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!

Tesla Reveals Its Model X Gullwing SUV

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the if-only-that-extra-space-were-all-battery dept.

Transportation 306

thecarchik writes "The new, all-electric Tesla Model X crossover, which was introduced on stage by Tesla CEO Elon Musk (also the man behind SpaceX), isn't exactly a step toward the mass market. But it does take on premium utility vehicles with three rows of seating for up to seven, better maneuverability than a Mini Cooper, and a 0-60 mph time of just 4.4 seconds—that's faster than a Porsche 911, Musk jeered. But the real oohs and ahs of the evening came when Musk showed the Model X's much-anticipated 'falcon doors' — essentially gullwing rear doors, behind normal hinged front doors." The expected price before tax-credit shenanigans? $60,000-$90,000.

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

Oh, the disappointment... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998771)

At first I read X Wing.

Re:Oh, the disappointment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999309)

Silly AC, X-Wings don't have doors, they have a top-closing canopy.

Which I also would gladly have on my car. Especially if there's an R1 automech droid spinning and beeping about that idiot on the motorcycle passing between lanes of traffic.

Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

zakkie (170306) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998793)

FFS. I suppose it gets spoken about, but a massively impractical non-solution.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (4, Insightful)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998845)

I fail to follow your point; "Do you want an electric car? Do you need a little more space than the Model S can give you? Here, have a Model X." If your complaint is that it's an SUV, then it is a complaint without merit -- there are certainly practical advantages of this platform over that of the Model S (granted, not everyone that buys one will make use of them). If your complaint is about the gullwing doors, then I still disagree -- the take less space to open than a normal door, offer stand-up exits for mid-row passengers, and allow direct access to the third row. This last point is actually a big problem for anyone with two car seats -- if you can't get to the back row with the seats installed, you'll can't use it anyway.

I suppose lastly, if your complaint is that it's an electric vehicle, then get out.

Aikon-

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998871)

Ah....for that kind of money, I'll stick with a Corvette....

If they could just make the roadster in this price range...THEN talk to me about getting an electric car!!

I'm just not interested in a 'family car'.....which is anything with > 2 functional seats.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998993)

This goes faster than your vette, grandpa.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (-1, Troll)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999089)

Maybe if you are comparing it to your grandpa's vette...
And then only for ~22 miles till it runs out of juice.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999141)

Actually no. A base C6 (depending on who you believe) has a 0-60 between at 4.3 seconds and the Z06 clocks in at 3.6. Also, handling and top speed of a vette' would destroy this SUV. Go back to your junk 'vettes of the 90s if you want to complain; they truly are nearly a supercar status now (esp. the Z06/ZR1)

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999101)

Then you clearly didn't pass the screening question at the beginning of my post ;) The Model X is certainly not for everyone, but that's not to say there isn't a market for it. Remember that Tesla's goal is to make the best damn electric drive trains they can, and to develop a market for electric vehicles. They've hit the two-seater sports cars, now the luxury sedans, and are moving on to the family SUV. I wouldn't be surprised if their next announcement was the Model T ('T' is for 'truck').

Personally, I prefer the sedan -- I don't need the extra space of the Model X, but I need more than the two seats of the roadster. Before that, though, I need to live somewhere where I can actually plug the damn thing in =(

p.s. I'm a 'vette boy myself ^^, but it would have to be as a second car

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999347)

Think the Model V (for delivery Van).

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (2)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999123)

Dude 0-60 in an SUV in 4.4s not too shabby and only 0.3s behind the 2012 corvette.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999241)

did you just compare a Corvette to a SUV? FAIL

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999327)

Had you bothered to click the link you would have seen there is nothing at all like a SUV pictured
on that page. Its a Crossover, maybe, but not an SUV.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999269)

About to trade in my C5 Z06 on a Lotus Evora. Now that is a fun car to drive :)

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999277)

...but, the target niche for this is BMW X3/X5, Audi Q7, MB M###, Porsche Cayenne.

It is not really competing with Suburban/Yukon/Tahoe. Or Corvette, for that matter.

