RE: Model X marks the spot
Discussion
bencollins said:
Ferrari's best effort admittedly from 5 years ago is slower.
"These two track-only cars were supplemented with the 599 GTO, only the third car from Ferrari to wear this iconic badge. The GTO cost £305,676 and came with a top speed of 208mph. It also 680hp and is 100kg lighter than a standard GTB model, so 0-62mph comes up in 3.3 seconds."
Wonder what range that car has for its £100 fill ups.
Nope. It's not slower. It just takes very slightly longer to get from 0-20mph, after which it would be very much faster even in a straight line."These two track-only cars were supplemented with the 599 GTO, only the third car from Ferrari to wear this iconic badge. The GTO cost £305,676 and came with a top speed of 208mph. It also 680hp and is 100kg lighter than a standard GTB model, so 0-62mph comes up in 3.3 seconds."
Wonder what range that car has for its £100 fill ups.
Tesla's big problem at the moment seems to be its production line - if they can't build cars quickly enough to meet the demand for the current (mostly $100k+) cars, how are they going to keep up when they release the model-3 which has almost ten times the planned sales volumes? I don't know exactly what's causing the delays but they need to solve it pretty quickly if they're really going to release the model-3 in 2017.
ORD said:
bencollins said:
Ferrari's best effort admittedly from 5 years ago is slower.
"These two track-only cars were supplemented with the 599 GTO, only the third car from Ferrari to wear this iconic badge. The GTO cost £305,676 and came with a top speed of 208mph. It also 680hp and is 100kg lighter than a standard GTB model, so 0-62mph comes up in 3.3 seconds."
Wonder what range that car has for its £100 fill ups.
Nope. It's not slower. It just takes very slightly longer to get from 0-20mph, after which it would be very much faster even in a straight line."These two track-only cars were supplemented with the 599 GTO, only the third car from Ferrari to wear this iconic badge. The GTO cost £305,676 and came with a top speed of 208mph. It also 680hp and is 100kg lighter than a standard GTB model, so 0-62mph comes up in 3.3 seconds."
Wonder what range that car has for its £100 fill ups.
AnotherClarkey said:
Looks like it takes very slightly longer to get from 0-60mph no?
Yes, but I expect all of that is from the first 20mph. The Fezza will probably be accelerating at least as fast once into the meat of 1st gear. The AWD in the Tesla coupled with the instant maximum torque will probably give it a big advantage off the line and until the Ferrari can start getting its power down a bit better.I assume the Tesla has a pretty effective launch control system so as to not overload the tyres at low speed.
kambites said:
Tesla's big problem at the moment seems to be its production line - if they can't build cars quickly enough to meet the demand for the current (mostly $100k+) cars, how are they going to keep up when they release the model-3 which has almost ten times the planned sales volumes? I don't know exactly what's causing the delays but they need to solve it pretty quickly if they're really going to release the model-3 in 2017.
That's why they have launched the products in the order they have. TO ramp up production capacity and to install/implement the charging network. It's why they don't show profit in the accounts. They spend a s
t load on R&D/expansion as per the Amazon model.
London424 said:
That's why they have launched the products in the order they have. TO ramp up production capacity and to install/implement the charging network.
It's why they don't show profit in the accounts. They spend a st load on R&D/expansion as per the Amazon model.
Makes sense to a degree, but every day they're sitting on a one year plus waiting list even for their "low-volume" cars they are losing what are almost guaranteed sales and allowing their competition to catch up. It's why they don't show profit in the accounts. They spend a s
t load on R&D/expansion as per the Amazon model.kambites said:
London424 said:
That's why they have launched the products in the order they have. TO ramp up production capacity and to install/implement the charging network.
It's why they don't show profit in the accounts. They spend a st load on R&D/expansion as per the Amazon model.
Makes sense to a degree, but every day they're sitting on a one year plus waiting list even for their "low-volume" cars they are losing what are almost guaranteed sales and allowing their competition to catch up. It's why they don't show profit in the accounts. They spend a s
t load on R&D/expansion as per the Amazon model.I think he wants to be dominant in battery tech and is happy for the other car manufacturers to catch up (as long as they use his battery tech).
As for expansion, they recently opened their Netherlands plant that completes the cars for Europe.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tesla-motors-opens...
London424 said:
Oh I agree, they do need to speed things up but I don't get the impression that Musk has a vision of becoming a significant car manufacturer. I'm pretty sure his end game is 'bigger' than that (from a philanthropy POV).
I think he wants to be dominant in battery tech and is happy for the other car manufacturers to catch up (as long as they use his battery tech).
Yes that's probably all true. I think he wants to be dominant in battery tech and is happy for the other car manufacturers to catch up (as long as they use his battery tech).
kambites said:
Tesla's big problem at the moment seems to be its production line - if they can't build cars quickly enough to meet the demand for the current (mostly $100k+) cars, how are they going to keep up when they release the model-3 which has almost ten times the planned sales volumes? I don't know exactly what's causing the delays but they need to solve it pretty quickly if they're really going to release the model-3 in 2017.
