Meet Model X | Hacker News Reader

Meet Model X

teslamotors.com

358 pointscaio1982349 comments

Okay.. I'm a Model S owner and I love Tesla and I chuckled at the whole Insane mode and gave a bit of an amused snort at Ludicrous mode.

This, however, really makes me wonder WTH is going on there:

HEPA Air Filters "There are three modes: circulate with outside air, re-circulate inside air and a bioweapon defense mode that creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants."

EDIT: Very fair points about driving by skunks or nasty smells. The naming is what gets me though. If it was called Noxious Smell Defense Mode or something, that would make perfect sense. Looking at Wikipedia, a "medical grade HEPA filter" can filter out 99.97% of particles at least 0.3 micrometers in diameter. Dunno if the Tesla filters are also using UV irradiation, and I also couldn't find any documentation of the particulate size of skunk odor, so it will be interesting to see documentation on what exactly it can filter out.

EDIT2: Watched a bit of the intro event video. Looks like it has a specific set of activated charcoal filters for sulfur type particulates, so certainly seems like it could be a skunk odor killer. :)

Yah I found that a bit paranoid. Probably what happened though is that the system is controlled by a microcontroller and it took 3 minutes for some programmer to add that feature for fun, and then some marketer thought they would throw it in and make it real.

Except how is it generating positive internal pressure without storing compressed air somewhere?

Fans, which force air through the filters into the cabin.

I believe it's because pumping filtered air from the outside faster than it can escape from the cabin creates the positive internal pressure.

How is that a bioweapon defense then? Do HEPA filters work against bioweapons?

I think that is tongue in cheek.

It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work in principle.

A HEPA filter is used in a lot of labs where biological substances are handled, even potentially hazardous ones. It should filter many types of biological agent out of the incoming air, and the positive pressure will keep such things entering other ways.

I think the reason they put it in is so people would talk about it and, look, we are. It is a marketing gimmick that likely doesn't require any additional hardware in the car (the air pump and HEPA filter are already in it, this just turns the pump up and adds a new dash button).

I'll give Tesla the nod for one thing: They sure know how to market. Between the wing doors, the bio-protection mode (which will be on the nightly news), and insane mode they're very savvy.

Probably depends on the bioweapon. For instance, I'd expect it to be effective against anthrax spores, which was the most recent bioweapons scare we had.

You're still using outside air, but by maintaining positive pressure you ensure that it's only coming in through the filter, rather than a mix of air intake and leaky joints.

This will be used 99% for skunks.

Not sure about particular type of filter, but CBRN countermeasures found on tanks, APCs and such are also basically air filtration with positive internal pressure.

Pretty sure this is the real reason Musk wanted a superior air filter - playa dust storm protection: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1057/1338020035_678b988a6e_o....

Modern cars have a cabin air outlet. It's usually hidden in the trunk or the back of the cab (on trucks), and vents somewhere like behind the plastic bumper. There are rubber flaps on them to ensure one-way air travel and keep water out. Perhaps Tesla's has a motor on theirs to keep it closed against the increased cabin pressure.

From a 2015 Honda Accord, it's #35: http://imgur.com/QsJexwI

Side-effect of this part - manufacturers tune them so that the doors produce a solid sound when closed.

Just by pumping air inside through filters a positive internal pressure is automatically created. How much pressure will be created is proportional to the pump's flow rate and inversely proportional to the car leakage constant ( I think it's something like leakage ~ k * P.I.P., which would make P.I.P. ~ pump flow/k ), but some positive internal pressure is a given even with those outlets.

They are probably storing compressed air in the cabin. You start the bioweapon-defense-mode, the fan raises the pressure in the cabin ( that uses outside air) and then shuts off. (Or they store a little bit of air somewhere, perhaps for the breaks, and use that.)

It could heat the air on the inside, so that it expands :-)

This kills the passenger.

ever drive by a cattle feedlot, or a forest fire? that could come in handy.

"bioweapon defense mode" is probably useful for people with allergies.

HEPA filters in general are. This will be very welcome.

This.

I would buy this car for this feature alone. Allergies are the bane of my existence. I would love to have a car that is an allergy free zone. Sometimes, I drive through big farm areas... and I want to die.

> bioweapon defense mode that creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants

Ever drove past a skunk corpse ? Only happened to me a few times when I traveled in the USA - still have PTSD...

Not an uncommon occurrence in rural Canada. It's not particularly pleasant, but you get used to it.

The real veterans know to open the windows as soon as you get a whiff.

" To qualify as HEPA by US government standards, an air filter must remove (from the air that passes through) 99.97% of particles that have a size of 0.3 µm."

That means bacteria (1-10 µm) and spores (~1 µm) but not virusses (~ 100 nm +/- a lot) and certainly not molecules emitted by a skunk corpse.

Its activated charcoal filter has the primary layer, a secondary layer that filters sulfur gases, and a tertiary layer that filters alkaline gases.

Skunk spray is made primarily of thiols and their acetate derivatives. Thiols (the main ugly smelling ones are both thiols) are organosulfur compounds, and would be filtered by the secondary chemical filter.

The gases that make the decaying corpse smell are acidic (AFAIK), so would be filtered by the tertiary layer.

Ah, I didn't catch that, good comment.

A skunk sprayed the neighbor's dog in my front yard the other night. You got off light.

In the country, this happens pretty frequently. If you think that's bad, try driving by a large dairy on a hot, still day.

Recirculating cabin air is plenty for skunk. Even economy American cars -- that no-one would confuse with exceptional engineering -- do just fine keeping the stink out.

My old GMC Jimmy had no recirculate setting. Incredible. We live off gravel roads. When following another car, I had to just stop and wait a minute for the air to clear, else I'd be choked by lime dust in seconds.

During the release event last night, Elon called it a "bioweapon defense mode" as a joke and everyone laughed. I don't think they seriously mean it, but it can still be useful for people with allergies.

Sounds silly to most, but there are situations where you don't want unfiltered outside air leaking in. If "seriously filtered cabin air supply" is relatively easy to add, there's no downside to adding it. Here around Atlanta, the pollen count can exceed 5000 for weeks (and 500 is considered "extremely high"); a good filter would be dearly appreciated by many. For an interesting comparison re: "bioweapon", consider the armored luxury car market with product features such as http://www.caratsecurity.com/Products/sedans-and-SUVs.php

It's not silly at all. I wish I had this everyday that I'm sitting in traffic. My car has multiple climate control modes that default with the vent open. Some heater modes override the vent button and force me to use outside air. I actually know what the outside humidity is and the amount of car exhaust I want to suffer. But apparently that doesn't matter to Mazda.

If you don't have a steady flow of outside air into your car's cabin, you will soon die.

The point is there's a difference between ambient outside air leaking into the car like a sieve, vs completely sealed with air supplied via biohazard rated filtration. Also, you'd be surprised how long you can function fine in a sealed box the size of a car cab.

If you haven't seen waves of pollen wafting thru the air for miles, like we regularly see near Atlanta, you may not grasp the interest.

They wrote that feature specifically for Elon Musk. And maybe Roman Abramovich.

They are aiming this car at Chinese buyers I bet. The last mode would definitely get lots of use in Beijing.

A "green" car feeding on polluted markets. Touching.

It makes sense to me to target the areas that are worse off with regards to pollution first with green technology. Am I missing something?

Exactly. China desperately needs green technologies because their pollution problem is so bad and noticeable, so they are focusing more on them.

Too bad the Tesla would probably be charged from a coal plant somewhere in Hebei with bad pollution controls.

No, of course it is the premise of business, that's why I said 'feeding' it would be almost dependent on pollution then.

Isn't that how it should work?

The car must be reasonably air-tight by itself to make this work, and I imagine there should be a warning signal/siren to driver if someone tries to open a window when this mode is enabled.

