Tesla existential threat? - Page 3 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Notices
Taycan & Mission-E The Electric Porsche
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Tesla existential threat?

Reply

Old 03-05-2018, 06:41 PM
  #31  
500
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
500's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,955
Default

Originally Posted by urbanscribe View Post
TSLA is a flat. Maybe sell volatility against it.
OK, thank you... so the arbitrage you referred to was around your expectations of a difference between implied volatility of TSLA versus your forecast? Sorry, I thought maybe you were thinking along entirely different lines when your referred to arbitrage earlier. Thank you for the reply.
500 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 09:26 PM
  #32  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by 500
OK, thank you... so the arbitrage you referred to was around your expectations of a difference between implied volatility of TSLA versus your forecast? Sorry, I thought maybe you were thinking along entirely different lines when your referred to arbitrage earlier. Thank you for the reply.
Not a trade I have on and all the usual caveats.

My sense is the stock has run up discounting all the possible growth success for a while. On the other hand unlikely to fall much because long term holders want to see it play out. So could range trade for a while. However implied vol likely to keep high.

That was the basic thinking. If I were to put on short vol id watch that trade closely. Not for the faint hearted.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 10:05 PM
  #33  
matttheboatman
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
matttheboatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 966
Default

Shame on you Matt!

At only 52 years young, I can't believe it has taken me this long to realize that we are witnessing the mega shift from combustion to electric vehicles. If Porsche did not need to sell existing technology to dealers and customers they would stand on the hilltop and scream - "Forget everything you think you know about cars!"

My prediction: An E-Porsche will succeed beyond anyone wildest imagination. I'd bet the farm on it if I had not already spent the money buying cool Porsches.
matttheboatman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 01:46 AM
  #34  
OldGuy
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
OldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southwest Idaho
Posts: 10,456
Default

How long will Tesla be popular? EVs will get more popular, until people start figuring out that electricity isn't free. Then they will hold on to ICE cars until the technology gets to where it can support a large fleet of EVs. What do you gain from having a EV when 60% of electricity comes from Coal and gas? 20% nuclear (which isn't going to increase in our country for awhile). The rest from renewables. I dont see those percentages changing radically any time soon. EV technology isn't something thats going to go mainstream in the next 10 years, unless we come up with a way to charge batteries a lot faster via solar (which I don't see soon) The rest of the manufacturers will figure out how to supplement the percentage of people who want to deal with EVs and they will do it at the pace of the market. I give Porsche a great chance to figure out how to build a better EV than Tesla. But the growth of EVs has to over come the fact that a large part of electricity comes from carbon based fuels, and what are we going to do with all the toxic batteries. Might as well drive a regular car.
OldGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 02:09 AM
  #35  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

So much to unpack in that previous statement. But basically even when your EV power source is from fossil fuel it is still more efficient than burning the fuel in ICE engines 24 gallons at a time. And you modularize your transportation so that you can have efficient and zero emission transportation by swapping power plants/sources...the transition from fossil fuels is happening faster than predicted...with many countries in the past few years having surplus energy they have to dump on other countries from renewable sources.

toxic batteries are are not as big a problem as disposing of the toxic waste accumulated from 100,000 miles of ice cars and similar in scope and complexity..to address - and who says we won’t have better battery tech in the future - again modular and easy to transition.

the fact that EV’s are not a panacea is not a reason to continue to live with the much bigger problem of ICE based transportation - and while there are problems with EV’s they pail in comparison to the existing and accumulated damage already done by ICE technology, to argue that we need to continue to accrue that damage because we do not yet have a perfect alternative makes no sense to me. EV based transportation is more efficient and less impact than ICE and can be closer to zero impact than ICE’s can ever be under any circumstance, and yes even if you EV is powered by a natural gas power plant it’s still less impact than the equivilant impact of driving ICE cars the same number of miles, by quite a bit - and can be transitioned to far less impact...for example my solar panels on my house cover my home and transportation usage annually, something an ICE could never do.
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 01:43 PM
  #36  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,301
Default

I'm not a Jag fan at all, but I think that new IPace is going to eat Tesla's lunch. As a total package, it looks light years ahead of anything Tesla has designed so far. And I think it's just the first in a long line of competitive EVs on the way in the next few years that are going to make Teslas look very plain and boring.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 03:38 PM
  #37  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by Archimedes
I'm not a Jag fan at all, but I think that new IPace is going to eat Tesla's lunch. As a total package, it looks light years ahead of anything Tesla has designed so far. And I think it's just the first in a long line of competitive EVs on the way in the next few years that are going to make Teslas look very plain and boring.
Vaporware vs. ready to buy models.
Supercharger network vs. ?

