Glass rear window and sedan/liftback discussion

[Red Sage]

Model 3, as a sedan, and Model X as a bit of a weirdmobile with strange doors and limited folding in 6/7 seaters are not quite as versatile.

I remind you that the Model ☰ was developed as a competitor to the BMW 3-Series. I have intimated for quite some time, nearly a full three years now, that I believe this means there will be multiple variants of the Model ☰. Many here and at the Tesla Forum have disagreed with me on this point.

Elon Musk has said repeatedly that the initial Tesla Generation III release would not be the most adventurous version of the car. He has said that other iterations would be coming. He has told us that in order to avoid perceived delays due to 'feature creep' and other complaints levied against Tesla in times past, they would make sure the Model ☰ was as simple as possible... to start.

I find it interesting that you now criticize that course of action, as if it is 'too conservative'.

To reiterate what I have pointed out in times past... The BMW 3-Series is available in multiple configurations that I expect Tesla Model ☰ will eventually match.

3-Series Sedan ___ Model ☰ Sedan
3-Series Sports Wagon ___ Model ☰ Wagon
3-Series Gran Turismo ___ Model ☰ Crossover (possibly Model Y)
3-Series Coupe (now 4-Series) ___ Model ☰ Coupe (with Falcon Wing Doors!)
3-Series (now 4-Series) Convertible ___ Model ☰ Convertible/Cabriolet​

We already know of the Model ☰ Sedan. It will be important, I think, to satisfy as many outstanding Reservations for it as possible, and get the Production rate up to speed, before introducing new variants.

A Model ☰ Wagon might appear to satisfy those in Europe who claim they can't live without one. The 'estate' format is apparently much more popular there than is a 'saloon'.

The Model Y may end up being a lightly modified higher seating Crossover with liftback like the 3-Series Gran Turismo... Or it might instead be a 'Compact SUV' sized more like the BMW X3 and placed to compete against it and top sellers such as the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4.

There is also the chance that the Model Y will be designed to be all three in one, Wagon, Crossover, and SUV. I think it could be done beautifully, in an untraditional manner, similar to the Model X only smaller. Though there will certainly be protests from those that demand what they would consider a 'more focused' (read, ordinary & plain) design.

I am certain that a Coupe is probably not on the near horizon at all. Everyone else will have to get what they want before there is the slightest chance I will get the car I want to see. That's OK. I don't mind waiting.

The general presumption is that 'Coupes don't sell well' for some reason. I have always thought that if you build them, people with buy them. I take note that during 2016, three American performance cars that are only available as Coupes or Convertibles were in the top thirty passenger cars sold in the U.S.: #17 Ford Mustang (105,932), #27 Chevrolet Camaro (72,705), #30 Dodge Challenger (64,433). The BMW 4-Series was #50 at 35,763 units, but it includes their Gran Coupe 4-door version as well as the Coupes and Convertibles. Wouldn't it be nice if Tesla could similarly offer an American Muscle Car that was fully electric, just to drive home the point? I'd like to see that car on the market by 2020.

It is extremely unlikely that Tesla will offer a true Convertible/Cabriolet, without targa top or roll bar, due to safety concerns. If they were to do so, I'd hope they use Model ☰ Coupe format. But current indications are that it would be a two-seater instead, a new version of the Roadster. I'd prefer to see both of those, as well as a third car, another two-seater, but a hypercar, designed to demolish the current crop of multi-million dollar supercars from ICE manufacturers for considerably less money.

These are the cars I hope and expect from Tesla over the next few years. Most will be based upon their Generation III technology, which debuts in the Model ☰ later this year. I like to dream big.

 

[Red Sage]

If Tesla had a Model Z, a high-end, luxury version of Model S, I would expect Model Z to sell much less than Model S and more akin to Audi A8/7 Series sales, while Model S would continue capturing the Audi A6-A7 market. Similarly, I expect Model 3 to cannibalize low-end Model S sales, once that option is available. Similar to how high-end Audi A4-A5 eats into low-end Audi A6 sales. But since there is no Model Z and not even a Model 3 yet, all/most of that market goes to Model S.

