^The one thing that's throwing a monkey wrench into that (in strip malls at least) is nontraditional tenants such as medical, government and office. For those kinds of places, rent is often tiny as compared to how much money they are making. The dialysis facility always has that $6000 a month and doesn't care that they're overpaying as compared to what it's worth to a store. To a store the space is only worth $2k!

Someone paraded their own $80,000 Tesla grocery wagon down Hamilton Ave. today as part of some sort of "eco-conscious" parade entry:

 

 

If you really want to "save the environment", ride the #17 bus. 

 

If you really want to "save the environment", ride the #17 bus.

 

A city bus typically gets somewhere around ~3 mpg.  A Model X gets upwards of 90 mpg.  So if you're talking just about "pollution" generated from your mode of transport, then for every mile you travel in a Model X, you'll need to have 30+ people on the bus.  If it's just basic math, right?  I realize there are a lot of factors and it's probably not that simple.

The construction and then eventual scrapping of the vehicle consumes a huge percentage of the total energy involved with a vehicle over its lifetime.  That's why the thought that electric cars significantly reduce the impact of personal vehicles on the environment is a joke. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

 

The Washington Metro is just now retiring the last of its original railcars built in the mid-1970s.  All of these teslas are going to be rotting in junk yards by 2030. 

 

 

Not to mention the additional pavement for parking and roads needed for a personal auto vs a city bus.

Someone paraded their own $80,000 Tesla grocery wagon down Hamilton Ave. today as part of some sort of "eco-conscious" parade entry:

 

 

If you really want to "save the environment", ride the #17 bus. 

 

That's because the whole point was for some rich attention-wh*re to show off their cool new car.

Someone should have cut him off and went in front of him, in an old rusted out Geo Metro from the early 90s. Those things had 3 cylanders and were ultimately probably much better for the environment than that Tesla is.

Elon Musk has seduced nerds and libertarians alike. 

What kind of music plays at a Syde Show featuring Teslas?

What kind of music plays at a Syde Show featuring Teslas?

 

Is that a joke? Tech-no  :-D

To avoid this being a pure Tesla thread, here's a story on Volvo committing to produce only electric or hybrid vehicles in their new line of vehicles beginning in 2019.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/05/535596277/all-new-volvo-models-will-be-electric-or-hybrid-starting-in-2019

had an conversation with a supplier of parts to the energy industry. They work with everyone but traditional oil drillers (because they don't need their type of parts) but they work with offshore oil, wind, solar, coal, geothermal, etc.  his thoughts:

 

It is all about basic economics. It does not matter who the president is or what some central government agency tries to push.

1) Coal is dead. The only future coal will have is not as an energy source because it is too inefficient to compete in today's economy.

2) Solar and wind really are not viable without government incentives to push them and penalties to hold back the oil and gas industry.

3) Offshore Oil, Canadian Oil, Alaskan Oil right now are worthless and will not do anything for a long time unless Ohio gets to around $70 barrel.

4) US Oil is more plentiful than ever due to fracking and natural gas is too.

5) Electric vehicles will begin to lose some of their appeal because Oil is so cheap and natural gas, being so plentiful and cheap may become the clean, green choice for the future.

 

Ultimately, he expects rough waters ahead for Tesla and the EV makers domestically, but there may be possibilities in Europe.

Tesla is in trouble because all of the luxury automakers will make much more attractive electric cars and traditional car-buyers will feel much more comfortable buying an electric BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, etc.  All of the money is in luxury cars, SUV's, and pickups.  Tesla's foray into cheaper cars is going to be an unprofitable one.   

But with Oil at $30-$40 a barrel for a long time now, I don't see electric cars getting the huge boost they would if gas prices rose to $5 a gallon

 

And that's why success in Europe is more likely for electric near-term. I'm not familiar with Tesla's Europe strategy.

I think it's important to think globally instead of just in terms of what is happening in the U.S. It's relevant to some degree, of course but what is our (big 3's) presence like in foreign markets compared to the inverse and what is our trade policy like? Not just with those foreign countries with powerful economies where consumers have a lot of purchasing power but emerging markets like India for example?

