Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Elon Musk, Tesla CTO Talk Model X Details, Model S Upgrades

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the things-to-come dept.

Transportation 155

joe5 writes "Tesla Motors tries to keep product details quiet for the most part, but in a recent Q & A session in Norway (Teslas sell extremely well there) Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the company's CTO JB Straubel discussed some interesting nuggets about the Model S, the upcoming Model X SUV, and the company's planned Model E sedan."

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Allow me to be the first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211735)

to say, "FUCK BETA."

Re:Allow me to be the first (-1, Offtopic)

buswolley (591500) | about 6 months ago | (#46211853)

I, like many others will not be here this week. However, it is impossible to resist stopping in momentarily to see how things are going.

There have been reports that anti-beta commenters are being banned by IP address. Has there been an official response to this allegation? Censorship by moderators we expect on Slashdot, no matter the topic. Censorship by Slashdot is something else...

Re:Allow me to be the first (5, Informative)

Soulskill (1459) | about 6 months ago | (#46211983)

We're not banning people for anti-beta comments.

The amount of people complaining about the beta across multiple stories and multiple days should be enough to verify that. If not, it's easy enough to test for yourself. What's been surprising to me is how many comments and emails we've seen asking for us to ban people/delete comments about the beta protest.

Side note: we do ban (and have always banned) commercial spammers and bots that try to flood us with traffic. The folks that do that like using proxies, so if you use a proxy, it's possible you'll end up on one that got banned for that reason. If that happens, you can switch proxies or email us at banned@slashdot.org.

Re:Allow me to be the first (1, Interesting)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 6 months ago | (#46212015)

LOL. YHBT. YHL. HTH. HAND.

I don't know what the trolls hope to accomplish with the "./ is deleting posts and banning people" song and dance with never a shred of easy to come by proof, if it were happening. No one believes it, the uproar would make this beta thing look insignificant.

Re:Allow me to be the first (0)

buswolley (591500) | about 6 months ago | (#46212047)

Thanks for the response.

I would have been banned by now too I would have thought. ha ha.

As it happens I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories of an intentional killing of Slashdot community. However, I did want you and the other developers to REALLY hear us. It is obvious that you have. Heck, there is a blog post in the Washington Post about it.

So I will forgo final judgement on Beta until the developers have had a chance to do what they can with it. The question will always be, will those that decide on the objectives for the recode believe how serious we are about keeping the essential elements of Slashdot in.

Re:Allow me to be the first (0)

buswolley (591500) | about 6 months ago | (#46212153)

For that matter, there are the fiddly things that 1% of users care about, and then there are the things that really turn people off. My list of easy fixes that would really improve relations are: 1. Add green bars above comments. 2. Make fonts more similar to current fonts, and make the text darker.

Re:Allow me to be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212329)

The only thing we want to see is Classic remain as an option. Is that so hard?

Mod parent down! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212387)

The slate needs to be wiped clean of Soulskill, timmyboy, and samzenpus. We already took care of kdawson. Bring back Rob Malda.

Re:Allow me to be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212589)

Keep the good fight /. I like the new format (I have been a lurker since... I can't even remember when).

Re:Allow me to be the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213119)

We're not banning people for anti-beta comments.

The amount of people complaining about the beta across multiple stories and multiple days should be enough to verify that. If not, it's easy enough to test for yourself. What's been surprising to me is how many comments and emails we've seen asking for us to ban people/delete comments about the beta protest.

Side note: we do ban (and have always banned) commercial spammers and bots that try to flood us with traffic. The folks that do that like using proxies, so if you use a proxy, it's possible you'll end up on one that got banned for that reason. If that happens, you can switch proxies or email us at banned@slashdot.org.

thank you.

Re:Allow me to be the first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212277)

k... bye

Re:Allow me to be the first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212375)

fuck us ACs, Beta style

Elon Musk's thoughts on BETA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211739)

I used to work with him and still have his phone number. I called him up during lunch a few days ago, and we chatted. he was a Slashdot user. When I told him to try going to Slashdot again, he was utterly appalled at what he saw. He said that he quit reading slashdot because of two editors, timothy and kdawson, but that he would NEVER come here again.

