Tesla updates the roadster, 1.9 sec to 100km/h, 8.9sec quarter mile.

[Sledhead36]

Lol. Sounds like the same thing the CEO of Blackberry said in 2007.

[Mallard]

The wiper is dumb and hopefully they fix it. I'm not surprised that the car has no cut lines, since I assume it's a stripped down P100D with a body molded straight off the clay model. Tesla had some bad press in recent weeks, so it's also no surprise that they rolled this out to drum up support. "Available in 2020 is the official release date on the "Roadster" but they will take your $50k deposit and it looks like you had to put down $5k on the spot if you wanted a test ride. Can you imagine the media backlash if we charged $5k for 1/8th mile Demon ride-alongs?

 

That said, the car is cool, I hope it comes out. It's high priced, low volume, which should fit their production model/business plan a bit better.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Edited November 18, 2017 by Mallard

[LPFSTheFett]

Omg.. all this talk of don’t need, why would someone want or need this. People should have to pass a test to own one. I mean seriously? Reading this from the columbusracing family is even more shocking. You all want to bitch and moan about the 20 people per year that die in street racing accidents per year, just like the left wants to bitch about all the mass shootings deaths and do away with guns. Same exact people that want to legalize marijuana(which I don’t care) but won’t say a single word about the 60,000 people a year that die from second hand smoke. Im just saying, everybody wants to live their life their way, who are we to continually say what they should and shouldn’t do.

 

Ok onto the car. What an awesome machine. Only fear I have is that all super cars go this same direction. There is simply no arguing the benefits of electric cars.

[LPFSTheFett]

The wiper is dumb and hopefully they fix it. I'm not surprised that the car has no cut lines, since I assume it's a stripped down P100D with a body molded straight off the clay model.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

That was my thinking. I can’t believe they had it on there. Maybe it’s like that so the owner can easily remove it the day he takes delivery. It’s pretty ugly

[Geeto67]

.... just like the left wants to bitch about all the mass shootings deaths and do away with guns. Same exact people that want to legalize marijuana(which I don’t care) but won’t say a single word about the 60,000 people a year that die from second hand smoke. Im just saying, everybody wants to live their life their way, who are we to continually say what they should and shouldn’t do...

 

and here is where it gets political.

 

Personally I think the car is awesome, it should exist, and if people have the money to buy it they totally should.

 

I also think that your logic jump to get from the discussion about car licensing to guns was so big your brain should have flashed a picture of the general lee continuously while you were thinking it.

 

Who are we to continually say what should and be shouldn't done? that's easy we are the potential victims of your shortsightedness and irresponsibility. The laws don't exist to infringe on your personal "liberty", they exist because you are too selfish or short sighted to consider the responsibility you owe to others in operating something like that. you want to own a car like that and drive it on the track? literally nobody is going to stop you. You want to use something like that in the shared communal space that we call our public roads? well maybe we should at least discuss it.

 

People respond to incentives, sometimes those incentives take the form of laws, where if you can prove you are a responsible person you get to do things others don't. Let's face it people aren't going to "take personal responsibility" for their actions no matter how much you piss and moan that they should. But they will act responsibly if you you set up the incentives/disincentives correctly. Maybe because of extra licensing requirements the insurance cost goes down on some of these hyper cars - there's something we can all get behind.

 

Plenty of countries (free ones, democratic ones, this one) have tiered licensing systems. We do it for trucks and cars and taxis and it works perfectly fine. Japan goes even further and has special licensing for manual transmission cars, high performance motorcycles, and various other vehicles. Maybe that's why they have 3 times less the motor vehicle mortality rate than we do. Nobody is talking about a ban, just you know - some extra training before you are let loose on the street with a car that may be over your head.

[Mallard]

My guess is he couldn't put funky doors on it so he settled on fucking up the wiper.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[LPFSTheFett]

and here is where it gets political.

 

Personally I think the car is awesome, it should exist, and if people have the money to buy it they totally should.

 

I also think that your logic jump to get from the discussion about car licensing to guns was so big your brain should have flashed a picture of the general lee continuously while you were thinking it.

 

Who are we to continually say what should and be shouldn't done? that's easy we are the potential victims of your shortsightedness and irresponsibility. The laws don't exist to infringe on your personal "liberty", they exist because you are too selfish or short sighted to consider the responsibility you owe to others in operating something like that. you want to own a car like that and drive it on the track? literally nobody is going to stop you. You want to use something like that in the shared communal space that we call our public roads? well maybe we should at least discuss it.

 

People respond to incentives, sometimes those incentives take the form of laws, where if you can prove you are a responsible person you get to do things others don't. Let's face it people aren't going to "take personal responsibility" for their actions no matter how much you piss and moan that they should. But they will act responsibly if you you set up the incentives/disincentives correctly. Maybe because of extra licensing requirements the insurance cost goes down on some of these hyper cars - there's something we can all get behind.

