FAIL- Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows

[airplanemechanic]

The fraction of something being small is not a useful indicator that it is a "fad"- any new technology will start off rare. That's why I asked when you expect there to be a drop, which is what you expect to happen if it is just a fad. So when do you think there will be fewer than 150,000 electric cars?

The day the gov't stops subsidizing their sales with HUGE tax incentives. The first hybrid car came out in 1997, almost 20 years later they are at 1/10th of 1 percent of the cars on the road.

The day the gov't stops subsidizing is the day the electric market fails.

Two things are killing electrics.

1. The cost to buy. Why buy a Volt when for 20K less I can get a Focus ST and get smoking performance without having to find a place to charge the damn thing all the time? And I can buy a lot of gas for 20K in savings.

2. The performance and gas mileage of the newer cars. Look at the Fiesta ecoboost 1.0 It will SMOKE a Prius, Honda insight, or any other hybrid or electric sans some 400K models. On the highway it gets 50+mpg and is a blast to drive. Hybrids drive like shit, accelerate like turtles and have a 5K battery that is waiting to be changed. They don't get much better than 50mpg and they also have almost no storage, the tiniest Ford models blow them away with the Honda fit being tops.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Airplanemechanic, are you capable of answering a question or not? Do you have a time estimate for when the fad will go away? When do you think the number will drop below 150,000? In 5 years? 10 years? 2 years?

 

[airplanemechanic]

I can't predict the future. When will the gov't stop subsidizing electric vehicle sales?

 

[westwall]

No, much sooner than that. The MSM is actually reporting the global warming failures now. They never did that before. The end is nigh. Of course it helps when the climatologists are caught lying all the time. They are their own worst enemy.

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

At this moment. Yes, I do. At this moment in time it appears the Earth is static, temperature wise. When one looks at non-tampered with local data, they almost ALL show a cooling trend. It is only when they get handed over to the bean counters that a cooling trend suddenly morphs into a regional warming trend.

This occurred in New Zealand where NIWA was forced to get rid of the "adjustments" they had been making to the historical record, and is now happening in Australia where the same shenanigans was occurring.

The one common denominator we have with climatologists, is their extreme propensity to go back and alter (that means falsify) the historical temperature data sets so they can claim warming is occurring now.

 

[westwall]

No. Consensus is NOT important. Facts are important.

Both are important. Facts go into creating a consensus.

If you're referring to the Diophantine equation (can't remember how to spell his name, it's been a few decades) with a few hours I can be quite conversant again. My PhD is in geology where we use a lot of math anyway, but my best friend at Caltech was a theoretical math major, and we had many long discussions about math in general.

Yeah no, (aside from the correct spelling of Diophantine). See, my PhD is in number theory, and I know how absolutely difficult something like Wiles's proof is. At one point when I was a grad student, a bunch of us considered doing a seminar on it, and we realized that we'd need probably at least a full semester just to establish the general framework and techniques used. Some things are genuinely difficult and when experts have put a lot in, it is worth listening to them.

But this ignores my central question: you made a claim, do you have a precise version of that claim or is your claim completely unfalsifiable?

My claim has been that climatology has made a career out of generating non falsifiable predictions. Show me a falsifiable prediction that climatologists have made.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

Yes, they very much exist.

Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars PluginCars.com

If the gov't knocks 7500 off the price of a car because its an electric, that's the gov't interfering with free market.

A tax incentive is the same as a subsidy. It artificially deflates the price of a car.

The Government never ever paid any money at all to the dealerships or "gave customers money." That 7,500.00 incentive came in the form of a NON-REFUNDABLE tax break, it only applied to certain buyers who qualified. Some people (a lot actually) got a much smaller amount back and many, none at all.

 

[westwall]

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

Yes, they very much exist.

Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars PluginCars.com

If the gov't knocks 7500 off the price of a car because its an electric, that's the gov't interfering with free market.

A tax incentive is the same as a subsidy. It artificially deflates the price of a car.

The Government never ever paid any money at all to the dealerships or "give customers money." That 7,500.00 incentive came in the form of a NON-REFUNDABLE tax break, it only applied to certain buyers who qualified. Some people (a lot actually) got a much smaller amount back and many, none at all.

Everybody who owns a car is taxed an extra amount to "give" those tax breaks and incentives to electric car buyers. Take a look at your electric bill for all the little added fee's that you have been paying for the last 12 years or so. That's where that money comes from.

Taxing the middle class and the poor, to give the upper middle class, and the wealthy a tax break on their toys.