Hey non-Beta mods! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211989)

Mod the parent in the upward direction. OR ELSE!

First he has to fight the main stream FUD (2)

bazmail (764941) | about 6 months ago | (#46211749)

And good luck to him!!!



Hooray for Beta. I love it. Fuck off whining babies. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:First he has to fight the main stream FUD (0)

buswolley (591500) | about 6 months ago | (#46212063)

Wait, I can't see the context in which your comment was made. Oh yeah, Beta.

Best new feature: (4, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 6 months ago | (#46211779)

Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:

"Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."

Re:Best new feature: (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 6 months ago | (#46211825)

Hopefully those improvements can be "backported" to the S and X, reducing their price.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212173)

Hopefully those improvements can be "backported" to the S and X, increasing their profit margins.

FTFY.

Re:Best new feature: (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46211847)

Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:

"Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."

So.. it's vaporware. That's what we call it when a company pontificates about the amazing advancements of their not-yet-invented technology, right?

Here's another, less 'vapor-y' statement from TFA:

The Model X will actually have a lower drag coefficient than the super-slick Model S. But because of its increased frontal area, the total drag will be higher. Combined with a slightly heavier weight, the Model X will have an energy consumption about 10 percent higher than the Model S. (Musk did not say whether the Model X battery size would be increased in order to maintain the same range as the Model S.)

So, it's going to be heavier, create more drag, and use more energy (and thus, probably have a lower range) than a Tesla S. Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.

For less than half the price of the Model S.

Color me skeptical.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

phobos512 (766371) | about 6 months ago | (#46211917)

AWD is not standard. Says so right on their website. http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... [teslamotors.com] Scroll all the way to the bottom.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46212363)

AWD is not standard. Says so right on their website. http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... [teslamotors.com] Scroll all the way to the bottom.

So, then TFA is wrong when it says

All-wheel drive, using a separate electric drive motor for the front wheels, will be standard on the Model X.

Consequence of the source, I suppose? Why the hell do people keep linking greencarreports articles when they're so poorly researched?

Re:Best new feature: (1)

AaronW (33736) | about 6 months ago | (#46212903)

According to your link:

"Model X comes standard with Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive."

"Model X will be offered with a 60 kWh or an 85 kWh battery and will be dual motor all-wheel drive."

Re:Best new feature: (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#46211939)

Reading comprehension fail. Model X is their upcoming SUV, bigger and probably as expensive or costlier than the Model S. Model E is their planned economy model, presumably a smaller car, weaker engine, smaller batteries. They're going to be very different beasts.

Re:Best new feature: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212119)

They're going to be very different beasts.

For some reason I saw "very different breasts". Happy monday.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46212377)

Reading comprehension fail.

Well, to be fair, it is one of the most poorly written "articles" I've ever seen.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46214947)

Just from reading the summary, it was super obvious to me what the X and the E were.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46212985)

not a reading comprehension, just a troll.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

rmstar (114746) | about 6 months ago | (#46212019)

Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.

What's wrong with AWD?

The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

Re:Best new feature: (3, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 6 months ago | (#46212067)

The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46212427)

The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46213387)

I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.

The Lambo doors are fragile. Single mount point requiring frame stiffening. Open them in a garage, and you better have 4 feet of clear space above because that is how far they stick up. (There are parking garages with way less than that).

Ask anyone who has had one for more than a year. They've all had to have them adjusted due to whacking stuff.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46213373)

On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

On the image on the Model X [teslamotors.com] page, there is a slider that animates the doors.
It looks like the doors take about 5 to 8 inches beyond the side of the car, but only after sliding straight up. This design takes advantage of the slope if the sides in adjacent cars.

The doors are supported all along their top edges, way more practical and less damage prone than Lamborghini fragile solution of single pivot point.

