de704
XP268
Remember, they've already delayed it 1 year. So I don't think they are rushing it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model X Subsite Updates
- Thread starter AnOutsider
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model X
Remember, they've already delayed it 1 year. So I don't think they are rushing it.
oh- I think we all remember that alright!!
But a huge shift like that is typically more about setting organizational priorities, less of an engineering slip. I mean, you could decide to put out a product a year after original announcements - and still rush it out a month or three and have details suffer.
This has been a good year for them figuring out the delivery, service, options, superchargers, apps & apis, loaners, etc etc. We would have been the ones to loose if they parallelized all that with making the X (I intend to keep mine for a while* so I want it to be the best it can be, more than I want it now. Within reason.)
*don't quote me in 5-6 years
Yeah, I think the delay was more of a "We got a hit on our hands and can take time to work on Model S instead of trying to use the X to keep momentum going" than a "let's take an extra year to work on the X".
Anywho, some updates today:
Today's update says production begins in 2014, but again, take that with all the requisite grains of salt when it comes to Tesla's timelines (summer release for center console anyone?)
Anywho, some updates today:
Today's update says production begins in 2014, but again, take that with all the requisite grains of salt when it comes to Tesla's timelines (summer release for center console anyone?)
I am hoping that the nuking of the 'priced comparable to a similarly equipped Model S' line is simply because there is no similarly equipped Model S now that the X is AWD-only and not a harbinger of higher anticipated pricing. As one who would be stretching to get an X as it is, this would be bad news for me.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Well, the now-standard AWD will definitely make a 60/85 X cost more than the equivalent S trim. My uninformed guess would be 10-15% more.
fengshui
Member
It also sounds like the design may have more changes than we expect, as the new sentence somewhat links the presented vision to the February 2012 timeframe. Unfortunately, the clause as it now stand is inherently odd: "It represented our current vision". I think I read it as it represented our current vision when it was released in 2012, but it's not clear, given the past tense verb used in conjunction with the adjective "current". Well, we'll see when something is announced. Either way, I'm pleased to see the subsite getting further updates. That's progress in itself.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Easy enough to get in line and hold a spot Zaxxon, and then get your reservation money back later if the final vehicle and specs aren't to your liking. Getting in line now might save you many extra months of waiting later.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
That website layout has exactly the right space for a larger battery size to be displayed just to the right of the 60 and 85kWh icons.
That website layout has exactly the right space for a larger battery size to be displayed just to the right of the 60 and 85kWh icons.
That would make lots of sense. A 110 KW pack seems logical for a family/recreational vehicle to give it more range.
SCW-Greg
Active Member
That website layout has exactly the right space for a larger battery size to be displayed just to the right of the 60 and 85kWh icons.
There's space for it, but not without breaching their two column format. There's a (presumed) CSS/cell there, with gutter, that the graphic wouldn't be able to cross... if I were the layout designer. Not to rain on your conga line.
Of course, I've been an a believer (since the beginning) that a larger pack will be coming, and, it would be super easy to reduce image padding, to get that graphic to fit in column.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
There's space for it, but not without breaching their two column format. There's a (presumed) CSS/cell there, with gutter, that the graphic wouldn't be able to cross... if I were the layout designer. Not to rain on your conga line.
Of course, I've been an a believer (since the beginning) that a larger pack will be coming, and, it would be super easy to reduce image padding, to get that graphic to fit in column.
Oh yeah. There WILL be a Model X Conga Line this summer and I'll be leading it.
There's space for it, but not without breaching their two column format. There's a (presumed) CSS/cell there, with gutter, that the graphic wouldn't be able to cross... if I were the layout designer. Not to rain on your conga line.
Of course, I've been an a believer (since the beginning) that a larger pack will be coming, and, it would be super easy to reduce image padding, to get that graphic to fit in column.
I would think they'd eliminate the 60 and offer 85 or a 1xx.
Agree. Once the true EPA rating falls below 200 miles for the 60 most won't be interested in it anyway.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
I would pay for that (100 or 110kWh). Almost considering getting out of the Sig line to wait (and maybe genprod line). I want more flexibility away from the SC lined roads.That website layout has exactly the right space for a larger battery size to be displayed just to the right of the 60 and 85kWh icons.
We know there is space since they had the 2 wheel drive version there once.
I dont think there is space. The battery sizes are all in one picture as a background. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/bg_08_whatsnext_prod-110613.png
There's space for it, but not without breaching their two column format. There's a (presumed) CSS/cell there, with gutter, that the graphic wouldn't be able to cross... if I were the layout designer. Not to rain on your conga line.
Of course, I've been an a believer (since the beginning) that a larger pack will be coming, and, it would be super easy to reduce image padding, to get that graphic to fit in column.
If the power density increases due to new cell chemistry being made available, then the weight won't increase significantly. You could fit 80 kWh worth of modern cells into the original 53 kWh Tesla Roadster pack, in which case you'd have a 360 mile range instead of 240 miles.
As for simply adding batteries, I think you're going to really see diminishing returns when you start having to make the car bigger. More cells mean heavier, and that's obviously not a good thing... but at highway speeds the wind resistance (and therefore physical size) is the more important factor.