Yes, for that money, though, I'd buy a GT-R. But, to each their own.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

zakkie (170306) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999069)

A sliding door would have been far more practical, and no, gullwing doors do not need less space. That is the main thrust of my comment. Partially, my complaint is also that it's an electric vehicle due to massive issues with range and recharge times. The combination, coupled with a seriously massive base price just makes this even more of a non-solution.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999207)

GullWing doors on a DeLorean for instance require about 11 inches clearance to open. Try getting out of your car only opening the door 11 inches.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (3, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999221)

Gull wing doors take less width than standard hinged doors, because the pivot point is near the centre-line of the vehicle. Yes, they need more height -- outdoors, this is a non-issue; in your garage, it might be. Better measure before you buy one.

With respect to sliding doors, they don't offer the same level of third-row access -- if you look at any imagery of the Model X, you will see that the rear doors are about twice the width of the amount of vehicle remaining behind it. You need something for your sliding door to slide on.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999581)

Until you park to close to somebody else. Then you realize that it's uncomfortable, but doable to get out of a partially open normally hinged door (unless you are really fat). Not so much for a gull wing door. Unless you're okay with climbing out on your hands and knees.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (2)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999273)

Other than "oooh" factor, the main reason for the gullwing doors appears to be extra headroom when getting in the 3rd-row seats.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999291)

There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING wrong adding the gull-wing doors as strictly a style component.

...coupled with a seriously massive base price just makes this even more of a non-solution.

It's a "luxury" vehicle. If you are looking specifically for a no-frills utility vehicle, this is not for you. For people looking for a bleeding edge stylish luxury SUV, this is certainly a possible solution.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (2)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999299)

Range 250-300 miles.

Seriously, I commute a 100+ miles a day. And this will work just fine for me.

That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh. And with the money you save on gas, you can always rent a mini-van for a longer trip...

And the expected cost is not that much more than a fully-loaded Toyota Sequoia.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999629)

That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh.

Barely, so long as you don't hit traffic, or a detour, or stop from lunch, and you batteries are in absolute top shape, and it certainly won't get you back again.

I certainly wouldn't risk it.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999157)

Gullwing doors take up less space? maybe when both are opened completely. But with a normal door, if someone is parked a little too close to you, you can still squeeze out. With this, I would have to crawl on the ground. Not gonna happen.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999259)

Gullwing doors generally require about 11" on either side of the car; try opening your standard car door 11" and squeeze out (noting that most car doors are about 6" thick to begin with).

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999551)

They're hinged/articulated, my understanding is that you don't need much space between you and the neighboring car.

Sucky part of Gullwing doors: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999209)

Have you ever been somewhere where the parking spaces are pretty narrow. Then someone parks real close to you so that they have enough room to get out of their car - their passenger side is on your driverside I'd like to point out. Now, normally, you can get your door open a little bit and squeeze in. With a gullwing, you'd have to get on your hands and knees to crawl under the door to get in.

There's a reason why gullwing doors aren't on today's vehicles is because they are not very practical.

You young'ns don't remember all those failed cars that had them - except the very high end sports cars which are really for bragging rights than for useful transportation.

Re:Sucky part of Gullwing doors: (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999439)

Dear Coward, you are quite wrong. You have obviously never actually been around or in a car with gull-wing doors. It's all about where the hinge line is. You would be correct if the hinge line was located where the top of a conventional door is. However, that is never the case. The hinge line is far inboard toward the center of the roof. Thus when the door is opened, the bottom of the door moves out very little. Gull-wing door are actually more practical than conventional doors for parking lot ingress and egress. The main problem is they are more costly than conventional doors.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999305)

complaint is that it's an SUV, then it is a complaint without merit

No, it is a complaint with a lot of merit. The very VERY small percentage of people that actually NEED SUVs(vs. the ones with fat asses and tiny penises, i.e. 99% of SUV owners out there) will not be served well at all with an electric vehicle as in offroad/wilderness situations places to recharge are few and far between. In those situations it's a hell of a lot easier to bring a can of gas or two than it is to bring fully loaded batteries.

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999423)

To be fair, they call it an SUV, but it looks more like a Mini-Van/Station wagon. Its much lower than most SUVs I've seen, and the third row of seat CAN be useful if you have a large enough family.

Besides, the main complaint people have with SUVs are that they tend to be gas guzzlers. Why so much hate for an all electric SUV?

