On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>
> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".

I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".

>  YOU may imagine that
>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When Toyota,
>> VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not survive.
>
> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
> replace them in the not too distant future.

Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think. Battery
EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
national fleet of plug in EV's.

Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
time soon, and I can't see that happening....

> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little doubt
>  that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere mortals.

Indeed.

The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev likes
to think it is :)

>  Comparing
>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>> cars.
>
> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts is
> far superior to any other.

Shame their cars aren't :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/7/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/07/2023 10:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 7:13 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Yeah, well, I've been telling anyone who will listen, since
>>>>>>>> the mid-1980s, that Apple is evil. They still are. My $500.00
>>>>>>>> Oppo does everything a $1,200.00 iPhone can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As does my $390 Pixel 6a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Damn!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really give a crap about the cost. My current phone is a
>>>>> Galaxy S21 Ultra which at the time I bought it was just as
>>>>> expensive, if not more, as any Iphone then on the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> My dislike for Apple was about Steve Jobs and everything he stood
>>>>> for, and the fact that the cunt of a thing is dead doesn't change
>>>>> my view and make me suddenly want to spend money with a company
>>>>> that he had anything to do with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Smart move. I've been a PC (IBM compatible) guy since the 1980s.
>>>> In fact, a mate asked me to suggest 'the ultimate PC', back in 2010.
>>>> Gigabyte MB, Intel i5 (first gen) CPU, crap-loads of RAM, etc.
>>>> Sometime around 2013-4 he decided to 'upgrade' to an Apple Mac
>>>> thing. Looked sexy. Did some fancy video stuff, but when it came to
>>>> doing day to day stuff, it was no faster than his old PC. He gave me
>>>> his old i5 machine.
>>>>
>>>> When his Mac went down, the bill was so horrendous, he bought a new
>>>> machine. The video sub-system had failed. $2,200.00. The same fault
>>>> in his old PC would have cost around $200.00 to fix.
>>>>
>>>> Then his new Mac failed. Yep, you guessed it - Another new iMac.
>>>>
>>>> The new one bit the dust too. Another new iMac.
>>>
>>> Many schools in Vic used mostly Macs, considerably more expensive but
>>> according to the people whose job it was to look after them they were
>>> bought mostly because they were considerably more reliable.
>>> My nephews wife is a very highly paid graphic designer, apparently in
>>> that industry they exclusively use Macs.
>>> Make of that what you will.
>>> These days they have mostly gotten rid of desktop computers and the
>>> students almost all have iPads
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the kicker: I still wheel out his old PC now and again (I
>>>> retired it in late 2018, for a new HP laptop (which still works a
>>>> treat, though it needs a battery), when I need some of it's facilities.
>>>
>>> A couple of days ago I decided to fire up my old Sony laptop that has
>>> car tuning software installed, it booted up properly but when it
>>> restarted after an update it locked up and I couldn't do anything
>>> with it.
>>> Thought that it was junk but I removed the battery, let it sit for a
>>> while and when I tried it again it booted up properly:-)
>>>>
>>>> You can stick your Apple shit where the Sun don't shine. Yeah and
>>>> Jobs was just a con-man sales-droid, who was able to work out what
>>>> people wanted to buy, before they knew it. In my business, the late
>>>> Amar Bose was just such a con-man. 'No highs, no lows, it must be
>>>> Bose'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And now we have Musk selling junk, there are con men everywhere:-)
>>>
>>
>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>
> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
>  YOU may imagine that
>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When Toyota,
>> VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not survive.
>
> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
> replace them in the not too distant future.

Fuel cells, possibly, but ICE running directly on hydrogen has already
proven to be a *non-runner* purely because of the nature of hydrogen as
a fuel.

> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little doubt
>  that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere mortals.
>
>  Comparing
>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>> cars.
>
> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts is
> far superior to any other.

Look into the technology in their battery systems, quite a deal of
complexity in them.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 11/7/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>
>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".

Well, we need only look at your financial advice to know that you
haven't a clue what can be considered value for money.
>
>>   YOU may imagine that
>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>> survive.
>>
>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>
> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think. Battery

Omigod, you've learnt something! You've learnt that ICE's burning
hydrogen are a non-runner - after we told you so.

> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>
> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
> time soon, and I can't see that happening....