Maybe Elon Musk is preparing it for Mars (with the positive pressure) and it will have a hidden "Launch to Mars" button :)

Not Launch.

Elon's next project is a wormhole hyperloop to Mars.

You can also call it "Coalinga Mode" when you are passing through Cow Hell on I5.

The name is obviously tongue in cheek much like Ludicrous Mode. I think it's hilarious and I hope when the Model 3 comes out I am able to get a Bioweapon Defense Mode button on mine.

Drive through the zombie apocalypse in comfort? Or more realistically, drive through a forest in pollen season and not get hay fever.

I don't think the goal is to provide a bio-weapon defense system (I think it's more for bad smog), but this truthfully is how you would defend against a bio-weapon in a vehicle; use the only safe air source (the HEPA filter) to pump air in at a rate that maintains positive pressure in the cabin, preventing air from leaking into the vehicle from unsafe sources (e.g., a small crack in a seal somewhere).

Californians and wild fires come to mind

Full disclaimer, I work for a somewhat prestigious air filtration company.

I agree the wording is a little bit on the strange side. However, if they are saying that it's a "bioweapon defense mode" they should probably be saying that they can catch 0.03 microns as opposed to 0.3 microns. That is virus level small. There should also be several filters in there, a large particulate filter for the big stuff, an activated carbon filter for the odors, and an ultra fine particulate filter for the 0.03 kinds of small stuff.

UV ends up not being worth it because you'd have to replace the bulb almost on a monthly basis. Ionizers just make your particulates sticky, so they'd go right through the filter and stick to your clothes/seats/walls.

In the Launch Event video, Elon goes into more detail around the 10 minute mark.

The filtering is effective down to 0.01 microns. During testing, they were not able to detect any measurable level of spores, bacteria, or viruses in the air passing through the system.

Two separate filters, and the main filter has three levels of activated carbon. First: Universal (hydrocarbons) Second: Acidic gases (sulfur) Third: Alkaline gases (ammonia)

Okay, but let's get to the important part: can I use my Model X as a clean room?

Elon mentions the air is as clean as a hospital operating room. Close enough.

> UV ends up not being worth it because you'd have to replace the bulb almost on a monthly basis.

I have a UV system on my home A/C, and the bulb usually burns out once every two years (and it's always on). I'd imagine this would be greatly extended if in place in a car when it's not always on. Am I missing something?

I thought that turning lights on and off is most of what causes damage to them.

The effectiveness of a UV lamp decreases with age, so they can stop being effective long before they actually burn out. There should be a manufacturer rating on the lamp, which will depend on its composition and other things.

As an example the lamps I use have a rating of ~8000hrs, about a year, but to the outside observer they'll still look functional until they blow after 2-3 years.

Do they have UV LEDs yet?

People who shall remain nameless have been installing custom paintball gun-like devices on the undercarriages of cars with hoppers filled with pepper spray balls. Normally aimed to the rear of the car, they can be used to stop dangerous tailgaters or the like.

I'm sure there are other things in the works, so this isn't really that far fetched.

HEPA is not just to avoid smells or pollen. It's the only filter that can remove PM2.5 (particulate matter < 2.5 microns in size). WHO terms them as group 1 carcinogens and in most cities including NY, Houston etc, PM2.5 levels are far beyond safety limits. It's a shame that other auto manufacturers don't include a HEPA as their cabin filter. That might be because of gasoline engine limitations.

Well, given how common forest fires are, I think it can be useful. In the last two years, I've been through three forest-fire caused 'air quality warnings' which caused genuine discomfort in Arizona, Minnesota, and Oregon.

To me, those names come in line with:

   - Just Read the Instructions
   - Of Course I Still Love You

...and other silly, whimsically chosen names in the tradition of Culture spaceships (from the series by Iain Banks). Perhaps they're naming their special modes in a slightly similar vein?

Tesla's silly naming is a little more insidious than that. They started out naming their cars S E and X, only changing E to 3 to get around a Ford trademark.

> HEPA Air Filters "There are three modes: circulate with outside air, re-circulate inside air and a bioweapon defense mode that creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants." This is immensely useful in Chinese cities!

> $132,000 for the P90D Signature and $142,000 for the P90D Founder edition [0]

[0]: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/30/tesla-model-x-electric-su...

That is pretty amazing pricing. Most premium families would be looking to the Land Rover Evoque ($41K), BMW X5 ($54K) etc But Tesla is pricing it not to compete with the baseline Porsche Cayenne ($58K) but around the Cayenne Turbo S level ($157K). I guess they aren't planning on building a lot of them.

> premium families

For a second I thought you are referring to 'premium family' as some kind of a social category.

Isn't he though?

Of course he is, where I live in the US 142k could buy you a nice 1400 square foot house.

I wish I could buy a nice 1400 square foot house where I live.

In central London that buys you .. a garage.

For a car that you never use because choosing to driving in London is a questionable choice.

It wouldn't buy you a fifth of a garage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2813958/Tiny-shed-pa...

Mine is 1400 square feet in a major city and I only paid 130k. You're getting ripped off!

Now I see Tesla's fatal strategic mistake for the Model X - it didn't make a Rose-Gold one.

See the Model S, which also competes with many, quality sedans from Mercedes, BMW etc.

If you look at pricing the Model S is more competing with the likes of Aston Martin.

Mercedes, BMW are targeting the premium middle class market especially with the new A and 1 series respectively.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that they've been serving the upper-class automobile market for decades and have been recently introducing cheaper models.

A C-class with options will run you $50k now, and $65k on an E which has long been their bread and butter car.

I'm less familiar w/ the BMW family but I'm sure it's similar.

So I think Tesla is absolutely competing with Mercedes and BMW, though certainly their most high-end models are competing with world class cars of any nameplate.

I spend a lot of time in a little ski town near me (Park City) that is absolutely covered in Porsche Cayenne Turbos. It's the perfect SUV for your family + ski gear + showing off just a little bit that you're really wealthy.

I have zero doubt the parking lots next to the ski slopes will be covered in Model X's in a couple of years.

"It's the perfect SUV for your family + ski gear + showing off just a little bit that you're really wealthy."

Gull-wing doors seem less than perfect for transporting ski gear.

Your ski gear goes on a rack on top of or behind the car, both in the Cayenne or in the Model X (http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/assets/img/modelx/sec...)

Wonder how rear-mounting compares to top-mounting for overall drag. Anyway, for most users, I imagine you're not driving around with ski gear on your car 99% of the time, so it's a reasonable design decision.

Rear mounting is drastically more efficient.

I was going to cite this article as a source, but I see that there aren't any numbers: https://www.google.com/search?q=mr+money+mustache+road+tripp...

Linked anyway for your interest.

Rear mounting is not going to work very well for people who don't like road grime getting all over their gear. I'd much rather have a roof box. The model X is really appealing to me other than that detail.

It's not going on top of the Model X unless you don't want to open the doors.

Hmm, what about the batteries though. The Tesla will have to expend energy to keep them warm right?

Not while parked. While driving, you do lose range because of that, but it's not catastrophic.

The Model S is one of the most popular cars in Norway, so their cold weather capabilities are clearly pretty decent.

Surprisingly, it doesn't get very cold in the populated parts of Norway. The average winter temperature in Oslo is 23 degrees Fahrenheit (-4C).

It looks like Oslo's averages are a couple degrees above Chicago's. I'd call that very cold.

AFAIK the prices announced so far are only for the special editions. Actual pricing will be a bit lower.

That said, the P90D is faster at 0-60 (with Ludicrous mode) than the Cayenne Turbo S. So there is that.

It accelerates faster (3.2 to 4.1). It has a lower top speed (155mph to 176mph).

You do 0-60 -- or more realistically, 5-65 -- at every highway on-ramp in the country.

