NFSUnlimited.net

Well my point is, spending $98,000 on a car just to save the environment isn't exactly the best way of using cash. I was merely stating that you could spend half that on a not-so-environmentally friendly vehicle that gives just as much thrill as the enviro-roadster.

And if environment is a top priority, why not save even more and buy a Toyota Prius?

It's not just to save the environment. That would be silly. It's to help not pollute and have as much fun as possible while doing it.

Well of course, it always has to be about the fun

At least factor money into that equation, so that you're helping to not pollute the environment while having as much fun as possible at the best proportional value. Now, a Toyota Prius' Fun:$ ratio is better than the Tesla by far

You're probably the only person that thinks that on the entire forum. The base model Prius is ~US $20,000, while the Roadster is US $98,000. I think it's safe to say the Roadster is more than 5 times as fun than the Prius.

I wouldn't touch an electric car at the moment. Whats the point? One person out of billions decides to change over to an electric car? Woot...massive environmnetal change...i can see the glaciers forming already....no offence but until a vast majority or car companies and their consumers jump over to hybrid/electric car technology there isn't gonna be a significant change at all. Its just doomed to fail. Plus alot of energy goes into making the batteries and once they die where are u going to take them? They're full of nasty chemicals and such so your not doing the environment much of a favour.

Just my $0.02

It's nice to try and help, though. You can recycle batteries, anyway. It's not much, but it does help.

Glopaticki, if everyone thought the way you do, there wouldn't be any change whatsoever. At least now, there's a few tree huggers that contribute slightly to the environment.

@ HaZ: Depends how you use the Prius Why not get a Lotus Exige/Elise instead of the Tesla? You even said yourself that they are basically the same car, so I don't think fun would be a factor in deciding between a Lotus and a Tesla. Not to mention that you save $40,000 or so, which could be used to buy 2 Toyota Prius' to use on days that you want to save the environment

But why not do both at once?

'Cause it costs too much

...This discussion fails. I vote for a new one.

Porsche-AG wrote:Glopaticki, if everyone thought the way you do, there wouldn't be any change whatsoever. At least now, there's a few tree huggers that contribute slightly to the environment.

Well i know who is thinking this way and thats a vast majority of people in high places. Do u think they care for the environment? I doubt it. What we need is a big corporation say for example Toyota to just say "Ok people the only cars we are making, are going to be hybrids and full electric cars" Its possible but it ain't gonna happen. I'm all for saving the environment but i look at in a more realistic sort of way. Look at the major polluters of the world, i doubt they have signed the Kyoto protocol or hav done anything to save the environment at a significant level.

Yes car manufacturers are doing their part but when u look at it, pollution from cars is just a chunk of the world contributing polution. The only reason so much pressure is placed upon them is because they are the easiet to point the finger at. Try telling an oil refinery or a mining company to try and reduce emissions, they just laugh at ur face.

Also this may sound harsh, but there is far too many people in the world...the earth cannot sufficiently sustain a demand for all the peoples needs. Although try as we might, its a losing battle, the only way the enviroment is gonna sort itself out is by mother nature doing it for us. After watching "the day after tomorrow" I'm totally convienced something like this is capable of hapening. Its mother nature collapsing in on itself. Well i guess only time will tell.

xHaZxMaTx wrote:...This discussion fails. I vote for a new one.

x2

Glopaticki wrote:After watching "the day after tomorrow" I'm totally convienced something like this is capable of hapening.

I lawl'd. That movie is just plain silly.

@ Glopaticki: Al Gore seems to be quite passionate about the environment

And I'm quite sure that Toyota and other car companies would make mostly hybrid/electric vehicles if there were more refuelling stations for those types of propulsion. There's a gas station on every corner, but it's hard to come by an electric station unless you live in California.

And there is not too many people in the world at all. Maximum Earth Population depends on the type of technology available. Obviously, if everyone on Earth were a hunter gatherer, the Earth would probably support less than 30 million people. On the other hand, if everyone used nanotechnology, Earth would probably support over 200 billion people. And if you are wondering whether technology will be able to keep up, take into consideration the fact that the greater the population, the number of technological advances proportionally increases as well due to the fact that a genius is more likely to be born if there are more people.