Ukraine is providing the perfect example of why we shouldn't go nuclear.
>
>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev likes
> to think it is :)

Nobody, not even Trev, says that it is. It's you tossing bullshit into
the ring again.
>
>>   Comparing
>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>>> cars.
>>
>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
>> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts
>> is far superior to any other.
>
> Shame their cars aren't :)

They sell a lot more of them than Nissan manage to.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 11/7/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>
>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>
>>   YOU may imagine that
>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>> survive.
>>
>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>
> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think. Battery
> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>
> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
> time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>
>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev likes
> to think it is :)
>
>>   Comparing
>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>>> cars.
>>
>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
>> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts
>> is far superior to any other.
>
> Shame their cars aren't :)
>
>
Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
makes any Tesla obsolete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo

--
Daryl

On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>
>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>
>>
> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
> makes any Tesla obsolete.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo

Very interesting. Hideously ugly vehicle, but interesting nonetheless.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>>
>>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>>
>> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
>> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>>
>>>   YOU may imagine that
>>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>>> survive.
>>>
>>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>>
>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>> Battery EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable"
>> energy grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to
>> be we simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
>> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>>
>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
>> time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>>
>>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us
>>> mere mortals.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>> likes to think it is :)
>>
>>>   Comparing
>>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer
>>>> for cars.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>
>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>
>>
> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
> makes any Tesla obsolete.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo
>

**Very impressive. <10kWh/100km. However, I draw your attention to the
fact that it is a concept car, not a model you can actually buy. Do you
imagine that Tesla is not working feverishly to provide lower energy
consumption for their vehicles?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>
>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>
>>   YOU may imagine that
>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>> survive.
>>
>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>
> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.

**Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard in
that area. BEVs will have their place though.

Battery
> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
> national fleet of plug in EV's.

**That old chestnut. The reality trumps ignorance every time:

https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid

IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV panels
are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.

>
> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
> time soon, and I can't see that happening....

**25% more power. Needing a "string of nuclear power stations"?

Nope.

>
>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev likes
> to think it is :)

**Did I say it was cut and dried?

>
>>   Comparing
>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>>> cars.
>>
>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
>> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts
>> is far superior to any other.
>
> Shame their cars aren't :)

**They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the looks
and you don't care about the performance though.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/07/2023 1:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
>> makes any Tesla obsolete.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo
>>
>
> **Very impressive.

It is indeed.

> <10kWh/100km. However, I draw your attention to the
> fact that it is a concept car, not a model you can actually buy.

That may be so, but a lot of the stuff you cite as being a "game
changer" would fit into the same category. Take Al-Ion batteries for
example. You continually bleat about them as changing the world of
electric vehicles and standing the whole automotive world on it's ear,
but they're not yet available and there is nothing to say that they will
be any time soon.
> Do you imagine that Tesla is not working feverishly to provide lower
energy
> consumption for their vehicles?

If they had any brains they would be, but whether they're coming up with
anything positive I can't tell you.

Do you know?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/7/2023 1:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>>>
>>>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>>>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>>>
>>> I agree. There is nothing that I can see in anything they make that
>>> would go even remotely close to being considered "value for money".
>>>
>>>>   YOU may imagine that
>>>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>>>> survive.
>>>>
>>>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>>>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>>>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>>>
>>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>>> Battery EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable"
>>> energy grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to
>>> be we simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate
>>> a national fleet of plug in EV's.
>>>
>>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations
>>> some time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>>>
>>>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>>>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>>>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us
>>>> mere mortals.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>>> likes to think it is :)
>>>
>>>>   Comparing
>>>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer
>>>>> for cars.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there
>>>> is nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>>
>>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>>
>>>
>> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
>> makes any Tesla obsolete.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo
>>
>
> **Very impressive. <10kWh/100km. However, I draw your attention to the
> fact that it is a concept car, not a model you can actually buy. Do you
> imagine that Tesla is not working feverishly to provide lower energy
> consumption for their vehicles?
>
Very likely they are but if they had anything close to the range of the
EQXX its very likely that they would be marketing the hell out of it but
so far they are silent.
What I thought was interesting about the MB concept was that they are
saying that the aerodynamics is critical even at speeds as low as 60kph,
doesn't look pretty but very effective in increasing range.

--
Daryl

On 11/07/2023 1:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>
> **Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard in
> that area. BEVs will have their place though.

A limited place.

BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using ICE's
and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network. Once that
happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.

>  Battery
>> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
>> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
>> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
>> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>
> **That old chestnut. The reality trumps ignorance every time:
>
> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>
> IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
> another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV panels
> are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.

Rubbish :)

Firstly, fuel cell vehicles will have little to no impact on the power
grid requirements. Secondly, A Tesla being charged at home on a regular
power point will pull 2kW an hour to give 15Km of range. 2kW per hour is
roughly the the same consumption rate of your average medium sized split
system air conditioner. Our current power grid, at least here in
Victoria, is in *such* a piss poor inadequate state that we *already*
have power companies offering people financial incentives to turn off
air conditioners over Summer as the grid cannot cope, and it's only
going to get worse as coal powered power stations are shut down before
an adequate supply of alternative generation is introduced.

>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations some
>> time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>
> **25% more power. Needing a "string of nuclear power stations"?
>
> Nope.

You live in La-La Land. Our grid cannot cope with the demands placed on
it now. Believing that an additional 25% load could be easily achieved
is on a par with believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny :)

>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>> likes to think it is :)
>
> **Did I say it was cut and dried?

You certainly seem to imply that it is.

>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>
>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>
> **They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the looks
> and you don't care about the performance though.

