Jan 6, 2015
caps04 Reddit AMA:
Does anyone else believe that this could be HUGE? As in, they are designing something totally new without blindly respecting any existing car design conventions?
I may be overthinking this but it could gel with Elon's "First Principles Thinking": Elon Musk's First Principles - Business Insider
Remember that this is in reply to "share anything... that we don't already know"
Thoughts?�
Jan 6, 2015
Kevin Harney While I believe the sentiment, in reality to the most extent cars form follows function. It must be easy to get in and out and have enough room for the humans inside and all their stuff. So with that logic I believe that the car will be progressive and pioneering but not necessarily too much in the outside form. I love cool stuff so I am hoping I might be wrong here but that is my guess. I think the real answer will be revealed when the Model X is revealed. Not because I think the Model X will be radical but because Elon has said several times that it will be VERY different from the prototype. If it is VERY different then it is likely the the Model 3 will follow in being more radical in design. OTOH Model 3 is going to be critical to TM going mainstream and changing the world. Straying too much off the norm may diminish that goal. There is a fine balance to be struck. I am sure they can do it and am anxious to see the results too.�
Jan 6, 2015
gg_got_a_tesla Very interesting comment by Elon although he can hype things up a bit
It'd be very brave of Tesla to go completely unconventional for their "mass (premium) market" car. But, basic aerodynamic reasons still require a traditional car shape, I'd think. It may be the bells and whistles - autopilot, gizmos inside, etc. - that Elon may be referring to.�
Jan 6, 2015
Lump I will believe it 6 months after owners have taken delivery & received the software updates & seats:biggrin:
Hard to beleive for $35k.�
Jan 6, 2015
caps04 But he did say "it won't look like other cars"�
Jan 6, 2015
palmer_md He may also mean it wont look like their other cars (S, X). In other words it wont be a scaled down Model S.�
Jan 6, 2015
Kevin Harney and he could have meant the inside. Maybe auto pilot with all seats facing center in a conversation pit. Gadgets and gizmos will advance greatly between now and then. I hope it is interesting !! Maybe no windows as we won't need to see out under autopilot. Those are radical ideas compared to now.�
Jan 6, 2015
caps04 In that same line of thought, I am imagining something that has basic car features like 4 wheels, general car shape, etc. but there is so much more to work with and re-think:
The doors could be radical like X but not falcon wing..something that makes sense in that form factor
The motors could be tiny enough to fit next to the wheel thereby increasing available interior space resulting in a different car shape
Merging of all front and back lights to one continuous strip that changes colors, etc. based on intention
So many possibilities.
Look at this latest concept from Mercedes:
The Mercedes-Benz F 015: this is what tomorrows self-driving cars look like | The Verge
�
Jan 6, 2015
JohnQ And this is both the wonderful and painful part about communicating through that type of medium. Quick message fired off between meetings or emails that could be quite clear to Elon (or deliberately vague to create PR mystique) but missing a pronoun or modifier that provides clarity to the user. Is it "our other cars?" What about "all other cars?" or "other Tesla cars?" or ...
Let the speculation continue!�
Jan 6, 2015
Model 3 Probably yes....�
Jan 6, 2015
SwedishAdvocate I for one do not want the Model 3 to look anything like that Mercedes concept in post #8 above.
Full disclosure: On my current career arch I will be able to buy a Model 3 with cash.
- - - Updated - - -
Caveat:
Forgot to add that I kind of like the wheels though. I want a set of aesthetically pleasing Aero wheels on my Model 3 in order to maximize range. However: The concave element on the wheels of that Mercedes concept evidently isn't a good thing from an aero efficiency point of view...�
Jan 6, 2015
RobStark 
![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vpfl0sdA8SoTUsBSmk3Lnmn2aJSi-2KQF1h1KU3_P8FxIlczRG3hSEEwDBIvoQBT4LYzClX_UXw57JryIuLbqX4M7QjmTvDNgBH3gJPSaGviM0ZeSbBVCV3Vs1DaQnTaSndNxbnV4a-bxJZU__=s0-d)
�
Jan 6, 2015
ecarfan That is an aesthetic nightmare. IMO.�
Jan 6, 2015
TEG But an aerodynamic dream?�
Jan 6, 2015
SwedishAdvocate +1
They both are.