I believe I have covered all your other points already. You are repeating yourself. I'd rather not do so myself, especially since I have had this whole argument before several times in the past three years already.

As I understand your position: You believe the Model S is effectively a slightly bigger A6, 5-Series, or E-Class and you find no relevance in EPA Size Classifications. You also believe that Tesla is subject to extreme levels of sales cannibalization due to the existence of Model ☰. Further, you believe that Model S needs to court those in search of 'luxury' to remain pertinent. Finally, you fervently refuse to grant the Model S its proper place as a flagship within the Tesla product line. I disagree. We'll leave it at that.

As for a Tesla 'Model Z'...? I would have expected that designation to go to a Tesla Hypercar. I would imagine that car to have styling that rivaled this from Franz Von Holzhausen's days at Mazda:

The world does not need a Tesla Model S Turbo Executive Exclusive Series Black Edition. If Tesla had decided to create a luxoboat? It would have been nice to see it called the 'Model L', I think. I would expect it to be a six passenger pullman limousine with Falcon Wing Doors designed to convey captains of industry, dignitaries, and heads-of-state. And, it would still cost a fraction of the cost of similar vehicles from Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz/Mercedes-Maybach.

But Elon Musk has already stated that the Model Y will be the last car from Tesla to use the 'Model' designation. I hope that means that Tesla's cars will get actual NAMES in the future instead of an alphanumeric soup. The way Acura used to do before they accepted bad advice that ruined the brand.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I remind you that the Model ☰ was developed as a competitor to the BMW 3-Series. I have intimated for quite some time, nearly a full three years now, that I believe this means there will be multiple variants of the Model ☰. Many here and at the Tesla Forum have disagreed with me on this point.

Elon Musk has said repeatedly that the initial Tesla Generation III release would not be the most adventurous version of the car. He has said that other iterations would be coming. He has told us that in order to avoid perceived delays due to 'feature creep' and other complaints levied against Tesla in times past, they would make sure the Model ☰ was as simple as possible... to start.

I find it interesting that you now criticize that course of action, as if it is 'too conservative'.

To reiterate what I have pointed out in times past... The BMW 3-Series is available in multiple configurations that I expect Tesla Model ☰ will eventually match.

3-Series Sedan ___ Model ☰ Sedan
3-Series Sports Wagon ___ Model ☰ Wagon
3-Series Gran Turismo ___ Model ☰ Crossover (possibly Model Y)
3-Series Coupe (now 4-Series) ___ Model ☰ Coupe (with Falcon Wing Doors!)
3-Series (now 4-Series) Convertible ___ Model ☰ Convertible/Cabriolet​

We already know of the Model ☰ Sedan. It will be important, I think, to satisfy as many outstanding Reservations for it as possible, and get the Production rate up to speed, before introducing new variants.

A Model ☰ Wagon might appear to satisfy those in Europe who claim they can't live without one. The 'estate' format is apparently much more popular there than is a 'saloon'.

The Model Y may end up being a lightly modified higher seating Crossover with liftback like the 3-Series Gran Turismo... Or it might instead be a 'Compact SUV' sized more like the BMW X3 and placed to compete against it and top sellers such as the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4.

There is also the chance that the Model Y will be designed to be all three in one, Wagon, Crossover, and SUV. I think it could be done beautifully, in an untraditional manner, similar to the Model X only smaller. Though there will certainly be protests from those that demand what they would consider a 'more focused' (read, ordinary & plain) design.

I am certain that a Coupe is probably not on the near horizon at all. Everyone else will have to get what they want before there is the slightest chance I will get the car I want to see. That's OK. I don't mind waiting.

