|
They relied on corporate contracts and fleet sales (Panther is a PERFECT analogy) because the tech and interface were obsolete and undesirable to consumers. I think it's a far more critical factor than you're admitting. The Crown Vic died because nobody (well, not enough) wanted a RWD boat of a car that got poo poo gas mileage and handled like a stack of couches. But yeah, decent predictive text etc was definitely a necessary step on the path to obsolescence.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
I still wish for a digital/modern version of Blackberry's two letter per key predictive querty setup like the Storm had. Easiest/best way to type on a touch screen.  Was the longest I every had a phone, I hated it and loved it at the same time. Each software update was just enough to make me not destroy it. The screen itself was on a clicking mechanism and you had to click it to register key touches, another feature maybe a bit ahead of its time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Yeah, it was I think the iPhone 3 before I could use the keyboard and not hate everything. I had an OG iPhone from work, but I used my blackberry for everything but web browsing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
D C posted:Was the longest I every had a phone, I hated it and loved it at the same time. Each software update was just enough to make me not destroy it. The screen itself was on a clicking mechanism and you had to click it to register key touches, another feature maybe a bit ahead of its time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Jimong5 posted:You know GM gets poo poo on for the EV1 situation, but how many other car manufacturers were putting out anything close to it at the time? Even now, outside of Tesla GM seems to be way ahead of every other manufacturer putting out solid EVs that you can actually buy today. I mean compare what GM has vs Ford, the difference is massive. EV1 Controller People -> AC Propulsion -> Tesla So yes, the EV1 mattered (I even got to test drive one). But gently caress GM anyway. People offered to buy their cars from GM. For what it's worth, if you put LiOn batteries in an EV1, given a specific KWh capacity, it would the winner on range. The aerodynamics was incredible, thanks to Aerovironment Engineering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:The Storm actually gets a special mention in the book Losing The Signal (I recommend it). It was Blackberry's desperate scramble to come out with something that could compete with the iPhone, and the clicky screen was one of the hills that one of their CEOs decided to die on because he was absolutely in love with mechanical feedback. That the development was incredibly rushed and they basically skipped QA testing probably didn't help. The Blackberry Engineer's letter to management is a legend in the business. http://bgr.com/2011/06/30/open-letter-to-blackberry-bosses-senior-rim-exec-tells-all-as-company-crumbles-around-him/
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:EV1 Controller People -> AC Propulsion -> Tesla This goes against multiple of my diatribes and shitposts, but a consultant we hired had spent his career at LADWP in efficiency incentives and innovation department. My coworker was issued an EV1 during those brief, crazy times and he loved the poo poo out of it. He lived within spitting distance of downtown LA in the Valley and said the range was perfect, the controls were well designed, put together and all around well thought out according to him. Then GM yanked it back and I believe he had an Insight followed by a Rav4 EV. Said none of them even came close to getting "it," as the EV1. He also sees my Tesla as a toy and drives a well optioned late model Accord despite marking $$$, so take that as you will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Tesla might have forced GM to wake up and get back on the EV train, but it was really dieselgate that finally pushed everyone else into realizing we're well into the 21st century and beyond time to get with the loving program. Until then companies like VW were content to keep working on diesel to meet CO2 and MPG targets, now they know even if they could do that, no one would trust them any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I think most conventional manufacturers have short term shareholders to appease and can't eat profits competing with themselves with unprofitable products. Telsa probably pushed GM to claw back some mind share, but no conventional manufacturer is going to make a serious attempt at market share until it's profitable unless a powerful activist investor gets involved. That kinda happened at ford, but the CEO who lead the company to record profits still got pushed out by investors because the profits weren't even bigger. His replacement is a tech guy but should still know it's profitability over longevity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
One of my classmates in high school was dropped off in an EV1 a few times per week. I liked it so much that I bought an Insight in 2002, and that car was the loving tits. I sold it for an almost obscene amount of money when fuel prices skyrocketed in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
