Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Reveals Its Model X Gullwing SUV
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.
At first I read X Wing.
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-
Or is that just marketing-speak?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Correction: according to teslamotors.com, the range of the Model S on these batteries is actually 230 miles and 300 miles respectively.
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.
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.
I was under the impression that mounting the motor in the hub, while an elegant engineering solution to the problem of power transmission, isn't necessarily the optimal solution for automotive applications because of the increase in unsprung mass. It seems like, even with advances in power density in motors, that hub mounting would increase that mass by a large amount, not to mention potentially bringing additional cooling system complexity.
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
Further, social mobility in America is probably not what you think it is
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!