Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Thunderf00t"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've barely made it into the video. Just 3 minutes in, and sorry, but you cannot possibly complain that an auto manufacturer doesn't cover damages caused by a car wash if the person doesn't put the truck in car wash mode. I cannot stand the Cybertruk, nor Musk, but, sorry, no manufacturer on the planet would cover damages caused by car washes, and complaining about this is a real low point. Love your videos overall, probably 98% of them, but, that particular complaint just makes you look bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, because that begs the question about who owns the batteries, and whether or not you'd be willing to give up a brand new battery for one that's near the end of its lifespan, with far less capacity. Old batteries can't be charged up as much as new batteries. They do "wear out." And, when you're talking about batteries that cost over $100K, are you going to just turn them in and swap them out for batteries worth $1K because they're nearly at the end of their lifespan? The answer is that Tesla can choose to own the batteries, and just rent them out, in the style you're talking about. That's been proposed many times over. But, now you're talking about a whole different can of worms, because that's now increasing the total cost of ownership, needing to rent batteries every time you take a drive. Also, just FYI, electric vehicles know that batteries cannot be just completely drained and filled. Most are programmed to nurse the batteries along gently, not charging to fast, not discharging too fast, never dropping below 20% charged, never charging more than 80% charged, etc. When your electric car says it's 100%, it's actually 80%. When it says 0%, it's really 20%. They do this to extend the life of the battery. But, if you're just renting batteries and will be turning them in every couple hundred miles, are you going to go easy on those batteries? Or, are you going to beat them up? Tell me that the truckers won't hack their programming to drain the batteries to get more out of them (at the expense of the long-term life of the battery). Anyway, we may find out that the industry will go in that direction. Who knows? Never say never. But, by and large, the main reason is that nobody is going to purchase a brand new truck with brand new batteries costing more than $100K (yes, just the batteries), and then hand in those batteries after the very first drive. And, if you thought owning a sports car and then renting it out was a bad idea (because the renters will beat the daylights out of that car), wait until you see what truckers will do to those batteries if they don't own them.
1
-
@cd6583
"whats the point of hacking a battery to charge more"
To get more miles out of each trip. But, yeah, in addition to charging more, there's also discharging more (using it down to 0%). Neither of those things is good for batteries. But, if it allows a trucker to turn a 200 mile trip on one charge into a 300 mile trip on one charge, tell me that the trucker won't do that. He's going to turn in the battery anyway. Yes, too many of them will abuse the batteries that way. And, that will wear out the the expensive batteries far faster.
"trucker owns the battery they do need to replace them eventually"
Yes, and if the trucker owns the battery, the trucker is more likely to nurse that battery the way it was designed, to get maximum longevity out of it. Else, they'll be buying new batteries every 6 months, rather than 6 years.
"finally, i thought the shipping company owned the trucks not the truck driver but i could be wrong"
It's both. There are independent truck drivers that own and drive their trucks. And, there are drivers that just work for trucking companies. Either way, if someone else owns the batteries, the driver, or the trucking company, is likely to hack their trucks and make them abuse the batteries.
"so tesla could offer like a batter store and charge service at the charger for companies"
Um, yeah. What do you think they're doing right now? Who do you think owns all of those charging stations?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) The issue being talked about isn't technology. It's a matter of fundamentals. It takes 100 pounds of batteries to produce the same amount of energy as a single pound of diesel fuel. And, when you need to lug around that kind of weight just in batteries, it's a fundamental issue of how much weight you're allowed to carry in cargo. You might not care if a Hummer EV weighs 10,500 pounds, but, when you get into the trucking industry, yeah, weight matters.
2) So, you're talking about a 2nd gen or 3rd gen battery that will be lighter? Huh? Lithium ion batteries are as light as it gets for any known metallic substance. Have you looked at the periodic table of elements lately? Lithium is #3. The only elements lighter are hydrogen and helium (#1 and #2). I mean, not that you couldn't maybe cram more electrons into some sort of heavier metal or something... though, I can't imagine how... without basically turning it into a bomb... but, I'll leave that to you. There's a Nobel Prize with your name on it if you can pull it off... not to mention that you'd probably become the world's first trillionaire. But, whatever. Sorry, you don't get to just sit there and declare that there will be lighter batteries, just because your imagination says so. But, the true irony is that the Tesla 4680 battery, the one that's supposed to revolutionize batteries, because it can be charged and discharged more quickly, actually weighs MORE than the conventional counterparts. Why? Because they had to stick a ton more metal connection points inside the battery roll in order to do it. That's how they did it. They took a conventional battery roll, and added a whole bunch of copper to make hundreds of connections into the roll where there used to be only 2. So, now, you can stuff the energy into the roll quicker, and drain it out quicker. But, it's going in the exact opposite direction as you're saying. They're getting HEAVIER, not lighter.
3) Higher energy density? How? When you have to add all of that extra copper to make them charge and discharge faster, you do realize you're REDUCING the energy density, right?
Sorry, blindly drawing an analogy to other industries doesn't magically produce batteries that don't exist. Cramming more electrons into a molecular lattice doesn't mean it's going to be chemically stable (or even possible). Batteries aren't some sort of new technology that just came out 50 years ago, and we're still trying to evolve them, or figure out how they work, you know. This is a well understood and well established industry. And, the only reason the 4680 never existed before was BECAUSE they wanted to keep the batteries simple and lighter and cheaper, and there really weren't any battery applications that needed ultra fast charging and discharging.
Why am I wasting my time on this? You clearly don't even know how a battery works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hal4k
It wasn't a strawman fallacy. Yes, I projected words that you didn't directly say. But, the core of the argument wasn't the "strawman." The core of what I put forth had nothing to do with putting words into your mouth. Putting words in your mouth was just the icing on the cake. But, you're dwelling on that because you need to avoid the cake altogether, in order to fuel your delusions on this topic. So, you just reject the icing, call it a strawman, and pretend there's no cake underneath.
Since you already proved that you refuse to address the details, I'm going to make this very very very easy for you to understand: the judge already ruled. Musk is going to be held personally liable for scamming the investors. He was caught lying numerous times, with the very very very clear goal of making the investors buy Solar City out of imminent collapse, using Tesla to fund it, based on completely inaccurate information provided by Musk himself. In the trial, Musk attempted to backtrack and pretend that he never made the claims he made (even though they're on video), and attempted to say that he was only making those claims "conceptually." (The word "conceptually" was never used when he was duping the investors into buying Solar City.) The investors lost BILLIONS because of those very undeniable lies. Now, you can pretend I'm presenting a "strawman" position all you want. But, the meat and potatoes are very clear, and it has nothing to do with "strawmanning" anything you said whatsoever. The meat and potatoes are in the judge's ruling, and in Musk's own testimony in the trial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1