Hacker News Reader

Comment by MSM | Hacker News Reader

I really hate these comparisons. What is the Model S trying to be? A luxury car? A sports car? A trip vehicle? Every article I read compares the Model S to some abhorrently expensive vehicle that does some specific thing poorly in comparison to Model S. I'd be much more interested in reading a top to bottom comparison between the Model S and a similar car. Do it with a BMW M3 or something, a reasonably priced luxury car that still tries to tailor to the sporty crowd.

The Rapide is a $150k car that is outperformed by a $25k Ford Mustang. No one has ever gone into the draft room and thought to themselves "If only I could design a vehicle that cost less to produce than the Rapide AND was sportier!". Outperforming it is not an achievement.

View on HN

On the other hand, most of us already know how the Model S compares to its more natural rivals. The Internet is flush with information including such straight-forward comparisons.

I actually revel in wildcard comparisons that demonstrate just how remarkable the Model S is.

And let's not overlook the obvious: they are both upscale sedans with a penchant for spirited driving. This isn't a sedan vs coupe or sedan vs pickup truck comparison. It is actually conceivable that a Rapide buyer would cross-shop a Model S because of the unique cache of the Model S, and much less conceivable they would cross-shop a Mustang.

At the price point of all these cars they damn well be better amazing. Honestly I could care less about how great cars that cost as much as some homes do. For pete's sake we are talking about cars that cost upwards if not more than 100,000.

Now, when Tesla starts slogging it out in the 30 to 40k range write me, until then they are just skimming off the crowd that with excess money who expect the same in their cars.

Hats off to their accomplishment, but maintaining quality and luxury at that price range is baked into the price.

Elon Musk has stated that as his end goal. He said first he had to make electric cars sexy and sporty[1]. Next he wanted to make a slightly cheaper nice sedan as a high end family car, the Model S[2]. FYI the Model S starts at $71,070 per their website. After that the next goal is the Model X[3], and then a second revision / smaller version of the Model S, which will start around $30,000[4]. So instead of being so sceptical, you should be like holy shit! Elon Musk is a trail blazer and he is doing to the automotive industry what apple did to the personal computer and mobile industry. So far he has delivered on everything he's promised with Tesla and SpaceX, so I doubt he will fail to deliver his stated goal of a 30k car.

[1] http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster [2] http://www.teslamotors.com/models [3] http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx [4] http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/07/tesla-sold-5150-models-...

Any car in this price range is as much or more a fashion statement than it is anything else. And most reviews of "Tesla vs. Car X" seem contrived to illustrate a preconceived conclusion, whether it's Top Gear who somewhat artificially highlighted the very real range issues with the Tesla or this review which highlights an acceleration capability that you really can't use unless you're on a track.

Operating costs of these cars are meaningless to people who can afford them, so until there's a Tesla in the $20,000--$30,000 range I don't see that as something that's going to factor into a purchase decision for most people.

I personally would never spend more than $10,000 on a car, and I'd have to be having a really weak moment to even spend that. I still find Tesla to be interesting to read about, they are quite clearly the best effort yet at an electric vehicle, but for me they will likely always be just a curiosity, sort of like a Cray supercomputer. Amazing, but really special-purpose.

I dunno — I see the Model S as far less of a fashion statement than most other comparably priced cars. If one wishes to buy an electric car (e.g., because you believe in reducing pollution, because of the lower cost of running due to tax exemptions, etc.) and needs a range of over 200 miles, there are two options: the Venturi Fétish and the Tesla Model S (in some places the tax exemptions do not apply to hybrids, so if you need the range, that's it).

I also wouldn't write off operating costs as a reason — certainly, those who can afford them can likely afford the operating costs of similarly priced ICE cars, but my experience is those with a greater amount of money tend to be more frugal than those with slightly above average income. There's also the difference between wealth and income — purchase power for something like a car may well be done on the basis of wealth, while maintaining it done on income.

I don't know about you, but I take advantage of quick 0-60 acceleration all the time. It's more things like high top speeds that are useless except at a track.