Are you kidding? The world is immensely over-populated, especially considering limited resources. The best way to conserve resources is to consume less. I don't see how that's going to happen, though, considering how fast the total Earth's population is increasing. I'm probably going to sound like a complete bumbumhole for saying this, but war and disease and whatnot are a form of population control. Truth be told, if there is ever a cheap, effective cure found for HIV readily available to the masses, the human race is gonna be in some deep doodoo.

LOL nano-technology? We won't see the full potential for that for many years to come. 200 billion? Where are you gonna put all those people let alone feed/shelter them?

Change of topic maybe?

xHaZxMaTx wrote:. . . war and disease and whatnot are a form of population control. Truth be told, if there is ever a cheap, effective cure found for HIV readily available to the masses, the human race is gonna be in some deep doodoo.

Religion is also a quite effective form of population control.
Good on you for saying this too, there aren't many of us left who still say what we really think.


btw, electric cars = fail. I swear I will never buy one for as long as I live. Unless it can fly.

boganbusman wrote:btw, electric cars = fail. I swear I will never buy one for as long as I live. Unless it can fly.

If electric cars could fly, then normal cars could too. So you could buy a normal car still.

[quote="boganbusman"
Religion is also a quite effective form of population control.[/quote]

Many religions or at least three of the biggest ones (christinanity, islam and judaism) don't do much to hinder the growing population. In fact sexual morality in religion promotes population growth.

1. No homosexuality
2. No sex before marriage
3. No condoms, birth control pill, morning-after pill, etc.

Religion is pro-population... unless of course you are talking about the countless wars that have been fuelled by religion...

Sir Ibi wrote:Religion is pro-population... unless of course you are talking about the countless wars that have been fuelled by religion...

Yes Ibi, that is exactly what I was talking about

Mother Nature is pretty good at Population control too. Except there is no one to blame for that happening.

Wars are usually fought *in the name* of religion, but religion is never the real reason... The pursuit of wealth and power usually is.

Fossil fuel powered cars' days are coming to an end. Mostly because they have a pretty inefficient propulsion system.

Porsche-AG wrote:Well my point is, spending $98,000 on a car just to save the environment isn't exactly the best way of using cash.

You'd be spending almost that much on a Lotus or Aston Martin. Besides I think it worth it to get a top of the line electric car, save the environment, AND look cool at the same time.

boganbusman wrote:btw, electric cars = fail. I swear I will never buy one for as long as I live. Unless it can fly.

How so? If you can prove that statement I might think twice about getting a Tesla Roadster. But before you try to prove that electric cars suck why don't you read up on them first so you have some comparative info.

http://www.teslamotors.com/ <- charges in only 3 hours, 245 mile range on one charge, 135 mph top speed, NO OVERPRICED GAS TO PAY FOR, 0-100 in under 4 seconds. That's pretty d@m# good for an electric car.

http://www.evworld.com/

Bojan wrote:Wars are usually fought *in the name* of religion, but religion is never the real reason... The pursuit of wealth and power usually is.

Fossil fuel powered cars' days are coming to an end. Mostly because they have a pretty inefficient propulsion system.

I agree with that statement. People always say religion causes war when its really greed that does it.

On the second part I agree as well. A guy made a custom electric car and it beat both a Ferrari 360 Spider and Porsche Carrera GT in 1 v 1 races.

The electric cars are the way to go in the near future and that's because the petrol is at an end, we have no more (ever wandered why electric cars are more and more produced?), ok maybe we still have but not enough to last a long time.

As well as the fact that battery and electric motor technology is constantly advancing while internal combustion is pretty much at a dead end right now. Also electric cars are almost 10 times easier to maintain than a normal car.

@ Jopuma: Last time I checked, the Lotus Elise was just under $60,000, so I wouldn't consider a 66% increase 'spending slightly more.'

As for the population topic, check this thread from a different forum to see what I'm talking about: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca ... =0&fpart=7

And I hate how everyone says that there's a lack of oil and it's going to be depleted soon, because that is false. There's still billions of barrels of oil just in Alberta, which is enough to last the world at least a decade or more.