Re:Because everyone needs a gullwing suv (2)

eth1 (94901) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999397)

Who cares what kind of doors it has? The important thing is that it's electric and has the seating of a large SUV.

The soccer mom crowd doesn't need long range for ferrying family around, so this would be a great market, and would get a lot of gas guzzlers off the street if they can shave another 20-30k off of the price. The current tiny all-electrics would be terrible for lots of kids, multiple car seats, etc.

Wait, they're still making cars? (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998811)

I thought Tesla was going under or something. If they aren't, then why haven't they?

Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (3, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998869)

Because their founder has a lot of money to keep them afloat while they build up their technology and product line, and they are busy selling their drive-trains to companies such as Toyota.

Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (4, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999229)

Because their founder has a lot of money to keep them afloat while they build up their technology and product line, and they are busy selling their drive-trains to companies such as Toyota.

While continuing to do novel things (like the all-wheel drive train of the Model-X using two electric motors).

I see them sort of as Xerox PARC, except dealing with the automotive industry instead of computers, and they actually produce things you can buy.

Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999279)

While continuing to do novel things (like the all-wheel drive train of the Model-X using two electric motors).

I see them sort of as Xerox PARC, except dealing with the automotive industry instead of computers, and they actually produce things you can buy.

It's a step closer to hub-motors, which is where I believe the future of electric vehicle propulsion lies.

Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999389)

Well that 500 million dollar loan they got from the government is part of that, don't be going and making Musk out to be anything other than what he is.

Re:Wait, they're still making cars? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999361)

I think you're thinking of Fisker. Which basically built the equivalent of a Chevy Volt but want twice as much for it.

Tesla has started out as a premium brand and is working their way down the classes to the masses.

Roadster - elites (Ferrari, etc)
Model S - BMW/Mercedes/Porsche equiv
Model X - Lexus/Cadillac SUV drivers

I expect they'll move down the masses.

Model E - everyone, the Chevy. It'll be about $5,000 more than a chevy. And a lot more frills.
Model T - Truck to compete with Ford and Chevy

Because those stories were from haters (4, Informative)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999471)

Literally, not one story about Tesla going out of business has come true, not one story about how the Model S would cost a Billion dollars to build, not one story about the lack of sales between the end of the Roadster (no more Lotus bodies) and the beginning of the Model S eating through their cash too quickly.

Try reading the stories about their technology, how even if their car sales tanked they'd have a profitable business on the battery pack and drivetrain alone. The runaway battery pack fire risk on the Chevy Volt, can't happen with a Tesla battery pack. Tesla fixed that problem on the Roadster back when GM was still saying it couldn't be done.

Tesla does have a $450 million loan from the DoE to build the manufacturing and come out with the Model S, that's probably kept them defying gravity longer than some folks would like. That and Musk running himself ragged, living with friends and putting all his cash into the business for a while.

Odd summary (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998813)

What is "bettb |rer maneuverability"?

Re:Odd summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999131)

It's a new term that they hope people will confuse with better maneuverability, but actually means nothing so they can't be accused of making a false claim.

It won out over the more factual second choice, "Better Manureability", because, while it does have more surface area to take a dump on, it's not the image they wanted to convey if someone didn't confuse the second word.

Nice bit of industrial design. (2)

jhantin (252660) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998855)

It's unusual to see /. mention a company that has a lick of design sense unless it's either Apple or someone on the defending end of a patent infringement claim from Apple. So when can we expect to see a lawsuit over the rear doors having too clean of a profile? (To the humor-impaired: the second sentence is a joke.)

massive battery hog = massive failure. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998859)

$100K+ for an SUV with a 30 mile driving range. yeah that will sell in huge numbers. and no fuel generator unlike the volt. sooo practical.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (4, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998991)

Whence comes your 30 mile driving range? The Model X is offered with a 60 kWh or a 85 kWh battery pack, the same as the top two options for the Model S. In the Model S, those packs give it 270 miles and 370 miles range respectively. Granted, the Model X is a larger, heavier vehicle, but a 90% drop in range? I don't think so.. probably closer to 10%. Also, the top two drive-train options have dual motors, which may offer better efficiency overall.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999099)

So can I jump in one of these and expect to drive at a steady 70mph for over 300 miles? If it can't, then it can't replace my diesel car.