I don't care for their cars one bit. And it's not because I have no time
for Elon Musk, although that certainly helps. I just find nothing about
them I like, and think they're over priced poorly built heaps of shit.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/07/2023 10:45 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/7/2023 5:21 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/07/2023 10:43 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 7:00 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 9/07/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/07/2023 12:55 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 9:35 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 8:36 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/06/2023 10:36 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think there are too many good looking cars of any kind
>>>>>>>>> these days, and it's like there's a competition amongst
>>>>>>>>> manufacturers to see who can make the ugliest thing around and
>>>>>>>>> still have people want to own it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mercedes Benz and Lexus are clear leaders in this field :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I love bashing Mercs. Over-priced and unreliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone makes products with issues these days. Everyone.
>>>>>>> Including Toyota. There has never been a manufacturer who has a
>>>>>>> perfect record for making fault free cars in the history of
>>>>>>> vehicle manufacturing, and as much as I'm not a Benz fan there
>>>>>>> would be plenty I would direct my angst towards before I targeted
>>>>>>> them as a bad example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like Alfa for example...
>>>>>>> > However, this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
https://www.mercedes-benz.com.au/passengercars/models/cabriolet-roadster/sl/overview.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks great, EXCEPT for that hideous grille. WTF are they
>>>>>>>> thinking? When the latest generation of SL cars were released
>>>>>>>> (10 - 12 years ago?), I thought they looked fabulous. OK, I've
>>>>>>>> been looking at the picture for a few minutes now. Fuck me, they
>>>>>>>> look shithouse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks are incredibly subjective. Personally I don't think the
>>>>>>> grille is any more or less attractive than the rest of the car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, for Lexus:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.lexus.com.au/models/lc/overview
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of my neighbours has that car. Same colour too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have my sympathies :)
>>>>>>> > I reckon it looks pretty damned nice. Grille and all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it looks like a Nissan Skyline with a really bad body
>>>>>>> kit. Not that I want either, but if I had to choose one I'd have
>>>>>>> the Skyline.
>>>>>>> > Mind you: The grilles on their bigger cars looks like shit.
>>>>>>> Same deal with 4WD BMWs. And don't get me
>>>>>>>> started on the plastic shit on the front of the BMW electric
>>>>>>>> cars. YIKES!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're all doing whatever they think they need to in order to
>>>>>>> pull a customer. None of them appeal to me, as I think modern
>>>>>>> cars have no style or character whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By comparison, this looks drop-dead gorgeous:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.tesla.com/en_au/models
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Um, to you perhaps :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least Tesla don't find the need to put a fake cooling intake
>>>>>>>> for a non-existent radiator on their cars. BMW need to dump
>>>>>>>> theirs. And so does Merc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, they may not do, but then they have their own "wank"
>>>>>>> association. Namely Elon Musk. Some people think he's a God. I
>>>>>>> think he's a fucking idiot and wouldn't ever own anything that he
>>>>>>> was associated with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For much the same reason I was never interested in having an
>>>>>>> Iphone thanks to Steve Jobs :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yeah, well, I've been telling anyone who will listen, since the
>>>>>> mid-1980s, that Apple is evil. They still are. My $500.00 Oppo
>>>>>> does everything a $1,200.00 iPhone can.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As does my $390 Pixel 6a.
>>>>
>>>> **I just checked. My 64mp main camera is a beaut. The others
>>>> (there's 5 in total) ain't too shabby either. Bloody huge files
though.
>>>>
>>> I know several people who have owned Oppo phones, most thought they
>>> are OK whilst one hated his so much he smashed to pieces when he
>>> couldn't get it to do what he wanted:-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **well, you can't help morons.
>>
>
> He's the sort of person that doesn't like technology and there are
> plenty of people his age (74) that are like him, he struggles with
> "tech" but give him the plans to a house and he will build it for you
> perfectly so he's far from being a moron.

**He is a moron because he smashed it to pieces. There are other, less
expensive ways of disposing of used 'phones.

> Phone makers don't consider this type of person when they make phones,
> they seem to assume that everyone is a tech junkie.

**Agreed. Which is why he should have purchased one of the very simple
'phones readily available, like the one I bought my, then, 88 year old
mother.

> In a way its for a similar reason many people stick with the brand of
> phone they have had for a long time, they simply don't like change.
>

**Yep. They're morons. I've had at least 8 different 'phones. Probably a
couple more. Admittedly, two have been Samsungs and two Oppos, but all
the others were different. No Apple products, of course. Apple is evil
and Apple users are stupid. I will always choose the best value product
at any given time. Next time it might be an Oppo, or a Pixel, or
something else. It's unlikely to be a Sammy, because they're almost as
expensive as Apples. You never know, but I can promise you: It will
NEVER be an Apple product.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/07/2023 1:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
>> makes any Tesla obsolete.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo
>>
>
> **Very impressive. <10kWh/100km. However, I draw your attention to the
> fact that it is a concept car, not a model you can actually buy. Do you
> imagine that Tesla is not working feverishly to provide lower energy
> consumption for their vehicles?
>
What Tesla seems to be working feverishly on is self driving cars.