The general presumption is that 'Coupes don't sell well' for some reason. I have always thought that if you build them, people with buy them. I take note that during 2016, three American performance cars that are only available as Coupes or Convertibles were in the top thirty passenger cars sold in the U.S.: #17 Ford Mustang (105,932), #27 Chevrolet Camaro (72,705), #30 Dodge Challenger (64,433). The BMW 4-Series was #50 at 35,763 units, but it includes their Gran Coupe 4-door version as well as the Coupes and Convertibles. Wouldn't it be nice if Tesla could similarly offer an American Muscle Car that was fully electric, just to drive home the point? I'd like to see that car on the market by 2020.

It is extremely unlikely that Tesla will offer a true Convertible/Cabriolet, without targa top or roll bar, due to safety concerns. If they were to do so, I'd hope they use Model ☰ Coupe format. But current indications are that it would be a two-seater instead, a new version of the Roadster. I'd prefer to see both of those, as well as a third car, another two-seater, but a hypercar, designed to demolish the current crop of multi-million dollar supercars from ICE manufacturers for considerably less money.

These are the cars I hope and expect from Tesla over the next few years. Most will be based upon their Generation III technology, which debuts in the Model ☰ later this year. I like to dream big.

That is of course all fine as speculation on different Model 3 variants. The competition certainly does multiple variants of its similarly sized car and there is nothing wrong with that. If Tesla can pull it of, more power to them. I agree that information from Tesla's design stage suggests a more adventurous Model 3 type of vehicle does exist in design form, though whether that is a Model Y variant instead is not really known.

I am not sure I share your optimism Model 3 variants will come to the market any time time soon, my personal guess is that we will at least see Model Y before any other variants, and that is probably at least a couple of years away (Elon said "few years", but he says a lot of things). But anything is possible, of course.

The thing I'm critiquing with regards to both Model 3 and Model X is that IMO Tesla lost their way a bit. If you want to understand me better (not to agree but just to get where I'm coming from), you should view my comments not simply through the prism of criticism of Model 3/X, but through the prism of appreciation for the Model S.

IMO Tesla hit the nail on the head with the versatility of the Model S. It is simply such a great car and it absolutely smashes traditional class barriers. It works as cool, sporty coupe, it almost works as a luxobarge sedan, it can replace a station wagon. It does all these things in one model, without forcing Tesla to have multiple variants stretching their resources.

In short, Model S is genius. When I think of a suitably conservative approach for Tesla, I think of Model S. In Model X and Model 3, I think Tesla let their weirdmobile fantasies get in the way of that a bit, the big glass in Model 3 and obviously glass and wings on Model X forcing compromises and issues.

Model S is the public bar Tesla have set for themselves, whether they like that or not, and I'm just bummed they couldn't follow through on the same level with Model 3/X, which are obviously not nearly as versatile at this time (Model X practicality limited by the doors and no folding 6/7 seater, Model 3 as a sedan instead of hatchback).

Maybe they can make changes down the road to change this, but I am commenting the present knowledge.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I believe I have covered all your other points already. You are repeating yourself. I'd rather not do so myself, especially since I have had this whole argument before several times in the past three years already.

As I understand your position: You believe the Model S is effectively a slightly bigger A6, 5-Series, or E-Class and you find no relevance in EPA Size Classifications. You also believe that Tesla is subject to extreme levels of sales cannibalization due to the existence of Model ☰. Further, you believe that Model S needs to court those in search of 'luxury' to remain pertinent. Finally, you fervently refuse to grant the
Model S its proper place as a flagship within the Tesla product line. I disagree. We'll leave it at that.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

To clarify my position, though: I don't find EPA classifications completely irrelevant, but I do not believe comparing Model S only to Audi A8/BMW 7 Series/etc. is accurate either. To make a more accurate comparison, we should compare the same-price range of cars from those manufacturers, which then includes at least a portion of Audi A6-A7 level of cars. Indeed, Elon himself compared Model S to BMW 5-6 Series, not 7 Series. If this is how Elon Musk views the Model S, that also tells a little bit about how Tesla views the car.

As for cannibalization, I am not sure any kind of extreme levels of sales cannibalization to Model S will come from Model 3. Some will, especially those buyers who have been buying higher priced and larger cars than they'd prefer, due to limited choice. However, I believe that can also be offset by the continue growth of Tesla, addition of new markets, improvements in BEV perceptions and infrastructures and so forth. Model S may well keep growing healthily, it is a genius of a car, much better in many ways than Model 3 or Model X (current knowledge/versions).

