Wife: why she wants Macan EV now!
121 - 140 of 156 Posts
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
Welcome back Luke! How are you enjoying your new Turbo PP? Great presentation by the way. Some of us understand that automotive technology is changing for the good and welcome it while others are having a hard time with it. I'm probably the oldest person on this forum and enjoying the evolution of the EVs. I had fun in "the good old days" with my big block Corvettes but understand why this is happening.
I am starting to do my part for the environment and recently installed a 11 kw solar power PV system at my house and plan to add even more. When complete I will be totally off the grid.
Well designed presentations created by educated and well funded business leaders predicting the future when only 1 percent of cars now are electric . At the moment lithium is plentiful and the cost to make the batteries as well as the disposal of them poses no real dilemma .
You know how it goes with Pundits .. speculation can be right or wrong .
I keep repeating the same point .. I am not a "naysayer" to buying a better car . I am a "naysayer" to losing CHOICES .
Hey Len, that final paragraph was in fact mine, not Yorker's. LOL.
Anyway, I agree with your other comments, as there are a lot of people in this world who have developed a vocabulary based on outdated, usurped data to engage in bellicose and highly emotional rhetoric. "Rhetoric" because they really are not receptive to, or respectful of, other people's POV.
Ouch!
Kudos to Skinsfan too. Well done indeed champ! Let us know your impressions after your whole envelope becomes available. I was pleasantly surprised by the untapped performance after my run-in period.
@grim wrote: "And then there were 18."
194 does NOT equal 18, or vice versa, no matter how you cut it.
Citing Erdogan multiple times in a thread ostensibly about the EV Macan, but OK, if you really must. Progress is inevitable however, despite actions by regressive regimes like Erdogan's. Turkey just prohibited teaching evolution too, so they're not exactly pro-science or pro-education either.
The G-19 has effectively cast the US adrift but you conspicuously failed to mention that. 194 countries (not 18 or 19 as you insinuate) support and agree with the Accord, while only three renegade nations reject climate science; Nicaragua, Syria and the U.S. The G-20, err, the G-19 called the Paris agreement "irreversible" and vowed to implement it quickly and without exception. Fact! Inconvenient perhaps for Luddites, but a fact nonetheless.
The C40 network comprises some of the world's largest cities. Their leaders include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said in a tweet that its members "stand together with the G19 leaders" to uphold the Paris climate accord. Fact! Notice Bloomberg's own quote of solidarity with "G19" countries.
As I've explained to you before, progress is inevitable and delinquent states are merely irritants to effective action by practically every country and large city on Earth. That's an incontrovertible fact. Anyway, you don't even own a Macan, so why does the Porsche EV plan bother you so?
I'll dutifully ignore the irrational, anti-science diatribe above by Steve2209, anticipating you'll remind him of Forum Rule 3 with respect to his political provocations.
Oops! Apologies for my confusion. Obviously I agree with not just your wife but also you. And Luke's embedded video is a real eye-opener although the nay-sayers will still resist and criticize, most likely without even viewing it.
Kudos to Skinsfan too. Well done indeed champ! Let us know your impressions after your whole envelope becomes available. I was pleasantly surprised by the untapped performance after my run-in period.
@grim wrote: "And then there were 18."
194 does NOT equal 18, or vice versa, no matter how you cut it.
Citing Erdogan multiple times in a thread ostensibly about the EV Macan, but OK, if you really must. Progress is inevitable however, despite actions by regressive regimes like Erdogan's. Turkey just prohibited teaching evolution too, so they're not exactly pro-science or pro-education either.
The G-19 has effectively cast the US adrift but you conspicuously failed to mention that. 194 countries (not 18 or 19 as you insinuate) support and agree with the Accord, while only three renegade nations reject climate science; Nicaragua, Syria and the U.S. The G-20, err, the G-19 called the Paris agreement "irreversible" and vowed to implement it quickly and without exception. Fact! Inconvenient perhaps for Luddites, but a fact nonetheless.