I don't care if it can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I *do* care if it can do 0 to 250 miles in 4.5 hours.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (5, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999189)

With the Model S you can; depending on how you drive, the 60 kWh pack would be tight, but the 85 kWh pack should handle you no problem (going on your second 250 mile requirement). Those same numbers aren't out for the Model X, but as I said, they are the same battery packs, and the total efficiency will be in the same ballpark.

Also, note that just because one particular non-extended-range electric vehicle does not meet your particular driving requirements does not mean it is a useless endeavour, or even that it will fail in market at all. There are plenty of other people out there that don't drive 300 miles a day (I for one wouldn't want to); the base Model S would do all the driving I need fine, except when I go home for the holidays. Even then, the 85 kWh battery pack would handle that no problem. If you're going on a really long trip, say, once a year, you could always just rent.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999253)

I don't think the vast majority of people in the market for a car need to do 70mph for 300 miles- or 0 to 250 in 4.5 hours on anything close to a regular basis.

If you're regulary having to travel 250 miles- sorry... I'm glad my commute is only 20 miles a day.

The Teslas are expensive for what they give you- and electiric cars do have a huge curve to climb before they match diesel or petrol; however, they would fill the need for the vast majority of households (if the vast majority of households had vast quantites of cash).

If twice a year you go across a few states to see Grandma- well... can't do that in your Tesla- so either rent a car (if you're paying this much for a car- what's another $25 twice a year) or wait until they have fast-charge stations. ;)

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (2)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999297)

If you would like to drive it further than it's engineered limit per fill up maybe you should think of a work around instead of expecting the manufacture to include it in a product not designed for you.

The answer will likely end up being a small petrol powered generator trailer hitch thingy for sale or rent. I think some government agency has said the average driver goes less than 30 miles in a day. How many times in the lifetime of a vehicle does it end up needing more than 300 miles of capacity? If the cost of adding that extra capacity was not so cheap for todays vehicles they wouldn't have it, and there's no good reason for it to be standard in the vehicles of tomorrow.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999323)

Not a car for you then. Who cares. There's 7 billion people on the planet. Not everyone has the same driving habits as you. There's a reason that GM has 57different models of cars. If they can get 100,000 people to buy a Tesla, they would probably have a pretty good start. If I had a little bit more money, I would seriously consider buying one, because they fit my driving habits perfectly. For a family with 2 cars, it wouldn't matter if one of them would only be of use to commute back and forth across the city. Anybody who goes out of town can just use the other one. On the rare occurrence that both people are going out of town at the same time, somebody could rent. The savings alone in fuel and maintenance would make up for the cost of the rental. Just because I don't have and iPod or an iPad, or a Rolex, doesn't mean they are terrible products. It just means they are aiming for a different market.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (4, Interesting)

eth1 (94901) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999493)

So can I jump in one of these and expect to drive at a steady 70mph for over 300 miles? If it can't, then it can't replace my diesel car.

I don't care if it can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I *do* care if it can do 0 to 250 miles in 4.5 hours.

You wouldn't replace your diesel car with a gas or diesel SUV, either, would you (unless you need the space)?

This is a soccer mom vehicle. They don't drive 70mph for 300 miles. They drive 30-50 mph for lots of small trips, which is what an electric is really good for. Think of this as an electric replacement for gas-hog SUVs, and it makes more sense.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999605)

Good chance, the estimates are around 250-300 mile range for the bigger battery pack.

And I wager improvements over the next 2-3 years (when vehicle is released to production) will likely push it over the 300 mile mark.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (3, Informative)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999247)

According to: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0210/Tesla-Model-X-Era-of-the-all-electric-SUV-is-arriving [csmonitor.com] 80-100 mile range. Probably enough for about 90% of everyone's one go trips. I really don't get this crazy worry about electric: oh but I can't go for 300 miles on a charge. How often do you do 5 hrs of non-stop driving anyways? If the technology for rapid charging comes out it wouldn't matter much either since you could just stop at a restaurant for an hour break and recharge. At any rate for the very rare times you need to drive 5hrs at a go run a car. The other 340 days a year your electric will be fine.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999353)

I really don't get this crazy worry about electric: oh but I can't go for 300 miles on a charge. How often do you do 5 hrs of non-stop driving anyways?

