Find Reviews by Make:
19 Comments on “Tesla Discusses the Least Relevant Aspects of the Model S...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
It is obvious they are screaming: “I wanna be just like BMW!!!”. Problem is their cars don’t really work.
I was amused by the reference to the “main cabin”. What, is there steerage down below?
I don’t get it. What’s the problem?
If they execute on 90% of that hype…I’ll sign up for one. That prototype looks good.
I like the engine rev sound at the beginning of the video.
And those retractable door handles just look like a missing finger waiting to happen…
long126mike :
June 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I don’t get it. What’s the problem?
The video is four minutes and 22 seconds of just “These are the features we want this car to have.” No word on anything that actually underpins the car, or other useful information.
Um .. all discussion goes around the functionality of the car, whats the problem ? Did you wanna IGBT models used in the inverter or what ?
BTW, its getting beaten to market by quite a few, including none other than Pininfarina – Bollore BlueCar
That guy said: “well after designing the engine, suspension and powertrain, everything else is opportunity”.
Welcome to car design 101 my friend.
I still can’t get over how this (and the Fisker Karma) look like rear wheel drive, big engined, cab-backward, ultra luxurious gas hogs.
Considering the design language (since that’s all they mentioned) how exactly is this car gonna be good for the environment?
Considering the design language (since that’s all they mentioned) how exactly is this car gonna be good for the environment?
You think the appearance of a vehicle corresponds to its environmental impact? Huh?
The video is four minutes and 22 seconds of just “These are the features we want this car to have.” No word on anything that actually underpins the car, or other useful information.
So? I didn’t realize they had to recite the owner’s manual in four minutes and are not allowed to have a marketing campaign.
I have to disagree with the headline; I think these are very relevant aspects of the Model S.
People don’t just buy/marry based upon utility or technology – they often buy/marry based upon looks and bling. The Model S has it all.
The Model S is beautiful. It does actually work. It will actually sell. And domestic car designers could learn from it how to make a nice-looking car.
The retractable door handles will never see production, IMO. Besides pinched fingers, they wouldn’t do well in an ice storm.
It certainly is a lot better looking than the similar Panamera. I don’t think it will look as BMW-like in real life. The blue LED lights make it look futuristic without the whole ugly hybrid thing other manufacturers have going on.
I’d buy one.
You think the appearance of a vehicle corresponds to its environmental impact? Huh?
This may not be an Escalade Hybrid, but proportions and dimensions play a big role in environmental impact. There’s a reason why a Prius has a teardrop shape, low Cd, modest frontal area.
You’re supposed to sacrifice in order to minimize your environmental impact…the Model S looks like you can have your cake and eat it too.
You’re supposed to sacrifice in order to minimize your environmental impact…the Model S looks like you can have your cake and eat it too.
Ah, so what you’re saying is that given stereotypes, it appears to be anti-green. And you were addressing the video in isolation, assuming that the person watching it might have no idea what Tesla is and that they make BEVs.
OK, now I get it. I’m having trouble imagining a person watching that and not knowing the context, but it makes more sense now.
But didn’t the designer in the video mention batteries at the floor and electric motors on the axles? I should hope someone can grasp from that it’s a BEV and that BEVs are generally very energy efficient.
In any case, I think the car looks fantastic, and I’m not a big Tesla fan.
long126mike : Ah, so what you’re saying is that given stereotypes, it appears to be anti-green.
You completely missed my point. Believe it or not, no matter what Tesla does (or claims to do) they cannot disobey the Laws of Thermodynamics.
There are more efficient designs and there are less efficient designs. Stereotypes are meaningless: we’re talking about the most fundamental aspects of Fluid Dynamics. (my aforementioned comments of a lower Cd, less frontal area, and most importantly a teardrop-ish profile)
To GM’s (somewhat) credit, they (supposedly) had a BEV-like modular fuel-cell platform a few years back. And their concepts on said modular roller skate never emulated the long hood/short deck long wheelbase styling of an Aston Martin. Because they were actually trying to make an efficient car.
gslippy : I have to disagree with the headline; I think these are very relevant aspects of the Model S.
Agreed. Now that I think about the engineering/performance implications of this sheetmetal, there’s a problem: if we are talking about being Green, I don’t know why Tesla would put flash over substance.
If they want to attract investors to their fledgling company, making a fake Aston isn’t a bad idea. It’ll get the checkbooks out.
Tesla ISNT about being green. Its precisely about having your cake and eating it too, Roadster is the living proof of that.
Silent driving, crazy torque from electric motors, no gas costs, low maintenance due to few moving parts ( in theory ), design freedom opened up by electric powertrain : these are the things that Tesla offers first and foremost. Zero tailpipe emissions is just a nice side benefit.
The very first ads of Tesla didnt say “greenest thing on earth”, they said “Burn rubber, not gasoline”.
That is NOT a green pitch.
@Sajeev
You completely missed my point. Believe it or not, no matter what Tesla does (or claims to do) they cannot disobey the Laws of Thermodynamics.
OK, now you’re splitting hairs. You are comparing this vehicle to some theoretically “most efficient” configuration, instead of logically comparing it to the competition in its size class and ownership cost level. In that respect, it totally blows the competition out of the water in terms of energy conversion efficiency for a given level of size and performance, and because it’s electric, it’s defacto cleaner systemically than equivalent ICE vehicles, and potentially effectively carbon-neutral in operation (as well as other free of other pollutants).
It’s the same kind of mistake I see people make with things like electric-assist bicycles. The cycling purists hate them and consider them toys for fat, lazy people. They also think the $2,000-3,000 price tag is outrageous.
What they fail to see is that an e-bike is not a wasteful bike, it’s a very efficient substitute for a car for a good chunk of trips. Seen that way, it’s incredibly efficient and affordable.
Tesla is taking the counter-intuitive route of constructing luxury playthings for a limited market, but gradually going down the price and luxury level and approaching mass market from the top, not the bottom. Many many EV companies have tried the opposite approach – focusing on being as green as possible, and most times they just end up being 4 wheels of hairshirt.
It remains to be seen if Tesla will ultimately succeed, but they sure have gotten a lot further than any firm that preceded them.
I think some people struggle with all this because they’re not aware that, for the most part, the green movement has gotten past the “we all need to sacrifice” stage and moved on to what is commonly called “bright green solutions.” Many times these days, things that are pretty far along in terms of sustainable design don’t wear it on their shoulders like many people expect them to. I think that’s a very crucial hurdle that it’s overcome and why so much progress has been made this past decade.
savuporo : The very first ads of Tesla didnt say “greenest thing on earth”, they said “Burn rubber, not gasoline”. That is NOT a green pitch.
I think Tesla’s playing both sides: going green for DOE loans, and offering a electric power train for pistonheads looking for the next big thing. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, if we ever get verified reports on its range and they pass safety tests without an airbag waiver.
——————
long126mike :
OK, now you’re splitting hairs. You are comparing this vehicle to some theoretically “most efficient” configuration, instead of logically comparing it to the competition in its size class and ownership cost level. In that respect, it totally blows the competition out of the water…
It’s the same kind of mistake I see people make with things like electric-assist bicycles. The cycling purists hate them and consider them toys for fat, lazy people. They also think the $2,000-3,000 price tag is outrageous.
Fair enough, I see your point. I am speaking completely in theory, and Tesla is doing the same thing: we know nothing about the car’s actual performance.
And, correct me if I missed it, but we still don’t have verified range numbers on a Roadster with the production one-speed transmission. So everything is still up in the air, and the Model S’ merits relative to the competition are entirely theoretical.