[quote="“Powershift”" post="“477058664”"] I think most conventional manufacturers have short term shareholders to appease and can’t eat profits competing with themselves with unprofitable products. Telsa probably pushed GM to claw back some mind share, but no conventional manufacturer is going to make a serious attempt at market share until it’s profitable unless a powerful activist investor gets involved. That kinda happened at ford, but the CEO who lead the company to record profits still got pushed out by investors because the profits weren’t even bigger. His replacement is a tech guy but should still know it’s profitability over longevity. [/quote] I don't think that's an accurate statement. Maybe this time last year, but we've seen commitments now from Volvo, JLR, Ford, GM, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and VAG to massively increase their EV portfolios, and even Honda and Toyota are having to take electrification a lot more seriously. And the catalyst for that has been the fallout from dieselgate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Tesla might have forced GM to wake up and get back on the EV train, but it was really dieselgate that finally pushed everyone else into realizing we're well into the 21st century and beyond time to get with the loving program. Until then companies like VW were content to keep working on diesel to meet CO2 and MPG targets, now they know even if they could do that, no one would trust them any more. I think GM actually did this on their own, the timelines don’t match up otherwise. The volt was debuted in 2007 as a concept car, before the roadster even entered mass production, and was on the market in 2010, a year that Tesla had just shipped its 1500th car ever, and two years before the model s had shipped. http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=550352 Follow that with how GM is actually able to produce the bolt while Tesla is having difficulties with the 3, I think maybe GM was prepared and planning to put that car out rather then rushing it to beat Tesla to the punch or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:I don't think that's an accurate statement. Maybe this time last year, but we've seen commitments now from Volvo, JLR, Ford, GM, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and VAG to massively increase their EV portfolios, and even Honda and Toyota are having to take electrification a lot more seriously. And the catalyst for that has been the fallout from dieselgate. I think that's more being prepared for the tipping point than getting into the market before it's profitable. Ford isn't bringing their all electric CUV until 2020. Same with Porsche with their mission E(And holy gently caress It looks loving amazing.) GM has the bolt and it's good, they'll have 2 more within 18 months based on the bolt(probably the buick e-gal, cadillac ET4) but you won't see commercials for them, and they won't be on the front of the lot. There is probably some leeway for preparing for future products, but the board of most of these companies will be gutted and replaced the second profits drop. The most influential investors only care about short term profit. Motor trend claims FCA still loses $20k on every smart, GM loses $9k on every bolt. http://www.motortrend.com/news/report-automakers-continue-invest-evs-despite-high-battery-costs/
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:EV1 Controller People -> AC Propulsion -> Tesla GM couldn't sell the EV1 because there are laws about how long you need to provide after sales parts support/etc. With something as exotic as the EV1 was then, it'd a be pretty pricy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Powershift posted:I think that's more being prepared for the tipping point than getting into the market before it's profitable. Ford is definitely lagging here. Porsche a little less so, but it is annoying that Mission E will be here two years later than the Audi e tron. Both of those cars are sort of dead-ends because they predate the MEB platform, which is probably something I ought to ask them about. I would be pretty disappointed if the next two GM EVs were just badge-engineered Bolts. But all of GM's new EVs are going to use the same structural battery pack (which can come in two different heights now, one with taller cells) and also the same motor(s). They very briefly took the dust sheets off three of the nine concepts that were laid out for us in the design dome on Monday. One was about the size and shape as a Mazda CX-5 and looked pretty good. And now I think about it, it would look quite good as a Buick. The second looked extremely cool, to me at least. It was a one-box shape, but the height was closer to that of a coupe than a crossover. And I can also now see that working with Cadillac's design language. The other one appeared to be a driverless pod people mover. One of the concepts that remained covered the whole time could have been a Corvette but I think was probably a Camaro. I was extremely curious to see what it looked like but figured they'd get extremely upset with me if I pulled the sheet off... quote:There is probably some leeway for preparing for future products, but the board of most of these companies will be gutted and replaced the second profits drop. The most influential investors only care about short term profit. Electrification is going to happen because more and more countries that buy lots of cars are going to require it, with escalating penalties for failure. Before, a lot of the OEMs were banking on diesel and some PHEVs to get them under the CO2 targets. Now they know they can't do that because diesel is worse for air quality and even if there are current technological fixes to that it doesn't matter because the public won't trust they're not being lied to. So they have to serious about electricity to avoid a ton of fines in the future, and the smart ones are realizing that the sooner they start, the sooner they get good. Also, you put a lot of faith in the power of institutional investors, and those kinds of shareholder revolts are pretty rare to begin with. And for some companies it wouldn't really matter. BMW is still basically controlled by the Quandts and VAG is part-controlled and part-owned by the state of Lower Saxony. Tata appears to be owned by a bunch of charitable trusts, even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:GM couldn't sell the EV1 because there are laws about how long you need to provide after sales parts support/etc. With something as exotic as the EV1 was then, it'd a be pretty pricy. Exactly. There's no need for a conspiracy theory like so many want to believe in. GM had two options: Sell the cars