Why not design cars with more legroom, or even add a 4th row or more storage space in the back? Wouldn't that greatly increase the utility while barely increasing wind resistance? Wouldn't a more limo-like shape be much more efficient? So what am I overlooking? It would be great if my Model X had more second row legroom.
Small garages, street parking with demarcated spaces, short parking lot spaces, tight turns on narrow streets, not wanting to look like you're driving a mid-century land yacht...
What about not wanting your adult second and third row passengers' knees in their faces? It's a little tight in my X's 5-seater's second row, and another 8" vehicle length would make a 6 or 7 passenger car's second AND third rows quite roomy, a big plus in auto reviews. It's supposed to be an SUV, "U" for Utility. Even after adding 8" it's still shorter than vans and pickups that also park in demarcated spaces, short parking lot spaces and turn on narrow streets...
This, says the one who drives a full-sized Pick-up, with Quad-Cab, and Long Bed. Now @BluestarE3 I am not picking on you and I expect you to not have one, but I was thinking about my two Step-Sons that both have one of these, one a Toyota, the other a Dodge Ram 3500. I thought of them when reading your post. I do enjoy a smaller vehicle, but have had a few experiences driving those Land Yachts, once even having to pull the 28 ft car carrier trailer. Even the extra size of the Model S took me some getting used to. Now, after 30,000 miles in our Tesla Model S 75D I do not even notice it's extra size. So if there was a Model X with an extra 2 to 3 feet of length I am sure whoever got one of them would eventually get used to driving it and even enjoy it.
Longer and skinnier also impact handling and not in a good way. Most people aren't all that concerned with the second or third row comfort.
Well to begin with, there are certain ratios to behold between vehicle length, width, height and mass. Too long vs too sleek and the vehicle will topple over during cornering. Then again, cars that are wider than the usually single occupant (the driver) is tall, should at least bring us to contemplate alternatives...
Some are, just not Teslas because they seem to stick to the American "flat and wide" style. The Ioniq is a good example, more efficient than the Model 3 and much of that is due to the shape. Having said that in Europe we tend to prefer more comfortable cars where you don't have to swing down awkwardly to get in, or climb to get out. So a bit taller. But if you look at cars like the Kona and e-Niro it turns out you can make them that shape with excellent efficiency anyway.
Ever watch cars drive by? Seems in US 2/3 of cars have only ONE person. I almost have never SEEN a vehicle that had ALL seats occupied - OK, maybe one or two an hour, maybe.
Let me put it this way: once I met a German automotive engineer at a conference and discussed with him the huge void between cars and two-wheelers which is practically left untouched by car makers. He responded that a 'sleek in-between sort of vehicle' will go at the expense of selling regular cars, the reason why no car maker is really pursuing this market (segment). Funny enough VW's former CEO Piëch tried to warm up his shareholders to the idea... in vain. That's the inherent waste that goes with using cars: they are usually too big and too heavy to carry the average 1.1 person from A to B. For Uber, Lyft etc. it is 1.2 passenger on average. If there is ONE personal mobility market that Tesla may want to consider catering to, it is this one. At least to stay ahead of the game, since other car makers are catching up swiftly.
I agree. The Aptera has this wide stance (with outriggers that easily shear off) because it has to compensate for the lateral forces that make the vehicle topple over during cornering, or cause the rear come around (sharp oversteer). The only way to enable a sleek vehicle to 'shrug off' lateral forces is to make it lean during cornering, or make it uncomfortably low (like the VW you see in the picture).
correct - the original X-Prize the Aptera tipped doing avoidance maneuvers [like avoiding a child or pot hole or what ever] So the Aptera was lowered - and perhaps the wheel spread out (don't remember) This lowering allowed them to stay in the competition. Sadly I have failed to find any info on that first competition. So all I remember is the lowering.
Aptera looks great, but has a way too wide footprint and accommodates only two. The trick and synergy is to have a body that is sleek enough that 1. it does need tilt to deal with the lateral forces and 2. its bottom and sills will of course not hit the road. Toyota has its i-Road in which two people can squeeze in tandem layout. As it stands taller than it is wide, it features steep lean angles. Bring down the height vs width ratio to something that is slightly wider than it is high, and you can bring down lean angles back to something that does not remind of steering a motorcycle. With a three-seat layout, you get something like you see on the left:
Undoubtedly not all... Not even 99 percent. Is the ONE percent that can justify producing another type of vehicle. Even less...
Now, don’t get caught up in a large market fallacy. If the market is spread out across the world the start has little chance for success. Anywho, I doubt even 1 in 900 people want a dildo shaped car....