I am not denying Model S its place as the flagship Tesla. I just do not think it is anywhere near the same kind of flagship product as an Audi A8/BMW 7 Series/etc. is, hence its comparison should reflect this. Price alone is one thing: Model S is Audi A7 priced, not Audi A8 priced. So, that already is comparing apples and oranges. A cheaper flagship product will usually sell more, no doubt. But more importantly those other manufacturers have models that do dramatically cannibalize (by design) high-end sales: their models one, one and a half class below.

Tesla has no such cannibalization - and will not have even when Model 3 appears, as that is two, three classes below Model S in traditional terms.

As for a Tesla 'Model Z'...? I would have expected that designation to go to a Tesla Hypercar. I would imagine that car to have styling that rivaled this from Franz Von Holzhausen's days at Mazda:

The world does not need a Tesla Model S Turbo Executive Exclusive Series Black Edition. If Tesla had decided to create a luxoboat? It would have been nice to see it called the 'Model L', I think. I would expect it to be a six passenger pullman limousine with Falcon Wing Doors designed to convey captains of industry, dignitaries, and heads-of-state. And, it would still cost a fraction of the cost of similar vehicles from Rolls-Royce and Mercedes-Benz/Mercedes-Maybach.

But Elon Musk has already stated that the Model Y will be the last car from Tesla to use the 'Model' designation. I hope that means that Tesla's cars will get actual NAMES in the future instead of an alphanumeric soup. The way Acura used to do before they accepted bad advice that ruined the brand.

That is all fine and well as speculation of course. To be clear, the invented moniker "Model Z" was simply used to illustrate the idea that if a manufacturer has several high-end premium sedans/liftbacks, the lower-priced, more mainstream "manager cars" will certainly get a bulk of that market, while the "C level" luxobarges get a more limited share. If Tesla made a similar split as Audi/BMW/etc., I would expect the same apply to them, with the highest-end luxobarge (e.g. A8 level) getting a significantly smaller share of that shared pie, and bulk going to the "manager cars" (e.g. A6-A7 level).

But now that Tesla only has the Model S, all interest in Tesla's high-end non-SUV cars of course centers on the Model S.

 

[Laban]

There is also the chance that the Model Y will be designed to be all three in one, Wagon, Crossover, and SUV. I think it could be done beautifully, in an untraditional manner, similar to the Model X only smaller.

How about a Volvo cross-countryish version of the Model 3 ? Recipe: Make it a station wagon, add some plastics + increased ground clearance and voila.. V60 CC:

This is as much wagon, crossover and SUV in one package as you can get in my opinion, and without the "headroom in the back" problem that comes with BMW GT/Audi Sportback type of cars, f.e like the Model S . I think this would work in all markets, and it has a lot of benefits. Sharing of parts between the models (which results in lower design and production costs, faster to production, lower price..), lower energy consumption. The V60 CC is 4in./10 cm lower then the Model X, 4in./10 cm higher than the Model S so right in the middle and about the same height as the Jaguar I-Pace. Which is an SUV according to Jaguar

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@Laban Similar to Audi allroads. Perhaps a way to sell a station wagon to the Americans too.

 

[Laban]

@Laban Similar to Audi allroads. Perhaps a way to sell a station wagon to the Americans too.

I think it would work in the US too (shameless plug - US/World ready for a Model 3 station wagon (= Model Y) ?).

