Tesla Announces Dual Motors, 'Autopilot' For the Model S

SchrodingerZ writes: Nine days after Elon Musk hinted about a new project, Tesla Motors has unveiled the P85D Sedan. This is Tesla's latest car design, capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehicles. The four door luxury car is able to go from zero to 60 miles per hour in a mere 3.2 seconds, an acceleration similar to the McLaren F1 super car. While the exterior remains the same build as the standard Model S, the interior will have a second motor in the front of the car to complement the rear motor. The D models will also have a slightly greater range of 275 miles on a single charge, 10 miles more than the 85 and P85 cars. Safety features have also been enhanced, adding "adaptive cruise control and the ability to read speed limit signs, stop itself if a crash is imminent, stay in its lane, and even park itself in a street spot or in your garage." Musk explains at the inaugural event, "this car is nuts. It's like taking off from a carrier deck. It's just bananas." The "D" version is available for the 60kWh, 80kWh, and P85 cars, and are expected to start shipping in December of this year.

Comments

Autonomy

[Thanshin]

So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.

Let's hope it doesn't take much longer than that to recharge.

Re:Autonomy

[NoImNotNineVolt]

So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.

No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds. Then, cruising at that 60 mile per hour for 4.583 hours (not 15 seconds) will take you 275 miles, at which point the battery dies. Reading fail.

Re:Autonomy

[oodaloop]

Wow, you're really good at that math stuff.

Re:Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

TFS says "60 miles per hour in a mere 3.2 seconds".

60 miles per hour is referring to a velocity, not a distance.

If it could really somehow cover 60 miles in 3.2 seconds safely, I wouldn't care that it could only do it for 15 seconds, because i would already be there

Re:Autonomy

[MMC Monster]

So true. Wish I had mod points.

Re:Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh

Re:Autonomy

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I still don't get it. A deliberately stupid misreading of the summary is supposed to be funny because it's stupid?

Re:Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

People like stupid comments because it makes their otherwise mediocre intellect appear superior. It's the same reason kings like fools (who are fairly intelligent to convincingly play a fool without every inadvertently insulting the king, e.g. a fool can't ever inadvertently say outsourced engineers sometimes produce higher quality work than domestic engineers).

Re:Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, 65,000 miles an hour or roughly 4 times faster than the space shuttle. The vehicle would ignite the atmosphere and vaporize in a giant plasma cloud. So yeah not safe.

Re:Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

If it could really somehow cover 60 miles in 3.2 seconds safely, I wouldn't care that it could only do it for 15 seconds, because i would already be there

Safely is the key word there. It's more likely you would already be everywhere.

Re:Autonomy

[danbob999]

15 seconds sound about average. Oh wait, we are not talking about the time to bust a cell-phone monthly data cap.

Re:Autonomy

[alex67500]

A lot of comedy is just made of silly arguments and situations... I found it funny, but I guess a sense of humour is very much like opinions: most people have one but they're not always compatible.

Re:Autonomy

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds.

"per hour in 3.2 seconds"? That's horrible unit mixing, isn't it? That's 67,500 miles per hour squared for normal people like me.

Re:Autonomy

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Now I feel bad because it went from +5 to +1. I'm not trying to shit on anyone's parade, but I honestly didn't even suspect it could be an attempt at humor. If others find it funny, then funny it is.

Re:Autonomy

[alex67500]

It's been yo-yo-ing between 1 and 5 for a while... Which makes my case about opinions ;-)

Re:Autonomy

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Now that made me giggle.

In SI, that's 8.382 m/s^2 average acceleration for 3.2 s starting at 0 m/s.

Re:Autonomy

[ArcadeMan]

Ok, now that made me laugh.

Re:Autonomy

[fahrbot-bot]

TFS says "60 miles per hour in a mere 3.2 seconds".

60 miles per hour is referring to a velocity, not a distance.

If it could really somehow cover 60 miles in 3.2 seconds safely, I wouldn't care that it could only do it for 15 seconds, because i would already be there

I haven't done the math, but imagine that you'd probably be dead from the acceleration required to go from 0 to 60 miles in 3.2s.

Re:Autonomy

[mattack2]

Transporters. Just the standing on the spot and the transporter engineer guy pushing the lever takes a couple of seconds.

Re:Autonomy

[kmoser]

It would be hilarious if it went from +5 to +1 in 3.2 seconds.

Re: Autonomy

[Tenkawa]

No, they added metal plates. It's totally safe

Awesome

[Mr D from 63]

Another cool car for the 1%ers. Sounds like a lot of fun to drive.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who can afford a $70000 car is not a 1%er. That's not even upper middle class.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that post trolling? Even the highest-end Tesla is less than $1300/month. I can afford that along with a $1000/month mortgage with only a $80,000/year salary and that salary does not put me in the top 1% by any stretch.

Re:Awesome

[LWATCDR]

Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.
And 70k is for the short range stripped model. I is is more in the 9k range nicely equipped.

Re:Awesome

[biodata]

I think that depends what you consider the 100% to be. If it's humanity, then 1% is a significant overestimate of people who can afford this.

Re:Awesome

[thaylin]

How you do figure that? 100k is upper middle class, or there about. Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year. Even being single and making 80k a year if I bought that thing, assuming I could get that large of financing, it would strain my budget, and that is before taxes and insurance AND living in a low cost of living state.

Re:Awesome

[chill]

$140k fully decked out.

Re:Awesome

[LWATCDR]

It is easy to make cool expensive stuff. Now when they get one down to say 50k loaded we can talk.
Or to steal an old idea from Jack Tramiel. We need electric cars for the masses not the classes.

Re:Awesome

[Lunix Nutcase]

Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.

16k a year for the top end model. That's only around 1/3rd of your income if you make the median income of the US (~51k). And having the median income puts you far, far away from the top 1%.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that we will be 3D printing cars at home. I even heard that 3D printers pay for themselves in a year, I bought 12 so they will be free in a month.

Re:Awesome

[Lunix Nutcase]

You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.

Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year.

Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.

Re:Awesome

[Lunix Nutcase]

Stock top-end model, I should clarify.

Re:Awesome

[Mr D from 63]

Maybe it includes the top 1% of the financially irresponsible demographic.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you live alone, have no children, don't eat much, and don't plan for retirement doesn't mean everyone else does the same.

Re:Awesome

[RingDev]

I would argue that a middle classer who bought a car that costs more than a year's salary has piss poor money management.

-Rick

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I live with a girlfriend, spend $600/month on food and save an additional $10k a year in my retirement accounts.

Re:Awesome

[Mr D from 63]

Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.

You suggest a 100K earner take a loan out on a 70K+ car, and can say that with a straight face?

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

To expound, even before anything else after taxes, retirement deductions and other monthly savings I net around $1800 every two weeks. Even with food, mortgage, utilities, car, phone, etc. that leaves with an excess of $350 a month.

Re: Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, due to price difference of electricity and gas/diesel, combined with the extremely low maintenance costs, the model s is like owning a 50k ICE based car. And while that is not affordable to lower middle class to poor, it does make it affordable to the middle class.

Re:Awesome

[Mr D from 63]

If you have to ask, then I probably can't explain it.

Re:Awesome

[Ol Olsoc]

It is easy to make cool expensive stuff. Now when they get one down to say 50k loaded we can talk. Or to steal an old idea from Jack Tramiel. We need electric cars for the masses not the classes.

It's a supercar. It does have the unique position among the supercars that there are very few people arguing that McLaren needs to make a F1 for the masses

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, because you are paying interest on a depreciating asset? (Which is actually a liability, since I assume you also pay for at least $100,000 liability policy)

Re:Awesome

[beelsebob]

$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).

Re:Awesome

[xelah]

So, your living costs are something very approximating twice what the monthly car cost would be, and I presume you'd be paying it for something like 5 years. That gives you a choice between 1: accelerating very fast for a few tens of seconds per day, instead of rather slower and 2: having two and a half years off work (or retiring earlier) and doing something important to you instead.

There's nothing actually illogical about preferring the first. But I think it's reasonable to call it an extreme preference.

Re: Awesome

[bill_mcgonigle]

we owned a Pontiac minivan for three years - over that time it cost us about $50,000 in acquisition cost, gasoline, and repairs, net out eight thousand for the trade in 'value' at the end of its miserable life. Who wants to claim that makes us 1 or 2 percenters? It was a real mistake to buy a GM product, but that doesn't mean that the target market was anything other than middle America.

Re:Awesome

[beelsebob]

However... you forgot taxation, which makes the net income of that 51k family 28k (assuming 45% combined state and federal tax). So now you're talking about 57% of your entire income spent on a fancy pants car. Hint - the normal division that's suggested is 1/3 rent; 1/3 eating, drinking, being merry; 1/3 saving for the future.

Re:Awesome

[gl4ss]

half? so 140k? 140k is high income. if someone is making 140k a year it's not a problem at all to spend 70k on a car that gets used a few years.

median household income is 50k or something. that's household not individual.

and the other features than being electric.. they're pretty much on par with 100k mercs as they should .

Re:Awesome

[laie_techie]

Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.

16k a year for the top end model. That's only around 1/3rd of your income if you make the median income of the US (~51k). And having the median income puts you far, far away from the top 1%.

When talking fractions of yearly income do you count gross or net pay? I would never spend 1/3 of my net income on a car, unless I could pay cash.

