Quake3World

Bitwise, maybe my legalese sucks, but how does that amendment target Tesla? Looks to me like it just prevents any new car retailers from setting up shop.

I'm pretty sure it simply prohibits car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers, thus cutting out the dealerships as a middle-man. "If the registrar finds that the dealer-applicant is the manufacturer or is a subsidiary thereof, fuck you, no dice" is what I'm reading. Stubborn mother fuckers. Free market means you die when you can't adapt, not "please prop me up unnaturally."

GONNAFISTYA wrote:How was the fit?

Toit loike a toigah

Eraser wrote:

Memphis wrote:Apparently a couple CNN reporters are reenacting the journey. Could be intere...snore.

For what it's worth, turns out the trip is easy to complete without problems. Broder's full of shit.

lol this, made me think of this -

Why even last night the Top Gear office accidentally received an email sent from a Public Relations firm to The One Show, asking if it would like to have the Tesla spokesperson on their programme to talk about the case. It says: "PHA Media represent Tesla and this could make for a fantastic interview." And the PHA man's not finished there. "The presenters could have some fun with this." He adds. "Matt and Alex could even take the Tesla for a spin and test it out, reaffirming its virtues?" Plenty of respect for editorial independence in that last line there and I wish the chaps from PHA Media all the best in their crusade.

http://jalopnik.com/5788297/tesla-vs-to ... man-speaks

As a rule of thumb you shouldn't trust companies that drag their court cases out in the media and should look at things that are not being discussed. Like Tesla are not disputing that Broder ? received faulty advice from Tesla.

losCHUNK wrote:blah blah Top Gear hardon blah blah

You really want to drag this all up again?
Seriously, this whole thread wasn't even about the Top Gear debacle. Who are you even trying to convince?

Tesla dragged it up again, not me

What's wrong with anything I said ?, I think this has a loose resemblance to what happened to TG. It's pretty evident that Tesla don't like anything bad said about their cars wether it's factual or not but so long as its good and buyers should be aware of a company that presents itself in this way

losCHUNK wrote:Tesla dragged it up again, not me

Where? You linked an article from 2 years ago.

The OP posted an article that mentions a bullshit defence against TG to re-inforce their claims of victimisation

Yeah, that's 10 months old.
You understand how dates work?

Also, who are you trying to convince? And what are you trying to convince them of?

Eraser wrote:Yeah, that's 10 months old.
You understand how dates work?

Also, who are you trying to convince? And what are you trying to convince them of?

It's closer than your 2 years, do you understand the progression of time ?

and you know me, bullshit gets called for bullshit. If Musk was a poster his name would be Kracus, you should remember a thread where I completely ripped his now dead hyperloop apart.

A more up to date convo would say its obvious why Tesla don't want to use dealers, it all comes down to protection of their public image with Tesla playing the victim card, again whilst asking for privileges.

losCHUNK wrote:It's closer than your 2 years, do you understand the progression of time ?

Yes I do. And I do know that debating 10 month old pieces of information rarely brings something new to the table. There was this big discussion going on and now everyone's moved on and left it for what it is but here you come like some gilded knight acting like a know-it-all.

losCHUNK wrote: and you know me, bullshit gets called for bullshit. If Musk was a poster his name would be Kracus, you should remember a thread where I completely ripped his now dead hyperloop apart.

Are you always this full of shit? Oh wait, yes you are.
Excuse me if I'm inclined to have more faith in a miracle worker like Elon Musk rather than some pleb on the Internet such as yourself. Bullshit gets called bullshit, yes, and your kindergarten level pseudo science is just that.

losCHUNK wrote:A more up to date convo would say its obvious why Tesla don't want to use dealers, it all comes down to protection of their public image with Tesla playing the victim card, again whilst asking for privileges.

Just noticed this addition.
Tesla's using a business model that makes sense to me. What worth are dealers in this day and age? Cut out the middleman and sell directly to consumers. Sounds like a good idea to me. Certainly removes yet another wallet that needs to be filled. I don't see what this has to do with "playing the victim card".

Oh, and here's a reality check: Tesla is a commercial company. They're in it for the money. Not to be the saints of this world.
If they act the way they do and boo boo on your precious Top Gear, then so be it. Companies have done far, far worse things.

I'm not questioning that (the dealerships), I am questioning their motives. I would assume the direct purpose of the law in the 1st place was to restrict dealerships like Tesla doing exactly what they're planning on doing.

And he isn't a miracle worker, should we celebrate this dude -

[lvlshot]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/05/article-1326823-01FD44E10000044D-596_634x436.jpg[/lvlshot]

It's good having faith n all, just don't misplace it. It's obvious that Musk has made himself out to be the PR guy rather than a brainchild. They're in it for the money, remember ?

They didn't shit on TG either, if anything they re-affirmed that the roadster car is an un-reliable pos with bullshit excuses. It broke down 3 times in 1 take and got bitchy about misrepresenting facts about fuel economy that was given to them by Tesla, the exact same thing thing Broder ? got accused of. The judge laughed it out of court anyway.