 

It would actually be really nice if American cars were seen as a status-symbol abroad (electric or otherwise.) They don't really seem to be, though. It's weird, considering how influential we are, in the world. I have heard about Cadillacs being a status-symbol in Japan (which is particularly hilarious to me because in America, Cadillacs are seen as a status-symbol in the U.S. only by the African American community, which is probably the poorest demographic in the U.S. and Japanese people don't like Black people - I can personally attest to this.)

 

That international status of American-made cars would be derived from the notion that America is a land to look up to (the way some Americans look up to Europe - often times for trivial reasons.) Of course Donald Trump doesn't really help with that perception abroad - so there's that. With America being such a mighty country though, you would think that American-made cars would carry some sort of inherent status with them. With no basis in practicality or even reality of course, just perception. Maybe we just don't actually consider European imports to be status symbols because we look up to Europe; their cars are simply exotic - but I guess they're also not 'too exotic.' That's why we value Lambo, Ferrari and Bugatti.

 

The auto industry is interesting. What if a Brazilian auto-maker happened to have the best engineers, most solid business model and provided the highest quality vehicle for number of dollars spent (in other words, provided the greatest return on investment for the consumer,) in terms of safety, reliability, maintenance cost, value retention, energy efficiency and even cool and iconic design, to the U.S. market? Would Americans go for it? Probably not. It would be too weird. You have 'Murica buying Ford, Chevy and Jeep. (I admit, I actually really love Jeep Grand Cherokees! I don't quite know why, but I can get down with Jeep!) You have the practical folks who buy Asian cars... Toyotas particularly in the early 2000s and Honda in the latter days... even though those practical consumers for some reason opted to pay a premium for SUVs to drive on concrete through smooth city streets, they're sadly the most practical of all consumers. The more affluent, risk-averse and practical folks buy Japanese Acuras, of course. Weird, eccentric people buy Saabs, for some reason, particularly anyone who claims to be affiliated with Cape Cod. Then you have those who really just have this need to be flashy and try to impress the world whether they actually have money or not... they buy Mercedes, BMW, Audi and other European imports, even if they have to buy a pre-owned car on the brink of needing major repair, said car having a very outdated body style and technology . Then of course you have Tesla which is admired by those in Tech who appreciate its unique yet novel innovations, and also, unlike most people, believe that innovative software warrants unrealistically crazy premiums.

 

If Electric vehicles experience 'rough waters,' I think it's simply due to the fact that they're still just too restrictive. For the average EV, you can go, what, 100-110 miles? Then you have to charge the vehicle for 6-8 hours. Even if you can use rapid charging points on new vehicles, you're looking at 40 minutes to completely charge the vehicle to go another 100 or 120 miles - if you're lucky enough to find a charging station along the way. 40 minutes (and this is the bare minimum to charge your EV -- is a long time to stand around wondering wtf to do, compared to someone pumping gas for 30 seconds to go much further. 

 

My cousin is a tech mogul who sold his cloud technology to Autodesk, who bought his company and made him a product manager for the product he invented. He's loaded. Of course, he has a Tesla.

 

I remember when he came from Cincinnati to Columbus for my grandma's funeral. I tried to get him to hang out and go out to eat with us after the funeral but he said he had t go straight back to Indian Hill.  I have no doubt that was because the trip back to Cincy from Columbus is seriously cutting it close with the battery life on his car (around 100 miles.) That's a serious inconvenience - having to plan your life experiences around the battery life of a f-ing $100k vehicle. It doesn't seem as though we have the infrastructure to accommodate electric vehicals and why is it that we haven't ever heard of that issue being raised? EVs are the future, yeah?

 

I have to admit, it's absolutely hilarious that people with millions of dollars at their disposal, allow themselves to be restricted by cars (on the alleged cutting edge of technology) that only allows them to go only one hundred miles without needing to spend almost an extra hour refueling, and that is assuming they found a proper charging station along their route between destinations. Outside of those charging stations, they're absolutely screwed. However, any other scenario in said situation, wouldn't allow them to be seen in a Tesla, which I'm sure is tragic.

I think it's important to think globally instead of just in terms of what is happening in the U.S. It's relevant to some degree, of course but what is our (big 3's) presence like in foreign markets compared to the inverse and what is our trade policy like? Not just with those foreign countries with powerful economies where consumers have a lot of purchasing power but emerging markets like India for example?