Re:Awesome

[laie_techie]

How you do figure that? 100k is upper middle class, or there about.

Where do you live that 100k per year is considered middle class? I've been a professional software engineer for 14 years and don't make that kind of dough. Of course you have to take into account the cost of living for my state, and the fact that workers here earn about 75-80% of the national average.

Re:Awesome

[MMC Monster]

I would argue that anyone who bought a car that costs more than a year's salary has piss poor money management skills. ;-)

Teslas shouldn't be in the radar of the middle class right now. Leave them for people that make >> $200K for now. Early adopters always pay more and can afford to be out-of-date when the next revision comes down the line a few months later.

I don't understand why people want to buy things they can't afford. I understand that for the economy it's a good thing, but for the individual it has to be better to have less debt.

Re:Awesome

[stdarg]

assuming investment keeps up with inflation

That's far too pessimistic. $10k invested now is worth more than $10k in 35 years after inflation.

Re:Awesome

[MMC Monster]

I would complain about Tesla's marketing to people who can't afford their cars, but ... I can't recall any marketing done by them other than their blog and videos on YouTube.

Re:Awesome

[thaylin]

No, I am saying ANYONE sub 100k would have to take out a loan on a 70k a year car.

Re:Awesome

[thaylin]

https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

MacLaren never set out to make an EVeryman car but that's the stated goal of Tesla as Musk himself laid out in a blog post over 8 yrs ago.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather tire of the 1% bashing, really people it's the 0.1% that you have a beef with.

Re:Awesome

[tsqr]

You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.

Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year.

Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.

1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.

Good money management does not mean figuring out a way squeak by while squandering your family income on something you don't actually need.

Re:Awesome

[jon3k]

It's actually only 120k. Definitely not reserved for only the 1%. More like top 10-20%.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course. Just about anybody can afford a $70,000 car. Provided that they plan to live in it.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).

And assuming you do not have a pension are somehow not eligible for old age benefits.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just wait until you do have the money instead of paying lots of interest while your car is depreciating wildly.

Re:Awesome

[Ost99]

Where I live the rule of thumb is that you spend between 1/2 year and 1 year household income (before tax) on car(s) every 5-6 years.
Average household income for dual income households ( most are) is slightly above $160 000, which puts the Tesla D within the car spending budget of almost half the households over here.

I'm just pissed I didn't hold out another 2 months before ordering mine early in September.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. It is the 0.01% that are the problem.

Re:Awesome

[RingDev]

A $70k car, with a 5 year note at 5.5% interest is a monthly payment of $1337.

A head house hold primary earner of family of 4 with a $100k annual salary is probably looking at ~80k after taxes.

A $250k mortgage, +PMI, +Homeowners insurance, +Property Tax is going to be ~1500 a month: 62k.

Health insurance, assuming they have a job with benefits is probably $600 a month (give or take depending on amorting the deductible over the year and out of pocket expenses), 55k.

Groceries are ~250 a week, 42k.

Electric/Gas/Water/Sewage/Home maintenance is another $500 a month, 36k.

Depending on your driving history/age/location, insurance is going to be between 1500 and 5000 a year, 34k.

Cable/Phone/Internet, pick your poison, you're likely out ~120 a month, 32k.

Add on that $1337/month car payment and you're down to $16k.

Note that at this point, you still need to buy clothes (especially for 2 growing kids) likely have a 2nd car, with insurance, a fuel bill, and maintenance (possibly even another loan), maybe student loans, heaven forbid either of your kids need braces, or your water heater dies.

So yes, an upper-middle income individual /could/ in theory do it. But it would mean living extremely modestly and surviving basically paycheck to paycheck. Any significant disruption would lead to immediate financial stability concerns.

That individual would be dramatically better off putting that 16k a year into a 401k and IRA or college funds for the kids. Buying a 70k car isn't an investment, even if it retains its value better than other vehicles, you're still losing out big time between depreciation and interest payments.

-Rick

Re:Awesome

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I don't understand why people want to buy things they can't afford.

I don't think that you understand: the car goes really fast and looks really cool , and I want one.

Note that this is different than:

I don't understand why people do buy things they can't afford.

Re:Awesome

[Motard]

I bought one and put it to work printing another. Then these two will print more - with each new one printing even more.

When I have enough, I'm going to print a planet.

Re:Awesome

[alex67500]

How is that post trolling? Even the highest-end Tesla is less than $1300/month. I can afford that along with a $1000/month mortgage with only a $80,000/year salary and that salary does not put me in the top 1% by any stretch.

Maybe not in the US, but how about Worldwide?

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

I don't think you know what inflation does...

Re:Awesome

[schlachter]

I would argue that anyone who spent more than 1/3 of a year's salary on a car would be financially stupid.

Also anyone who didn't pay in cash, or have the ability to pay in cash despite financing is being stupid.

Re:Awesome

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Wow that is a lot to spend on a car, I guess need to be driving nicer vehicles than I do. I spent about 1/15th of my annual household pre-tax income on my current car (I'm not rich but fairly well off as in I am close to the average near you) a little more than a year ago. I plan on driving this car for at least another 5 years but hoping to make to well over 10. The next most recent vehicle I purchased I spent less than 1% of my annual household income on and that was for a beater to go hunting in. And while my jeep is a beat up rusty pile of junk my daily driver is nice but just not new. Then again I don't play the keeping up with the neighbors game and even in my neighborhood that wouldn't be hard if I cared. Although I wouldn't mind getting a custom ordered brand new M3 but I know I would get into trouble with that car.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't download a car!

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

Groceries & phone are under estimated if you have teenagers.

Roughly double.

Re:Awesome

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Don't spoil the fun. Don't you know mindless spending of money is needed to keep the economy going. /sarcasm

BTW those are some nice numbers and seem to match reality fairly well, although I might chop a bit more off for taxes since SSI is 6.2%, and then there is the Medicaid, Federal, and also likely state income taxes so I would push total the post tax value a little closer to $75k

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

Did he say he was going to get there in 2014?
Or with this model?

Re:Awesome

[swb]

This must be the kind of thinking that generates votes for Republican tax cuts for the rich.

The top 20% of HOUSEHOLD income starts at $101k. A five year loan for a Tesla with $10k down results in a monthly payment of $2,055 @ 4.59%.

There's no way a household with $101k income could afford to make house payments and drive a Tesla at $2k a month. That's 25% of their income for a highly depreciable asset.

Depending on their life choices (live in small, shitty efficiency, no kids, no vacations, buy everything used or Wal-Mart) they might be able to do it but realistically it's just nuts to assume a $100k household income can manage a $2k car payment.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

You're suggesting spending more on a car than the typical person does on a mortgage.
And 4-6x more than the typical car payment.

Yep, you are a nut case.
And judgemental too.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

First you're assuming that the 10K/year is retirement savings. That might be other savings beyond retirement. Second, let's assume that it is the retirement savings...

If that is 10K of his money, and he has a 25% matching program, the actual money being socked away would be 12.5K/year. We'll ignore this possibility for the moment, and assume the only money is the 10K.

There are some mutual funds that have averaged 12% over the past 50 years, only ever dipping bellow 10% during the recent recession. Let's say he doesn't do nearly that well in stocks and averages 8% returns.

So, the total after 35 years $1,870,332.21.
Nearly 2 million dollars.

After that he retires, he can draw 4% (74,813.29) to 6% (112,219.93) without touching principle value and not feel the effects of inflation of 2% to 4%. He won't have to pay payroll or income tax in retirement so he'll likely take more home from that 74,813.29 than he takes home from the 80K he makes. When he dies, He can hand his kids an inheritence of 2 million dollars.

His savings is in good shape.

That said, I personally would never make a car payment, because cars are depreciating assets. I also would never have vehicles who sum worth is more than 25% of my income. I guess I'm just more cautious, but personal finance is just that personal.

Re:Awesome

[Ost99]

New cars (non-electric ones) are HEAVILY taxed here. A modest family car costs $60-70 000. A decent SUV costs $200 000 (and the roads are full of them).

A Tesla S and a low end 5-series BMW or E-class Mercedes costs about the same here.

Re:Awesome

[LWATCDR]

And Supercars are not important as far as environmental impact.

Re: Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually is though. Look at the operating costs and suddenly, u find that u are simply paying up front. And considering that you can currently get a 2% car loan, it makes good sense. At that point, it is like owning an ICE car that costs 20-30k less.
 
windbourne

Re:Awesome

[GTRacer]

Mind the fjords!

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

A date wasn't specified but the "more affordable" model was supposed to be the 2nd after the Roadster.
By making the Model X, he extended the timeline and if this counts as a new model then the "more affordable" model will the the FOURTH after the Roadster.

Re:Awesome

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I thought you were in the US so now I understand why so many people are spending so much on a vehicle. Still that seems like a lot of money (percentage of annual income) to be spending on a car. Also I think the prices are similar for those vehicles pretty much everywhere. For SUV prices those looks similar to those in Israel with an entry level jeep commanding about $150k.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what middle class means. Doctors, lawyers and small buisness owners are the core of the middle class. The upper class is the wealthy and those in positions of great political or economic power. Over time we've expanded the definition of middle class to include a lot of people could afford a middle class lifestyle with non-professional jobs.

Re:Awesome

[sumdumass]

When looking at that much money, they likely could make more than the saving from not paying interest. Rich people love loans for this reason alone.

