Hagerty.com

Taycans, Teslas, player-haters, and tall poppies

… the (tax) credits belong to the man in the public trough…

If you are living in LA, you are breathing in some of the worst air in the country. Be happy that someone is actually building a car to help remedy the situation. If someone else can do it better, let them. If tax credits help prime the pump, then so be it. Don’t lose sight of the big picture.

1 Like

Preach your religion to the other fanboys and environment alarmists.
Air here is delightful compared to 40 years ago…and double the cars.
That battery-powered rich man’s toy will do squat, statistically, to improve the environment.

I didn’t say it was good for any company to set up shop in China or anywhere else. Capitalism is amoral, and that’s still better than things like Trump’s (retarded) trade war which definitely is a infrigement of rights and definitely immoral. Amoral Capitalism is the greatest purveyor of wealth and prosperity ever devised.

Apparently many companies have no problems with the conditions of working in China, and american consumers have no problem with the quality of the stuff made in China. We have no right (and not enough information) to tell anybody what’s good for them and what isn’t.

Americans are better off by outsourcing the dirty work to places where it’s done cheaper and better. Once upon a time, America was a giant factory, now its industrial output is the biggest of all time, decreasing prices and increasing quality, and anyway most americans work in the Services sector, where jobs are higher paid, cleaner and safer. The same WILL happen to China and it’s already happening as the Chinese get wealthier, they also transition to services jobs and outsource manufacturing to upstart countries like India or Vietnam. That’s good for them and the rest of the world, a wealthy China pollutes less, gets more efficient at consuming and their international trade dependence forces them to be less belicose.

Also, there’s no such thing as IP theft, you can’t steal an idea because the original owner still has it, and most patentable ideas US companies have are useless without the decades of experience and know-how in the fields they work on (plus, most ideas originally suck anyway until polished and worked on by experts, like the people at Pixar say: “In the beginning, ALL of our movies suck”)

Sadly, the police state in China is a problem of the Chinese, not ours. And if you think China wants to become an imperial world-dominating power by force, remember what happened to the last empire that tried to conquer Asia, they got two thermonuclear bombs up their asses.

1 Like

I was in the LA airshed 40-50 years ago. The air was gray on a good day, brown on a bad one. People died from it.
The air is better now Because and Only Because of government regulation of automotive technology. Double the cars works Because of catalytic converters.
People tend to forget how that all came down, and don’t recall the endless whining that derived from the discussion.
The EVs will continue to reduce that because point source pollution from a power plant is a lot easier to regulate than hundreds of thousands of mobile sources.

A few points here, and then I’m done with this thread (I’ve thought it before, but never typed it, so here goes.)

Outsourcing manufacturing to developing countries only shifts the pollution and safety violations to those areas.

Both EV and non EV cars do contribute to environmental issues in different, but measurable ways. There are some key measurements that people don’t talk about, and here goes:

Chemicals in non EV cars that could be considered harmful by some are:

antifreeze
oil
transmission oil
power steering fluid
brake fluid
gasoline
automatic transmission fluid
battery acid from the 12 volt battery, capacity tops out maybe at a gallon, if you are being generous.
Freon
exhaust gas (a lot is investigated in this.)
indirect exhaust gas and other pollutants (this introduces the slippery slope, where you begin to talk about environmental harm through 2nd, 3rd, and 4rth parties removed in the manufacturing and upkeep process. It’s there, it’s measurable, and looked at usually only on the EV side of things, and not the non-EV side of things;)
All of those previous fluids may also be that big in capacity.

EV vehicles
automatic transmission fluid (in the cvt, usually found)
battery acid and other battery chemicals (way more than a gallon of this, I am guessing, to be fair, but there you go.)
brake fluid
power steering fluid
Freon
indirect exhaust gas and other pollutants (this introduces the slippery slope, where you begin to talk about environmental harm through 2nd, 3rd, and 4rth parties removed in the manufacturing and upkeep process. It’s there, it’s measurable, and sometimes looked at and sometimes disregarded because reasons.
so, maybe total impact would be the amount of these hazardous materials per car leaking out into the ecosystem after the car is scrapped, or during the lifetime of the car.

Lastly, the replacement thing should be considered.

Is it more harmful to maintain and keep up a perfectly fine and economical ICE and not get it scrapped only to perhaps leak some more hazardous materials out, and produce more in the replacement vehicle coming out?

Same with EVs, what happens when the batteries/etc finally die, they are no longer manufactured, and perhaps even a kill switch is devised so that you would eventually have to buy a new one anyway?

Wouldn’t that be considered wasteful as well?

I do concur that electric plants are easier to regulate; and control pollution from simple because they aren’t moving targets; however, this does have an adverse impact on people’s utility bills, for better or for worse.

I kind of see both sides of the story, and believe the data is all out there for a definitive answer one way or the other, but there is too much bias by scientists on both sides wanting to prove their point on it.

Kyle

Spoken by someone who probably has not invented (or created) anything in his life. One concept behind patents is to give the inventor exclusive rights to exploit the idea. When you infringe on that patent you have stolen those rights. As for patents and other IP being valuable only to companies with decades of experience that can exploit the IP, one of the first questions anyone looking to invest in a startup venture asks is if the IP is secure.

As for development being more important the the core concept, you’re essentially saying that as long as you throw enough development resources at something, there’s no difference between a clever idea and a stupid one.

First of all, cut it out right there with your ad-hominem attacks. They won’t do you any good.

Of course, I’ve created things. That’s absolutely necessary in the modern world’s economy. In every company I’ve worked for, there was a little clause in my contract stating that the IP of all of the things I create while employed on the firm, belongs to the firm. The same happen with authors who get published by a third party when they want to change publisher and they suddenly learn that IP rights don’t belong to them but to the publisher. To me, IP laws are the definition of a rent-seeking racket that protects only big and rich actors and patent trolls who can sue anyone they want for IP infrigenment, instead of small businesses and individuals who can’t defend themselves, stiffling innovation and yes, ideas are useless until they are put into production creating real stuff in the real world, which belongs to the person who made that stuff. Plus, most IP that goes to chinese companies is given voluntarily, like I did with the companies I worked for, not “stolen”.

Startups must also have the know how to exploit their ideas, even if they are new to the business.

And yes, it’s impossible to distinguish a good, profitable idea from a bad one until they are put to the test of consumer preference in the open market. That’s why ideas alone are simply not enough.

Enjoy the changing climate my friend and may you live in interesting times.

Dear Edmonds007, your list of “prestigious, innovative and successful brands” did not include a trade name that, in its own world, is as top-o’-the-heap as “Ferrari” is in its world: Steinway & Sons. Most educated people in most countries the world over know what a Steinway is. A majority is sure to have heard at least one.

Now, are there pianos that offer as engaging an experience? SURE! I would love to own a Stuart & Sons. And Shigeru Kawai is the Lexus of pianos (which must make Steinway the MBZ).

But I do go on.

ATB,

John