There isn't much that you can do to lower energy consumption in an
electric car, the motors are already highly efficient, maybe weight
saving, aerodynamics, and tyres would give some improvement, but not
that much. Battery technology is the only place where there are
significant gains to be made.

On 11/07/2023 3:49 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **Yep. They're morons. I've had at least 8 different 'phones. Probably a
> couple more. Admittedly, two have been Samsungs and two Oppos, but all
> the others were different. No Apple products, of course. Apple is evil
> and Apple users are stupid. I will always choose the best value product
> at any given time. Next time it might be an Oppo, or a Pixel, or
> something else. It's unlikely to be a Sammy, because they're almost as
> expensive as Apples. You never know, but I can promise you: It will
> NEVER be an Apple product.

That's as moronic as always buying an Apple phone. I've never bought one
because I don't believe that they are value for money, and I have no
need for a status symbol, but I don't rule out buying one ever.

On 11/07/2023 3:49 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 10/07/2023 10:45 am, Daryl wrote:

> > He's the sort of person that doesn't like technology and there are
> > plenty of people his age (74) that are like him, he struggles with
> > "tech" but give him the plans to a house and he will build it for you
> > perfectly so he's far from being a moron.
>
> **He is a moron because he smashed it to pieces. There are other, less
> expensive ways of disposing of used 'phones.

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to disposing of something like an old
phone, smashing it to pieces is about as cheap as it gets :)

> > In a way its for a similar reason many people stick with the brand of
> > phone they have had for a long time, they simply don't like change.
> >
>
> **Yep. They're morons. I've had at least 8 different 'phones. Probably a
> couple more. Admittedly, two have been Samsungs and two Oppos, but all
> the others were different. No Apple products, of course. Apple is evil
> and Apple users are stupid. I will always choose the best value product
> at any given time. Next time it might be an Oppo, or a Pixel, or
> something else. It's unlikely to be a Sammy, because they're almost as
> expensive as Apples. You never know, but I can promise you: It will
> NEVER be an Apple product.

Currently on my second Samsung, and it will be my last. I'm a bit over
their "naggy" way of doing business. 3 HTC's before that and loved them.
They were great. A "Windows" phone the brand of which I can't remember,
and prior to that a bunch of Nokia's and originally Motorola's back in
the analogue "brick" days.

I don't have any particular brand loyalty, but some are very good and
excel at particular products. Motorola used to make the best phones on
the planet, as did Nokia before they completely dropped the ball and
didn't see the whole "smart phone" thing coming. These days it's all
down to personal preference, but one thing I am in complete agreement
with you is that I will never own a Iphone.

Ever :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/07/2023 5:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 3:49 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Yep. They're morons. I've had at least 8 different 'phones. Probably
>> a couple more. Admittedly, two have been Samsungs and two Oppos, but
>> all the others were different. No Apple products, of course. Apple is
>> evil and Apple users are stupid. I will always choose the best value
>> product at any given time. Next time it might be an Oppo, or a Pixel,
>> or something else. It's unlikely to be a Sammy, because they're almost
>> as expensive as Apples. You never know, but I can promise you: It will
>> NEVER be an Apple product.
>
> That's as moronic as always buying an Apple phone. I've never bought one
> because I don't believe that they are value for money, and I have no
> need for a status symbol, but I don't rule out buying one ever.
>

**Since the 1980s (which is when I first began my exploration of
computers), Apple has always been far too expensive for what it offers.
It's been almost 40 years and the company has never deviated from that
course. I suspect it is unlikely they ever will.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/07/2023 2:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 1:30 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 12:25 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Fuel cells will be the way we will eventually go I would think.
>>
>> **Very probably, since Japan (the whole nation) is moving very hard in
>> that area. BEVs will have their place though.
>
> A limited place.
>
> BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using ICE's
> and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network. Once that
> happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.

**We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or rarely)
paying for fuel is compelling.

>
>
>>   Battery
>>> EV's have far too many short-comings and with the "renewable" energy
>>> grid turning out to be the fizzer it looks like it's going to be we
>>> simply won't have the power generating capacity to accommodate a
>>> national fleet of plug in EV's.
>>
>> **That old chestnut. The reality trumps ignorance every time:
>>
>> https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid
>>
>> IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
>> another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV panels
>> are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.
>
> Rubbish :)

**So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?

Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:

https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses

Note the steepness of the graph.

>
> Firstly, fuel cell vehicles will have little to no impact on the power
> grid requirements.

