This reminds me of a good friend who discovered how to make salsa one summer and became so enamored with his product that he thought he could try to sell it. He even stopped bringing it to parties/sharing it. I never followed up, but I’d wager it went similar to the above. He was really into that salsa.

Well, this study sounds like crap. They limited the years studied and doesn’t sound like the data was normalized to usage or against other roads in the vicinity/state. I.e. there could be more traffic or a trend up in general of accidents in that timeframe. Nominal data is not useful for these types of conclusions…

Plus, I’d like to see the data normalized against other “baseline” roads in the vicinity/state and against historical data for those roads. 5 years is hardly enough data to rule out outliers.

You hope what now?

I worked on HP cars for the better part of a decade and never did anything I wouldn’t fully admit to my manager and a police officer on a public road. There are closed tracks without bystanders and without deadly conditions to push these vehicles.

I explicitly said leave off that badge and the license plate holder. I mean they did, but I remember having to ask. Pet peeve for me as well.

Oh, honey ...

Your server wasn’t eavesdropping, you have a loud piercing voice. Based on this letter, the last thing you need is more salt.

Publicly traded companies try to maximize profits, and that means seeking out higher margins where/when available. If a construction company or grocer thinks they could invest in R&D for future tech that could net them better margins or become a market leader in that tech, they should absolutely pursue it. Those…

Most product lines have a midcycle every 4 years and major every 8 give or take. The current Fusion came out in 2013. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I did not make up the rules.

That’s literally what they’re doing with the Fusion. I’m not sure what’s getting lost in translation. Ford is cutting their production in waves:

The assumption is that the opportunity cost of the money currently in use building the Fusion, the cost of a refresh, and the facilities supporting it are outweighed by other plans. I don’t claim to have the faintest idea what those plans would be, and I’m only explaining the best case (“logical”) scenario.

Yes, and what do you think can increase those revenues more? (hint: it’s not investing and lingering in saturated dying low margin markets)

Allow me to grossly simplify the sedan culling that everyone appears to have subjective feelings about.

Because they stand to grow in new markets. Ford can make more money with the same dollar cost in new segments or new ventures. The sedan segment is fully saturated and dying. Even at it’s peak, it wasn’t a high margin market. Ford only has so much cash flow, and diverting it to under-performing revenue streams limits…

Because it is diverting cash flow to a low/near zero margin revenue stream. If they take the money sunk into Fusion development and production and can make a better profit margin, then they should and will do that.

The Fusion is probably hovering around that magical number (6-8%) that makes sense to keep some production going. The marginal cost to build one and the selling price (assuming amortized sunk costs) still probably don’t yield earth shattering margins. Ford probably doesn’t want to invest in platform upgrades for the…

Car companies have more revenue streams than only vehicle sales.

No they’re not assuming customer loyalty. They’re assuming that the money spent on developing sedans can earn better margins in other investments. Could be real estate, buying another company, R&D for new tech, market investment, etc. None of the decision requires any sedan customer to move up market. It’s a money…

That’s not how corporations work. I you think Ford only invests in building vehicles and sole income is vehicle sales, I have oceanfront land for sale in Nebraska for you.