Tesla Model S Floats Well Enough To Act As a Boat, According To Elon Musk

It appears a Tesla Model S car can float and effectively drive on water. Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a video of a Model S car which was able to float well through a flooded tunnel in Kazakhstan. Musk also noted that the company "definitely" doesn't recommend trying this -- but still vouched for the availability of this feature. The Guardian reports: The car appears to power through the water using the thrust of the wheels turning in the water, as the bow wave laps over the car's bonnet. Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof. Electric cars don't suffer from that particular issue, but how the rest of the car will react is unknown.

Comments

the only thing left

[mwfischer]

is for it to fly

Re:the only thing left

[Anonymous Coward]

on Mars.

Re:the only thing left

[Rei]

It actually has enough power to, versus its weight, if one were to retrofit the drivetrain to turn a prop and affix some reasonably efficient wings and flight surfaces. A typical Cessna weighs a bit over a tonne and has an engine in the ballpark of 120kW or so. Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.

Heck, you could probably fly one with just a big parasail for lift - the L/D ratio of 4-5 is probably good enough, at least for the mid-range versions and possibly the low-end as well. You just need to find a good way to get that motor power going to one or more props.

Re:the only thing left

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good lord, don't give them ideas. Now my model 3 is going to be delayed while they work out the kinks in the flight systems and autopilot.

I blame you.

Re:the only thing left

[Anonymous Coward]

is for it to fly

I suppose submarine is out of the question. At least with TFS...

Re:the only thing left

[Aviation Pete]

Wow, eve the aircraft knowledge here is bad!

While your Cessna needs to run its engine on a substantial fraction of its rated power (typically 60% or more), any decent car will only need low double digit kW to cruise. Comparing the rated power is utterly misleading, and your Tesla aircraft would drain its batteries and overheat the motor within minutes.

Re:the only thing left

[randallman]

Awesome! Thank you!

Re:the only thing left

[ceoyoyo]

And yet the OP is correct, it could fly, under it's own power. Perhaps just not for very long. Or add bigger, more efficient wings, fly slower, and you can get the required power down almost as low as you care to go. It's not like he proposed turning it into a helicopter.

Re: the only thing left

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll trust the guy with aviation in his name over you sorry.

And the winner is...Aviation Pete.

Re:the only thing left

[Rei]

Try again. The figures I cited are for sustained power on the Model S. The peak power ratings are even higher. For example, the fastest model has a 375kW motor in the front and a 193kW motor in the back, but a maximum sustained power of 397kW, because that's all the battery pack supports. And the battery packs are 60-85kWh, so no, that's not going to just drain in an instant.

Using the Cessna as an example and your figure of 60% and doubled power requirements for the increased weight, we get a power requirement of 144kW for cruising (only 36% of maximum power), which on the 85kW pack is over 35 minutes. Now, of course, you'd be running at full power during takeoff and climb, reduced power on descent, but regardless, your claim of the battery being rapidly drained does not stand up unless by "minutes" you mean "over half an hour". At Cessna-typical speeds that would be a range of about 125km.

Re:the only thing left

[Gussington]

Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.

Yeah, there's bit more to it than that. A Cessna can run at 80% power for hours on end. Good luck doing that with a Telsa.

Re:the only thing left

[rpstrong]

Haven't we put that 'range anxiety' to rest?

Most flights are quite short and a network/fleet of supercharger aircraft (perhaps recycled airliners) will allow for longer trips.

Re:the only thing left

[Coren22]

To be fair, hours are made of minutes...so technically you could say that something drains in minutes if it takes 24 hours to drain.

Re:the only thing left

[Rei]

Never said you'd be making cross-country trips in the thing ;) But short flights, up to half an hour or so? Yeah, it has enough power and battery capacity for that.

Not quite.

[Type44Q]

have big exhaust scoops

Don't you mean "intake snorkel?"

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

You say suck, I say blow ...

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they were thinking this was the point of stacks? Still.. exhaust "scoops"... lol. Going to have to file that one next to blinker fluid and muffler bearings.

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a description courtesy of The Guardian, a UK news firm. In the UK everything works backward; cars drive on the left, exhausts provide air for the engine, and healthcare is free

Re:Not quite.

[fabioalcor]

have big exhaust scoops

Don't you mean "intake snorkel?"

Whatever floats your Tesla.

Re:Not quite.

[GameboyRMH]

Came here to say this. Intake snorkels are common, I've never seen an "exhaust scoop" (or any kind of raised exhaust on an actual offroad truck, vs. a coal-rolling bro-dozer) and they aren't necessary - a turndown at the exhaust tip will keep the exhaust from flooding under light submersion, and if you go deep, just stay on the gas and the exhaust flow will keep the water out.

Re:Not quite.

[amicusNYCL]

No, he's referring to the AK that comes off the Glock.

Re:Not quite.

[Matheus]

Here's a fine read... yes there are both and yes sometimes the exhaust side is useful.

Great Vietnam era story on page 2 as well.

http://forums.off-road.com/jee...

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proper all terrain vehicles (read military) have raised exhausts exactly so you do not need to stay on the gas in deep water.

Re:Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts me to think I read such a gross misunderstanding of how a basic car engine works on Slashdot.

fucking exhaust scoops... so dumb

Re: Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The raised exhaust is so they don't set fire to long dry grass.

Re:Not quite.

[Gussington]

Came here to say this. Intake snorkels are common, I've never seen an "exhaust scoop"

Same. Makes me wonder at the intelligence of the submission/editorial process to have such ignorance on the front page.

Re:Not quite.

[Coren22]

Is that like the AR-15 Assault rifle that was recently used in Orlando?

Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all fun and games until water gets into the batteries, then BOOM!!

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can't extinguish a Lithium fire. You just have to wait until it burns out on its own.

Re:Batteries

[Rei]

1) The battery pack is water-sealed, just like with hybrids.
2) The individual cells are isolated from each other (they actually do failure propagation testing)

Re:Batteries

[cellocgw]

And you can't extinguish a Lithium fire. You just have to wait until it burns out on its own.

What utter nonsense. Lithium is not burning via some Li + Li --> Li_2 reaction in the absence of other elements. Remove the source of molecules (e.g. water) that lithium's combining with and the fire stops.

Re:Batteries

[necro81]

Electronics in automotive environments tend to be very well sealed, because they are exposed to all kinds of crap. Rain is the least of it: snow, salt, sand, mud, marine air, gasoline, motor oil, washer fluid - all of these would utterly destroy electronics if they were not well protected against it. The electronics enclosures, cabling, and connectors used in automobilies are typically rated to IP55 at least, and typically are IP67. Once you have sealed it well enough to keep out all the crap you'd encounter on the road, you get protection against temporary submersion more or less for free.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

You can extinguish any fire by dousing it in halon or other similar refrigerants. They're highly reactive with oxygen, but not exothermically. They basically "strip" oxygen out of the air by being the easiest substance for oxygen to bond with, to the detriment of anything else attempting to bond with oxygen in that area (like fuel in a fire or the hemoglobin flowing through the thin membrane capillaries in your alveoli).

Not even lithium fires are immune to asphyxiation.

Re:Batteries

[jimbolauski]

Sounds like you are volunteering to suck the water off the lithium batteries when the first idiot takes his Tesla boating.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can. The stuff is called "Lith-X", and we were trained in its use. Lith-X was applied by the bucket load. For very small fires, like foils, something that resembled a salt shaker was used.
Of only minor interest here: we were working with Lithium-6...

Re: Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so easy to do underwater...

Re:Batteries

[NatasRevol]

Well, clearly not the first, but whatever.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

You can not extinguish a fire consisting of potassium nitrate, sulfur and carbon. It has its own oxygen. Also, you can not extinguish a diflurione dichlodride fire, as it simply doesn't use oxygen.

How you gonna extinguish something that burns sand, smart guy?

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

And these exist in the tesla where? Relevance? None to the conversation at hand. Congratulations on being an idiot.

Re:Batteries

[legRoom]

What utter nonsense. Lithium is not burning via some Li + Li --> Li_2 reaction in the absence of other elements.

That is true, but in the case of Lithium batteries the required oxidizer is an essential component of the battery itself. No outside chemical input is required for the battery to burn or explode; the military has investigated the use of lithium batteries as improvised grenades.

The problem with water ingress would not necessarily be that it serves as a concentrated oxidizer, but rather that it may short out the batteries, causing sufficient local heating to trigger a self-sustaining chain reaction within the batteries themselves.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're going to remove water from a car that's... under water?

Please review your posts carefully before posting. Thank you.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in my old (early 2000sor so) Renault Clio they weren't.

Re:Batteries

[TangoMargarine]

They make fire extinguishers for metallic/chemical fires. Just because you can't put it out with water doesn't mean it's somehow invincible.

Re:Batteries

[michelcolman]

Actually, recommended procedure for extinguishing burning lithium batteries in electronic devices is submerging them in water. When they are already burning, short circuits are no longer a problem. Heat is. So you need to cool them down as quickly as possible to stop the chain reaction.

