This is a bit dramatic. There are plenty of sanely sized cars available, and its not like everyone yearns for them but is forced into a suburban. Last time I checked you could still buy a corolla, an H-RV, a leaf, crosstrek, civic, Prius, several minis, a Mazda 3, BMW 1, etc. If people literally just bought rav4s instead of giant SUVs the average vehicle size would be significantly smaller, even though the rest of world thinks those are huge too.

It’s something. I’d like to see something more comprehensive, like also public transit for the islands and dramatically higher gas/car costs. Maui has like two roads, it can’t be that hard to add a train and kill all the tourist parking. Blows my mind that this isn’t a thing already.

Suing oil companies is great too but why not actually eliminate oil from the state entirely and make tourists pay for it? Hell I’d price out carbon for their flights and find a way to charge for that too, and spend the money on decarbonizing the entire state and climate adaptation.

That all being said, this is a start so let’s build from here and force the wealthiest tourists to be carbon neutral and take care of these places.

People that finance literally will pay less each month for the car. I don’t understand the semantics game here to avoid calling this a “discount”. If you pay less each month it’s ok to call it a discount. I’d argue neither scenario justifies a news story, but the Tesla demand cliff is trendy (justifiably so of course, fuck Nazis) so here we are.

You’re just playing semantics. Lots of customers finance cars. Before the “discount” they had to pay $X/month, now they pay $(X-discount)/month. They literally pay less each month because of the discounted, subsidized rates. It’s a discount for folks that finance through Tesla. I’m not sure why you think you’re the only person that understands the simple concept of interest here. You’ve just decided that the definition of discount only applies to MSRP arbitrarily. Is a point of sale tax credit not a discount either?

I only opened this thread becuaae I knew this picture would be at the top. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Appreciate the conversation, and I definitely bat an eye at the overpriced mall crawlers people blow absurd amounts of money on to get groceries. I actually do think a $50k car is generally a bit nicer than a 20k car, so in my analogy that could maybe be justified, but $120k is getting a bit silly with marginal gains that are not meaningful (to me at least).

But back to bikes, curious of you’re actually able to compare these bikes you mentioned apples to apples. Same geometry, saddle, tires, grip tape, etc? If it’s frame compliance you’re after, I’m curious for your thoughts on some of the higher end steel frames out there. I ride mostly gravel and am large, so e.g long setback seatposts and 45mm tires soak up everything to the point that frame compliance matters less (but still some of course). I could see that being a bigger deal for smaller/lighter riders though. On the other end of the spectrum for trail bikes the frame just needs to be stiff, so I see zero benefit to carbon there (outside weight of course, but thankfully people learned to care less about weight in the MTB world finally). Back to road I’d also argue aero matters more than those last few grams for just about everything outside of massive climbs. I recall hearing that on any road below 7-8%, aero is still “more important” than weight, meaning you should spend your money there instead. Who knows though, every few years there’s a new trend and every few years I find I value comfort over speed even more.

I just love riding bikes and I spend way too much time learning about tech I have very little desire to actually buy. I’m glad you found a bike you’re super stoked to ride, that’s what that matters at the end of the day!

Maybe. Tire rubber compounds continue to improve, along with construction and tread design. So newer tires might be just as grippy and more efficient. Or way less grippy and way more efficient. Or way grippier and just as efficient. It just depends on the tradeoffs the manufacturer decided to make.

Look I get it, I love cycling and own a few nice bikes ($1-4k) but let’s not pretend that the value is there at $11k. Outside of world tour riders, there’s no way you’re actually faster or more comfortable at $11k than about $5k. You already get carbon frame/wheels and near top of the line components for $5k-ish. So to OPs question, to me that’s the upper limit for what fancy bikes should cost for actual normal humans. Realistically 2k for road/gravel, maybe 3k for MTB is jusy barely slower and almost imperceptively less nice than 5k bikes. “High end” is only meaningful if there are actual tangible benefits that come along with the price tag. I support anyone out there on bikes, i just think $11k is a bit silly in a world with this much wealth inequality. I’m sure some folks think the exact same thing about me and my bikes tbf. Have fun and be safe out there.

What does this have to do with any economist? Are they supposed to be able to predict a cheeto imposing absurd global tarriffs? “Once in a lifetime” is just an expression the media likes to use.

It seems like the obvious solution is to use education and career experience to bring folks over that will support their economies. The side benefit will be relatively good cultural alignment. No need to bring race into this at all, just do the brain drain.

I am of the fuckcars persuasion myself, so while this economic policy is beyond stupid I can’t help but see a silver lining here.

You do realize California residents and companies pay more taxes to the federal government than they receive back, right? Pretty sure they can easily fund their own education with some of that money.

Correct, I have not. But I also doubt Ford is intending to specifically copy the niche VW autostick from 50 years ago to appeal to such hypothetical customers. This is all getting a bit silly, we barely even have sedans and stations wagons anymore, we practically lost physical buttons and are stuck with privacy invading software, but somehow this silliness makes the cut?

I don’t see how it can be worthwhile without a clutch pedal though since that is the heart of the manual experience. This is just adding a handheld input that modifies the accelerator response in a way that seems to mimic the quirks of an entirely different mechanical system (that being the paddle style shifters of automatic transmissions, not actual manuals). These at least served some purpose by giving the driver more control over shift points. Now imagine you never drove a manual or used paddle shifters in the first place, which is becoming the norm.

I’ve driven manual cars, including a 328i for many years. I loved that 6 speed. But it was engaging because it was a mechanical necessity. Faking this entire experience seems absurd. It would be like adding vestigial pedals to a jet pack because you also happen to like riding bikes.

The 18" deadlift is an entirely different lift from regular DL because it starts higher off the ground. These are just not comparable. Starting higher is much easier.

Also me! I’m not buying anything if I can avoid it. I’m going to ride my bike and not participate in this scam economy as best I can.

What a mess. It seems like the fundamental issue here is allowing the grandfathering of old NEM rate structures, much like CA allows folks to grandfather in their old property taxes while screwing over new purchasers. Nobody should expect rate certainty for 20 years into the future, that’s just an absurdly long time period to expect guaranteed rate structures.

It’s not that complicated at a high level really - when nobody has solar, full net metering is reasonably fair. When everyone has solar, the whole scheme collapses because production doesn’t align with usage exactly. So every few years during a rate case, they should all work together and shift the value of solar generation accordingly (likely downward). Folks need to take on a little risk with their major purchases because anything else is even more unfair to early and later adopters. The time value of solar production varies year to year and solar owners should be compensated accordingly. Batteries will bring value back to solar by allowing for load shifting, and much like solar, can be done by individuals or utilities.

Obviously the specific details are muddy as hell and will be contentious, but that’s normal and reasonable compromises usually prevail.

The reality is some east facing panels in LA aren’t that valuable these days. And the person with east facing panels from 5 years ago shouldn’t get massive long term benefits locked in because they did the install earlier.

I live in Colorado, have solar, and fully expect the value of my generation to reduce over time. Expecting full retail value of my excess June production to offset power I badly need in Jan to run my heat pump simply isn’t fair.

Honda is reliable too. I get it, I have an older Outback and I’m trying to keep that thing going until EV prices come down more. Subaru will be adding hybrid crosstreks and foresters soon (Toyota tech). Get the most efficient and reliable car you can and don’t worry about it too much (except don’t buy a Tesla of course). Best thing we can do is advocate for walkable/bikeable/transit oriented development but I’m veering off topic so I’ll stop.

Toyota has significant ownership of Subaru…

Toyota has pushed against efficiency standards for years because their cash cows are their trucks/SUVs with abysmal efficiency. Nothing new here.