I see nothing about this design that would require sensors, it takes way less room than a swinging door.
Although you might expect that on a high end car, as well as power assist.

They're "Falcon" winged doors... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46212781)

They call them that to distinguish from typical gull wing doors. They Hinge and cantilever. So that the just lift straight up without extending outward from the car.

The real issue will be when owners discover they cannot park in some extremely short underground parking garages.

Re: They're "Falcon" winged doors... (1)

xenben (702195) | about 6 months ago | (#46213765)

Shhhh....that will be Elon's next billion dollar company...Parking City.

Re: They're "Falcon" winged doors... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46214833)

He only had the one moneymaker: PayPal. Everything else is his hobby efforts to stay relevant.

Re: They're "Falcon" winged doors... (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46215031)

[slaps forehead] That is like saying Ray Croc only monetized a single collossal earthshaking commercial success when he bought the McDonald's chain from Richard and Maurice McDonald and grew it from 9 to over 10,000 restaurants and a multi billion dollar revenue.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46212887)

AWD, at least on typical gas-powered cars, reduces fuel economy significantly, usually 2-3mpg. All that extra spinning mass and gearing takes energy to turn. Regular (manual) car transmissions already impose a ~15% hit on fuel economy; that's how much energy is lost just using some gears to multiply your torque (and decrease the output shaft rpm by a proportional amount). CV joints also impose a fuel-economy hit. Of course, it's pretty hard to drive without these, so we accept them, but putting more gearing and more shafts in (to support 4 driven wheels instead of 2) just uses up that much more energy.

I haven't seen the gullwings on this vehicle, but on other cars they usually use less parking space, not more. On the DeLorean, they were hinged in the middle of the roof, so when they opened up, they really didn't protrude much from the car, much less than a conventional door. It's really easy to get in and out of a DeLorean even in tight parking spaces. I doubt these are much different, otherwise they wouldn't be called "gull-wing" (when both doors are opened, they look like a gull, due to the hinges being in the middle of the roof, causing the door to have an "L" shape).

Re:Best new feature: (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46213513)

But electric motors may not have that problem. There is no longitudinal shaft, simply a motor+differential on the front and another on the back.
Some designs by Protean [aedve.info] use one motor per wheel, built into the wheel. But this is a lot of un-sprung weight.

Mercedes and Tesla put their motors inboard of the wheel [ggpht.com] because its simpler. You still end up with short shafts and a shallow angle CV joint (which is a lot more efficient).

Re:Best new feature: (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46214835)

No, they'll still have the same problem. There's no longitudinal shaft, but there is an extra set of CV joints (with a non-shallow angle: this is an SUV with greater ground clearance), and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts. They're really not that much different from a regular car; they've only replaced the engine with an electric motor, and reduced the number of speeds in the transmission to 1 (which granted, is more efficient than a multi-speed transmission, but not that much).

Honestly, I am a little surprised they didn't use a system with separate L + R electric motors directly driving driveshafts. This would have made it easy to have limited-slip (since the motors can be driven at different speeds), and saved the inefficiency of a transmission and differential. Maybe the size of the motors would have been impractical that way, however, since they'd have to develop high torque instead of being high speed and using gearing to develop the necessary torque.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46215077)

Bull. If the CV joints are (to grab a number from the air) 90% efficient at power transfer, and the total cruise hp is 20, then two front CV joints passing 10 hp each waste a total of 2 hp, and four CV joints front and rear passing 5 hp each waste a total of ... tada ... exactly the same 2 hp.

And exactly the same with the transmissions and differentials.

GP nailed it. Electric is a huge win for AWD efficiency. You completely missed the engineering point.

Your note on four individual electric motors is dead on, however. It's a big lost opportunity. And you could definitely buil;d wheel motors with integral gear reduction.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46215229)

and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts.

No, the SUV Tesla X will have two motors [teslamotors.com] and those angles are pretty flat compared to most cars [bmcnamara.com] let alone SUVs. Looking at this shot of the rear of the Model S [wikimedia.org] you can just see the boot for the CV, and the shallow angle it has.