But, yeah, eat the lunch.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 03:49 PM
  #38  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,301
Default

Originally Posted by urbanscribe View Post
Vaporware vs. ready to buy models.
Supercharger network vs. ?

But, yeah, eat the lunch.
Vaporware? I guess you haven't seen the videos of it driving around, beating the Model X P100D to 60 mph, and generally looking amazing? Or the fact that deliveries will start this year and the price will be well below the Model X? Missed all that?

Though I do understand that if you're a Tesla fan boy you're used to vaporware, overpromising, underdelivering, late deliveries, etc.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 02:32 AM
  #39  
OldGuy
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
OldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southwest Idaho
Posts: 10,456
Default

daveO4Porsche wrote:
So much to unpack in that previous statement. But basically even when your EV power source is from fossil fuel it is still more efficient than burning the fuel in ICE engines 24 gallons at a time. And you modularize your transportation so that you can have efficient and zero emission transportation by swapping power plants/sources...the transition from fossil fuels is happening faster than predicted...with many countries in the past few years having surplus energy they have to dump on other countries from renewable sources.

toxic batteries are are not as big a problem as disposing of the toxic waste accumulated from 100,000 miles of ice cars and similar in scope and complexity..to address - and who says we won’t have better battery tech in the future - again modular and easy to transition.

the fact that EV’s are not a panacea is not a reason to continue to live with the much bigger problem of ICE based transportation - and while there are problems with EV’s they pail in comparison to the existing and accumulated damage already done by ICE technology, to argue that we need to continue to accrue that damage because we do not yet have a perfect alternative makes no sense to me. EV based transportation is more efficient and less impact than ICE and can be closer to zero impact than ICE’s can ever be under any circumstance, and yes even if you EV is powered by a natural gas power plant it’s still less impact than the equivilant impact of driving ICE cars the same number of miles, by quite a bit - and can be transitioned to far less impact...for example my solar panels on my house cover my home and transportation usage annually, something an ICE could never do.
Are you a scientist? I am and also an electrical engineer, and just the statement
But basically even when your EV power source is from fossil fuel it is still more efficient than burning the fuel in ICE engines 24 gallons at a time
is so patently false I don't even want to take the time to answer it. There is so much more efficiency in a hydrocarbon fuel its not funny. Then compare that to the WHOLE process of making electricity from coal or gas then charging the car not including all the completely inefficient and toxic processes used to make those toxic batteries. Just refining the cobalt oxide is hideous. The energy in Froth Flotation the wasteful process in roasting and the LEECHING. Seriously your going to tell me ALL that is more efficient than hydrocarbon fuels TODAY??!!

THAT doesn't include the MINING processes of Cobalt Oxide in 3rd world countries and the damage it does to the poor humans that have to mine it. Come on man look at the science.

And just for your future information the energy density of a lithium battery today is 250 Wh/kg and hydrocarbon fuel is 12,000 Wh/kg.(watt hour/kilogram) JUST a bit of an advantage for gas don't you think? And its really not even that close when you think of the coal factory needed to produce the little bit of energy in the battery to begin with.
Oh and the batteries are less and less efficient with each charge and discharge.
OldGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:04 AM
  #40  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

I am an engineer and scientist - and it's well documented that Internal Combustion Engine aren't that efficient

is so patently false I don't even want to take the time to answer it. There is so much more efficiency in a hydrocarbon fuel its not funny.
it is not false - it's actual scientific fact - you are in fact incorrect.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

unfortunately while there is MORE energy in Fossil fuel - extraction suffers greatly from any efficiency point of view with only up to 21% being used for actual motion - the rest lost to efficient (friction) and thermodynamics

I'm afraid you are confusing energy density with efficiency - there is no question that fossil fuels are energy dense (in fact they are the most energy dense substaines known to man other than nuclear based materials - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density - they are in fact an modern miracle and I for one have great respect for them and they are sooo hard to replace), but when measuring efficiency for moving a car or other large object 75% of the energy is lost to thermal's and only 21% is used to actually move the car. And yes I'm an engineer and I've done the math. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is more efficient that refining it, transporting it, pumping it, and then burning it for 21% efficiency than simply converting it in the first place to electricity.

