Since you're the second person in this thread to think my post had anything at all to do with the definition of "mass-produced," I guess I should apologize for being unclear. That wasn't my point at all.
Obviously it will be "mass-produced" for any reasonable definition of the phrase. My point was that this is still a luxury vehicle that will be purchased by people whose wallets will be able to handle production problems.
"Yet the #1, most popular vehicle sold in the US, the Ford F-150"
There is a reason for that. That is a work vehicle.
"These discussions always remind me of a great Onion article about projecting one's own lot across the population at large, and using our own situation and choices to define "normal"."
This is hilarious because it's exactly what I'm responding to. Some set of the HN crowd, despite this entire discussion, still seems to think $40k is a normal amount of money to spend on a car. It isn't. And, again, I think the evidence is on my side. The median family does not, in fact, buy $40k cars, regardless of whether you think I'm projecting or not.
Here, for example, is some information on median used car prices:
From your original post. The statement that everyone apparently isn't understanding right-
One minor counter to this is that you shouldn't get too caught up in the hype about this being a mass-produced car. HN and tech journalism is a bit of a bubble. Normal people do not spend $35-40k on a car.
You are moving the goal posts around to somehow derive a win through some simply wrong statements. That's hardly uncommon, and is the manifestation of ego.
There is a reason for that. That is a work vehicle.
The overwhelming bulk of F150s are bought for personal use, which is exactly why the average price is so high now. The work truck doesn't have the leather interior and xenon lighting package.
And, again, I think the evidence is on my side.
I have no idea what your "side" even is (though your core claims are simply wrong, it seems that you're trying to say that this is such an exclusive, abnormal price range of cars that the buyers are more forgiving? I find that almost impossible to believe: if you want to see an angry, demanding customer, get to know someone with a BMW 3-series). There are almost 18 million new vehicles sold in the US per year. The average price is pushing towards $35K. This is where Tesla is getting involved (I don't think anyone makes cars for the used car market...), exactly at the sweet spot of the average price.
Your priceonomics link has literally zero relevance to this, or data applicable to this discussion.
You desperately want to be right, and that's a pretty common sentiment. Fine. But your original claim was simply wrong (elsewhere you twisted it to not only somehow claim that these people aren't "normal", but also that people who buy a more expensive car are wrong and shouldn't be doing it anyways), however much you claim that people missed your ethereal point. The Tesla 3 absolutely falls within the realm of mass produced cars, and millions of entirely "normal" people are buying that price range of vehicle. They are targeting a completely ordinary market.
I'd like to make a meta-point here, not to osweiller (who thinks I'm making garbage, absurd, incomprehensible, bad-faith arguments, anyway), but just in general. There's this weird thing people do sometimes where you make a point, they respond to a different point, and then you explain that that wasn't your point at all and attempt to clarify what your point actually was.
And then this is where it gets weird: they then tell you, nope, you're wrong, your point was whatever they first interpreted it to be, no matter that you just clarified that that wasn't your point and tried to clear up the confusion.
Please don't do this. It's a really uncharitable and unnecessary way to conduct a discussion. I just told you what I intended my point to be. What do you gain by claiming that I'm hiding some other actual point? What would I gain by hiding some other point? In this particular case, I didn't even put any blame on the reader. I blamed myself and apologized for being unclear. If that's goal-post moving, then what hope do any of us have?
For no other reason than that I have low self-esteem, I'm going to make one last attempt to convince anyone still confused that my statement wasn't some random class-baiting non sequitur. I was responding to this comment:
Creating an affordable EV at mass consumer scale is a much harder problem than creating a luxury EV at modest volume.
...which was advanced in the context that regular people wouldn't be as forgiving with Tesla's production problems as current owners have been. My point then (and now) was that we shouldn't get too carried away with that line of thinking, because the Model 3 is still going to be a luxury car that will be purchased by people who can afford to deal with some issues.
People who buy new BMWs (by analogy) know that they're going to cost more to fix than a used Honda Civic.
That was my entire point. If it wasn't clear, then I'll take the blame for that. What I won't cop to is some sort of concealed sociological attack. Now, if I know what's good for me, I'll shut up :P
He claimed :Normal people do not spend $35-40k on a car.
He further clarified that his definition of normal person to be one that doesn't tend to buy new cars, only used.
You point out that 18 million new cars are sold per year and that average new car price is over 30K a year. That completely misses the point that approx 60 million cars are sold in the US per year or around 1/3 of cars sold are new cars. The average price of a used car sold in the US is around $18,800. Therefore the average car sold is A) used B) cost less than $30K.
>> elsewhere you twisted it to not only somehow claim that these people aren't "normal", but also that people who buy a more expensive car are wrong and shouldn't be doing it anyways
Um, just wow. I find it hilarious that you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars.
And then you go off the rails with some strange conspiracy theory about dionidium labeling people as not normal and that people buying luxury cards as wrong when no such thing happened.
I think you should apply your words to yourself and reflect a bit.
That is dionidium's phrasing, and you're throwing slurs at me? Really?
"you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars"
In a conversation that can only be about new cars, in a discussion that was about mass production (wait..were they talking about the mass production of used cars?)
EDIT: I realize now that talmand is simply a troll, and I apologize for biting.
Obviously it will be "mass-produced" for any reasonable definition of the phrase. My point was that this is still a luxury vehicle that will be purchased by people whose wallets will be able to handle production problems.
"Yet the #1, most popular vehicle sold in the US, the Ford F-150"
There is a reason for that. That is a work vehicle.
"These discussions always remind me of a great Onion article about projecting one's own lot across the population at large, and using our own situation and choices to define "normal"."
This is hilarious because it's exactly what I'm responding to. Some set of the HN crowd, despite this entire discussion, still seems to think $40k is a normal amount of money to spend on a car. It isn't. And, again, I think the evidence is on my side. The median family does not, in fact, buy $40k cars, regardless of whether you think I'm projecting or not.
Here, for example, is some information on median used car prices:
http://priceonomics.com/cars/