Tesla Truck Just Revealed

[floyd]

Henrymac contributed this excellent artist rendition of the new Tesla truck

[Glenn Baglo]

Love it.

[Bruce H]

Originally Posted by ZachO

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that I can't be sure of anything at all. It's why I get angry when I see people hold such strong opinions on things they couldn't possibly completely understand.

Though I do tend to trust scientific consensus...with some healthy skepticism. Which is of course what science is all about.

If its consensus its not science. Science overrules consensus. Example: The consensus was that the Earth was flat.

[Bruce H]

When the Earth is flat consensus was at its peak disagreeing could have gotten one put on the rack or possibly even burned at the stake.

[Glenn Baglo]

Originally Posted by Bruce H

If its consensus its not science.

But, it is semantics.

[Bruce H]

Looking at the picture I don't see how it could work. There is no place to haul the fuel tank and the generator needed to charge the battery when boonedocking or crossing Death Valley.


All joking aside, I am a believer in the powerful forces of economics. Economics is fundamentally based on hunger (the acquisition of food) as well as shelter and clothing to protect from the elements. Those have been the chief economic activities of people throughout history. That expenditure of effort is economics. IT AUTOMATICALLY FINDS THE WAY TO MEET THOSE NEEDS AND WANTS WITH THE LEAST EXPENDITURE OF EFFORT.


I say all of that to say this: As it stands right now the production, processing, transportation, refrigeration, distribution, and final preparation necessary to meet the need for food is pretty much totally dependent on fuel burning internal combustion engines and fuel burning power plants. WE ARE HOSTAGE TO THAT NEED FOR FOOD TO STAY ALIVE. That means that right now most of us are pretty much totally dependent on the burning of petroleum and coal for our food supply. In my area there are Amish or Mennonite communities that provide for themselves pretty well independent of internal combustion engines and electricity but they are an extremely small percentage of the total population and they burn quite a bit of fire wood in cold weather.



There was no nationwide system of gas stations in 1909, just a short 110 years ago. In less than 30 years that system was in place (economics again). If battery powered vehicles prove to be more economical than internal combustion powered vehicles then battery powered vehicles WILL PREVAIL and a system to charge them will be put in place in a decade or two. Prejudice and government regulations may slow that down but it will happen. That is my belief in the power of economics.



Anyone know where I can pick up a nice Stanley Steamer worth the money?

[Bruce H]

Why is the subject of global warming so political anyway?

[Alex Adams]

Originally Posted by Bruce H

Why is the subject of global warming so political anyway?

Like anything in politics, its all about who pays. The companies that extract the minerals don't want to pay, the companies that refine the stuff don't want to pay, the companies that distribute the stuff don't want to pay and the end-user doesn't want to pay. I wish economics was as simple as some people believe, like supply and demand. The problem is that with concentration in certain industries, there is no more supply and demand. We saw that with the Enron debacle where they were deliberately shutting refineries down to raise the price of gasoline. There was a reason the Sherman Anti-Trust act was passed, unfortunately most people have either never learned their history or have forgotten it. It's part of the reason we pay more for slower broadband than most every other developed nation.

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by Bruce H

Why is the subject of global warming so political anyway?

Because people don't like change. They are not likely to accept anything that conflicts with pre-conceived ideas, or teachings that they are invested in, or things that require actual thought. So they think up reasons not to believe in science. Then they dig in their heels and act like they have a reality based argument. A good example is one that was already mentioned: the belief that the world is flat, and all of the repercussions of thinking otherwise.

Those that want to get elected often take the easy road of exploiting fear and division, so they repeat those simple points of denial, they promise no change in the status quo, to get support. One side of the political spectrum expresses more interest in environmental issues, and the folks on the other side of the spectrum will never do anything that might seem like agreeing.

Humans so easily adjust their philosophy to match their wishes, or justify their fears.