 

Plenty of countries (free ones, democratic ones, this one) have tiered licensing systems. We do it for trucks and cars and taxis and it works perfectly fine. Japan goes even further and has special licensing for manual transmission cars, high performance motorcycles, and various other vehicles. Maybe that's why they have 3 times less the motor vehicle mortality rate than we do. Nobody is talking about a ban, just you know - some extra training before you are let loose on the street with a car that may be over your head.

 

What is there to discuss? There are already laws against everything this car and nearly every car produced today can do. My wife’s Acadia can roast the tires from a stop light and cruise down the road over 100mph. How does a 840hp demon or a 8.9 Tesla change that. My wife’s car is a 9.67 Hellcat. Does that mean she should have a special license to drive it on the road? Maybe you’ve never driven something faster than a minivan, but just because a car is fast doesn’t mean it has to be driven like that. If someone wants to drive like an idiot there is no license that’s going to stop them. So what license do you think is going to help prevent drivers from doing stupid shit?

 

So in your incentives model. You are proposing more government employees to set up standards testing and driving courses, in addition to class training. Then someone can take a test that somehow proves they have the ability to drive a car with XXX hp. The incentive is Lower insurance rates. So a person paying 200k for a car cares about saving $100 a month. That’s your idea? Seems like a whole lot of tax payer money and time that’s going to produce no result. And let’s say that it does... so the entire public should pay for these additional employees?? Or does their cost get split over the 5000 cars that are sold that fit a arbitrary discriptipn of what’s too fast?

 

Requiring a driver to learn how to handle a 60,000lb pay load that’s 80’ long on public roads is teaching someone how to work. So I guess you won’t be taking an Uber anytime soon, they don’t have the licenses or qualified drivers to get you from point A to B, constantly hearing about all those Uber crashes and their untrained drivers. Oh wait....

 

I’ve given my .02 cents that nobody but you read. You’ve said yours, feel free to respond, and I’ll have no problems taking the argument to you on private message or dinner. My intention wasn’t necessarily to get anybody’s panties in a bunch. I just think big gonvernment isn’t the answer.

[LPFSTheFett]

Oh, on the topic of off topic.... you should absolutely have to have a license to drive a motorhome on public roads. I consider myself a damn good driver but giving the keys to someone to drive a 45’ motor home without having ever driven one is ridiculous. If not a license, then a class. For the first 3000 miles it was a challenge to say the least. I literally couldn’t believe it. I would have paid for a class, but none were offered.

 

Back to the Tesla. What’s more unreal 8.9 1/4 mike or a 650 mile range. Wow! I hope they can master quick charging. It would probably take 12 hours to charge it.

[Draco-REX]

My guess is he couldn't put funky doors on it so he settled on fucking up the wiper.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

From what I understand the people who fucked up the X design were fired, or at least had their leashes tightened severely.

 

Hopefully that leads into the wiper and mirror this with the roadster. I think with the X Elon learned the lesson the GM learned with the Aztek, you can't go from hit concept to production model and expect a winner. I'm think when the actual production models his the ground they will have D-shaped steering wheels, a hidden wiper, and at least camera pods on the doors.

[Mallard]

From what I understand the people who fucked up the X design were fired, or at least had their leashes tightened severely.

 

Hopefully that leads into the wiper and mirror this with the roadster. I think with the X Elon learned the lesson the GM learned with the Aztek, you can't go from hit concept to production model and expect a winner. I'm think when the actual production models his the ground they will have D-shaped steering wheels, a hidden wiper, and at least camera pods on the doors.

My understanding is that Elon insisted on the design elements that caused issues (falcon doors, body geometry that required special stamping processes and materials, etc) and was not willing to compromise. The X should have been a taller S, but it's not, and it can never be built in the volume or at the rates of any mass-production SUV. This is why the Model 3 was designed from the start with manufacturing in mind.

 

With the Roadster "available in 2020," you should consider it a 2021 model year vehicle. Even at a traditional automaker we don't have our 2021 model year designs FULLY locked down, although they're pretty close. Hopefully this give them time to fix the wiper. It's currently not legal for the vehicle to have cameras instead of side mirrors. They could try to launch without them and hope the law either changes or they get a waiver from NHTSA, but I'm sure they'll design them in no matter what.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Cordell]

I just want to say this in regards to really fast cars and any sort of licensing, the more I think about that situation, the more it goes against my beliefs. Anything is dangerous in the wrong hands, so I don't think we need to make it harder to get into a car like this. It would just make sense to keep it out of incapable hands, but there's the rub and why it relates to guns. More laws only make it harder on the law abiding people, while dumbasses who don't care about laws would likely be the idiots killing themselves or others.

