Tesla shows off the Model S Plaid, the quickest production car ever made

captaincranky

Posts: 16,960   +5,718
You mean... the diver who started the childish exchange by suggesting that Musk sodomize himself? That part always seems to be conveniently left out.
The completely unsuitable to the task at hand 'mini submarine" that Musk was peddling, (with a self serving, press corps in tow), likely enhanced or even precipitated the diver's suggestion it would be better employed as a Musk self administered suppository" as well.
 

sreams

Posts: 173   +285
The completely unsuitable to the task at hand 'mini submarine" that Musk was peddling, (with a self serving, press corps in tow), likely enhanced or even precipitated the diver's suggestion it would be better employed as a Musk self administered suppository" as well.

Whether or not the tech offered was suitable is *completely* beside the point. The juvenile exchange started with the diver.
 

Edster

Posts: 97   +70
Yes. I like electric cars as a concept, but the implementation fails in a lot of areas. Recharge time is insanely slow. People claim it's only 15 minutes, but try waiting in a line of cars... Our Costco typically has at least 5 cars queued for each gas pump. At 15 minutes per car, you would wait over an hour. That's a FAIL. They lose up to 50% power capacity in cold weather. If you 'run out of gas' by the side of the road, you're hosed because you can't get a ride to the nearest gas station and get a couple of gallons of gas to tide you over. FAIL. They typically weigh at least 1000-1500 pounds more than a comparable IC car, which tears up the roads. They go through tires much faster.

People love the performance of Tesla Plaid, but honestly, for $113k you can buy a Nissan GT-R, or hop up your Subaru or Mustang, and you'll have a lot more fun. EVs don't have any character. Driving one is like driving a toaster or refrigerator. Tesla, like Apple, does everything to prevent people from tinkering. The unspoken message is that the tablet (or car) doesn't really belong to you.

Don't expect big performance from run-of-the-mill electric cars from Toyota, Honda, VW, they will have much downgraded performance equivalent to regular IC cars. And they'll weigh about 1000 lbs more, be inaccessible to the common person.

Widespread adoption of EVs will have huge effects. They will put millions and millions of people out of work. They will put an incredible drain on the power grid capacity, at the same time that capacity is being radically cut back by anti-fossil fuel and nuclear programs. California already has a power outages, what's going to happen if you put millions of cars online?

EVs are part of the progressive left agenda to re-engineer world society. They have done some good, but many of their ideas are unnecessary and even deeply harmful. EVs have their place, but to advocate for a total transition is nuts.

If they solve the battery problem of low energy density, and manufacture high quality LOW COST vehicles that can be easily worked on by the common man, like the original VW beetle or Honda Civic, then I'm on board. But I don't see that on the horizon.

Costco: The beauty of EVs are that you can charge them at home. You can charge them at the mall. You can charge them at the office. You will only need dedicated charging facility is supercharger that need additional infrastructures; which is really unneeded apart from edge of town/in between cities.

Cost: Pre-subsidy, in my country, a Leaf costs maybe twice as much as equivalent petrol cars right now, which may go down as more competition arrives as is the only mid range manufacturer that sells it here. You can see how Tesla managed to bring down the cost of Model 3 compared to their other cars. The first digital camera sold for 20k, and now you can have one with better features for 100 bucks plus added function as a phone. Companies right now are basically feasting on "greenies" who wants EV no matter the cost as they alone are enough to meet supply. It is not "inaccessible".

Performance: Reality is, what make cars fun is more than the engine, suspension and whatnot are still important. And the other reality is, most people don't care about how end performance anyway. The sterility of EV cars has mainly been due to Tesla's direction, which to be fair they were designing a road car, not a performance car. Is not the same yet, but some like the Porsche Taycan try to replicate.

Jobs: Millions of people won't be out of work. Some jobs will disappear slowly as less petrol cars get phased out. People are flexible, they can learn new things. Losing jobs that are quite spread out like car maintenance is a lot less devastating than jobs like mining because the job aren't in the same place; when mines shutdown a whole town dies. Whereas car manufacturers will continue to make cars, and people in car repair shops can upskill. Or stay in their job, people still need panel beaters. People in gas stations can slide right in to just about any hospitality job.

California have outages. So did Texas? Your point. Power grid and maybe power storage will have to be considered obviously and they are not there yet. But a lot of it has to do with implementation, a failure does not mean the concept is failure. Besides, the reasoning for Cali power failure is not too different to Texas'; extreme weather and old infrastructure.


