Tesla Reveals Its Model X Gullwing SUV 306
thecarchik writes "The new, all-electric Tesla Model X crossover, which was introduced on stage by Tesla CEO Elon Musk (also the man behind SpaceX), isn't exactly a step toward the mass market. But it does take on premium utility vehicles with three rows of seating for up to seven, better maneuverability than a Mini Cooper, and a 0-60 mph time of just 4.4 seconds—that's faster than a Porsche 911, Musk jeered. But the real oohs and ahs of the evening came when Musk showed the Model X's much-anticipated 'falcon doors' — essentially gullwing rear doors, behind normal hinged front doors." The expected price before tax-credit shenanigans? $60,000-$90,000.
Oh, the disappointment... (Score:5, Funny)
At first I read X Wing.
Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:2)
FFS. I suppose it gets spoken about, but a massively impractical non-solution.
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to follow your point; "Do you want an electric car? Do you need a little more space than the Model S can give you? Here, have a Model X." If your complaint is that it's an SUV, then it is a complaint without merit -- there are certainly practical advantages of this platform over that of the Model S (granted, not everyone that buys one will make use of them). If your complaint is about the gullwing doors, then I still disagree -- the take less space to open than a normal door, offer stand-up exits for mid-row passengers, and allow direct access to the third row. This last point is actually a big problem for anyone with two car seats -- if you can't get to the back row with the seats installed, you'll can't use it anyway.
I suppose lastly, if your complaint is that it's an electric vehicle, then get out.
Aikon-
Re: (Score:3)
If they could just make the roadster in this price range...THEN talk to me about getting an electric car!!
I'm just not interested in a 'family car'.....which is anything with > 2 functional seats.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you clearly didn't pass the screening question at the beginning of my post ;) The Model X is certainly not for everyone, but that's not to say there isn't a market for it. Remember that Tesla's goal is to make the best damn electric drive trains they can, and to develop a market for electric vehicles. They've hit the two-seater sports cars, now the luxury sedans, and are moving on to the family SUV. I wouldn't be surprised if their next announcement was the Model T ('T' is for 'truck').
Personally, I p
Re: (Score:2)
Think the Model V (for delivery Van).
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Insightful)
When you think about it, this is the ultimate way for a rich person to use their money to flip the bird at other cars as they go by.
* My car is bigger than yours!
* My car is cooler than yours!
* My car is faster than yours!
* My car is greener than yours!
Etc, all at once. The other car might possibly best them in one category, but definitely not all. You just *know* there are plenty of rich people who would throw down money on something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude 0-60 in an SUV in 4.4s not too shabby and only 0.3s behind the 2012 corvette.
Re: (Score:2)
Had you bothered to click the link you would have seen there is nothing at all like a SUV pictured
on that page. Its a Crossover, maybe, but not an SUV.
Re:definition of SUV (Score:4, Insightful)
How bout we just assume the original AC said "Did you just compare a Corvette to a large and tall four door family vehicle of indeterminate class?" The point still stands. The original post was a ludicrous "I'd rather have a corvette." Well sure, he may rather have a corvette, but a two door sports car is not something that shoppers will be comparing against a *seven passenger* vehicle.
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, no. The Tesla Model S has a range of 160-300 miles, depending on the battery pack. All of the current models of Corvettes have a faster 0-60 though (from 3.4-4.2 s depending on model).
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not as bad as you would think. Electric motors are very efficient at giving high torque, while for a gas engine it's really inefficient when doing the same.
The assumption was a steady 55 mph, so is certainly the maximum possible range, so I'm sure the actual range would be less if you were driving in the city.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is a complaint with a lot of merit. The very VERY small percentage of people that actually NEED SUVs(vs. the ones with fat asses and tiny penises, i.e. 99% of SUV owners out there) will not be served well at all with an electric vehicle as in offroad/wilderness situations places to recharge are few and far between. In those situations it's a hell of a lot easier to bring a can of gas or two than it is to bring fully loaded batter
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they call it an SUV, but it looks more like a Mini-Van/Station wagon. Its much lower than most SUVs I've seen, and the third row of seat CAN be useful if you have a large enough family.
Besides, the main complaint people have with SUVs are that they tend to be gas guzzlers. Why so much hate for an all electric SUV?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the term SUV is not limited to "offroad/wilderness" situations; it is, in fact, a sporty-looking utility vehicle; I'd say this qualifies as sporty, and with more space than the Model S, is certainly more utilitarian.
Having said that, I agree with the other reply below; it is more of a crossover than strictly speaking an SUV; but there isn't much marketing distinction between the two in the existing market, anyway.
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Insightful)
I see one big problem with these doors. They are cool, and functional (much easier to get in and out in a tight parking space), but they're only for the back seats! The front doors are still conventionally hinged, so you don't get the tight parking advantage (only your back-seat passengers do), and if you drive alone or with one person as most people do 99.9% of the time, those cool doors will almost never get used.
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Informative)
Gull wing doors take less width than standard hinged doors, because the pivot point is near the centre-line of the vehicle. Yes, they need more height -- outdoors, this is a non-issue; in your garage, it might be. Better measure before you buy one.
With respect to sliding doors, they don't offer the same level of third-row access -- if you look at any imagery of the Model X, you will see that the rear doors are about twice the width of the amount of vehicle remaining behind it. You need something for your sliding door to slide on.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly true.
If you are in a regular car and need to open the door in a tight space, you can partially open the door and squeeze through. In a Gullwing (or Falcon wing as some are calling this one), if you partially open the door you cannot get out. Probably relevant in crowded parking lots, like in a school lot in the morning. The sliding doors in Japanese small cars were made
Re: (Score:2)
A secondary motion in the falcon doors' action allows them to open in a way that keeps them very close to the side of the vehicle - requiring no additional garage or parking width.
But the photos just after it sure looked like you'd really need more vertical clearance.
Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (Score:4, Informative)
See reply below; gullwings need 11" to open. Try opening your car door 11" and squeezing out (even if you aren't really fat). Note that car doors are usually at least 6" thick to begin with, if not more.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than "oooh" factor, the main reason for the gullwing doors appears to be extra headroom when getting in the 3rd-row seats.
Re: (Score:2)
There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING wrong adding the gull-wing doors as strictly a style component.
...coupled with a seriously massive base price just makes this even more of a non-solution.
It's a "luxury" vehicle. If you are looking specifically for a no-frills utility vehicle, this is not for you. For people looking for a bleeding edge stylish luxury SUV, this is certainly a possible solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Range 250-300 miles.
Seriously, I commute a 100+ miles a day. And this will work just fine for me.
That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh. And with the money you save on gas, you can always rent a mini-van for a longer trip...
And the expected cost is not that much more than a fully-loaded Toyota Sequoia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh.
Barely, so long as you don't hit traffic, or a detour, or stop from lunch, and you batteries are in absolute top shape, and it certainly won't get you back again.
I certainly wouldn't risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
The amazing thing about an electric car is that if your car isn't moving, you're not using electricity. I mean yes, batteries slowly lose charge, but it's not like leaving a gas engine running. Sitting in traffic won't matter that much to an electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
Range 250-300 miles.
Seriously, I commute a 100+ miles a day. And this will work just fine for me.
That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh. And with the money you save on gas, you can always rent a mini-van for a longer trip...
Not that "saving money" is that big a factor when buying Tesla atm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Gullwing doors generally require about 11" on either side of the car; try opening your standard car door 11" and squeeze out (noting that most car doors are about 6" thick to begin with).
Re: (Score:2)
They're hinged/articulated, my understanding is that you don't need much space between you and the neighboring car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares what kind of doors it has? The important thing is that it's electric and has the seating of a large SUV.
The soccer mom crowd doesn't need long range for ferrying family around, so this would be a great market, and would get a lot of gas guzzlers off the street if they can shave another 20-30k off of the price. The current tiny all-electrics would be terrible for lots of kids, multiple car seats, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd summary (Score:3, Funny)
Nice bit of industrial design. (Score:3)
Top Gear (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
More POWAAAR!
The doors are silly, and your last sentence sums it up completely.
Re: (Score:3)
This SUV is the answer for the question no one asked.
It's not an SUV, and Tesla never claimed it was. TFS is wrong.
Low profile road tires, no elevated truck chassis, and little loading space makes it a completely different type of beast. I don't even agree with TFA calling it a crossover - it's a 5-door hatchback bordering on an estate car.
Looks like a great car, though, whatever it is.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not an SUV, and Tesla never claimed it was. TFS is wrong.
from the Tesla web site [teslamotors.com]: "Blending the best of an SUV with the benefits of a minivan".
Low profile road tires, no elevated truck chassis, and little loading space
Just like the majority of SUVs these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it stated it has air suspension to raise the vehicle similar to the Porsche Cayenne.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the answer for a question a lot of people asked.
But some stupid people don't know how to ask the right questions. Like...
- How do I move my whole family, and pick up grandma from the hospital.
- How do I fit all these packages, or cakes for delivery.
- How do I shuttle people around town?
Now the Model X is an answer to a different question. How do I do all of the above, and NOT hurt the environment so much.
And it's a darn good answer.
And then, when that answer exists, morons like you who attack
Re:Top Gear (Score:4, Insightful)
they're hinged. They take lots of space vertically, not so much horizontally. In most parking lots, you have more room up than on the side.
Where I work I see plenty of mall mommies with a Porsche Cayenne 4S SUV (and sometimes Turbo) or something ridiculous like that. There's a market for these proportional to Tesla's production capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not well thought out (Score:2)
How exactly am I going to open gullwing doors in my garage? SUVs are already taller that a regular car.
Re: (Score:2)
How short is your garage? I admit that I have concerns about this (not legitimate ones, since I'm not really in the market to purchase this vehicle at this time), but I have considered the size of my garage and, although I'd like to take a tape measure to it, I suspect it will be fine. And mine is by no means a tall garage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted; I was only really thinking outside and in your home garage. I don't park underground all that often, but I can only think of a handful of garages in Toronto that I have visited that might pose a problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that- but- they're in the back- kids can't close them as easy that high up.
Granted it may only be a few seconds- but entrance/exit take longer.
Safety... if a car door comes open when driving- wind pushes it back closed. If Gull wings open up- everything in the car flies out.
Gull Wings just arn't as practical/safe/aesthetically pleasing/cheap.
It doesn't break the deal- all the problems are fairly minor or happen infrequently- but it just seems a stupid gimmic more than anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they're powered and articulated. And it'd be very easy to prevent drive mode until the doors are cosed.
Re:Not well thought out (Score:4, Insightful)
From looking at the pictures, assuming the gentleman next to the car is 6 ft tall, then the doors don't go much past 7 to 7 1/2 feet. Tall, but not unworkable.
Re: (Score:2)
Fix a Gullwing roof to your garage?
Re: (Score:2)
Your driver gets in the front, pulls it out of the garage into the big circle drive, and then opens the rear doors for you and your friends. But not until the paparazzi have arrived.
Panty shot central!
Is the maneuverability really bettb |rer ? (Score:5, Funny)
Or is that just marketing-speak?
Perfect! (Score:2)
From the Slashdot summary.
But it does take on premium utility vehicles with three rows of seating for up to seven, bettb |rer[sic] maneuverability than a Mini Cooper, and a 0-60 mph time of just 4.4 seconds - that's faster than a Porsche 911, Musk jeered.
I know that "bettb |rer maneuverability" is just what I'm looking for in my next vehicle.
(kinda like "bettb |rer proofreading" in my next SlashDot article)
Elon Musk (Score:3, Insightful)
Elon Musk just doesn't seem to add up.
He is only in his 30s, is on his second marriage, has 5 kids is the CEO/venture capitalist for 2 companies, both doing innovating engineering.
I'm guessing it is just a matter of winning the lottery by being born rich, born intelligent, born with a innovative/push forward temperament, born to parents who will bring those gifts out ( or at least not fuck up the kid enough to shut those things down ) and lots and LOTs of caffeine.
Am I missing something?
How does any person, let alone one his 30s end up with all of those situations?
Re: (Score:2)
>> How does any person, let alone one his 30s end up with all of those situations?
Especially when they're named after stink that gets sprayed out of a skunk's butthole.
Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
he busted his ass getting to where he is. Instead of bemoaning a setback it probably caused him to try again, if not harder and smarter. You won't find the likes of him posting to some website bitching about how things aren't fair, how he don't get his fair share, how others should be giving he stuff, and so on and so on.
The biggest barrier to success in this country is yourself. The second biggest barrier is the government at all levels, the third is your competition. Money comes in somewhere on this list,
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know Mitt Romeny read Slashdot.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest barrier to success in this country is yourself. The second biggest barrier is the government at all levels, the third is your competition. Money comes in somewhere on this list, not much further down.
Statistically speaking, you're wrong.
Wealth and education are the #1 and #2 predictors of future success.
(Your level of education (#2) is heavily influenced by your family's wealth.)
This is only true because of the extensive effort that has gone into narrowing the education gap between white and minority children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
Further, social mobility in America is probably not what you think it is [nytimes.com]
Only 8% of Americans move from the bottom 20% to the top 20% of incomes.
So in a sense, the biggest barrier to success is yourself, but only because of where you were born, who your parents were, and how much money they made.
I'd gladly see this whole line of discussion marked offtopic, but I hope that facts have some impact on your bootstrappy theory of social mobility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is an alien.
I've noticed his name is an anagram of "SOME LUNK" Lunk is probably a type of space alien that have a vested interest in electric cars.
don't be a fool... (Score:3)
Why else would he be building ICBMs ?
Maneuverability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if it's electric motor(s) is/are beefy enough to get a 4.4 second 0 to 60 time then it should be clear it's got plenty of power to accelerate. All wheel drive means better application of the available power to whichever wheel can utilize it. The battery pack being in the floor boards gives it a lower center of gravity than most cars can manage. I don't see why it wouldn't be able to match a generic mini cooper. The more sporty ones might have it beat out on acceleration but I don't know where else they
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not in all circumstances. But if it's got a tighter-turning radius, that will give it an advantage in some scenarios.
The other aspect is that nearly ALL of the car's weight is at floor level (batteries and electric motors). So what you get is a super-super-low center of gravity. And that allows sharp turns with weight applied to wheels and little body lift. ;-)
well (Score:2)
Its ugly enough and almost big enough that the wealthy Americans might buy it.
Porsche 911? (Score:2)
Faster that which porsche 911?
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Porsche-0-60-mph-Times.html [zeroto60times.com]
Faster than any Pre1990 Porsche? Yes, I guess so. That would be pretty impressive if it were 1990. Really, 4.4s is still very impressive, for any car. But...
1993 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6 0-60 mph 4.3 Quarter mile 12.5
1995 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.3
1997 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.6 Quarter mile 12.1
1997 Porsche RUF CTR-2 0-60 mph 3.4 Quarter mile11.2
2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S 0-60 m
Re: (Score:2)
Cherry pick much ? from the same site:
2011 Porsche 911 Targa 4S 0-60 mph 4.5
2011 Porsche 911 Black Edition 0-60 mph 4.6
2011 Porsche 911 Black Edition Cabriolet 0-60 mph 4.8
2011 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 Cabriolet 0-60 mph 4.9
2011 Porsche 911 Carrera S Cabriolet 0-60 mph 4.6
So... which Porsche 911?
It looks like pretty much any normally aspirated Porsche 911... which is most of them out there. Your Carrera, Carrera 4, Carrera S, Carrera 4S, Targa, Targa, Targa S, Targa 4S, Carrera 4 Cabriolet, Carr
Re:Porsche 911? (Score:4, Funny)
The Porsche 911 only has a six cylinder engine. You need the turbo to get respectable performance.
I can only imagine you've never driven one.
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
4 Wheel Regen. Awesome. (Score:3)
I am not a fan of Wing doors, but I love the dual motor AWD.
This gives you:
Total power control at both ends with no center differential issues (binding, too much slip, too slow reaction).
4 wheel regen. I read one study that showed a significant increase in regen capture moving to AWD.
Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (Score:4, Informative)
Because their founder has a lot of money to keep them afloat while they build up their technology and product line, and they are busy selling their drive-trains to companies such as Toyota.
Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because their founder has a lot of money to keep them afloat while they build up their technology and product line, and they are busy selling their drive-trains to companies such as Toyota.
While continuing to do novel things (like the all-wheel drive train of the Model-X using two electric motors).
I see them sort of as Xerox PARC, except dealing with the automotive industry instead of computers, and they actually produce things you can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
While continuing to do novel things (like the all-wheel drive train of the Model-X using two electric motors).
I see them sort of as Xerox PARC, except dealing with the automotive industry instead of computers, and they actually produce things you can buy.
It's a step closer to hub-motors, which is where I believe the future of electric vehicle propulsion lies.
Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that 500 million dollar loan they got from the government is part of that, don't be going and making Musk out to be anything other than what he is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're thinking of Fisker. Which basically built the equivalent of a Chevy Volt but want twice as much for it.
Tesla has started out as a premium brand and is working their way down the classes to the masses.
Roadster - elites (Ferrari, etc)
Model S - BMW/Mercedes/Porsche equiv
Model X - Lexus/Cadillac SUV drivers
I expect they'll move down the masses.
Model E - everyone, the Chevy. It'll be about $5,000 more than a chevy. And a lot more frills.
Model T - Truck to compete with Ford and Chevy
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me [teslamotors.com]
Because those stories were from haters (Score:5, Informative)
Literally, not one story about Tesla going out of business has come true, not one story about how the Model S would cost a Billion dollars to build, not one story about the lack of sales between the end of the Roadster (no more Lotus bodies) and the beginning of the Model S eating through their cash too quickly.
Try reading the stories about their technology, how even if their car sales tanked they'd have a profitable business on the battery pack and drivetrain alone. The runaway battery pack fire risk on the Chevy Volt, can't happen with a Tesla battery pack. Tesla fixed that problem on the Roadster back when GM was still saying it couldn't be done.
Tesla does have a $450 million loan from the DoE to build the manufacturing and come out with the Model S, that's probably kept them defying gravity longer than some folks would like. That and Musk running himself ragged, living with friends and putting all his cash into the business for a while.
Re:Because those stories were from haters (Score:4, Interesting)
Having just watched Revenge of the Electric Car recently, they came very close, to the point where they almost couldn't make payroll, and were only saved by Musk handing over the last of his money, which was basically completely gone because he had already dumped it all into Tesla and SpaceX. If the documentaries depictions of events (and the things Musk says in the documentary) are to be believed, the company came within inches of blowing up, and they did have layoffs. These days, they're in far more favourable shape (in terms of resiliency) than they were back then.
Re:Because those stories were from haters (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it because I really admire the guy too, but canning Martin Eberhardt was perhaps the single most intelligent thing that Elon Musk ever did.
I understand why the original Tesla founder did the thing that he did, but he also showed that he was out of his element in terms of operating a major automotive manufacturing company. A brilliant designer and certainly somebody who helped bring Tesla up to where it is today in terms of doing a fantastic job of going from start-up and through the prototyping stages of the Roadster, but closing the deal was very hard.
What was the nearly fatal blow was the transmission of the Roadster. Eberhardt chose to outsource nearly all of the parts and production of the Roadster in the initial proposal, and this included the transmission system going from the motor to the wheels. The problem is that an electric motor of the kind that Tesla was using had far more torque being applied than is typical for that size of vehicle using an internal combustion engine. When all was said and done, the transmission simply didn't work and Tesla was faced with trying to find a replacement that would even just "make do" much less have the performance they were expecting.
Originally it was supposed to be a two speed transmission (High and Low gear ratios) with the idea that you get higher torque at the low gear, but use the high gear for highway cruising. The transmission to get that accomplished simply wouldn't last that long (I heard reports of just a few hundred or a thousand miles between transmission replacements on the engineering prototypes) and such a situation simply was not going to be useful for the final production version. The final transmission couldn't even be shipped in time to be put into the first production vehicles coming from England, so it had to be installed when the first production cars arrived in California. Eventually that "temporary" assembly facility ended up becoming much more permanent and about all that Lotus ended up building were the "gliders" where the final assembly took place in California. That was not the original intention, but that is how it ended up.
One other huge problem with the early production versions was a significant problem with the battery controller. Essentially it had a bunch of bugs in the firmware that needed to be worked out, and it took time to get it working correctly so it wasn't constantly requiring a charge or discharging even when the Roadster was idle. Basically the early Roadsters sitting in a parking lot would discharge its battery rather quickly. This problem was eventually resolved, but it was an embarrassment and sort of glossed over by the Tesla PR team. Because all of the Roadsters with the problem were still under warranty, when the vehicles were brought in for "routine service", the firmware and in some cases the entire battery pack was replaced,.
There were other problems as well, and it was that transition from the engineering prototype to a real production vehicle that was the tough stretch. Elon Musk was also stretched real thin in regards to SpaceX, which was also having problems in terms of being able to actually get into space and really digging into cash reserves. That Elon Musk weathered that storm is all that more amazing, and went through a divorce all at the same time.
Musk also tried to move Tesla Motors to the Los Angeles area (with a facility in Long Beach that almost was built) in part so he wouldn't have to commute between the two companies. Then the NUMMI plant became available with a cash infusion by Toyota that made Tesla what it is today. While Tesla certainly is still very much entrepreneurial in their attitude towards car making, they are not nearly on that razor edge they were back at the introduction of the Roadster.
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:5, Informative)
Whence comes your 30 mile driving range? The Model X is offered with a 60 kWh or a 85 kWh battery pack, the same as the top two options for the Model S. In the Model S, those packs give it 270 miles and 370 miles range respectively. Granted, the Model X is a larger, heavier vehicle, but a 90% drop in range? I don't think so.. probably closer to 10%. Also, the top two drive-train options have dual motors, which may offer better efficiency overall.
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:5, Insightful)
So can I jump in one of these and expect to drive at a steady 70mph for over 300 miles? If it can't, then it can't replace my diesel car.
I don't care if it can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I *do* care if it can do 0 to 250 miles in 4.5 hours.
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:5, Informative)
With the Model S you can; depending on how you drive, the 60 kWh pack would be tight, but the 85 kWh pack should handle you no problem (going on your second 250 mile requirement). Those same numbers aren't out for the Model X, but as I said, they are the same battery packs, and the total efficiency will be in the same ballpark.
Also, note that just because one particular non-extended-range electric vehicle does not meet your particular driving requirements does not mean it is a useless endeavour, or even that it will fail in market at all. There are plenty of other people out there that don't drive 300 miles a day (I for one wouldn't want to); the base Model S would do all the driving I need fine, except when I go home for the holidays. Even then, the 85 kWh battery pack would handle that no problem. If you're going on a really long trip, say, once a year, you could always just rent.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, note that just because one particular non-extended-range electric vehicle does not meet your particular driving requirements does not mean it is a useless endeavour, or even that it will fail in market at all.