 

Companies should be offering free or low cost instruction on a track to their customers, and I beleive this has happened in various forms with various cars over the years anyways. Unfortunately there is only so much that can be done without making it harder on decent people because you can't fix stupid.

 

 

Thanks LPFStheFett for pointing that out.

[Draco-REX]

I just want to say this in regards to really fast cars and any sort of licensing, the more I think about that situation, the more it goes against my beliefs. Anything is dangerous in the wrong hands, so I don't think we need to make it harder to get into a car like this. It would just make sense to keep it out of incapable hands, but there's the rub and why it relates to guns. More laws only make it harder on the law abiding people, while dumbasses who don't care about laws would likely be the idiots killing themselves or others.

 

Companies should be offering free or low cost instruction on a track to their customers, and I beleive this has happened in various forms with various cars over the years anyways. Unfortunately there is only so much that can be done without making it harder on decent people because you can't fix stupid.

 

 

Thanks LPFStheFett for pointing that out.

 

Not that separate licensing would ever happen anyways. Better current licensing and education would help prevent some of the 30k-40k traffic deaths each year, but the government doesn't give a shit because more people on the road = more $$$.

[Geeto67]

What is there to discuss? There are already laws against everything this car and nearly every car produced today can do.

 

Since this sentence is barely english, I assume you mean the regular traffic laws like speed limits and such, right?

 

The conversation isn't about changing those laws, but more about control of the vehicle to properly operate within those laws.

 

My wife’s Acadia can roast the tires from a stop light and cruise down the road over 100mph. How does a 840hp demon or a 8.9 Tesla change that. My wife’s car is a 9.67 Hellcat. Does that mean she should have a special license to drive it on the road?

 

If I need to explain to you the difference between an acadia and a car that is doing something that breaks records for what previous street cars can do, then I'm sorry your logic is a pretzel. The point of these bleeding edge cars is to provide an experience that very few people are used to, so yeah they might require some extra training to become accustomed to. Not everybody who buys these cars is an enthusiast in the sense that they spend their weekends doing track days or at the strip - some are just dipshits with money.

 

 

Maybe you’ve never driven something faster than a minivan,

sigh.....typical CR bullshit bravado.

 

but just because a car is fast doesn’t mean it has to be driven like that. If someone wants to drive like an idiot there is no license that’s going to stop them. So what license do you think is going to help prevent drivers from doing stupid shit?

 

So I am going to guess you haven't spent any time around fast motorcycles. Because you see this all the time with sportbikes - guys, even ones with some riding experience, buy these 8 and 9 second overpowered machines and they go out and they easily get into situations, even normal every day traffic situations where they are obeying the limit, that are completely over their heads. The moment that your vehicle is significantly faster or can stop better than the traffic around you the number of factors you have to account for goes up exponentially. I have known plenty of sportbike riders who weren't used to the increased stopping power and panic stopped their bikes right into the front of the vehicle behind them because they weren't used to the sensitivity.

 

So in your incentives model. You are proposing more government employees to set up standards testing and driving courses, in addition to class training. Then someone can take a test that somehow proves they have the ability to drive a car with XXX hp.

 

The model I am proposing is similar to what most of the states already do for motorcycles through the MSF. Outsource it to a contractor, make the customer pay for it. no increase to government cost.

 

The incentive is Lower insurance rates. So a person paying 200k for a car cares about saving $100 a month. That’s your idea?

I'm guessing you have never had to insure anything exotic either. If you did you would know about the metric shit ton of insurance restrictions that come with exotic cars, and how much of a rate hike you get if you tell them you want to DD something like a LaFerrari or Veryon. here is a hint it's not $100 a month. So yes if this means the owner can DD his supercar (and again we are only talking about supercars here) for something pretty reasonable - I'd think they would care.

Seems like a whole lot of tax payer money and time that’s going to produce no result. And let’s say that it does... so the entire public should pay for these additional employees?? Or does their cost get split over the 5000 cars that are sold that fit a arbitrary discriptipn of what’s too fast?

 

see comment above - no additionally employees. Customer pays the cost when they want the license. Same way ODOT does it with MSF, or any of the trucking schools.

 

Requiring a driver to learn how to handle a 60,000lb pay load that’s 80’ long on public roads is teaching someone how to work. So I guess you won’t be taking an Uber anytime soon, they don’t have the licenses or qualified drivers to get you from point A to B, constantly hearing about all those Uber crashes and their untrained drivers. Oh wait....

 

requiring a driver to have training handle special equipment on the road is always a good idea. The only question is - do these cars qualify as "special" enough to require some training. I say yes, you obviously don't feel that way. But hey we are at least discussing it.

[Mallard]

There are 12 second cars that are a handful on the street and there are 9 second cars that can be driven with a heavy foot and a pinky on the wheel. This is the latter.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk