It is funny that on HN the discussion is mainly focused on driver assist and its merits/drawbacks, while the real innovation is being ignored: this thing has two engines, increased range (on all but top of the line versions where range is decreased by only 10 miles), and is nearly a 10 second car, with 0-60 time in just over 3 seconds. Oh and roller coaster-like lateral acceleration of 1 g. Also note that the range of the dual motor setup is the result of software optimization of which engine to run at what power level at what point. This is the really exciting new development here.
There is no innovation in having two motors in a car, unless your restricting the statement to a purely electric car. Many cars produced by others do the more difficult, combine and electric and petrol motor. There may even be examples of dual electric motor vehicles.
The performance should be expected since they engineered for that. Electric motors have their torque immediately and it becomes a balance of suspension and tires in effectively using it.
What I am disappointed in that there is only ten more miles. Frankly why is a 100k car than only gets a little over two hundred miles lauded so much? If anything its a demonstration that the technology IS NOT THERE.
I was really hoping D was double range. When a 100k electric gets 500 a charge call me, then I will be impressed. Tesla better hurry, many of the big manufactures plan to field 200 mile range affordable electrics no later than 2017
You can get the 85kWh Model S for $80k with an EPA rated range of 265 miles. Let's see what the other companies are offering:
BMW i3: $41k @ 81 mile range
Nissan Leaf: $30k @ 75 mile range
Honda Fit: $36k @ 82 mile range
It has 3 times more range than any of these cars and sells for 2-3x as much but is a few classes above when it comes to safety, comfort, performance, options, etc... The Model S deserves every bit of praise it gets.
It gets lauded because the range is enough. It's not great, but it's enough that you can mostly treat it like a car, rather than a glorified golf cart. 265 miles is enough to treat it as gas^H^H^Hcharge and go, rather than needing elaborate planning for everyday activities.
You're completely right that the range and price demonstrates the limits of current technology. But the Model S is great because it makes different tradeoffs from usual, and tradeoffs that make it a great car if you have the money. Other attempts at electric cars have tried to keep the price down, and that means sacrificing range to a huge degree. Tesla responded to this tradeoff by making an expensive car with a good range that has comparable features to other cars in that expensive price range, rather than making a cheap car with crappy range the way others have done.
And yes, dual motor is no real innovation. It's cool, and 3.2s 0-60 is fantastic, but all it really took was throwing extra money into the machine.
As for 200 mile affordable electric cars in 2017, we'll see. The battery is the limiting factor right now. The Model S battery pack by itself costs more than an entire Nissan Leaf, and you can't reduce the energy needed for that range that much beyond what the Model S needs. Battery technology, whether chemistry or manufacturing or both, needs to get substantially cheaper for that to happen. I assume that's what everybody's betting on happening.
Why does it matter if your ev gets a 250 vs 500 range? The only time this is relevant is for long road trips, and in that case you have superchargers. For most people the distinction is irrelevant.
The 200 mile range or so seems to be the sweet spot where you can plug the car in every night and never think about it; on any given day you are not going to drive 200 miles other than the rare days you have preplanned road trips. The key point to remember is the car is recharged every night.
On the contrary, I think the reality of tens of thousands of people owning teslas and never complaining about the range (in terms of practical effects) is evidence that the technology is there.
What additional evidence is needed for someone to be convinced that technology is "there yet" beyond the adoption of electric cars by consumers because they are simply better products, as is the case with the model S? Clearly the technology is there, it's just only available (like most new things) in luxury class cars. If the argument is that somehow Model S owners are willingly sacrificing features (since the technology isn't 'there yet') in the name of some higher good like helping the environment, that's ridiculous, my wife has one and it's superior to a gas car for a long list of reasons. (With the minor exception that if we decide to take a long road trip, we need to plan ahead for a few minutes to ensure we can hit a supercharger.)
I'm with on you on that Tesla is still too expensive for what you get range-wise. However, they are far and ahead of everyone else. By 2017, when the first Fords, Chevys, and Toyotas with 200 mile range will be rolling out (probably with lots of issues), Tesla will have years of expertise and technology innovation on them. They are almost a decade early on all of this stuff.
Now, as far as having two motors, no it's not brand new. There are even prototypes/one-offs that have a motor on each wheel. The innovation is that you now have a car with two electric engines, one up front, one in the back, that can be controlled by software, really tuned for the driving conditions and based on sensor inputs, and updated remotely for better range, better performance, etc. That, and actual performance of a Ferrari for just over $100k.
Thanks for saying this. I was scratching my head as to why the top comments focused on the wrong thing. Distributed coordinated engines is in my opinion hugely exciting
Absolutely. Some more stats I found about the maxed out P85D: 691 horse power, 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, quarter mile in 11.8 seconds. The curb weight on this thing is 4,936 lb which is quite heavy for a car this fast.
Also very cool: apparently, the reason for adding a second engine increasing range is because now there is more capacity to regenerate/recapture energy when slowing down.
Personally, this is the first Tesla car I actually want.
1) that's not something most AWD car owners worry about - it's a form of maintenance diligence like tire rotations and checking their oil every fuel stop that few drivers bother with, without serious consequence.
2) That clearly only applies when all the wheeels are connected through limited slip differentials. When the front and rear axles are run by independent electric motors with electronic power/brake distribution and regenerative braking feedback systems? you may need to revisit your mechanical assumptions.
Partially valid: having different diameter tires can lead to lash or noise in the drivetrain, but that extra noise/stress depends on the diameter difference. You're not going to HAVE to buy all new tires if you have a blowout and need a new one. Your drivetrain won't explode if you put on a new tire with three used ones. Decent tire shops are able to shave tires to match the rest of the set if there's a big difference.
If that's the only downside, sign me up! I live in the northeast where having AWD is a basic necessity unless you like not getting out of the house most of the winter. Also, most people don't blow out tires that frequently to really worry about this. In fact, if you get new tires, you can often get pretty cheap warranty/insurance against this.
