Tesla unveil Semi, new Roadster, & also teased a "pickup truck"

[aturnis]

Anyone watch the unveil last night?



The numbers on the semi destroyed what anyone thought possible.

- 0-60 in 5 sec
- 0-60 in 20 sec under max gross payload of 80k lbs
- 65mph up 5% grade under max lied, compared to 45mph for ICE semi
- 500 mile range
- 400 miles of additional range after 30 min charge
- Guaranteed 7¢/kWh fuel cost(solar) compared to volatile oil
- Nuclear explosion proof glass(apparently cracked windshield takes semi off road)
- 1 million mile guarantee it won't breakdown
- Will never need a brake change
- "Impossible" to jacknife
- Beats semis on economics day 1
- In convoy mode, beats rail on economics

300 miles of range: $150,000
500 miles of range: $180,000
Founders series: $200,000




https://youtu.be/CBTQnmUolas
The Roadster was a complete surprise, and the numbers given destroy any production car you can think of, even a Koenisegg.

- 0-60 in 1.9 sec (this is faster than most Formula 1 cars)
- 0-100 in 4.2
- 1/4 mile in 8.9 sec
- 250+ mph top speed
- 621 mile range (That's Kansas City to Denver without fueling)
- 10,000 nm torque

and that's the base model. Starting at $200k and Founders series at $250k. Destroys million dollar cars.



Also teased a rendering image of a consumer pickup truck with a normal truck in the bed.

https://youtu.be/5n9xafjynJA

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

So both car and driver and consumer reports are reporting inconsistent braking. Motortrend says they got a car to stop in 119 ft, while consumer reports is saying 152ft.

That's beyond inconsistent. That's wildly inconsistent. I'd be more concerned about inconsistent brakes than i would be over the 152ft figure. Your car should be predictable.

I can't imagine it is, but the "stiff ride" could be bad enough to have an affect on weight shift, or lack of, and breaking consistency. The location of the weight it's trying to control might make it even worse.

[DaFace]

I wonder if it something related to when the car passes from e-braking to disc brakes. If that transition takes a split second longer in some situations than others, I could see it causing some significant variability.

(Obviously that's something they should take a close look at, regardless.)

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I wouldn't put too much stock into that. Those braking numbers don't seem abnormal for a compact at all.

2018 Golf: 185 ft
2018 Sentra: 168 ft (from 70 mph)
2018 Cruz: 161 ft (from 70MPH)
2017 Mazda 3: 185 ft (from 70mph)
2017 Focus: 173 ft (from 70 mph)
2017 Elantra: 168Ft (from 70mph)

(as per Car and Driver and Motortrend)

To me it sounds like Tesla didn't line enough money in Consumer Reports' pockets.

The CR test was from 60mph not 70.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

The CR test was from 60mph not 70.

Right, which is why i noted they were from 70. Considering adjustments the number would still be close.

[JakeF]

UPS is starting with this electric truck

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/09/...rucks-arrival/



UPS as also order 125 Semi trucks from Tesla.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by JakeF

UPS is starting with this electric truck

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/09/...rucks-arrival/



UPS as also order 125 Semi trucks from Tesla.

That is probably the best possible fit for them.

However the UPS guys here drive the **** out of them. Those engines sound TIRED.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I always thought Model 3 was suppose to be a compact. Maybe i'm wrong?

Yeah. Compared to a Model S it's WAAAY smaller. My Model S is huge, so huge that that is the only drawback I can think of with the car. It barely fits in my garage and is somewhat hard to park in parking spots because of it's width. The Model 3 has got to be smaller than a BMW 3-series. (I've owned a BMW 3-series and sat in a Model 3) Not quite compact, note quite luxury compact, I would imagine.

The Model 3 is supposed to be more profitable than both the Model X and Model S, it's where Tesla may be able to make lots of money and provide an efficient vehicle for the everyday man.

While I can't talk for the Model 3, the Model S is the safest sedan on the market. An argument can be made it doesn't have the safest crash ratings (while they are still high) but when you combine that with autonomous safety features the car is very safe. Model S's with Auto Pilot have been shown to be 3-4 times safer than Model S's without Auto Pilot.

I imagine there will be some bugs with the first year or two Model 3's. Just like there was with Model S in the beginning. This is not be be unexpected when making a brand new car company and a brand new model of car.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Eleazar

I think the autopilot feature, if it was in use, makes the story newsworthy. The concept of self-driving cars and Tesla's autopilot specifically has been the subject of plenty of discussion in other accidents, some involving fatalities. The question of whether cars should have the feature in the first place is a valid question.

Not at this point. Driver should be engaged and ready to take over. Have a couple of levels to go before you can check out.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by BWillie

We are scared of things we don't understand. Have you ever driven a Tesla with autopilot before? If not, go ahead and rent one. You'll have a greater understanding of it, and why it is a great safety feature. Human beings ****ing suck at driving. They are horrible at it.

Is Auto Pilot better than Jeff Gordon on two cans of Mountain Dew trying to drive as precisely as possible for a small period of time? No probably not. But computers don't get tired. They don't fatigue. They don't forget. They don't text & drive. They don't miss the brake on accident and hit the gas. They don't have to worry about a crying kid. They don't have to worry about spilling coffee on their lap and burning them. And they don't get drunk.

I think the thing most fail to see is, if it gets the WORST drivers off of the road, things are already markedly safer.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

Starting a new car company is really, really hard. I hope Tesla succeeds but I think the odds are he isn't going to succeed as an independent company making mass produced cars.

It would be a personal defeat for Musk, but a tie-up with VW would make a lot of sense for the model 3. Tesla would get a deep pocket funder that has decades of know how about mass producing reliable cars. VW would get a fast track in its switch from diesel to electric.

Yeah, we're past that. Tesla is here to stay. They won't be needing any help. I think they're in a better place than most should we hit another recession. Ford on the other hand...

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by vailpass

I see them comparing it to the BMW M3. I'm no expert.

But I do know that the Tesla performing the same as those models you listed would be fine if they were in the same price point. But they aren't. They aren't even in the same area code.

I think all of the reviews I've read from auto blogs tested it's braking in line with the 130 ft(?) Tesla claims.

[DaFace]

Elon's on one hell of an anti-media rant today. I generally agree with him that the media tends to nitpick Tesla but...sheesh...move on and crank out cars already.

[aturnis]

They only nitpick for the clicks. Not only does Tesla generate clicks, but it's also the most shorted stock, so there's plenty of interest in talking negatively about them.

Also, the Model 3 is a Luxury Sedan.

I think it's external dimensions are make it a runt in its class, but the interior volume is supposedly on the higher side.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by JakeF

UPS is starting with this electric truck

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/09/...rucks-arrival/



UPS as also order 125 Semi trucks from Tesla.

When did we discover that electric power negates the need for aerodynamics?

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

When did we discover that electric power negates the need for aerodynamics?

Have you seen a UPS truck?

UPS being cheap ****s negates the need for aerodynamics.