**Huh? The only way to generate 'green H2' is using electricity.

Secondly, A Tesla being charged at home on a regular
> power point will pull 2kW an hour to give 15Km of range. 2kW per hour is
> roughly the the same consumption rate of your average medium sized split
> system air conditioner.  Our current power grid, at least here in
> Victoria, is in *such* a piss poor inadequate state that we *already*
> have power companies offering people financial incentives to turn off
> air conditioners over Summer as the grid cannot cope, and it's only
> going to get worse as coal powered power stations are shut down before
> an adequate supply of alternative generation is introduced.

**I presented data outlining the implications of a full implementation
of EVs in the US. Australia is very similar. We will need around 25%
more generating capacity than we have today, WHEN everyone is driving
EVs. That day is likely to be well into the 2030s. We have time to
install crap-loads more Solar PV, wind turbines and batteries.

>
>>> Not unless they start building a string of Nuclear power stations
>>> some time soon, and I can't see that happening....
>>
>> **25% more power. Needing a "string of nuclear power stations"?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> You live in La-La Land.

**No, I don't. I live in a world of facts and figures. Like the ones I
presented to you.

Our grid cannot cope with the demands placed on
> it now. Believing that an additional 25% load could be easily achieved
> is on a par with believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny :)

**"Easy"? No. Do-able? Absolutely!

>
>>> The issue is certainly not anywhere near as cut and dried as Trev
>>> likes to think it is :)
>>
>> **Did I say it was cut and dried?
>
> You certainly seem to imply that it is.

**Uh-huh.

>
>>>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there
>>>> is nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference
>>>> between Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all
>>>> accounts is far superior to any other.
>>>
>>> Shame their cars aren't :)
>>
>> **They seem to be doing just fine. I get that you don't like the looks
>> and you don't care about the performance though.
>
> I don't care for their cars one bit. And it's not because I have no time
> for Elon Musk, although that certainly helps. I just find nothing about
> them I like, and think they're over priced poorly built heaps of shit.

**OK. Your opinion is noted.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/7/2023 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 5:04 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 3:49 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **Yep. They're morons. I've had at least 8 different 'phones.
>>> Probably a couple more. Admittedly, two have been Samsungs and two
>>> Oppos, but all the others were different. No Apple products, of
>>> course. Apple is evil and Apple users are stupid. I will always
>>> choose the best value product at any given time. Next time it might
>>> be an Oppo, or a Pixel, or something else. It's unlikely to be a
>>> Sammy, because they're almost as expensive as Apples. You never know,
>>> but I can promise you: It will NEVER be an Apple product.
>>
>> That's as moronic as always buying an Apple phone. I've never bought
>> one because I don't believe that they are value for money, and I have
>> no need for a status symbol, but I don't rule out buying one ever.
>>
>
> **Since the 1980s (which is when I first began my exploration of
> computers), Apple has always been far too expensive for what it offers.
> It's been almost 40 years and the company has never deviated from that
> course. I suspect it is unlikely they ever will.
>

Agree that a lot of their gear is expensive but not all.
Have a look at a Mac mini, its not overly expensive and they do what
they are supposed to do very well.
--
Daryl

On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/07/2023 10:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 7:13 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Yeah, well, I've been telling anyone who will listen, since
>>>>>>>> the mid-1980s, that Apple is evil. They still are. My $500.00
>>>>>>>> Oppo does everything a $1,200.00 iPhone can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As does my $390 Pixel 6a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Damn!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really give a crap about the cost. My current phone is a
>>>>> Galaxy S21 Ultra which at the time I bought it was just as
>>>>> expensive, if not more, as any Iphone then on the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> My dislike for Apple was about Steve Jobs and everything he stood
>>>>> for, and the fact that the cunt of a thing is dead doesn't change
>>>>> my view and make me suddenly want to spend money with a company
>>>>> that he had anything to do with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Smart move. I've been a PC (IBM compatible) guy since the 1980s.
>>>> In fact, a mate asked me to suggest 'the ultimate PC', back in 2010.
>>>> Gigabyte MB, Intel i5 (first gen) CPU, crap-loads of RAM, etc.
>>>> Sometime around 2013-4 he decided to 'upgrade' to an Apple Mac
>>>> thing. Looked sexy. Did some fancy video stuff, but when it came to
>>>> doing day to day stuff, it was no faster than his old PC. He gave me
>>>> his old i5 machine.
>>>>
>>>> When his Mac went down, the bill was so horrendous, he bought a new
>>>> machine. The video sub-system had failed. $2,200.00. The same fault
>>>> in his old PC would have cost around $200.00 to fix.
>>>>
>>>> Then his new Mac failed. Yep, you guessed it - Another new iMac.
>>>>
>>>> The new one bit the dust too. Another new iMac.
>>>
>>> Many schools in Vic used mostly Macs, considerably more expensive but
>>> according to the people whose job it was to look after them they were
>>> bought mostly because they were considerably more reliable.
>>> My nephews wife is a very highly paid graphic designer, apparently in
>>> that industry they exclusively use Macs.
>>> Make of that what you will.
>>> These days they have mostly gotten rid of desktop computers and the
>>> students almost all have iPads
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the kicker: I still wheel out his old PC now and again (I
>>>> retired it in late 2018, for a new HP laptop (which still works a
>>>> treat, though it needs a battery), when I need some of it's facilities.
>>>
>>> A couple of days ago I decided to fire up my old Sony laptop that has
>>> car tuning software installed, it booted up properly but when it
>>> restarted after an update it locked up and I couldn't do anything
>>> with it.
>>> Thought that it was junk but I removed the battery, let it sit for a
>>> while and when I tried it again it booted up properly:-)
>>>>
>>>> You can stick your Apple shit where the Sun don't shine. Yeah and
>>>> Jobs was just a con-man sales-droid, who was able to work out what
>>>> people wanted to buy, before they knew it. In my business, the late
>>>> Amar Bose was just such a con-man. 'No highs, no lows, it must be
>>>> Bose'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And now we have Musk selling junk, there are con men everywhere:-)
>>>
>>
>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>
> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being idiotic,
> nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".

**That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of customers,
who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his, slightly
slower, Ferrari.

>
>  YOU may imagine that
>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When Toyota,
>> VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not survive.
>
> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
> replace them in the not too distant future.

**ICE running on H2? Are you fucking serious? You have been presented
with pages of data that proves it will never happen. It will be BEVs or
fuel cell cars. That's it. H2 ICE might be for niche vehicles only.

> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little doubt
>  that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere mortals.

**They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities, dedicated
to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world moved to Li-Ion
batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply because they had
invested so much into that technology. That is when Tesla had a
jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean sheet. Toyota
doesn't.

>
>  Comparing
>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>> cars.
>
> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts is
> far superior to any other.

**Oh, I agree that most EV makers have pretty much caught up to Tesla.
BUT, you forget: Tesla is crazy profitable. They can always cut their
prices to compete, if required.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/7/2023 4:02 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 1:18 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 1:00 pm, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Check out the MB EQXX prototype that gets 1200km on a single charge,
>>> makes any Tesla obsolete.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49R618Tsdo
>>>
>>
>> **Very impressive. <10kWh/100km. However, I draw your attention to the
>> fact that it is a concept car, not a model you can actually buy. Do
>> you imagine that Tesla is not working feverishly to provide lower
>> energy consumption for their vehicles?
>>
> What Tesla seems to be working feverishly on is self driving cars.

To me that doesn't seem like a great plan, AFAIK self driving cars will
rely on standardized road markings and signs and those seem to vary
considerably from place to place.
Even if they manage to get the tech working safely its going to take a
lot of work convincing Governments and the public that its safe.
>
> There isn't much that you can do to lower energy consumption in an
> electric car, the motors are already highly efficient, maybe weight
> saving, aerodynamics, and tyres would give some improvement, but not
> that much. Battery technology is the only place where there are
> significant gains to be made.

Pretty much but the effort they put into into weight reduction and aero
seems to have made a huge difference to the range of the EQXX.

--
Daryl

On 11/7/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 11/7/2023 10:01 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 9/07/2023 10:56 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2023 7:13 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:53 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 5:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/07/2023 4:20 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Yeah, well, I've been telling anyone who will listen, since
>>>>>>>>> the mid-1980s, that Apple is evil. They still are. My $500.00
>>>>>>>>> Oppo does everything a $1,200.00 iPhone can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As does my $390 Pixel 6a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Damn!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really give a crap about the cost. My current phone is a
>>>>>> Galaxy S21 Ultra which at the time I bought it was just as
>>>>>> expensive, if not more, as any Iphone then on the market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My dislike for Apple was about Steve Jobs and everything he stood
>>>>>> for, and the fact that the cunt of a thing is dead doesn't change
>>>>>> my view and make me suddenly want to spend money with a company
>>>>>> that he had anything to do with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Smart move. I've been a PC (IBM compatible) guy since the 1980s.
>>>>> In fact, a mate asked me to suggest 'the ultimate PC', back in
>>>>> 2010. Gigabyte MB, Intel i5 (first gen) CPU, crap-loads of RAM,
>>>>> etc. Sometime around 2013-4 he decided to 'upgrade' to an Apple Mac
>>>>> thing. Looked sexy. Did some fancy video stuff, but when it came to
>>>>> doing day to day stuff, it was no faster than his old PC. He gave
>>>>> me his old i5 machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> When his Mac went down, the bill was so horrendous, he bought a new
>>>>> machine. The video sub-system had failed. $2,200.00. The same fault
>>>>> in his old PC would have cost around $200.00 to fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then his new Mac failed. Yep, you guessed it - Another new iMac.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new one bit the dust too. Another new iMac.
>>>>
>>>> Many schools in Vic used mostly Macs, considerably more expensive
>>>> but according to the people whose job it was to look after them they
>>>> were bought mostly because they were considerably more reliable.
>>>> My nephews wife is a very highly paid graphic designer, apparently
>>>> in that industry they exclusively use Macs.
>>>> Make of that what you will.
>>>> These days they have mostly gotten rid of desktop computers and the
>>>> students almost all have iPads
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the kicker: I still wheel out his old PC now and again (I
>>>>> retired it in late 2018, for a new HP laptop (which still works a
>>>>> treat, though it needs a battery), when I need some of it's
>>>>> facilities.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of days ago I decided to fire up my old Sony laptop that
>>>> has car tuning software installed, it booted up properly but when it
>>>> restarted after an update it locked up and I couldn't do anything
>>>> with it.
>>>> Thought that it was junk but I removed the battery, let it sit for a
>>>> while and when I tried it again it booted up properly:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can stick your Apple shit where the Sun don't shine. Yeah and
>>>>> Jobs was just a con-man sales-droid, who was able to work out what
>>>>> people wanted to buy, before they knew it. In my business, the late
>>>>> Amar Bose was just such a con-man. 'No highs, no lows, it must be
>>>>> Bose'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And now we have Musk selling junk, there are con men everywhere:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> **Now that is an idiotic thing to say. Tesla cars are not only
>>> profitable, but they offer decent value for money.
>>
>> I did put a smiley at the end of my post but now you are being
>> idiotic, nothing made by Tesla is "decent value for money".
>
> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of customers,
> who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his, slightly
> slower, Ferrari.
>
>>
>>   YOU may imagine that
>>> there is a future for ICE cars, but the writing is on the wall. ICE
>>> cars will only exist in niche markets within a few years. When
>>> Toyota, VW and the others embrace EVs fully, Tesla may, or may not
>>> survive.
>>
>> Its looking more and more that battery EV's have just been a fad and
>> other technologies such as fuel cell or ICE running on hydrogen will
>> replace them in the not too distant future.
>
> **ICE running on H2? Are you fucking serious? You have been presented