 

It would actually be really nice if American cars were seen as a status-symbol abroad (electric or otherwise.) They don't really seem to be, though. 

 

 

 

Many other countries tax cars based on their engine size. American cars traditionally have had much larger engine displacement than ones in other countries. The tax can become onerous even at 3.0 liters. If we did that here bigass trucks would be over.

Lately I've been driving a vehicle that automatically shuts off the internal combustion engine at stops. It's not my car, and I don't know how it works, but it seems like a conventional car with a feature that stops and starts the engine automatically, while keeping all of the accessories such as the radio, A/C, etc, in operation. So, pure-electric cars now have to compete with hybrids as well as high-efficiency conventional cars.

Lately I've been driving a vehicle that automatically shuts off the internal combustion engine at stops. It's not my car, and I don't know how it works, but it seems like a conventional car with a feature that stops and starts the engine automatically, while keeping all of the accessories such as the radio, A/C, etc, in operation. So, pure-electric cars now have to compete with hybrids as well as high-efficiency conventional cars.

 

Yes I notice those cars when I'm out biking.  Hearing car engines is very important to bicyclists especially since a louder engine indicates acceleration.  It's more difficult to anticipate what a quiet car will do.  And when sitting at traffic lights, the starting engine is always pretty distracting since it happens at the same time you're adjusting your weight to start pedaling. 

For the average EV, you can go, what, 100-110 miles? Then you have to charge the vehicle for 6-8 hours.

 

...

 

I have to admit, it's absolutely hilarious that people with millions of dollars at their disposal, allow themselves to be restricted by cars (on the alleged cutting edge of technology) that only allows them to go only one hundred miles without needing to spend almost an extra hour refueling,

 

Depends on which model your cousin has.  The Model S starts with a ~210 mile range - and you can buy more to get up to 315 miles.  The Model X (SUV) has a 237-289 mile range.  It depends on the battery in the vehicle.

 

Let's say you are on a road trip and drive 120-130 miles (about 2 hours) and then take a break.  At a "supercharger" station, you've "refilled" on those 120-130 miles in 20 minutes.  At home, this is where you you would recharge overnight, as it might take 3-4 hours.  So on a road trip, just stop and get some food while the car charges up for 20-30 minutes.

 

That said, outside of Tesla, there are other options with fairly long ranges.  Ignoring Rimac (Croatian automaker), in Europe the Renault Zoe has a range of 250 miles.  The Chevy Bolt has a range of 238 miles.  The new Nissan Leaf may come in at 150+ miles.  Extending battery life will certainly be a challenge for automakers as only Teslas & the Bolt can last over 200 miles on a single charge in the U.S. (there are some other 200+ mile range cars internationally).

Lately I've been driving a vehicle that automatically shuts off the internal combustion engine at stops. It's not my car, and I don't know how it works, but it seems like a conventional car with a feature that stops and starts the engine automatically, while keeping all of the accessories such as the radio, A/C, etc, in operation. So, pure-electric cars now have to compete with hybrids as well as high-efficiency conventional cars.

 

Not sure which vehicle you're talking about but I have a hybrid and basically anything under 15 mph, unless rapidly accelerating, I'm in EV mode.  My range is something stupidly small like 10 miles.  It has a CVT transmission so from, say 15-30 mph it might by part electric.  It all depends on if the regenerative braking has charged up the electric motor enough.  But yeah, my engine "shuts off" (really - "switches to electric") when I come to a complete stop.

 

And I wouldn't say EVs "now have to compete with hybrids" - hybrids have been mainstream much longer than EVs.  Hybrids still rely heavily on gas, unless you are talking the "plug-in hybrids" - but even then, their ranges on EV alone aren't far enough to make them a viable option.  Hybrids just up your mpg so you need the gas less.  With EVs, you need near-constant access to electricity/charging.

I believe BMW and Mercedes use the auto shutoff for IC engines pretty regularly.  I'm pretty sure, however, that they do NOT keep the A/C running (the fan yes, but the compressor no) because the compressor in an automobile isn't an electric device as it would drain the battery in no time, it has a mechanical linkage to the engine. 