Basically I don't see what your argument about the energy density of a battery has to do with the energy density of fossil fuels - when what we are measuring is how much power (kWh) it takes to move the car…

a 24 gallon tank of gas @ 33 kWh/energy gallon has 792 kWh of potential energy - at 24 mpg that is 576 miles you can drive on one tank of gas or in terms of kWh that is .7272 miles/kWh "burned" in gasoline or 1.375 kWh/mile driven.

EV's can drive 3.3 miles/kWh - so for the same amount of kWh contained in 1 gallon of gasoline you can drive an EV 33 kWh * 3.3 miles = 108 miles driven on 33 kWh of energy/power consumed.

for the same amount of energy in 1 tank of gas 792 kWh you can driven an EV 2,613.6 miles (a Chevy Bolt can actually do 3,247 miles cause it gets closer to 4 mile/kWh) - that is a fact and observable consumption rate of existing products shipping today - you can go buy one and get 4 miles/kWh - this is NOT theory.

to put it another way: if I deliver the same 24 gallons of gasoline to a 40% efficient electrical power plant (which is conservative/low but not uncommon) - it will distribute 792 kWh * 40% = 316.8 kWh delivered to the grid - the grid is about 93% efficient - of the 316.8 kWh leaving hte power plant - 294.62 kWh will be delivered to my home - 5% loss to charge the battery =
279.89 kWh delivered to my 90% efficient EV. So we as a society have a choice in how to use the 24 gallon of dead dinosaurs:

1) ship the 24 gallons to you for your ICE = 576 miles driven
2) ship the 24 galloons to your for your EV = 279.98 kWh * 3.3 = 923.64 miles driven - nearly twice as far for the same amount of gasoline burned
3) don't refine the barrel of oil used to make the gasoline in the first place, don't use the electricity to refine the gasoline - and simply burn the barrel of oil directly and go even further!!!

it is in fact more efficient to burn the gasoline in a power plant - than to delivery it to you 24 gallons at a time - if what we're measuring is emissions and fuel consumption over a given distance at a given speed. It's indisputable and observable with existing deployed technology.

now you are correct that LiON batteries do not have the same energy density as gasoline - but that doesn't matter for the purposes of transportation - what matters is miles/kWh…and fossil fuels have horrible efficiencies when used for moving a car - 14-20% with the rest being lost to mechanical and thermal overhead. The low energy density of LiON batteries affect weight/volume/capacity- but have no direct effect on how efficiently the kWh they stored are consumed - it's a static component of the car's design - but EV's are 3 times more efficient when they are moving vs. the same speed/distance for ICE based vehicle. The extra weight and volume do impact EV range negatively - but the 9x% efficiency of electric motors more than offsets the additional physical weight/volume penalty. As battery tech gets better weight/volume will get lower and capacity than then be adjusted up/down depending on overall design goals of the size/weight/volumn/range of the vehicle for it's intended market.

State of the art right now is the Tesla 100D - with a 100 kWh battery and 335 miles of range -https://www.teslarati.com/inside-look-tesla-p100d-battery-pack-teardown/
over time I expect 100 kWh to get smaller/lighter - and range will increase given the lower weight/volume of this major component of EV's.

It turns out however that when using fossil fuels to efficiently generate electricity the minimum efficiency is 40% conversation (with natural gas being up to 62% efficient at electricity conversion) - when you use fossil fuels to make electricity you can drive further for each kWh produced/consumed than you can using the fuel to run an Internal Combustion Engine.

A Tesla 100D has a 100 kWh battery - with that battery it can go 335 miles - 100 kWh is the equivalent of 3.03 gallons of gasoline - so 335 miles for 3.03 gallons of gas is 110 mpg

It's well documented and researched that we'd be better off using the Fossil fuels to generate electric and then using the electricity to move our vehicles - generating electricity from fossil fuels is up to 60% efficient, and EV motors are 90% efficient, if you include transmission losses and such the whole system (transmission ac/dc/ac conversion) comes out to be over 70% efficient vs. gasoline which is researched and documented to be about 14-21% efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
"Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.[1] "


at 24 miles to the gallon in the average ICE - and 33 kWh in one gallon of gas the efficiency of ICE motor is approximately .727 miles/kWh or about 1.37 kWh/mile (note this forumula does not include electricity required to refine the gasoline, transport the gasoline, or pump the gasoline into your tank - if you include that it gets much worse).