When do you go faster than 100 mph?

You floor the car each time you get on the highway? Also if we are talking about rolling start Tesla's advantage over the Turbo S would practically melt away.

Since Teslas don't make a super-annoying noise when floored, yes, it does appear that Tesla owners frequently floor it, from stoplights, stop signs, and on highway ramps.

Yes, a rolling start is a big help on highway ramps. Doesn't help much at stop signs and lights.

Unless you live in Germany you're not really ever going to hit that top speed. You will however have ample chance to take advantage of the acceleration.

The above poster is drawing a distinction between faster (top speed) and quicker (acceleration). Auto-journalism usually uses this language. In everyday speech, "faster" is ambiguous.

The origina posted qualified it with 0-60, which lets you know he means acceleration. A car can't have a "faster" 60mph than another.

Sure you can, just take it to a track day at local race track.

Sure, but I start my car from a standstill many times a day. I take my car to a test track -- once every five years?

Do you accelerate at 100% each time though? I dont think I ever floor my car "off the line", I think I only use maximum power to go from 60-80 on the motorway.

Not all the time but sometimes for fun. I would do it a lot more in an electric because the "gas" is "free" (assuming it is charged with solar). At least it is something I can legally do, as opposed to going 155mph.

Oddly enough accelerating like that isn't always "legal". Where I'm from it could be classed as dangerous driving, and I believe in the USA it could fall under "Exhibition of Speed".

By and large it is more efficient to accelerate at full power, assuming your goal is to reach a certain top speed regardless, so if you were _really_ concerned about conserving petrol then you should be going full blast off the line. That said I expect the fuel usage such a situation to be negligible anyway, especially to someone who can afford/justify a car that does it in 4 seconds.

My car isn't that fast, or particularly economical, but I know I've never thought "I'd love to accelerate at full power here to show how fast my car is, but I just can't justify the pennies it will cost me"! Outside of hyper-milers I wonder how many people do actually think about it.

Huh, I just looked up my state's statute on this and it contained verbiage like "Includes, but not limited to". How the heck can they get away with defining a law so vaguely? I guess I wrongly assumed that a law had to actually define what it was making illegal.

i wouldn't be bringing a 2.5 ton car onto a track, but i also can't afford it, so my opinion probably doesn't matter anyway.

Raced a Porsche Cayenne Turbo on the 101N in Palo Alto, kept up till around 140mph, at which point my transmission ran out of gearing and he kept going. I was impressed.

Additionally, the Model X appears to be significantly faster than the similarly-priced Cayenne Turbo S.

Cayenne Turbo S (the fastest Cayenne model) does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. [1] The Model X P90D also does it in 3.8 seconds, or 3.2 with the speed upgrade, which costs $10k on other Tesla models, [2] bringing the total Model X price to $152k to the Porsche's $157k.

[1] http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/cayenne-turbo-s/ [2] http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/three-dog-day

Do you mean the Model X dos 0-60 in 2.8/2.2 seconds?

How long can an electric car like a Tesla maintain heavy acceleration? I doubt it could complete a lap around a track. Meanwhile a Porsche Cayenne will have no problem with that.

According to the link it can do a quarter mile in 10.9 secs, so I suppose it depends on what size/type of track you're talking about. Though obviously it wouldn't be able to sustain this for an incredibly long time, I imagine your distance per charge drops significantly at full acceleration.

The Land Rover Evoque, BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne are all 5 person SUVs that aren't in the same class as the Model X (7 person).

I assure you that not every Model X owner will have 5 children.

Also (a) the Model X will ship as standard with 6 seats and (b) the X5 has a 7 seat option.

The Volvo XC90 has 7 seats.

There's a huge, growing market for premium products in China. And the bioweapon filter feature wouldn't hurt with their pollution levels.

I think the point was affordability. There aren't a lot of people who will spend 150K+ on a car, where merely owning home(with no mortgage) is a luxury these days.

Sure, but my point is that the market for premium goods is growing and even a small sector within a massive country is a lot of potential customers.

Obviously their next car will be the one that is accessibly priced and sells in huge volume.

Pricing for standard models was noted to be only 5k more than Model S equivalent.

Which is a little bit misleading, as the Model S starts at $70,000, but the cheapest Model S that's "equivalent" to a Model X (third-row seats, 90kWh battery, etc.) is over $90,000. So that phrasing might lead one to think that the Model X starts at $75,000, while it's probably $95,000 or more depending on just which features they consider to be equivalent.

There will be a Model X 75D or 80D at some point

True, I didn't think about that. They haven't announced any, but that doesn't mean they won't.

It's on Elons Twitter account (future expected X battery capacities).

Wasn't the Model X originally supposed to cost a lot less than an S?

You're thinking of the next car, the Model 3.

Roughly estimated carbon production of manufacturing (I got these numbers from a german discussion, one source for battery carbon production is: http://www.focus.de/auto/experten/duennes/oekobilanz-von-ele... ):

------------------------------------------

VW Polo GTI: 2 tons

BMW M5: 2,5 tons

BMW I3: 4 tons

Tesla Modell X 13 tons

Manufacturing + 100.000km:

--------------------------

BMW I3 -> 9,6 tons

VW Polo GTI -> 18,6 tons

Tesla Modell X -> 25,3 tons

BMW M5 -> 26,3 tons

Tesla isn't as green as many think. Building heavy cars isn't the solution.

Also the new infrastructure for superchargers does raise carbon production.

It's not fair to compare the Model X to a Sedan. Do you have numbers for other SUVs? Remember the idea here is that it's assumed you'll be buying a car already.

Also, even if the total lifetime carbon was equal, it's still better to buy a vehicle that produces all that carbon in localized places where it could possibly be captured instead of all over crowded urban areas.

I just want to mention some facts. EVs are interesting and the future for sure but thinking EVs are the holy grail is just stupid.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-...

How do you can capture carbon?

I think what jedberg meant was that if you are producing the electricity at a centralized place (like even a coal-fired power plant) you could theoretically capture carbon using massive scrubbers on the exhaust towers. Developing similar technology and installing it in all of the individual gas-burning cars would be near impossible.

My 2c: The real "secret plan" here is that converting us to electric vehicles paves the way to develop (and creates structural demand for) 0-emission ways to recharge them, like:

- resurgence of large nuclear plants

- self-contained micro-nuclear reactors that you could bury in your yard

- solar on your garage (paired with a Tesla Powerwall to recharge your car at night)

These 'scrubbers' and nuclear plants are already in my calculations of battery manufacturing C02 production. Base of the CO2 production calculation is the energy mix of germany. In the US it would be even higher(?).

Source is an independent german energy research institute btw.

EVs are the holy grail, at least for the next century. Thinking EVs are the holy grail, is incredibly smart.

You link them up to nuclear, wind, or solar and drastically reduce the total pollution output across the life of the vehicle, versus a gasoline or diesel vehicle.

EVs are as clean as their energy source. Gas and diesel cars are the exact opposite: extremely polluting no matter what you do to them. EVs win period. There's no scenario in which they don't, especially over the next few decades as they leap far ahead of traditional vehicles in every regard. At worst they're less polluting than gasoline vehicles over time, at best they're far less polluting.

Why isn't fair to compare Model X to a Sedan ? It IS basically a sedan.

It isn't a Landrover style SUV that you could legitimately take off road.

Because the people buying an X are not replacing a sedan. They are replacing another SUV like an X5 or ML.

Not only that, but the fuel source of an ICE must produce carbon output. However, there are many fuel sources for EVs that are carbon neutral (solar, wind, hydro, nuke).

Where I live, my power comes from mostly nuclear sources, so the production of my car has been the only major carbon impact that it's had.

As you can see by the numbers the manufacturing takes a big part of the whole carbon production of EV.