My folks had a 2012 Buick Regal that shut off at lights. The starters and batteries on shutoff cars are way beefier to handle all of that action.

I thought it saved more gas to keep it running unless you're sitting idle for quite a long time (like 5 minutes)? I guess that's a myth?

Maybe if it's a '57 Chevy with 2 Holley Double Pumpers

I thought it saved more gas to keep it running unless you're sitting idle for quite a long time (like 5 minutes)? I guess that's a myth?

 

I don't think that was ever the case.  It's more about wear and tear on the starter. 

I thought it saved more gas to keep it running unless you're sitting idle for quite a long time (like 5 minutes)? I guess that's a myth?

 

I don't think that was ever the case.  It's more about wear and tear on the starter.

 

Gas engine stop-start now uses a beefed-up starter and battery with regenerative braking. Hybrid engines use an integrated starter-generator - sort of like using electricity to get the car rolling and then popping the clutch, although the ISG works much more smoothly than popping the clutch.

For the average EV, you can go, what, 100-110 miles? Then you have to charge the vehicle for 6-8 hours.

 

...

 

I have to admit, it's absolutely hilarious that people with millions of dollars at their disposal, allow themselves to be restricted by cars (on the alleged cutting edge of technology) that only allows them to go only one hundred miles without needing to spend almost an extra hour refueling,

 

Depends on which model your cousin has.  The Model S starts with a ~210 mile range - and you can buy more to get up to 315 miles.  The Model X (SUV) has a 237-289 mile range.  It depends on the battery in the vehicle.

 

Let's say you are on a road trip and drive 120-130 miles (about 2 hours) and then take a break.  At a "supercharger" station, you've "refilled" on those 120-130 miles in 20 minutes.  At home, this is where you you would recharge overnight, as it might take 3-4 hours.  So on a road trip, just stop and get some food while the car charges up for 20-30 minutes.

 

That said, outside of Tesla, there are other options with fairly long ranges.  Ignoring Rimac (Croatian automaker), in Europe the Renault Zoe has a range of 250 miles.  The Chevy Bolt has a range of 238 miles.  The new Nissan Leaf may come in at 150+ miles.  Extending battery life will certainly be a challenge for automakers as only Teslas & the Bolt can last over 200 miles on a single charge in the U.S. (there are some other 200+ mile range cars internationally).

 

I think Tesla also introduced a battery swap option, where if you are in a hurry and want to pay extra, they can literally swap out your battery pack with a full one in less time than it would take to refill a traditional car with gas. For most people, they'll just take a 20 minute break and let it recharge.

I thought it saved more gas to keep it running unless you're sitting idle for quite a long time (like 5 minutes)? I guess that's a myth?

 

"In fact, idling for just 10 seconds wastes more gas than restarting the engine."

 

"And besides wasting gas, excessive idling can damage cylinders, spark plugs and the exhaust system."

 

The break-even point is more like 10 seconds, not 5 minutes.

 

http://www.aarp.org/money/budgeting-saving/info-05-2009/ask_sid_saving_gas_.html

The California Legislature considering a bill that will pick up the $7,500 federal subsidy after Tesla exhausts it in 2018 or 2019:

http://wolfstreet.com/2017/07/16/california-bail-out-tesla-ab1184-ev-incentives/

^Keep in mind that Tesla will likely exhaust its subsidies before other manufacturers have a similar car on the market.  So in 2019-2020 consumers might be able to get the big federal tax break for a GM or Ford or Chrysler vehicle but not Tesla. 

Yesterday I saw that the University of Cincinnati now has a Chevy Bolt in its fleet livery. 

 

GM does not appear to be promoting the vehicle at all and sales are pretty slow:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2017/07/23/chevy-bolt-surviving-the-tesla-model-3-tsunami/#153be0c17c9d

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-offering-idUSKBN1AN13I

 

Tesla seeks $1.5 billion junk bonds issue to fund Model 3 production

^Not good.  Not only are many young Muskateers too young to really remember the 2008 crash, they are way too young to remember the junk bond scandals of the 1980s. 

