affordable, available solution that people can easily understand and use. I spent time on the DVD standard and one cannot emphasize enough the importance of easy to use.



There are many forms of intelligence. To say that those involved in science are more intelligent across the board than anyone else in the value chain will be very tough to prove. My point is the examples of truly unique genius that we can identify...are business innovators.

You're confusing Charisma with Intelligence. Two completely different attributes.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I think in Musk's case, remarkable would be some sort of actual profit.

Its not easy to remember that Amazon didn't make a cent for 20 years when it generates $1.9B in profits the last 3 months.

You're confusing Charisma with Intelligence. Two completely different attributes.

Yeah...Steve Jobs was loved by everyone. http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Someone that is brilliant would be able to understand how to deal with basic automotive quality issues. They guy's cars are ****ty, because Tesla is not a manufacturing company, and that doesn't seem to be changing.

https://carbuzz.com/news/check-out-t...control-issues

There are exterior panel gaps, poor display of leather seat stitching, a broken piece of plastic under the frunk, and a center console that is not only hard to close, but will pop open again if closed too hard. There were even some paint job issues and chips. The trunk lid interior was also unpainted in this particular Model 3, but there was some sort of a weird fabric screen that’ll do nothing to prevent road noise in the cabin.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...tter-to-buyers

During the test itself, two things became clear: The Model 3 works largely as intended, and the build quality was the worst we have seen on any new car from any maker over the last 10 years.

http://autoweek.com/article/green-ca...ssembly-issues

If we look over here I can barely get my fingernail in," Munro says. "And then we look over here, I can almost put my thumb in. This is, this is very unusual; the stackups, the tolerance stackups on this car are just like nothing we've ever seen before. Not since, like I say, the '70s or something. I don't, I don't understand how it got to this point. I mean, these are, these are flaws that we would see on a Kia in the '90s or something.

But, sure, he's a genius....so we should give him a pass for building a complete pile of **** car and selling it for $100k.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Heaven knows, the critics can't be wrong.

Seeking Alpha from six months ago:

Is there demand for 500,000 Model 3s per year? No, probably more like 1.1 million. And that's conservative.
The Model Y should bump up Tesla’s total demand to 2.3 million cars per year.
Rapidly scaling manufacturing will make Tesla essentially unstoppable. The big question: can Tesla do it?

Someone that is brilliant would be able to understand how to deal with basic automotive quality issues. They guy's cars are ****ty, because Tesla is not a manufacturing company, and that doesn't seem to be changing.

But, sure, he's a genius....so we should give him a pass for building a complete pile of **** car and selling it for $100k.

Mobile Phone Industry analyst: The forthcoming realease of the Apple iPhone is going to be a bigger marketing flop than Ishtar and Waterworld combined. And its not for the reasons of price or limited cell carrier options, or lack of corporate IT support as is claimed. Instead, the iPhone is going to fail because it is fundamentally flawed.

The Street: Beyond all the hype, let's get one thing clear. The iPhone isn't the future. It isn't a revolutionary mobile device ushering in a new era.

AdAge: Prediction No. 1 - The iPhone will be a major disappointment. Prediction No. 2: The media will blame the execution and not the concept.

Steve Ballmer: No chance of any significant market share. No chance.

Bloomberg: Big competitors in the mobile phone space won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells nervously into their clamshells over this new threat.

And so on and so on...

http://bgr.com/2016/07/01/iphone-rev...allmer-dvorak/

So...do you own an iPhone or an iPhone clone?