The C40 network comprises some of the world's largest cities. Their leaders include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said in a tweet that its members "stand together with the G19 leaders" to uphold the Paris climate accord. Fact! Notice Bloomberg's own quote of solidarity with "G19" countries.
As I've explained to you before, progress is inevitable and delinquent states are merely irritants to effective action by practically every country and large city on Earth. That's an incontrovertible fact. Anyway, you don't even own a Macan, so why does the Porsche EV plan bother you so?
I'll dutifully ignore the irrational, anti-science diatribe above by Steve2209, anticipating you'll remind him of Forum Rule 3 with respect to his political provocations.
Thanks Skinsfan!
I actually didn't take delivery of the PP and went another route. Hope that you enjoy yours a lot! Have just read good things about it.
The correct quote:
I found my error and suppose I confused it with your insightful remarks. My intended quote from Yorker follows:
"Regardless, I do understand your sentiment and empathize, but the term "alternative facts" has been co-opted by Conway to mean something other than what you mean."
PS: Your wife will likely enjoy the lecture Luke supplied. Compelling stuff.
Very well said indeed. Elegant precision.
I found my error and suppose I confused it with your insightful remarks. My intended quote from Yorker follows:
"Regardless, I do understand your sentiment and empathize, but the term "alternative facts" has been co-opted by Conway to mean something other than what you mean."
PS: Your wife will likely enjoy the lecture Luke supplied. Compelling stuff.
Wife has more reasons, which I did not include in my first post:
9. She has been among the original adopters of electrical tools and related enablers such as electric lawnmowers and snow blowers since years ago before the current global EV developments surfaced, because she has always been more comfortable with the technology, and will always be. Her own choice in this matter was made long before first talks of global warming, climate change, EVs etc. even materialized. BTW as we know, she is not alone in this market as electric lawnmowers and snow blowers are widely used and have gotten better, and are now selling in cordless pure electric versions too. Even professional tradesmen employ cordless tools by choice because of their power and mobility, now that long lasting and "memory free" lithium ion batteries are cheap and plentiful for their tools of the trade.
She loves the elegance and superior technology of electric cars, and wants to support the development of this technology, which is why, given the choice, she is looking forward to replacing her gasoline Porsche Macan, a great vehicle, with its EV successor.
There will still be choices for decades to come. But it will probably be more niche products and sports cars to be offered with combustion engines (some of the offerings with hybrids and mildhybrids). The main stream massmarket which still represent the majority of cars on the road will move over to EVs when prices for EVs have come down. I can't imagine many people who buy a car for the utility would choose e.g. a Volvo XC60 with ICE if a similar equipped car with an EV drivetrain cost equally as much. EVs are just better as daily drivers for so many reasons.
Regarding the presentation i included in my previous post there are of course things to question, but from an overall perspective there will for sure be some sort of disruption for moving to EVs. It will be driven by economical reasons and not only for saving our planet which many seem to believe.
Why is it that this subject brings out such passion with everyone?
@Len Walsh and @Steve2209, please see Rule 6. If you have any issues with a member, talk to them privately by using the PM feature. No need to discuss whatever it is you are discussing here.
@Steve2209, I don’t understand, nor have time to research this: And Len, you are in Victoria run by the Andrews government. Read up on cultural Marxism and then consider the safe schools policy in Australia and then tell us again how there is no Marxist agenda going on. It sounds educational with a political twist. Its easier to just stay away from any kind of political advocacy.
Now, I do not think there is any discussion here on "global warming". That ship has sailed. Porsche has made their decision, which appears completely in line with what the EU wants and all the signs that ICE will be banned in Europe. Most of this discussion has been about CHOICE, in the US or CA, and laws, statutes, etc that surround that. If someone doesn't understand the vernacular “then there were 18” because its a colloquialism, well, then you don’t get it. Maybe the Americans get it.