and support them for some number of years or take them back and get rid of them. For an extremely limited production (1157 units total) model using a lot of components which were not relevant to anything produced in the next decade, the choice seems pretty obvious to me. I liked the EV1 when I first heard of it. I sat in the one at Epcot and thought "this is the future". I still think GM made a reasonable choice given the situation. edit: Holy poo poo, according to wiki the State of California requires 15 years of support. That means the '99 models would have had to be supported through 2014. Lead-acid batteries and all. Or maybe they could have offered a Tesla Roadster style upgrade, but that's not really GM's style. wolrah fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I got a ride in an EV1, once. It was cool as gently caress, but not ready for prime time by any stretch. It just had to make too many compromises to package the lead-acid power pack. I distinctly remember the center console being obscenely high inside, because of the pack. I get being in love with the car and not wanting to give it up, and being heartbroken when you see pictures of them all being crushed, but a conspiracy theory it was most certainly not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
What's this no talk of the Tesla Semi? Please goons, tell me why it is terrible and sucks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
The Sicilian posted:What's this no talk of the Tesla Semi? Please goons, tell me why it is terrible and sucks. Take a deep breath, and please don't get offended on its behalf until it actually exists somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Take a deep breath, and please don't get offended on its behalf until it actually exists somewhere. I'm not offended at any of the negative Tesla talk. Other than my dislike for GM's biggest booster, I try not to take the internet, and especially not this forum too seriously. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
lol @ popping in randomly to raise a topic no one's mentioned in months and immediately pulling a "lol u care"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:lol @ popping in randomly to raise a topic no one's mentioned in months and immediately pulling a "lol u care" Obviously you just don't understand TSLA And now I'm busy at work again so sorry you're caremad!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Why isn't anybody talking about tesla thing that hasn't been announced yet and that there is no information on? Why are they instead discussing GM things that exist. This is an outrage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Guys if you don't talk about something you are talking negatively about it and I must inform you that ~I don't care~ Wish there was more to talk about with that electric super dump truck, that thing owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Exactly. There's no need for a conspiracy theory like so many want to believe in. GM had two options: Sell the cars and support them for some number of years or take them back and get rid of them. For an extremely limited production (1157 units total) model using a lot of components which were not relevant to anything produced in the next decade, the choice seems pretty obvious to me. It was also claimed that GM did basically jack poo poo to actually market the EV1, acting as though they had no desire to see it achieve meaningful popularity. Though that's still not, in and of itself, real evidence of some evil conspiracy. Agronox posted:Take a deep breath, and please don't get offended on its behalf until it actually exists somewhere. Well, someone did manage to get a picture of what looks like the Tesla semi, based on the teaser image they released a while ago: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/3/16408932/tesla-truck-semi-pictures-design
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I got a ride in an EV1, once. It was cool as gently caress, but not ready for prime time by any stretch. It just had to make too many compromises to package the lead-acid power pack. I distinctly remember the center console being obscenely high inside, because of the pack. I got to test a NiMH one. Much nicer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
The Sicilian, You've become a pain in the dick. I do not enjoy constantly having to probate you. People in this thread are not against Tesla; they are against your lovely, unfunny posting and general bad attitude. Therefore, in the spirit of making idiot lemonade out of idiot lemons: Every time you post about Tesla in this thread, you either have to say something genuinely good about another manufacturer's EV or something genuinely bad about the Tesla you're talking about. It is my hope that the rest of the thread will find enjoyment out of either your forced magnanimous posts, or your constant and long probations. Thanks, Post Janitor
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Hahaha, excellent! Trying this out myself. Furthermore, the new Nissan Leaf has some excellent bottle holders in the door pocket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Why isn't anybody talking about tesla thing that hasn't been announced yet and that there is no information on? Why are they instead discussing GM things that exist. This is an outrage. Look I am already on the waiting list to buy one so there is nothing to talk about. My $2,000 deposit is safely in the hands of pyramid investment scheme incorporated. (I am just mad I am not at the top of this juicy scam)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Adiabatic posted:People in this thread are not against Tesla; [quote="“Elephanthead”" post="“477111846”"] My $2,000 deposit is safely in the hands of pyramid investment scheme incorporated. [/quote] 🤔
