As an auto enthusiast, I generally feel "yucky" after surveying the comments and feedback following a Tesla press release. C&D and MotorTrend generally bias hard for anything American made, which is fine and par for the course. My discomfort comes from the feeling that journalists are making the Model S out to be a competitive alternative to a high performance automobile, which it is not.
A Model S can't make a single lap in anger around Mazda Raceway without the software putting it in limp mode to prevent heat build up from causing permanent damage. A half-day jaunt through twisty mountain roads is absolutely out of the question. It is a car that can drag race from a stop, hit a freeway on-ramp with some gusto, and give you carbon-free credentials the rest of the time.
No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance is cross-shopping a Model S as a like-for-like option, but the press consistently paints the picture that Tesla is a gas-free alternative or even superior to current offerings. I don't intend to degrade what it is, because it is a marvel of modern business, politics, and a little engineering that this car exists. I simply feel gross when I see how much hype puts it up for the Model S being something it isn't.
Drive one. Rent/borrow one for a day: it's possible and doable. Take it to a mountain road, take corners faster than you should, then report back.
I owned and tracked E46 M and E37 M Roadster. Sold the last one when I got my Model S. Now I will never go back to an Internal Combustion Engine. Yes, the Model S is not an M3 and won't last through a lap on any decent raceway. But it's not the goal. It's beyond adequate for everyday driving AND for fun through the mountain curves. It's got impeccably precise throttle response, unbelievable lateral grip and no body roll due to incredibly low center of gravity. The fact that it's fully charged every morning for nearly free, that the juice is free in the superchargers and that it's cargo volume and crash safety are out of its class, is just icing on top. The point is: for ALL uses (but tracking) this $70-120K car is better than anything in the $100-300K category.
My friends own 997 4S, E93 M, Viper, E39 M, F10 M, S6 and whatever the GTR Nizmo is (all US spec). Some of them are tracked, some are not. Half of them have deposits down for a Model S.
Another point: Juan Pablo Montoya owns one and uses it as his daily driver.
> No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance
Yeah, but how many of those folks exist? I can't count the number of times I'm stuck behind an M3, 911, or AMG on the uphill chicane entrance ramp I frequent in my Nissan Leaf wishing Mr. SlowPoke in his $80K car would give it some stick. Oh, they're trying as evidenced by them gunning it up the straight part, but as soon as that ramp goes anywhere but straight they're testing the throttle-lift oversteer. (The ramp goes to the Microsoft campus, so I get to test this theory frequently.)
People more often than not buy a car because of the badge on the back end, not because they're doing track days. They'll punch it in a straight line from a stoplight and that's about the extent of their performance testing. For that use case, the Tesla does just fine.
But 98% of M3, 911, or AMG owners will never take their car to the track or engage in such long-duration, high-performance jaunts. So I don't think the comparison is as unfair as you make it out to be.
As a Tesla owner, I actually feel like the press is too generous in their comparisons to similarly priced vehicles. Unless I was buying a car for a special purpose like track racing, I can't imagine spending the same amount or more on a legacy vehicle with a lower passenger capacity, less storage space, more mechanical complexity, and the constant hassle of having to stop to buy gas.
We're in the process of replacing our second car and that will end up being less than half the price of the Tesla. But if I were going to spend > 60k, I would buy a second Tesla without the slightest hesitation.
In 37k miles I've never experienced limp mode and don't know much about it. I regularly drive for over 2 hours at Midwest highway speeds.
Can you describe your half-day jaunt through the mountains in more detail? I'm having trouble figuring out how this is out of the question.
I don't own a high-performance car and have never driven a Model S, but to me this car is truly unique in it's category.
You can't compare the Model S with gas-powered engines that had many decades to be refined. Considering everything, the Model S appears to have made a larger jump than any other car in recent history.
It's not designed to be raced on a track, but it does give you an edge in some situations where any other EV or most gas powered vehicles won't.
"No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance i"
I was easily able to pull .9 g's in my 911 (2012) [1] at least according to the g meter that it had (yes it has one and which measures forces in all direction) on a highway on ramp.