Airplane cabin crews have special bags for electronic equipment fires, they fill the bag with water (or soda) and put the equipment into the bag.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Sure you can, it's just not easy or practical in most cases.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Liquid helium.

Also, I rather suspect you meant "chlorine trifluoride", not F2Cl2. It's also much scarier than just burning sand; it burns glass and Teflon too.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

While many electronics enclosures inside a car can meet IP55 (protection against dust intrusion and the occasional water jet) most of the stuff there is not IP67 (dust-tight and short-term submersion.) To meet that there would need to be actual gaskets on the fuse boxes and such with the covers held closed by screws around the perimeter rather than just some plastic clips.

Re:Batteries

[lgw]

Chlorine trifluoride is an amazingly scary compound. Worse than FOOF. It burns asbestos. It burns water. It burns firebricks. It burns "safety equipment, test equipment, and researchers". It emits HF as its combustion byproduct (and an HF leak will clear any lab).

When spilled, there's nothing you can do. Fortunately, it will simply eat its way down towards the center of the Earth through anything it its path until it's exhausted, so spills stay within their initial footprint.

Re: Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a Nissan Leaf. The engine, drivetrain and power electronics are inside one ip67-sealed unit where a combustion car engine sits. After one year of daily use, the outside of this unit has acquired... a thin layer of dry dust.
No oil and no heat makes a huge difference.

Re:Batteries

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Yep, it burns pretty much anything that can, in theory, burn. Scary stuff.

Re: Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait. In our case, we assume the Tesla is underwater. So where did the fire come from in the first place? How do you start an electronic fire underwater?

Makes sense

[NotDrWho]

Teslas have been floating on government subsidies for years.

Re:Makes sense

[bravecanadian]

Teslas have been floating on government subsidies for years.

Impossible. Elon is a visionary business genius. Everyone in the media tells me so.

Re:Makes sense

[Rakshasa Taisab]

What subsidies?

Re:Makes sense

[DanDD]

aww, sour grapes much?

"...Bush signs bill which grants the Volt a $7,500 tax credit...The entire 10-year tax package for plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles is worth $1 billion. " Back in 2008 I believe...

GM lost the will, culture, and now the competency to innovate. Keep holding on to the past though. You'll look great driving around in your Chevy Dolt.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that are a lot smaller than the ones given to GM, Chrysler, and Ford. How dare they be such leeches on the government money that could go to other leeches!

Re:Makes sense

[CrimsonAvenger]

Apparently, the tax credits given to Tesla's customers for buying electric cars now count as subsidies for Tesla.

Re:Makes sense

[Tom]

Unlike GM, which got a massive bailout, or VW which is partially owned by the (german) government, or virtually any other big car company who all get this or that benefit package.

You are right. Those are not subsidies. At least not by name.

Re:Makes sense

[Nethemas the Great]

Perhaps they're similar to the ones that float the deep water oil rigs.

Re:Makes sense

[SvnLyrBrto]

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some. And it never broke down. The only maintenance I did were the scheduled services recommended in the manual, and replacement of consumables like tires and brake pads. The same can definitely not be said of the Ford or Chrysler. For that matter, I could have gotten a few more years out of the Subaru. But it was due for a new set of brakes plus a timing belt & water pump. The cost of that was more than the value of the car. And I'm more of a city than outdoors person these days, so the mileage penalty of all-wheel drive doesn't make sense anymore.

My rule now is that to even be worth consideration, the VIN must start with the letter "J". Anything else is a non-starter.

Re:Makes sense

[Paleolibertarian]

And your point would be? A tax credit IS a subsidy in that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay it to the government and in some cases may even get a refund!

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

TBH every manufacturer gets that particular subsidy for electric cars. It's only available for the first 200,000 electric cars sold and then is phased out. Toyota already maxed it out and I suspect Nissan and Chevy have as well.

I do remember Obama having some green energy initiatives 6 years ago or so that might have been used to start telsa and solar city though.. but I don't remember any specifics to look up.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Poison emitting cars have been floating on government subsidies for a century.

Re:Makes sense

[cbiltcliffe]

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some.

So, 14 years.....divided by two cars = 7 years per car.....twice over = 3.5 years per car....."and then some."
So you only got 3 years each out of two American cars? What'd you do? Run them into an overpass abutment when you were driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning?
I've never had an American car last less than 14 years. And this is in Canada, where they're exposed to all sorts of cold weather related crap: salt, sand, freezing cold starts for 4 months of the year, etc.
You do realize you need to actually change the engine oil on schedule, right?

Re:Makes sense

[barc0001]

Obviously you're not buying Fords then. 2 of mine were Fords and they were terrible. And after I bought a Hyundai a friend of mine had a 2001 Focus which seemed like an all right car. Then he drove it over to my place one day and couldn't get it started. Turned out it was this problem:

http://www.fordproblems.com/trends/key-stuck-ignition/

And funny you mention Canada... he had it towed to the dealer and since we're in Canada apparently Ford USA was covering those replacements under warranty, but Ford Canada was not. $1000+ later, now his car would let the key turn.

Screw. Ford.

And then there's the 2009 Chrysler Town and Country my sister and her husband eventually had to force the dealer to take back through the lemon law after replacing the nav system 3 times, having the van randomly activate the alarm for 20 minutes at a time, and fail to start a few times for good measure.

Screw. Chrysler.

Haven't had direct experience with GM, but have heard enough from friends to steer clear unless you want a truck. It's no coincidence that nobody in my immediate family owns a North American car any longer. Even my dad who had a 40+ year string of NA vehicles as company cars, first car he bought after he retired was an Acura.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who have bought and are in line to buy one of Tesla's cars are conspicuous consumers of luxury goods, and I'd be further willing to bet Tesla would still have very long waiting lists regardless of any government subsidies based solely on how cool or controversial people think Tesla's cars are right now.

Re: Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had new American cars last only a few months. Sure they were covered by warranty but after the 3rd or 4th time replacing the same parts and taking the towtruck home it's time for the scrap heap.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing the math places his US cars in the early-1990's vintage at the latest. Depending on the length of the "and then some" and how long it's been since he last changed cars they could be 1980's models, especially if any of these cars were bought used. And US-built cars from the 1980's truly were rubbish. Chrysler still is rubbish, but they were extraordinary rubbish in the 1980's. Ford has always been better than Chrysler, but didn't start to become decent until the very late 1990's and into the 2000's. And they're still no Honda or Toyota.

Re:Makes sense

[N3wsByt3]

But it's not specially for Tesla, nor is it Tesla's fault the government subsidizes it. It's the governments' fault. And in a democracy where the government is chosen, it is, thus, the citizens' fault. Basically: it's your fault. ;-)

Well, ok, I'm sure you voted for the good guys who never give out subsidies, but still...

Point being, the parent poster was specifically calling out Tesla, and thus implied they were getting some sort of unfair and unethical advantage. But it's not limited to Tesla, and it's debatable whether it's unethical. If the government gave you a taxbreak so you'd only have to pay half your taxes, would you refuse because you thought it unfair? I very much doubt it. I know I wouldn't.

So... is it necessary and a good thing the government masively subsidises stuff like electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc. Hell no. It costs loads of money and often just keeps non-profitable companies afloat with taxpayers' money. Not saying it's always the case, and maybe Tesla would survive without the subsidies, but that's what it boils down to most of the time.

However, the ones to blame is the government allowing, nay, stimulating such squander. NOT the companies who just make use of the money that is thrown at them.

In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one. I mean, if you're rich enough to buy one in the first place, and they want one, they will buy one, regardless of whether they get a 3000 euro reduction. This is just an added bonus to the rich, which don't really need them. so the theory that it's need to 'stimulate' innovative technologies so they break through on the market, is basically bull. It doesn't really help, and it costs the populace dearly anyway.

When an electric car will go down to 15-20000 euro, and becomes viable for ordinary citizens, THEN it would matter in deciding to buy one or not. But at that time, they'll undoubtedly stop giving subsidies, as they always do. Because it's beginning to cost too much, and the rich elite (many of whom are the same politicians that voted for the subsidies in the first place) has already got one anyway. Of course, the official explanation by then is that 'the goal has been achieved' and thus no more subsidies are necessary.

It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich. There are very few technologies that have inherent advantages, and yet that need heavy subsidies to stay afloat, certainly for longer than a few years. After that, it just becomes a monetary black hole where you pour in taxpayers' money endlessly, so a company which isn't competitive stays afloat while we're paying for it - often doubly so.

It's a distortion of the free market, and I believe the disadvantages of such a system are far bigger than the occasional advantage of having a new technology that might or might not have broken through without it, for the simple reason that most WOULD have broken through eventually anyway, if they're really that good and better than old technology.

Re:Makes sense

[N3wsByt3]

They are not subsidies strictly spoken, but I guess one could call it financial advantages, though. That said, it's not specifically for Tesla, and it's not Tesla that is asking for it; it's just the government that is doing it. So one can hardly blame Tesla for it.

Re:Makes sense

[Enigma2175]

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some. And it never broke down. The only maintenance I did were the scheduled services recommended in the manual, and replacement of consumables like tires and brake pads. The same can definitely not be said of the Ford or Chrysler. For that matter, I could have gotten a few more years out of the Subaru. But it was due for a new set of brakes plus a timing belt & water pump. The cost of that was more than the value of the car. And I'm more of a city than outdoors person these days, so the mileage penalty of all-wheel drive doesn't make sense anymore.

My rule now is that to even be worth consideration, the VIN must start with the letter "J". Anything else is a non-starter.

Yeah, it would be impossible for a Subaru to have a problem, like "Subaru is recalling 48,500 Legacy and Outback models for total steering failure" . So maybe your anecdotal experience is not the same as data! Funny that you would claim your Subaru is more reliable that Ford, as the data from this dependability study says that Ford beats Subaru in dependability. Neither are stellar, but the data certainly doesn't back up your experience.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

So that was the goal of the recent Rolls Royce autonomous concept vehicle. It had a sea-worthy interior, which might also used to sail across the thunder of parliament.

Re:Makes sense

[roman_mir]

Well, apparently the money not collected in extra 'carbon taxes' from oil buyers that oil producers would have to collect are somehow a subsidy to those very oil producers, so ....

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

My first American ride I bought in 1998 is still with me, as it is useful as a secondary vehicle. Other than batteries, spark plugs, and other consumables like tires and brake pads, I've had zero problems with it. My current ride is the same way... only trouble I've had was having to replace the little switch that noted if the parking brake pedal was up all the way.

Japanese cars are good, but American cars are not the shit they used to be, and are on par with everyone else these days.

Plus, it is sort of ironic here in the US about people whining about jobs going overseas, all the while buying import cars.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, the tax credits given to Tesla's customers for buying electric cars now count as subsidies for Tesla.

But... it is. A subsidy alters price perception to the customer, by driving down the comparable price it increases sales to the seller.

I mean, this is like chapter 5 in every Intro to Microeconomics course.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The first production level car was invented in 1884. Cars are not electric because internal combustion engines have always had (and quite frankly still do) greater power density and far greater flexibility in terms of range.

Tesla cannot be claimed to have the ability to innovate unless they turn a profit and are a sustainable company. They have yet to prove that's possible and to be honest that question is still up in the air.

Re:Makes sense

[ceoyoyo]

Kind of like the tax credits you get for giving money to charity?

That is pretty much a subsidy. It just gives the individual taxpayer the choice about who specifically gets the subsidy.

Note that I think Tesla has done a good job of using those "subsidies" exactly as they were intended: to develop the technology and infrastructure to make modern electric cars more practical.

Re:Makes sense

[randallman]

While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.

So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one.

Not true. Rich people become and stay rich by (among other things) saving money, and saving 3000 euro is still money. And there is a satisfaction in getting a deal that drives sales too.

As a more commonplace and relatable example, how many people have been tempted to buy a 1000 euro computer because of a 100 euro coupon, or to go to a 20 euro dinner because of a 10% discount coupon. In all examples the person almost certainly could have paid full price, but something about getting a discount makes it easier to say yes.

It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich.

Are you really challenging Slashdot to come up with examples where a superior technology failed despite being superior due to "better marketing," "dirty tricks," or just plain inertia? I'm sure others can think of numerous other better examples, but off the top of my head there are potentially:
-VHS/Betamax
-HD-DVD/Bluray
-Windows/other OSs
-iPhone/Android/other

I'm sure if you thought about it long enough you'd think of at least some examples over the years where you were disappointed that an "inferior" product or service won out in the end.

Re:Makes sense

[fnj]

The guy you're responding to thinks replacing brakes, timing belt, and water pump is too much of investment based on some utterly irrelevant measure of how much the car is "worth". He is obviously intellectually incapable of rational thought.

Re:Makes sense

[N3wsByt3]

But the point I made was that would happen with or without the 3000 euro bonus one gets for a Tesla. Thus, that the adoption of Tesla's (or electric cars in general) is not particularly stimulated by such a thing, n is merely a bonus to the rich, and by the time it would become a stimulance to buy one or not (for people where 3000 euro actually matter in buying it or not), the subsidies are always cut.

If your devils-advocate-theory would be right, it wouldn't get cut, because you still have all the advantages you proclaim, only massively more so. So it's highly doubtful these kind of bonuses are put out with such a goal.

The second counter is, if it doesn't really stimulates nor deters any additional adoption of those cars at that price-class, you could as well save your money for it. Say everything you say is true: if with the bonus you (well, the government) virtually get as much cars as without it, than save the money and leave it out. Maybe hold it back to where it comes near a point where it WILL make a difference in broad adoption.

Re:Makes sense

[gweilo8888]

These ones:

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/...

US$725M: 20-year 100% sales tax abatement
US$332M: 10-year 100% property tax abatement
US$120M: Transferable tax credits
US$75M: $12,500 per job transferable tax credits (6,000 jobs)
US$27M: 10-year 100% modified business tax abatement
US$8M: Discounted electricity rates for eight years

Re:Makes sense

[gweilo8888]

I'd be willing to bet that Tesla's subsidies aren't small on a per-vehicle basis. Total production of all vehicles worldwide for Tesla is a paltry 125k -- that would be just 4.5 *days* production for Toyota -- and yet in Nevada alone Tesla scored US$1.25 *billion* in subsidies two years ago, much of them front-loaded. That's US$10,000 per vehicle they'd made to date *and* in most of the following two years after the deal was signed thru today.

And that's just one of the subsidies from which Tesla and Musk are profiting. Another is the federal tax subsidy that's putting US$7,500 of yours and my tax dollars per vehicle sold in Tesla's pocket, and which will likely continue to do so through 2018: http://bgr.com/2016/02/12/tesl... -- and there are others, too.

Re:Makes sense

[toadlife]

The trucks are okay. My 1994 Ranger lasted 20 years. Nothing major ever went wrong with it and it ran perfectly when I sold it in 2014. My coworker has a 97 Ranger with 375,000 miles on it. He's only had to replace the transmission ($750).

My 2004 Sonata was rock solid though. I still see it driving around town. I ended up buying a Volt to replace it. It's an awesome car so far, but it is a GM, so...pray for me.

Re:Makes sense

[Gavagai80]

Huge dataset you've got there. My '98 Ford hasn't had any significant problems.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a distortion of the free market, which never has nor never will actually ever exist, so never mind.

Re:Makes sense

[dave420]

VW is partially owned (12.7%) by the German state of Lower Saxony, not the federal government of Germany itself.

Re:Makes sense

[cwsumner]

He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.

The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years. It was a big difference, but the US car makers did not realize that their monopoly was about to be broken. A lot of us thought they got what they deserved.

But that was then. The US cars now are much better. And, the foreign cars are having trouble with car computers controlling everything, when they are designed by the lowest bidder! Yikes! Bug Farms.

Re:Makes sense

[Coren22]

I buy Toyota, they are more American than Ford, GM and Chevy.

Re:Makes sense

[david_thornley]

It can also make sense to subsidize an industry to help it get off the ground. Solar panel subsidies increased the demand for the things, and presumably this caused the manufacturing capacity to increase, and economies of scale to kick in. We got a strategically important industry going faster than it otherwise would have.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in a few thousands of years. Like when Greeks played with amber and feathers and no one cared but to keep soldiers busy. If you can wait...

Re:Makes sense

[cbiltcliffe]

Honda has had 15 engines on the Ward's 10 best engines lists over the years. GM has had 29.
Sure, GM's had a few lemons in their time, but so have all the Japanese ones. The Civic del Sol got a "Not Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports, due to "the worst body integrity" in the industry, or something like that. (Been a long time since I read that review, and I don't remember the exact wording.)

J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2013 vehicles, based on complaints for vehicles between 2-3 years old, included at least 3 GM products listed on the "most reliable" side: Buick Encore, Chevy Silverado HD, and Camaro.
Incidentally, GMC, Chevrolet, and Buick all receive better Problems/100 vehicles scores than Honda, Acura, and Infiniti. Buick's score is even better than Toyota's.
http://canada.jdpower.com/pres...

Similarly, J.D. Power's 10 most reliable vehicles for 2016 includes four GM products: Buick Verano and LaCrosse, and the Chevy Malibu and Camaro.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

Another where GM has as many or more cars on the most reliable list as any other manufacturer:
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/ar...

It's funny, because I hear people complain about GM reliability all the time, and they're usually either referring to some neighbour who has an entry level Cobalt (sample of 1) or stuff from 20-30 years ago. These same people who decry old GM reliability would sometimes praise Hyundai reliability, while completely and totally failing to remember the debacle that was the Pony and Excel. Every single one of them burned oil badly after 2-3 years, and virtually all of them had rust perforation holes within 6 years. 80s GM cars, while slow due to overly ambitious emissions regulations for the time (just like most other manufacturers in the world, though, with the strange exception of the Buick turbos) were paragons of reliability compared to Hyundai at the time.

Re: Makes sense

[cbiltcliffe]

Hmmmm.....and Anonymous Coward, not specifying any details, but making outlandish claims. I call bullshit.

Unless, of course, you're talking about replacing the front end time and again after you run into a bridge abutment driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning....

Re:Makes sense

[cbiltcliffe]

He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.

The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years.

10 years? Really? Remember the Hyundai Pony? If there is one that still runs, it's because it was bought by a grandma who died the next day, and nobody in their right mind wanted to drive the oil burning POS. There are plenty of 80s GM cars still on the road today, though, which should tell you something.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently the money not collected in extra 'carbon taxes' from oil buyers that oil producers would have to collect are somehow a subsidy to those very oil producers, so ....

Not being made to pay for the consequences of your actions is indeed a subsidy.

When you make others work for free, you are getting a handout.

Re:Makes sense

[N3wsByt3]

This is the wrong approach, and it suffers from the same things I said earlier. For instance, it would presume the government, in all its wisdom, know which technology it should support with heavy subsidies, and which not. I haven't seen compelling evidence, not even in the last 200 years for such innate wisdom... did you? Saying: 'thanks to that, prices came down'... If you heavily subsidised electric Revolving Ice Cream Cones, no doubt the price will come down too. But so what? The point I've made several times now is: if it's REALLY a far more efficient, advantageous technology, it WILL conquer the (free) market, whether you subsidise it or not. It make take a few years longer, but it will also save billions out of peoples' pockets. In a few circumstances, it might not break through otherwise, but even then: choosing the government as the wise, decisive factor in what is economical the most worthy, is bullocks. So for each sporadic lucky-shot the government had that wouldn't have made it on the free market anyway, you'd have 9 othrs where were fiasco's, costing us billions and billions. So no, thanks: the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.

Solar panels and windmills are, in effect, one of the *least* efficient power/electricity providers, if your goal is to have a stable energy for your society.

The truth of the matter is, it's basically one giant waste of taxpayers' money, for no good reason, *but* to provide a bonus to the rich...scuze, me: to 'lower cost'. And where all all these low-cost solarpanels - subsidized with our money - gone to now? Exactly: China. And that's also the main reason (>80%) of why the cost has come down. It's NOT because the rare metals used for it came down, as some seem to think. (In fact, those are sharply rising, due to the demand). It's cheap labor. In China.

So... is that what our own taxmoney is best used for: to kickstart other economies abroad? I don't think so.

"We" didn't get a 'strategically important industry' : the Chinese have. And we paid for it indirectly, through our taxes.

Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof"

No. Most internal combustion engines are destroyed via hydrolock when (significant) water enters the intake of the engine. Because it can't be compressed, the engine basically explodes internally (pistons, valves, etc, etc). If water enters the exhaust and the engine is running, this is usually not a big deal because the air pressure from the engine will push it back out. Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those.

Typically, to combat this, the intake will have a snorkel attached to it and that will be as high as possible, thus preventing water entry into the intake. The exhaust may be raised as well (but that is not absolutely necessary) and this is a serious consideration if the engine is to be turned off while submerged (as then water will enter the combustion chamber through the exhaust valves, hydrolocking when you try to start it again).

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[wbr1]

Would gas pressure suit you better? You may know have knowledge of exhaust gas pressure since your o-ring is blown out AC.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[red_dragon]

If water enters the exhaust and the engine is running, this is usually not a big deal because the air pressure from the engine will push it back out. Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those.

One only has to look at the wet exhaust systems used in boats for an example of what happens when water enters the exhaust. Hell, they even introduce water in them deliberately.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[ripvlan]

Right - I think they got the purpose of the "roof" Snorkel wrong. But these guys are Bloggers and not Journalists.

Years ago I remember hearing a warning from a car manufacturer who stated that customers shouldn't drive through deep water because an Electrical engine component was on the bottom of the car. When this component was submerged it would burn out and shut down the engine - and it wasn't an easy replacement (meaning both the part and labor was expensive).

Most modern vehicles float. The Beetle has been doing it since the 1960's. And most can (obviously) hold water back through the door seals for a short period of time. Certainly vehicles like Jeep and Rover can (although with specific purpose in the design).

Hopefully the Tesla doesn't have any exposed circuitry that could be overwhelmed by submersion.

And boy - once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Zibodiz]

On older cars, the distributor cap would get damaged by submersion. Not a big deal, but it would definitely leave you stranded. Most modern cars do not float level, if at all, which leads to the classic nose-down 'duck pose' you see cars take in a flood. Aside from the beetle (which had different weight distribution due to the small rear engine), I'm not aware of any common production vehicle that will float level. Front wheel drives are simply too nose-heavy.
And Jeeps actually have terrible door seals. After all, serious off-roaders take the doors off; why bother making them water-tight?

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[funwithBSD]

" Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those."

Mostly true.

Improperly tuned pipes will suck in air, and thus water, during the scavenging cycle.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[darthsilun]

On older cars, the distributor cap would get damaged by submersion.

Damaged? Yes, car knowledge here is definitely not great.

You get water in the points, which are inside the distributor, and that will definitely shut you down until they dry out.

A little bit of water dispersal solvent, formula 40, sold under the brand name WD-40, usually helps get you running again.

(And BTW, WD-40 is a solvent, not a lubricant. Spraying it on things like squeaky door hinges is an example of Doing It Wrong.)

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[msauve]

"once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock."

Which is to say, it would still float? Lithium has a density similar to wood (pine).

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Paleolibertarian]

Exhaust valves are usually very hot and any water touching them will probably warp them to the point that the engine will stop running due to lack of compression. I once had a motorcycle which got warped valves because the exhaust pipes came off while driving and the cold air entering the short distance between where the pipe attached to the hear and the valve warped it.

It's not a fun thing to repair.

I/C engines run on heat. any excess cooling causes them to run badly, if at all.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock."

Which is to say, it would still float? Lithium has a density similar to wood (pine).

More like "float aggressively."

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

(And BTW, WD-40 is a solvent, not a lubricant. Spraying it on things like squeaky door hinges is an example of Doing It Wrong.)

http://wd40.com/cool-stuff/myt...

Myth: WD-40® Multi-Use Product is not really a lubricant.

Fact: While the “W-D” in WD-40® stands for Water Displacement, WD-40® Multi-Use Product is a unique, special blend of lubricants. The product’s formulation also contains anti-corrosion agents and ingredients for penetration, water displacement and soil removal.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Once a buddy of mine's car was flooded. He attached a garden hose to the air intake and handed it to me. Then he got in the car and drove it up onto his lawn, got out, and said he should have done that long before it started raining. Sigh.

The best part was, at no time was anyone at risk for 400V electrocution.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[ripvlan]

okay - you got me :-P

I was of course playing to the notion that Tesla's are said to be very very heavy.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[cbiltcliffe]

My first car was a 1981 Chevy Malibu with a small block Chevy V8. The distributor was at the top rear of the engine, behind the air intake. I could hit a > foot deep puddle at 50mph, and it wouldn't bat an eye. Sure, it slowed down a lot due to the water pressure against the front tires, but I never once had it cause a miss on even a single cylinder.
The front wheel drives that were becoming popular at the time, though, all had the ignition systems on the front of the engine, behind the grill and radiator, so they got soaked and stalled almost immediately in a torrential downpour which plugged up sewer grates with garbage. In any driving situation that could cause wet ignition to stall out my car, I'd be much more concerned with hydrolock due to the proximity of the intake.
Now, if you're talking about a Ford or Chrysler V8 engine, then the distributor was at the front of the engine, so somewhat more prone to getting wet. Some GM divisions also had it at the top front for their engines - the Buick 231 V6 comes to mind - but these were still much less prone to wet weather stalling than the front-mounted ignitions of a lot of transverse engines of the time.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Isao]

In fact, many motorboats exhaust below the water line just fine.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[magarity]

Typically, to combat this, the intake will have a snorkel attached to it and that will be as high as possible, thus preventing water entry into the intake

I thought those snorkels were just to look tough driving around the city on sunny days. That's where I typically see them in use.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Agripa]

You get water in the points, which are inside the distributor, and that will definitely shut you down until they dry out.

A little bit of water dispersal solvent, formula 40, sold under the brand name WD-40, usually helps get you running again.

I know someone who did exactly this because water got into the distributor cap and when he went to start the engine, residual fumes from the WD-40 detonated blowing the distributor cap off.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Agripa]

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to think of it as "very briefly hydrogen-powered".

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[budgenator]

Actually it is lubricating, I don't think it has a high shear strength and it's volatiles to non-volatile ratio isn't high so it only leaves a very thin layer of low viscosity lubricant after it dries; this can be an advantage.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't really compare it to wood, as that has a huge range of densities. Lithium has a density of 0.535 g/cm3 which is heavier than most wood. Most wood averages in the .3-.4 range, but some like balsa are really light and others like ironwood are actually more dense than water. Of course, water is 1.0, so you're right that Lithium floats.

Source: I did considerable research on wood and mineral density for the Dwarf Fortress raws, including the determination of the density of Saguaro rib wood, which was not previously publicly available online.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[LiquidAvatar]

"once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock." Which is to say, it would still float? Lithium has a density similar to wood (pine).

Ooh, burn!

You know, because Lithium rapidly oxidizes with water...

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[pipingguy]

Cracked block due to delta T when water hits engine?

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[stealth_finger]

(And BTW, WD-40 is a solvent, not a lubricant. Spraying it on things like squeaky door hinges is an example of Doing It Wrong.)

Maybe, but it works really well and WD40 is cheap as shit and available everywhere. It's not for making your metalwork in the kitchen nice and shiny either but there you go, a little squirt on a cloth, quick rub and it's shining.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[internerdj]

Self burning witches!!!!

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[jbgeek]

so it's a witch?

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[cbiltcliffe]

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.

You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Agripa]

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.

You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.

It was the inside of the distributor cap which was shorting out do to condensation and never the wires. I did regular tune ups and changed the distributor and rotor several times and they all had the problem. For whatever reason, the design was just not sealed well enough.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[funwithBSD]

Failure is always an option...

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[cbiltcliffe]

In that case, some of them had a rubber seal around the distributor where the cap sits against it. If yours didn't have one, I bet it was supposed to.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Agripa]

It might have been an old (1960s and 1970s) Ford thing. There was no clearance between the distributor and distributor cap for a gasket and the advice I got from someone with an older but unrelated Ford was to always keep a screwdriver and towel in the trunk as they had the same problem.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The points are outside the engine. The distributor cap is sealed to the engine block though since the shaft that turns the distributor is directly attached via a gear to the camshaft or crankshaft. Thus, if water gets under your distributor cap it goes straight into the crankcase / engine oil and all the bearings within.

Modern cars with electronic timing control don't have this, as the hall effect sensor for engine timing is usually in the flywheel which is outside the crankcase (the crankcase main bearing seal can keep low pressure water out and oil in). They also have individual ignition coils per spark plug (or per cylinder) completely eliminating the need for the distributor and typical ignition coil.

The other thing missed is that older engines had the radiator fan mechanically attached to the engine leading to it disintegrating (or burning out the fan clutch) when it made contact with too much water. Electrical fans just slow / stall while the inflow of water keeps them (and the engine) from overheating (somewhat)

This is another good thing about motorcycles. Many of these items are inside the engine (or absent) casing so they are easier to keep going though water or to clear if they do go in the drink.

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The "WD" in WD-40 stands for water displacing. In order to displace water it has to be soluble in it. This is why WD-40 is a bad lubricant (and some people refuse to call it such)--after it displaces a lot of water it will still hold some water there if it isn't eventually diluted out with an actual, non-polar lubricating oil or dried off after the parts can be dissembled. Leaving it in after used can actually accelerate rusting in the long term due to this water solubility.

Incoming...

[bravecanadian]

lawsuits..

As soon as people completely wreck their Tesla's or injure themselves doing this..

Re:Incoming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Borat tried it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Elon explicitly said he does not in any way recommend doing it.

Actually...

[b0bby]

I think this is incorrect:

Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof.

I think the snorkels are intakes, not exhaust - you don't want to suck water into your intake manifold.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that serious off-roaders avoid water deep enough to float in as well. The snorkel is there because when driving forward into water the bow wave can rise high enough to totally cover the front grill, which is where the intake tends to be located behind for rather obvious reasons. The exhaust pressure keeps water out long enough to cross the stream, it only floods if the engine dies and even that will take a while due to the built up exhaust pressure.

tldr; Article writes knows not what they write about, film at 11.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

you are very right. It is not an exhaust scoop at all, these are air intake ducts. If that part of the text also commes from the mouth of Musk...
The person claiming it is exhaust scoop does not know the first thing about cars and should not be talking at all.

Re:Actually...

[I4ko]

It wasn't deep in the video at all. The white juke was no more than its doorsills deep (and was moving albeit slowly as not to cause a wave), which is like 18 cm at most. The air intake on the juke is also quite a bit higher - around 70 cm from the ground if not more (around the same height as the lowest point of the steering wheel). The Testa didn't float at all, it was just driving on the bottom.

Re:Actually...

[budgenator]

I know the snorkel kit for M151A2 army jeep attached to the intake, the engine had a sealed ignition system, and there were floor drains which had to be open while fording so the truck would sink to the bottom and not float away. I'm not sure the snorkelling kit was ever used as intended, driving a vehicle while up to your shoulders in water is a tough sell to people who have loaded rifles and hand grenades.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

driving a vehicle while up to your shoulders in water is a tough sell to people who have loaded rifles and hand grenades

It beats walking.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Rei]

What are you talking about? If you're talking about the suspension issue, the NHTSA investigated and found no problem with Tesla suspensions (and furthermore that 93% of the complaints were fraudulent).

Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla

[david.emery]

One of the great parody ads: http://www.funnyfakeads.com/pi...
And the background for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla

[cellocgw]

sorta funny -- but one of the few times Lampoon ever was the loser in a lawsuit forcing them to pull something from circulation

Re:Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla

[david.emery]

They laughed all the way to the bank! I'm old enough to remember this (and was living in Mass at the time). This issue became an instant classic, and they got -tons- of press coverage.

I am impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the car boyant and watertight or was the torque from the wheels enough to keep it from sinking?

Jay Leno's take

[Okian Warrior]

Jay Leno had some interesting things to say about Tesla.

I've noticed the same thing (as Jay): people are falling over themselves to try to bring Tesla down, and I haven't the first idea why.

GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.

Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).

Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.

Jay mentions that "we like noble failures more than we reward success". I think that's true, but it's also baffling.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[geekmux]

GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.

Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).

Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.

Removing the opinions of talk show hosts/car collectors for a moment, perhaps what these statements truly highlight is an utter inability to predict a damn thing when it comes to the incredibly unstable stock market.

People equate it to gambling for valid reasons.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[PPH]

and I haven't the first idea why.

I do.

Back when electric cars were DC traction motors jerry-rigged into compact cars with a trunk full of lead acid batteries, I got into several conversations with some greenies about what it would take to get the public into them. With some level of extraordinary prescience, I would say, "When electric cars have the comfort, performance and price of IC engine cars, we will buy them. Nobody wants to drive around in a glorified golf cart with open sides and 30 miles range."

The inevitable response was that electric cars were meant to be inconvenient, uncomfortable and uneconomic as the first step to getting people out of private vehicles and into mass transit. Which could eventually control where and when people travel. Pretty much like the Soviet Union at the time issued travel permits.

The modern electric car in general and Tesla in particular have dashed the hopes of the social control freaks to use the inevitable downfall of IC powered private vehicles to direct the population to suit their whims.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Junta]

Analyst prediction of the future in the market is always just wild ass guessing. They can provide some data to help people compare companies in terms of historic and current data, but their projections into the future are like horoscopes.

I'll say that the price deltas make a lot of sense, actually. The perception of GM market value is based mostly on their concrete standing in the market.

For Tesla, the market value of the company is far more speculative about the future. So credible stories about another historically disruptive player coming in taking off 10% is not as surprising. Note that right now, Tesla is perceived as 70% the value of GM, which is actually a hell of a lot given their revenue and market share today. So Tesla's value is built on much fuzzier sentiment.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a reaction to the hype. Think of it as anti-hype. Some of us still remember when nuclear was going to replace coal (before TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukashima), or when microwaves would replace conventional ovens (I have both in my kitchen), or how AIDS was going to decimate the heterosexual population (before WHO admitted it won't.)

Tesla is supposed to be so good, but in reality it falls short for most of us. Like the iPhone for 5 generations. /shrug

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Anonymous Coward]

I am critical of Tesla. It's not because I want them to fail, as I think what they stand for is great. My criticisms are on several levels:

I think their business model will make them fail, as the point-of-sale market for buying cars is a heavily localized market and Musk refuses to work with a dealer or distributor and I know there are dealerships who would like to work with Tesla. To me this makes no sense, as by leveraging dealerships you can expand globally fast without having to build your own infrastructure like they are forced to do. Teslas also do require maintenance despite what Tesla says, and the dealers can handle that with personalized service.

I think Tesla is going to choke on warranty costs. Tesla is not profitable and is a long ways from being so; their revenue does not even make up their cost of goods plus sales costs, let alone making up for R&D costs or capital investments like the gigafactory. They have no room on their income sheet to handle a large set of warranty costs, and quite frankly we're starting to hit the point now where early Model S's are aging a bit (60,000+ miles) and already there are rumblings that there are problems with the drive train requiring a major overhaul. Are they going to expect their customers to pay for that? Maybe the Model S customers can afford it but something on the order of a full transmission replacement in cost at 60-90k miles is not going to be acceptable for the target market of the Model 3.

They have major quality problems; the Model X launch was just a damned nightmare. Tesla has done what they can to keep it out of the news but it's out there and it was a disaster. Their motors and batteries are good, their drive train appears to have issues, their door handles suck. As weird as it may sound, people buy products for their direct experience and not indirect experience; an electric motor is a cerebral, indirect experience whereas physically interacting with a door handle that doesn't open will keep people from buying the car. People like to highlight how Consumer Reports gave it the best rating they ever gave a car, but they don't mention that Consumer Reports subsequently downgraded to "Not Recommend" because of all teh customer complaints about quality.

And finally, it's the Elonism. If GM had a customer who's wheel fell off and GM offered to pay 50% of the repair if htey signed a non-disclosure agreement, they would be hounded by the press and the mob. But when Tesla does it gets barely a whimper. This is actually why I post; my other reasons are just my opinion but I'm completely confused at the absolute faith people have in Tesla; the community around Tesla is the same as those people who worship and throw money at prosperity gospel preachers despite their obvious contradictions. It's this total pass they're given strictly on faith that confounds me and I actively seek to challenge it. Tesla should not be given a free pass; they should be challenged and tested to make them meet and answer our expectations, especially when it appears they have a long ways to go.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Ogive17]

I just hate how everything Musk now says is treated as gospel here on /.

I respect the hell out of the guy and what he's working towards.. but can we get rid of the "Tesla is so awesome" article quota? A lot of what is reported here about Tesla is about as innovative as Apple's rounded corner.

I can't find it now but there's an annual get together at a lake in Ohio that celebrates cars that can also travel in the water.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[hey!]

Yeah, I don't know what it is with the Tesla hating. But that said, *this* particular bit of hype does deserve to be condemned.

(1) The driver in the video is a moron. You never drive your car into a situation you aren't sure you can drive it out of -- particularly one involving water. People get stranded that way (and often killed, if water is involved).

(2) Because you saw some guy do it doesn't mean your car will do it. If it's not part of the design specifications of the car, the car can't be relied upon to do it. If people routinely drive through deep water with near-perfect success, then sure. But because it happened once doesn't mean you should be the second person to try it.

(3) Tesla owners should not be encouraged by the company to think their cars can act as boats unless the company plans to stand behind that.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[samwichse]

Man, I don't know who you were talking to, but I never heard any electric car enthusiast say something like that.

Ever.

Sounds like you really talked to some losers. Most of the electric car/motorcycle converters I've talked to wanted to do it so they wouldn't have to buy gasoline, or wanted to do something different, or liked the idea of how smooth driving an electric is.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Anonymous Coward]

What decade is your experience with? That was a not-uncommon sentiment among that slice of folks in the 1970s.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[PPH]

1980's. And that's not the electric car enthusiasts. That's the socialist/environmentalists. Who are now butt-hurt about how electric cars were not just an interim step to eliminating personal transportation altogether.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no doubt there was (and still is) a crowd that's after the death of personal transportation, in favor of everyone having to use government provided options.
But really, I don't think that can be directly tied to the "Greenies", as much as to some kind of Communist sub-set of them.

The only people I've run into who seem to have that kind of agenda are the "city planning wonks" who think they can design and then legislate/mandate urban environments that are optimal for everyone. Up here in the metro DC area, I run across them occasionally. I'm pretty sure they mainly appear in densely populated cities where people are willing to lend an ear to their comments.

Really? I think the biggest reason the electric car makers like Tesla draw all the negative attention is a resistance to change. A lot of car enthusiasts really don't think the Tesla counts as a "real car". To them, it's more of a computer and electric motor on wheels, with a car-like shell wrapped around it. They see it as heralding the end of the era of needing the skill to actually *drive* a vehicle (no more stick shift and clutch, for example), and eventually self-driving cars where you just input a destination in the GPS screen and go. And you know something? They're probably right. But it's the inevitable change that's coming, just as surely as people started using cars in place of riding horses everywhere.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of systems on modern cars that protect the morons from the consequences. I'm all for thinning the herd, but it's not that bad of a thing if you're in a real emergency. Tesla is definitely a safe car: it has protected its occupants from a situation that could be deadly in other cars. WTF is wrong with that?

Re:Jay Leno's take

[PPH]

A lot of car enthusiasts really don't think the Tesla counts as a "real car".

But look at the alternatives. The Google car was designed with the electric golf cart paradigm in mind. Small, cramped. No room for passengers, luggage or groceries. This is the epitome of the "I hate cars" school of design. At least Tesla went for the traditional car look, and the high end of the market at that.

Sure, Tesla (and others) are computers on wheels that take away the 'fun' of driving. But then so are Jeeps. But these vehicles preserve the traditional car (or truck) amenities and don't try to push people to accept the 'car as a transportation pod but nothing more' concept. Tesla, in particular, brought some of the traditional car style and fun to electric vehicles (remember the Tesla roadster). And the 'pod people' thought the electric car platform would demonstrate the inevitability of their vision. And Tesla went and ruined it for them, so they are pissed.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[hey!]

What's wrong with that is blurring the line between what the car may be able to do under certain conditions and what users can count on the car to be able to do. In other words in this case the problem isn't the car, but the way the car is being promoted. It's marketing abuse of the safety margins the engineers put into the thing.

As an engineer you could feel really proud that the idiot in question did something stupid with the car you designed and the car didn't let him down. That's because it's a very good car. But when management takes that incident and starts claiming that your very good car can function as a boat, that turns your very good car into a very bad, and probably dangerous boat. And because users are encouraged to have the mindset that the car can do more than it's supposed to, sooner or later someone is going to be let down by that very bad "boat" -- possibly let down with extreme prejudice.

Re:Jay Leno's take

[Whorhay]

I googled "profit margin on a model s" and from all the results it would seem that the profit margin for a model S is about 25%. It is actually the R&D and capital investment costs which are keeping their balance sheets in the red for the time being.

I'm by no means an expert but my impression was that the battery packs were the single big expensive item. The motor(s) and differential(s) being of moderate cost compared to the rest of the vehicle. The drive train should be pretty simple as their isn't a transmission or anything like that, and the electric motors are incredibly simple compared to just about any modern internal combustion engine.

The quality of the rest of the car is certainly a critical concern but from everything I've heard they are very quick to fix and replace anything that goes wrong.

Like a duck?

[fishwallop]

So the Tesla floats like a duck?
It must be made of wood.
Like a witch.
And what do we do with witches?

Re:Like a duck?

[Anonymous Coward]

BURN THEM!!!

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Old VW bugs could float too. VW has used this fact in marketing in the past.

https://youtu.be/1qB0lb401ZU

Re:Nothing new

[the_other_one]

They would only float in TEST mode.

Re:Nothing new

[bobbied]

LOL.. When new and the door seals actually worked and the heater channels where not rusted out, yea they could float... My old 65' beetle would have sunk like a scuttled German U-Boat on the high seas when I owned it. A cross wind was more than just an adventure in uncommanded lane changes, it also blew stuff around inside the car because the "door seals" didn't seal anything... Imagine driving this across Indiana in -10 weather.... Can you say COLD, with roasted ankles?

Re:Nothing new

[budgenator]

My VW mini-motorhome had a piece of PVC Drain Pipe to replace the rusted out heat duct, worked like a champ! You could also get electric boaster-heaters so the windshield would defrost before you got to work in the morning.

Perfect for

[Anonymous Coward]

the morons who drive their cars into huge puddles, ignoring the "high water" signs during floods

Free press

[Anonymous Coward]

Love how tesla / space x creates news. Kinda like trump. Love or hate, ya gotta respect the skill.

Full disclosure : I'm a fan of spacex for both the nerd cool factor as well as for the potential for humans. I'm waiting for the 'certified pre-owned' plus power stations market to materialize for my sub-$20 all electric tesla purchase. Till then my boring old prius.

Needs propellers

[rossdee]

Spinning the wheels with road tires on isn't going to do much
Most amphibious vehicles have propllers or water jets
Remember the Amphicar, the VW schvimwagen and the DUKW

Re:Needs propellers

[fnj]

Yeah. You can get away with it in tracked vehicles. The US Marines WWII LVT "Amtrack" propelled itself using the same tracks on water and on land. It could make 6 knots in water. The AAV-7 is similar and is still in use by the Marines. I'm not sure if that one has anything more than the tracks for water propulsion.

Synopsis wrong

[MouseR]

Musk didn't say (less even vouch) for the availability of this "feature". It's not a feature. It's a capability inherent to any car with closed cabin. All cars will float for a brief period of time (which is what Musk said: it will float for a brief period of time).

The batteries and electrical system is isolated enough to sustain sub-bar pressures and will hapilly drive along as the engine is not dependant on any air intake system not being flooded.

Technically, all EVs should be able to do this for a period. DONT drive across the lake.

Ranged-extended vehicles (Gen 1 & 2 Volt, BMW i3, Fisker Karma) dont have this luxury. While the electrics will continue working, any flooding of the ICE will require major repairs.

Disclaimer: I own a Gen2 Volt.

Re:Synopsis wrong

[kitsi]

It's not a feature.

It's an Easter egg.

Re:Synopsis wrong

[Solandri]

While all cars will float, ICE vehicles are nose-heavy due to the engine location. The front end will pitch down making any attempt to use it as a boat dangerous if not fatal - moving forward will increase water pressure on the top of the hood, forcing the vehicle to pitch nose-down even further.

In an EV, the weight is concentrated in the battery, which is usually evenly distributed across the vehicle's floor. So I would expect it to remain closer to horizontal when used as a boat. With some fairing on the bottom of the front end, you could even attach a propeller and get some decent forward speed out of it.

Re:Synopsis wrong

[OrigamiMarie]

Yup, he even followed his "hey isn't this really cool!" tweet with a "DON'T TRY THIS YOURSELF" tweet. He's proud that it worked out, but the car isn't designed for it, he knows it, and he doesn't want people to roll the dice until it fails impressively.

But does it float as well as a Beetle?

[pecosdave]

The other unintentional amphibious car.

The newer Beetle is nothing compared to it's ancestor.

Re:But does it float as well as a Beetle?

[PPH]

Better ad here.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also talking about that one incident where a Tesla ran over a chunk of metal on the highway, resulting in a horrible fire that was isolated to the engine compartment, and required that the driver pull over and shut the car down. (Rather than the much safer standard vehicle alternative of exploding, crashing, and suddenly ceasing to have a working engine while driving at high speeds on a crowded highway). Tesla's total dismissal of the incident is just typical of their head-in-the-sand tactics to ignoring real problems.

Wake up sheeple!

Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boat

[swb]

I'm guessing it wouldn't go fast or far, but it might actually be useful enough for inland lake recreational purposes. Especially on a 30' cruiser which probably already has a pair of big block gasoline engines and a 5kw generator. The batteries vs. the engines would be a wash, and the gen set could provide some charging or limp-back drive power.

Exhaust scoops?

[Zibodiz]

As a 'serious offroader' myself, I can assure you it's not the exhaust you have to worry about. It's the air intake. Engines have plenty of power to force air out the exhaust while underwater. Sucking water into the engine, however, is something that ICE's really don't like.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Hey, whatever floats his car. ;)

divine gratitude

[khidr]

...i am thankful for the dasein... amor fati sempre....

Float? Not quite.

[kamakazi]

I am sorry, but that car wasn't floating. The wheels and tires on a Tesla are going to have no forward thrust, because the entire wheel will be submerged, meaning the top of the wheel is thrusting backwards just as well as the bottom is thrusting forward.

The low profile tires on the Tesla are going to have minimal thrust anyway, because the tread is not even vaguely paddle like. For reference look at this video of the bigfoot monster truck floating across a lake. Even that truck with duallies on it (total of 8 monster truck wheels), which did float high enough for the big mudders to act like paddles, didn't make as quick forward progress as an old man in a canoe, and was extremely slow to respond to steering input.

The tesla in the video not only has enough power to push a big bow wave, it has enough steering traction to slalom through the other cars on the road. The weight of that car was obviously enough to keep the tires on the pavement at that water depth. I am not denying that the Tesla could float, nor am I denying that it may be water tight enough to float well, but it will be pretty much powerless and uncontrolled while floating.

Mr. Musk is very proud of his car, but on this video I call BS. That is not floating.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreeed.. wheels were on ground, water was high enough to fill intake of other vehicles with water... even that little hatchback in front of it was still moving around in the water..

Re: Float? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, the bumpers of the other vehicles were clearly visible. The water might not even reached the tops of the wheels.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[msauve]

"the entire wheel will be submerged, meaning the top of the wheel is thrusting backwards just as well as the bottom is thrusting forward."

Except they're not open wheel cars, they have fenders and wheel well liners.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[kamakazi]

hmm, that is a point. If the wheel stays up in the fender it may act as a very inefficient impeller, taking in water at the rear of the fender opening, the fender liner acting as the casing of a very poorly coupled pump.

It would work better if it was a fully skirted fender, which they aren't, so most of the water being pumped is going to just blast out sideways, mostly out, because the inside of the wheel well is lower that the outside.

Just guessing, without modeling, I think the thrust would be mostly down, with some backwards.

I don't know my Tesla models that well, but if it is AWD any thruster effect from the front wheels would be less, because of the larger wheel well clearances for turning, and would disappear almost entirely when the wheels were turned left or right at all.

Teslas probably have an advantage in this regard, because they have a pretty taught suspension, and probably won't droop as much as the cars us mere mortals drive, which at full droop can be almost entirely out of the wheel well, below the body of the car.

You are correct, I had not considered the ducting action of the fenders. However I stand by my final judgement that the car in the video is not floating.

Re: Float? Not quite.

[joao.cordeiro]

On the other end, the top of the wheel is covered, not allowing any counter force. And with a eletric engine you can speed tye wheels at realy high rpm. I think it is possible.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and this horrible slashdot article is the one saying it floated.
In fact, just about every sentence in this crap article is wrong.

A car drove through a heavily flooded tunnel.
Musk made a joke about it.
Slashdot published the world's worst bit of journalism.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[budgenator]

Dude you want something like This, if you can't pull a water-skier what good is it?

Re:Float? Not quite.

[Solandri]

Just guessing, without modeling, I think the thrust would be mostly down, with some backwards.

Water is incompressible. The volume flowrate of water the wheel pulls up into the wheel well has to equal the volume flowrate the wheel pushes down, and by Newton's 3rd law there is no net thrust up or down. An impeller works by scooping up a volume of water through a large opening at a low flowrate, and shooting it through a smaller opening at a high flowrate. The difference in in/out opening size is crucial to keep an impeller obeying conservation of mass. I haven't looked closely at the Tesla S, but I suspect the clearance in the front and back of the wheel well is the same.

Forward thrust would be due to the bottom of the tires pushing free-flowing water backwards, pushing the car forwards. The water in the top of the tires would be pushed forwards, but it hits the wheel well and transfers its momentum back to the car (being diverted down in the process), canceling out the backwards thrust from the top of the wheel. In other words, the top half of the rotating wheel draws water up into the wheel well, pushes the water forward (pushing the car backward), but the wheel well then diverts the water down (pushing the car forward the same amount). And the net momentum change for water moving around the top of the tire is zero. But the bottom of the tire is pushing unobstructed water, so it pushes the water backwards, pushing the car forward in the process.

Re:Float? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone seems to be forgetting the fact that a floating car is often a bad thing. There is no way the tires would ever do anything against a flash flood. Now you have a ?x tonns?? block of highly engineered metals flowing along to where ever the water is taking you.

At a far less volume of water then your average car.

Also where ever the water send you, will probably be somewhere a telsa has no chance of getting out of via its tiny ground clearance.

However if it is designed to prevent flood danage that could be a positive, just gotta leave it chained up ;)

Re:Float? Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree that the car was not floating. The other cars around it were not floating either. Cars do not float level with the road. If you look at the other vehicles - the Internal Combustion Engine vehicles, they are level with the roadway and waterline. It is the engine that weighs the most in a vehicle and when cars float, the engine part of the car sits lower in the water. Check out some flood videos and you will notice it right away.

I'm not the biggest tesla fan

[burtosis]

The main problem I have with the cars is they are being undersold. The quality of the parts and engineering warrants a much larger price tag and further tesla isn't really profiting on them, rather Musk seems to be trying to achieve market penetration at the cost of profits. It's unlikely they will be able to deliver that quality at that price in any long term way short of pulling an apple and locking them into some kind of service.

Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan

[plague911]

What you did was restate a simplified/broken version Tesla's publicly stated strategy and phrase it like you uncovered a big secret. Tesla has repeatedly stated that the goal of their current vehicles is not to make a profit but to act as a proving ground for the development of the manufacturing infrastructure. Electric vehicles suffer from a major lack of economics of scale. Thus to make competitive vehicles they sell them for little to no margin. Once scale is achieved Tesla's goal is to be able produce higher value for lower cost vehicles than the equivalent ICE. This will eat into the economics of scale with ICEs and thus destroy their ability to be competitive. Resulting in ONLY electric's being viable consumer vehicles. This strategy is why investors poured billions into them.

Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan

[burtosis]

Never said it was any kind of secret, those are your words. The thing is you may get economies of scale but that does not mean they will continue to provide the same contemporary value. Musk can't ride investor money forever and will need to make a decent margin, eventually without any subsidy beyond what the auto industry typically gets. This will lower quality to value over what is present today and bring it more in line with traditional profit driven companies (pun intended). If you think he is destroying the ICE market, you are free to believe that but it's not a view shared by economists nor market share. Perhaps in 20 to 40 years there will be substantial adoption, but there will be no such adoption anytime soon.

Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan

[tekrat]

You're assuming that Tesla's *only* business model is to sell cars. Well, Elon Musk is a smarter businessman than you are.

Tesla's profits come from their sale of carbon credits and other "green" state and federal regs to other car companies who continue to pump out gas-guzzling SUVs.

http://www.marketplace.org/201...

Also for a while, Tesla was licensing their patents to other manufacturers, but I think that's over now as they opened up the patents.

Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan

[Anonymous Coward]

The quality of the parts and engineering warrants a much larger price tag

Strange as it may seem, Tesla's product portfolio does support your hypothesis that people are willing to pay more money for lower quality cars. The build quality of the Model X is even worse than that of the Model S, yet it is more expensive. However, that won't fly with the Model 3, which is aimed at the mass market, where most people actually depend on a single car and want things to just work. Some analysts have argued that Tesla's ambitions of scaling up production are not compatible with improving quality to a level that the average mass-market customer would be willing to accept. We will see, but if they would really go by your strategy, that would have to drop the Model 3 ambitions altogether and commit to being a niche player.

Music!

[NixieBunny]

My brother used that same piece of fine old music The Blue Danube) in our Typewriter Repairmen underwater robot video. YouTube saw fit to mute the sound due to some copyright claim. Bastards.
http://selectric.org/nurc/introfinal.wmv

So does this mean....

[bobbied]

Tesla will be flooded with orders now for the Model S?

Yes, folks, Hard to believe I'm here all week... No cover, one drink minimum.. And NO, I'm not quitting my day job..

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Lead Butthead]

In other news, Mr. Musk announced a new line of sneakers that allows wearer to walk on water...

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[thegarbz]

Thank you for your opinion Anonymous Coward. But I'll go with what the NHTSA, and NCAP say about it instead. Not that I don't value your opinion, just that it's utterly wrong and worthless.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[NatasRevol]

From the first article:

That piece of metal punched a three-inch hole through quarter-inch armor plating,

Anything that's going fast enough to do that would probably punch a 3 inch hole through the entirety of a standard vehicle. Including the passengers.

But rant on, dude.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

WHoooooosh.

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa

[Junta]

Well 240 hp on a 21 foot boat makes for pretty fun sport boating already...

In general, engines on boats short of yacht class are relatively ancient by automotive standards (e.g. carburetor was the norm until very recently, and engine diagnostics are much less sophisticated for boats)

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[NatasRevol]

Sorry, didn't read your third subclause and second sentence.

If someone steals a Tesla...

[Khyber]

...do we then call it an Edison?

Re:If someone steals a Tesla...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do we then call it an Edison?

I don't think anyone wants to be associated with that name thanks to another Silicon Valley startup.

Seriously aquaplaning is not "effective driving"!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be much more impressive to have a car/boat thrust forward by the Lithium-water reaction.

No air, no exhaust, not problem!

[gurps_npc]

Now, all we need is for Lotus to come out with an all white version of the car.

Foils, periscope, ejection seat and torpedo optional.

Big deal...

[Dcnjoe60]

Big deal! Volkswagen Beetles did that years ago. Their slogan was something like "Volkswagen Beetles, definitely float. Just not indefinitely." or something like that.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded"
Who writes this crap? the exhaust can operate while submerged, but its the air intake (in most cars behind the headlight under the hood) that once flooded will "sink" the car (or truck)

"serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof"
Wrong again, they have big "air intakes" leading to the roof, thus preventing water from entering the engine.

HIgh intake not exhaust

[Jeff1946]

Off roaders use high intakes mainly to reduce the amount of dust sucked in which will eventually clog the air filter. Obviously it would help going through water. Usually water is flowing and as soon as the car reaches a depth where is will float you are going to go "down the creek without a paddle."

I don't think "floats" means...

[Bartles]

...what you think it means, Slashdot. At no point was this car floating. They aren't exactly known for being lightweight, it just drove through the water.

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa

[swb]

I do a lot of boating on a large inland lake, and from what I've seen the Sea Ray Sundancers of ~30 ft (Sundancer 280s to 320s) seldom run at anywhere near full throttle. I'd guess something like 10-12 mph is pretty common, with about 30-something MPH being wide open on plane.

But on those boats, 30-something is really wide open engine-wise -- usually a pair of V8s (350 or better) running within 1000 rpm of the red line. As you say, the engines on these boats are ancient by auto standards -- Mercury still(?) buys GM iron blocks from a Mexico-based casting operation. But the brand new ones are slightly better, but it's still a shit-ton of power at full throttle -- Sea Ray claim 188 kW per engine for a 4.5L Bravo III. You might get about 15 minutes at full throttle out of a P90 battery. I'd guess if you were willing to tolerate about 15 mph as maximum speed, you might get a couple of hours cruise time.

What I think would be interesting would be a hybrid drive -- a single 100kw generator for charging and drive, coupled with a large battery pack and Chevy Volt-style automatic engine control. On inland waterways and short uses, you could probably stay on battery. It probably wouldn't be any savings over twin 4.5L engines, though. Those weight in around 800 pounds, and the P85 battery is 1200, so a battery + engine would end up weighing more, even if your generator engine was lighter than a 4.5L gas engine.

You'd also have to re-think the hull, the planing and semi-planing hulls would be kind of inefficient for an electric drive meant to operate at low speeds. And at that point, you're kind of back to a trawler-style boat, many of which do well with small single diesels and a top end of 8 knots.

I doubt the battery concept would work with open bow/sport/wakesurfing boats. Those still have big V8s to propel fat wakes or go fast,

Obligatory: Driving Under Water

[Anonymous Coward]

https://youtu.be/j7gZ28Msa8g

Saves lives?

[Agripa]

So what Elon Musk is saying is that if Democratic senator Ted Kennedy had driven a Tesla Model S, Mary Jo Kopechne would have lived?

yes, that's correct

[YesIAmAScript]

It allows them to sell their car for $7500 more without suffering the reduction in sales that would come with the customer paying $7500 more.

That's a subsidy to Tesla.

What did you think it is? The point of the program is to increase EV adoption by making the cars cheaper to acquire. How could you not see that as a subsidy benefiting Tesla (or any EV seller)?

It didn't float

[hraftery]

I thought the trifecta of rubbish about "thrust of the wheels", "exhaust scoops" and "flooded exhausts" was enough to sink this story. For some reason I actually watched the video. Turns out the car doesn't even float. At no point is the water even above the wheels, let alone high enough for the car to float. The car remains firmly in contact with the road at all times.

What utter nonsense. Are we being had? There is not a skerrick of substance in this article. Yay for Slashdot.

I'm concerned for the Guardian audience. Reminds me of that time a lady crashed her Jeep into a fountain after watching an ad and believing her car would jump the fountain.

Stolen car?

[MrL0G1C]

How comes a person who can afford a 'model s' can't afford a new mobile phone? Any half decent phone on the market for the last 4 years can record at 730p or 1080p.

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it wouldn't go fast or far, and people seeing you drive one will think you're gay.

Mopar smallblocks had the distributor at the rear.

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Only the big block motors had it at the front, installed at a strange looking angle....

Cast iron exhaust manifolds can crack when....

[Ellis D. Tripp]

suddenly hit with cold water, but the engine block doesn't get that hot during operation, being internally water cooled and all..

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 28' boat with twin inboard ~500HP Pentas. It's WOT was 40 Knots when it was tested by the magazines year ago. Planing speed is about 20 Knots. I would imagine other boats in the same class would be similar.

Of course, I once had both engines WOT and was doing 1-2 knots, but that's another story.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I loved getting my Jesus boots in Nethack too.

Dust

[Ozoner]

And the snorkels are to reduce dust intake, not water...

At least in Australia.

Ah well...

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what does Tesla's Kool-Aid taste like? The NHTSA's investigation is ongoing and none of the complaints where found fraudulent. Tesla's response, as usual, was highly misleading and contained outright lies. Read the real story here.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Rei]

Right. A blog from a self-admitted contributor to the "Tesla Death Watch"? Great reference there.

Just so you know, the game that he's playing is with the dates. His "references" all date to before the NHTSA closed the case on the Tesla suspensions.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Gussington]

Ha! I'm going to use that...

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[rpstrong]

Or: "I'd like to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

Re:Mopar smallblocks had the distributor at the re

[cbiltcliffe]

Well, I'm not really a Mopar kind of guy, so I couldn't have told you for sure. I knew I'd seen the weird angle ones at car shows though, but I suppose a lot of the ones you see there all done up are going to be 440s and 383s and such. I didn't realize it was just the big blocks, that had it at the front, though.
Thanks for the info.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. A blog from a self-admitted contributor to the "Tesla Death Watch"? Great reference there.

How relevant is that when he is right? Let's focus on the facts, not on the messenger.

Just so you know, the game that he's playing is with the dates. His "references" all date to before the NHTSA closed the case on the Tesla suspensions.

Of course they do, there no sources from after the NHTSA closes the case, since the case is still open.