I'll add another point: most households have more than one car, and very few ever face situation where two family members have to take *different* 300+ mile trips on the same day.
So if electric has any advantages at all in day to day driving, then one electric and one ICE car in a two-car family is for all practical purposes just as versatile as two ICE cars. Sure, once in a blue moon you'll want two ICE cars. But *more* than once in a blue moon one of those ICE cars will in the shop having it's complicated
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the vast majority of people in the market for a car need to do 70mph for 300 miles- or 0 to 250 in 4.5 hours on anything close to a regular basis.
If you're regulary having to travel 250 miles- sorry... I'm glad my commute is only 20 miles a day.
The Teslas are expensive for what they give you- and electiric cars do have a huge curve to climb before they match diesel or petrol; however, they would fill the need for the vast majority of households (if the vast majority of households had vast quan
Re: (Score:3)
If you would like to drive it further than it's engineered limit per fill up maybe you should think of a work around instead of expecting the manufacture to include it in a product not designed for you.
The answer will likely end up being a small petrol powered generator trailer hitch thingy for sale or rent. I think some government agency has said the average driver goes less than 30 miles in a day. How many times in the lifetime of a vehicle does it end up needing more than 300 miles of capacity? If the co
Re: (Score:3)
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one of my biggest peeves about Slashdot. "I wouldn't use this, therefore it can't possibly be of use to anyone!" Grow up already.
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:5, Interesting)
So can I jump in one of these and expect to drive at a steady 70mph for over 300 miles? If it can't, then it can't replace my diesel car.
I don't care if it can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I *do* care if it can do 0 to 250 miles in 4.5 hours.
You wouldn't replace your diesel car with a gas or diesel SUV, either, would you (unless you need the space)?
This is a soccer mom vehicle. They don't drive 70mph for 300 miles. They drive 30-50 mph for lots of small trips, which is what an electric is really good for. Think of this as an electric replacement for gas-hog SUVs, and it makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Good chance, the estimates are around 250-300 mile range for the bigger battery pack.
And I wager improvements over the next 2-3 years (when vehicle is released to production) will likely push it over the 300 mile mark.
Is there only 1 car in your family? (Score:2)
Do all of your cars need that type of range? Most people only need one of their family vehicles to have it.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't that the issue isn't raised, the problem is that the size of the battery pack is so huge that you need some kind of pallet truck to move the thing around and a specialized storage location to be able to recharge these battery packs.
From what I understand about the Model S, the idea that eventually such a service might show up was considered, where battery packs could be removed with just a few bolts being taken off and a single connector cable with a "plug" that could easily be disconnected and rec
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:4, Informative)
According to: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0210/Tesla-Model-X-Era-of-the-all-electric-SUV-is-arriving [csmonitor.com] 80-100 mile range. Probably enough for about 90% of everyone's one go trips. I really don't get this crazy worry about electric: oh but I can't go for 300 miles on a charge. How often do you do 5 hrs of non-stop driving anyways? If the technology for rapid charging comes out it wouldn't matter much either since you could just stop at a restaurant for an hour break and recharge. At any rate for the very rare times you need to drive 5hrs at a go run a car. The other 340 days a year your electric will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The 80-100 mile range figure is for the electric Jeep, not the Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
Use the money you save not buying any gas and rent a car for a week. ;-)
Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: according to teslamotors.com, the range of the Model S on these batteries is actually 230 miles and 300 miles respectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is not marketing to us yet. They're progressing down the class ladder.
The Roadster was for elites, the S & X are for upper middle class (the people driving the porsches, beemers, mercedes, escalades, etc).
And in that upper-middle class range, the Tesla S & X are in fact very well pried for the performance and luxury
They'll get to us in about 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is ugly about it?
In fact, it's lines are so sleek that at first look I thought it was just a typical 5 passenger vehicle. When I saw it was 7, I became super-jazzed.
Seriously, I want to go out and make some money so I can buy this.