But then again, wealthy people tend to borrow at lower rates than normal people can because it is a low risk loan.

Re:Awesome

[schlachter]

You have no fucking clue huh? And you're obviously young and single with no experience managing your finances.

The average American salary is around $40K/yr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

That's more like $2,500/month after taxes, health insurance, etc...if you're lucky enough to take home 75% of your income. I take home about 60%.

The Tesla will cost you $1,300 month + $200 month for insurance + $100 month for power = $1,600

About 65% of your monthly spending. Good luck living in your car with the remaining $900 month.

Oh, and if you don't want to be a complete ass hat, you should be saving at least $500 of that $900 each month for unexpected expenses.

So you've got $400 a month. Hope you have a way to cook ramen in that Tesla home of yours.

And don't get a bad tooth ache. That will cost you $2,000 to fix. Don't have to go to the ER. That will cost you at least $2,000.

Re:Awesome

[gmhowell]

$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).

You must be European. Retirement age in the US ~67, no way 'most of us' are making it to late 90's.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this will vary by region/lifestyle, but is a good ballpark estimate.

Look at it another way: if the monthly cost of that car is $1337 (assuming you already have car insurance that won't significantly increase), figure out how much you can currently afford, subtract it from 1337 and multiply the remainder by 15. That's how much more (accounting for 25% taxes) you need to make per year to afford it. For example, f you can currently afford a $350/mo car budget, you needs to make roughly an additional $15k/yr to cover it.

That's a serious commitment, but quite doable for a lot of people willing to change their spending habits to accommodate expensive hobbies, even if they aren't wealthy.

(AC to preserve mods)

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't copy that jalopy!

(Yes, I'm sure I heard that somewhere else first)

Re:Awesome

[LynnwoodRooster]

$32,500 per year puts you in the top 1% worldwide. Given that you need an income probably around $120,000 to afford this car, you're right - it's not a 1%er car, it's a 0.1%er car...

Re:Awesome

[westlake]

You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.

Good money management does not mean figuring out a way squeak by while squandering your family income on something you don't actually need.

The median household income in the U.S. is $53,000 a year.

The per capita income in the U.S., $28,500 a year. State & County QuickFacts

Ford and GM built their markets from the bottom up and not the top down. The market for the sports car or luxury sedan tends to crash and burn when the economy heads south --- taking the small independent manufacturer with them. You can have style and tech and still lose in this game.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

too many assumptions. also assuming no assets to offset purchase price.

utilities @ $500? Annually we are $160
home @ $1500? About $600
healthcare @ 600? About $150
food @ 1000? About $500

I can easily afford a Telsa just on your overestimation of my expenses and still have a very respectable 20% savings rate.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

A five year loan for a Tesla with $10k down results in a monthly payment of $2,055 @ 4.59%.

If you need to take a loan for a luxury car, you can't afford that car. This isn't like a taking loan for a used Camry because you really need something to get you to work in a cost- and time-efficient manner.

My wife and I make about $700K/yr, and the Model S makes us drool, but it still costs about twice as much as we're interested in spending on a car.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

overly conservative.

that would give approximately a 20k annual income if investments outperform inflation by 4% at a 4% withdrawal rate. add in any pension or ssi and its very acceptable.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Managing cash availability is hardly stupid. That said, buying a Tesla when you make less than 250k a year is probably not a sound financial decision. Of course that doesn't change even if you make millions. When you have that kind of money you need a way to differentiate yourself from the common folk so you buy a fancy car.

Re:Awesome

[McGruber]

I save more than $10k a year even with those payments. How would that make me financially irresponsible?

If you are a US worker making $80k, you can put $17,500 a year into your 401K and another $5,500 into a Roth IRA..... so your saving $10k/year is less than 1/2 the money you could be putting into your retirement accounts for the year.

If you are over age 50, you could be putting in $23,500 (401K) and $6,500 (Roth IRA)..... so your saving $10k/year would be only a third of what you could be saving, in your retirement account alone.

Re: Awesome

[O('_')O_Bush]

I don't know if I would say "in good shape" when the future dollar worth will be 1/2-1/4 after 35 yes with a 2-4% inflation rate.

Worst case inflation, 18.5k/year(present dollars) is about minimum wage, and maintaining lifestyle will eat up the 500-900k present dollar savings for many retirees in <10 years. I hope they don't intend to live past 75 (average life expectancy is already at least that).

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

The market for the sports car or luxury sedan tends to crash and burn when the economy heads south

Oh really?

While Ford's sales dropped 25% in 2008

The rich aren't affected by the economy heading south. The poor are. And there's some evidence for ya.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

... surviving basically paycheck to paycheck.

Isn't that the American way? ;)

Re:Awesome

[LWATCDR]

1. You are using before taxes.
2. A car payment that is one 1/3 of your yearly income is stupid.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to re-read that, but I think his statement would be correct if that $10k was invested in real-estate. Depending in the market/location, real-estate can ride inflation like a tide lifting all boats.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe" - Albert Einstein (maybe)

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL I've never seen someone so hostile about someone else's spending preferences. Perhaps redirecting your rage about your ridiculous taxes? overly expensive lifestyle? I live debt free, like a god, for $1200/mo. 50% food, 25% utilities, 25% garbage, mostly booze. I travel like a god for $500/mo and I save like a god for $4900/mo, mostly for retirement, but also I guess for all the stupid shit people on this thread seem to need to buy.

forgot (not really) to add my wifes income 39000, on which we pay virtually no tax because she maxes out 401k/ira. the rest is spent on 50% loans (gone in 2 yr) and 50% her contribution to mindless consumerism!

Re:Awesome

[klagermkii]

Hmm, what method of searching Google were you using that included your "original query" of "crony democracy" as part of the URL that you linked? Seems like it could be a worrying way of accidentally leaking more information than intended.

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

interest has to be greater than inflation for it to work.

Also interest != inflation

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

10k in real estate is VERY likely a deprecating piece of real estate.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that doesn't change even if you make millions. When you have that kind of money you need a way to differentiate yourself from the common folk so you buy a fancy car.

No we don't. Most of us blend in with the crowd. We don't need to differentiate ourselves. This may sound rude, but honestly, we don't need validation from others to know that we're wealthy.

The way to identify us is by selling something that will save us time. Wait until fully automated cars hit the streets--then you'll see us appear in droves. I make 7-figures. I drive a $35K car. I would not hesitate for one moment to fork over $350K for a self-driving car.

Re:Awesome

[c6gunner]

I would argue that a middle classer who bought a car that costs more than a year's salary has piss poor money management.

This very much depends on other cost factors.

The average American right now spends over $2,000 per year on fuel. In Canada it's more like $3,000. Europe is even higher. Electric drastically lowers that cost, making it easier to justify a large initial investment.

Vehicle maintenance is another consideration. Electric in general is supposed to require far less maintenance. On oil changes alone you should save $200+ per year. Reduced break wear thanks to regenerative breaking means you breaks and rotors last longer. And so on.

So say an electric vehicle reduces your annual costs by $1,500, and you keep it for 10 years. That's a saving of $15,000. That makes it much easier to justify "a car that costs more than a years salary", especially it it's amortized over a few years. And with fuel costs constantly increasing, the amount saved is likely to be higher over the long term.

Re:Awesome

[schlachter]

My anger is directed against people who make idiotic financial decisions and force the rest of us to foot their bill when they crash and burn. So more power to you for being poor and in debt but feeling like a God. Glad your paying down your debt. We need more people like you.

I don't mind my tax rate (which is about average for middle and upper middle class America) and I never commented on how much I spend. I too am debt free. I don't know where you get off attacking me with your false assumptions.

Re:Awesome

[jon3k]

Now try the top 10%, per my previous post. Let's play both extremes.

Re:Awesome

[Loki_1929]

Financing can be cheaper than cash depending on the rate and the rate of inflation.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, they could live in a no-income-tax state and have at least a quarter of that Tesla's monthly nut depending on income.

In 2013, I saved over $900/mo in NYC+NYS income tax by not living there anymore. And then there's the cost of living: in Texas my PITI on a 4/3 on 2ac within 30mi of the office is less than 20% of my _net_ takehome.

Re: Awesome

[stu72]

I can live with people buying expensive toys they find thrilling. Why I can't understand is why they are allowed on public roads. If you want to drive at fatal speeds, be a real free market guy and build your own roadway to drive it on.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I live with a girlfriend, spend $600/month on food and save an additional $10k a year in my retirement accounts.

In other words, your household income is actually higher than the $80K you earn.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

So I make close to 60k in Houston. Wife is a stay-at-home mom. It's a decision we both made because of the way the numbers work out. For example, if she worked making 10K, not only would it not cover daycare, but our combined income would put us in the next tax bracket costing us even MORE money. We are the perfect case of a family justifying the mantra of "Less is more". Yeah, our national tax policies are FUBAR!

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Acutally, he's right. It might be worth 10.2K after inflation.

Re:Awesome

[NatasRevol]

You don't know what inflation is either.

Re:Awesome

[MMC Monster]

Tell that to someone who lives in the US outside of a major city and you'll get a good laugh.

Re:Awesome

[RingDev]

At 10 years, you are likely at the very brink of the lifespan of the battery pack.

The 60khw battery pack (since we're debating the bottom end options here) gets ~200 miles per charge. I would anticipate that would drop off over the 10 year life span we're looking at, but I don't have hard numbers on it.

