Yes and I'd plead guilty to a $200 ticket instead of spending $400 to fight it. What is your point? Do2he show internal documents to prove it or just an opinion? I don't know since I didn't see that article.

 

You just made his point and admitted to understanding it when you talked about paying a $ 200 ticket. Your desire to see internal documents is also unfounded. We clearly wouldn't have access to such things but some things in life are common knowledge (at least to those that don't live in a bubble) and don't need to be cited. This is a forum, not a court of law. We share opinions on here. I don't know about you but I don't care to change anyone's mind. You're a big boy and can make up your own mind. Most of us on here rely on common sense and reason. It is very reasonable that a company would spend millions to save tens of millions. Also, rtv900 relayed info from a well known news source that was interviewing a professional auto industry analyst. If you really find all this hard to fathom then maybe you could send him an email asking for documentation. There are things called "well informed opinions" and today we have provided that. You on the other hand have just thrown out burden of proof comments like a good lawyer lol. No disrespect. More evidence, expert testimony and reasoning has been provided to show the EV is a compliance car. You have provided nothing to the contrary.

I'm not being contentious here. I only come to the forum to learn, help if possible and have fun. I really don't care more about this topic so I'm probably going to leave it here, but everyone can think how they want and I'm ok with that.

 

no I wasn't referring to you, the dude who was adamant that CAFE is great, said we'd still have carburetors if it wasn't for CAFE and that capitalism doesn't work.
and then some statement about how Europe is worse which somehow supported his argument?
That guy
It wasn't an article, it was an interview on Bloomberg Radio which is a pretty legit business related news agency.
Obviously he didn't hack internal data to leak it on Bloomberg, he was a long time industry analyst with enough credentials to get respect on Bloomberg.
I mean his point about compliance cars certainly isn't a new idea, it's been an industry term for decades now and it's more or less a tax on consumers at this point.

 

What was this thread about? Lol.

 

something about oil which transitioned into CAFE being the reason manufacturers spec super light oils
and then the CAFE thing took on a life of it's own because a federal regulator jumped in on it

 

I vote topics about "oil" never be allowed. This is what it turns into, lol

 

^true
double edged sword, because otherwise there's nothing interesting in oil threads unless they derail
but who would want to give up the potential gold when they do?
not too many

 

There are two opinions that are the most common. Those that want to be cheap and those that want to use the latest most up to date oils. Just pick your side.

 

this thread is about the failed CAFE regulation and compliance cars dude, stay on topic please

 

I see the difference. I am saying "IF the premise is correct, the conclusion probably is.". You seem to be saying "I like this guy so I'll accept the premise, therefore the conclusion is probably correct.". Would Ferrari build a line specifically to offset CAFE? Anything is possible, although I would suspect anyone who could buy one probably would wear the failure as a badge of honor, knowing people. Besides, isn't the penalty removed? Further to that, building a line AND making it fail seems kinda crazy from a brand standpoint, no?

As to burden of proof, besides law, don't they use it as training in mathematics where you do proof problems? Also, for higher level education, when you write papers, do you not have to cite? What about defense of dissertations? Yes, now I will be thought of as an educator. Why people are so obsessed with other's profession, I will never understand.

 

Another way to look at it is "Why spend more if there isn't a benefit that I care about?". For example, if I plan to get rid of my car before it hits the 150K mark, why do I care that the product will extend the life from 200K to 300K? When I sell my car and I find a burned out headlight and worn out wiper blades, I'm not buying the best bulbs and wiper blades and trading it in.

 

You saying, "I like this guy so I'll accept the premise, therefore the conclusion is probably correct" is the same as me saying someone has an educated opinion (that also sounds very reasonable I might add) is a crazy interpretation. I never said ferrari made the car to fail either. Again, I don't know where you got that. I said they made it to comply with standards. They know it will sell some cars, but, and this is an assumption, they probably didn't put that much time into designing it. Kinda like your statement about not putting the best bulbs in a car you're trading in. I agree with you which is why I can reasonably say that ferrari didn't put much time in a car that pure car enthusiasts won't be interested in. Just the people who are fanatics over the ferrari name. They did it to comply with as little effort as possible.

In mathematics and writing papers, there are things that are considered common knowledge that don't need a proof or citation. I don't really think we disagree that much. I think you like to play devil's advocate a lot though. And while doing it, you hardly ever provide your own data in return.

Have a good weekend all!

 

The emphasis is on "IF". Nothing to do with me feeling good about the source.

​​​​​​​
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant in the above quotes.

I suppose you might have a point. Since he can't state anything we could know, it's just an opinion of what Ferrari is doing. Probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting 20 more opinions. As to proof problems, when I did them, we had to state how we came to the conclusion. The mantra was "no working, no credit". We had to state known equations and show how we derived what we did. I'm not as hardliner so I do see different points. IF I had access to data that was classified, I have better sense than to post it publicly under my name. Besides, if you proposed something, isn't it your job to show us how you arrived at the conclusion? I get that these days, people make a point and just say "Google it" when questioned. If Google was available when we were in school, I probably could have 20 PhD diplomas in a weekend. Not that it would be worth the paper it was printed on but it would be cool wallpaper.

 

It sounds like at this point you are saying that unless the CEO of Ferrari publicly states that this is a BS compliance car you will just say "it's strictly opinion"
You could literally dismiss anything at that level.
Honestly I didn't realize until this thread anybody even denied compliance cars. When you have a fuel eff. standard that lets you average your models together
1:1 regardless of how many you sell it makes the loophole pretty darn obvious. (almost like they put it there on purpose)

Plus, characterizing it as Ferrari making a model AND making it fail is a false premise. I never said the analyst said they made it ugly to "fail", I said the analyst said they made it ugly so they wouldn't sell too many because it's a losing product and it's purpose was not for profit, it was to pull up their average economy.
That one EV will pull up the average economy of 5 gas powered supercars by 25%
That's a success

 

Where's the beef, ugh oil?

 

 

5w - 30 Dexos Mobil 1. You're good!