The Model X will be higher, but not that much. The frames look pretty comparable. If you were expecting ground clearance, you will be disappointed. This is definitely an on-street socker-mom's SUV.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 6 months ago | (#46214865)

Yes. It is well known that conventional automobiles suffer drive train power losses of ~15% or more, which gearheads know is the reason you get different numbers whether you measure horsepower and torque at the wheels or at the engine's output shaft. If you are using electric motors at each wheel with less spinning hardware you also have less loss, though we also know that comparing power ratings of electric motors to traditional cars is troublesome. So as you are alluding to, AWD electrically-driven cars shouldn't suffer the same losses (relative to 2WD ones) as traditional cars. Of course you have the added complexity and cost inherent in having more motors, but 4 smaller electric motors shouldn't bee too much more inefficient than one or two larger ones, right? If anything, the elimination of driveshafts and mechanical differentials should be a plus (aside from adding failure points), no?

Re:Best new feature: (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46212965)

No, we will just color you full of lies.
Your first big lie, is when you claim that the X will be less than 1/2 of the price.
Falcon doors are gull wings, in the same way that Humans are Chimpanze.

And calling a scale up of manufacturing in which the new factory will double the world's production, vaporware does not have the same meaning.

Re:Best new feature: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46213377)

No, we will just color you full of lies.

Well, somebody got his butt hurt, didn't they? Tell us how you really feel.

Your first big lie, is when you claim that the X will be less than 1/2 of the price.

That's not a lie, it's a mis-statement based on the fact that TFA is ridiculously difficult to parse. I presume you didn't actually RTFA, which is why you're attacking me.

FYI, a lie is an intentional misrepresentation, whereas in my case, if you had spent more time reading my posts and less time being angry, it was a simple misunderstanding. But please, don't let that stop you from getting all red in the face about it, fanboy.

Falcon doors are gull wings, in the same way that Humans are Chimpanze.

Uh, no. Gullwings are gullwings, period. It is a long-accepted term in the automotive and aeronautic fields.There is no such thing as a "falcon door" except in the minds of yourself and Elon Musk.

Unless you can point out how this "new design" is novel enough to deserve a different designation. Better be well researched, though.

And calling a scale up of manufacturing in which the new factory will double the world's production, vaporware does not have the same meaning.

It's vaporware because it doesn't exist. Your personal feelings towards the company, characters, and/or technology does not come into play.

Re:Best new feature: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46215357)

Your definition of vaporware is wrong, and fucking ludicrous to boot.

Re: Best new beta feature: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211889)

The destruction of Slashdot! Good job beta!!!!!

Re:Best new feature: cost (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 6 months ago | (#46211913)

I should point out that Toyota, Ford, Fiat, Honda, and even Chevy are all rolling out $26,000 to $30,000 all-electric cars.

One assumes this is not for the US markets where electricity primarily comes from coal, but for the 90 percent of the US GDP-creating middle class that lives in places where electricity comes from solar, wind, nuclear fission, and hydroelectric sources (mostly the West and NorthEast).

For us in these areas, solar is cheaper than coal, and wind is cheaper than oil. Which makes a full tank of electricity cost about 1/10th to 1/20th the cost of gasoline.

Re:Best new feature: cost (1)

theqmann (716953) | about 6 months ago | (#46214557)

Out west, we just burn natural gas now.

Re: Best new feature: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212011)

Beta kills the conversation, killing Slashdot in the process -- Dice gets what it wants: a demographic of mouth-breathing ad-clickers.

TL;DR: FUCK BETA!

Re:Best new feature: (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46213287)

The summary isn't the only thing lacking in details.

The first link in the story, about Tesla selling "WELL" in Norway isn't backed up by a single statistic. Following the link show a figure of 13,000 electric go-carts in Oslo, and mere mention of Tesla, with another link that suggests there may actually be ONE Tesla in all of Norway. The only reason it is mentioned at all is that the Tesla Chargers trip off due to fluctuation on the Norwegian electrical grid that are considered normal there, but would not be tolerated in the US or the rest of the EU.

That said, at $40 K, I'd be a buyer. At least for the day to day trips.

Tesla naming like mercedes (2)

slew (2918) | about 6 months ago | (#46211833)

Seems like Tesla is attempting to follow Mercedes...

S-class - top of the line expensive (100K)
X-class - baby SUV (to come out real soon now)
E-class - something for people that envy those that own a S-class but don't have enough money
C-class - crap that ruins the company's reputation

I wonder when Tesla will announce the C-class...
Mercedes seem to think there will be success with an A-class below the C-class, we'll see how many people they can get to part with their money for that badge...

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (2)

manu144x (3377615) | about 6 months ago | (#46211903)

You might have something there. Actually it was Mercedes that saved Tesla from bankruptcy at some point, and also many small bits and pieces on the Model S come from Mercedes. If I remember correctly, they are also a pretty good investor in Tesla.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46213111)

nope. Mercedes invested very little. They own less than 5% currently. OTOH, Toyota did a lot. There was a lot from Mercedes that was on the roadster, but very little on the Model S (and I think that most of it is gone).

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211925)

Mercedes doesn't have an X class, that's BMW.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

phobos512 (766371) | about 6 months ago | (#46211943)

Mercedes has no X. That's BMW. They have the ML, the G, the GL, the CLS, the CLA, the A (non-US), the B (non-US), the C, the E, the S, the SL. Think that's all of em. They used to have an R class but they don't anymore (in the US at least - not sure if that was worldwide). They also used to have the CL but that's being replaced by the S Coupe. And there's the E Coupe which is really a C, and the C Coupe.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

slew (2918) | about 6 months ago | (#46212453)

Mercedes has no X.

Like Tesla, X-class.. real soon now...
http://www.carscoops.com/2014/... [carscoops.com]

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212481)

Let's not forget the Sprinter, Unimog, and V.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (2)

phobos512 (766371) | about 6 months ago | (#46211967)

And since I forgot to mention it, only in North America (and maybe China - but heck, they think Buick is prestigious over there) is Mercedes seen only as a prestige brand. In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis. Inexpensive cars don't ruin a company's reputation - they provide capital to develop things like the next S-Class.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 6 months ago | (#46212091)

In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they are not a prestige brand. That ARE a prestige brand. It's just that you can hire them, and some countries have better quality taxis than others.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46212951)

No, it's because Mercedes is like GM over there, but without different "brands" (Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, GMC). Over here, we have GM selling both shitty little Aveos and high-end Cadillacs, and big GMC trucks (and previously giant Hummers, and Pontiac/Saturn 2-seaters, etc. before they downsized). The high-end Cadillac buyers aren't put off by the Aveos. It's the same over there, except it's all one brand, Mercedes. They make a whole range of vehicles. It's just that they don't sell that whole range over here, they only sell the luxury cars.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213987)

and maybe China - but heck, they think Buick is prestigious over there

They do, but it has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with the fact that their Emperor had a Buick.

Re: Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

IrquiM (471313) | about 6 months ago | (#46212463)

The C-class is not crap if you look at similar cars in the same price range.

Re:Tesla naming like mercedes (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46212803)

Or....

S = Standard
X = Crossover (X being a common abbreviation for that vehicle class)
E = Everyone

The next vehicle after that I believe will be the

T = Truck

I thought T until (1)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about 6 months ago | (#46212869)

A coworker suggested that the fourth chassis they make should be the Model Y. SEX and Y. I hope it's not a cargo vehicle, they need to do a new Roadster.

Model Y actually (1)

Albinoman (584294) | about 6 months ago | (#46215761)

They have already trademarked "Model Y". So according to Musk, they've put a trademark on SEXY.

Like what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211873)

Isn't the job of the summary to, you know, summarize? What "interesting nuggets" are you talking about?

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211905)

news for nerds, stuff that matters, beta sucks, yadda yadda

Confusing TFA (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46211909)

So, the article* talks about 3 different models, the S, the X, and the E, in a very mercurial way, that leaves me asking more questions than I got answers to...

- What's the projected price point for the Model X?

- What are the features/specs of the Model E, other than the (currently vaporware-based) price point?

- What will be the price difference between a current Model S and one of the new ones with all the fancy new additions, like AWD and hill assist?

Really, TFA reads more like a press release written by a schizophrenic, than the results of a "town hall" Q&A sesssion.

Which doesn't surprise me, considering the source is greencarreports.com.

* No, I don't watch the videos on articles. If you can't be bothered to type out the transcript, I can't be bothered to care.

Re:Confusing TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212169)

So, the article* talks about 3 different models, the S, the X, and the E

Just rearrange them. You know you want to. "Elon Musk talks about S, E, X."

THAT WAS TOO FUNNY... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46212817)

MOD THIS GUY UP, NOT DOWN...

About those falcon doors (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211919)

It's funny that they're promoting the Model X's falcon doors in Finland. How well will people be able to get into the vehicle when there's 10cm of snow on top of it? It's a lot easier to brush snow off the sides of a vehicle than to brush it off the top.

Re:About those falcon doors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213257)

It's a lot easier to brush snow off the sides of a vehicle than to brush it off the top.

1) Who the hell brushes the snow off their car while the door is open? For that matter, who the hell leaves their doors open overnight? Because that is the only way this comment makes any sense.
2) If you aren't brushing the snow off the top of your car, I hate you and I hope you find yourself behind a just-as-inconsiderate person and have their snow blow in your face, causing you to get into a wreck that harms no one but yourself.

Re: About those falcon doors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213351)

I never brush snow of the top of my car and for driving behind people who don't, wipers and maybe a tad more distance. Why should snow from the roof of another car be any different from the stuff that falls from the sky?

Re: About those falcon doors (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 6 months ago | (#46213713)

I never brush snow of the top of my car and for driving behind people who don't, wipers and maybe a tad more distance. Why should snow from the roof of another car be any different from the stuff that falls from the sky?

If the weather is really cold, there is no difference and I don't care if you brush your snow off or not. Particularly if there is more snow falling.

However, if the weather is not really cold, the snow on top of the car becomes heavy and icy and falls off in large chunks. They are not particularly nice to hit, and it takes the wipers a while to get the windscreen clear, partially because some of it usually hits other parts of the car before making its way to the windscreen.

Re: About those falcon doors (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46215099)

You can also get a citation for not clearing your roof.

Re: About those falcon doors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46215817)

Never heard of anyone getting a citation. Then, on the other hand, kingdom scandinavia where we don't panic because of a little snow.

Re: About those falcon doors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46214893)

Why should snow from the roof of another car be any different from the stuff that falls from the sky?

Typically, Mother Nature doesn't throw a giant clump of 2 cubic feet of snow all at once (guesstimating a 2 foot by 2 foot by 6 inch thick sheet of packed snow).

The very fact that you think the fluffy stuff falling from the sky is equivalent... I don't know what to say.

My comp is slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211921)

Beta slows down my computer so I have to say: BETA SUX0R

Breaking News: Musk talks Tesla in Norway! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46211965)

Pointless Tesla articles are almost as bad as Beta!

Model X is the Wrong Model (1, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | about 6 months ago | (#46212099)

Tesla should have concentrated on producing a credible hatchback, Volkswagen Golf competitor they could sell worldwide. If they could get a section of that market then things would change very rapidly. As it is they're simply chasing after niches and not gaining enough critical mass.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (3, Interesting)

CaptSlaq (1491233) | about 6 months ago | (#46212291)

Have you looked at the pictures that have been released? Some would say that the X *is* a hatchback. Bigger than a golf, granted, but still the design is firmly in the hatch territory. They call it an SUV because the nomenclature of "station wagon" has huge negative implications, and hatchback is codespeak for "cheap car that's almost a station wagon" in the US. [url]http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx[/url]. The third row will be unusable of you're of normal adult height due to the roofline.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212545)

Except that it doesn't look like a station wagon. Hatchback, sort of, but I think crossover (hooray for an essentially meaningless epithet), is a better description.

If it actually looked like a station wagon--and it doesn't--there are many nicer things they could call it, ie, Wagon, Estate, Shooting Brake.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 6 months ago | (#46212991)

Tesla is an American company, so they have to go by American terminology. "Wagon" is shorthand for "station wagon", which is passe in America unfortunately. "Estate" has no meaning in America as far as cars go; an "estate" is all your belongings when you die, or it's a big mansion a rich person lives in. And WTF is "shooting brake", some kind of in-joke?

He just understands nature of income distribution (2)

swb (14022) | about 6 months ago | (#46212429)

He just understands the nature of income distribution.

Until he can achieve significant improvements across the board in batteries in terms of capacity, cost and manufacturing efficiency, a Tesla car will be on the wrong side of affordability for the middle class. His cars will not sell and he will lose money.

However, if he targets the upper end of the spectrum, people who are able to spend $50-80,000, he has to offer them an SUV choice in order to not lose sales to people who don't want a sedan.

It's like that with anything anymore. Marginally expensive durable goods that used to be targeted at the middle class no longer find a strong market there because there's not enough income.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212503)

Why? There's now many models from other companies in that spot. I'm thinking they want to grab the market of the RAV4 that never came out. If you want it, you can make the jump. Once they secure that market, go further down and start battling the inexpensive segment.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (1)

AaronW (33736) | about 6 months ago | (#46212507)

I hate to break it to you but the Model S IS a hatchback with a lot of space. A month ago I hauled a new dishwasher in the back of mine with plenty of room to spare. I'm sure Tesla did a lot of market research before coming out with the model X. Right now they're focusing on the luxury segment due to the current high cost of the large battery packs. Once they get their giga factory built they expect to come out with a 30-35K car though that probably won't be until at least 2018.

There is already a lot of demand and preorders for the Model X.

At least here in the US there is a strong demand for SUVs, especially by all those soccer moms.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212687)

While there is a significant group of Slashdotters who would gladly pay $50,000 for a Tesla less-than-s as soon as possible, he's following the proper tech release curve for automotive innovations.

1) High expense luxury car with experimental tech and some fault-allotment built into the price tag. Treat the buyers as beloved kings, because they are beta-testing the new tricks as well as covering the costs to improve the tech.

2) Medium-high expense vehicle with different geometry than #1. Treat these buyers well also because they are helping test the difficulties in scaling the new tech. (this step is not always necessary, but it results in good cash even if the testing is not needed)

3) Seriously mass-produced model based on #1 with less shiney in the luxury side and all the lessons from #1 and #2 considered. May still have known bugs from #1 & #2, but only if the cost to resolve the bug is seen as less than the cost to prevent the bug completely.

4) Crazy Eddie's Discount Model! Built just well enough not to result in brand scarring. By the time you make a line of these, #1-#3 should be stable enough that you don't have customer complaints coming in, it helps prevent class-action lawsuits. Also make sure not to release this model until the owner-level workarounds for common problems with your technology are easy to find online. This is for people who really don't spend money on preventative maintenance, so expect them to kludge around every warning your system hands them.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (1)

wolfemi1 (765089) | about 6 months ago | (#46212789)

Tesla should have concentrated on producing a credible hatchback, Volkswagen Golf competitor they could sell worldwide. If they could get a section of that market then things would change very rapidly.

Just like Nissan has with the Leaf? Or Mitsubishi with the i-Miev? Or Honda with the Fit Electric? Chevy Spark? Focus Electric?

There's a whole lot of competition in that market; I don't think it'd be unfair to credit Tesla's relative success with the fact that they DIDN'T try to do that.

The Model E (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 6 months ago | (#46212825)

And you do realize that the Model S and Model X are BOTH hatchbacks!!!

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213081)

That would be a pretty stupid move.

Tesla is production constrained right now, not demand contrained.
So what they need, is to keep selling expensive cars, that they make more money on. Then use that money to speed up production.

With your strategy they would increase their demand 10x, reduce they margin by a lot (you make less on cheaper cars), and still produce at the same rate. Basically they would loose money.

Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (1)

Lluc (703772) | about 6 months ago | (#46213481)

An all electric Golf-sized hatchback that costs $60k+ would be a much smaller niche than a full-size CUV at the same price point. Tesla will supposedly build a $40K Model E as their low end sedan, but the Model X will be much more expensive. Your Golf competitor already exists. It is the Nissan Leaf.

new /. beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212341)

I love beta, why is everyone complaining?

Elon Musk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46212433)

does anyone else think that guy is a greedy douche asshole making people wait 60 days to get an ebay payment through paypal while he rides around in his spaceship?

Model E Sedan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46213367)

Anyone else read that as "Model Edison"?

2012 Lincoln MKS, 2013 Cadillac CTS (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 6 months ago | (#46213749)

Musk says AWD has never been put on a car with no loss of efficiency before.

2012 Lincoln MKS:
FWD version: 17/25 mpg.
AWD version: 17/25 mpg. And the AWD version is more powerful.

2013 Cadillac CTS:
RWD version: 18/27 mpg.
AWD version: 18/27 mpg. AWD version has same power (same engine) as RWD version.

So yes, AWD has been added without a loss of efficiency before.

Elon, it would be fantastic if you would bother to check to see if what you say is true before you say it.

Re:2012 Lincoln MKS, 2013 Cadillac CTS (2)

businessnerd (1009815) | about 6 months ago | (#46213935)

Car and Driver seems to disagree with your Lincoln claims, but your Cadillac statement seems to be accurate
2012 Lincoln MKS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive... [caranddriver.com]
2013 Cadillac CTS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive... [caranddriver.com]
Both cars get around 1 MPG less with AWD compared to their 2WD counterparts with same engine. And for the Lincoln, SAME ENGINE is the key word. The AWD Lincoln is able to achieve the same MPG as the FWD one assuming you upgrade to the EcoBoost engine, which, while yes is more powerful, is a completely different engine, so not a proper comparison of MPG from FWD to AWD. Even for the Cadillac it is hard to draw any hard conclusions without more information. There can be a lot of variability between the trims, deeper even than what is presented on the surface. I would not be surprised if the transmissions are geared slightly differently or if there was any weight saving measures taken for the AWD version. You could be correct, though.

Re:2012 Lincoln MKS, 2013 Cadillac CTS (1)

12WTF$ (979066) | about 6 months ago | (#46213955)

So you're saying that a Tesla with AWD will use the same amount of petrol as a FWD/RWD model.
Like, still zero?

Re:2012 Lincoln MKS, 2013 Cadillac CTS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46214517)

He talks about no loss of efficiency with the SAME ENGINE. Check your examples, one does not have the same engine, the other doesn't really maintain efficiency if you check around for tests.

Re:2012 Lincoln MKS, 2013 Cadillac CTS (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 6 months ago | (#46214925)

Musk says AWD has never been put on a car with no loss of efficiency before.

2012 Lincoln MKS:
FWD version: 17/25 mpg.
AWD version: 17/25 mpg. And the AWD version is more powerful.

2013 Cadillac CTS:
RWD version: 18/27 mpg.
AWD version: 18/27 mpg. AWD version has same power (same engine) as RWD version.

So yes, AWD has been added without a loss of efficiency before.

Elon, it would be fantastic if you would bother to check to see if what you say is true before you say it.

Erm, these are not efficient cars. 18 MPG is 13L/100 KM which is shocking fuel economy.

There is more loss to an AWD drive train compared to a FWD or RWD drive train, it can be minimised but its impossible to eliminate it. So chances are the Lincoln and Cadilac simply fudged the figures (easy to do when you already have shocking fuel economy).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>