Perhaps we already know that it works:

Top 20 Best-Selling SUVs In America - June 2016 - GOOD CAR BAD CAR

#12 - Subaru Outback

To me, this is a station wagon with increased ground clearance, AWD:

 

[Red Sage]

How about a Volvo cross-countryish version of the Model 3 ? Recipe: Make it a station wagon, add some plastics + increased ground clearance and voila.. V60 CC:

This is as much wagon, crossover and SUV in one package as you can get in my opinion, and without the "headroom in the back" problem that comes with BMW GT/Audi Sportback type of cars, f.e like the Model S . I think this would work in all markets, and it has a lot of benefits. Sharing of parts between the models (which results in lower design and production costs, faster to production, lower price..), lower energy consumption. The V60 CC is 4in./10 cm lower then the Model X, 4in./10 cm higher than the Model S so right in the middle and about the same height as the Jaguar I-Pace. Which is an SUV according to Jaguar

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other. I have no need for an offroad vehicle of any sort. Not even a poser mobile. I also don't need or want an SUV. And, I tend to think that most 'crossovers' are either fully ugly or otherwise ineffectual. I do find it interesting that so many traditional automobile manufacturers are trying so hard to come up with something funky looking that will somehow accidentally become an extremely popular hit out of nowhere in the Crossover space -- even though they all keep missing. The notion of a 'tall wagon' with more ground clearance, all wheel drive, and seating you can just walk into like living room furniture doesn't appeal to me either. But apparently, someone, somewhere, likes these types of vehicles and wants to buy them.

Overall, I'm reminded of attempts during the 1980s to build a new armored personnel carrier for U.S. armed forces. It failed miserably, with vehicles that looked like tanks, moved like tanks, but were just as likely to kill their occupants as was enemy fire. Eventually, after several years of failures, and gozillions of buckadollars over budget, the project was scrapped.

 

[Laban]

I'm probably not qualified to say one way or the other. I have no need for an offroad vehicle of any sort. Not even a poser mobile. I also don't need or want an SUV. And, I tend to think that most 'crossovers' are either fully ugly or otherwise ineffectual.

I'll counter your list of "ugly" crossovers with some that perhaps are more to your liking:

Audi Allroad:

Mercedes all-terrain:

Volvo V90 CC

 

[googlepeakoil]

This looks good because they kept the roof profile low, but is the same situation as the "mini-Model S" which we already know is possible (no one disputed that), but compromises rear headroom.

947 mm rear headroom for UK specs
Audi A5, Sportback & Cabriolet sizes & dimensions | carwow

974mm rear headroom for 3 series GT UK specs.
2016 BMW 3 Series Gran Turismo 330dA SE Interior features - MSN Cars

To make it clear, no one is saying that you can't have a mini-Model S, just that it'll have the same headroom issues, which Elon said was specifically the reason not to go with that design.

If you want to keep a similar design and make room for headroom, you would have to move the roof beam back, which gets you to the uglier look of the 3 series GT (because the slope begins later).

I can't see the shape has anything to do with the structure. Keep the same roof curve. Just increase the structural strength just behind the headrest - and hinge it there. Again, keep the roof curve.
The main reason I can see is cost and structural rigidity. A smaller opening doesn't have to be as strong. Like lots of small hatches in a submarine where crew duck and jump through vs making a bigger opening. But then having a big glass window (that goes from above the reat seats to the back is a big opening without a cross beam! I'd be interested to see how well the car did in a high side impact near the rearseats with no cross beam over the rear seats
Problem is when you have a long glass window and then put the boot after that you lose practicality with the current tiny opening. The S has such fantastic cargo storage. Just watch any Bjorn youtube video - you can get a doublebed in the back of the S.
Maybe like when Elon tweets about the Model S vs 3. The S is the high end car - bigger storage, faster, longer range, 2 screens (he actually said that about the screens even though a $15k car has one!). So it seems you want to fit something bigger than a airline suitcase in your trunk - buy a Model S... (or buy another car). But look you can fit in a surfboard or an 8foot bamboo cane - just nothing wider...

 

[googlepeakoil]

Does that Audi have batteries under the floor?

Thank you kindly.

don't see the relevance to a roof window? You could have a all-glass roof go back to the point just behind the headrest - then put a cross-member. You wouldn't have to change the curve of the roof or affect rear headroom. You'd lose rear visibility for stuff in the sky behind the rear passengers heads. But most people (mums being an exception) don't have eyes in the backs of their heads!