I think the main worry is if you can only afford (or need!) one car, then yeah, even if you just need 5 hours of non stop driving once a year, that is too much.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999379)

The 80-100 mile range figure is for the electric Jeep, not the Tesla.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (4, Insightful)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999331)

Correction: according to teslamotors.com, the range of the Model S on these batteries is actually 230 miles and 300 miles respectively.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999021)

Your made up range aside, most people drive their luxury SUV to Whole Foods and back, no more.

Re:massive battery hog = massive failure. (0)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999081)

It will be an upscale shuttle for places like Infinite loop.

Top Gear (2, Funny)

MatthewNewberg (519685) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998885)

I can't wait for Jeremy Clarkson to review this Electric Sports Car/SUV with Gull Wing Doors. I am for sure he will have some great superlatives for how amazingly stupid this thing is. This SUV is the answer for the question no one asked.

Re:Top Gear (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998929)

More POWAAAR!

The doors are silly, and your last sentence sums it up completely.

Re:Top Gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998945)

I'm already imaging the cut shot where it pulls it into a parking space at ASDA and someone in the back attempts to open the doors.

An SUV (I.e. a big, tall car), with gull wings (I.e. doors that require lots of space to the side to swing them out and up). Fail.

Re:Top Gear (3, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999067)

they're hinged. They take lots of space vertically, not so much horizontally. In most parking lots, you have more room up than on the side.

Where I work I see plenty of mall mommies with a Porsche Cayenne 4S SUV (and sometimes Turbo) or something ridiculous like that. There's a market for these proportional to Tesla's production capacity.

Re:Top Gear (1)

MatthewNewberg (519685) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999621)

Look at pretty much any review of the SLS - AMG, they all pretty much point out how hard it is to deal with Gullwing doors. The doors have issues such as you have to duck to get in and they are hard to close. The doors also have to be explosive incase of a rollover. From the looks of it the Model-X won't even fit in most garages with the doors open. Wonder how you get this in and out of a garage. I wonder how many of those SUV mall mommies would want s to plugin there SUV all the time just to be able to drive 100 miles.

Re:Top Gear (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999167)

This SUV is the answer for the question no one asked.

It's not an SUV, and Tesla never claimed it was. TFS is wrong.

Low profile road tires, no elevated truck chassis, and little loading space makes it a completely different type of beast. I don't even agree with TFA calling it a crossover - it's a 5-door hatchback bordering on an estate car.

Looks like a great car, though, whatever it is.

Re:Top Gear (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999535)

It's not an SUV, and Tesla never claimed it was. TFS is wrong.

from the Tesla web site [teslamotors.com] : "Blending the best of an SUV with the benefits of a minivan".

Low profile road tires, no elevated truck chassis, and little loading space

Just like the majority of SUVs these days.

Re:Top Gear (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999513)

Actually, it's the answer for a question a lot of people asked.

But some stupid people don't know how to ask the right questions. Like...

- How do I move my whole family, and pick up grandma from the hospital.
- How do I fit all these packages, or cakes for delivery.
- How do I shuttle people around town?

Now the Model X is an answer to a different question. How do I do all of the above, and NOT hurt the environment so much.

And it's a darn good answer.

And then, when that answer exists, morons like you who attack the SUV will have no reason to do so. At which point, you'll simply look stupid.

I swear to God (0, Offtopic)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998927)

I'm going to pistol whip the next guy that says "shenanigans".

Re:I swear to God (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998969)

Officer Bhcompybrady, I call shenanigans!

Re:I swear to God (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998977)

Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

Re:I swear to God (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999335)

Chotchkie's.

Re:I swear to God (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38998983)

shenanigans

Re:I swear to God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999185)

I'm going to pistol whip the next guy that says "shenanigans".

I don't know which one is more shocking that Dick Cheney is still alive or that he posts on Slashdot.

Not well thought out (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998935)

How exactly am I going to open gullwing doors in my garage? SUVs are already taller that a regular car.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999013)

How short is your garage? I admit that I have concerns about this (not legitimate ones, since I'm not really in the market to purchase this vehicle at this time), but I have considered the size of my garage and, although I'd like to take a tape measure to it, I suspect it will be fine. And mine is by no means a tall garage.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999075)

Maybe not your house garage, but perhaps the parking garage at the mall or something. Those things have pretty low clearance sometimes. However, it appears that only the rear doors are gull-wing, and therefore you could always drop people off outside the garage, and drive in after.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999235)

Granted; I was only really thinking outside and in your home garage. I don't park underground all that often, but I can only think of a handful of garages in Toronto that I have visited that might pose a problem here.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

getSalled (1331585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999073)

Interesting critique. I obviously missed the dimensions that were released in the two linked articles... Care to share them?

Re:Not well thought out (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999149)

It's a crossover suv so it shouldn't be as tall as a suburban or some such. The doors aren't purely gullwings either, they do a bit of folding. In the pictures they don't look like they'll be that much higher, when opened fully, than the roof of the vehicle, maybe 12 inches at most. Think of a mini van where instead of the rear doors sliding back they slide up and rotate to a horizontal plane instead of vertical.

Comment not well thought out (1)

Hankavelli (2547288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999161)

Really? They spend millions of dollars designing this thing and they never thought of the obvious problem that occurred to you 5 second after reading the description. Look at the pictures in the article. It's not a tall vehicle to begin with, and the wing doors are hinged so they don't actually project much above the top of the car.

Re:Not well thought out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999199)

Your driver gets in the front, pulls it out of the garage into the big circle drive, and then opens the rear doors for you and your friends. But not until the paparazzi have arrived.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999315)

It's not just that- but- they're in the back- kids can't close them as easy that high up.

Granted it may only be a few seconds- but entrance/exit take longer.

Safety... if a car door comes open when driving- wind pushes it back closed. If Gull wings open up- everything in the car flies out.

Gull Wings just arn't as practical/safe/aesthetically pleasing/cheap.

It doesn't break the deal- all the problems are fairly minor or happen infrequently- but it just seems a stupid gimmic more than anything.

Re:Not well thought out (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999637)

I believe they're powered and articulated. And it'd be very easy to prevent drive mode until the doors are cosed.

Re:Not well thought out (3, Insightful)

eclectus (209883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999381)

From looking at the pictures, assuming the gentleman next to the car is 6 ft tall, then the doors don't go much past 7 to 7 1/2 feet. Tall, but not unworkable.

Is the maneuverability really bettb |rer ? (5, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38998957)

Or is that just marketing-speak?

Re:Is the maneuverability really bettb |rer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999523)

If by "marketing speak" you mean "complete and utter bullshit" then yes.

The Tesla X has pseudo-4-wheel-steering via the dual AWD mechanism which gives it a tighter turning radius than a Mini. That's it. And just to note, for its size the Mini's turning radius stinks. Around 35.5 ft. Compared with 30.5 for cars like Fiat 500s, Toyota Yarises and Mazda Miatas. Or, another way to put it, the Type X will be just as maneuverable as a Honda CR-V.

They want to impart the notion that the Type X will "handle" better than a Mini but they can't say that or everyone will just point and laugh at them for sounding like drooling morons. OTOH everyone is used to "faster" being abused and understand the caveats to "faster [in a strait line] than a [non-s, non-turbo AWD] 911".

Perfect! (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999011)

From the Slashdot summary.

But it does take on premium utility vehicles with three rows of seating for up to seven, bettb |rer[sic] maneuverability than a Mini Cooper, and a 0-60 mph time of just 4.4 seconds - that's faster than a Porsche 911, Musk jeered.

I know that "bettb |rer maneuverability" is just what I'm looking for in my next vehicle.
(kinda like "bettb |rer proofreading" in my next SlashDot article)

Economic fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999061)

Never underestimate the failure of consumers to do math, or "cool factor". That said, A less expensive new car saves you 30-45k. That opportunity cost can be used to buy gas, or to invest in something like a telecom that yields 5-6% and will pay all your gas for the year. What's more, 30-45k invested wisely will maintain or increase in value, whereas the additional 30-45k for this car depreciates right out the door.