I think in all, you just underestimated how far EV has come. 5 years ago for me, EV ownership is a pipedream. Right now, I can own a EV and not overstretch myself. It still is a luxury item
 

DaveBG

Posts: 559   +249
Recharge time is insanely slow. People claim it's only 15 minutes, but try waiting in a line of cars... Our Costco typically has at least 5 cars queued for each gas pump. At 15 minutes per car, you would wait over an hour. That's a FAIL.
Luckily there are not many lines like that. 99% of people charge at home and save much more time than going to 10 min gas stations refills. Also even if you have to charge for 15 min like you said I would prefer this to be free time rather than waiting in line in the gas station to pay in cash...


They lose up to 50% power capacity in cold weather. If you 'run out of gas' by the side of the road, you're hosed because you can't get a ride to the nearest gas station and get a couple of gallons of gas to tide you over. FAIL.
Only the compliance cars of legacy auto do this and it is not even 50%. Tesla and some other real EVs do not lose 50% and even if they do its temporary until the battery gets warm again. Not a problem. Its not lost energy its locked.

They typically weigh at least 1000-1500 pounds more than a comparable IC car, which tears up the roads. They go through tires much faster.
Have you checked recently the weights of the newer gas cars? Again if you exclude some purposely bad models of legacy auto, EVs are not heavier. Also people prefer SUV and Tucks and you think anyone cares about the weight especially on the roads designed for semi trucks?

People love the performance of Tesla Plaid, but honestly, for $113k you can buy a Nissan GT-R, or hop up your Subaru or Mustang, and you'll have a lot more fun. EVs don't have any character. Driving one is like driving a toaster or refrigerator. Tesla, like Apple, does everything to prevent people from tinkering. The unspoken message is that the tablet (or car) doesn't really belong to you.
I have been driving BMW all my life and Tesla for me is more fun and has a lot more tech. So it is up to the person. Do not put everyone in the same boat...
As for the tinkering part specifically for Tesla - have you seen the hundreds of apps that connect to the API and provide much info and functionality that even the stock app does not. It works with watches , also there is software for the Raspberry Pi that you can plug in the Tesla and it automatically connects to your wifi and downloads your videos in your home.
Also this:

Don't expect big performance from run-of-the-mill electric cars from Toyota, Honda, VW, they will have much downgraded performance equivalent to regular IC cars. And they'll weigh about 1000 lbs more, be inaccessible to the common person.
Here I agree. No legacy auto will make better EV than their ICE cars or they will cut the tree they are on...

Widespread adoption of EVs will have huge effects. They will put millions and millions of people out of work. They will put an incredible drain on the power grid capacity, at the same time that capacity is being radically cut back by anti-fossil fuel and nuclear programs. California already has a power outages, what's going to happen if you put millions of cars online?
This has been debunked many times. No one will be put out of work, and the electrical grid will be just fine. EE has very good video on youtube explaining this...

If they solve the battery problem of low energy density, and manufacture high quality LOW COST vehicles that can be easily worked on by the common man, like the original VW beetle or Honda Civic, then I'm on board. But I don't see that on the horizon.
Maybe do some more research?
 
Last edited:

sreams

Posts: 173   +285
The sterility of EV cars has mainly been due to Tesla's direction...
I have always found this position to be an odd one. As someone who has done several track days per year over the past 15 years in classic BMWs, a 340hp 6-speed Audi S4, a 485hp 6-speed Bullitt-Edition Mustang, and currently a 208hp 6-speed JCW Mini Cooper... and as someone who owns and has autocrossed a Model 3, I don't find it to be sterile at all. It's an absolute blast to drive at speed. The instant torque is fabulous. Regen on the accelerator pedal feels a lot like being in a manual in a lower gear. The steering is very quick and precise. I actually love the fact that the interior is so sparse/direct. It begs you to engage in the driving rather than be distracted by numbers on dials.
 

mbk34

Posts: 183   +123
If they solve the battery problem of low energy density, and manufacture high quality LOW COST vehicles that can be easily worked on by the common man, like the original VW beetle or Honda Civic, then I'm on board.
I have an original VW Beetle Karmen Cabrio sitting in my garage. It was my first car and, after 30 years of ownership, I still love the thing. Sadly it hasn't moved for a couple of years because the engine needs a lot of work. In fact the whole car needs work :( Even putting fuel in it isn't easy these days as it needs lead additives to run. The car might be easy to work on but it's not something I particularly look forward to doing. I did actually look into converting it to electric but was only put off by the cost.
 

Tantor

Posts: 148   +215
Costco: The beauty of EVs are that you can charge them at home. You can charge them at the mall. You can charge them at the office. You will only need dedicated charging facility is supercharger that need additional infrastructures; which is really unneeded apart from edge of town/in between cities.

Cost: Pre-subsidy, in my country, a Leaf costs maybe twice as much as equivalent petrol cars right now, which may go down as more competition arrives as is the only mid range manufacturer that sells it here. You can see how Tesla managed to bring down the cost of Model 3 compared to their other cars. The first digital camera sold for 20k, and now you can have one with better features for 100 bucks plus added function as a phone. Companies right now are basically feasting on "greenies" who wants EV no matter the cost as they alone are enough to meet supply. It is not "inaccessible".

Performance: Reality is, what make cars fun is more than the engine, suspension and whatnot are still important. And the other reality is, most people don't care about how end performance anyway. The sterility of EV cars has mainly been due to Tesla's direction, which to be fair they were designing a road car, not a performance car. Is not the same yet, but some like the Porsche Taycan try to replicate.

Jobs: Millions of people won't be out of work. Some jobs will disappear slowly as less petrol cars get phased out. People are flexible, they can learn new things. Losing jobs that are quite spread out like car maintenance is a lot less devastating than jobs like mining because the job aren't in the same place; when mines shutdown a whole town dies. Whereas car manufacturers will continue to make cars, and people in car repair shops can upskill. Or stay in their job, people still need panel beaters. People in gas stations can slide right in to just about any hospitality job.

California have outages. So did Texas? Your point. Power grid and maybe power storage will have to be considered obviously and they are not there yet. But a lot of it has to do with implementation, a failure does not mean the concept is failure. Besides, the reasoning for Cali power failure is not too different to Texas'; extreme weather and old infrastructure.


I think in all, you just underestimated how far EV has come. 5 years ago for me, EV ownership is a pipedream. Right now, I can own a EV and not overstretch myself. It still is a luxury item

I'm still not seeing a true EV for the masses. EVs should be much cheaper than ICs. The only thing in an EV that's expensive is the battery pack.

Power grids are not up to the task of supporting a transition to EVs. California's power supply has been getting worse and worse as they systematically shut down fossil fuel plants. Right now they can't even support demand without EVs. What do you think will happen if they add 20 million EVs? Build more windmills and solar farms? Give me a break.

Present day EVs are much like Apple Computer products. You buy the product for a high price, it gets you from point A to point B. but it has no character. You can't repair it yourself. You can't tinker with it. You don't own it in any human sense.
 

RobMonteforte

Posts: 15   +3
OK, "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome", is pretty much, an internet meme. Just some a**hole wanting to get his name in the books. Like "Asberger's syndrome", (which BTW has been removed from the DM-5), it is a fractional symptom of a much more serious overarching condition. In Musk's case, that would be a, "narcissistic sociopath".
Here, let me improve your IQ: Dunning-Kruger is an Effect, not a Syndrome; Asperger's Syndrome (correct spelling) used to be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) version 5 (2013) but was insufficient to define the range of high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder and the latter is used instead; the Lord only knows what it meant by, "a fractional symptom of a much more serious overarching condition," as this makes no sense in the ASD context. Speaking of which, Elon Musk falls well into the high functioning ASD diagnosis and his actions are clearly not those of either a "narcissist" nor a "psychopath." Kindly familiarize yourself with this disorder before addressing the cognitive levels of those that possess it.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,960   +5,718
Here, let me improve your IQ: Dunning-Kruger is an Effect, not a Syndrome; Asperger's Syndrome (correct spelling) used to be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) version 5 (2013)
It's out now right, no matter how I spelled it?

And I'm well aware of when it was removed, since I discussed it with a therapist, who was taken aback by another client by his claiming he was afflicted with it. We agreed that it should go (**), and miracle of miracles, in the next printing it was gone.

As for the rest of it, I was speaking English, just not clinical English.

As for Mr. Mutt, sorry I meant Musk, shooting your Tesla into space with a likeness of yourself onboard, has nothing to do with "autism", it's pure undiluted narcissism.

Most autistics shy away from public contact, obviously depending on the degree of the illness. But very few, like to stand in front of a camera basking in their own "glory", as does Musk. I call "sociopath", if only for the degree of his ability to manipulate others.

(**) Myself rather somewhat reluctantly. I think my "therapist" had higher connections than simply the hospital staff. ;)
 
Last edited:

zulu53

Posts: 33   +9
Has someone ever explained why do we need production electric cards to be ridiculously fast?

I get the perspective of a gasoline car having bragging rights about being fast: it wants to use whatever advantage it might have, perceived or otherwise, to obtain the most amount of money possible for the company and it's board of directors.

But the premise of electric cars should be "We need this tech to replace our dependence on fossil fuels" so how does killing yourself in under a second by losing control of your vehicle on urban environments not AT ALL designed to even handle such acceleration is going to save the planet or contribute to allleviate fossil fuel dependency?

It seems like Elon just wants the same bragging rights as gasoline cars. It fundamentally just wants to make a lot of money out of selling cars and is trying to reconcile conflicting interests here: the one that is about the ecological angle and the one that is about being a luxurios super car prestige while doing so. Seems like focusing on the later is directly counter-intuitive to just making the stupid electric cards widely available fast enough to shift away from fossil fuels.
Has someone ever explained why do we need production electric cards to be ridiculously fast?

I get the perspective of a gasoline car having bragging rights about being fast: it wants to use whatever advantage it might have, perceived or otherwise, to obtain the most amount of money possible for the company and it's board of directors.

But the premise of electric cars should be "We need this tech to replace our dependence on fossil fuels" so how does killing yourself in under a second by losing control of your vehicle on urban environments not AT ALL designed to even handle such acceleration is going to save the planet or contribute to allleviate fossil fuel dependency?

It seems like Elon just wants the same bragging rights as gasoline cars. It fundamentally just wants to make a lot of money out of selling cars and is trying to reconcile conflicting interests here: the one that is about the ecological angle and the one that is about being a luxurios super car prestige while doing so. Seems like focusing on the later is directly counter-intuitive to just making the stupid electric cards widely available fast enough to shift away from fossil fuels.
I think that you completely misinterpret what Tesla (EM) is trying to do. They want to offset the very high price of electric vehicles from a purchasers point of view by packaging correctly with the fact that (rich) people will pay extra for performance vehicles (think Ferrari, Porsche, some Audi's, Merc's etc. etc.). Yes: to attract these buyers they first put out the S, and now the new S as the performance king against these brands. And, yes, if you ask these buyers the car with the best performance figures wins; regardless of the fact that many of these buyers will never, ever get anywhere close to asking the car to do this. He was, and is, still using the profit generated from the S to help fund R&D (battery costs) for the "electric car" for the rest of us, sold at a price that is affordable and providing comfort, utility and performance comparable to gas/diesel engine equivalent. To date, as anyone who has test driven the gamut of electric vehicles to date, Tesla is the only electric car on the market that can compete with gasoline cars on price,performance and comfort; without huge public subsidy. He also decided to start and build in the most difficult market in the world - California - which has to import electricity at a high cost compared to oil, and with the price forecast to increase substantially faster than gasoline. He figured, it they could not make it in the 6th largest economy in the world (without public subsidization) then they shouldn't be in business. He figured, I think correctly that, the California Government would rather put the public money (at least in the long term) into subsidizing electricity itself (used to run A/C's and business) rather than just electric cars. So that coming up with an electric car that can be sold without subsidy would be winning proposition. But he has to keep the S performance numbers better than the oppositions "new" electric vehicles to keep the rich peoples market share used to fund the lower priced vehicles.
 

zulu53

Posts: 33   +9
"you get 0-60 mph speeds of 1.99 seconds, a quarter mile time of 9.23 seconds and a top speed of up to 200 mph (with the proper wheels and tires, which won’t be available until fall 2021)."

So it can't do any of this until the fall technically? 🥱
You
"you get 0-60 mph speeds of 1.99 seconds, a quarter mile time of 9.23 seconds and a top speed of up to 200 mph (with the proper wheels and tires, which won’t be available until fall 2021)."

So it can't do any of this until the fall technically? 🥱
Its says in the articles that its the fall for top speed ONLY, you can do all the rest now.
 

zulu53

Posts: 33   +9
They fail in one direction that matters - mileage, and they are desperately trying to make up for that in all other departments that we don't care much about.

FAIL.
Not strictly a fail or a pass: this depends totally on how you want to use the vehicle compared to how you have to use if for a particular trip. It depends on the value of the time spent on a trip waiting for it to charge, what the value of this time is (your hourly pay rate for example), and it there is some other productive activity that you could be doing in this charging time. Many, many people find that they do not suffer any trip cost because of this "wasted time".
 

zulu53

Posts: 33   +9
1) Yeah not sure why do we even need more acceleration I covered that
2) I can give you the "storage space" and "quiet" parts those are just net positives. The infomart stuff I'm just neutral about
3) The price being not "any more than an equivalent petrol car to buy" is where I start having some serious issues: We don't really need cars to drive themselves or be competitive if we know that could have been put into make it a cheaper car that's more attractive to mass buyers than petrol which is what we desperately need to immediately lower emissions at this point.

Sorry but the entire electric car argument falls apart right there: We don't need Musk to solve multiple issues at the same time if that means we take longer to transition to electric cars. If he would have just focused on a super cheap car with pretty long ranges and that's it: no self driving, no stupid fast speeds and no other additional gimmicks, we would be much better off.

But if anything, all of this initiatives and push demonstrate exactly why Capitalism cannot solve an issue that as a system it created itself when it comes to climate change: the priority wasn't the environment and sorry to say but the best voice out of the tech bro Neoliberal generation which is Musk is also failing miserably at the exact same spot: just getting sidetracked with not-as-urgent to quite frankly useless tech just for bragging rights and profit seeking.

In fact I am quite sure that the only reason Tesla is so profitable is because it is taking advantages of all of the subsidies offered to "green" initiatives and wasting it all on "LMAO car go shhh!! 60 in 2 seconds and drives itself!" instead of solving the one issue they're getting all those subsidies for: MAKE LOTS OF CHEAP ELECTRIC CARS FOR EVERYBODY, NOW. We can manually drive em, slowly, just make the damn cars.
He needs the MONEY & REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE of the S model to fund the R&D to make electric cars just like you want: and that it his intent. Tesla is the only car company to go full in on this. All others are merely dabbling and are heavily dependent on government subsidy for all of their electric vehicles. Personally, given the forecast large increases in the cost of electricity (itself subsidised in most countries) I cannot see how electric vehicles will ever beat a petrol vehicles for total cost of ownership (for a comparable driver/passenger experience). A number of Governments already know this (its been projected often enough): they are working on the plan of making personal transport (total cost of ownership) beyond the income of the average citizen - so back to the 1930's or 1950's. Or, as you point out: we can go back to Marxism and USSR in the 1980's.
 

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,166   +963
You
Its says in the articles that its the fall for top speed ONLY, you can do all the rest now.
Why did you quote me twice?

The article wasn't very clear as to what the tire limitation applies to when it was first posted, there was an edit done after I posted my comment changing to "the top speed is attainable with the proper wheels and tires" where as it was originally written "with the proper wheels and tires" as in my quote, not reflecting it being a limiting factor to the top speed claim.

As tires are speed rated, and a heavy car like the Tesla would likely require some special tires to attain that speed, however just the same, tires exist that would allow for this as there are several cars that exceed 200+ MPH, although most are bespoke to the cars they are being installed on. So very possible Tesla has gone the bespoke route.

Now, less common, tires can also be a limiting factor when accelerating, special compounds could be required and developed to allow the car to accelerate from 0 to 60 MPH in the claimed 1.99 seconds. It is possible tires capable of this are also a prototype of sorts and will not be available in mass production until the fall. Which leads back to the same bespoke tire designed to have the 200+ MPH top speed in mind. However as the article was changed it clearly means this is not the case.
 

BadThad

Posts: 570   +600
"Those who value performance" can honestly go race V8 trucks on the weekend: the only reason we have such culture of people demanding performance was precisely because of the incredible push by car manufacturers on past decades and we now know what it is doing to the environment.

Sorry but if billions might die because of the insistence on things like uselessly powerful gas cars, we don't need to be subtle or caring to them: We need to be heavy handed and tell em "Yeah, those should be illegal to drive on cities, you don't like it well CRY MORE: we're not turning the planet into an oven just to respect your "freedom" to pollute"
You obviously don't understand that many of us like our cars to be fast. We actually enjoy driving and don't have "appliance cars" - which are fine for the non-car, A to B people like yourself who have no clue what motorsports means.

I suggest you get in your Prius, keep your big mouth shut and we'll keep driving our V8's where ever and however the hell we want to.
 

sreams

Posts: 173   +285
So it would sound like the diver was right about Musk's capsule. But yes, even he could have put it better.

Maybe so. But whether or not the thing would have worked is a completely separate topic from the completely unnecessary, public, juvenile exchange these two had. If someone offers help, even if that help is not adequate, telling them to stick their help up their a$$ is probably not the best foot to start off on. Musk should have absolutely not responded in kind, but I find it bothersome that nearly every news source leaves out half of the story.