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Guys if you don't talk about something you are talking negatively about it and I must inform you that ~I don't care~ The September Heavy Duty Trucking does a nice summary of Alt Fuel heavy duty trucks including electrics. Its pretty comprehensive and does a good job of pointing out the significant hurdles that need to be cleared. Looks like the Nikola is gonna be real. Article here
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
The Nikola company is showing all the warning signs of a bullshit scam, the same way carbon motors did. I still think they have a better chance of going bankrupt and eating everybody's deposits than they do producing a real truck. It feels as if they came up with, and publicized their performance goals as the specs and have yet to figure out if it's even physically possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The Nikola company is showing all the warning signs of a bullshit scam, the same way carbon motors did. I still think they have a better chance of going bankrupt and eating everybody's deposits than they do producing a real truck. It feels as if they came up with, and publicized their performance goals as the specs and have yet to figure out if it's even physically possible. They have some serious carriers behind them with preorders. Including US Xpress and Ryder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
I am against Tesla the company the cars are fine. I don't own one though because I am a poor chump that leased a leaf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
I work in the heavy construction industry, with a focus right now on airport infrastructure construction. I can see a huuuuuuuuuuge potential market for EV dump trucks right now based on trends and requirements in the field. I am overseeing a +$1b project at one of the largest airports in the US, and the requirements for equipment emissions are the strictest I've ever had to deal with, to the level that many of my normal subcontractors simply cannot be on the project. Equipment has to be tier 4, including trucks, and our options are very limited. Additionally, the nature of airport work is such that we see very slow production, causing our trucks to sit for a majority of the day waiting to be loaded out. In an 8-10 hour shift one of our 10 yard trucks sits at a security gate 2-3 hours, sits on the site waiting to be loaded our or being loaded out 3-4 hours, and is on the road 2 hours. I think an EV truck could really work in this environment. Now, on a production type job where trucks are making continuous rounds being loaded out, haul, dump, repeat, the range is not there yet. But those types of major earthwork projects also don't often have as strict environmental regulations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:It was also claimed that GM did basically jack poo poo to actually market the EV1, acting as though they had no desire to see it achieve meaningful popularity. Though that's still not, in and of itself, real evidence of some evil conspiracy. Since I was a kid in Ohio during the time the EV1 was available I obviously don't know what sort of marketing they may have done where it was actually offered for lease (California and I think Arizona maybe?) but I can definitely recall seeing it in all the normal car magazines, Popular Mechanics, and a few others, as well as on a lot of the comparable "TV magazine" format shows. They certainly didn't keep that thing a secret. I'd certainly believe that the dealers weren't exactly pushing the things though, IIRC they leased them through Saturn dealerships and I'm sure none of them wanted to try to actually convince someone who didn't come in the door specifically looking for one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Suqit posted:They have some serious carriers behind them with preorders. Including US Xpress and Ryder. Carbon motors said they had 14,000 reservations from 400 police agencies.  Real companies that already produce engines and trucks and batteries, companies that already have factories and supply chains and test units on the road aren't advertising anywhere near the specs Nikola is. Nikola says they'll have a test truck in the third quarter of 2018, Cummins says they could have trucks for sale in 2019. The bullshit they're pulling with their UTV is just as bad. https://twitter.com/nikolamotor/status/897328957787217920 They claim they'll have a 125 KWH battery pack in this thing. Powershift fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/916395155120205825
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:I work in the heavy construction industry, with a focus right now on airport infrastructure construction. I can see a huuuuuuuuuuge potential market for EV dump trucks right now based on trends and requirements in the field. Other than my most recent position, I've been working at major airports for my entire career. Electric tugs have been always been around because of their duty and the weight of loads of lead acid batteries actually helps them. What would be a really exciting prospect is replacing all (or as many as practically possible) airside vehicles with electrics. The duty cycle of airport operations would suit electrics perfectly. The capital investment required by operators though would be pretty intensive though, as well as the infrastructure upgrades to make rapid charging available throughout the airfield. Personally I think the emissions savings would be worth it though. Imagine a portable (towable) power wall instead of an unfiltered lovely diesel powered air starter to turn a compressor to get an engine started on an aircraft with a dead APU. Use them to top up charge service and maintenance vehicles, then tow them back to the mains charger when they get low. Hell, integrate auto pilot and they can motor themselves to where they're needed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
And hangars and terminal buildings have huge roof area that could generate a whole bunch of solar power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 07:26
|
|