Nuclear power is a very bad power source. There is no final depot for nuclear waste on earth. We have to get rid of nuclear power. Hundreds of generations past us will have to deal with this shit of our generation.

nuclear energy is the cleanest energy. ALL you produce is a little nuclear waste that you can store underground somewhere.

The big part is the battery. That causes the high numbers. Not because it is a SUV.

Source?

Sorry. I have only a german source:

http://www.focus.de/auto/experten/duennes/oekobilanz-von-ele...

building heavy cars is the only solution when battery tech doesn't allow for light weight batteries. We are at what, four to five pounds of battery for each mile driven? That isn't exactly a great number.

In the long term electric vehicles are obviously the greener solution. We can't be carbon neutral if we need to burn carbon to propel our vehicles.

Fossil fuels need to be extracted, transported, refined, transported, stored at gas stations, and then transported with the vehicle before it's used. That's a lot of mass and energy before it even makes the car go forward.

Some other non-obvious benefits: electric cars last longer and require less maintenance, they're quieter, they don't put harmful chemicals in the air to breathe, and they reduce total milage by not requiring trips to a gas station.

And? If you drive a car for 100,000 miles and it gets 30mpg the whole time, that produces about 65 tons of CO2.

If the EV car gets its power somewhere clean, that ends up being about 13 tons total. For now we get some mix of dirty and clean energy, but that mix can at least be improved. Burning the gallon of gas will always produce 20 pounds of CO2[1].

[1]http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11

I look at all the little motors in those doors, and other robotic gadgets, and just see reliability issues. Their 8-year warranty on the drivetrain is great, but you are still stuck if the rest of the car doesn't work. I guess it's a fact of life now that cars, especially high-end cars, are not really built for more than two lease-lengths now. So how much embodied energy does that represent? Has anyone seen a full-lifecycle analysis of Tesla cars? Probably no worse than other luxury cars, but still.

Rest of the car has a 4 year warranty that can be extended to 8 years (at least thats how it works on the Model S)

"Model X is the safest, fastest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history."

From any other company I would roll my eyes at the ridiculous hyperbole. Here, it's probably just a statement of fact.

Safest and fastest seem possible, but I'm rather doubting its off road capabilities. Unless of course being capable of driving off road isn't something we expect from an SUV these days.

You can tell from the photos you won't be taking this off road.

It's more akin to a people mover with the 7 seat option and the ground clearance being limited. If you look at the most popular SUVs i.e. BMW X3/5, Mercedes M, Land Rover they have a lineage in proper 4WDs.

But let's be honest almost nobody who drives an SUV actually takes it off road.

Right. SUVs in this category are going after the need-a-van-but-want-a-sportcar market.

The irony is that a van will often handle better than a SUV with a car based platform and a lower center of gravity.

My wife has a BMW X5 and it drives like a piece of industrial farm equipment. We also own a Honda Odyssey which IMO handles significantly better - it's basically an Accord with a taller roof.

The current X3, X5, and M-Class are all built on unibody car platforms. Only the Range Rover models have a remotely "proper" lineage in 4WD vehicles.

This. There's a fine line between SUV and minivan. At best, the X is sitting on top of the line.

Do people actually go off road with SUVs? You just need to stand near any speed bump, pot hole filled road or construction zone for five minutes to realise that the cars that slow down the most are usually SUVs.

People with SUVs want a smooth and "safe" ride, not to throw themselves down a mountain and conquer nature like in TV ads.

Ugh this is the worst, I genuinely do not understand buying that huge car and being so incredibly afraid of a pothole.

Cool thing is, they could actually claim "safe" in a bigger sense of the word that most companies do not. Zero emissions is safer for everyone over the long term.

I'd want to see a cradle-to-grave carbon footprint analysis first, though.

Good point. Maybe there's an asterisk in there somewhere stating this claim is predicated on successfully launching used batteries into space and having them crash into a dump on the moon.

Or building that giant solar array around Mercury that beams energy for free to every Tesla car.

Build it around Earth of course. Get about 10X the solar density outside atmosphere. Even with 50% losses due to translating to/from laser, still magnitudes more efficient than ground-bases. And Mercury-based orders of magnitude harder yet!

Nah, just get them to orbit and then gently nudge them towards the sun. After the cost of getting out of the gravity well, let physics take care of the rest. We will need the moon one day, no point in trashing it beforehand.

Doesn't work that way. It take about 3 times as much delta v to crash something into the sun from low-earth orbit as it does to put it into orbit in the first place. If you gently nudge something in orbit, it will continue to be at risk of crashing into other orbiting thing or falling back to earth.

(Of course there's also the fact that it's very unlikely that launching even the most dangerous kinds of wastes into space is a net environmental win.)

How much more to go from low-earth to the outskirts of orbit where the gentle nudge will work? If we can plan getting a small satellite to land on a moving comet then we should be able to work out the mechanics of plotting a course for a bit of junk to eventually make its way to the sun. Think positive!

Here are some calculations, and a good explanation, showing why you don't want to try to shoot waste into the Sun:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/shooting_for_the_sun/

Your link is totally ruining my bit.

Nonetheless, interesting article.

I guess proposals to the UN will have to wait until technology catches up with my business plan.

What? Used lithium batteries aren't radioactive, there's no reason we couldn't recycle them. And their proliferation will only make them more economical to recycle.

Lithium batteries are widely recycled.

Okay, but how does that scale to Tesla vehicles? Is it cost-effective? Is it part of the ownership / leasing arrangement that Tesla will recycle them? I genuinely would like to know.

Well if it's economical to recycle now, with comparatively tiny and hugely varied laptop and cellphone batteries, I can only imagine it would be more cost-effective to do with very large and regularized car batteries.

Tesla's battery packs are really just a very large array of relatively standard lithium ion cells, 18650 lithium ions if you're curious.

These individual cells fail independently of each other, so the packs slowly degrades over time as a bell curve function of the MTBF, a Tesla battery can be "rebuilt" at any point in time during this lifecycle by replacing the individual dead cells within it.

These individual cells that have gone bad over time and no longer hold a charge can be "recycled" more completely, where the individual materials and electrolytes are separated, processed and reconstituted as a new battery that can then be used in a pack rebuild or a new Tesla car or wall pack.

Personally, I'm much more impressed by the crash safety than stuff like emissions.

It's hard to get people to care about emissions. But almost everyone has been in a car crash at some point. Most people know someone who has been killed or severely injured in one.

What makes Tesla remarkable is that their EVs aren't just good EVs, they're good cars. Previous EVs were basically sold as, "Well, this is kind of a crap car, but it doesn't burn gasoline!" And then people wondered why there were few buyers. Being extremely safe is a big part of that whole "good cars" thing.

Spoken like a person who didn't live through the 70s. The roads were a blue haze, with choking smog over most cities. Think Beijing today.

Once emissions were controlled to a comfortable level, then further improvements became marginally less important. That's natural and probably correct. I imagine Federal regulations are too stringent now; that's part of why car companies are resisting.

Tesla is around today, not the 70s.

Yes, emissions in general are very important. But they don't sell cars. Crash safety sells cars. "Better crash safety than anything else out there" really sells cars.

Agreed - Tesla is in a position to succeed because it exceeds by traditional car criteria. The long-term benefits are visible, but don't really drive the purchasing decision. But much like Apple seems to be doing with security, it can be developed as a differentiator once traditional bona fides are established (which they seem to be).

The only other company than Apple, in my opinion, that consistently slathers on more self-adulation and importance than reasonable on their own products, is Tesla.

Safest? Hummer H1. Fastest? Brabus 800 G. Most Capable? Toyota Land Cruiser.

Edit: Every downvote is sweet with your tears of being confronted by actual facts, just letting you know.

I really doubt the H1 is safer than the Model X. Just because it's big and strong doesn't mean it's safe. On what basis do you make that statement?