 

[googlepeakoil]

It's not impossible, just trade offs. I like the A5 sport back, but most of the reviews talk about the back seat being a bit tight, but OK. Also, it doesn't actually have any more luggage space than the A4 sedan (but does have better access) and is quite a bit more expensive. The theme of a lot of reviews is that the A5 sportback is more about style over practicality, and the normal A4 sedan is the much more practical car.

but you can probably get a bike inside the sports hatchback - no way you're getting one inside a Model 3 trunk. This would be the reason Elon went with the 8 foot surfboard analogy - only most people have boxes or bicylces or small bits of furniture they've bought from the local store to transport.
Elon promised to increase the opening of the Model 3. From the lines around the mules driving around that we've seen in the last week I can't see he's changed anything. Without a higher opening it's a physical imposibility. Unfortunately it's far too late for anything to be changed - this stuff was locked in the design at least 12-18 months ago.

 

[googlepeakoil]

I still find it quite plausible Model 3 back window could simply be cut "in half" at a suitable place by a structural bar and a similar side-mounted hatch lifting from that area. The bar could be behind where the heads are.

Simply split the big window. Upside would be bigger central window possibly - and a big trunk opening of course.

This is where Steve Jobs and Elon Musk differ.
I recall a quote from Jobs saying. Never be afraid to cannibalise your own products. When people asked "why are you including a music player in your iphone" (people were afraid including one would canibalise Apple's best selling product - the iPod. His reasoning was that your competitor will make what you don't. He was right of course and IPhone sales are about 1billion. Of course the IPhone cost more than the IPod - but you get the analogy.
Now on the contrary - Elon has stated in recent tweets. You want more storage, range, 2 screens, more performance - buy a Model S.
Elon - make the best dam model 3 - not a compromise. You've compromised the trunk and the screens IMHO for fear of cannibalising S / X sales.

 

[googlepeakoil]

Exactly. They are doing the exact opposite of what they were doing with the Model X, and that's a good thing in my opinion.



The AWD will be available before the end of this year according to Elon. And a 75 kWh pack will probably give it better range then the 90 kWh Model X so i don't think that that's going to be a problem. I'll refer my judgement on the single screen/no HUD until i see the final design of the interior, steering wheel and how the GUI works.

Elon stated the AWD will arrive in 6-9 months. One youtube blog took that to mean 6-9 months from now. That puts it at December (from March) which is around the time they probably finish selling to the 5-10,000 Tesla / Space X employee's - and when they'll be ramping production for the rest of us - and doing RHD versions. I'm 99% sure Elon meant 6-9months after Q3 launch. Which puts it in the middle of 2018.

 

[googlepeakoil]

Even given the frequency with which Europeans have been saying that on here since the initial release?

Let me give some examples...
The best selling European car is the Ford Focus. It's a hatchback - all versions.
All of its competitors are hatchbacks. eg. Vauxhall (GM) Astra. Toyota's - all are hatchbacks
Going to the continent - in France you see no SUV's (apart from a few British and German tourists). They buy Renault's and Citroen's. These are all hatchbacks - and generally they have smaller / older cars. The type of people who'd be buying a 3. They can have narrow streets in cities - same as us Brits.
BMW / Audis - most are hatchbacks. I think one model at the top-end has a long "boot". Generally these are bought as taxis or by execs who aren't going to be moving their own stuff.
A few 4x4s have a mid-split boot with the bottom bit folding down for shopping - letting a dog jump in - but the top is a hatchback opening.
Hard to look in a carpark here and find any sedan cars. A couple of top-end Merc's and BMW's.
Lots of "Estate" cars. Basically a hatchback with a squared off back-end. These are all hatchbacks.
Very very rare to find any American saloons here.

 

[Topher]

don't see the relevance to a roof window

The batteries take up a significant amount of space below the floor. Headroom is a function of the distance between floor (or seat on the floor if you prefer) to roof.

I'm 99% sure Elon meant 6-9months after Q3 launch.