Not that I ever looked into it but I'm now seeing the 911 can pull 1.04 g's.
One other thing to note that is important. The size of the car matters not just the speed and the lateral g's. For example in the Porsche Macan S I have now the performance and ride is great. But the simple larger physical size makes it a completely different experience than driving the 911. [2] To quiet, to comfortable (but really nice not complaining..)
[1] Noting that I earned the money for this car by a traditional, what would be called here "lifestyle" business, not a hit the lottery internet VC funded win.
[2] For that matter a Mini Cooper S that I owned a few years before was more fun in many situations even though the tires and grip were way less and the acceleration palled in comparison to the 911. (But it was well over 1/4 the price and well worth it..)
Going to paraphrase this as "yes, it is better in every way but in this 2% corner case that almost no one will ever encounter so it makes me nauseous to read reviews seriously comparing it to neanderthal-generation cars which manage to cover that 2%."
I've got a better comparison for you. Has the owner of [any given model year] BMW ever sued BMW because [any given model year plus 1] was that much better for the same price? We've gotten used to this with computers for years, it's frankly about time we got this pace of development with cars. I mean, real jealousy for the next year's generation of the same car. Tesla will create that. Who else is creating that?
I recently purchased a 991 911 Carrera S and previously owned a 987 Boxster that I tracked. I actually did cross shop the cars and had a deposit down on the Model S before it was even released. Ended up not getting the Model S b/c its simply to big to drive in SF and it was questionable if I could get my condo to let me install a charger.
The model S is no sports car but its rather capable and the low center of gravity helps negate its massive curb weight.
As far as the car not making it around MRLS, thats not true. Every year speed ventures puts on an EV day and there are certainly Model S in attendance: http://www.refuelraces.com/
I don't think the average consumer understands or appreciate how Tesla is different. I often talk with family members about Musk and Tesla and most don't really get what's so different than say another all-electric car. For example this:
"During a chat with Musk at the P85D's introduction, he mentioned that on average, Tesla implements about 20 modifications to the car per week. Not software, mind you, but actual hard parts. Per week."
I'm sure traditional car makers tweak hardware as well, but it seems Tesla's focus on software-esque hardware iteration is unique. Their willingness to push updates constantly breaks from the "mid-cycle" refresh and small year-over-year iterations commonplace amongst all established automakers.
And this:
"Lift the front trunk's lid (the frunk, they call it), and you're struck by how much all of this was anticipated back when the Model S was penned. What was a recessed cavity near the firewall becomes the new forward engine room with enough left to swallow a duffle bag and retain its terrific 5-star frontal crash performance."
This is not just a scrappy startup car maker just getting by with an acceptable but not brilliant first generation product. You get the feeling that Tesla is always three steps ahead yet are confident enough to reveal them one-at-a-time.
Well, I certainly appreciate it, but like a lot of people dismiss it, at least currently, as toys for rich people. I can't afford a 90k car, no matter how awesome it is. All these breathless Tesla testimonials are great, but in my head its like listening to some guy talk about how wonderful the leather is in his Maserati. It is so far outside my economic world that it might as well not exist.
I know there's this mythology that Elon will magically deliver a 25k electric that changes the world, but if anything, they've double-downed on the luxury market with that giant non-city friendly SUV and, more complexity and cost, with their driver assist stuff.
Meanwhile, the Leaf and Volt keep dropping in price. VW has moved into the market, as well as BMW. Oh, low price leaders like Kia haved move in as well. 2015 EVs are still pricey, but no where in the same league as Tesla.
At this point I'm finding it very hard to believe Musk will ever leave the profitable premium car market. A 25-30k Tesla would hurt the brand and he'd be competing with larger companies with the scale and know-how to get Joe Everyman on-board, and worse, coming to the low-end game very late.
> Tesla implements about 20 modifications to the car per week
Traditional car makers do slipstream changes into their cars, but this is just crazy. Think of the service challenges, and the parts catalog challenges. Not to mention the cost of all those different parts.
"Oh, your's was made the fifth week of August, so you need a different bracket. We don't keep those in stock because they're all different. Here's a service loaner and we'll call you when it's done."
So far as I've been able to determine data total sales of Model S cars seem hard to come by. You'd think Tesla would be a bit more open. I'll go ahead and throw in my own estimate of about 30K to 40K Model S cars sold since the beginning of time. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am wrong by an order of magnitude.
In sharp contrast to this, once you are selling millions of cars per year ([1]Ford, 2013, 2.5MM; [2]Others) this idea of making twenty changes per week that actually make it out to the production line is simply impossible.
At volume supply pipelines have huge inertia. You can't make changes on a whim. Doing very simplistic math and assuming a JIT process, Ford receives 50,000 parts per week. Tesla, assuming 20K cars per year, receives 370. I am not trying to be dismissive, but that's the difference between a garage operation and a real industrial operation at scale. A constant flow of 50,000 parts per week needs to be planned months in advance with all sorts of tests and controls during the process. Changes require the same planning and effort. Imagine making a change that does not work well (for whatever reasons) and you have 50,000 parts per week descending on you. By the time you make a change tons (literally) of raw materials are being processed at some factory, container cargo ships are in the middle of the ocean on their way to your port and trucks are en-route to deliver your parts for the coming wees.
At a few hundred parts per week you can pretty much afford to experiment and throw out whole shipments if something goes wrong. Your supply pipeline is much shorter. You don't have dealers to feed and contractual obligations in terms of delivery. You don't have the same kind of output pipeline. Add to this perhaps having a lot of the small-scale manufacturing done in-house and, yes, it's a garage operation, an expensive one, but the scale simply doesn't compare to that of a high volume manufacturer.
I am not saying any of this to diminish Tesla. It's a neat company. Their cars are not for the masses. And that's OK. However, I really don't subscribe to the idea of Musk walking on water. Is he a great CEO? It sure looks that way. Nobody could dispute that for a minute. I am simply proposing that we do not ascribe supernatural powers to an organization that operates at a scale and within a framework that allows it to behave in a manner very different from that of larger volume producers.
The 3.1 second 0-60 time is the equivalent of a 0-60 distance of 136 feet. That's impressive in comparison with the 113-foot 60-0 stopping distance.
The car is only 20% slower speeding up than it is slowing down. One wonders what they could do in 0-60 and 60-0 times if the tires were replaced with gears and the road with a geared track. It only takes 250' of track, less than a football field, to find out.
Put another way, this four-door sedan reaches 60 mph when it's made it to the 45-yard line of an american football field.
Has that ever been done? I can imagine it'd just skip out of the gears and crash horribly. You know, like square wheels. Fitting warmed-up soft slicks and doing it on an F1 track or specialized tarmac would probably yield better results.
The torque is also massive - 687 lb. ft. but still this car seems totally impractical to me. If you drive it like a sports car which does 0-60 in 3.1, you would most certainly drain the battery twice as fast. Charging it every 100 - 150 miles doesn't seem very convenient.
Impressive acceleration time! The new record for accelerating from 0-100 km/h of only 1.785 seconds was just set a few days ago[1]. The car required less than 30 meters to accelerate to this speed. Of course it was only a prototype car but still impressive to see the limits.
I think a motoring review of an electric car that doesn't feel the need to mention range or recharging problems marks a significant shift in public perception of EVs.
For what it's worth, the relevant Wikipedia page[0] lists the P85D as #24 on the list of fastest-accelerating production cars, far behind e.g. the 911GT3, Aventador, McLaren P1 or the ridiculous 918 Spyder's 2.2.
It is however listed as the fastest-accelerating sedan/non-supercar, a hair's breadth in front of the Audi RS7 and the Mercedes E63AMG's 3.2.
Just $11,000 in frosting. Right... What I want to know is where are they taking $40k off of the price to make a sedan that a larger percentage can own.
I love the quote about 100 changes. Constant innovation. Do any of the hardware upgrades flow into the field? Is the chassis modular enough to bother upgrading?
Selling a few high end car (Porsche) and selling a mass-market car (VW, Ford) are vastly different businesses. Boutique style pampering you get today when buying a Tesla does not scale, or at least not easily. For example, online buying, Tesla shop, even the SuperCharger network would need to scale dramatically.
They could do it, like Apple. But with this news and the opening of their patent sooner, I'm just wondering if they are not simply giving up on the mass market leaving it to generalist brands like Toyota, VW, ... IMO that would not be so bad, they risk to devaluate their brand significantly in the mass market if they fuck up there and fucking up there has a not much to do with technology. ( after all, brand like Toyota have Lexus counterpart just for the purpose of splitting luxury from mass market )
I said this before but I will say it again - I will happily pay money for a chrome plugin which allows for automatic conversion of every imperial unit into SI unit on any website visited. Or maybe a built-in JS script which does it depending on where you visit the page from(or a toggle on the top).
Every time I read a Tesla article like this I feel like I'm dreaming. Actual, usable, daily-driven electric cars with performance comparable to dino-powered cars were talked about as being vaporware for the longest time. It's amazing to see this company keep moving.
That said, I can't wait to see their "everyman" offering, whenever that arrives. I could see them making it a sub-brand so that they could scale down the service to make it financially feasible (and so the rich could still feel like big shots when they say "I've got a Tesla" without people thinking they mean the everyman car).
My favorite part of the article is the comments at the bottom about how the sucker buying a Dodge Charger will have to pay for gas. I had a friend a few years ago who bought a $15,000 BMW motorcycle to save gas money 4 months a year in New York, and now you can go one better: buy a $120,000 car and then leach off of the supercharger network.
I love Teslas, but buy one because it is an amazing luxury car with an AWD option, not because it is the best financial decision.
The Charger is an odd comparison, but it would be fun to race an R/T AWD against one of these. I don't think the Charger would even compete but I'm curious if the financial aspect would be the same when factoring in gas/maintenance/value etc.
I believe there was a link on HN awhile ago from a guy that did a very in-depth analysis of cost of ownership. I believe the Tesla actually did come out on top of comparable vehicles due to lower fuel costs, lower maintenance costs etc. I'll try to find the link.
EDIT Here is the link http://www.teslacost.com/
The creator has since updated the figures after HN members noticed some errors and the Honda Odyssey came out on top (unless you are able quantify safety, HOV access etc).
If your buddy wanted to save gas, he would have purchased $4000 Kawasaki Ninja 250. Your buddy wanted a BMW motorcycle, gas savings was the excuse he felt he needed to tell others. I bought a new BMW motorcycle this year. Sure, it gets 50mpg but that's not why I bought it. I feel no need to make apologies for my purchase. :-)
I make software money, I can afford gas just fine. I still bought a Nissan Leaf for a lot of reasons other than saving money on gas.
offshot topic, from reading the stats at the end of the article: How are cars with higher city than highway milage not violating conservation of energy?
I've heard the explanation that regenerative braking in city driving recharges the battery, but surely it's still better to not brake at all, right? You must incur some loss recharging the battery from kinetic energy?
It consists of long-range radar, a single forward-looking
video camera, and 12 ultrasonic sensors to create a 16-foot
bubble around the car providing lane-keeping, full drogue-
chute emergency stopping, and autonomous following in stop-
and-go traffic. It has long-range radar, a single forward-
looking video camera, and 12 ultrasonic sensors that create a
16-foot bubble around the car to allow for lane-keeping, full
drogue-chute emergency stopping, and autonomous following in
stop-and-go traffic.
How much of a problem is using Tesla vehicles in cold climates these days? I recall adverse battery performance as a result being up for discussion a while ago.
I love the autobahn. I travel on it frequently while doing business in EU, and there's something special about travelling at 200-250km/h(120-150mph) without any problems. But I am afraid you will not find a lot of sympathy from other HN readers - the autobahn is such an exception in today's world, that for vast majority of people it's really not important how a car drives at 120mph+. That makes me sad personally, but rationally autobahn driving is not a major component of any discussion.
> At 250 km/h the battery will be empty quite fast…
Then again, the typical high-performance sedan doesn't have much range either at 250km/h. At that speed, a 3-series will burn through 30L/100km and they have a 60L tank. A 5-series has a 70L tank but I don't know how much fuel it goes through at 250. I don't expect significantly better efficiency though.