I know it's a forum for discussions but I'm pretty sure, being a billionaire founder of various companies, that he has a plan and he's aware of his current production issues and has plans in place to resolve. I expect he has 1,3,5,10 year plans being created/updated on a regular basis...He has open sourced a lot of the design elements too, to move the industry forward. He's a bit different to your regular GM/Ford/BMW/Merc company leader in that he really doesn't need to go to work to earn more money - he is very focused and approaching this from a completely new perspective.
stuart-b said:
I know it's a forum for discussions but I'm pretty sure, being a billionaire founder of various companies, that he has a plan and he's aware of his current production issues and has plans in place to resolve. I expect he has 1,3,5,10 year plans being created/updated on a regular basis...
They've published their ramp-up plan for production and they appear to be failing to meet it. I think Musk has admitted that it's proving a lot harder to manufacture certain elements of the cars than they'd expected. Edited by kambites on Monday 5th October 13:01
for those who want a synapse as to where Tesla are going with this and why and how
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang...
Gives a very clear explanation and says stuff like
“Hot explosions in cylinders pushing pistons back and forth to force metal bars to turn wheels and sending the resulting smoke billowing out of a pipe” sounds like an old-fashioned technology, and it’s just very odd that we’re still using it today. We get used to the world we live in, whatever that world is like, but if you examine history and take a big step back, some things suddenly make no sense. And this is one of them.
The fact that we love internal combustion engines shouldn't blind us to simple facts, one of which is electric cars make sense
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang...
Gives a very clear explanation and says stuff like
“Hot explosions in cylinders pushing pistons back and forth to force metal bars to turn wheels and sending the resulting smoke billowing out of a pipe” sounds like an old-fashioned technology, and it’s just very odd that we’re still using it today. We get used to the world we live in, whatever that world is like, but if you examine history and take a big step back, some things suddenly make no sense. And this is one of them.
The fact that we love internal combustion engines shouldn't blind us to simple facts, one of which is electric cars make sense
babatunde said:
for those who want a synapse as to where Tesla are going with this and why and how
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang...
Gives a very clear explanation and says stuff like
“Hot explosions in cylinders pushing pistons back and forth to force metal bars to turn wheels and sending the resulting smoke billowing out of a pipe” sounds like an old-fashioned technology, and it’s just very odd that we’re still using it today. We get used to the world we live in, whatever that world is like, but if you examine history and take a big step back, some things suddenly make no sense. And this is one of them.
The fact that we love internal combustion engines shouldn't blind us to simple facts, one of which is electric cars make sense
I agree with that and have been saying similar for ages, like CRT TV's, Records, CD's and loads of other stuff, it is a sub par technology, developed massively as the logical alternative was not ready.http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang...
Gives a very clear explanation and says stuff like
“Hot explosions in cylinders pushing pistons back and forth to force metal bars to turn wheels and sending the resulting smoke billowing out of a pipe” sounds like an old-fashioned technology, and it’s just very odd that we’re still using it today. We get used to the world we live in, whatever that world is like, but if you examine history and take a big step back, some things suddenly make no sense. And this is one of them.
The fact that we love internal combustion engines shouldn't blind us to simple facts, one of which is electric cars make sense
CRT's died out within ten years of LCD screens being viable, digital music and video have destroyed sales of DVD's and CD's.
We are waiting for that tipping point in terms of range and price where the alternatives look like the old technology mentioned in the article, there arent going to be any more huge advances in IC engine efficiency, we are now into bodges like start stop to try and eke a few bits of a percent and the manufacturers are pulling parlour tricks like a dodgy Victorian medium to fool the consumer.
IC engines are too complicated, look at an electric motor in comparison to even a one cylinder engine, they have served us well but its time to move on, it wont be easy, things will have to change but humans are pretty adaptable and the prize is worth having.
I love cars and engines but I am under no illusions I am a living dinosaur with a minority interest, the engine from my car in a few years will be being looked at like a steam engine in the science and industry museum, driving diesel cars in towns will seem like going back to belching chimneys and Pea Souper smogs like my grandparents talked about.
We need to separate our enthusiasm for cars, performance and noise with whats actually good about a sustainable way of getting billions of people about efficiently, safely, comfortably and quickly.
ORD said:
AnotherClarkey said:
Looks like it takes very slightly longer to get from 0-60mph no?
Yes, but I expect all of that is from the first 20mph. The Fezza will probably be accelerating at least as fast once into the meat of 1st gear. The AWD in the Tesla coupled with the instant maximum torque will probably give it a big advantage off the line and until the Ferrari can start getting its power down a bit better.I assume the Tesla has a pretty effective launch control system so as to not overload the tyres at low speed.
The fact is that from 0-60 the Tesla is quicker. Much faster than that and I couldn't give a monkey's chuff how fast a car accelerates, 99.9% of all the driving I do is in that speed range.
