Model S specs

[Lloyd]

Someone asked what the tire sizes would be with the different wheel options. I wrote down the 2 sizes that they had out on display yesterday. 1. 245 x 45 R19 and 2. 245 x 35 ZR 21 I believe these are fairly common sizes and should make tires fairly accessable.

 

[mnx]

Someone asked what the tire sizes would be with the different wheel options. I wrote down the 2 sizes that they had out on display yesterday. 1. 245 x 45 R19 and 2. 245 x 35 ZR 21 I believe these are fairly common sizes and should make tires fairly accessable.

I feared 21" tires would be too expensive, but there are very economical options: Hankook Ventus V12 evo K110

- mnx

 

[Thumper]

I have been wondering about braking performance for the Model S. I have known since the specs were published that we have 405mm (almost 16 in.) 4 piston discs, but the numbers are not as impressive as looking at those bad boys at the factory. Early 60 to 0 spec is 135 ft. If I look at the BMW 5 and Audi 7 test data at Road and Track, they both beat that with 14ish single piston sliding caliper discs and 400ish extra pounds. I think the Model S braking is going to be awesome and considerably better than the early spec. Does anyone know new braking performance data?

 

[gdh66]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

 

[jkirkebo]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

I think you could easily fit a spare in the "frunk". If you have two sets (summer+winter) tires, just keep one of the other type in the frunk...

 

[AnOutsider]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

Wow, I didn't even consider a spare! It's funny that there's so much space and no spare, but it makes sense from the standpoint of carrying extra weight.

 

[ckessel]

Keep in mind that the Hankook tires are not run flats, and Model S won't have a spare. I wasn't able to find a run flat in 21" for much less than $350.

Depending on where you drive and other factors, run flats may have emergency security value. For me, run flats are something I've never personally seen much need for. If I get a flat, I call a tow truck and have it towed to a repair shop. I had a flat I think 3 times in 20 years. I just can't really envision a time where run flats would help much given my driving habits.

 

[Jkam]

I have been wondering about braking performance for the Model S. I have known since the specs were published that we have 405mm (almost 16 in.) 4 piston discs, but the numbers are not as impressive as looking at those bad boys at the factory. Early 60 to 0 spec is 135 ft. If I look at the BMW 5 and Audi 7 test data at Road and Track, they both beat that with 14ish single piston sliding caliper discs and 400ish extra pounds. I think the Model S braking is going to be awesome and considerably better than the early spec. Does anyone know new braking performance data?

I don't know what the braking data is, but I know after going on the test ride, the regenerative braking will have to considered in the calculation. On the test ride after going 0-70 the driver pretty much coasted which engaged the regenerative braking and we slowed down quite fast. If he pushed on the brakes, we would have slowed down even faster.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Rear Seat

I saw somewhere that the rear seat folds down. Has anyone seen this? I would assume they do, with the hatchback configuration and all. Not that I want my dogs in the car wiping their noses on everything, but it would be nice to take road trips w/ the beasts w/out them sitting on the leather (ouch). And maybe I could sell my current car for a bigger deposit ; > unless someone has $35 to spare. really

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, the rear seats fold down in a 60/40 configuration. Or would that be 70/30? From the pictures, it looks like you could seat two people with the right-most seat folded down or one person with the left section folded down. That Motor Trend article is the first that I've seen of the specs for space. 28.7 cubic ft with the seats up and 58.1 with the seats down.

One of the first things I'm going to do is make up some kind of protective blanket to roll out in the back for hauling crap. If I can get a roof rack, for carrying plywood, then I'll be able to get rid of the old Escort wagon workhorse.

 

[Mycroft]

Specs from the Motor Trend article that I haven't seen anywhere else:

Front trunk space: 8.1 cubic feet (229 liters)
Rear "trunk" space: 28.7 cf (812.7 L) (most likely not including jumpseat footwell space)
Rear space with seats folded down: 58.1 cf (1,645 L)

Total storage space not including footwell = 66.2 cf (1,874.6 L)

For comparison:

Audi A7 rear trunk space: 24.5 cf (693.7 L) seats down: 49.1 cf (1,390 L)
Porsche Panamera 15.7 cf (444.6 L) and 44.6 cf (1,262.9 L)

 

[robaross]

Where did MT get the EPA mileage and CO2 estimates? Unless you count what's needed to generate my electricity, I thought I was CO2 free.

 

[Lloyd]

Has anyone heard any skidpad estimates for the Model S yet??

 

[JimmWilks]

The storage space info is on the Tesla site somewhere I think.

 

[Mycroft]

The storage space info is on the Tesla site somewhere I think.

This is all that I found:

 

[mt2]

This is all that I found:

View attachment 3066

So there you have it; 36.8 total is 8.1 up front and the remaining 28.7 is in the back. But I find it kind of misleading. They never state 28.7 in back and call the 8.1 in front "additional"; which sounds to me like 36.8 in back and 44.9 total. I hope that is not intentionally misleading.

 

[Mycroft]

So there you have it; 36.8 total is 8.1 up front and the remaining 28.7 is in the back. But I find it kind of misleading. They never state 28.7 in back and call the 8.1 in front "additional"; which sounds to me like 36.8 in back and 44.9 total. I hope that is not intentionally misleading.

I don't think it's intentionally *misleading*. After all, even if you don't count the front trunk, it's still significantly more than the competition. I think it's more that they're trying to stay as vague as possible on specs overall, until the production model is finished. Either the material they provided to the press has more detail or the reporter was able to wheedle the information out of a PR flunky.

In fact, they're probably being too conservative. They should be promoting the foot well space as well. It's a perfect place to stash emergency kits.

 

[clea]

This is all that I found:

View attachment 3066

on the features page http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/interior they state the 36.8 total cubic feet of storage but that "Model S features an additional 8.1 cubic-foot compartment under the hood. With the seats folded flat, Model S boasts over 66 cubic feet of storage". not stating specifically that it is 66.2 but not contradicting it either ... and the 58.1 is derived from the other two numbers

 

[Mycroft]

clea, when I read that, I couldn't tell if the 36.8 included the 8.1 or if the 8.1 was in addition to the 36.8. Without that information, it's impossible to calculate the 58.1.

 

[clea]

clea, when I read that, I couldn't tell if the 36.8 included the 8.1 or if the 8.1 was in addition to the 36.8. Without that information, it's impossible to calculate the 58.1.

i assume they mean additional as it is stated as such on the webiste ...