El Kabong

That's about all I'm doing really. I'm just too jaded to root for someone because it's a good story.

Bagpipes. That shoot FLAMES. I am insane with joy.

Gullwing doors are expensive and impractical. That's why Benz got rid of them on the latest AMG coupe. The money saved by using conventional doors could have been better used elsewhere. The general consensus is that Tucker ran out of money. A rear-mounted flat-six helicopter engine was an interesting idea, but only the Germans made that kind of configuration work. Kinda.

Today I watched a video of a guy playing "Thunderstruck" by AC/DC on bagpipes that shot flames out of them. I don't know how we survived before the Internet.

GM wants the customers. So does everyone else. It's nothing personal on anyone's part, or at least I don't perceive any of that in what I read and see. Lutz and Robinson both like Elon, or at least the concept of what he's doing (DeLorenzo hates everybody just on principle). And hey, a little mojo has taken Tesla a long way. I said that several pages ago. They've done a lot better than DeLorean or Tucker or Bricklin. But they're losing focus with the lobbying and product planning, and they're walking a fine line.

If the Model X comes equipped like the Escalade or whatever the Germans/British have at that level then it's a start. But I'm guessing it'll still lack range and the ability for backseat customers to get out in a crowded parking lot. And let's not mince words: it looks hella weird.

"This is the cheapest SUV to get gullwing doors" is not exactly a ringing endorsement. It's like the product planners all sat around and said "let's show the old guard how it's DONE!" Which is precisely the problem when you get down to it. GM shouldn't fear Tesla. I strongly suspect they don't. But they definitely want their customers.

And based on what I've seen they admitted as much after the fact. That's the thing though: you've got rookies building cars with limited funds. Mistakes will be costly, but rookies will inevitably make mistakes.

There is no capitulation of anything. I have stated my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. I'm quite comfortable standing beside my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. If I was the guy actually making the decisions at Tesla I'd give it a more thorough going-over, but even from where I stand I coulda told Musk that gullwing doors on an SUV was a moronic idea. Even Lambo will use conventional doors on the Urus. Wasted. Money.

A pundit is a guy too lazy to do hard research. I barely had enough motivation to do research when I HAD to do research. Now I just read what people write, get a handle on the people, and let 'er rip. There's a bit of IQ involved... But research is at a minimum.

You mean compare a 1909 Studebaker to a 1909 Model T? Well, why not include a Stanley so you have steam power included as well? I don't think you can compare those examples to today, regardless of whether the propulsion methods are the same or not.

But you're only presenting one side of the argument. Did you actually do the due diligence to check counter-arguments? I mean, I don't myself have the utmost time at this present moment. Pretty intense work and school stuff. But it goes also with the issue of popular sources. There's inherent biases present. Atleast by looking at their financials, and doing all the ratio analysis - you'd get to core measures of performance that can be tracjed and compared over time. Do all that, then tell us what is more telling. If you can't, then you're not presenting the whole picture. This is kind of like a controversy...multiple sides, multiple viewpoints, different issues. Yeah, let's have someone make an academic paper of sorts looking at Tesla's future. This car is kinda weird in the sense that you have to read the proverbial tea leaves with the collected opinions of both car people and tech people. And I admit that I'm firmly on the car side of that ledger in my biases. But this means that I have the longer history of info to draw on when I put forth my opinions. The car biz has existed in its present form since 1907 and the Ford assembly line. The tech biz as we perceive it has only existed since, what, the 4004 processor in the mid-70s? This means that the tech biz is now roughly where the car biz was in the 50s. And that means it's ambitious, powerful, arrogant, and about to butt heads with governments over what government's think it should be like. Also, they think the money will never run out and folks will always buy the latest and greatest. And none of that is necessarily bad. But the reality is the reality here. The old boys are learning the tricks. And they already have the car-buying down pat, for the most part. It makes me chuckle when Fapper disses Cadillac over CUE yet folks will let body panel gaps and down-rent interiors slide in the Model S (and make no mistake, those issues exist). As for research papers and stuff... there can be biased integrated into research. I remember a scandal involving East Anglia a few years ago that lit up the MT forums pretty good...

This. Mostly. Lutz had his issues ("let's bring this foreign jobbie over here! It'll sell GREAT!"). It's why I also look for other perspectives on this kinda thing. The adman and journo also have misgivings. Logically, it would make the most sense for Tesla to be sold when the time is right, or maybe one of those "strategic partnership" things. But I don't think Elon is gonna roll that way. The loans? Ok, ok, I see where y'all coming from.

I dunno man. I've cited one of the greatest auto execs, an experienced journo, and an adman who's been in the biz a billion years. They all see issues from the various perspectives they are looking at. And the DoE loans are just prolonging the issue.

Well, I just don't pull stuff outta my cornhole (too often). Robinson in particular laid it out pretty clearly: he's rooting for Tesla to succeed, but he's been around the business long enough to see the stumblingblocks that can take you down. And he's seen the Model X and some of the engineering rabbit holes they've fallen down. Also, he brought up Department of Energy loans, but we've done that one to death in here I won't even touch what Pete DeLorenzo has to say about Tesla. Suffice to say it ain't too positive.

Ok, that's a pretty good burn, right there.

*reads latest C/D* *checks out Aaron Roninson's excellent piece on how he fears Tesla has bitten off more than they can chew* *remembers the Lutz article* ...and for 132 grand you too can have a Tesla SUV with gullwing back doors. Money. Wasted. Tesla's in trouble. Discretionary purchases can't float a carmaker.

So what you're saying is that people buy Teslas, or nothing? Then it becomes a discretionary purchase-people buy it because it's a symbol, not a car. There is a time and place for that with most consumer goods. But when it comes to cars, not so much. Bugatti has only built 450 Veyrons the last decade or so. And Pagani Zondas probably only number in the dozens or low hundreds. No-the Tesla needs to sell. And it needs to sell based on its merits as a car-the trendies will only be able to buy so many. See also: Dodge Viper.

Sounds like a great car. Thank goodness they didn't call it an "Eco" something-or-other. The plug-in hybrid is probably the version I'd be most interested in. But the 2.0T sounds like a nice "does-it-all" compromise at a decent price.

Competition is competition. You try and elbow all of them out. Doesn't matter if they're good or bad-if they're getting business it means someone else isn't. And that someone could be you.

Probably Option #2. But who cares? Either way, Tesla's wasting money. Once again: I don't have a dog in the fight. I just look at who's doing what and why, and who has the means and motivation to get it done.

Lobbying costs money. Those palms don't grease themselves. The Germans (VW group in particular) now have to push forward on electrics precisely because they no longer have any cred when it scones to diesel.

I see what you're saying but part of concentrating on the product is putting it in more markets to sell more product. There are plenty of states left to tackle besides Michigan. Musk knows how to grab PR: just pick a fight with the state where the mainstream media has a hate-on for their major industry. Clever. But still prohibitively expensive.

Scout: But there is no such thing as a truly free market, nor should there be. If this were the case we would be gassing up our cars at Standard Oil service stations.

We've both been down that road elsewhere. No need to do it again But even going back to the whole Apple Store approach to selling cars: it's a nice idea. But a car is a tad more complex to service than an iPad. It isn't the old views of the automotive establishment that need to be modified, it's the know-it-all attitude of the Silicon Valley crowd.