I'm having trouble finding much info on the Brabus 800 G, but from what I can dig up it looks like it does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds with a top speed of 155MPH. Model X P90D with ludicrous upgrade does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds with a top speed of 155MPH.

Most capable is a vague term that can mean almost anything, so that can't really be argued either way on anything objective.

Thanks for responding and I'll chime in.

I'm using the 8,100 pound vehicle weight of the H1 as an off-the-cuff reference point in physics, because in practical terms, yes, bigger tends to be safer in the real world. If somebody can find the NHTSA numbers for the H1 that'd be relevant to clearing that up. Oh, and I'm talking about the military converted version that was road legal, not the GM product.

Until we get the official test numbers from a 3rd party, I'm not going to believe Tesla's numbers. For all I know they could be better than advertised, but they could also be worse. I saw the 800 G having a top speed closer to 170, which would make it faster. Also, having been on the road with 50+ Teslas, I can assure you that the speed of the vehicle absolutely does not matter, because they don't use it. Anecdotal, sure, but there's always a bragging rights speed metric to brag about, which means it's not really worth bragging about.

So basically on the last point you agree with my premise, that Tesla likes to pick terms to hype itself along the lines of Apple and how "revolutionary" their products are. Basically the Model X hasn't proven itself capable of anything yet, because it's a year behind and I haven't seen any 3rd party tests of it...unlike the Land Cruiser, which is highly regarded worldwide for being, you know, capable of handling normal and abnormal conditions.

Bigger is safer, all else being equal. But all else is far from equal when it comes to crash safety in cars, especially when you're comparing a brand new 2015 design with one from 1992.

Cars have become dramatically safer over the years. A 60% increase in mass isn't going to make up for 20+ years of improvement in safety design and technology. As far as I can find the H1 was not crash tested, so it's hard to say just what its safety is truly like, but I would not expect it to fare nearly as well as something modern.

Regarding speed, if you're saying you don't believe Tesla's numbers then you have no facts on which to base a claim either way.

The last point is puffery. (That's a technical term.) It can't be objectively compared, because it's inherently a subjective claim.

None of this supports your rather insulting invocation of "actual facts" in your previous post. I see no actual facts coming from you here.

So based on your 3rd paragraph, you frequently see Brabus 800Gs running at 170mph on the highway? I mean, there's always a bragging rights speed metric to brag about, which means it's not worth bragging about...

I don't think those 8100 pounds will help much if you are crashing into a mountain wall or drop down into a 1m deep ditch on the side of the road. Just slamming the brakes will probably give you a whiplash in that thing and it probably has tons of sharp and hard edges in the interior. Modern cars have so many safety features, auto tightening of the safety belts, seats give way in strategical locations to save your back, etc etc etc. And don't forget active safety such as auto brakes.

Those jeering idiots in the audience are so cringe-y. There is no need to cheer at literally everything Musk says. For example, showing you can get into the car is something I would expect.

I wish I hadn't read your comment before watching the video, I could not stop noticing it. >_<

Funniest part was when he talks about creating a new ultrasonic sensor that works through metal -- silence. You can see Elon sorta motion as in "hey... this was a bigger accomplishment than the seat design" but no one really catches on.

Reminds me of the Apple launch event for ApplePay where the presenter showed the current "bad" way of paying with cards. The crowd went wild and he sorta looked at them like "uh, that was the bad scenario... don't clap."

I think the people were clapping because they agreed that it was an annoying way to pay.

https://youtu.be/0pmwR1SrK-Q?t=2648

http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/ee4d25fc09c13298fde2d6...

I'm glad this is a car that Russ would like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIAOosI6js

Doors that open like THIS - not like this!

I see what you did there ;)

>> 5,000lb towing capacity

Curious as to what happens to the range when you're towing a pair of jetskis.

It decreases. :)

Just enough from the garage to the boathouse probably.

Seriously I can see the numbers going down to 150mi range. Just a guess.

I'd expect less than half. The drag of a pair of jet skis is going to be significantly more than the X itself. Perfect use for me though. I drive 500 miles then need to put a boat in the water. My available high efficiency cars can't do the last two miles with a boat, so sometimes I have to drive a full sized pickup truck instead.

Fun fact: The MPG of my full size truck decreases by almost 50% when towing.

So if the Tesla gets better than 50% of it's range while towing, I'll be impressed.

It might, since I think moving heavy objects is pure drag on a ICE vehicle, but if you have regenerative braking, you get some of the extra effort you put in, back out.

That's an advantage many subways have by using electrical power.

Is your truck gas, or are you towing way more than 5000 lbs?

My guess is it would get better than 50% of its range because while you're (practically) doubling the weight, that doesn't matter because of the regenerative braking. Electric cars spend most of their energy fighting drag (as evidenced by people taking a model S almost 600 miles on one charge at 20 mph) and a 5000 lb trailer probably won't double the drag profile.

Direct comparison to a full size, gas (or otherwise) truck is probably not wise (my bad). Built for completely different purpose, a better comparison would be a traditional SUV or CUV.

Ski resorts already need access to some heavy electricity (ski lifts), I wouldn't be surprised if they would start offering chargers for electric cars in the near future.

Umm, jetskis aren't really for use at ski resorts.

yet

Says you, they make decent bobsleds with enough powder on the ground.

Jetskis have nothing to do with ski resorts.

I think I'll have to agree with you and grab some more coffee.

They're often electricity constrained though. As an example, until recently Kirkwood (Lake Tahoe area) wasn't connected to the grid and would have a lot of lift stoppages as a result.

A lot of them do already, I know Squaw Valley has had charging for two years.

Cool as this is, the only thing that sketches me out is the "automatic braking" feature. If I go to avoid something and it slams on the brakes, isn't that going to totally change my trajectory possibly causing an accident? Or a false positive causing heavy braking which someone could be surprised by and overcorrect for causing an accident?

My Volvo does this. Not sure if it's the same thing, but stops you if you're about to collide with something. I've never experienced it (as I've never yet needed the feature), but have heard good things. Here's a really impressive video of it in action on a semi-truck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

Counterpoint (with the model I have, unfortunately):

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/self-braking-volvo-fai...

I wouldn't consider that a counterpoint. Article goes on to say that the system wasn't on that car and obviously these are supposed to be emergency measures, not relied on.

Volvo claimed that the driver hadn't paid for the pedestrian detection upgrade which costs an extra $3,000. That said, it seems like a feature that shouldn't be confusing as to whether your car has it or not. But then again, its not a feature that non-professionals should be testing/showing off on living beings...

That video has been shown many so times and debunked equally many times. If you know how it looks like, it's obvious from the video that the car does not have the system installed, you should be able to see a small plastic box-like shape embedded in the grill which is one of the sensors, they blend in but if you know what to look for you do see them easily.

Whether installed or not, testing a safety-net feature like this qualifies for darwin awards.

My Chevy Sonic has some kind of automatic braking feature. It kicked on for me once and probably prevented an accident.

Edit Actually, I think it's not detecting a possible collision but recognizing that I slammed on the brakes and helping me push harder? Either way I wasn't braking hard enough at first and the car just took over.

Volvo at least, and I think Benz and the japanese luxury marques have had automatic braking for a while now I don't have links but there's probably some studies/articles on how it pans out in the real world.

It's becoming pretty common. Every time I go to the cinema I see an advertisement for VWs touting their automatic braking.

I imagine the avoided rear-end collisions caused by inattentive drivers will outweigh the contrived "emergency manoeuvre" failure scenarios. The times when the car actually engages its automatic braking is probably also pretty conservative.

Considering how many rear-end fender-benders I see on my daily commute, the benefits outweigh the risks.

Same here. I've thought of these as incremental improvements on the way to the autonomous car, but it really will be interesting to see how traffic improves as these technologies see wider adoption over the next few years.