Why be interested in Macan EV? Because it’s the much broader prospect stated by PAG that 50% of all Porsches will be EV. What’s the low hanging fruit? (that might be American vernacular). CUVs, produced in bulk for the mass market with the vast majority of customers coming from other CUVs, not the more hardcore sports cars guys. Think EV will be easier to sell to the sports cars buyers? And then PAG is under criminal diesel investigation Source Anyone who cares about the future of Porshe should be interested in the subject.
@Len Walsh and @Steve2209, please see Rule 6. If you have any issues with a member, talk to them privately by using the PM feature. No need to discuss whatever it is you are discussing here.
@Steve2209, I don’t understand, nor have time to research this: And Len, you are in Victoria run by the Andrews government. Read up on cultural Marxism and then consider the safe schools policy in Australia and then tell us again how there is no Marxist agenda going on. It sounds educational with a political twist. Its easier to just stay away from any kind of political advocacy.
Now, I do not think there is any discussion here on "global warming". That ship has sailed. Porsche has made their decision, which appears completely in line with what the EU wants and all the signs that ICE will be banned in Europe. Most of this discussion has been about CHOICE, in the US or CA, and laws, statutes, etc that surround that. If someone doesn't understand the vernacular “then there were 18” because its a colloquialism, well, then you don’t get it. Maybe the Americans get it.
Why be interested in Macan EV? Because it’s the much broader prospect stated by PAG that 50% of all Porsches will be EV. What’s the low hanging fruit? (that might be American vernacular). CUVs, produced in bulk for the mass market with the vast majority of customers coming from other CUVs, not the more hardcore sports cars guys. Think EV will be easier to sell to the sports cars buyers? And then PAG is under criminal diesel investigation Source Anyone who cares about the future of Porshe should be interested in the subject.
EVs
Now to disruptive technologies.
Thanks @Luke for bringing up the buzzword or buzzphrase. Its so interesting when vested interests use business management techniques or practices to sell their wares. Lets go to the actual source, and not a secondary article. The Harvard Business Review, cite https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave Bower and Christensen, 1995. This is the original. To bad, its behind a paywall. Lets look at a summary for educational purposes. MolaU: Summary of: ?Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave? By: Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen. You can read it but it appears to be a business practice coined to teach businesses how not to lose business. Make sense? This is directed to company management, not to consumers.
It’s a reasonable approach and too bad Kodak didn't learn it. Don’t have your head in the sand just doing what you have always done, but look around you. Good stuff. Your company perspective shouldn’t be just customer focused but talk to experts about what “might” meet customers demands in the future. This is good stuff. And large companies move too slow whereas small or startups are agile. Everything here is reasonable. Of course, in the end, the customer ultimately decides, in a free market, what they will buy.
Now lets take EV and sell it on “disruptive technology". "We" are the consumers. It's not directed to us, other than information. Hmm, The Big Three are giants and cumbersome. Tesla fits the bill as being a startup and small. Good. How about customer’s demands? Is the customer always right? Lets have the global warming experts tell us what the customer will want. Done. This is a disruptive technology. Lets sell it. Is that how this works? It does meet the part about using a startup or small company, except that as often noted in these discussions, the big car companies are also building EV. Oops. No Kodaks here. Its been noted over and over. Just look around. GM, Nissan, Toyota, and now VAG, all the giants n the industry will not end up like Kodak but are hedging their bets. Will EV meet the need of the consumers? That is yet to be seen.
Which brings us to Futurists. You know Futurists, the people who tell you how the future will look? Anyone know any that got it right? Anyone got a jet pack yet? Anybody become millionaires based upon futurists? To be fair, I did not watch the video but it looks like TaaS is part of it. – the new business model. Dump your personal car. Take an EV on demand. And to be fair, here is the full report
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...30c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf
Previously, I told you the new “line” would be, No more personal cars! Buying patterns will shift from personal ownership to shared usage. That's the "well if this selling line doesn't work, try this one". This has already begun, one example EV Shared-Use Mobility Program ? Atlas Public Policy Expect to see a lot more of this as people refuse to buy EVs without being bribed to do so. This is the next big push. Convince people that if EV are not for you, well share them. After all, give up your personal freedom and SHARE. You share Photos and share your life on FaceBook, so SHARE you car.
Now, its possible, this "share your EV" approach might work in dense urban areas. Forget about Europe. We are talking American now. Maybe if you lived in NYC or Chicago, you could buy into this. Wait Wait Wait. What? Boston, already has this. They are called "Trolleys" and have been around since 1900? I don't know when. So doesn't NYC, Chicago, and about everyone major US city have some kind of electric subways, mass transit. So what's the difference between mass transit and Taas? Point to point delivery rather than fixed delivery points. It sure sounds like a VERY old idea. But it is a valid idea. After all, 99% of the time everyone's car just sits there and who likes to pay high garaging fees? Of course, they forget the part about "its MINE!". And everyone cares about what "they" own. But hey, go ahead and sell on sharing. It will be interesting to see what the next approach will be, yup cynical. Take a very old idea and try to sell it as new? Why not just take the train if in the city? Oh, and Trolleys do exist to this day. They run on the electrical lines strung across cities, never mind the 3rd rails.
Lets go to Figure 9, ICE vs TAAS projections. Looks like by 2024, ICE sales go to zero. Sure. I'm not going to laugh here. Predicting the future is hard. That's not an easy job. Getting it right is next to impossible. Otherwise, everyone would be at a racetrack.
I do believe as a business management issue, worrying about disruptive technologies is important. Any fiscally responsible company better worry about it. There are three possibilies I know of
A. Mandate it. Institute in Law (EU is here or going here)
B. Bribe the customers. Give them money to go buy what you want them to buy (US is partially here but heading to C).
C. Free market decides the future. (at the moment, this is where the US is heading)
Any other new selling techniques I don't know of that those seeking to push the EV agenda will be using? I like to learn about them. This is educational. I am learning a lot to watching them try to figure out how to sell. After all, marketing and PR makes products appealing to consumers.
Now to disruptive technologies.
Thanks @Luke for bringing up the buzzword or buzzphrase. Its so interesting when vested interests use business management techniques or practices to sell their wares. Lets go to the actual source, and not a secondary article. The Harvard Business Review, cite https://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-technologies-catching-the-wave Bower and Christensen, 1995. This is the original. To bad, its behind a paywall. Lets look at a summary for educational purposes. MolaU: Summary of: ?Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave? By: Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen. You can read it but it appears to be a business practice coined to teach businesses how not to lose business. Make sense? This is directed to company management, not to consumers.
It’s a reasonable approach and too bad Kodak didn't learn it. Don’t have your head in the sand just doing what you have always done, but look around you. Good stuff. Your company perspective shouldn’t be just customer focused but talk to experts about what “might” meet customers demands in the future. This is good stuff. And large companies move too slow whereas small or startups are agile. Everything here is reasonable. Of course, in the end, the customer ultimately decides, in a free market, what they will buy.
Now lets take EV and sell it on “disruptive technology". "We" are the consumers. It's not directed to us, other than information. Hmm, The Big Three are giants and cumbersome. Tesla fits the bill as being a startup and small. Good. How about customer’s demands? Is the customer always right? Lets have the global warming experts tell us what the customer will want. Done. This is a disruptive technology. Lets sell it. Is that how this works? It does meet the part about using a startup or small company, except that as often noted in these discussions, the big car companies are also building EV. Oops. No Kodaks here. Its been noted over and over. Just look around. GM, Nissan, Toyota, and now VAG, all the giants n the industry will not end up like Kodak but are hedging their bets. Will EV meet the need of the consumers? That is yet to be seen.