It's quite intriguing how some people who apparently want to work (?) in automotive design seemingly have zero sense for aesthetics... :scared:
- - - Updated - - -
The white one with the covered rear wheel arches isn't one for sure. Don't know enough to judge the one with the blue 'canopy'. But does it really matter? At that aesthetic penalty... Nothing is worth that sacrifice IMO.�
Jan 6, 2015
Canuck I'm not sure we need to read all that much into his statement. In fact, every car on the road doesn't look like any other car model. Of course, certain models look similar to other models but none look like other car models. I am quite certain that once the Model 3 is out, however, people will draw similarities with other vehicle models, just like you can with the Model S, but the Model S does not look like any other car.
Definition - like: 1. having the same characteristics or qualities�
Jan 6, 2015
RobStark Definition - like:
- 1.
(of a person or thing) having similar qualities or characteristics to another person or thing.
"I responded in like manner"
synonyms: similar, much the same, comparable, corresponding, resembling, alike,analogous, parallel, equivalent, cognate, related, kindred; More
Like does not necessarily mean exactly alike.�
Jan 6, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Elon insists on good esthetics so while I would expect Tesla to be willing to go against convention, they would still want to make a beautiful car.
Personally, I'd go for the Model U(gly) if it's more efficient. You can't see it when you're using it, and you can rarely see it when you're not using it, so why care so much about how it looks?�
Jan 6, 2015
RobStark If it is not a brick it is hard to know until it is put in a wind tunnel.
Anyways, aesthetic expectations need to evolve naturally.
Each Tesla generation getting a bit better while the public adjust to what a car should look like.
Powertrains should see revolutionary change. Aerodynamic design should be evolutionary.
Can't offend the bourgeoisie and hope to become a mass market success.�
Jan 6, 2015
Twiddler I think we can take his statement quite literally. Franz and others repeatedly referred to wanting to design something more "traditional" with the Model S, specifically with a nose-hood-cabin-trunk, since the novelty of electric vehicles, the user interface, etc was already so advanced - so as not to shock the consumer. This was usually followed by some statement referring to the Model III, stating that it would push boundaries of design and take more full advantage of the skateboard design. I would bet that this car will truly look like nothing like anything we have seen to a significant degree�
Jan 6, 2015
woof That's how I read it as well, that it's not gonna be a mini-S.�
Jan 6, 2015
larmor Maybe it will have falcon doors? Then it certainly won't look like any other 'car.'�
Jan 6, 2015
Cosmacelf Yes, I remember the first part, they didn't want to shock the consumer with their first car. But I don't remember the second part where they say they'll have wide latitude with the gen III. Got any references?�
Jan 6, 2015
Twiddler I will try to find the interview of which I am thinking when I get a chance - this at least provides a reference to "more radical" styling with the Model III:
Tesla designer reveals future EV models - CNET�
Jan 6, 2015
SwedishAdvocate In other cases you may not need to.
But in this case: If it isn't sufficiently aesthetically pleasing � then: Will it sell in enough numbers?
What if it doesn't sell?
Then there's no longer a Tesla Motors. Not a good scenario IMO...
That�s why you too should care about aesthetics in this case.
Why risk it all by releasing a Model 3 that isn�t perceived by a vast majority as aesthetically pleasing?�
Jan 6, 2015
palmer_md How about something from Jason Hill at Design by 11.
�
Jan 6, 2015
Raffy.Roma Next! :scared:�
Jan 6, 2015
AudubonB Coming out of the woodwork here:
This forum overflows with praises extolling the wonderful looks of the Model S.
I love my P85 as I never have felt about any prior automobile. HOWEVER...it took me a long time before I was accustomed to its exterior. Sleek? - sure. Aerodynamic-looking? - not a doubt. Different? Well...no, not to my eyes. Looked a lot like a handful of other autos, from Italian to Japanese to Korean.
I'm used to it now, but if I were the King of Aesthenia, the Model S wouldn't have received anything better than a Gentleman's C.�
Jan 6, 2015
tga One of the things I like about the Model S is the very fact that it looks "normal." If the Model 3 winds up Leaf-ugly or screams "Look at me, I'm driving an EV!" (think 1st gen Prius or Insight), I'm out.
And I don't buy this "an EV can look different" BS. It's still a car. It needs 4 wheels, doors, and glass. As someone posted up-thread, cars look the way they do because form follows function.
Aside from not needing a radiator, there isn't much different about an EV's outward appearance.
- - - Updated - - -
That's not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.�
Jan 6, 2015
gregincal It's not just the radiator, it's the entire space forward of the cabin traditionally used to house an engine that is unnecessary in an EV. Having an empty frunk there just shows that area is there just to look like a normal car, not for any practical reason. Otherwise you might end up with something that looks like this:
�
Jan 6, 2015
Xenoilphobe I like having the largest crumble zone in the world in the front -- AKA the Frunk - I think that would be an acceptable design and give the smaller vehicle an extremely high crash rating...�
Jan 6, 2015
tga Remember, it's not just a frunk, it's a crumple zone. Would you want to drive a car with your legs in the crumple zone? Thanks, but no thanks.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, yeah, what he said...:redface:�
Jan 7, 2015
Tasdevil I remember elon taking a question (at a shareholders meeting) about hub cap aerodynamics and how a flat disk hubcaps improves range, but look terrible.