 

Two weeks ago I saw a Tesla Model X cruising at speed up the Vine St. Hill in Cincinnati with its dumb falcon wings ajar.  Kind of like how you see people driving around Mexico and other hot places with their van doors open. 

It looks like various entities are orchestrating a multi-pronged attack campaign on our beloved Muskman:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/345338-can-we-wean-elon-musk-off-government-support-already

 

 

It like various entities are orchestrating a multi-pronged attack campaign on our beloved Muskman:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/345338-can-we-wean-elon-musk-off-government-support-already 

 

If this writer wanted to be fair, she would have rightly included political efforts against Tesla sales as a much better example of "crony capitalism."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes

 

Anyhow The Big Three automakers and defense contractors get the bulk of subsidies. At some point people have apparently come to accept that the role of government is to shell out all kinds of money to large companies.

^of course.  People sort-of remember the 2009 bailouts for GM and Chrysler, but they didn't care then or now.  But that solar panel scandal was bursting tea party blood vessels nationwide. 

^of course.  People sort-of remember the 2009 bailouts for GM and Chrysler, but they didn't care then or now.  But that solar panel scandal was bursting tea party blood vessels nationwide. 

 

So true. I think the Tea Party types, just like the politicians and party they tend to favor are most inconsistent over their criticism of public subsidies.

 

I remember the policies put forth in CA requiring x amount of electric car sales did seem to be wholly arbitrary.  I'm not entirely against subsidies but it's always strange to see government steering, or attempting to steer such a large component of the market.

California doesn't attract the best policy people in a lot of fields. Most good policy people get sucked up by D.C. As do lots of crummy ones. California policy writers tend to be laser focused on a single aspect of something without being realistic.

The $7500 tax credit for purchasers of EVs, even if imputed entirely to Tesla and not to each side of the transaction based on elasticity of demand (which would be proper economics), absolutely pales in comparison to the dollars spent on the auto bailout, which itself then pales in comparison to the bank bailout.

 

More importantly, though, that Tea Party Patriots article seems ignorant of the fact that Tesla is about to exhaust that subsidy under its own terms.  The tax credit begins to sunset when the automaker in question surpasses 200,000 U.S. deliveries.

 

https://www.pluglesspower.com/learn/forecasting-the-sunset-of-federal-tax-credits-for-evs/

 

Tesla has a backlog of somewhere around 500,000 Model 3 orders (I'm one of them), plus orders for the Model S and Model X (smaller quantities, obviously, since those are $80k+ cars).  There's not a magic cliff somewhere waiting to ambush whoever is Tesla's 200,001st customer, but that delivery will begin a fairly brief phase-out process and Tesla's customers from that point forward will not get a $7500 tax credit.  In fact, at that point, Tesla would be rationally lobbying to end the credit just as the Tea Party Patriots article suggests, because since the tax credit goes by manufacturer, Tesla would eliminate competition's ongoing advantage after that point (since a 2020 Nissan LEAF or Chevy Bolt might still have the credit available but a Model 3 would have no such subsidy).  I doubt that Tea Party Patriot woman has any clue about the real structure of the subsidy or its sunset provisions, and is simply paid via astroturf channels to have generalized hostility to anything associated with either renewable energy or California, or perhaps even Tesla specifically, if the people behind the astroturf campaign likewise don't understand the sunset provisions of the subsidy.

What kind of music plays at a Syde Show featuring Teslas?

 

I think it's important to think globally instead of just in terms of what is happening in the U.S. It's relevant to some degree, of course but what is our (big 3's) presence like in foreign markets compared to the inverse and what is our trade policy like? Not just with those foreign countries with powerful economies where consumers have a lot of purchasing power but emerging markets like India for example?

 

It would actually be really nice if American cars were seen as a status-symbol abroad (electric or otherwise.) They don't really seem to be, though. It's weird, considering how influential we are, in the world. I have heard about Cadillacs being a status-symbol in Japan (which is particularly hilarious to me because in America, Cadillacs are seen as a status-symbol in the U.S. only by the African American community, which is probably the poorest demographic in the U.S. and Japanese people don't like Black people - I can personally attest to this.)

 

 

Buick still exists instead of Pontiac in part because they are very popular in China.