1 kwh in Wisconsin costs ~13.1 cents. So roughly $7.86 full per charge (~4c per mile).

Comparatively, I'm spending ~10c per mile on fuel for my Golf TDI.

Figure ~13,000 miles driven per year by your average American. $520 for the Tesla, $1300 for the Golf. So you come out ahead, on average, $780 a year. Over 10 years, the savings on fuel is roughly half of the $15,000 you mentioned, assuming it can maintain a 200 mile charge for the 10 year lifespan.

But, you also have to look at the costs of the loan. A $70,000 car note over 5 years is going to cost ~$10,200 in interest. Compared to a $22k car (VW Golf TDI) where that same 5 year note is going to cost ~$3,200.

So the fuel savings ($7800) is almost entirely wiped out by the additional interest cost ($7000).

There are other savings, probably a hundred dollars a year in oil changes, the 100,000 mile timing belt ($800), but most of the other maintenance matches between the two cars.

There is really nothing here that makes it easier to swallow. If you want a $70k automobile as an upper-middle income household of 4, you will need to make radical spending changes and/or live paycheck to paycheck on the edge of your finances.

Wait for the kids to go off to college and buy one for your mid-life crisis.

-Rick

Re:Awesome

[PRMan]

Exactly. My rate is 1.99%. I have enough bitcoins to have bought my car outright. But I'm pretty sure cost of living will outpace that in 5 years by a significant margin.

Re:Awesome

[PRMan]

And I am really hoping that bitcoin will outpace that in 5 years...

Re:Awesome

[PRMan]

Yeah, he totally forgot cell phones which are another $150-$200 a month if you have teenagers.

Re:Awesome

[LessThanObvious]

A professional software engineer with experience in California will make $130,000 per year or more, but mortgage, property taxes, etc.. for a "starter" home here near tech businesses will run $4000+ per month with 120K down. We have two solid earners in my household and still if I bought a $70,000 car I'd be living off water and Bisquick. Instead I drive a $12K used car with no loan on it and enjoy my life. Any less than $50K per year here and you won't survive without roommates. Competition for resources always ensures that it's never easy to actually get ahead. I do suspect many engineers in other areas are significantly undervalued. In an area that doesn't have bat shit crazy real estate, I hope they still pay engineers $65-85K, if not, your talents are being squandered.

Re:Awesome

[Ost99]

Northern Europe here. The country of electric car fanatics. Think we're the 2nd largest marked in the world, behind California, despite being only 5M people.

Re:Awesome

[sdguero]

In San Diego, $100k is middle class. It's pretty much impossible to buy a house (~$450,000 for a cheap house) or have a family if you make less than $100k.

Re:Awesome

[mea_culpa]

This is a normal trend for new technology.
The first computers, cell phones, CD players, even VHS players were priced out of reach of the average tight budgeted middle class family.
Over time these products were mass produced and made affordable.

Tesla is out to prove that EV's are a viable alternative to ICE cars. Which thus far every other auto maker has failed miserably to do.

Check back in 5 years, EV's like the Tesla will likely be much more affordable.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

A decent SUV

Does such a thing exist?

Re:Awesome

[WaxParadigm]

1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.

You financed a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. (It's all relative)

Re:Awesome

[Fjandr]

My total net household income is under 20k, supporting two people. If I had an additional 81k per year, I definitely could afford to pay 24k/year for a car.

Re:Awesome

[Gavagai80]

If you make more than $34K a year, you're in the top 1% of world income.

Re:Awesome

[BasilBrush]

Probably not. Because when people earn more, they spend proportionately more on everything you buy and everything they do. They don't just save it for the car.

Re:Awesome

[tsqr]

1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.

You financed a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. (It's all relative)

You're right on both counts - depreciating asset AND crazy. Like I said, I think 10% is still too high. The only saving grace (and it's a minor one) is that I put enough money down on both vehicles that even with depreciation, they've never been worth less than the amount owed.

That said, even without considering depreciation I think that a person of average means spending 1/3 of their income on a car payment is probably lacking in prioritization skills.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I had been going to pay cash, but the dealership paid me $1000 in incentives so they could sign me up for a 0% APR loan for five years. And I suddenly understood why the auto industry perpetually teeters along on the edge of bankruptcy.

Re:Awesome

[mattack2]

We need electric cars for the masses not the classes.

They already exist. Nissan Leaf. Smart electric. Fiat 500e. Chevy Spark. Probably a zillion more I haven't mentioned. I own one of the 2nd one I listed.

Re:Awesome

[mattack2]

Tesla is out to prove that EV's are a viable alternative to ICE cars. Which thus far every other auto maker has failed miserably to do.

Absolutely false. I am using an electric car as my car. I do _own_ another car, but the only times I have driven it are a couple of times to make sure it keeps running. I should sell it now that I realize I don't have "range anxiety" like everyone fears.

Re:Awesome

[c6gunner]

Obviously a cheaper car is going to be cheaper; you didn't have to go through the trouble of doing math to figure that out. What I was pointing out is that after the savings inherent in having a purely electric vehicle it's not AS BAD as it seems at first glance.

I'm not exactly rich, but I've been seriously thinking about buying one. I've run the numbers and I can EASILY afford it. Then again, I'm single, and have enough in savings to buy it outright, so I'm not your typical "middle class family". But I can see it being a decent buy even in those circumstances, as long as the buyer makes good choices about financing. That's going to be your biggest problem.

Re:Awesome

[Sky Cry]

You keep repeating the same thing, but you don't provide any explanation. I don't think you know what inflation does, but, unlike you, I'm actually going to explain why I think so.

Considering all other factors equal (we both know they aren't, but the argument is about inflation, nothing else), consider two scenarios:
1) have $10k now, don't spend them, don't invest them, in 10 years you still have the same $10k
2) have $10k now, buy something worth $10k now, in 10 years you still have this thing that cost $10k originally, but because of inflation (=increase in prices) it now costs $11k.

In scenario 1 you have less value than in scenario 2. Like I said, this disregards all other economic factors that affect value, but the idea is to show how inflation influences it.

Re:Awesome

[schlachter]

If you make $60K/yr and take home $40K/yr after taxes, deductions, insurance, 401k, etc...and your wife makes an extra $10K, you will still take home the same amount of your salary...$40K/yr....she will be taxed at what ever rate is appropriate for earnings between $60K and $70K...which is probably around 25%.

Re:Awesome

[stdarg]

You're wrong, I know what inflation does. I don't think you know what inflation does, if you think inflation automatically means every possible investment made today is worth less in 35 years.

capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

Like getting usable range out of the thing? A Honda Civic hybrid gets close to 500 miles. Sounds like someone at Tesla forgot what they were doing.

Read speed limit signs

[rossdee]

It wasn't my fault officer, the car say the highway sign and thought that I-95 meant 95mph

Re:Read speed limit signs

[oodaloop]

But at least we're not on Highway 1 anymore. That seemed like FOREVER.

Re:Read speed limit signs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Reminds me of the old joke:

Cop pulls over a tesla going too slow. The nun, who was driving, explained to the cop that the tesla was malfunctioning and misinterpreted the I-30 sign as the speed limit. When he notices two horrified nuns sitting in the back seats, the driver explained that they just pulled off of I-369.

Re:Read speed limit signs

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck following that rule on the I-605. Rocket cars, anyone?

captcha: awesome

Re:Read speed limit signs

[fermion]

If a car is self driving, then having some knowledge of the speed limit is good. If not, having the car limit travel based on speed limit is a very bad idea. For instance, those signs that read and display speed of oncoming cars in real time have some uses, but also have significant negative effects. They tend to encourage drivers to travel at maximum speed, which creates a jumble of cars and can at times encourage unsafe speeds. There used to be a lot of more of these around, but now I notice they are gone except in a few places. On the freeway, of course, one has to travel at prevalent speeds, and it is often necessary to get out of situations where there are dangerous vehicles.I can see myself getting kill because I not allowed to breifly accelerate to high speeds to get away from a oil truck.

Re:Read speed limit signs

[mcrbids]

Never mind highway 505...

Re:Read speed limit signs

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely baffled that this has been modded anything other than funny - which it is.

Do any of you dullards really think the engineers employed at this world-class engineering firm haven't thought of this? Do you think the investor briefings don't include at least a backup slide explaining how this is not an issue?

Did you ever notice the signs also say "Speed Limit" and the highway numbers have only a shape and a number? Oh they must've just done an OCR and tried to cast everything to an integer until they got something, then switch to that, even if it doesn't make sense for the road conditions.

Re:Read speed limit signs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Modded off-topic? It's directly related to the parent.

I didn't say it was a good joke.

Re:Read speed limit signs

[Dahamma]

Reminds me of a high school drivers ed session years back (I was sitting in the back seat):

teacher: "What's the speed limit on this road?"
student: "64?"
teacher: "64!? This is Route 64 you nitwit! Well, at least we didn't take Route 83. Or I-355!"

Re:capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehic

[thaylin]

shoot I get close to 500 mines in my Jeep Grand Chrokee, however lets talk about fuel costs. I think a trade off can be made.

Performance

[Charliemopps]

This is how electric will win. Performance.
When I was in High-school I raced RC cars for fun, and I remembered by gear head friends giving me crap about working on "Toy cars" until I challenged one of them to a drag race, against his real, full sized muscle car, and won hands down. The torque from an electric motor is just monstrous. So much so, that I suspect if they continue to build electric sports cars, the gforce alone will become a safety issue. My drag car would pull 100amps off the starting line and could melt battery cables, and the thing only weighed 2lbs. It'd be doing the scale equivalent of over 1000mph when I got to the end of the track. Yes, yes, I know at full scale wind resistance is different and such, but still. I had a hunk of carbon fiber doing 100mph in a few feet for Christs sake.

The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.

Random video I found on youtube as a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
 

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

part time performance.

Now electric cars powered by 500k/w fuel cells . . . an entirely different matter.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

gforce won't be a problem... You can only put down so much power to the ground with current rubber and asphalt. Even Formula 1 cars are in the 2-3 second range with those giant tyres. Many motorcycles are in the 2-3 second range as well.

Re:Performance

[kilfarsnar]

There is an electric race car that puts out something like 830 HP and 2950 ft. lbs. of torque. I can't even imagine what that kind of power feels like behind the wheel. Electric cars are exciting to gearheads like me who enjoy performance driving. I can't wait until they become more affordable.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how electric will win. Performance.

No they won't. There are HUGE problems with electric cars.

1. They have no sound.
2. You can't get one with a manual transmission.
3. Their range is terrible.
4. Even at their fastest, they take way too long to recharge.
5. They handle like shit from the weight of the batteries.
6. They cost to much.

7. They are just plan awful cars that are boring to drive.

Re:Performance

[mnooning]

Let me add to your reasoning. This is the same argument as for the television in the late 1940s, or the VCR in my own lifetime.

I remember many years ago walking out of a specialty store that sold VCR equipment. The prices were way high, and before I left I commented to the sales person that VCRs were a rich man's game. At that point, it was a true statement.

The 5% who can afford these electric cars will fund the initial manufacturing. Infrastructure will grow. Costs will come down. Given the power electricity has, and the relative safety of supplying outlets and other infrastructure, even more people will see the advantages, be able to afford it and buy it, and so on, increasingly, until it is being massed produced at ordinary consumer prices. The US, for one, is slowly but surely going to change in the transportation area.

Note: U.S. sales by luxury brands should easily top 1.8 million this year Source

Re:Performance

[beelsebob]

To be fair, F1 cars accelerate at 3g, brake at 5g and corner at 6g. The g-forces are enough that the drivers can't breath for half the lap. They're getting really close to the point where g forces are a problem.

Re:Performance

[Alomex]

The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.

You couldn't pay me to drive a Prius. Yet, my next car will be a Tesla.

Re:Performance

[laie_techie]

>

The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.

I'm still waiting on range and charging time to make it worth my investment. With a range of 200 miles per full charge, this car would meet my daily needs 85% of the time. I'd still need something for road trips.

Re:Performance

[Motard]

Actually, they hit this point in 1997 in IndyCars (CART). The Firestone Firehawk 600 at Texas Motor Speedway had to be called off because of G forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine.. But look at the size of tyres on the F1 cars, and the softness of the rubber. The poster was talking about how electric cars will win in performance from a consumer standpoint. No consumer-grade tyres will handle those kind of forces acting on them.

Re:Performance

[mlts]

The ironic thing is that even in rural Texas [1], even the coal rollers think that Teslas are extremely useful and hope that eventually the company would make a one ton pickup truck. It would make life nice for a number of reasons:

1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.

2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.

3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.

4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.

5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.

6: They are quiet.

7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)

8: No exhaust.

Electric cars are like solar. Both sides, be it the hippies or the banjo country types understand how useful the technology is or can be.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on you idiots, this was a *joke* (different AC here).

Re:Performance

[Major Blud]

Ditto here. I've raced both electric and nitro RC cars for about 27 years, and I choose electric hands-down.

That's not to say that each has pros and cons. Nitro cars tend to have impressive top speeds, and since they can make pit-stops to refuel, races can last as long as half an hour (I've seen some that last as much as an hour). Electrics have short range, and almost all races I've been in tend to last 5-10 minutes. I've never been in a race where pit-stops are made for battery changes, but I've seen them before and it gets pretty frantic with stops being made every 5-10 minutes. Batteries have come a long way though, with Li-Po having better range and power than the NiCad and Ni-mH we used to have back in the day.

On the other hand, nitro cars are a maintenance nightmare, and trying to start them up after the engine dies is pretty much a write-off in the middle of a race (which happens often after a rollover). The two-stroke engines have low torque, and gearing is problematic (some have automatic transmissions, like my Losi XXL-2). Electrics will jump all over a nitro car off the line every time, maintenance is pretty simple, and I don't have to "restart" the car after a rollover.

Re:Performance

[Charliemopps]

You don't understand. I wasn't hitting 60 in 2 to 3 seconds. I was hitting 60 (Scale 600mph) in tenths of a second and I was 16!. Tesla is getting this speed without even trying. Get a real race enthusiast to start messing with these? Forget F1, it'll be like being behind a rocket engine. I've seen RC drag races that resulted in the motor ripping the tires off the rims, and they were glued on. 2 to 3 seconds will be laughable when the real drag race guys get hold of this stuff.

Re:Performance

[Charliemopps]

If your other race car is a 64 mustang or a corvette, range wasn't a concern in the first place.

Re:Performance

[Charliemopps]

When I did the endurance stuff, I replaced my differential with a one-way diff. That way I could coast. It really depended on the track, but I had so much damned torqe I'd basically power out of the turn and then coast into the next. If it was a very long oval, this was less useful... but the idea was fresh when I tried it and people couldn't believe how few battery changes I'd have to make.

This, of course meant I couldn't break (and for those of you not into the sport, we had no reverse at all) so a steering mistake on my part would be a very bad thing indeed.

Re:Performance

[tlhIngan]

There is an electric race car that puts out something like 830 HP and 2950 ft. lbs. of torque. I can't even imagine what that kind of power feels like behind the wheel. Electric cars are exciting to gearheads like me who enjoy performance driving. I can't wait until they become more affordable.

The well-known electric racing circuit is the Formula E which uses pure electric race cars. Now, they only last about 10 minutes before drivers have to pit and switch cars, but that just adds a bit more excitement to the mix (how fast you can egress and get in now becomes important, just like how long you spend at pit spots in regular auto racing).

Though, the other thing is just how quiet it is - yeah, I know modern race cars are actually getting a lot quieter to improve mileage (sound energy is wasted energy) and lengthen times between pit stops for refuelling.

Heck, a lot are starting to experiment with hybrid technology for the same reason - pit stops cost time, and if you can go just as fast but use less fuel, then you have a big advantage by skipping a 30-second pit stop (plus having to actually drive through pit row - there's a 60mph speed limit that's strictly enforced. There's a special button on the wheel for this where it limits the max speed to that).

Heck, Formula E has people driving in interesting ways - is it better to be slower and prolong your battery, or go quick and get a sufficient lead for the swap?

And given the low end torque, skill becomes important because wheels that' slip, while impressive, are wasted energy that could be better spent moving.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing that this the begining, not the end, of electric cars. You're comments may be true today, but I wonder how they will hold up in ten or even five years.

1. Sounds like a benefit to me... Though the streets will need to be improved for safety (though they should be anyway)

2. Transmission wouldn't be strictly necessary in cars, but there isn't a reason you couldn't have a geared electric car with a manual transmission. Moreover, with autos coming, it won't matter.

3. Now. That is changing, and Tesla is very much at the forefront of research into that problem.

4. Again, now.

5. This won't matter with autos coming.

6. Cost is a function of prevalence. As they become more common, prices will fall as mass production increases. Moreover, with rising price of gas, and new cheaper electric generation technologies (printable photo cells) the cost of ownership on an electric car will more than make up for any price price difference.

7. Again, with autos coming, that won't matter.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Drag Racers will need G suits its that intense.

Re:Performance

[laie_techie]

If your other race car is a 64 mustang or a corvette, range wasn't a concern in the first place.

I don't have a race car. I want a vehicle designed for real world conditions. My current car gets about 500 miles to the tank and fills up in 15-20 minutes when the tank's empty.

Re:Performance

[LongearedBat]

6: They are quiet.

Ironically, that'd probably be the one turn off for motorcyclists. Imagine a group of Hells Angels taking off on silent Harley's.

Re:Performance

[gmhowell]

A giant factor that you didn't expand on much is weight. That minimal weight goes a long way towards those times.

Re:Performance

[skaralic]

This is how electric will win. Performance. When I was in High-school I raced RC cars for fun, and I remembered by gear head friends giving me crap about working on "Toy cars" until I challenged one of them to a drag race, against his real, full sized muscle car, and won hands down. The torque from an electric motor is just monstrous. So much so, that I suspect if they continue to build electric sports cars, the gforce alone will become a safety issue. My drag car would pull 100amps off the starting line and could melt battery cables, and the thing only weighed 2lbs. It'd be doing the scale equivalent of over 1000mph when I got to the end of the track. Yes, yes, I know at full scale wind resistance is different and such, but still. I had a hunk of carbon fiber doing 100mph in a few feet for Christs sake.

The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.

Random video I found on youtube as a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yeah, but does it have... soul. :D

Seriously, I like the mechanical sound of a nice inline 6 or a V8 under the hood. I love the control of a manual transmission and clutch and how it engages the driver and makes him/her an essential part of the vehicle. Yes, dual-clutch autos are faster and electric cars are even faster but something is lost in the process and it's a shame. But, most people don't care about such things so electrics will be perfect for the masses just not for us "enthusiasts". Now get off my lawn!

Re:Performance

[turp182]

I can't YouTube from work, but there's a video shot in Alaska of a Traxxis road car going 100mph down a highway for a few miles.

It was this model:
http://traxxas.com/products/mo...

0 to 100mph in 5 seconds. I'm happy with my much slower (35mph) off roader by the same company. Awesome fun while camping.

Re:Performance

[Motard]

Ooops, that should've been 2001. The IRL ran they're first race there in 1997.

Re:Performance

[bmajik]

Bingo.

I would modify your statement a bit though - because different people want different things out of cars. I know Prius and Leaf owners that are already sold on electric vehicles. Those vehicles are insufferable yawn-inducers, so I'll never be interested... but plenty of people already are.

However, the Teslas (so far) are clearly drivers cars made for discerning buyers by real enthusiasts. I've taken a model S on a test drive and it was really magnificent.

Here is a selection of my current crop of cars:
Audi A4 Quattro, 6MT
88 BMW M5, 5MT
87 BMW 325is, 5MT, gutted race car

I've been a driving instructor with the BMW Car Club of America. I've done countless track days on multiple race tracks. I love fast cars and I love pushing them hard.

The Tesla model S is awesome. I took it for a nice test drive. It is easy to drive around town, and it accelerates, turns, and stops very well. It is comfortable and quiet. The acceleration is instant. It will make you smile every time you hit the throttle. The regenerative harvesting is great; you rarely have to use the brakes, but if you want to, the brake pedal has a good feel and the car stops in a hurry.

At less than autobahn speeds, it is as fast as an M5. It handles very well for a large sedan. It is quieter than a Mercedes. With the Model D's, it will also have AWD, like the best Audis.

After a short drive, I would say that the car is clearly head and shoulders above the other luxury sedans it competes against.

The model S has two downsides: range and price. It's a great car for 350 days out of the year. The other 15 days, you may want to take medium to long road trips. Then you'll have some difficulties - for now.

However, even there, the difference between its luxury sedan competitors isn't night and day. All of those cars I mentioned require premium fuel, and that can be very hard to find when on longer trips, especially in the mid west. So in fact you need to plan your trips anyhow to make sure that compatible fuel will be available along your route.

Re:Performance

[c6gunner]

The g-forces are enough that the drivers can't breath for half the lap. They're getting really close to the point where g forces are a problem.

That's interesting. Any idea why they're not using G-Suits yet? Seems like it would provide a significant advantage, assuming this is really as much of a problem as you say ...

Re:Performance

[Tough Love]

1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.

2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.

3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.

4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.

5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.

6: They are quiet.

7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)

8: No exhaust.

9: Wet dreams about the size of spotlight you can put on it

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd just make the noises with their mouths instead.

Re:Performance

[samwichse]

6g cornering? I know that's not right...

http://www.formula1.com/inside...
"A modern Formula One car is capable of developing 3.5 g lateral cornering force (three and a half times its own weight) thanks to aerodynamic downforce."

Re:Performance

[PRMan]

I've come to the conclusion that loud motorcycles are a safety thing.

Re:Performance

[painandgreed]

6: They are quiet.

Ironically, that'd probably be the one turn off for motorcyclists. Imagine a group of Hells Angels taking off on silent Harley's.

I can imagine a group of Hell's Angels taking off with stereos all blasting Ride of the Valkyries.

Re:Performance

[DocSavage64109]

Real drag racers already have to contend with getting detached retinas, and I don't think there's a solution yet.

Re:Performance

[akozakie]

Not surprising. Electricity is the silver bullet of the energy market - it scales, it has a lot of production options, it can power almost anything. It's the closest thing to "pure energy" you can get at the moment. Wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas... who cares - the reciever works just as well, and the engines are very good.

The one thing I really miss is a way to transform elctricity onto kinetic energy that scales into space. The one limit of current technology I find really annoying is that it takes so much chemical fuel to get to space. That means pollution, but more importantly that means weight. Find a way to get to orbit with nothing but electricity (in orbit we already have ion drives) and we're ready to go spaceborne on macro scale.

Of course that might be a bit optimistic, as I'm assuming that electrical energy storage will continue to develop at a high rate. I wonder where the limit for that is. If electricity remains difficult to store (in kg/J terms), it's a dead end.

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Momentum scales with the square of the velocity. Mass scales to the cube of linear scale. Talking scale numbers makes no real sense to someone who knows physics.

Re:Performance

[beelsebob]

G-suits are designed to push blood out of the legs, and to the brain. F1 cars almost never (and never when they're working right) accelerate in a direction where that's useful. G-suits do almost nothing useful against lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Only vertical.

Re:Performance

[beelsebob]

That would be because a modern F1 car is subject to significantly tighter rules than a 2-3 year old F1 car. The RedBull RB6 was measured to peak at 5.8g lateral acceleration.

Re:Performance

[Dahamma]

No, electric will NOT "win" (where win is become the predominant form of vehicle propulsion) with performance. Electric will be an awesome but tiny niche with performance.

Electric will win with price, utility, and reliability, just like all car models that "win" ie. are hugely popular (e.g. the Prius). Once electric cars start winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans, can be purchased for $30k and can get ~300 miles per charge and go cross country in a few days, I think absolutely they will win...

Re:Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing is that even in rural Texas [1], even the coal rollers think that Teslas are extremely useful

In the same way where a lot of them have probably fucked dudes in private and/or during their last prison stint, but in public they will still harass and slur gay people. Irony, indeed.

Re:Performance

[Dahamma]

There is definitely something about intuiting manual shifts (or blipping downshifts) by the sound of the engine alone or mastering the art of the shift/gas/brake/clutch on twisting roads with only two feet for the 3 pedals.

If you are *racing* (and VERY few people really actually do this) sure, it's all about speed and handling, who cares how you get it. But as you said for most auto "enthusiasts" it's about *driving*. Really, most of the fun is in the learning, same with many hobbies - if you just want to "be perfect", you can let a computer decide your next chess move, play the baseline on your keyboard, or shift for you. But what's the point?

Re:Performance

[Twinbee]

Do you have a reference for the coal rollers thinking this or are you going by your own experience? Be interested to hear more.

for this much money

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take a DB9.

Thank you verra verra much.

Re:for this much money

[Anonymous Coward]

and you will see the tesla leave you in the dust

Early adopters...

[MMC Monster]

Wouldn't say I'm an early adopter. I got mine in March. Still love it as much today as I did last week. Still an awesome car.

Did I wish I waited a year? Well, maybe just a little. But I'm sure a year from now the Model S will have even more features.

Perhaps the autopilot can be retrofitted into the currently on-the-road Model S. After all, the other upgrade over the last year have been available at a mild markup.

As for the dual motors, pretty much the same thing.

As an aside, I wonder how this is going to effect sales. I know a few people who have been hesitating as it wasn't an all wheel drive car. As it is, as of last week the wait list was still over two months.

Re:Early adopters...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an aside, I wonder how this is going to effect sales. I know a few people who have been hesitating as it wasn't an all wheel drive car. As it is, as of last week the wait list was still over two months.

I've grown tired of the AWD bandwagon as of late. I prefer the RWD version of my own car. AWD is nice in winter weather if you're too cheap to have proper winter tires but on most days on dry pavement it just doesn't drive as sportily and feels somewhat disconnected from the road.

Re: Early adopters...

[Anonymous Coward]

Certified pre-owns is where retrofits will come into play.

We are test driving x first and then making up mind.

Windbourne, moderating.

Roadster?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now the family sedan is how much faster than the sports car?

If you want to make it comparable to a McLaren F1, at least make it look like a sports car. That kind of performance isn't very interesting in a take your kids to school car.

Re:Roadster?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make the sports car driver feel really stupid when he gets passed by a mom driving 3 screaming kids to school.

Re:Roadster?

[Anonymous Coward]

the fastest car in the world is a v8 minivan with a mother beating her kids in the backseat, as she clearly doesn't care what happens to said van, runs red lights, and is general a menace on the road.

'vette still faster

[Anonymous Coward]

10 % faster

GM ruelz!

Meh

[the eric conspiracy]

The main reason I like nice cars is for going on roadtrips where I drive 400+ miles a day.

Can't do it in this car. Range is still too short.

Plus I bet that a couple of those 3.2 second starts makes the range quite a bit shorter.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a charging station, you drive for about 4-5 hours, pull in for a 30 minute lunch and let the car charge, drive another couple hours, have supper and charge, drive some more to your final destination and charge over night so you are ready to repeat the next day. 275+200+200 = 675 miles if you have a reasonable number of charging stations along your route.

Re:Meh

[oodaloop]

It's not a disposable car. It recharges.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It is great to see naysayers like you in this world. It keeps life interesting.

If we all thought this way, there would be 0 advancement toward social sciences and 100% advancement toward religious "sciences"

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a disposable car. It recharges.

A day has only 24 hours in it. Electric pieces of shit take too long to recharge.

Re:Meh

[HeckRuler]

My dad had this idea years ago. Why hitch up a trailer with a generator in it? I mean, I know the car would have to be made to accept a charge while it's turning the wheels, but that's the crux of the Volt which is an in-series hybrid.

Your around-town jumper then becomes a long-haul vehicle. Probably not as efficient or cheap as a purpose built tool, but it'll get you there.

So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a charging station, you drive for about 4-5 hours, pull in for a 30 minute lunch and let the car charge

30 minutes is not enough time to recharge.

Re:Meh

[Motard]

Or, you drive 4-5 hours, stop to charge/eat and find that there are no available charger spots. Now you may have to wait 30 minutes to charge for 30 minutes. And God forbid there's a line.

Re:Meh

[Jeremi]

So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?

It's not a bad idea, and the TZero had a trailer like that as an option.

I think it's not done more often because it's not that practical: in particular, dragging a heavy trailer around is awkward and reduces your car's range, and a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy. Factor in the additional cost, and most manufacturers figure the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.

Re:Meh

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, let's say you drive it hard so range is reduced to 200 miles. To cover your 400 mile trip you would need to charge once, possibly twice. At a Supercharger it takes 50 minutes, although they are boosting them up to 150kW so it will come down to 40 minutes in the next year.

You are making a day of it, so are you really saying you drive 400 miles without any kind of break? Many ICE cars can't drive that far on a single tank, especially if you drive them hard, so presumably you at least stop to fill up once or twice. I'm really struggling to see how supercharging isn't a solution.

Also, I hope I never meet you on the road. After 400 miles with no stopping your ability is going to be compromised.

Re:Meh

[NatasRevol]

Supercharger gives you 170 miles in 30 min.

Re:Meh

[HeckRuler]

reduces your car's range

I don't think you understand what this generator is doing. It extends the range of the car. The exact opposite of your complaint. You know how you have to worry about the range of your electric car? A generator removes that worry, because it turns the electric car into an in-series hybrid. You just have to plug it in. You have as much range as you want as long as you can find a gas station and have a few minutes to gas up.

heavy trailer

a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy.

Uh... a heavy trailer is the sort of thing you get from UHAUL. This thing would be about of small as you could make a trailer. Any smaller and you'd want it on a roof-rack, or like one of those bike-racks they have on the back of cars.
A generator "powerful enough" would probably be along the lines of... you know... a car engine. Like that little thing in a Prius. Because it's moving your car.

just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.

And that maximum is not going to satisfy the conspiracy of eric. A generator on a trailer appeases a swath of users that occasionally want to travel interstate distances.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great if there is a supercharger along your route. Until superchargers are as ubiquitous as McDonald's, your going to end up waiting more then 30 minutes for any road trip of appreciable distance.

Re: Meh

[NatasRevol]

Beside the point. It CAN be charged in 30 minutes.

Re:Meh

[_UnderTow_]

My BMW 330xi can get 475-500 highway miles out of tank when driven conservatively. By 'conservatively' I mean that I try to keep my speed as even as possible, minimal burst acceleration, coasting down hills, etc. I can get that 475+ mile range while maintaining 80mph. I drive from Seattle to San Francisco once or twice per year to visit family. I try to arrange things so I don't have to fuel up in Oregon (I'd rather pump the gas myself), and generally can make the entire 840 mile trip with one stop in under 12 hours.

With that said, I would trade my car for a Tesla with no hesitation. I would be willing to deal with the charging stations on long trips, or even just not visit my family. They are in-laws after all.

Re:Meh

[K. S. Kyosuke]

My dad had this idea years ago. Why hitch up a trailer with a generator in it? I mean, I know the car would have to be made to accept a charge while it's turning the wheels, but that's the crux of the Volt which is an in-series hybrid.

I was thinking of car trains. An engine in the front (large-van-sized?), a power bus connecting the vehicles in the train. Preferably fully automatic driving of the whole thing. After all, larger power generators are more efficient, and you get better aerodynamics out of it. All you'd need would be two standardized retractable arms back and front.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.

The Tesla Model S is the heaviest sedan on the road. The base model is 4700lbs and the P85D is over 5000. That's a medium-duty pickup truck.

Re:Meh

[Jeremi]

I don't think you understand what this generator is doing. It extends the range of the car. The exact opposite of your complaint.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course it extends the range when you're running the generator. The rest of the time, however, it reduces the range, because you're pulling additional weight and adding additional drag.

So yes, overall the range is extended, just not by as much as you might think -- and not, in most automaker's opinions, enough to make it worth the hassle.

Re:Meh

[the eric conspiracy]

You are assuming there are conveniently placed superchargers. The general rule is that there are not. Two of the routes I take most frequently only have superchargers near the destinations. Completely impractical.

For example there is only ONE supercharger in all of Canada.

Then there is the additional fact that even using a supercharger takes a significant amount of time.

The Tesla is great for commutes, but for road trips forget it.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plus I bet" - a bet you've already lost - "that a couple of those 3.2 sec starts" - maybe a couple hundred - "make the range quite a bit shorter" - you'll have to redefine "quite"

It was for chaps like you we invented teh Googleh, but you'd rather spew your comment and be wrong than factcheck 1st and be silent.

Here's some info from over 1 yr ago - http://insideevs.com/drag-time...

Since you're as likely to read that link as you were ready to check your hypothesis first, I'll give you the short version. The P85 Model S burns about 1.1 kWh when doing a flat-out 1/4 MILE from a standing start BUT recaptures about 0.6 kWh through regen braking as it comes to a stop. This new P85D is about 5% heavier and would use a bit more energy but for just 0-60 mph, it's not going to be much for either car.

You're going to have a MUCH bigger impact on the tires than on range if you try to make every start into a 0-60 sprint.

Re:Meh

[HeckRuler]

. . . It's a trailer. The rest of the time you unhitch it and leave it somewhere. That's kind of the point.

Prices

[damn_registrars]

This really should have been included in the summary:

Each of the three versions of the Model S will come as a D model. The price of the 60kWh battery model will go from $71,070 to $75,070 for the dual motor system. The 85 kWh car goes from $81,070 to $85,070, and the P85 jumps from $105,570 to $120,170.

No indication in this article if you can get the adaptive cruise control and other fun high-tech add-ons that come with the "D" (dual motor) version without paying for the D upgrade.

Re:Prices

[timeOday]

The answer is yes:

Tesla's electric Model S has proven a very technically advanced car, except in regards to driver assistance systems. All that changes now, as Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced at an event in Los Angeles that every car manufactured over the last two weeks comes with new sensor hardware to enable what he calls Autopilot capabilities.

The event on Thursday night also included an announcement about the D option, an all-wheel-drive Model S with motors at the front and rear wheels.

The Autopilot hardware includes forward-looking radar and camera, combined with all-around long-range ultrasonic sensors. A software update being sent out to cars as an over-the-air update will enable driver assistance features such as adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist and automated parking.

Re: Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, autopilot features are independent of the dual motor option. Active safety is now standard (thanks, Europe!) and the self-driving bits are part of the tech package.

Re:Prices

[PRMan]

Hopefully, you can set it to some % OVER the speed limit. Driving at the speed limit in Southern California will get you killed.

73% tax return

[hooiberg]

And because it is an electric car, we get 73% of the purchase price back here (Netherlands), because of tax related stuff. So this car effectively costs a quarter of the listed price. Not bad.

Re:73% tax return

[hackertourist]

First, it's not a return, and second, how do you arrive at 73%?

You pay no BPM. This is a tax on cars, which used to be 20-30% of the before-tax purchase price, now it's calculated based on a car's CO2 emissions, you pay something like â70 per gram of CO2. For typical cars, this still adds up to 20-30% of the purchase price.

Re:73% tax return

[hooiberg]

Heard it from a tax advisor who knows all the loop holes in the system. You have to pay them for advice, but it is usually worth it.

Re:73% tax return

[sdguero]

It must cost a lot of tax dollars to give Tesla owners so much money back...

Re:73% tax return

[hooiberg]

Tax Euros in this case, but in essence the same thing.

seriously?

[Chirs]

That's crazy. I would have expected a cap on how much of a rebate you can get.

"It's like taking off from a carrier deck"

[Anonymous Coward]

New Tesla: 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds
Aircraft carrier catapult: 0-165 mph in 2.0 seconds

It is not like taking off from a carrier deck.

Re:"It's like taking off from a carrier deck"

[Anonymous Coward]

For the non-naval aviator, it's about as close as they're going to get.

D is for Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe D in the model name is associated with Diesel engines :-)

Re:D is for Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

And diesel engines are associated with lots of low-RPM torque so the Euro drivers won't be disappointed.

Re:capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, assuming 125,000 mi warranty. Back of the envelope shows gas at $20k, and electric at $18k (assuming a very generous battery replacement). What we really need (for most cities) is an insurance exempt, $1000 throw-away vehicle with a range of 50 miles. Unfortunately, Socialism is misunderstood and misapplied.

the event

[fredan]

where can I watch the hole event and not just some clips?

Re:the event

[Motard]

where can I watch the hole event and not just some clips?

I dunno, try searching for 'courtney love' on Youtube.

Re:the event

[judoguy]

PornoTube

Re:the event

[taiwanjohn]

Found this video on YouTube...

Smaller, Tesla, smaller!

[DogDude]

I'd buy one in a heartbeat if they made a model that wasn't so damn big.

Re:Smaller, Tesla, smaller!

