-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If you were not getting a Model S what would you get
- Thread starter gg_got_a_tesla
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
If you have children, then the seats are not useless. Clearly cars that are 2+2s are not intended for 4 adults. Those of us with kids like to buy cars that don't suck too.
Had those "useless" seats in my old Honda 92 Prelude. Great for tons of stuff not for the trunk. Even the Lotus Elise has a tiny area behind the seats the Roadster gave up for batteries. Would love stowage in the main vehicle.
ferrarimanf355
Member
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Easy question for me to answer ... because I decided not to get a Model S in favor of a Model X. My Prius will need to hang out in the garage with the Roadster for one more year or so. And then I'll be 100% electric. No more ICE for me.
(A Roadster|Model X combo just made more sense for me than a Roadster|Model S combo. Because I'm not giving up the Roadster. And I'm not giving up the pups.
)
(A Roadster|Model X combo just made more sense for me than a Roadster|Model S combo. Because I'm not giving up the Roadster. And I'm not giving up the pups.
)I'm really not interested in a Model S... I hope to have a ZOE because it will be a practical run-around with fast charging everywhere (3 Phase AC) and a Furtive-eGT (probably in my dreams) because that's the car Tesla should have made :wink:
Honestly, if I was not getting a Model S, I would not be purchasing any cars for at least 3 more years. At that point, I would re-evaluate the EV offerings and see if anything would be acceptable. My criteria for an EV is room for 4 adults and a minimum range of 160 miles. Preferably 250 to 300 miles. Fortunately for me, the Model S far surpasses all of my criteria today.
That's a nice looking car and 150 miles range at 68 mph is not bad. But a lot of folks here (including me) would disagree that a REEV is the car that Tesla "should have made." It's good that there are different solutions for different needs and multiple companies getting in the game. But I like the fact that Tesla has chosed to build only pure BEVs.
Both the ZOE and Furtive-eGT are BEV so I'm not sure I understand your comment. It's true the Furtive-eGT has an optional ICE range extender but it's very capable without one (402 km @ 50 km/h | 197 km @ 130 km/h). It will also charge on 3 Phase that you find everywhere in Europe. I would also say that the standard of instrumentation and build quality of the Furtive-eGT at Geneva was an order of magnitude better than the Model S they had on show.
My main point is that I wish Tesla had stayed in the sport car space and left the more mainstream cars for other people to build (using Tesla technology).
Last edited:
Isn't the European Model S going to have 3-phase charging of some sort? If Tesla had stayed only in the sports car territory, that would have severely limited their growth and chances for survival. I think they made the right decision to build the Model S.
The Furtive-eGT does look like a cool car but more of a sports coupe than a large 5 passenger sedan.
The Furtive-eGT does look like a cool car but more of a sports coupe than a large 5 passenger sedan.
That's what we believe although it will be less than 30kW IMO (probably 22kW)... both the ZOE and Furtive-eGT support 43kW AC today.
I don't think so... they could have had 300+ mile range Roadster's on the road today and a true luxury 2+2 like the Furtive-eGT with 400+ mile range. They could have sold that technology many times over.
I think you're way off here. I can't see any logical reason why they should have just stopped at the Roadster. Tesla is trying to get more EVs into the hands of more people. They couldn't have done that selling only Roadsters. The market is there, but #1 I don't think it's large enough for them to ever REALLY be a player and #2 it does nothing for the end-goal of having EVs be commonplace. They would be boutique forever. Heck, as it stands they get railed for only being for the rich, and you would have them stay there? I think thousands of reservation holders have shown that Tesla has produced something that IS in demand -- something I couldn't see happening if they only sold the Roadster.
Also, I think it's a shame that Tesla finally gave the Europeans 3-phase and they're still being slapped around about it. Can't win.
I guess I see it differently. Tesla will get back into that market in a few years but the sports car/sports coupe market is a fraction of the market of sedans and small SUVs. Powertrain sales will help but I think they wanted to control their own destiny. Nothing to stop Mercedes from using Tesla on a few test bed cars until they get their in-house team up and running then just ditch Tesla for their own tech in 5 years.
I never said stop at the Roadster, rather continuously refine it, and then build a true super car using the experience.
Actually, despite repeated requests for clarification we have no idea what will be provided and there is a huge difference between the usefulness of 22kW and 43kW charging. We also have no idea what connecter we should plan for.
I believe that's what AnOutsider meant by 'stopped at the Roadster' but he can clarify. I agree with AnOutsider. Just being a one or two sports car company would mean they are forever a niche company and nothing more. Maybe a technology partner for their powertrain but wouldn't help drive EV adoption. Where are the serious EV efforts from any other company than Tesla for the premium sedan or SUV market other than Tesla?
I think leading edge technology is always desirable and a successful business can be built selling it. Remember that the Roadster is significant because it demonstrates what's possible... that will get more difficult as Tesla go more mainstream and the competition hots up.
That's indeed what I meant, and I agree with the rest of your post. I'm frankly blown away that anyone would think that Tesla expanding is somehow "wrong". I can see there being a bit of anger/annoyance over the heated 3-phase issue, but surely you can't really believe that Tesla should have just made sports cars for the rest of their existence and left the electrification of normal cars to the other companies who have yet to indicate they give a damn let alone plan to lead the charge and innovate? If Tesla weren't building the S, I wouldn't be getting an electric car.
So they should just stop? just throw in the towel because things might get tough? I'm honestly confused by this logic. They demonstrated what's possible, and are now building a business by putting it into practice. There is NO OTHER company here doing anything like what Tesla is doing. I hear everyone praising the Zoe, but it's not available here, and quite frankly, it's no where near an attractive package as the Model S.
I agree with you and think Tesla is trying to do both actually. Push innovation and sell their technology but also drag the car industry into the EV space by producing the Model S and X to show what they can do and have others demand better from Mercedes, Audi, BMW and others. Without the Roadster and now the Model S, they would all still be dragging their feet.
Similar threads