My Mazda cx-5 has it. Saw this recently where most manufacturers are making it standard: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/business/automakers-will-m...

You might not be wrong, but your concern seems reminiscent of the fears raised when seatbelts became mandatory: That someone would get into an accident where the car went into a lake or pond, and the seatbelt trapped the occupants inside the sinking car.

That is, it's a legitimate fear, but such a rare occurrence that the benefit of seatbelts far, far outweigh the risk of this sort of uncommon scenario.

> such a rare occurrence

It depends on your driving style.

Do you find yourself driving into ponds and lakes often?

No, but I do drive sideways from time to time. I would hate it if my car applied the brakes at one of those moments.

The automatic braking is as good as the sensors/technology.

My Subaru has a dual camera system and the collision detection is amazing. It has saved me from a very hard braking or collision situation a few times. I haven't had the automatic braking actually kick in but the alert is very helpful.

That is a feature, which is standard for any premium car brand. Just wondering, why the Tesla S didn't hat this feature in the first place.

What happened at the start of the presentation when Musk was just about to start talking about safety features when suddenly, quietly, and slowly, a Model X drove up onto the stage. A random guy stepped out, left the door open, and handed Musk the keys.

Musk: "..Right, so about those safety features."

Did the guy go up to early? Or was he late? Or was that planned? So confused...

The 'bioweapon defense mode' is great naming. Gets fantastic PR and consumers know that Tesla's air is market leader.

When was the last time that a car's air filtering for so much good PR and became a unique selling point?

I love the falcon wing doors but what about when it's raining? That might be a stupid question but...

Exactly what I was thinking. When it's raining, I want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Not wait for the door to go through an entire opening sequence.

The car detects when someone is approaching, and which door they are approaching towards, and starts opening it in advance. I'm sure you'll be fine.

also what about when someone parks too close to you? Malls, for instance, put parking spaces tightly next to each other, so either you park like an asshole diagonally across two of them, or run the risk of someone else parking just a little bit too close to you and then your doors can't open, whereas in a standard vehicle, you'd be able to squeeze in. They should have made them slide laterally like on a minivan.

If you watch the presentation (or look for some .gifs around) you'll see they parked some of them pretty close to each other and the doors opened just fine. I think that's a minor issue given you can "flood" your car during a severe rain :-)

The site says the minimum distance required is about a foot which is reasonable given that the protruding rear view mirrors would be close to half of that.

I certainly cannot get out of either of my cars with just 12 inches of space. The door thickness alone in around 6 inches. No way is my body squeezing through a 6 inch opening in anything short of an emergency and it's very unlikely even then.

Watch the video. They do a demo of this exact situation.

https://s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/ee4d25fc09c13298fde2d...

They also opened the slide doors on the minivan on one side, showing that the mini van door blocks the entryway, whereas the wing doors don't.

I think in tight spaces, the wing doors have sliding doors beat. It has disadvantages, but purely from a space usage perspective it's a pretty good solution.

They are far superior to normal car doors for this situation. You'll quite likely find yourself unable to use the driver's door, but still able to get out the back!

Did you even bother to do watch the video?

It's actually superior in the rain because the doors offer rain protection from above when they are open.

Assuming the rain is coming straight down. Wind would push in the rain just as with any other door.

Actually, I was most curious about what happens when two Model X's park next to each other.

And what about snow?

If it's an "SUV" where do I strap my kayak and bike?

Mercedes did it better in 1955.

During the live event they showed some piece that's included and can easily be attached to the back of the vehicle.

It can tow 5000 pounds - maybe stick the kayak on a small trailer? Or, if you can afford a Model X, buy a used Subaru just for your kayak.

Trailers are a real pain to deal with. A lot of SUVs really aren't but this is an extreme case. I find it a bit ridiculous to call a vehicle an "SUV" if you can't put a roof-rack on.

Tesla should sell a (self parking) trailer especially made for the Model X, which contains an additional battery pack. *calls Elon

Eh, SUVs are the new minivan and everyone knows it. If you really want to strap a kayak to the top, buy a car with a roof rack regardless of what it's called.

I don't like the falcon doors for this reason... i rather have rails on top for rack attachments.

The meaning of "SUV" has changed in the las years.

My wife and I both own Mitsubishis: me, a 2013 Lancer, and her, a 2012 RVT because she wanted a crossover/SUV with "more space". We're able to fit significantly more in the Lancer. The RVT is basically a hatchback on a higher suspension and bigger tires.

Hell, a Yaris with a roof rack can do that. Relatively few buyers of SUVs, however, actually care about sport utility.

There are roof racks available which cover only one falcon door. Alternatively you could just put the kayak inside the car.

Inside? I watched the presentation, and it didn't seem like the seats folded forward. Do they?

Now that I think about it, I haven't even seen the back open. Why can't I find pictures from the back, with the gate open?

You can't find pictures because the car was released yesterday.

In the presentation the middle row seats inclined forward. On the Model X webpage it says the back row seats fold flat. You could definitely fit a whitewater kayak in; a downriver kayak would be tougher. Perhaps you need the configuration with two seats in the second row (instead of three) -- that should be enough room to fit a kayak between. That said, I imagine the second row seats will fold down.

But you could just put it on the roof :)

All it takes is a billionaire genius with twin kids and a car company to finally engineer a real solution to the hassle of having room to put kids in the car seats.

I sure hope some of these ideas come in a slightly more affordable version. Amazing how many of the innovations are just everyday things like crash safety, air quality, blind holster your phone, trailer hitch that doesn't suck, and easier to get kids in their car seats - yet they have me drooling as even after 100+ years of mass auto production there are so many daily frustrations with cars.

In all seriousness, how does the Model X improve buckling your kids over a sliding minivan door? Never had trouble with this, I've owned a car, truck, SUV and minivan with young kids.

Biggest headache? The kids buckling themselves. The seatbelt always locks (they pull too fast), the buckles get smushed into the seat bench, and before you know it I have exited the car, just to help them put it altogether.

Yep. I love the performance of Tesla's cars, but a humble minivan already has (far less attractive) sliding doors with very large openings.

To be fair to Tesla, Elon Musk did address this around two-thirds of the way through his presentation yesterday, saying "when the minivan door is open I can't even get through that space." I suspect he'd also say the Model X's doors provide a vertical opening in addition to a side opening, which can be useful for adults in the second or third row.

On the other hand, I've driven a Honda minivan quite a bit and I can't think of any times when I couldn't squeeze through the available space when the minivan door was open in a parking lot. So there is a bit of solving a problem that may not be very much of one.

The Model S (and presumably the X, at it uses the same wheelbase) is a _very_ wide car, wider than most minivans, so I suspect your Honda minivan is just narrower and won't run into this problem as much as those that drive the model X (or the S drivers today)

honda odyssey width 79.2"

tesla model S width 77.3"

Out of curiosity, how tall are you? I think he said a big part of the problem with minivans is that you can hit your head on the roof while trying to lean in to snap the buckles. With the falcon wing doors, the roof flips up too. Obviously if you are blessed to be average height, that may not be a problem for you.

As a tall person, I am excited that Elon is tall and getting them to consider the problems of not being average height =)

73 inches - owned a 2006 Honda Odyssey, don't remember bashing my head ...or maybe I did and can't remember because of said bashing.

Most everything in my world was designed for someone 3-4 inches shorter than I. I kid with my wife if I ever build my own house (post kids), everything will be taller.

I am confused by the fancy doors. The driver door seems to open as usual, no? Doesn't that mean that in a tight space I am no better off than with a regular door ?

How is that an SUV?

Stationwagon Utility Vehicle?

Stupid Urban-assault Vehicle

I much prefer this initialism.

The SUV term has been steadily stretched to cover vehicles that are less and less designed for anything other than a paved road and have less and less storage space.