[+] [-] slipangel|11 years ago|reply
A Model S can't make a single lap in anger around Mazda Raceway without the software putting it in limp mode to prevent heat build up from causing permanent damage. A half-day jaunt through twisty mountain roads is absolutely out of the question. It is a car that can drag race from a stop, hit a freeway on-ramp with some gusto, and give you carbon-free credentials the rest of the time.
No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance is cross-shopping a Model S as a like-for-like option, but the press consistently paints the picture that Tesla is a gas-free alternative or even superior to current offerings. I don't intend to degrade what it is, because it is a marvel of modern business, politics, and a little engineering that this car exists. I simply feel gross when I see how much hype puts it up for the Model S being something it isn't.
[+] [-] icandownvote|11 years ago|reply
I owned and tracked E46 M and E37 M Roadster. Sold the last one when I got my Model S. Now I will never go back to an Internal Combustion Engine. Yes, the Model S is not an M3 and won't last through a lap on any decent raceway. But it's not the goal. It's beyond adequate for everyday driving AND for fun through the mountain curves. It's got impeccably precise throttle response, unbelievable lateral grip and no body roll due to incredibly low center of gravity. The fact that it's fully charged every morning for nearly free, that the juice is free in the superchargers and that it's cargo volume and crash safety are out of its class, is just icing on top. The point is: for ALL uses (but tracking) this $70-120K car is better than anything in the $100-300K category.
My friends own 997 4S, E93 M, Viper, E39 M, F10 M, S6 and whatever the GTR Nizmo is (all US spec). Some of them are tracked, some are not. Half of them have deposits down for a Model S.
Another point: Juan Pablo Montoya owns one and uses it as his daily driver.
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
Yeah, but how many of those folks exist? I can't count the number of times I'm stuck behind an M3, 911, or AMG on the uphill chicane entrance ramp I frequent in my Nissan Leaf wishing Mr. SlowPoke in his $80K car would give it some stick. Oh, they're trying as evidenced by them gunning it up the straight part, but as soon as that ramp goes anywhere but straight they're testing the throttle-lift oversteer. (The ramp goes to the Microsoft campus, so I get to test this theory frequently.)
People more often than not buy a car because of the badge on the back end, not because they're doing track days. They'll punch it in a straight line from a stoplight and that's about the extent of their performance testing. For that use case, the Tesla does just fine.
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andykellr|11 years ago|reply
We're in the process of replacing our second car and that will end up being less than half the price of the Tesla. But if I were going to spend > 60k, I would buy a second Tesla without the slightest hesitation.
In 37k miles I've never experienced limp mode and don't know much about it. I regularly drive for over 2 hours at Midwest highway speeds.
Can you describe your half-day jaunt through the mountains in more detail? I'm having trouble figuring out how this is out of the question.
[+] [-] uniformlyrandom|11 years ago|reply
Yes, the weight is better distributed - but in the sharp turn on the curvy road, I am more worried about the inertia rather than the body roll.
[+] [-] umsm|11 years ago|reply
You can't compare the Model S with gas-powered engines that had many decades to be refined. Considering everything, the Model S appears to have made a larger jump than any other car in recent history.
It's not designed to be raced on a track, but it does give you an edge in some situations where any other EV or most gas powered vehicles won't.
[+] [-] larrys|11 years ago|reply
I was easily able to pull .9 g's in my 911 (2012) [1] at least according to the g meter that it had (yes it has one and which measures forces in all direction) on a highway on ramp.
Not that I ever looked into it but I'm now seeing the 911 can pull 1.04 g's.
One other thing to note that is important. The size of the car matters not just the speed and the lateral g's. For example in the Porsche Macan S I have now the performance and ride is great. But the simple larger physical size makes it a completely different experience than driving the 911. [2] To quiet, to comfortable (but really nice not complaining..)
[1] Noting that I earned the money for this car by a traditional, what would be called here "lifestyle" business, not a hit the lottery internet VC funded win.
[2] For that matter a Mini Cooper S that I owned a few years before was more fun in many situations even though the tires and grip were way less and the acceleration palled in comparison to the 911. (But it was well over 1/4 the price and well worth it..)
[+] [-] lectrick|11 years ago|reply
I've got a better comparison for you. Has the owner of [any given model year] BMW ever sued BMW because [any given model year plus 1] was that much better for the same price? We've gotten used to this with computers for years, it's frankly about time we got this pace of development with cars. I mean, real jealousy for the next year's generation of the same car. Tesla will create that. Who else is creating that?
[+] [-] richiezc|11 years ago|reply
The model S is no sports car but its rather capable and the low center of gravity helps negate its massive curb weight.
As far as the car not making it around MRLS, thats not true. Every year speed ventures puts on an EV day and there are certainly Model S in attendance: http://www.refuelraces.com/
[+] [-] josefresco|11 years ago|reply
"During a chat with Musk at the P85D's introduction, he mentioned that on average, Tesla implements about 20 modifications to the car per week. Not software, mind you, but actual hard parts. Per week."
I'm sure traditional car makers tweak hardware as well, but it seems Tesla's focus on software-esque hardware iteration is unique. Their willingness to push updates constantly breaks from the "mid-cycle" refresh and small year-over-year iterations commonplace amongst all established automakers.
And this:
"Lift the front trunk's lid (the frunk, they call it), and you're struck by how much all of this was anticipated back when the Model S was penned. What was a recessed cavity near the firewall becomes the new forward engine room with enough left to swallow a duffle bag and retain its terrific 5-star frontal crash performance."
This is not just a scrappy startup car maker just getting by with an acceptable but not brilliant first generation product. You get the feeling that Tesla is always three steps ahead yet are confident enough to reveal them one-at-a-time.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
I know there's this mythology that Elon will magically deliver a 25k electric that changes the world, but if anything, they've double-downed on the luxury market with that giant non-city friendly SUV and, more complexity and cost, with their driver assist stuff.
Meanwhile, the Leaf and Volt keep dropping in price. VW has moved into the market, as well as BMW. Oh, low price leaders like Kia haved move in as well. 2015 EVs are still pricey, but no where in the same league as Tesla.
At this point I'm finding it very hard to believe Musk will ever leave the profitable premium car market. A 25-30k Tesla would hurt the brand and he'd be competing with larger companies with the scale and know-how to get Joe Everyman on-board, and worse, coming to the low-end game very late.
[+] [-] chiph|11 years ago|reply
Traditional car makers do slipstream changes into their cars, but this is just crazy. Think of the service challenges, and the parts catalog challenges. Not to mention the cost of all those different parts.
"Oh, your's was made the fifth week of August, so you need a different bracket. We don't keep those in stock because they're all different. Here's a service loaner and we'll call you when it's done."
[+] [-] rebootthesystem|11 years ago|reply
So far as I've been able to determine data total sales of Model S cars seem hard to come by. You'd think Tesla would be a bit more open. I'll go ahead and throw in my own estimate of about 30K to 40K Model S cars sold since the beginning of time. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am wrong by an order of magnitude.
In sharp contrast to this, once you are selling millions of cars per year ([1]Ford, 2013, 2.5MM; [2]Others) this idea of making twenty changes per week that actually make it out to the production line is simply impossible.
At volume supply pipelines have huge inertia. You can't make changes on a whim. Doing very simplistic math and assuming a JIT process, Ford receives 50,000 parts per week. Tesla, assuming 20K cars per year, receives 370. I am not trying to be dismissive, but that's the difference between a garage operation and a real industrial operation at scale. A constant flow of 50,000 parts per week needs to be planned months in advance with all sorts of tests and controls during the process. Changes require the same planning and effort. Imagine making a change that does not work well (for whatever reasons) and you have 50,000 parts per week descending on you. By the time you make a change tons (literally) of raw materials are being processed at some factory, container cargo ships are in the middle of the ocean on their way to your port and trucks are en-route to deliver your parts for the coming wees.