EV motors are 90% efficient - and the Nissan Leaf/Tesla/Botl all takes about 300 wh/mile, or .3 kWh/mile or 3.3 mils/kWh driven which is over 3 times more efficient.

so given 33 kWh hours of potential energy (one gallon of gasoline) an EV can go about 95 miles vs. an ICE going about 24 miles…truth I've done it - you get about 95-100 miles actual driving range from 33 kWh of power in your EV battery vs. 24 miles for 1 gallon of gasoline in your ICE automobile.

even including grid transmission efficiency loss (rated at about 7%) you are still better off taking fossil fuel --> generating power --> transmitting it to an EV charger - and dumping it into a battery --> which then powers the car. Even with all that EV's are at least twice as efficient as directly burning the gasoline in an ICE - and if you include refining and distribution - there is 6 kWH used for each gallon of gasoline produced - 6 kWh of power would directly power an EV for about 20 miles of range - vs. 24 miles for the gallon of gasoline

now let's assume you don't refine the crude oil - but rather deliver it to an electrical plant and convert it directly to kWh

one barrel of oil = 42 gallons of oil
from the 42 gallons of oil you get 20 gallons of gasoline & 11 gallons of diesel - for a total of 31 gallons of "fuel" @ 33 kWh/gallon = potential 1023 kWh of power
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=327&t=9

but the barrel of crude oil to begin with could've been delivered directly to th power plant - skip the refining process - and used directly at 60% efficiency
a barrel of crude oil unrefined has a potential of 1628 kWh @ 60% efficiency of a power plant = 976.8 kWh transmitted to the grid:

7% grid loss = 908.42 kWh delivered to your home
908.42 kWh dumped into a battery AC to DC loss documented at 7% = 844.83 kWh stored in the battery
844.83 kWh in the battery converted back to AC for the EV induction motor = 784.92 kWh for actual motion with an EV motor
3.3 miles/kWh = 2354.76 miles driven for one barrel of oil with an EV

lets compare that to the 31 gallons of fuel produced from refining the crude oil into gasoline
31 gallons @ 24 miles/gallon = 744 miles driven for an ICE

1 barrel of crude oil unrefined/burnt in a power plant = 2354 miles driven with an EV
1 barrel of crude oil refined and distributed to cars/trucks (31 gallons of usable fuel) = 744 miles driven with an ICE + 6 kWh/gallon in electricity use to refine the crude oil.

so let's do the efficiency calc's from the raw potential kWh in one barrel of oil and compare miles driven for that barrel in an ICE vs. miles driven in an EV charged from the grid…

1 barrel of oil converted to ICE fuel = 744 miles driven - 1628 kWh in one to start 744 miles driven = .457 miles/kWh or 2.188 kWh/mile driven
1 barrel of oil converted to electricity = 2354 miles driven - 1628 kWh in one barrel to start = .6915 miles/kWh or 1.445 kWh/mile driven

2.188 - 1.445 = .743 kWh more expensive per/mile to drive an iCE
or .743/1.455 = 51% less efficient to use the resulting gasoline in an ICE @ 24 mpg

and keep in mind that calculation does NOT include the cost to refine the crude oil, transporation/distrbution/pumping cost from the fuel station - it gets much worse when you include all that.

now let's compare the efficiency of an ICE using hydropower/solar/wind to an EV - oh wait - an ICE will never be able to use those fuel sources…my bad.

even with a fossil fuel based electrical grid it is more efficient to drive an EV rather than refining/distributing the fuel to be used at 14-21% efficiency in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) - in terms of miles driven, pollutants emitted, kWh/mile the EV wins hands down.

https://greentransportation.info/ene...osts-6kwh.html

https://greentransportation.info/ene...ectricity.html
https://electrek.co/2017/11/01/elect...cleaner-study/
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

the following site goes into the gory details of the actual conversion efficiency and like all other research concludes we're better off driving EV's and using Fossil fuels in direct generation of electricity - this has several advantages, no the least of which is we can centralize the pollution clean up and mitigation technologies into a relative few power plants vs. 100's of millions of cars that can't be swapped out or improved in any meaningful way once they are deployed.

https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/...ar-efficiency/
The case for electric

Very basically, if we took the gasoline you put into your car and burned that in a turbine, then sent that power to your electric car, the overall efficiency of the system would double.

Double.