[Solandri]

They're limited by the weight of the battery pack. The 85 kWh battery pack weighs about 1200 pounds. A typical 3.0 liter V6 found in competing cars about 400 pounds. Even if you add in transmission, fuel, and drivetrain, the Tesla's propulsion system weighs about twice as much as an ICE car's (the Tesla S weighs 4600 lbs - more than a mid-size SUV).

Making the car bigger allows that propulsion weight to be a smaller fraction of the total. If you make the car smaller, you're basically giving up passenger and cargo capacity without much weight savings.

Re:Smaller, Tesla, smaller!

[R3d M3rcury]

Maybe something in a Roadster?

BREAKING NEWS!

[alex67500]

Elon Musk solves the ubiquity problem!

Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[Jeremi]

Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.

The Model 3 (nee model E) will only only be cheap if Tesla can get cheap batteries to power it. Tesla's plan for getting cheap batteries is to produce them at huge scale in their GigaFactory (tm). Therefore, don't hold your breath for cheap Teslas until after the GigaFactory (tm) is complete and functioning.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[randallman]

How do you think the model 3 development is funded? This IS the business model. Make expensive cars to raise money for the development of (lower margin) affordable cars. Also, this doesn't inhibit the model 3's development. It's not like they have to do one thing at a time.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it worked for Apple.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[LessThanObvious]

Anyone have data on global lithium supply? It's cheap now, but I have to wonder, if we started making millions of electric vehicles would the supply be there to sustain it for years to come at a reasonable price.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[mea_culpa]

I suspect that this may be one of the real reasons there was a war in Afghanistan.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[LessThanObvious]

I found some info on it. BU-1205: Availability of Lithium http://batteryuniversity.com/l...

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed but this is still about getting mindshare. Win over the petrolheads and most of the dissenting voices go away, leading to more widespread acceptance and adoption. Win the mindshare while capability is still being built.

Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, everyone, check out the random Slashdotter who understands Tesla's financial and infrastructural situation better than they do!

25k. 200+ miles. Wireless charging.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Joe Average consumer. I'm looking for 3 things before I buy a new car.

1. Does the new car make me have to go to a filling station? If yes, I'm not interested in the car.
2. Is the price around 25k?
3. Is the range over 200 miles?
4. Does it have wireless charging so I can just pull into my garage and forget about it.

Ok, that's 4 things. I don't need to mention Joe Average consumer isn't good at math.

Re:25k. 200+ miles. Wireless charging.

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Average is a moron.

1. This is not a requirement except for you. All the ICE cars have this issue, humanity has somehow managed to cope. However, sure, install a supercharger at home, knock yourself out.
2. The median price for a new vehicle in the US is $32k (2013) -- get a better job.
3. Yes.
4 . Again, this is up to you whether you want to install something like that, it would probably cost more than the car if you wanted to charge in any reasonable amount of time. You may also have to wait ten years; kilowatt-level wireless chargers are still part of the future (i.e. here but not widely distributed).

Re: 0-60 time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Model s holds 7, is considered safest car ever built, outperforms crap like Audi and BMW, is cheaper to buy and run.
 
kock bros. Ask that you wipe you chin before moving from one to the other. In addition, put a pillow behind your head since you obviously have had you brain fucked out if your head by kocks slamming your head into the wall.

Re:0-60 time...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Audi S8 does 0-60 in 3.4

source ?

Just make an SUV with Dad mode

[supabeast!]

“Safety features have also been enhanced, adding "adaptive cruise control and the ability to read speed limit signs, stop itself if a crash is imminent, stay in its lane, and even park itself in a street spot or in your garage."”

I need that right now in a two ton all-wheel drive SUV so I can drive sanely while yelling at my kids in the back seat. Please Elon, hurry up and take my money!

0.85G Average Acceleration

[randallman]

60 mph is 26.8224 meters per second. At 3.2 seconds, that's 8.382 mps2 / gravity (9.8 mps2) = 0.85G. I'll bet it's even higher off the line.

Used Model S

[j2.718ff]

When Tesla recently announced their certified used program, people were asking, "What would someone trading in a Model S buy? Another Model S?" Now we have an answer to that question.

Diesel?

[skaralic]

D is for diesel?! What? Oh...

73% tax return

[Anonymous Coward]

And because it is an electric car, we get 73% of the purchase price back here (Netherlands), because of tax related stuff. So this car effectively costs a quarter of the listed price. Not bad.

Why are you still here?

Super-Cereal !

[Anonymous Coward]

My sentiments exactly.

In other news, Ferrari's are on sale. Buy two and get a third absolutely free ! :|

The Tesla is a nice niche car for the folks who have more money than they know what to do with. It can be the most amazing car on this PLANET, but until you get the price and capability ( read that: Distance between refueling ) down to a level where it becomes a realistic competitor against its fossil fuel counterparts, don't bother trying to convince me of how amazing it is.

There is no chance I would consider spending ~$1k + per month on a vehicle. Any vehicle. Fossil fueled, electric or friggin Fusion Drive. EVER.
( Disclaimer: Is why my house is paid for, vehicles are paid for ( paid cash, 2010+ models ) and I have zero debt of any kind. My goal is retirement at 55, not driving some overpriced status symbol. )

I have to shake my head and laugh at the car commercials that show their model ( convertible of course ) flying down some lonely, winding road devoid of any and all traffic, potholes, police, construction and school zones.

They never show the reality of sitting in your super high $$$$ vehicle, paying equally high $$$$ premiums for insurance on the interstate in grid-locked traffic blazing a trail at a whopping 20mph. Or making the State Troopers entire day as you blow by his hiding spot doing twice the posted limit. It's like having a fighter jet, but being limited to taxiing up and down the runway only :| Weeeeee !

When Tesla eventually realizes the masses really can't afford their cars, maybe they'll come down to a realistic level . . . . maybe. The fun part is, they have to realize this before they go bankrupt :D

Re:capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehic

[PRMan]

250 miles is completely reasonable for an electric car. With most of them getting 100 miles or less, that is astounding. And most gas cars get 350-400, so it's well over half of that but there is the rare gas guzzler which only gets 250 miles in range.

Autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, hypothetically, if a car could autonomously take a passenger 275 miles in less than 15 seconds and recharge in a few times longer than that (say one minute), you would still find a way to complain about it, wouldn't you?

Three motors

[MichaelSmith]

I had the impression the Model S has two motors between the rear wheels, one for each wheel.

Re:Three motors

[WaxParadigm]

I had the impression the Model S has two motors between the rear wheels, one for each wheel.

Nope, one in the back, some kind of differential so the two sides are not locked together. Under decent acceleration while turning you can tell they're not torque-vectored optimally (most power to outside). It's unfortunate. For the price I had assumed Model-Ss were AWD with 4 motors and logic to torque-vector nicely (like Acura's SH-AWD does in the rear). Guess we have to wait for the F (for Four-motors) variant.

Re:Three motors

[haruchai]

I'm guessing they would call that the Model Q (Quad-motor) instead of Model F.

at $120K - I'll pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, buy that $120K Tesla model D

Re:capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehic

[mea_culpa]

A good EV like the Tesla with a >500 mile range requires a Li-Unobtainium battery.

I'll take a >200 mile range EV over a gasoline powered car no matter the range and not complain one bit.

you mean quad motors

[Anonymous Coward]

the Model S already has two on a common shaft at the rear. They probably mirrored this and moved it up front.

$125K for a P85D

[Anonymous Coward]

Or $19,000 for a Nissan Altima with $106,000 left over for fuel, or a house, or to send my kid to college.

I think I'll keep my Altima.

What I'd like

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like is a separate motor for the left and right wheels so that they can turn in opposite directions, thus allowing your car to rotate on the spot. Also, if the wheels could rotate 90 degrees in opposite directions then you could drive sideways.

Re:0-60 time...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.zeroto60times.com/A... says 5.0-5.8s, but that totally feels like 3.4 seconds after you realize you paid $114k (starting price) for it instead of getting a P85 for $105k (starting).

You saw what he did there.

[Zynder]

It wasn't supposed to be funny. It was a troll in funny clothing. It is an obvious stab at the fact electric cars supposedly have a shitty range. This guy evidently hates electric vehicles or is just tired of /. Tesla stories. Don't feel bad at all. You had it right the first time!

Re:0-60 time...

[Anonymous Coward]

DorkTwat, your fantasy S8 doesn't exist in this universe.

2012 Audi S8 ( from http://www.topspeed.com/cars/a... ) 0-60 in 4.2 sec ( about the same as the non-dual Model S P85 )

2013 Audi S8 ( from http://www.caranddriver.com/re... )

zero to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, needs just 8.5 seconds to reach 100, and tricks through the quarter-mile in 11.9 seconds at 118 mph. Never mind that the S8 is a 4620-pound car that comfortably seats five

A Model S weighs as much or more and also seats 5 comfortably.

The reviews I've seen for the 2014 S8 puts its 0-60 at 3.9s so it may have gotten SLOWER.

What's a car payment?

[vandamme]

I've always saved until I could pay cash. My first car cost $75, lasted 3 years, sold for $75. My last was $12K, 1 year old Caliber, wife loves it.

Elon, get back to me when your cars are reasonably priced.

autonomy to cars is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if its next gee-wiz thing from Tesla, i generally like Mosk. I rather not see people who drive get super lazy as drivers. Their suppose to be driving, not reading a book or playing on their phones while the car is in their control/charge or their suppose to be responsible for driving the thing.

Less you drive, less good your at driving. Bad news.