Which brings us to Futurists. You know Futurists, the people who tell you how the future will look? Anyone know any that got it right? Anyone got a jet pack yet? Anybody become millionaires based upon futurists? To be fair, I did not watch the video but it looks like TaaS is part of it. – the new business model. Dump your personal car. Take an EV on demand. And to be fair, here is the full report
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...30c5/1494888038959/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf
Previously, I told you the new “line” would be, No more personal cars! Buying patterns will shift from personal ownership to shared usage. That's the "well if this selling line doesn't work, try this one". This has already begun, one example EV Shared-Use Mobility Program ? Atlas Public Policy Expect to see a lot more of this as people refuse to buy EVs without being bribed to do so. This is the next big push. Convince people that if EV are not for you, well share them. After all, give up your personal freedom and SHARE. You share Photos and share your life on FaceBook, so SHARE you car.
Now, its possible, this "share your EV" approach might work in dense urban areas. Forget about Europe. We are talking American now. Maybe if you lived in NYC or Chicago, you could buy into this. Wait Wait Wait. What? Boston, already has this. They are called "Trolleys" and have been around since 1900? I don't know when. So doesn't NYC, Chicago, and about everyone major US city have some kind of electric subways, mass transit. So what's the difference between mass transit and Taas? Point to point delivery rather than fixed delivery points. It sure sounds like a VERY old idea. But it is a valid idea. After all, 99% of the time everyone's car just sits there and who likes to pay high garaging fees? Of course, they forget the part about "its MINE!
". And everyone cares about what "they" own. But hey, go ahead and sell on sharing. It will be interesting to see what the next approach will be, yup cynical. Take a very old idea and try to sell it as new? Why not just take the train if in the city? Oh, and Trolleys do exist to this day. They run on the electrical lines strung across cities, never mind the 3rd rails.Lets go to Figure 9, ICE vs TAAS projections. Looks like by 2024, ICE sales go to zero. Sure. I'm not going to laugh here. Predicting the future is hard. That's not an easy job. Getting it right is next to impossible. Otherwise, everyone would be at a racetrack.
I do believe as a business management issue, worrying about disruptive technologies is important. Any fiscally responsible company better worry about it. There are three possibilies I know of
A. Mandate it. Institute in Law (EU is here or going here)
B. Bribe the customers. Give them money to go buy what you want them to buy (US is partially here but heading to C).
C. Free market decides the future. (at the moment, this is where the US is heading)
Any other new selling techniques I don't know of that those seeking to push the EV agenda will be using? I like to learn about them. This is educational. I am learning a lot to watching them try to figure out how to sell. After all, marketing and PR makes products appealing to consumers.
Summary because its all too long. I see signs of desperation (US version).
A. Let's bribe them. Uh oh, no bribes, no sales. See GA, and Denmark.
B. No worries, we'll mandate it. Uh oh, Not going to happen. That was then, this is now.
C. Get mad at the stupid public. Uh oh. Not working
D. Need a new way to sell
Plan A. Throw some buzzwords at them. Lets sell on "disruptive technology" Good buzzword. Actually a great business practice. New way to sell. Tell the public its going to happen whether you like it or not. Deal with it. After all "we" know better.
Plan B Tell the public to ride share. That's it. Share. Forget the fact they have rideshared from point to point since the railroad was invented, just rename it and sell.
Looking for Plan C. What's the next way to sell? Or wait until the next refresh cycle and hope for new Policy?
Hmm.
Sooner or later Desperation turns to Acceptance. Oh wait, maybe the free market will decide for itself?
A. Let's bribe them. Uh oh, no bribes, no sales. See GA, and Denmark.
B. No worries, we'll mandate it. Uh oh, Not going to happen. That was then, this is now.
C. Get mad at the stupid public. Uh oh. Not working
D. Need a new way to sell
Plan A. Throw some buzzwords at them. Lets sell on "disruptive technology" Good buzzword. Actually a great business practice. New way to sell. Tell the public its going to happen whether you like it or not. Deal with it. After all "we" know better.
Plan B Tell the public to ride share. That's it. Share. Forget the fact they have rideshared from point to point since the railroad was invented, just rename it and sell.
Looking for Plan C. What's the next way to sell? Or wait until the next refresh cycle and hope for new Policy?
Hmm.
Sooner or later Desperation turns to Acceptance. Oh wait, maybe the free market will decide for itself?
Joined
·
418 Posts
For those unaware, the EV is nothing new, especially to Porsche, since it was he, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, who developed the first EV and hybrid. "What goes around comes around".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche
https://jalopnik.com/porsches-first-car-found-after-being-left-in-a-shed-for-1509719443
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche
https://jalopnik.com/porsches-first-car-found-after-being-left-in-a-shed-for-1509719443
Joined
·
194 Posts
Part of the EU "money" factor was to prevent a WW3. For example, were Germany to try invading (yet again) France, the entire EU economy / Euro currency would collapse, along with Germany. You know, the whole "those who cannot learn from history" bit, rather than US's ("we've got our own problems") isolationism that had [not] worked out so well for the first two world wars.And that is why the Utopian experiment called the EU and its associated UN agreements are toast. It was always about the money. And when The Don turned the tap off the Emperor was laid bare, naked for all the world to see
And it's not a good look! >
Joined
·
194 Posts
I'd never realized "the most widely read scientific blog in the world" is... wattsupwiththat.com ???
I must re-examine my life...
Joined
·
194 Posts
As a former New "Yorker" resident (but still working here...), I'm genuinely confused why you think EV vs ICE (or hybrid?) cab service is bad, or do your mean shared service like Manhattan's Citi Bikes program with fixed pickup/dropoff points? One problem with mass transit is they do not go directly to where you want to (hence "mass"). Mad Sq Pk to Penn Stn, great. You need to go instead to 32nd St & 2nd Ave for a movie "date"? Take a 16 minute sweaty hike in summer or a cab (or that evil EV). Honestly, I'd never buy a car in Manhattan, but I do have several Manhattan friends who have S4, MDX, etc., whereas I've now moved to NJ.Now, its possible, this "share your EV" approach might work in dense urban areas. Forget about Europe. We are talking American now. Maybe if you lived in NYC or Chicago, you could buy into this. Wait Wait Wait. What? Boston, already has this. They are called "Trolleys" and have been around since 1900? I don't know when. So doesn't NYC, Chicago, and about everyone major US city have some kind of electric subways, mass transit. So what's the difference between mass transit and Taas? Point to point delivery rather than fixed delivery points. It sure sounds like a VERY old idea. But it is a valid idea. After all, 99% of the time everyone's car just sits there and who likes to pay high garaging fees? Of course, they forget the part about "its MINE!
Plenty of NY'ers are still willing to pay the premium to take a taxi/Uber/Lyft vs subway/bus for somewhat expedience, but the city and the drivers would benefit from less gasoline fee usage (hybrid would make most sense unless swapping batteries/cars), whereas passengers just want the quickest and cheapest.
There are already national "Air BNB"-style "share my car" service like Turo, but I personally would NEVER let anyone else touch my cars! Manhattan Citi Bike lets you "borrow" essentially a rental bike; it's not yours, but rather pay a monthly fee. I can personally say this is an amazingly efficient and fun way to get around Manhattan (granted, not as cool as driving a Porsche in gridlock traffic). Likewise, city-sponsored/shared EVs totally make sense in urban environments, since they're sitting idle 99% just like you'd said.
I sum this all up in one word -- Indoctrination .
It starts with promoting whatever agenda they desire in a manner where people stop questioning and simply believe . Enter the preacher (I mean Mr Seba ) with a sermon fit for a TV audience of sheep like zombies who nod their heads . With leaders viewed as inerrant the hidden agendas , deceit , and exploitation process begins . The effort is made to silence dissent and reward the flock ( money, praise , and an overall sense that they made the right choice even though it never was a choice).
Maybe the 3-5 year prediction is a speculated timeline to produce a cult belief and the hope to implement the legislature to secure it.
They already got a few on board here .
Honestly @grim -- its one of those debates that just ends up being a waste of time . I do commend your patience and effort .
New York's cool use of EVs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/...t-new-york-police-just-got-more-adorable.html
121 - 140 of 156 Posts