Unfortunately he is.

> with pages of data that proves it will never happen. It will be BEVs or

Those pages of data have numbers and words on them. Illiteracy and
innumeracy are severe problems in Victoria. Some people can pass VCE and
still not read or count. Others run away from exams because they know
they will fail.

> fuel cell cars. That's it. H2 ICE might be for niche vehicles only.

Maybe in long haul trucks but they will need a hell of a lot more
development in ICE technology before they are viable even for that.
>
>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> **They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities, dedicated
> to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world moved to Li-Ion
> batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply because they had
> invested so much into that technology. That is when Tesla had a
> jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean sheet. Toyota
> doesn't.
>
>>
>>   Comparing
>>> Tesla to Apple is dumb. Tesla was, in every sense, a game-changer for
>>> cars.
>>
>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
>> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts
>> is far superior to any other.
>
> **Oh, I agree that most EV makers have pretty much caught up to Tesla.
> BUT, you forget: Tesla is crazy profitable. They can always cut their
> prices to compete, if required.

They did precisely that in China recently. The local (Chinese) carmakers
whinged long and hard about that. The local EV makers are struggling in
the home market and are being forced to discount just to stay afloat but
Tesla is still profitable *after* huge discounts.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of customers,
> who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his, slightly
> slower, Ferrari.

Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your metric,
if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a race track
and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive hours earlier.

On 11/07/2023 6:19 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **Since the 1980s (which is when I first began my exploration of
> computers), Apple has always been far too expensive for what it offers.
> It's been almost 40 years and the company has never deviated from that
> course. I suspect it is unlikely they ever will.
>
You do have a rather mono-ocular view of things Trevor, they don't offer
value to you, but, in certain applications, apparently people find that
they do.

I've never had an Apple computer, and have rarely used one, but I have
an iPad, and an iPod nano because they do what they do better than any
other option that I've found.

On 11/07/2023 6:36 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 2:07 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> BEV's best period is now, filling the gap in between people using
>> ICE's and the roll out of an effective Hydrogen refuelling network.
>> Once that happens I think BEV's will disappear pretty quickly.
>
> **We'll see. Many city BEV owners charge their cars from rooftop Solar.
> Zero cost. H2 will always cost something. The idea of never (or rarely)
> paying for fuel is compelling.

Are they?

For people to be using solar to charge their cars would mean that
they're not using their cars during the day which would make me wonder
why anyone who didn't have a need to use a car during the daytime would
bother buying an electric vehicle in the first place.

>>> IOW: If ALL vehicles are EV (BEV or fuel cell), we will need to find
>>> another 20 ~ 25% of electricity for them. At the rate Solar PV panels
>>> are being rolled out, we should comfortably meet that demand.
>>
>> Rubbish :)
>
> **So you say. Do you dispute the 25% thing or the fact that we are
> rolling out Solar PV at a massive rate?
>
> Here's the figures on Solar PV installations:
>
> https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses
>
> Note the steepness of the graph.

I actually dispute not only both those figures, but also a third that
you clearly haven't considered which would be the number of vehicles
left at home during the day to be able to be charged while the sun is
shining :)

>> Firstly, fuel cell vehicles will have little to no impact on the power
>> grid requirements.
>
> **Huh? The only way to generate 'green H2' is using electricity.

No one was talking about green H2

>  Secondly, A Tesla being charged at home on a regular
>> power point will pull 2kW an hour to give 15Km of range. 2kW per hour
>> is roughly the the same consumption rate of your average medium sized
>> split system air conditioner.  Our current power grid, at least here
>> in Victoria, is in *such* a piss poor inadequate state that we
>> *already* have power companies offering people financial incentives to
>> turn off air conditioners over Summer as the grid cannot cope, and
>> it's only going to get worse as coal powered power stations are shut
>> down before an adequate supply of alternative generation is introduced.
>
> **I presented data outlining the implications of a full implementation
> of EVs in the US. Australia is very similar.

Australia is *nothing* like the US. Thankfully.

> We will need around 25% more generating capacity than we have today, WHEN everyone is driving
> EVs. That day is likely to be well into the 2030s. We have time to
> install crap-loads more Solar PV, wind turbines and batteries.

2035 is only 12 years from now, and if you think we are going to have a
power generation capability 25% greater than the current average demand
you are completely off your trolley. Especially when you consider that
we struggle to keep pace now *just* with the average population growth
and the demands the continual increase in housing place on the system.

>> You live in La-La Land.
>
> **No, I don't. I live in a world of facts and figures. Like the ones I
> presented to you.

The ones that aren't relevant to this country you mean?

>  Our grid cannot cope with the demands placed on
>> it now. Believing that an additional 25% load could be easily achieved
>> is on a par with believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny :)
>
> **"Easy"? No. Do-able? Absolutely!

If they are "do-able", then I'd happily bet the farm that it would be
the first time in this country's history that such a target has ever
been met.

>> I don't care for their cars one bit. And it's not because I have no
>> time for Elon Musk, although that certainly helps. I just find nothing
>> about them I like, and think they're over priced poorly built heaps of
>> shit.
>
> **OK. Your opinion is noted.

You asked, I gave it to you.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 12:13 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> The biggest car maker in the world Toyota have spent a lot of money
>> developing other low emission car technologies and there is little
>> doubt   that they would know a lot more about the subject that us mere
>> mortals.
>
> **They also have a HUGE number of HUGE production facilities, dedicated
> to ICE/hybrid cars. Don't forget: When the EV car world moved to Li-Ion
> batteries, Toyota clung to NiMh batteries, simply because they had
> invested so much into that technology. That is when Tesla had a
> jump-start over everyone else. They started with a clean sheet. Toyota
> doesn't.

That in itself would tell anyone who had any interest in this subject
that it's not all about BEV's and them being the dominant vehicle type
of the near future.

>> Nonsense, Tesla's main claim to fame is excellent marketing, there is
>> nothing special about their cars, the main point of difference between
>> Tesla and other EV's is their charging network which by all accounts
>> is far superior to any other.
>
> **Oh, I agree that most EV makers have pretty much caught up to Tesla.
> BUT, you forget: Tesla is crazy profitable. They can always cut their
> prices to compete, if required.

What exactly *is* their profit margin per unit Trev?

Tesla's only saving grace is that up until now they've had a nice market
largely all to themselves and haven't had any real opposition. But that
scenario is not going to last forever and once they find themselves
competing head on against some big players they might find they have to
sell their cars *very* cheap just to stay in the game.

A lot of manufacturers have gone down that road before, and not many
have lived to talk about it :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 11/07/2023 7:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 6:43 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **That would depend on your metric. Clearly, quite a few Tesla owners
>> feel that they are decent value for money. Including one of customers,
>> who is on his second Tesla, which is garaged beside his, slightly
>> slower, Ferrari.
>
> Slightly slower? I suppose that, as you say, it depends on your metric,
> if it is 0-100 the the Tesla would likely win, put them on a race track
> and I doubt it. On a 1000km drive, the Ferrari would arrive hours earlier.

Of course it would.

Trevor has this "belief" that just because a car can accelerate quick in
a straight line that it becomes an all conquering sports car, and has
often cited Tesla's has having "Ferrari like performance". What Trevor
completely fails to appreciate is that your average Tesla does *not*
handle, stop or perform anything like a Ferrari when it comes to driving
over a point to point course or a race track. In fact, a Tesla Model S
Plaid and a Ferrari SF90 Stradale were tested at the Zhejiang Circuit in
China where the Farrari was almost a full 15 seconds a lap quicker than
the Tesla despite the Tesla being slightly faster than the Ferrari in a
0-100kmh drag race.

In fact, with a lap time of 1:44.90 the Tesla ranks just outside the top
50, and slower than a Ford Mustang Shelby GT350R which ranked at number
37 :)

> https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/h8rd07gll50r

Trevor can bang on about Tesla "performance" all he likes, but
personally I tend to think that performance is *not* the motivating
factor driving most people to buy the things if the way I see them being
driven is any indicator.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.