And that’s the dumb way to do things. The beauty of an “electric economy” is that batteries can be charged up at any time. They’re not soaking up coal and NG power, which are peaker supplies run during the day. They’re charging up at night when it’s mostly nuclear and wind. As more and more sources of energy come into the mix, invariably more efficient and less polluting than existing generators, your car gets better and better. You can’t do that with your existing car, who’s efficiency and emissions are fixed at the moment it was built, and generally get worse over time.

A nuclear powered car. Yes, really.

There are people who say that we should “burn” hydrogen in fuel cells, for instance. But I can do that at a power plant and ship it to my car for a total loss of only 30%. Other people say we should use more biofuels. But I can burn them at a power plant and ship it to my car for a total loss of only 30%. Want a nuclear powered car? Burn it at a power plant and ship it to my car for a total loss of only 30%.

You see how this works? Electric cars burn anything. They are the ultimate flex fuel vehicles. No matter what new fuel we invent in the future, your car will burn it, without changing a thing."
And let's not compare mining operations for current technology batteries vs. the well documented devastation that is the modern Fossil Fuel harvesting industry - hte oil industry is not known for it's light touch with the environment

the facts simply are:

1. EV's are more efficient even when powered by "dirty" fuel sources
2. EV's can run on ANY fuel - so as you swap/cleanup your power source your entire transportation fleet benefits
3. Batteries are also module, so any impact from current battery technology can be improved with future battery technology - there are less environmental impact battery tech on the horizon - and again you can keep the car and swap the battery for better tech
4. Even with mining impacts the environmental impact for batteries is far less than the harvesting of fossil fuels

Last edited by daveo4porsche; 03-08-2018 at 12:04 PM.
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:13 AM
  #41  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

oh and cost/mile for ICE vs. EV is simply

$3.50/gallon of gas = 24 miles or $0.14/mile
1 kWh/electricity = $0.1254 off peak PG&E rate
3.3 miles/kWh = $0.038/mile

so yes electricity is not free - but it's about a 1/3 of the cost of gasoline/mile.

and my personal experience bears this out in that I've swapped about $1500 a year for gasoline for an increase of about $500/year in my electricity bill - that is until I installed more solar on my home and now don't have a bill at all (other than the fixed cost of the solar system).
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:41 AM
  #42  
RRDnA
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 375
Default

If you have a car that weights 2.2 tonnes..............such as a P85D................at 35 meters per second = 2,695,000 joules
If you have a car that weighs 1.1 tonnes...............such as a VW Polo...........at 35 meters per second = 1,347,500 joules

and the efficiency of coal fired power stations is generally between 35% and 45%...........

Charging with solar panels works well if you have plenty of battery storage.........my household has five cars (as runs five cars on a daily basis as opposed to my sports cars etc).........many household run 2 to 4 cars. All of this has to be factored in. The base load generation models when realistic simulations of EV fleets are used are frightening - in the real world.
RRDnA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 06:05 AM
  #43  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

Tesla P85D @ 35 meters/second = 2,695,000 joules = 0.7486111 kWh @ 90% efficiency means the battery is delivering .83179 kWh of battery power
VW Polo @ 35 meters/second = 1,347,500 joules = 0.37430 kWh @ 20% thermal efficiency of ICE = 1.87 kWh of "gasoline" is burnt to yield .374430 kWh worth of motion…

35 meters/sec = 78.2928 mph

still more efficient in terms of kWh consumed/delivered vs. an ICE even with the additional demands of the weight.

Natural Gas Turbine power plants are nearly 60% efficient, an fuel oil power plants are better than coal.

Coal power plants are just a bad idea and we should get rid of them in any case - and ICE's can't use coal as a fuel source in any efficient manner - so let's focus on given a fuel source that an ICE engine can use - what's the efficient of using the fuel for motion vs. using the same fuel to directly convert to electricity…in all cases given a fuel source an ICE engine can use - your better off using hte improved efficiency of a high performance power plant running at optimal consumption rates, vs. distributing the fuel and using micro-thermal explosions to creation motion in a crank shaft.
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 06:19 AM
  #44  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

https://www.gepower.com/about/insigh...iciency-record

62.22% efficient natural gas power plant - way better than using the NG to drive the ICE at 20% efficiency - better to drive an EV and let the power plants of today and future continue to push efficiency and emissions sequestering - and where possible move to zero-emission renewables (wind/geo-thermal/solar/hydro/thorium nuclear plants) - in the mean time even if your power comes from fossil fuels it's more efficient to convert it to electricity…
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 06:32 AM
  #45  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 500
Default

oops
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Tesla existential threat?


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: