VIDEO: Joe Rogan PERFECTLY Sums Up Why People LOVE Teslas — If You Don't Know, Now You Know...

And we should not forget that "his other car" feeling slow off the line is a Porsche GT3.

But which one does he take on a summer Sunday pleasure jaunt on backroads for fun...didn't think so either.

Of course he doesn't take his liftback/sedan or his SUV for a fun Sunday drive. No one (or at least few people) would do that.

Tesla does not have a fun two-door yet, the second generation roadster is still in development.

That doesn't negate all of the positives inherent to the brand.

Rogan's other car is a rare Sharkwerks modified Porsche GT3RS. Not a slow car by any means.

Great commercial for Tesla however Rogan's ignorance shines when he can't figure out how an induction charge works through rubber

Owners are NOT "doing their part" they are merely shifting the pollution source.

His reasons for loving a Tesla are that it is a dismissible appliance.

That's not un-true. The power that charges the batteries often still comes from coal, etc.

However, with an EV, it's at least *more* efficient than gasoline, no matter what. And, you have the *ability* to minimize or eliminate your carbon output, as energy sources turn over to renewables.

It's not there yet, but having EVs en masse is a necessary step.

So to recap NeqQ EVs shift the pollution but it's ok because they are EVs...got it.

Let's look at this one more time. ICE vehicles use gasoline that comes from oil and produces C02 when driven that leads to global warming. BEV's use electricity which in the USA too often comes from coal (but not always) as the USA is a bit backwards in its sources of power production. BEV's do not produce any C02 when driven. Therefore, driving a BEV is better for the environment than driving an ICE vehicle. And yes you are doing your part when you pay more to eliminate creating air pollution when your drive.

The US DoE has a website that lists sources of energy for electricity generation, which breaks down to regions as well as national average. I suggest you read up on this info first before spouting out your utter nonsense.

I think that's an inaccurate interpretation of my sentiment. I will clarify.

EV's are more efficient than ICEs. However, they're not fully living up to their promise or even their currently imagined advantages because of the issues you mention. The energy to charge their batteries comes from polluting sources.

However, EVs at least at the option, now and in the future, to be charged with renewables, and the percentage of energy generated by renewables is increasing every day. With an ICE, you have to use gasoline, and you have to pollute.

So EVs are currently a small step towards a cleaner goal, and at least a gateway to a much larger part of the solution, even if they're not there yet.

Also, the comment about humans is absurd (and I think that's the point). Theorizing about a premise in its logical but absurd and unrealistic extreme does not inherently disprove or negate it.

There is a place for Tesla's and internal combustion engines in the future. For those thinking they are actually helping the planet by purchasing these vehicle they should follow the lifecycle of the batteries that power EVs. Lead is the fundamental elements that make up batteries and a small portion of lead is actually recycled and place into new batteries. Also, how many tress are lost to these "Giga". Finally, until these EVs run on solar power people are tricking themselves into thinking they are saving the planet.

Any automotive assembly process is going to have environment impacts, including ICEs. The factories, the harvesting of resources to build the vehicles, etc.

Are you not able to tell the difference between Lithium-ion battery used in EV versus the 12V lead-acid battery used to power electronics accessories in all cars ? Li-ion battery has no lead in it, yet it has long life and is highly recyclable.

Haha!

As with any auto, that will always be the case...

"Owners feeling they are doing their part.." Yes, they are smug and entitled overpaying for a rolling battery that does very little to save the planet. It is just another way for them to congratulate themselves.

He's been taking it on the chin lately.

A lot of people weren't happy about the Jack Dorsey interview where it was mostly a softball convo.

Most other people's reactions, I understand. I may have a different point of view, and am glad to articulate it in the spirit of interesting auto industry conversation with others.

But this makes no sense.

What "rights" have our armed services members died for that Tesla is taking away?

FAQMD AKA TheSteve is back.

I rarely do this, but I have some time on my hands.

I have more than a passing familiarity with American history and political philosophy.

At one issue is the concept of government involvement, size, and influence in our lives. That's an entirely separate conversation about America's change from a small agricultural outpost to post-industrial superpower, and the idea of balance in practice between two extremes in theory.

The second, and more relevant issue, is you assuming the nature and substance of future actions that have not taken place, and interpreting current-state technology in a specious and unrealistic way, or at least in a way that is not unique to EVs or autonomous vehicles.

I can't believe I have to say this, but there is nothing about EVs or autonomous vehicles that inherently tracks or reports information to the government. Nor is there anything that itself is not inherent, but is otherwise currently active on such vehicles, that performs the functions you indicate. Even if we were to indulge your theory, you could at best report the charging station drawing power from the grid, not the individual vehicles drawing power from the station. If you were really paranoid, you could continue to pay in cash like you do today (give $50 worth of kW on charger 3).

Speculate all you want about facial ID or DNA or fingerprints or other biometrics to activate a car, but it's just that, speculation. Speculate even further if you want, about the nature, status, and impacts of such data, but that's an even further leap of logic and faith based solely on your word, which I'm not remotely convinced to take.

Further still, those things have nothing to do with EVs or autonomous vehicles and are an entirely separate (if conjectural) set of issues.

So, without the need to quote from any founding documents, we have multiple issues:

* The premise of government overreach, which is a legitimate discussion, but likely influenced by unrealistic ideals established for an America that no longer realistically exists.

* The premise that future EVs and autonomous vehicles will have some kind of as-yet-unannounced technology requiring personal biometric and/or travel data, which is entirely speculative and I believe unfounded.

* The premise that usage of this future technology will constitute a handing over of personal information and freedom to the government, which even further speculation at this point, at least insofar as it's an expansion of what we have today.

* The premise that any of this is somehow inherent to EVs or autonomous vehicles, and therefore both are inadvisable and tainted. This is simply not the case. Even if everything you said were somehow true, nothing about it is a core component of an EV or autonomous vehicle, to a degree that would warrant reevaluation of that entire enterprise.

Sweet Jesus, God! Someone babbling on about inherency and getting it wrong.

Everyone note"----------------" has been replaced by "*".

Thank you, @NewQ.

You said everything I would have.

A reasonable response.

I would submit these as my thoughts in reply:

The usage of electricity to track activity seems limited to spikes in energy usage (at least according to the sources). This wouldn't allow the government or utility company to track someone charging their vehicle at stations along a journey. There is a non-zero chance it could be used to potentially infer the existence of an EV at someone's home, and possibly when it's being charged. I would argue that's not materially different than today, when the government could theoretically use the same information to determine when someone is at home and most active. I don't argue it's ideal or laudable, just that it's not a major turning point, especially considering the limited data point it theoretically gives the government (an EV is at home at these hours), a far cry from being able to track someone's journey.

The point on connected cars is, in and of itself, an interesting and potentially legitimate item of contention. I think the argument will be better-founded when and if any automakers announce plans for such systems' inclusion in their products. Even still, it's also not materially different from current practices (REAL ID comes to mind), and doesn't represent a sea change. Even further, the whole concept is not inherent to EVs, or even autonomous vehicles. Any car could have this system, and indeed any product of any kind could have this system (Apple's iPhone X already does, and claims to only store the pattern locally). While an interesting point, it's not a black mark against Tesla or EVs in general.

"When you drive it you realize other cars are stupid."

Yup, exactly. Which is why 99.9% of Tesla drivers are never going back to ICE cars as daily drivers, ever.

Rumor has it that Tesla benchmarked TVR for their quality control and reliability goals.

LOL!

Well played, Matt.

I have nothing against EV's but for now I would rather have an ICE Vehicle. You could say that the bad parts of Elon Musk rub off on Tesla and that is why I do not care for Tesla.

Matt and others are correct about shifting the polution fron vehicle to power generating station.

For right now, I'm in the same boat. EVs are interesting, and certainly the wave of the future, but they don't meet all of my needs enough yet.

One day they will, and in fact are better suited to my driving preferences (smooth, quiet, effortless). Until then though, I have no problem buying an ICE.

I'm not blindly for or against either one. I acknowledge their advantages and disadvantages, and right now the disadvantages of EVs (and to a greater degree the nature of the cars outside of their method of propulsion) outweigh the benefits. The day will come though when that is not the case.

Part of that calculation though is how the power to charge my EV is likely generated. Right now, it's too likely to be an unclean source to meaningfully deliver even on its most basic promised advantage. That will change though, like everything else.

In theory, at its hypothetical maximum level of development, an EV is better than ICE in almost every conceivable way, except perhaps engine noise and maybe weight (depending on how well battery density technology develops).

It's hilarious to see the reactions on this board. What I can boil down to from these reactions is FEAR - fear of the inevitable that EV will replace ICE in a very near future, with Tesla leading the way.

Because of fear, men with marginal intelligence now use elementary arguments such as shifting source of pollution, patriotism, build quality,... to downplay the impact of Tesla to the ICE and fossil fuel industries. It's easy to crush these arguments with facts and has been done many times before, I'm not inclined to repeat here. No one is buying the arguments anyway.

As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The rewards go to those who dare try it.

You are against a diversity of opinion, so you label dissenting opinions "fear" as a way to demean and bully. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

I have no problem with diversity of opinion, that's why I can tolerate your hatred for Tesla and EV in general. Not so when it comes to facts. You can't twist facts or mix your ignorance with it. It's an old trick some people do and I detest it.

Yeah, and the ridiculous claim that EV and AV infringe on your rights - as if you aren't already surveilled constantly in your gasoline cars, when walking city streets, browsing the stores, using your phone or your computers,... blaming it all on EV is simply nuts.

EV's merely "shifting" pollution sources is such BUNK... Mostly spewed by those who have a vested financial interest in maintaining the massive status quo fueled by the internal combustion engine.

A shift to EVs means hundreds of thousands of big rigs NOT hauling gasoline to stations... Thousands of acres NOT being occupied by gas stations... No lineups of cars spewing fumes as they wait for their turn at the Costco pumps...

Open your eyes. The New Day is upon us. Stop being glued to what worked in the past.

It's time to move on.

One of the most liberating feelings of driving an EV is freedom from the pump. It's hard to explain it to those still enslaved by the fossil fuel industry - you have to get out of that dependency to appreciate the freedom from it, just like how you feel after you successfully quit smoking.

In addition you don't have to wonder what today's gas price is. With EV home charging, you'll know how much you would pay - everyday. For those with home solar, depending on how much investment and usage they have in their systems, the cost of running EVs is even lower or negligible in the long run. With EV expecting to last several hundred thousand miles, EV plus solar seem to be the most economical and environmentally friendly choice for much of the US home dwellers. Adoption rate is still low due to cost but the solution is already there.

If you live in the Bay Area, free charging stations are everywhere. I don't even charge at home anymore. As for fast charging options, I noticed Tesla just put in 3 new Bay Area superchargers in the last 2 weeks, one has 26 stalls. They also have an adapter for the CCS chargers coming out that Audi/VW/Porsche use.

And let's not forget slightly used heroin needles free for the taking.

That's just SF, which is less than 15% of the Bay Area.