http://my.teslamotors.com/it_I... don't forget a 12 thousand dollar battery pack every 8 years. That may throw a damper in your napkin calculations.

nice try lol. You must be homeschooled or something. With no movement the static force gives no acceleration - might as well say a section of a tree trunk is providing thousands of pounds of thrust and make a free energy machine. Or gear down a hobby servo motor ten billion times and 'prove' you can generate more torque than any tesla with a 1.5V AAA battery. Or you may realize you lack a basic grasp of physics. Electric motors have higher torque than internal combustion motors of a similar size only at lower speeds.

The tesla 60 gets a 0-60 of 5.9 seconds but acceleration isn't the only performance metric. The 208 (60) to 270 (85D) mile range puts it at the bottom of the list. Handling and braking are also important - its a fact you can get a comparable performing vehicle for less money if you forgo electric.

Lmao you have no idea - your link shows the power plant effciency, not the transmission losses, charging losses or the efficiency of the electric vehicle. By that logic gas vehicles are 100% efficient as they require no power plant for recharging. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... you can get the same or better emissions with a economy gas car and far better co2/mile emissions from a modern diesel vehicle, in the vast majority of locations that people live around the entire planet, and at less than half the cost. Not to mention that site is highly biased toward electric cars and if anything have overestimated things. People would buy them if they got the crazy subsidy electric vehicles get, if you could get one new for 5-10k usd instead of 15-20k usd people would line up around the block.

Lol that's a graph for a fixed speed induction motor and the efficiency is a % of the total efficiency. I can make a bullshit graph of a gas motor showing 100% efficiency using the same idea - the %efficiency beyond 100% would have given anyone with an education pause, but not you sir. Again you don't count inverter losses or the system as a whole. Takes a real genius to click on the third google images link without even looking at what your doing, many would have gone with the 1st. I commend you sir. Brushless DC motors, used in over 80% the electric cars on the market today, are exactly as I describe - 80-95% lightly loaded and 50% at half your no load speed when bogged down - there are some things you can do with the windings to help fix this but it is generally true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... induction motors are a bit better with the right inverter system, but not counting the inverter are around 85-97% - minus another 3-15% for the inverter. Again its irrelevant as the real figure is co2/mile for pollution and that gives economy gas, and diesel, the edge.

You replied with cut and pasted links with no idea or thought as to what you are doing, wow I am in awe. You failed to understand high school physics, posted the third link from google images without looking, and completely moved the goal posts on co2/mile. Not only are you ignorant (I hope you actually read the links), you sir, win the internet.

The main difference is people are led to believe the tesla is environmentally friendly. Everyone knows SUVs aren't. In reality, depending on where you live, the tesla gets 25-40 mpg co2 equivalent. A modern diesel can do much lower co2 in the vast majority of electrical markets.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... So explain to me why electric cars get 25-30mpg in co2 emissions when many economy cars to better for half or one third the cost? The FACT is electric cars are bad for the environment. Further, if you mean http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... Canada, yes I always suspected them of being turrest's. It dosent make sense to buy electric today when 10 years from now things will be marginally different - major power plant installations take decades. cars last less than 10 years on average - replacing those tesla -s batteries is gona be a 20k paycheck before subsidy. Then again you must care more about dogma than actual impartial facts.

I did look at the specifications. Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement. lithium batteries are heavy and electric motors aren't any more powerful per unit mass than gas. The model S is under 420 hp no matter the model and weighs 4700 lbs, that's not really very good for the environment or performance. The tesla s is a good car, yes. But its not the panacea for all people lie and say it is. All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration, top speed, range, handling, braking, etc...

Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles. Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.

Yes if you live next to a solar or nuclear plant it is a better co2 option. However the majority of people in the world, including the USA, Europe and china do not. In the vast majority of electric markets diesel and gas powered economy cars not only get less co2/distance (such as 80-200 g/km) but cost 1/2 to 1/3 or even less than electrics (200-300 g co2/mile in usa, china, india) when you consider subsidies come from somewhere.

and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution. Hybrids are still too expensive for the money to do the most good. Our best bet is still clean diesel. Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.

Also comparing anything supposedly "green" to a SUV is pretty laughable.

Sorry but you have been misled.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/01/20150128-corsa.html

With common fossil fuel cars getting 150-200g/km co2. There are thousands of credible sources just look. My opinion means nothing the facts are facts.

China gets 72% of its power from fossil fuels - electric cars like the tesla actually pollute more than regular economy cars. 420hp 4700lbs is niether 'green' nor 'efficient'. It will take many decades to wean ourselves off fossil fueled electricity - cars last a decade or less

tl:dr while teslas are a nice car, fully electric cars pollute more co2 per mile than electrics in the vast majority of electric power markets, which by they way, cost 2-3x as much before subsidy. You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric. Given finite money and actually wanting to reduce co2 the factual answer is efficient fossil fuel cars. Lying to people and hiding the tailpipe fifty miles away under fifty feet of bs is part of the problem, not solution.

Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics. Moreover there isn't infinite money to spend on lowering co2 emissions. In factual reality economy cars, esp modern diesels, get lower co2 per mile in the vast majority of markets where fully electric cars are used because electricity is fossil fuel powered.
tl:dr for a set amout of money to reduce pollution the answer is cheap fossil fuel cars and possibly hybrids if they can be made cheaper. It will take decades to phase out fossil fuels from electric generation and until then its disingenuous to fool people by hiding the tailpipe under 50 feet of bs.

I'm not sure why you would bring race or medical conditions into this argument. I'm sick of people using ad hominem on our son. You, sir, are a horrible person!

The average account size is 2.5 to 10 million dollars. It's a we hide your identity and ask no questions banking system. Outside of that they offer no special perks. How many people would chose to bank half way around the earth for no reason? What does your gut say?

I actually read it yesterday on another site it's kind of older news. Does it really suprise anyone? All those billions of dollars are from only 10k accounts so the % of shady customers probably is reaching 100.

when I was in grade school i was pretty damn sure earth like planets were very common. There had to be countless quadrillions of them at a minimum. It's actually a pretty obvious assumption. But a surprising number of people, given a total lack of evidence at the time of other planets outside our solar system, told me there were none at all. Whenever you have such large systems it isn't really a stretch to take evidence you have from a small sample and extend it to the whole - true it's not proof but you can't rule it out and pretty much by definition is plausible.

It probably does sound better for them paying so much. I mean if blue pills work better than white ones why not?

I'm starting to come around and instead of thinking about how dumb these people are seeing the marketing opportunity instead.

So shady characters were using Swiss bank accounts? Really?

In other news some of the users of the pirate bay were found to be distributing copyrighted material. Also the sun found to be yellow.

Sounds like a phone it in solution compared to the language used in stating the problem. Although given what they pay teachers compared to what you could get actually working in cs it's not too surprising. On the plus side at least they haven't tried to offer online gym classes.