Elon responded with "we are working on some thing's that we think you will like" (something along those lines).
We are yet to see anything so either it was just elon doing his thing or they are saving it for model3 because what they have planned needs a different form factor.�
Jan 7, 2015
Yggdrasill My expectations:
- The frunk on the Model 3 is eliminated. Instead, the Model 3 has a smaller nose, and comes standard with a front wheel drive unit. The Performance Model 3 will have an optional rear wheel drive unit, for AWD, at the cost of trunk space.
- Tesla takes the falcon-wing doors of the Model X to the next level. The regular front doors are gone and instead the sides open up. Like the Quant e-Sportlimousine: QUANT e-Sportlimousine by nanoFLOWCELL AG�
Jan 7, 2015
houdini why do they all end up with SVX style windows??
�
Jan 7, 2015
houdini why do they all end up with SVX windows?
oops, accidental double post�
Jan 7, 2015
wart Because the big outer window is too big to fit inside the door. The smaller inner glass piece exists so that you have a window you can roll down.
I'm in the camp that believes that the Model 3 needs to look good but not too radical. If it's going to sell something in the vicinity of 100,000 units per year the looks have to not offend a lot of people.�
Jan 7, 2015
Yggdrasill I think you mean ~400.000 units per year by 2020.
And I agree, the styling can't be freaky. It needs to look good. But the most important thing is that it's extremely practical. As long as it accomplishes this, it can be different-looking.�
Jan 7, 2015
Kevin Harney I completely disagree. Practical is great but functional and good looking are what sells. I think the only way it can be freaky is if it is absolutely AMAZING in all other categories. No reason to be freaky just to do it. And revolutionary does not need to be freaky.�
Jan 7, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney For Model 3, they need esthetics since they'll be more in the luxury end. If they go further downmarket for Model 4, it won't matter so much: how many mainstream cars look special?�
Jan 7, 2015
igotzzoom Yeah. That statement is sufficiently vague that it could mean just about anything. When the 2011 Sonata came out, it really didn't look like anything else in its class, with the closest resemblance arguably being to the Mercedes CLS. I think it's fairly certain the Model III won't look like a 3-Series or A4, but whether it looks like that Mercedes concept or not, I have a feeling it won't be quite that "out-there." There will be some family resemblance to the Model S, but the proportions will be different. Possibly a shorter nose, less overhang, and possibly a more "muscular" appearance. I think it will remain RWD, as that's Tesla's area of expertise, as well as the fact that there's not as much of a penalty for RWD in a full electric like there is in an ICE car. An AWD variant will probably follow a year after launch.
I think you can forget about Falcon wing doors on the III, if for no other reason that cost containment.�
Jan 7, 2015
Model 3 But that is a thing we know it will be, don't we?
�
Jan 7, 2015
Johann Koeber
OUCH. Hurts the eye.
Hmmmm, maybe will get used to it.�
Jan 7, 2015
WarpedOne There is one simple question that has to be answered to any 'strange' design: WHY?
If a 'strange' design brings something good to the table than OK, if it is strange just to be strange than GTFO.
Aerodynamics is important but not all strange designs have low drag. Those above mostly do not.�
Jan 7, 2015
Yggdrasill As I mentioned before, I think Elons comment suggests the implementation of the falcon wing doors.
�
Jan 7, 2015
Bearman Agree, the mirai and i3 look like dog turds because they must not be able to compete on an equal level.�
Jan 7, 2015
Yggdrasill There's no reason why the doors have to be particularly expensive.�
Jan 7, 2015
tga Now this I'll agree with. Remove the B pillar and make one door on either side, wide enough to access the front and back seats.
Add a couple of lift cylinders and remove some latch/hinge hardware, and maybe it's a wash. Getting the structural support for the roof may be tricky. Also, you need to make sure the cabin stays tight vs wobbling around. But it could be done, and it would certainly look cool.�
Jan 7, 2015
wart How do you get out of the car after a crash in which it ends up upside down? The Model X has the normal front row doors for emergency egress. A Model 3 with only 2 large falcon wing doors wouldn't have the normal doors as a fallback. The Mercedes SLS AMG used explosive bolts to disconnect the doors at the top hinge, but that would be added cost.�
Jan 7, 2015
tga Yeah, I guess that pesky emergency egress could be an issue... :wink:�
Jan 7, 2015
AudubonB I hope I don't come off as sounding belittling of your concern, but let's take this and run with it; see where it gets us.