One of the most important emotions is curiosity. But it is also one that leads to, not only discovery, but the destruction of false ideas. So it is hard, and it leads to being proven wrong. It leads to conflict. It leads to change. Pretty scary stuff!

It is so much easier to continue doing whatever it is we are doing, and continue proclaimimng that there is no issue, than it is to also take on the responsibility of protecting the environment. It is so much easier to discount other's views, than is is to listen to their points and possibly (gasp!) agree.

I have a number of friends who are so quick to declare global warming as a hoax. I am no expert on the subject. But when I ask what they base their opinions on, they have nothing beyond what they wish was true, or what they were told to think. So, the best course for them is to just ridicule science as some sort of plot.

Hmmm. Sounds like some sort of flat earth group to me.

[Mikmay]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Because people don't like change. They are not likely to accept anything that conflicts with pre-conceived ideas, or teachings that they are invested in, or things that require actual thought. So they think up reasons not to believe in science. Then they dig in their heels and act like they have a reality based argument. A good example is one that was already mentioned: the belief that the world is flat, and all of the repercussions of thinking otherwise.

Those that want to get elected often take the easy road of exploiting fear and division, so they repeat those simple points of denial, they promise no change in the status quo, to get support. One side of the political spectrum expresses more interest in environmental issues, and the folks on the other side of the spectrum will never do anything that might seem like agreeing.

Humans so easily adjust their philosophy to match their wishes, or justify their fears.

One of the most important emotions is curiosity. But it is also one that leads to, not only discovery, but the destruction of false ideas. So it is hard, and it leads to being proven wrong. It leads to conflict. It leads to change. Pretty scary stuff!

It is so much easier to continue doing whatever it is we are doing, and continue proclaimimng that there is no issue, than it is to also take on the responsibility of protecting the environment. It is so much easier to discount other's views, than is is to listen to their points and possibly (gasp!) agree.

I have a number of friends who are so quick to declare global warming as a hoax. I am no expert on the subject. But when I ask what they base their opinions on, they have nothing beyond what they wish was true, or what they were told to think. So, the best course for them is to just ridicule science as some sort of plot.

Hmmm. Sounds like some sort of flat earth group to me.

Huh! are you trying to say the earth is not flat ?

[Bruce H]

Originally Posted by Mikmay

Huh! are you trying to say the earth is not flat ?

No, No, No, No! I learned my lesson when I got those 40 lashes.

[Kai in Seattle]

I thought "depends" was the answer to the question, "Does a really old man wear boxers or briefs?"

"K"

[Kai in Seattle]

Some people recognize it's not a matter of "global warming, " but putative anthropogenic global warming with undue and previously unexperienced alacrity that's really the issue.


"K"

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Because people don't like change. They are not likely to accept anything that conflicts with pre-conceived ideas, or teachings that they are invested in, or things that require actual thought. So they think up reasons not to believe in science. Then they dig in their heels and act like they have a reality based argument. A good example is one that was already mentioned: the belief that the world is flat, and all of the repercussions of thinking otherwise.

Those that want to get elected often take the easy road of exploiting fear and division, so they repeat those simple points of denial, they promise no change in the status quo, to get support. One side of the political spectrum expresses more interest in environmental issues, and the folks on the other side of the spectrum will never do anything that might seem like agreeing.

Humans so easily adjust their philosophy to match their wishes, or justify their fears.

One of the most important emotions is curiosity. But it is also one that leads to, not only discovery, but the destruction of false ideas. So it is hard, and it leads to being proven wrong. It leads to conflict. It leads to change. Pretty scary stuff!

It is so much easier to continue doing whatever it is we are doing, and continue proclaimimng that there is no issue, than it is to also take on the responsibility of protecting the environment. It is so much easier to discount other's views, than is is to listen to their points and possibly (gasp!) agree.

I have a number of friends who are so quick to declare global warming as a hoax. I am no expert on the subject. But when I ask what they base their opinions on, they have nothing beyond what they wish was true, or what they were told to think. So, the best course for them is to just ridicule science as some sort of plot.

Hmmm. Sounds like some sort of flat earth group to me.

Except of course you and me.


Those cynics always think they're realists....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXrm...BPg2s0&index=1

[ThomasC]

I was just on a thread about tongue weight and someone posted a nice link. A little way down the page there was a Motor trend video ad box that had 3 very nice clips about the Cyber truck.

SAE J2807 Tow Tests - The Standard

[Jon in AZ]

Speaking of tongue weight... I saw an internet photo of a Tesla truck with a smallish off-road motorcycle in the back. Rear sag was pronounced. Hmmm...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wccftec...e-numbers/amp/

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Speaking of tongue weight... I saw an internet photo of a Tesla truck with a smallish off-road motorcycle in the back. Rear sag was pronounced. Hmmm...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wccftec...e-numbers/amp/

Sorry to spoil your daydream but the air suspension was tilting the truck to make it easier to load the quad with the built in tailgate ramp.

[Jon in AZ]

No daydreaming. Just noticing. That explanation had not occurred to me, but it makes sense.

[Fred762]

Originally Posted by Mikmay

Huh! are you trying to say the earth is not flat ?

Well, there is a bunch of info out there which calls into question the 'ball earth' belief. Here is just one bit: https://flatearthofficial.com/2018/0...earth-is-flat/

The usual calculations of ball-earthers is that the "curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared" ie that for an object ten miles away, the earth must curve downwards by 8" x 100..or 800 inches/12 = 66.67 FEET of curvature

The Suez canal is 100 MILES long..so that means the curvature of the ball-earth must be 8 inches X 100 SQUARED, wh = 80,000 inches/12 or 6,666.67 FEET...meaning ONE end of that canal has to be 1.26 MILES below the other

This comes out to an object at one end of the Suez Canal MUST be 1.26 MILES below the horizon, IF the earth is a ball...yet lasers have shown that the whole dam ned canal is straight..no curve. FWIW The Nikon 9000 camera can "see" the whole length of the canal

These examples do seem to call into question the ball-earth beliefs. FWIW it is notable that the UN logo pictures a FLAT EARTH map.

Personally I wonder why there is a controversy. The Bible says the earth is flat..so who is right??? Interesting huh?? ;-)

[redbarron55]

Originally Posted by Fred762

Well, there is a bunch of info out there which calls into question the 'ball earth' belief. Here is just one bit: https://flatearthofficial.com/2018/0...earth-is-flat/

The usual calculations of ball-earthers is that the "curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared" ie that for an object ten miles away, the earth must curve downwards by 8" x 100..or 800 inches/12 = 66.67 FEET of curvature

The Suez canal is 100 MILES long..so that means the curvature of the ball-earth must be 8 inches X 100 SQUARED, wh = 80,000 inches/12 or 6,666.67 FEET...meaning ONE end of that canal has to be 1.26 MILES below the other

This comes out to an object at one end of the Suez Canal MUST be 1.26 MILES below the horizon, IF the earth is a ball...yet lasers have shown that the whole dam ned canal is straight..no curve. FWIW The Nikon 9000 camera can "see" the whole length of the canal

These examples do seem to call into question the ball-earth beliefs. FWIW it is notable that the UN logo pictures a FLAT EARTH map.

Personally I wonder why there is a controversy. The Bible says the earth is flat..so who is right??? Interesting huh?? ;-)

To be exact it makes a really big difference how high the camera or eye is from the surface.
A camera at 6 feet (roughly eye level or a little higher) would have a point where the curvature forms the horizon at about 3 miles (assuming a perfect sphere) and the height of that line of sight at 100 miles would be 6273.6788 feet.
Change that to 100 feet then that changes to a little over 12 miles and 5134 feet.
Get into a plane and climb to 5000 feet then you go to about 87 miles and 120 feet.
Climb a little higher to 6800 feet and you can see the whole Suez canal.
So it depends on where you are standing or sitting when you take that picture.