AnotherClarkey said:
I don't really understand what point you are trying to make though - it is like you are trying to explain that the Tesla is actually not as quick as the Ferrari by highlighting ways in which it is superior? If the Tesla has vastly superior traction and responsiveness then that is to be applauded isn't it?
The fact is that from 0-60 the Tesla is quicker. Much faster than that and I couldn't give a monkey's chuff how fast a car accelerates, 99.9% of all the driving I do is in that speed range.
Really? I accelerate hard from 30-70 a lot more often that 0-20! In fact, I think I could count on one hand all the times I have had my foot to the floor below 20mph. Unless you're into the traffic light GP, very low speed acceleration isn't terribly relevant to driving a car. The fact is that from 0-60 the Tesla is quicker. Much faster than that and I couldn't give a monkey's chuff how fast a car accelerates, 99.9% of all the driving I do is in that speed range.
Any acceleration test that starts with a 0 will tell you more about traction than real world pace. Pub bore stuff compared to increment tests like 20-60, 30-70, 50-100, etc.
J4CKO said:
I agree with that and have been saying similar for ages, like CRT TV's, Records, CD's and loads of other stuff, it is a sub par technology, developed massively as the logical alternative was not ready.
CRT's died out within ten years of LCD screens being viable, digital music and video have destroyed sales of DVD's and CD's.
We are waiting for that tipping point in terms of range and price where the alternatives look like the old technology mentioned in the article, there arent going to be any more huge advances in IC engine efficiency, we are now into bodges like start stop to try and eke a few bits of a percent and the manufacturers are pulling parlour tricks like a dodgy Victorian medium to fool the consumer.
IC engines are too complicated, look at an electric motor in comparison to even a one cylinder engine, they have served us well but its time to move on, it wont be easy, things will have to change but humans are pretty adaptable and the prize is worth having.
I love cars and engines but I am under no illusions I am a living dinosaur with a minority interest, the engine from my car in a few years will be being looked at like a steam engine in the science and industry museum, driving diesel cars in towns will seem like going back to belching chimneys and Pea Souper smogs like my grandparents talked about.
We need to separate our enthusiasm for cars, performance and noise with whats actually good about a sustainable way of getting billions of people about efficiently, safely, comfortably and quickly.
Totally agree.CRT's died out within ten years of LCD screens being viable, digital music and video have destroyed sales of DVD's and CD's.
We are waiting for that tipping point in terms of range and price where the alternatives look like the old technology mentioned in the article, there arent going to be any more huge advances in IC engine efficiency, we are now into bodges like start stop to try and eke a few bits of a percent and the manufacturers are pulling parlour tricks like a dodgy Victorian medium to fool the consumer.
IC engines are too complicated, look at an electric motor in comparison to even a one cylinder engine, they have served us well but its time to move on, it wont be easy, things will have to change but humans are pretty adaptable and the prize is worth having.
I love cars and engines but I am under no illusions I am a living dinosaur with a minority interest, the engine from my car in a few years will be being looked at like a steam engine in the science and industry museum, driving diesel cars in towns will seem like going back to belching chimneys and Pea Souper smogs like my grandparents talked about.
We need to separate our enthusiasm for cars, performance and noise with whats actually good about a sustainable way of getting billions of people about efficiently, safely, comfortably and quickly.
The Ferrari is a built racer, the lack of gearing in the tesla means it can't sustain the 700bhp. This they figure is fine as it keeps the complications and weight down. It is in fact very strong performer at legal speeds.
I'm fairly sure we had vbox readings for 30-50, 50-70, 30-70 and its very competitive. But it really is game over when resistance gets too much for the reducing motor power which is essentially around 480-550bhp over 60 diminishing to around 480bhp
In fact to be clear 700bhp is only reached briefly where both motors are putting out max powered. Tesla map them differently for a good even power delivery which is why at higher speeds it's lower power. Gives these cars good traction but it means it has a power overlap. Really this is no different from ice only putting out max power at x rpm.
Just no gearing in tesla.
Hard to measure as 100% torque immediately dyno can't read.
I'm fairly sure we had vbox readings for 30-50, 50-70, 30-70 and its very competitive. But it really is game over when resistance gets too much for the reducing motor power which is essentially around 480-550bhp over 60 diminishing to around 480bhp
In fact to be clear 700bhp is only reached briefly where both motors are putting out max powered. Tesla map them differently for a good even power delivery which is why at higher speeds it's lower power. Gives these cars good traction but it means it has a power overlap. Really this is no different from ice only putting out max power at x rpm.
Just no gearing in tesla.
Hard to measure as 100% torque immediately dyno can't read.
Edited by bp1000 on Monday 5th October 19:07
As I have said, I think the performance is great for headlines, etc, but the real draw of this car is the excellent practicality. I doubt a 2.5t SUV with a battery would cope well with lots of hard driving. As I recall, the S goes into limp mode from overheating if you actually nail it repeatedly, which is unsurprising given the power it is generating.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff