4 ms·

>Musk has been able to take two or three other previously considered impossible tasks and bring them to completion Such as? SpaceX and their reusable rockets m

>Musk has been able to take two or three other previously considered impossible tasks and bring them to completion Such as? SpaceX and their reusable rockets might be the closest thing I guess. Tesla and his solar company use pretty conventional technology, on the other hand. He is willing to invest a lot of money, that's true. But when talking about the Hyperloop, it's hardly just his money that's at stake if government is supposed to be involved. >What's that network you're using to blast this tripe straight to my eyeballs right now? A network that evolved from humble origins decades ago. Maybe if Musk financed a hyperloop prototype in the desert for a decade and showed its economic viability, then you can make that comparison. But who knows, maybe that's what he plans to do with the government approval he's supposedly gotten - good for him then, hopefully it works.

usaphp 9y ago
> Tesla and his solar company use pretty conventional technology The technology might be conventional, but having useful Electric cars on the road was looking like impossible task back in the days before Tesla roadster
- untog 9y ago
  Was it? If Tesla didn't exist would things look dramatically different today? All electric cars use pretty much the same technology. It's been developed by a variety of companies. No doubt Tesla has moved things along faster than if they weren't here, and they've made some fantastic products, but I think the economic argument for electric cars plays a far bigger role in their development than any one specific company.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > Was it? If Tesla didn't exist would things look dramatically different today? Yes. Because the market didn't want electric cars, and if Tesla didn't force them down our throats it probably still wouldn't. At some point in the future the shift would eventually happen, but Tesla sped that process up.
  - dahoramanodoceu 9y ago
    The economic argument was this; we won't get off IC engines because it wasn't viable (for car companies). They have a stranglehold on regulators and lawmakers in almost every country. Their sunk costs and supply chain and derivatives are all set up to continue with petroleum (whom the producers are in similar situations, therefore in agreement with this arrangement). Do you not remember what happened with Tesla and the car-dealerships? The economic argument was: we're staying with IC, electric cars "aren't viable." Which means the entire global economy (yuge scale) is dependent on the IC / Petrol cartel, everyone with any amount of money is happy with the arrangment. If you want to go up against us, with no sponsorship from a big money distributor (they like petrol) then good luck!
- drawnwren 9y ago
  Even into the present there are a lot of legitimate concerns about Tesla. The rate at which he wants to ramp up production, whether public demand will be there for the 3, etc etc. It was and still very much is an unknown for Musk to pull this off. Not disagreeing with you, just trying to underscore that Tesla still has a lot of risk in it. Edit: Also before the S no one had produced an EV with the range/polish to make anyone think they were anything more than a pipe dream at our current stage.
- eesmith 9y ago
  It all hinges on what "useful" and "impossible" means. General Motors EV1 in the 1990s. NiMH cars could travel 100–140 mi. Its fans thought it was useful.

usaphp 9y ago

> Tesla and his solar company use pretty conventional technology The technology might be conventional, but having useful Electric cars on the road was looking like impossible task back in the days before Tesla roadster

untog 9y ago
Was it? If Tesla didn't exist would things look dramatically different today? All electric cars use pretty much the same technology. It's been developed by a variety of companies. No doubt Tesla has moved things along faster than if they weren't here, and they've made some fantastic products, but I think the economic argument for electric cars plays a far bigger role in their development than any one specific company.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Was it? If Tesla didn't exist would things look dramatically different today? Yes. Because the market didn't want electric cars, and if Tesla didn't force them down our throats it probably still wouldn't. At some point in the future the shift would eventually happen, but Tesla sped that process up.
- dahoramanodoceu 9y ago
  The economic argument was this; we won't get off IC engines because it wasn't viable (for car companies). They have a stranglehold on regulators and lawmakers in almost every country. Their sunk costs and supply chain and derivatives are all set up to continue with petroleum (whom the producers are in similar situations, therefore in agreement with this arrangement). Do you not remember what happened with Tesla and the car-dealerships? The economic argument was: we're staying with IC, electric cars "aren't viable." Which means the entire global economy (yuge scale) is dependent on the IC / Petrol cartel, everyone with any amount of money is happy with the arrangment. If you want to go up against us, with no sponsorship from a big money distributor (they like petrol) then good luck!
drawnwren 9y ago
Even into the present there are a lot of legitimate concerns about Tesla. The rate at which he wants to ramp up production, whether public demand will be there for the 3, etc etc. It was and still very much is an unknown for Musk to pull this off. Not disagreeing with you, just trying to underscore that Tesla still has a lot of risk in it. Edit: Also before the S no one had produced an EV with the range/polish to make anyone think they were anything more than a pipe dream at our current stage.
eesmith 9y ago
It all hinges on what "useful" and "impossible" means. General Motors EV1 in the 1990s. NiMH cars could travel 100–140 mi. Its fans thought it was useful.