1. How do you get out of a ("standard"-doored) car after a crash in which both sides have been compromised, preventing you from opening any door?
2. How do you get out of such a car after a crash in which it ends up upside down, with the B-pillars scrunched just enough so that you cannot open any door?
And so on.
Are the promulgation of design/safety criteria by US and other nations' safety boards so structured? That ease of egress in case of the car turning turtle be one of the shibboleths? That's a non-hypothetical question: I've seen your argument posted once or twice elsewhere, and don't know if it's because It Is Known, or whether that is a toss-out conjecture without real-world consequences.�
Jan 7, 2015
Yggdrasill I would guess that getting the required strength in the roof would be the most expensive part, but I'm sure that some of this cost could be mitigated by cutting down on number of parts and steps in the production process. You would after all be going from four doors to two doors.
And this sort of door configuration makes a lot more sense for Tesla than anyone else. The skateboard platform is ideal for this. The battery pack is rigid enough pretty much by itself, so the roof really only has to deal with crushing forces.
When it comes to emergency egress, just add a system that automatically rolls down the windows in the event of airbag activation or in the event of overturning. I was in an accident in 2014, where the passenger front door was jammed but the window was broken. The drivers side door still opened, yet my wife got out through the window about as fast as I got out the door.�
Jan 8, 2015
malcolm A Lotus concept from 2009 -obviously a city car with a pathetically small range but has an interesting door idea.
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21423
And this is what tata claim to be up to (it's a REEV):
http://www.tatamegapixel.com/images.asp
A similar approach to the doors:
�
Jan 8, 2015
wart Fair enough. I didn't have any data in front of me when I posted, and I still don't. I've just done some Googling on door openability safety standards. I see a few secondhand mentions of such a standard, such as in this video of the Mercedes SLS exploding bolts. When searching for an official Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards document, I can find references to debates and discussions about the issue but no actual current standard.
For example this article states in part: "NHTSA believes that a post-crash door operability requirement is a practicable, reasonable safety enhancement. However, the agency has decided not to add a post-crash door operability requirement to FMVSS 301 or FMVSS 206 at this time, because the agency has not developed a practical, objective, and repeatable test procedure for opening doors." But that's from 2003 so I don't know if things have changed. It does seem like NHTSA would like to have some kind of standard in the future.�
Jan 8, 2015
SwedishAdvocate On the Model 3 I for one want regular car doors. I do not want any falcon wing doors. And I do not want any Lotus/Tata concept car doors.�
Jan 8, 2015
Model 3 Agree on the Lotos/Tata doors present here
http://www.disappearing-car-door.com/slideshow/show/phpslideshow.php?directory=pics¤tPic=0�
Jan 8, 2015
malcolm Tbh I agree.
Hopefully Tesla's experience with the falcon doors on the X will persuade them to keep the doors nice and simple/cheap on the 3. Like the Merc F015 posted earlier.
Personally I like the hood/windshield line on the tata although the grill and door panel sculpting seems too much.�
Jan 13, 2015
Newb My guess is Tesla has done something with the hood of Model 3. One option would be to get rid of the frunk and change the position and/or shape of the hood as compared to Model S, perhaps close to the fronts of these cars/car concepts:
http://www.sportscardigest.com/wp-content/gallery/vscc-spring-start/winner-1950s-sports-car-race-julian-majzub-1958-sadler-mkiii.jpg
http://www.carbodydesign.com/media/2011/06/Tesla-Current-Concept-Design-Sketch-1-720x540.jpg
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/11/1126_mazda/image/slide-1.jpg
http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/12/1956BuickCenturion_2000.jpg
I'd love to see a realistic (i.e. what the masses would like, too) M-shaped front of the car (M-shape when looking from above, and of course not a perfect M which would look rather strange). This might have an effect on the drag coefficient, too.
A different option would be to increase the space under the hood and making the frunk bigger than the trunk, and easier to open and close.�
Jan 13, 2015
AudubonB Well, I for one DO like the Tata doors as shown...but am leery of that hinge, albeit massive-seeming, and its ability to maintain sealed the periphery of the doors/windows.