> I could care less about how great cars that cost as much as some homes do.

Good luck finding a home in the UK for the same price as a Tesla S.

The Tesla S costs in the $70-100k range. I cannot image that it would be too hard to find houses in that price range in the UK, given that I found this after 20 seconds of Googling. http://money.uk.msn.com/mortgages-and-homes/30-homes-for-%C2...

Finding a house here in Sweden in that price range is easy, as long as you're willing to live where no one else wants to.

Come on, most of those houses are either in the middle of nowhere or 'needs updating', 'needs work' and so forth. You can buy houses for <$1k in the US if you go to where they're priced at that, but there's a reason why they're that cheap, and they certainly don't represent anywhere near the usual experience.

Here's a list of properties within 3 miles from Liverpool city centre (well, a 'Zoopla mile' is a bit different) for £40-60k ($62-93). I'm sure many will need updating. There's 300+ on the list

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/houses/liverpool-city-centr...

A fair point.

If you buy second-hand you can also easily pick up an Aston for cheaper than a new Tesla S, so say the classifieds. I wouldn't recommend leaving it unattended outside your £40k Liverpool house though. Probably best not to drive it into the estate at all.

Some of the worst estates in the entirety of the UK are around there, though. Do you really want to live in Toxteth? Honestly?

> Honestly I could care less about

Couldn't care less. Couldn't.

That construction is on a par with using "literally" to mean "figuratively" (surprisingly common), or "he doesn't know s * * t" when obviously the speaker means "he does know s * * t."

You only get up to around 100k if you are getting the high-end versions... The Roadster was the 100k+ one.

> cars that cost as much as some homes do

Homes in London? Not even close.

cache != cachet

But the Rapide does try to tailor to the sporty crowd. It is marketed as such. It is significantly lighter than rivals like the various Bentley and the Rolls Royce four-doors, and it was tested on the Nordschleife. It performs favorably compared to the BMW M5, and people have compared the two.

I don't think it's fair to compare the Model S with the M3. The M3 (well, the M4) aims to be a compact executive. In terms of wheelbase, the Model S is much closer to the M5 and the Rapide.

I personally cross-shop the Tesla Model S and the Audi S7. A future Model S AWD and an Audi A7/S7 TDI would be an even more direct comparison. They price out (loaded) to within $5k, if you take into account the $2500 federal tax credit and sales tax exemption in WA. The depreciation on a diesel and on a Tesla are probably comparable. Tesla would be clear savings on fuel costs, maintenance, and probably would have more curb appeal at least in SFBA. I'd probably take the Audi A7 3.0 TDI if I needed AWD today.

What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.

> What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.

Sorry, I don't think the tech is there. Either the range would suffer (due to more compact frame allowing for fewer cells safely) or the power would be gimped (to allow for lower overall battery capacity).

Electric cars are competing with the entire petroleum-fuel supply chain, and as such, are fighting a david vs. goliath battle.

That Tesla does this, has won consistently, and wins with style is why their stock is up 500% over the past year.

Of course, they've picked their battles, and fighting the S4 or 3 series isn't one of those they're ready to fight (yet). Maybe, like Apple, they never will (Apple ceded the enthusiast/gaming desktop market years ago).

I guess the question is how much they'd gain in acceleration/performance (and thus be able to give up on battery capacity) by making the overall vehicle smaller and (ex-battery) 200-300 pounds lighter, vs. how much space for battery they'd give up. I don't mind if the S4-replacement costs $60-80k (loaded) vs. $80-100k for a Model S.

I'd also take a car which had the same general size and chassis as the Model S but with a larger, more-secure trunk at the cost of seating capacity. My dream car is a 2-seat coupe with a trunk the size of a compact pickup truck bed.

Like a Porsche 928?

If you are willing to compromise on range a bit, Tesla could build an 4-series competitor. The already did the roadster that was lotus based.

I have been comparing the Model S and the S7 as well. For me the S7 wins the emotional "want-to-buy-it" comparison, but the model S wins the rational "reasons-to-buy-it" comparison. But at this price point the decision is much more emotional than rational, so while I'm not sure I'll buy the S7, I'm pretty sure I won't buy the model S. Maybe next time, though. I like so many of the things Tesla is doing.

Of course here in the Seattle area there are tesla model S cars on every other street so the curb appeal story is a little different.

Model X? http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

I want something smaller than a Model S for now. Driving a Model S into SF, and dealing with parking/etc., looks like a pain -- I've driven a Crown Vic, 745i, etc., and I hated it there. I'll solve this by being in ruralish WA by the time I get my Model S AWD. (I also tend to dislike SUVs which aren't trucks.)

I do it all the time. You also get to park in the myriad of electric vehicle parking spots that are generally better spots than the non-electric ones.

I think these comparisons are useful.

You are comparing cars that don't really compete, yet the Tesla matches or outperforms them. I personally like to know that it's faster than X or better equipped than Y or drives better than Z.

It's also not just another drag race. Notice they did the race from a moving 30mph, while the Aston Martin was in second gear. The Tesla only accelerates after the Aston Martin starts spooling up. This is not a from-0-mph which would throw the advantage into the lap of the Tesla.

Maybe putting the Aston into 1st would be more fair, but that's not a realistic real-world test. You don't mill around town in 1st gear. It's a surprising result because having full-torque at all times still helps when you are milling around at local-town speeds. It's not just an electric-car pony trick.

It's true that you don't tend to mill around town in first gear but the title of the post is 'Tesla Model S outperforms Aston' which implies to me that both cars were performing optimally. I bet most people hadn't picked up on the fact the Aston was in the wrong gear for a race. I hadn't until I read your comment.

So you would also be very interested in a shootout between a Tesla and a dirt bike? They don't compete, but if the Tesla can go round a *pavement track better, I guess that's useful?

If a Tesla managed to do a better job at being a dirt bike than an actual dirt bike I'd sure like to read an article about that.

Please re-read my original comment. I did say cars.

I wouldn't buy an AM because I need a 4 door sedan for my lifestyle. Yet, isn't it useful to know that it is as refined as a high-end sports car?

I did say cars.

Fine. So you'd be interested to see the Tesla compared to a WRC car, and you would find it useful to hear that the Tesla can pull higher g's on an asphalt skidpad and has a nicer interior?

isn't it useful to know that it is as refined as a high-end sports car

You got that out of this video? They barely even mention fit-and-finish. The main focus between the two is the acceleration comparison, which says zilch about refinement.

"So you'd be interested to see the Tesla compared to a WRC car, and you would find it useful to hear that the Tesla can pull higher g's on an asphalt skidpad and has a nicer interior?"

Sure, I'd read that article. Throw the Tesla onto a dirt track too, I'd read that as well. Hell, I want to know if it can go upside-down in a sewer tunnel. I don't see the problem here.

It might be interesting out of sheer bemusement- especially if they take the Tesla around a WRC track- but it's ultimately a meaningless comparison.

Oh, the Tesla has a nicer interior than the stripped Subaru racing shell? Count me impressed! (said no one)

The reason these articles are interesting is because they're talking about the Tesla doing well when compared on the other cars' strengths, where you would expect the cheaper car focused on something different to do worse. Obviously an article about how the Tesla is better at something than a car which is very bad at that thing would not be very interesting.

Acceleration isn't really an important strength of the Aston's, and Tesla gets applauded for its acceleration all the time. So which is the one that we expect to do worse?

I wouldn't buy a sports or GT car without acceleration being it's "strength"...

Then you probably wouldn't be interested in an Aston Martin. If acceleration is your top priority, you can always buy an STI for a third as much, boost the snot out of it, and leave the Rapide in your dust.

The Rapide is no slouch, to be sure, but acceleration falls somewhere in the middle of a larger spectrum of goals for that car.

So you can race between the lights? There is a lot more to it than that.

Admittedly I am more in the market for being entertained than impressed.

Unfortunately I would be very surprised if Top Gear touches a Tesla car again with a 10-foot pole (and I can't say I blame them).

Same here. I would also be very surprised if Tesla touches Top Gear again with a 10-foot pole (and I can't say I blame them, either).

I think they both had wildly different expectations of what was appropriate in that situation. Neither came out looking very good, IMHO.

I think Musk is in need of some good advice on PR strategy. He started public battles with Top Gear and the NY Times over inaccuracies. I think it's more than likely he was right in both cases--those are not the homes of highly objective and sophisticated auto journalism. Top Gear is just entertainment, and the NY Times doesn't bother including the weight of a car in a review, which says something about their thoroughness. Autocar.uk in contrast is extremely respected and diligent.

But engaging the press in a press release war creates the wrong image for the company. Who will hear about it? Viewers of Top Gear and the NY Times. And they won't be likely to guess their beloved news source is in the wrong. You can't win that kind of fight and he should have known better than to try. I can't believe it has been good for Tesla on balance.

You think so? I see it the other way.

Top Gear is the Daily Show of automobile journalism. Although it's entertainment, a surprising number of its viewers would cite it as their primary source of auto news.

Just as with the Daily Show audience, the Top Gear audience isn't thinking very critically about every subject presented. With that kind of audience, it's all about appearances. Merely having heard that there has been a kerfuffle over their prior coverage of Tesla is sufficient for viewers to think, "well, perhaps what I saw about Tesla on Top Gear wasn't quite accurate." In other words, since loud and silly is all that this audience can perceive, I think Musk did the right thing.

I was skeptical of Musk's reaction to the Times, but in net, I think Tesla came out of that looking seriously intolerant of journalistic hijinks. And many people respect that.

I've actually thought the same thing regarding Top Gear for quite a while, and said as much in another offshoot of this thread (prior to reading this).

I was also on the side of it being a slight misstep for Tesla to make as much of an issue of the NYT and Top Gear problems, but in hindsight I think it's paid off for them. There's been so much good press now that people thinking back on the events may have a different opinion than when they first heard about it, and Tesla was less well known.

loud and silly is all that this audience can perceive

Jesus, is there some bad blood between HN and Top Gear? Or is this the bad blood, the Tesla thing?

On second thought, I could see that being it. HN pretty much idolizes Musk after all.

I love Top Gear. I love it for being loud and silly.

But, whether you and I see it as entertainment is somewhat moot when, like the Daily Show, much of its audience actually gleans the totality of their auto news intake from this entertainment show. Because, frankly, many are not interested in watching the serious news shows, automotive or otherwise.

The better solution would (IMO) to have been to out-Top-Gear Top-Gear in some fashion, and use that exposure to also cover your point of contention.

I think a suitable segment to parody would be the (rocket assisted) Mini Cooper Ski-Jump[1] from the Top Gear Winter Olympics Special[2].

For the low low price of a single Model S, a Merlin engine, and some quality time bodging one onto the other[3], he'd have a guaranteed viral hit in which to make his appeal to the public, as well as, almost certainly, the credibility of producing either a much better jump, or a much larger fireball.

As the saying (sorta) goes: "Never get into a rocket fight with a rocket scientist who owns his own rocket making company."

[1] http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/videos/mini-ski-jump/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_Winter_Olympics

[3] plus somewhere with a ski-jump they don't really like that much, and whose authorities don't have a problem with a mostly-horizontal rocket flight-plan, which might be tricky.

they won't be likely to guess their beloved news source is in the wrong

It doesn't really matter if their beloved news source is right or wrong, it still paints Tesla as litigious. The only time such suits over reviews expressly supported by the manufacturer go over well is when the reviewer committed gross fabrications or other inaccuracies.

The omissions in their suit speak quite loudly to me. For example, I just went back and rewatched the Top Gear review. They mention the engine overheated in one Tesla, and in the other the brakes failed while it was charging. I notice Tesla only made a big deal about the race track range estimate, which if I recall they didn't even claim was wrong- just misleading. That leaves an especially bad taste in my mouth- it's almost like Tesla is trying to discredit the apparently real failures by nitpicking unrelated minor details.

It all looks even more shady when you consider how few of these sorts of scuffles come up with Top Gear & other car companies.

It was a clash of TV cultures. In America, there's an implicit expectation that your "sponsorship" will elicit positive things, tit for tat. In the UK, they get away with all sorts of blasphemy- they are free to bash the cars that get provided for reviews. If you watch Top Gear UK much, you'll notice they criticize plenty of cars, even ones that were on loan from the manufacturer.

(This is part of why Top Gear America is but a shadow of Top Gear UK)

What the hell?

Top Gear lied. Tesla wasn't expecting special treatment for sponsorship, they were expecting a modicum of honesty. You don't get to put this down to "culture clash" unless you're defining "ethical" and "unethical" as cultures.

I don't think you are familiar with what Top Gear is... You don't think there is any trickery going on here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TbpgZ2Dt0A ?

Sometimes they fabricate things to make an awesome car look awful, sometimes they fabricate to make a mediocre car look awesome.

The common denominator is that they fabricate for the sake of entertainment. Anybody who actually watches the show would know and embrace that.

I am well aware of what Top Gear is, and that's why I stopped watching it almost as soon as I started, and wondered why the hell anyone else watches it, either. I don't think establishing a past pattern of lies is an excuse for future lies, nor do I think lies presented as facts are "entertaining" in the least. They're just lies, nothing more, nothing less, and they and their peddlers should be treated as such.

I've never heard evidence Top Gear UK lied or slandered Tesla in the review. I believe the contention of the lawsuit Tesla filed was the 55 mile range quote would be misleading to the public because it was based on driving the Tesla around their track at race speeds. (The judge threw it out saying it wasn't misleading at all)

The range quote wasn't even based on a genuine test. The car was never run down to empty, and yet they showed the car being pushed into the garage as if it were.

Judges aren't arbiters of truth, they're arbiters of law. If your standard for truth is "a judge didn't say it was legally defamatory", I hope nobody ever trusts anything you say.

They said it was a range estimate. Right there in the episode. Where was the lie?

Oh no! They showed a dramatization of running out of power while driving it on their track! How dare they!

From the video[1]:

(while driving around the track, cornering) "This car then really was shaping up to something wonderful. But then..."

(cut to Jeremy in the Roadster, a musical cue cutting off the soundtrack, signalling a problem. Jeremy pumps his foot, looks down at his foot and back up with a perplexed look on his face, and says "Oh", with backround noise of the Tesla decelerating.

Jump to outside view of the Roadster rolling to a stop in the middle of the track, with Jeremy narrating "Although Tesla say it will do two hundred miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles." During this the scene changes to men pushing the Roadster in a hanger.

More narration from Jeremy, "And if it does run out, it's not a quick job to charge it up again."

Make of that what you will, I don't think words do it justice, which is why I included the video[0]. The narration is accurate, but the portrayal clearly implies something more than the narration, making it very to misconstrue what the facts are. The facts are, by the way, that the Roadster never ran out of power, they ran it for a few hours, decided they didn't want to wait for it to run out, and staged that portion.

Now, Top Gear is clearly an entertainment and comedy program, but to act like that's the end of it is also clearly ignoring the reality of the situation. Top Gear is less like SNL than The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Viewers expect it to not be too serious, but right or wrong, they also expect to be able to get some information from the show, knowing that they'll need to sort through the context to determine whether it was a joke or not.

Keeping all that in mind, to me Top Gear seems to have overstepped slightly here. Then Tesla overreacted with a lawsuit. That's why I said neither seems to have come off well.

[1]: http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker, start at 4:17 for the relevant scene.

Automobile did a comparison with BMW M5. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTN0Yi1t4

Hey, its just a comparison. Nothing wrong with it. Especially TESLA is a new type of car. Such comparisons make much more sense in terms of buyer awareness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com