Ain't crony capitalism grand!

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So, let me see. If someone asked to bet with you $25 on whether in say 5 years the world-wide consensus will be that global warming is a hoax would you take that bet?

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

At this moment. Yes, I do. At this moment in time it appears the Earth is static, temperature wise. When one looks at non-tampered with local data, they almost ALL show a cooling trend. It is only when they get handed over to the bean counters that a cooling trend suddenly morphs into a regional warming trend.

This occurred in New Zealand where NIWA was forced to get rid of the "adjustments" they had been making to the historical record, and is now happening in Australia where the same shenanigans was occurring.

The one common denominator we have with climatologists, is their extreme propensity to go back and alter (that means falsify) the historical temperature data sets so they can claim warming is occurring now.

I dunno, Westy; the temps are static? That's why Greenland Glaciers are falling into the ocean? That's why the Gulf Stream is now very warm and slow moving, because of all the fresh water from the melting ice?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

Yes, they very much exist.

Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars PluginCars.com

If the gov't knocks 7500 off the price of a car because its an electric, that's the gov't interfering with free market.

A tax incentive is the same as a subsidy. It artificially deflates the price of a car.

The Government never ever paid any money at all to the dealerships or "give customers money." That 7,500.00 incentive came in the form of a NON-REFUNDABLE tax break, it only applied to certain buyers who qualified. Some people (a lot actually) got a much smaller amount back and many, none at all.

Everybody who owns a car is taxed an extra amount to "give" those tax breaks and incentives to electric car buyers. Take a look at your electric bill for all the little added fee's that you have been paying for the last 12 years or so. That's where that money comes from.

Taxing the middle class and the poor, to give the upper middle class, and the wealthy a tax break on their toys.

Ain't crony capitalism grand!

Incorrectamundo! The 7500 break was federal, car tax goes to the state. Talk to the state about where your money goes, I'm certain it's well spent.

The federal tax break is your own money, you earned it. Why shouldn't you get it back? Sheesh! I'm trying to convince posters here that they should try to keep their own money.

 

[GHook93]

Model S

Yet Obama continues to squeeze the coal miners

-Geaux'
======================================

But low oil prices are supposed to be unequivocally good? On the day when Ford lays off 700 Michigan plant workers in small cars and hybrids manufacturing, The Detroit News reports that, according to Edmunds.com, sales of electric cars and hybrids are at the lowest level since 2011. What is even more worrisome, motorists who leased those first-generation cars, and have decided not to buy them, are turning them in, leaving dealer lots full of low mileage cars at huge discounts to new ones. As Edmunds concludes, while "the government's going to keep pushing it, there is time to pause right now."

Low oil prices have not been unequivocally good for these workers... (as Detroit Free Press reports)

Ford said today that it is planning to cut a shift at its Michigan Assembly Plant where it makes the Ford Focus compact car and C-Max crossover because of declining sales of small cars, hybrids and electric vehicles.

The automaker told workers and notified the state of Michigan that it will lay off 700 workers, starting June 22. The decision affects 675 hourly workers and 25 salaried employees who make the Focus, Focus ST, Focus Electric, C-Max hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid at the Wayne plant.

The first 200 workers will be laid off in June, another 200 at the end of July and the remainder at the end of September.

Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows Zero Hedge

Tesla record 1Q 2015 sales.
Tesla Model S sales reached a new record in Q1 2015 BGR

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The fraction of something being small is not a useful indicator that it is a "fad"- any new technology will start off rare. That's why I asked when you expect there to be a drop, which is what you expect to happen if it is just a fad. So when do you think there will be fewer than 150,000 electric cars?

The day the gov't stops subsidizing their sales with HUGE tax incentives. The first hybrid car came out in 1997, almost 20 years later they are at 1/10th of 1 percent of the cars on the road.

The day the gov't stops subsidizing is the day the electric market fails.

Two things are killing electrics.

1. The cost to buy. Why buy a Volt when for 20K less I can get a Focus ST and get smoking performance without having to find a place to charge the damn thing all the time? And I can buy a lot of gas for 20K in savings.

2. The performance and gas mileage of the newer cars. Look at the Fiesta ecoboost 1.0 It will SMOKE a Prius, Honda insight, or any other hybrid or electric sans some 400K models. On the highway it gets 50+mpg and is a blast to drive. Hybrids drive like shit, accelerate like turtles and have a 5K battery that is waiting to be changed. They don't get much better than 50mpg and they also have almost no storage, the tiniest Ford models blow them away with the Honda fit being tops.

Tax credits for electric cars were for a declining amount and are now defunct.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Model S

Yet Obama continues to squeeze the coal miners

-Geaux'
======================================

But low oil prices are supposed to be unequivocally good? On the day when Ford lays off 700 Michigan plant workers in small cars and hybrids manufacturing, The Detroit News reports that, according to Edmunds.com, sales of electric cars and hybrids are at the lowest level since 2011. What is even more worrisome, motorists who leased those first-generation cars, and have decided not to buy them, are turning them in, leaving dealer lots full of low mileage cars at huge discounts to new ones. As Edmunds concludes, while "the government's going to keep pushing it, there is time to pause right now."

Low oil prices have not been unequivocally good for these workers... (as Detroit Free Press reports)

Ford said today that it is planning to cut a shift at its Michigan Assembly Plant where it makes the Ford Focus compact car and C-Max crossover because of declining sales of small cars, hybrids and electric vehicles.

The automaker told workers and notified the state of Michigan that it will lay off 700 workers, starting June 22. The decision affects 675 hourly workers and 25 salaried employees who make the Focus, Focus ST, Focus Electric, C-Max hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid at the Wayne plant.

The first 200 workers will be laid off in June, another 200 at the end of July and the remainder at the end of September.

Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows Zero Hedge

Tesla record 1Q 2015 sales.
Tesla Model S sales reached a new record in Q1 2015 BGR

Yup, the OP is full of it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

It's all a hoax. A group of scientists are examining all the faked and false data right now. The glaciers aren't melting. The jet stream isn't doing anything that jet streams don't ordinarily do.

The data has been faked. The results are false.

http://www.telegraph





Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

At this moment. Yes, I do. At this moment in time it appears the Earth is static, temperature wise. When one looks at non-tampered with local data, they almost ALL show a cooling trend. It is only when they get handed over to the bean counters that a cooling trend suddenly morphs into a regional warming trend.

This occurred in New Zealand where NIWA was forced to get rid of the "adjustments" they had been making to the historical record, and is now happening in Australia where the same shenanigans was occurring.

The one common denominator we have with climatologists, is their extreme propensity to go back and alter (that means falsify) the historical temperature data sets so they can claim warming is occurring now.

I dunno, Westy; the temps are static? That's why Greenland Glaciers are falling into the ocean? That's why the Gulf Stream is now very warm and slow moving, because of all the fresh water from the melting ice?

It's all a hoax. The glaciers aren't melting. The gulf stream isn't warm or slow moving. If it were we would be getting all those hurricanes the warmists keep predicting.

Scientists are now examining mountains of hoax going back years.

http://www.telegraph

 

[westwall]

Consensus is not science. Consensus is the language of politicians. I suggest you learn what that means. If I tell you that the speed of light is 200,000 mph you can look in any book and see that I am full of poo. It's not "consensus" (which means more people agree than disagree) it's a FACT that the SoL is 186,282 miles per second. Science deals with FACTS. Not "consensus". That's why the scientific method was developed. To do away with idiots and their "consensus". It was the consensus view that the Earth was flat. It was the "consensus" view that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The scientific method only concerns itself with FACTS. Facts are reproduceable. Trenberth famously couldn't repriclate HIS OWN EXPERIMENT! This is the level of fail to which climate science has fallen.

And, for the record......global warming is happening and natural. It's the human caused part that is a hoax. The biggest one in human history.

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

At this moment. Yes, I do. At this moment in time it appears the Earth is static, temperature wise. When one looks at non-tampered with local data, they almost ALL show a cooling trend. It is only when they get handed over to the bean counters that a cooling trend suddenly morphs into a regional warming trend.

This occurred in New Zealand where NIWA was forced to get rid of the "adjustments" they had been making to the historical record, and is now happening in Australia where the same shenanigans was occurring.

The one common denominator we have with climatologists, is their extreme propensity to go back and alter (that means falsify) the historical temperature data sets so they can claim warming is occurring now.

I dunno, Westy; the temps are static? That's why Greenland Glaciers are falling into the ocean? That's why the Gulf Stream is now very warm and slow moving, because of all the fresh water from the melting ice?

Greenland's glaciers are not falling into the ocean. They are advancing and calving. Calving icebergs is normal operating procedure. The meme that the Gulf Stream is getting slower due to the influx of fresh water is not borne out by fact. Here is a link you might find helpful.