Yeah... Doesn't the "X" imply that it's a crossover?

No, X implies that there are still possible form factors between a luxury sedan and an "SUV". T, U, V and W to be exact.

SUV = obese car. This is an obese car, therefore its a SUV.

There are snarkier ways, like a car is a vehicle where 75% of the seats are empty almost all the time, whereas a SUV is a vehicle where 85% of the seats are empty almost all the time, so the cutoff is around 80% usually empty.

Slightly more seriously a SUV can be defined as a car that has a towing rating approved by the mfgr. I've never owned a car where the mfgr approves any towing weight at all, and I've never heard of a SUV that can't at least tow some minimal weight.

Counterpoint: my Volvo has a 1540lb towing rating approved by Volvo. It is not an SUV.

The lines are ambiguous. "SUVs" nowadays range from minivans that don't look like minivans (crossovers) like the Ford Edge to actual SUVs like the Jeep Grand Cherokee. My personal definition is if you can take it off road on a trail with no mods and there is no bed, it's definitely an SUV. If you can't realistically take it on a trail, it's a crossover.

My Toyota Corolla has a tow rating of 1500lbs, I don't think that makes it an SUV.

Seating for 7

Tows 5000 pounds

Standard AWD

Higher ground clearance (speculating)

Also, Tesla didn't start the re-definition of SUV they're just saddled with the term like everyone else.

Because they said it is.

SUV just means having a higher ride height than a normal car.

There are plenty of SUVs with no 4WD, woeful towing capacity and 3 doors.

"SUV" doesn't mean anything specific. Look around you on the road: SUVs are the new minivans. People buying new cars today grew up in minivans, and the last thing you want to drive is the thing your mom drove. Give it another 20 years and I bet we see the minivan come back in style as kids growing up with SUVs now think of them as the soccer-mom-mobiles that they are.

You're forgetting about station wagons.

It is a marketing term that means "we're going to sell you something you'll probably think of as a big car, but which only has to meet light truck standards". There was a time when something like a Jimmy or a Bronco was distinctly downmarket and likely to have utilitarian rubber floor mats rather than carpeting. (Yes, there were some "gentlemanly" vehicles in the general class, like the Range Rover and the Wagoneer, but most were all business.) CAFE regulations didn't include trucks, so we were sold trucks instead of cars. Now people want trucks that look like cars from the inside.

Actually, a lot of my whitewater paddling friends favor minivans over SUVs for a combination of being able to haul a lot of gear and ease of shuttling people.

The first thing I notice is the seats.

The same very, very unadjustable, very sparse seats that the model S has. I won't provide reference [1][2][3]'s here, but there are absolutely much, much better seats with many more adjustments available in the lower end 3 series / A4 / C class cars ... and this is a car with a 6 figure price tag.

The seats. I have never understood the seats in the model S (and now X).

edit: OK, so another thing ... the stick-on spoiler has always annoyed me on the model S. Very cheap and lame. I see that the new Model X has a retractable spoiler ... when will that arrive on the Model S ?

Model S owner here. Love the new X but two things disappoint, in terms of design: the new front-end is ugly, especially the white version of the car. And the long straight wire that runs from the top of the car to the auto-pilot hardware and rear-view mirror, planted in the middle of the windshield's sea of glass, is hideous. I can't believe Elon let that slide. Jobs would never in a million years have allowed that stupid wire to obstruct the view. Worst case, hair-thin electric conductors embedded in the glass, something. But that wire's got to go.

Really like the car. Just a tad concerned that the huge front window will break/shatter a lot if you hit some debree (or there is just a lot of junk on the roads where I live).

I'm mostly wondering if you can open the falcon doors by hand or if it has to be done by computer. Seems kind of slow to me. Not to mention emergency situations.

If I had a family, and disposable income, this would definitely be my vehicle of choice. That said, I liked this bit: "There are three modes: circulate with outside air, re-circulate inside air and a bioweapon defense mode that creates positive pressure inside the cabin to protect occupants."

Funny regardless, but insane if true.

Someone just realized it would cost them little to implement this feature and it's a why-not that no one else has.

Warships and armoured vehicles have used internal overpressure since the 1950s, it's a basic aspect of NBC defence. And it was one of the reasons NATO warships were so sparsely equipped with portholes, no point having overpressure if Seaman Jones can leave a window open.

Anyway, it really shows to me what a completely pointless vehicle this is. Yes it's a technical tour-de-force, but it does nothing to move EV adoption forward. The people buying it will primarily be existing Tesla or Cayenne Turbo owners, not lower-middle-class wage-commuters who produce our daily pollution. Only slightly more useful than car-show concept vehicles in that regard.

If Tesla were to attack the low-end, where the majority of car sales occur, then I'd pay attention. But the proft margins are razor-thin there. Low-end being Fiesta / Polo territory, looks like we'll have to wait for the Chinese manufacturers to move in there.

> If Tesla were to attack the low-end, where the majority of car sales occur, then I'd pay attention.

Then you are not paying attention. Tesla strategy is to start at the top, with higher margins and lower volumes (meaning lower costs) and gradually move down. According to Musk the Model 3 will be available next year and cost $35k.

Not sure they can deliver. Their house-battery product was relatively cheap. But it was also ill-conceived and impractical. Largely because of capacity. It was more of a UPS than a house-power-plant, because of the extremely limited time it could run the whole house.

Consider: a large fraction of the Tesla car cost is the battery and associated systems. There's a minimum range that's considered acceptable, and even their current models barely achieve that. Using smaller/cheaper batteries to make the car cheaper will violate the minimum-range requirement. No-win here, so far.

Perhaps, but both the Model S and the Model X are very heavy cars. I guess there are possible savings there.

Man, this looks awesome as fuck, if only I had money for something like this

I don't think I can open those falcon doors when parked inside my garage. Which is a pity because it is damn cold in Canada half the year.

The doors actuate on two hinges and have sonar to detect both horizontal and vertical clearance during all movements. They will adapt to both low ceilings and low side clearances, and need only about a foot of space on either side of your car to open. In the video, Musk talks about garages with small ceilings and then shows a video of the doors opening in one. If there's enough space for you to pull in and get out of your car now, there's almost surely enough space to open the doors in this one too.

I wonder how they adapt to having snow on the roof.

If there is too much snow on the roof to use the falcon doors then you should have the driver get in up front, push on the accelerator for 4 seconds and then push on the brake. Now you can circle back and get the kids.

Are you driving your car with a large mass of snow on the roof? Please don't, it's dangerous.

I don't, but I see many people who do.

I thought SUV's had larger rims than standard cars, they look the same as the model S , Any information available?

The Model S already has unusually large wheels for a sedan

I guess Tesla isn't going to get around to making a car that normal people can afford anytime soon, then.

audience explodes into cheers

They already announced it. It's called the Model 3.

From Elon Musk's Twitter: @elonmusk $35k price, unveil in March, preorders start then.

35k is not something normal people can afford.

The average new car price is $33,560:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-...

$35,000 should be a pretty great deal for an above-average car that uses inexpensive fuel and requires little maintenance.

Normal people don't all buy new cars, and they don't buy the average new car. They either buy used or they buy an entry-level new car, say in the 25k range at most. You can get a freaking Audi for 35k. Audis are not entry-level cars for normal people, they are luxury cars.

It better be something normal people can afford, because that's about the average price these days. Then again, you haven't defined "normal".

They are following their roadmap, the Model 3 is next at $35k. Not cheap, but certainly affordable for many. Average new car price is $33,560 [0], so it's pretty amazing if they can hit that price with an electric vehicle. Also amazing considering Tesla shipped their first car in 2008 and have completely rejuvenated the electric car market.

[0] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-...

Are there any advantages to the gullwing doors compared to sliding doors other than "sliding doors aren't cool"? They say "minivan style sliding doors open at most halfway", but there are plenty of minivan doors that open quite wide.

If you watch the video he shows exactly this. Sliding doors take space.

It should give more clearence for getting into the car; and better access to the third row

Looking at the video, it's quite clear that accessing the third row of a full size minivan is quite a bit easier than accessing the third row of a Model X.

What is the pricing? Also does anyone know what the gross weight is?

Can anyone explain me why Tesla as a silicon valley company is lagging behind in autonomus driving? BMW, Daimler and many more have already working things in much cheaper cars.

Edit: can't understand the down voting. Criticizing Tesla isn't endorsed here?

Explain how they're lagging? They have v7 of the software in beta testers hands and the auto pilot features are a step above all other manufacturers.

As i mentioned there are many car makers which have these things since years. And they are much cheaper. Just look at the websites what you can buy from BMW, Daimler etc.

Because they also have cars for much longer too?

Tesla had (and has) to solve a difficult problem. The manufacturers you mention are all using standard internal combustion engines. Is it surprising that the can focus their attention elsewhere?

I think autonomous driving is first priority for Tesla. So I wonder.

Making a good electric car is a HUGE challenge (see: the entire history of electric cars pre-Tesla). They need to keep their focus there. Once Tesla is delivering on the affordable mass market Model 3, then I think they'll turn up their focus on self-driving.

price? what is the price? how come they don't have the price on the web page? is it secret? is it "if you have to ask ..."?

Now those are the doors of a billionaire.

And yours for just $149K.

Does it come with a free bottle of Tres Commas?

Pretty cool station wagon.

Tony Stark strikes again! Worth noting that no emission 'issues' are expected ...

how tall/wide does your garage have to be?

That's the thing that first came to mind when I saw the pics of those doors opening... sure they look cool, and probably work ok if you're outside away from anything, but seems like there are plenty of situations in which they just wouldn't have the space to open enough to allow exiting (at least without crawling on the ground).

Examples might be a small garage or a parking space hemmed in by other vehicles.

Sliding doors take almost no extra space to open fully, and even normal swing doors can be used when partially open (the exact degree of course depends on how skinny you are...).

Did you watch the unveiling event? It is a dual hinged door and can do some pretty trick stuff with ultrasonic sensors to alter hinge and lift angles to open in pretty tight spots.

The video shows it opening when parked so closely to two vehicles that a person can barely squeeze through, and when parked in a garage with a low ceiling. One of the cars they parked it next to is a minivan with sliding doors, which you couldn't get into when open, while you could get into the X. As Elon puts it, paraphrasing, "this is the best aperture possible".

Gull-wing doors!!

Great, bioweapon defense mode so the Masters of the Universe can all hop in their cars and safely leave a big city under bioweapons attack, while the rest of us lie gasping on the sidewalk...

Or leave the Teheran ambassy in 1975 even under tear gas.

Bioweapon defense mode in luxury vehicles is the first step towards bioweapon defense mode in commodity vehicles.

Also, it's really for polluted cities, skunks, and driving past freshly fertilized farms. I don't think anyone expects to active bwdm for an actual bioweapon threat.

Now _everyone_ will have gull-wing doors.

fugly

shutupandtakemymoney

Seven seats car seems to address a very small niche.

Most SUVs are seven seaters. Even most minivan's are now 7 seater.

"Most" is a bit of an overstatement. (Fortunately) many SUVs still don't have third-row seating. To be honest, I find the shift from minivans--which do a much better job of seating a bunch of people--to SUVs that consume a lot of interior space with seats a bit unfortunate.

"Most" as in the direct competition to the Model X. Yes, some manufacturers have large 8 seaters (Yukon, QX56, Pilot, Sequoia) but those are all massive vehicles and I don't think the Model X is competing with those. I think the competition is the smaller SUVs such as the Q7, SRX, MDX,GX, X5, GL550, and XC90, all of which are 7 seaters.

The pilot is pretty popular as an 8 seater. It's rear seats fold flat giving you a reasonable cargo area when you don't have the 3 people in the third row. The seats themselves aren't very cramped, but getting in/out is not great.

I'm not sure many Pilot buyers will also be Model X buyers ($30K vs $100K)

The $30K vs. $100K isn't the real comparison though. The pilot starts at $30K, but goes to $48K. The MDX is only 7 seats, but is also basically a Pilot for $58K.

A Model X should come in around $80K, assuming it is just a bit more than a comparable Model S, which starts at $70K.

I think one of the things the Model S has done is get someone who might spend $50K on a car to spend quite a bit more than otherwise, because of its coolness factor. I think the Model X will do the same thing, and get people who would otherwise drive something less expensive (in the $50-60K range) to reach upwards to $80K or so because of the cool/wow factor.

I've got a Pilot now; and like it. I need to see the X in person. Right now the falcon wing doors are not a selling point for me and lack of rear-seat entertainment system make it less compelling than it otherwise might be for the money.

Yes, not that many have a lot kids, or kids with friends, or visiting grand parents... :)

But yes it is a niche, but not small. There is a lot of 7 mvp cars where I live, Vauhall Zafiras, XC90s etc. And in most of these the third row seats are cramped pop up seats.

Not really. The average family + 1 friend "just" fits in a 5-seater SUV. Having a 7-seater means being able to bring along more than one person. "Hey, we can all ride together!" becomes a very normal part of conversation. Bundle that with the fact that everyone can ride together and everyone saves 100% money on gas, well, it's a no-brainer people will start carpooling more since there are more seats.

"no-brainer people will start carpooling more" ?

I don't think people buying Teslas will start carpooling any time soon.

Number of seats is a unit of capacity. You can put things in that space other than people.

Most people who have the money to buy it don't have the amount of kids to fill it!

Yes, that niche is called 'SUVs'.

Sweet if I start saving now I'll be able to afford one in 10 years!

I can't wait to see how well they do in the Paris-Dakar Rally, because of course they'll back up all their hype by going out and handily beating the competition, just like the Tesla Model S completely dominated Touring Car racing and showed the GT class at Le Mans what innovation is all about. /s

Not exactly the intended use case, though, is it? Do you expect your mother to play NFL football? No? Not everything is built to compete.

What I'm talking about is the long-running automotive tradition - a useful one - of subjecting an automobile to competition by which to identify weaknesses, opportunities for improvement, and publicly showing that the vehicle is capable of rising above every-day use scenarios through its engineering prowess.

Using your logic, why is Aston Martin in GT / ALMS racing? Why is Mercedes Benz in F1 racing? Why is Volkswagen in off-road racing?

The list goes on and on and on. The only time Tesla has gotten to a podium is because Elon Musk paid for it to be there for the press. I suppose it makes sense not to take Tesla endurance racing, because it'd be embarassing.

So with the falcon wing doors you couldn't open up passenger seats in your standard garage. I'd suspect people who could afford this wouldn't have a standard garage anyways though.

A standard garage seems to have quite a bit over two meters in height, which should be enough to open the doors. They also have sensors and adapt both hinges to obstacles next to and above the car.

Musk actually demoes it opening in a low-height garage. It has two hinges for the door that lets it open at less height.

This is one of those things where if what you said is true, then the engineers would be brain-dead morons. I suspect it's more likely that it does work in most standard garages, than Tesla's engineers have never thought to try it in a standard garage.

Let's say you take your AWD SUV up to your cottage in the mountains, or to a ski resort, and you've got 6" of snow on top of your car. What happens when you open the doors?

You clear the snow off before opening the back doors. You should be clearing it off before you drive anyway so it's not much of a difference.

He showed it in a standard garage setup, but I would fear my garage door opener would be in the way... Hopefully the ultrasonic sensors would see the garage door opener and not hit it.

Did you even bother to watch the video?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com