At a few hundred parts per week you can pretty much afford to experiment and throw out whole shipments if something goes wrong. Your supply pipeline is much shorter. You don't have dealers to feed and contractual obligations in terms of delivery. You don't have the same kind of output pipeline. Add to this perhaps having a lot of the small-scale manufacturing done in-house and, yes, it's a garage operation, an expensive one, but the scale simply doesn't compare to that of a high volume manufacturer.
I am not saying any of this to diminish Tesla. It's a neat company. Their cars are not for the masses. And that's OK. However, I really don't subscribe to the idea of Musk walking on water. Is he a great CEO? It sure looks that way. Nobody could dispute that for a minute. I am simply proposing that we do not ascribe supernatural powers to an organization that operates at a scale and within a framework that allows it to behave in a manner very different from that of larger volume producers.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/here-are-december-2013-big-eight-us-a...
[+] [-] ISL|11 years ago|reply
The car is only 20% slower speeding up than it is slowing down. One wonders what they could do in 0-60 and 60-0 times if the tires were replaced with gears and the road with a geared track. It only takes 250' of track, less than a football field, to find out.
Put another way, this four-door sedan reaches 60 mph when it's made it to the 45-yard line of an american football field.
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smanuel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkaufmann|11 years ago|reply
[1]https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2014/11...
[+] [-] masklinn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danbee|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moconnor|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|11 years ago|reply
It is however listed as the fastest-accelerating sedan/non-supercar, a hair's breadth in front of the Audi RS7 and the Mercedes E63AMG's 3.2.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars...
[+] [-] zaroth|11 years ago|reply
I love the quote about 100 changes. Constant innovation. Do any of the hardware upgrades flow into the field? Is the chassis modular enough to bother upgrading?
[+] [-] gutnor|11 years ago|reply
They could do it, like Apple. But with this news and the opening of their patent sooner, I'm just wondering if they are not simply giving up on the mass market leaving it to generalist brands like Toyota, VW, ... IMO that would not be so bad, they risk to devaluate their brand significantly in the mass market if they fuck up there and fucking up there has a not much to do with technology. ( after all, brand like Toyota have Lexus counterpart just for the purpose of splitting luxury from mass market )
edit: as suggested s/specialist/generalist.
[+] [-] seanflyon|11 years ago|reply
Smaller car, cheaper materials, cheaper motor and battery, lower profit margin...
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lectrick|11 years ago|reply
That may do the job
[+] [-] VLM|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aredington|11 years ago|reply
Just started using it, happy to be able to excise that bit of pervasive ignorance from my life.
[+] [-] RankingMember|11 years ago|reply
That said, I can't wait to see their "everyman" offering, whenever that arrives. I could see them making it a sub-brand so that they could scale down the service to make it financially feasible (and so the rich could still feel like big shots when they say "I've got a Tesla" without people thinking they mean the everyman car).
[+] [-] ck2|11 years ago|reply
I can't afford either but if I am going to have a fantasy car I want the X
http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx#modelx-rotator-spin
[+] [-] chrisBob|11 years ago|reply
I love Teslas, but buy one because it is an amazing luxury car with an AWD option, not because it is the best financial decision.
[+] [-] josefresco|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giarc|11 years ago|reply
EDIT Here is the link http://www.teslacost.com/ The creator has since updated the figures after HN members noticed some errors and the Honda Odyssey came out on top (unless you are able quantify safety, HOV access etc).
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
I make software money, I can afford gas just fine. I still bought a Nissan Leaf for a lot of reasons other than saving money on gas.
[+] [-] Igglyboo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|11 years ago|reply
I've heard the explanation that regenerative braking in city driving recharges the battery, but surely it's still better to not brake at all, right? You must incur some loss recharging the battery from kinetic energy?
[+] [-] sbierwagen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lispm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|11 years ago|reply
Then again, the typical high-performance sedan doesn't have much range either at 250km/h. At that speed, a 3-series will burn through 30L/100km and they have a 60L tank. A 5-series has a 70L tank but I don't know how much fuel it goes through at 250. I don't expect significantly better efficiency though.
[+] [-] DENIKUTA|11 years ago|reply