Climate mythology:
The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change
The Gulf Stream Myth

 

[westwall]

Once again, no "subsidies" exist, nor have ever existed. The most that the gubment was ever willing to give up, was to let us have some of our own tax money, back. That should make ditto-heads, exceedingly estatic, yet they now whine about the gunbents loss of revenue! Too funny, even more so considering that oil gets huge tax breaks from the gub.

Yes, they very much exist.

Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars PluginCars.com

If the gov't knocks 7500 off the price of a car because its an electric, that's the gov't interfering with free market.

A tax incentive is the same as a subsidy. It artificially deflates the price of a car.

The Government never ever paid any money at all to the dealerships or "give customers money." That 7,500.00 incentive came in the form of a NON-REFUNDABLE tax break, it only applied to certain buyers who qualified. Some people (a lot actually) got a much smaller amount back and many, none at all.

Everybody who owns a car is taxed an extra amount to "give" those tax breaks and incentives to electric car buyers. Take a look at your electric bill for all the little added fee's that you have been paying for the last 12 years or so. That's where that money comes from.

Taxing the middle class and the poor, to give the upper middle class, and the wealthy a tax break on their toys.

Ain't crony capitalism grand!

Incorrectamundo! The 7500 break was federal, car tax goes to the state. Talk to the state about where your money goes, I'm certain it's well spent.

The federal tax break is your own money, you earned it. Why shouldn't you get it back? Sheesh! I'm trying to convince posters here that they should try to keep their own money.

Car taxes yes, but electrical fee's are Federal. The EV's cover both local and Federal tax bases for their "grants".

 

[rightwinger]

Yet Obama continues to squeeze the coal miners

-Geaux'
======================================

But low oil prices are supposed to be unequivocally good? On the day when Ford lays off 700 Michigan plant workers in small cars and hybrids manufacturing, The Detroit News reports that, according to Edmunds.com, sales of electric cars and hybrids are at the lowest level since 2011. What is even more worrisome, motorists who leased those first-generation cars, and have decided not to buy them, are turning them in, leaving dealer lots full of low mileage cars at huge discounts to new ones. As Edmunds concludes, while "the government's going to keep pushing it, there is time to pause right now."

Low oil prices have not been unequivocally good for these workers... (as Detroit Free Press reports)

Ford said today that it is planning to cut a shift at its Michigan Assembly Plant where it makes the Ford Focus compact car and C-Max crossover because of declining sales of small cars, hybrids and electric vehicles.

The automaker told workers and notified the state of Michigan that it will lay off 700 workers, starting June 22. The decision affects 675 hourly workers and 25 salaried employees who make the Focus, Focus ST, Focus Electric, C-Max hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid at the Wayne plant.

The first 200 workers will be laid off in June, another 200 at the end of July and the remainder at the end of September.

Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows Zero Hedge

Are you somehow rooting that the new technology fails?

What new technology?

Efficient electric and hybrid vehicles

Why are some so intimidated by alternative energy? Are you that tied to big oil?

Some people have run the numbers, and it (like you) is quite simple: the ROI on a hybrid is, for most people, just not there.

Didn't used to be there for internal combustion (who needs a horseless carriage) either

 

[WinterBorn]

Lifting the front wheels is a clear indication of stored energy.

It also removes all ability to steer the vehicle.

So far, in an effort to demean the Tesla Model S, you have compared it to a high end luxury sedan that costs around $150k. But the Porsche Panamera goes 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, and only in the turbo model. Pricier than the Tesla.

And then you wanted to compare the Tesla's performance to dragsters? Like people are going to drive dragsters on teh streets?

And a Gremlin?? Yes, you may be able to hotrod a gremlin into something, but only the Pacer is laughed at more than the gremlin.

Apple to apples, the Tesla is an excellent high-end sedan with phenomenal performance.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Car taxes yes, but electrical fee's are Federal. The EV's cover both local and Federal tax bases for their "grants".
--------------------------------------------------
They aren't "grants" they were tax refunds -- your own money. Huge difference.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Tax credits for electric cars were for a declining amount and are now defunct.

Would that be why we have this?

Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows Zero Hedge

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Sorry, Wes, I'm a fisherman and I can see what's going on even here in Maryland. The Gulf stream absolutely is much warmer with more fresh water; thus, the gulf steam is nowhere near as strong as it once was.

Part of the reason for the bluefish to stop making their spawning runs in the Chesapeak -- blues use the gulfstream to help them migrate.