Interesting update about a fairly significant drivetrain difference between the Tesla Models S & X and the Model 3.  The Model 3 apparently does use a permanent magnet (PM) motor, while the S & X both used AC induction motors.

 

https://www.edmunds.com/g00/car-news/auto-industry/2017-tesla-model-3-has-unexpected-electric-motor-design.html

Hmmm, with that motor maybe it shouldn't be called the Tesla but rather the Dirtinator:

 

Interesting update about a fairly significant drivetrain difference between the Tesla Models S & X and the Model 3.  The Model 3 apparently does use a permanent magnet (PM) motor, while the S & X both used AC induction motors.

 

https://www.edmunds.com/g00/car-news/auto-industry/2017-tesla-model-3-has-unexpected-electric-motor-design.html

 

Article just breezes past this point:

 

PM motors use rare-earth materials that when mined create a wide range of environmental damage. We just don't see it because it's caused halfway around the world in a country that still has quite lax environmental regulations. China has an almost complete monopoly on the materials needed for the PM motor. If the new cheaper Tesla vehicle takes off OPEC just moved to the Gobi Desert.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs

That's definitely an interesting concern, and I even remember that Guardian article from years ago, which is why I'm surprised Tesla went this way.  They have to know that that's a potential supply chain issue.  Perhaps they're banking on a development in rare earth mining similar to the fracking boom that would move more deposits in other countries into the category of economically recoverable reserves.  Whatever the case, I was surprised that they're going to the type of engine that still requires rare earth metals for what is supposed to be their cheaper car.  But they've been ahead of the game long enough at this point that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I have concrete evidence that this really was a mistake.

That's definitely an interesting concern, and I even remember that Guardian article from years ago, which is why I'm surprised Tesla went this way.  They have to know that that's a potential supply chain issue.  Perhaps they're banking on a development in rare earth mining similar to the fracking boom that would move more deposits in other countries into the category of economically recoverable reserves.  Whatever the case, I was surprised that they're going to the type of engine that still requires rare earth metals for what is supposed to be their cheaper car.  But they've been ahead of the game long enough at this point that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I have concrete evidence that this really was a mistake.

 

My concern is that this is the Model T vehicle for Tesla. If it really does become popular it will dump a lot more radiation into the environment and will let China control the price point on the vehicle. I don't think there's a fracking miracle for rare earths. Maybe there's a synthetic way around this problem but it looks years down the road, at best. Doesn't feel like we've moved that far away from the problems of the gas powered internal combustion engine.

From today's NY Times:

 

There’s no clear indication of whether these efforts are on track, and in the past year, several engineers who ran Tesla’s autopilot unit have left the company. In early October, Scott Miller, an executive involved with General Motors’ self-driving efforts, charged publicly that Musk was “full of crap” for claiming that his cars could offer self-driving capabilities with their current hardware. His assertions echo those of some other Tesla critics I spoke with: Without Lidar, or a more expensive hardware approach, Musk’s cars may be at a significant disadvantage. Indeed, several people familiar with the company’s A.V. work viewed its self-driving approach as a perilous one, given that there is no definitive way to predict how long it could take Tesla to satisfy the promises made to customers. In the best case, if A.I. and software breakthroughs ultimately transform cars like the Model 3 into self-driving vehicles, Musk will have pulled off something that perhaps seems impossible today. In the worst case, hundreds of thousands of owners will have cars that won’t achieve the status of true A.V.s and can only hope that the sharing network of the master plan will someday become a reality.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/07/magazine/tech-design-future-autonomous-cars-factory-tesla-sustainability-gigafactory.html?mabReward=ART_ACTM1&recid=0w2u3zOHq5tty0vU328fa7Hjc6t&recp=0&moduleDetail=recommendations-0&action=click&contentCollection=Technology&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-q3-2017-report-pushes-model-3-production-ramp-to-2018/

 

What a surprise.  Tesla failing to meet another deadline they set.

 

222 Model 3's delivered in Q3.  They're also revising down estimated deliveries for the Model S and Model X in the upcoming quarters.

Meanwhile Model 3 parts are being handmade on the production line during something called "Production Hell" where they act like they're making Call of Duty or something. Each car will turn out different but that's OK since there are no model year designations for owners to compare their cars' different parts.