I think I brought new information about TG that's relevant to what I have said n all, you can call me a pleb all you want but doesn't make it any less true. It all comes down to Tesla (and musk) being more concerned with public image rather than innovation .

Fuck yeah, we should celebrate Sir Clive!
Modern gaming wouldn't be what it is without him.
Also, the guy's a player.
Have you seen his new missus?

I meant to add *for this*

Spectrum was the bomb yo and no, I suspect you have pics ?

I oblige...

losCHUNK wrote:I'm not questioning that (the dealerships), I am questioning their motives. I would assume the direct purpose of the law in the 1st place was to restrict dealerships like Tesla doing exactly what they're planning on doing.

What exactly is it that Tesla is planning on doing and why is there need of a law to prevent that from happening?

losCHUNK wrote: And he isn't a miracle worker, should we celebrate this dude -

[lvlshot]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/05/article-1326823-01FD44E10000044D-596_634x436.jpg[/lvlshot]

What's he got to do with it?

losCHUNK wrote: It's good having faith n all, just don't misplace it. It's obvious that Musk has made himself out to be the PR guy rather than a brainchild. They're in it for the money, remember ?

Still, scientist or money machine, either way, Musk knows his shit. You, on the other hand, have yet to prove you have even two bits of common sense in you. You say a lot, but most of it is garbage. Granted, that doesn't drive you far from the norm at Q3W here though.

losCHUNK wrote:It all comes down to Tesla (and musk) being more concerned with public image rather than innovation .

I don't agree with you there. Tesla, is being pretty progressive as a company and moving forward with what they're doing. You can't simply discard the entire company and its product because of a few PR failures. Also, you take Top Gear and a single news paper article as the one and only truth, while in this very thread there's a link to an article that shows the opposite, which you keenly seem to ignore. I can also vouch for the fact that my boss regularly drives a Tesla Roadster and has no problems with it.

Let's just agree that the truth must be somewhere in the middle.

Mat Linnett wrote:I oblige...
http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/6 ... -clive.jpg

You're telling me a 73 year old is shagging that?
What's wrong with her?

A chronic addiction to money maybe?

In all seriousness, Sir Clive's love of pretty young things is quite comical and slightly creepy.
There's pictures on the web of him partying with Peter Stringfellow surrounded by half nekkid buxom beauties.

Fair play to him.

Eraser wrote:What exactly is it that Tesla is planning on doing and why is there need of a law to prevent that from happening?

losCHUNK wrote:A more up to date convo would say its obvious why Tesla don't want to use dealers, it all comes down to protection of their public image with Tesla playing the victim card, again whilst asking for privileges.

losCHUNK wrote: And he isn't a miracle worker, should we celebrate this dude -

[lvlshot]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/ ... 34x436.jpg[/lvlshot]

Eraser wrote:What's he got to do with it?

He's the guy that revolutionised electric travel and a true popcorn player

losCHUNK wrote: It's good having faith n all, just don't misplace it. It's obvious that Musk has made himself out to be the PR guy rather than a brainchild. They're in it for the money, remember ?

Eraser wrote:Still, scientist or money machine, either way, Musk knows his shit. You, on the other hand, have yet to prove you have even two bits of common sense in you. You say a lot, but most of it is garbage. Granted, that doesn't drive you far from the norm at Q3W here though.

Why does he know his shit ?, cos he's managed to find investment using his mad PR skills ?, or because he managed to squash a shitload of panasonic batteries in a Lotus and make it worse ?

losCHUNK wrote:It all comes down to Tesla (and musk) being more concerned with public image rather than innovation .

Eraser wrote:I don't agree with you there. Tesla, is being pretty progressive as a company and moving forward with what they're doing. You can't simply discard the entire company and its product because of a few PR failures. Also, you take Top Gear and a single news paper article as the one and only truth, while in this very thread there's a link to an article that shows the opposite, which you keenly seem to ignore. I can also vouch for the fact that my boss regularly drives a Tesla Roadster and has no problems with it.

You ain't agreed with me anywhere but this is about the way they address the PR problems and I havn't avoided shit, in the post below I addressed it head on. I believe you had a go at GFY and myself at some point for claiming if something happens to you then it must be the norm when it obviously isn't. Who's showing bias now cos his boss thinks that stuffing a shitload of panasonic laptop batteries in a car is innovative or because I'm apparently being selective about the information I have used because it disagrees with your ascertation ?. Where do you hear about companies being progressive n all ?, I heard you say exactly the same thing about VR headsets and nothing could be further from the truth. Fuck real innovations with Hydrogen fuel from people like Ford and Honda because they're dirty fuel users ?. Lets be honest if I was slagging off the oil industry you wouldn't have a word to say and would probaly agree blindly.

losCHUNK wrote:

Eraser wrote: For what it's worth, turns out the trip is easy to complete without problems. Broder's full of shit.

lol this, made me think of this -

Why even last night the Top Gear office accidentally received an email sent from a Public Relations firm to The One Show, asking if it would like to have the Tesla spokesperson on their programme to talk about the case. It says: "PHA Media represent Tesla and this could make for a fantastic interview." And the PHA man's not finished there. "The presenters could have some fun with this." He adds. "Matt and Alex could even take the Tesla for a spin and test it out, reaffirming its virtues?" Plenty of respect for editorial independence in that last line there and I wish the chaps from PHA Media all the best in their crusade.

http://jalopnik.com/5788297/tesla-vs-to ... man-speaks

As a rule of thumb you shouldn't trust companies that drag their court cases out in the media and should look at things that are not being discussed. Like Tesla are not disputing that Broder ? received faulty advice from Tesla.

You insist on downplaying the efforts made by Tesla as a car manufacturer. There's a lot more technical engineering involved with creating those cars than simply stuffing a "shitload of panasonic batteries in a Lotus".

As for Elon Musk, yeah, perhaps when it comes down to it, he isn't the brains behind the technical engineering, but he is a large factor in getting these projects from the ground. He's involved, committed. That's makes him infinitely more suitable fortalking about the details of those projects than you are.
When Elon Musk talks about Tesla cars or SpaceX rockets for that matter, he knows what he's talking about because he's involved and is surrounded by people that, in fact, are the brains behind the technical engineering. When you talk about these things, it's just your own interpretation of whatever you read on Wikipedia.

Also, you keep on insisting that it's some kind of monstrous thing that Tesla's doing business-wise. Why would dealers be damaging to their public image? What privileges is it that they are asking for? Also, if they want more control over their distribution lines and have a more direct connection to their customers, then what's bad about that? Why would that be an intrinsically evil thing? In fact so bad, that a law is required to stop them from doing that?

As for the bias: I offered two alternative sources on the quality of the Tesla cars against your two sources. Perhaps I failed to do so, but the point I was trying to make was that the selection of sources are too small and probably too biased to be of any value. I'm not saying that because someone I know has no problems with a car, nobody else is having problems. I am, however, saying, that for every Jeremy Clarkson that does have problems with a car, there is at least one person that has no problems whatsoever.

It is basically stuffing old batteries onto an electric motor, Laptop batteries too, plenty of manufacturers have/are already doing the same thing with limited to success due to the drawbacks with electricity and storage. It's not progressive just rebranded and I wouldn't applaud Red Bull for successfully marketing a drink to idiots.

I wasn't the one calling him/this a brainchild either nor am I the one giving it with both barrels to journalists who list the drawbacks wether they're factually correct or not. Lance Armstrong wasn't necessarily a dick for taking drugs in a drug infested sport, it's cos whilst he was doping he was giving it with both barrels to anyone that accused him of juicing his bollocks off.

It's not monstrous it's just PR and I don't think they should be rewarded as an innovative company when things like Hydrogen as shown by Ford and Honda is a more viable alternative to the consumer instead of flogging a pipedream. It is an inferior product, that is a fact.

I also have reservations about Space X, almost as many as the hyperloop and know people that work for JPL who agree me, but also agree that privatisation of the space industry is a bad thing for various reasons. These are people that will benefit from privatisation n all and I didn't come to this opinion of Musk over night.

And I think you're being completely bias, you're willing to overlook the actions of Tesla as merely protecting their company from defamation as opposed to targeting journalists who are less than enthusiastic about their products despite anything I have said. This is from Musk himself, the top down trying to tell people that his product is great and will pull out of America all together if he can't get his own way in an attempt to control the information thats relayed to the customer through their own distribution networks, because that is the only benefit I can see coming from such a law. Atleast he wouldn't be able to blame poor sales figures on nasty sales people loving their fuel though, but you know it's an excuse he;s already got lined up despite his car being inferior.

Which other electric cars can do 300-400 miles on a single charge, let alone provide that level of luxury/quality?

[xeno]Julios wrote:Bitwise, maybe my legalese sucks, but how does that amendment target Tesla? Looks to me like it just prevents any new car retailers from setting up shop.

A few others hit the point already, but it targets the sales model that Tesla uses. There is a huge dealership lobby the fights to keep consumers from being able to get direct manufacturer sales because the dealers, the local governments, and the banks all get a cut of the action when it comes to selling cars that way. Banks give out special loans that let dealerships finance those hundreds of cars that sit on their lot, and the government gets taxes off those cars. All the other manufactures let you "configure" a car online, but you still have to walk into a dealership and haggle the fuck out of some sales guy to get the car you actually want.

Tesla is the first US car company to focus entirely on direct sales and as soon as it was announced that they planned to open two "dealerships" in Ohio, this bill pops up within days. The bill would be the same as preventing Apple from opening their own stores and forcing them to sell through Best Buy and Walmart. It is a completely arbitrary distinction that shouldn't even be constitutional.

Vaxhall Ampera, Focus EV, Nissan Leaf... Most of the major manufacturers have atleast one at half the price.