And yet, you are wrong. Elon tweeted that it is possible that some line stander could get their AWD before Dec 31 2017, so he meant 6-9 months from March.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

Elon - make the best dam model 3 - not a compromise. You've compromised the trunk and the screens IMHO for fear of cannibalising S / X sales.

Elon isn't making a compromise for fear of cannibalizing the S / X. He is compromising to hit a price target. $35,000. No compromise, no mass market EV.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Sonny Daze]

Let me give some examples...
The best selling European car is the Ford Focus. It's a hatchback - all versions.
All of its competitors are hatchbacks. eg. Vauxhall (GM) Astra. Toyota's - all are hatchbacks
Going to the continent - in France you see no SUV's (apart from a few British and German tourists). They buy Renault's and Citroen's. These are all hatchbacks - and generally they have smaller / older cars. The type of people who'd be buying a 3. They can have narrow streets in cities - same as us Brits.
BMW / Audis - most are hatchbacks. I think one model at the top-end has a long "boot". Generally these are bought as taxis or by execs who aren't going to be moving their own stuff.
A few 4x4s have a mid-split boot with the bottom bit folding down for shopping - letting a dog jump in - but the top is a hatchback opening.
Hard to look in a carpark here and find any sedan cars. A couple of top-end Merc's and BMW's.
Lots of "Estate" cars. Basically a hatchback with a squared off back-end. These are all hatchbacks.
Very very rare to find any American saloons here.

I believe SUVs are more popular than hatchbacks in the US because you can shove more stuff/people in them, sit higher to see over/around traffic and are more likely to offer AWD. Plus, the US has lower fuel taxes and it doesn't punish you for owning a larger displacement engine. I think hatchbacks are becoming more popular though because younger people either can't or won't spend the money for an SUV but realize the versatility of hatchbacks.

Edit: Manufacturers will probably start offering/pushing them more too in order to keep their fleet fuel economy numbers under the mandatory limits.

 

[North75]

.

Elon stated the AWD will arrive in 6-9 months. One youtube blog took that to mean 6-9 months from now. That puts it at December (from March) which is around the time they probably finish selling to the 5-10,000 Tesla / Space X employee's - and when they'll be ramping production for the rest of us - and doing RHD versions. I'm 99% sure Elon meant 6-9months after Q3 launch. Which puts it in the middle of 2018.

Somebody specifically asked Elon on twitter about his chances of getting AWD by the end of 2017. I believe his response was "Pretty Good" Interpret as you see fit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I can't see the shape has anything to do with the structure. Keep the same roof curve. Just increase the structural strength just behind the headrest - and hinge it there. Again, keep the roof curve.
The main reason I can see is cost and structural rigidity. A smaller opening doesn't have to be as strong. Like lots of small hatches in a submarine where crew duck and jump through vs making a bigger opening. But then having a big glass window (that goes from above the reat seats to the back is a big opening without a cross beam! I'd be interested to see how well the car did in a high side impact near the rearseats with no cross beam over the rear seats
Problem is when you have a long glass window and then put the boot after that you lose practicality with the current tiny opening. The S has such fantastic cargo storage. Just watch any Bjorn youtube video - you can get a doublebed in the back of the S.
Maybe like when Elon tweets about the Model S vs 3. The S is the high end car - bigger storage, faster, longer range, 2 screens (he actually said that about the screens even though a $15k car has one!). So it seems you want to fit something bigger than a airline suitcase in your trunk - buy a Model S... (or buy another car). But look you can fit in a surfboard or an 8foot bamboo cane - just nothing wider...

If you put the beam further back without changing the slope, such that it is out of the way of the rear heads, then you lose all rear visibility, in exactly the same space where your rear view mirror would typically be facing.

That's why in pretty much all the designs you see either them change the slope or have the beam going across the rear heads. The floor battery Tesla uses just makes things even harder to design for. This car isn't a sports coupe, so rear visibility still matters.

As for the current design, they have a cross beam in the rear parcel shelf area. That's one of the advantages of going with a trunk and a fixed parcel shelf.