As a thrifty consumer who does math, I thank all the early adapters and cool kids.

Re:Economic fail (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999565)

Tesla is not marketing to us yet. They're progressing down the class ladder.

The Roadster was for elites, the S & X are for upper middle class (the people driving the porsches, beemers, mercedes, escalades, etc).

And in that upper-middle class range, the Tesla S & X are in fact very well pried for the performance and luxury

They'll get to us in about 5 years.

Elon Musk (2, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999071)

Elon Musk just doesn't seem to add up.

He is only in his 30s, is on his second marriage, has 5 kids is the CEO/venture capitalist for 2 companies, both doing innovating engineering.

I'm guessing it is just a matter of winning the lottery by being born rich, born intelligent, born with a innovative/push forward temperament, born to parents who will bring those gifts out ( or at least not fuck up the kid enough to shut those things down ) and lots and LOTs of caffeine.

Am I missing something?

How does any person, let alone one his 30s end up with all of those situations?

Re:Elon Musk (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999191)

>> How does any person, let alone one his 30s end up with all of those situations?

Especially when they're named after stink that gets sprayed out of a skunk's butthole.

Yeah... (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999251)

he busted his ass getting to where he is. Instead of bemoaning a setback it probably caused him to try again, if not harder and smarter. You won't find the likes of him posting to some website bitching about how things aren't fair, how he don't get his fair share, how others should be giving he stuff, and so on and so on.

The biggest barrier to success in this country is yourself. The second biggest barrier is the government at all levels, the third is your competition. Money comes in somewhere on this list, not much further down.

You end up there by doing. This means that you put in many weeks if not years of ridiculous hours. You do it with a clear goal in mind. You compare your current position to your goal at all times and you make decisions on what to do next based on that.

See my tag, if you live comparing yourself to others you will never be happy.

Re:Elon Musk (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999295)

He's not in his 30s. He turned 40 last summer.

Re:Elon Musk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999595)

So he's thirty-ten?

Re:Elon Musk (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999363)

He is an alien.

I've noticed his name is an anagram of "SOME LUNK" Lunk is probably a type of space alien that have a vested interest in electric cars.

your tax dollars (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999239)

at work! enjoy!

Maneuverability (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999341)

You know, while the all-wheel electric drive may do nice things for the handling, I really have trouble imagining a car that can easily seat 7 having better maneuverability than a Mini Cooper (and only the less sporty versions, at that). I won't say it's impossible, but I'd definitely need to see some numbers before giving this claim any credence.

well (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999349)

Its ugly enough and almost big enough that the wealthy Americans might buy it.

Three rows of seating for 7 = 21 passengers ?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999385)

Or did the proofreader miss a comma ?

What an ugly car (1)

BoxRec (532280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999393)

Putting gullwings on such an ugly vehicle is as the Amerians say "polishing a turd".

mod do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38999417)

THESE EARLY about who can ran7 series of debates However I don't

Porsche 911? (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999507)

Faster that which porsche 911?

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Porsche-0-60-mph-Times.html [zeroto60times.com]

Faster than any Pre1990 Porsche? Yes, I guess so. That would be pretty impressive if it were 1990. Really, 4.4s is still very impressive, for any car. But...

1993 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6 0-60 mph 4.3 Quarter mile 12.5
1995 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.8 Quarter mile 12.3
1997 Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 mph 3.6 Quarter mile 12.1
1997 Porsche RUF CTR-2 0-60 mph 3.4 Quarter mile11.2
2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S 0-60 mph 2.9 Quarter Mile 10.6

There are a lot of Porsche 911 variants out there. A large fraction of the modern ones list sub 4.4s times.

(0-60 times often have largeish error bars)

these cars aren't for people... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38999611)

They're garage cars that rich people can buy and tell their friends about over dinner.

They're expensive conversation pieces. If I owned five cars and was looking for a sixth, I might get a Tesla.

I don't blame the company. The engineering of the situation is impossible. But I feel like they're not even trying to make an affordable car. There are little companies all over making stripped down electric cars at a reasonable price. And Tesla apparently is catering to the "price is no object" market. That's fine... people simply need to realize these cars are about as practical as personal submarines.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?