But think of the ingress/egress! You know, with vehicles like those you could make a strong case for eliminating the larger footprint handicapped spaces now require, as wheelchair manipulation would be spectacularly easy. Not sure where said wheelchair would be stowed, though. Speaking of which, at the Mayo Clinic the other day I saw for the first time a "Chair Pod" that snags a chair with a self-contained articulating arm and stores it in a hinged eggshell atop the vehicle. Quite a set-up....and verra spendy, I'm sure. (A search for "rooftop wheelchair carrier" shows pix of a variety of such items).�
Jan 13, 2015
roblab The several accidents I've seen, they crawl out the side window. In all positions, upside down or sideways, one can kick the window out, it shatters, and you crawl out. Unless you can't. Then the rescue crew pulls you out. Or cuts your car apart. But most people can make it out the window.�
Jan 13, 2015
TEG That is somewhat like the Tesla Model C concept:
http://www.carscoops.com/2012/11/u-design-tesla-model-c-concept-study.html
(I like it...)�
Jan 13, 2015
anticitizen13.7 Elon's Q&A session yielded some hints at the Model 3 design!!! From the live text feed at http://live.theverge.com/elon-musk-tesla-detroit-auto-show-2015/
I read this to mean that any differences between Model 3 and previous automobiles will be differences that arise out of features that make the car better for customers, as opposed to differences just for the sake of differences.�
Jan 13, 2015
Xenoilphobe I would just sell the III as a stripper Model S. Smaller battery, 0-60 in 12 seconds, smaller motors, lower quality textile interior, with the option to upgrade it as you grow in your career / lifestyle needs. They would satisfy the wall street folks and be able to use the existing assembly line (lowering the costs per unit).�
Jan 13, 2015
Hodginator That's not how Elon works. Better or not at all has been his track record so far.�
Jan 13, 2015
anticitizen13.7 Tesla also has some precedent for trying the smaller battery/slower option: the Model S 40 kWh. I remember that Elon cancelled this car because it didn't drive sufficiently awesome enough. I seriously doubt they would revisit what the company considered to be a lackluster product.�
Jan 13, 2015
gregincal Um, a lot of the point is to have a smaller car. I don't want a big car.�
Jan 13, 2015
wart +1 to this. The Model S is to big for me. A smaller car with less frontal area and less weight will be more efficient too. Elon has said that the Tesla 3 will compete with BMW 328 and Audi A4, which is exactly what I want.�
Jan 13, 2015
favo That would be horrible. Tesla has already said it won't be a smaller Model S clone. The slowest current BMW 320i goes 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. Tesla should aim to outperform the 3-series at every level, including the M3. If they do that, they will sell every one they can produce.�
Jan 14, 2015
malcolm Well Elon's cleared up the ambiguity in his original tweet - it won't look like (any) other cars - rather than - it won't look like (our) other cars.
But I hope Tesla repeats the same approach taken with the Roadster, S and X in that outwardly they are all stylish/acceptable/desirable examples of their class - but the vehicle functionality across performance, interface, access/egress (maybe not so much with the Roadster on this one ; ) and seating/storage flexibility (or this one) is "way different".�
Jan 14, 2015
J1mbo One thing to remember - model 3 is going to be designed to a budget: it needs to retail at $30,000.
So it is unlikely to have any expensive features like sliding/falcon doors etc.�
Jan 14, 2015
WarpedOne 30? Last I heard it was 35 without incentives.
What elon is hinting at is they want to design a car around people and not around engine.
why every car out there has a hood? To fit a big engine
no engine, no big/long hood.�
Jan 14, 2015
RobStark Elon Musk reiterated today at Automotive News World Congress $35k before incentives.
Long hood also improves aerodynamics over short stubby hood and improves safety by creating a bigger crumple zone.
�
Jan 14, 2015
WarpedOne Long hood improves aerodynamics when you are driving backwards.
fish have big heads and long tails, remember?
Longer crumple zone on the other hand is true. But one can design a car to 'use' the crumple zone of the other car, like smart does.�
Jan 14, 2015
AustinPowers Unfortunately that is only a fan-created render, but if Model 3 actually looked like this, I would buy it in an instant. I think that design is absolutely perfect.�
Jan 14, 2015
Yggdrasill Sliding doors are hardly expensive. And I really can't see why two big falcon doors would need to be significantly more expensive than four hinged doors. We're for the most part talking about mechanical components, which usually aren't very expensive, and you'd probably need fewer parts to make two falcon doors vs four hinged doors. Fewer parts means less complexity and lower cost.�
Jan 14, 2015
aronth5 Elon said in Detroit the Model 3 could either be a smaller Model S or "more radical", He clearly stated is preference for the latter which fits perfectly with his past history.�
Jan 14, 2015
sjd He says it won't be a weirdmobile but its going to be radical. More importantly than radical is that it needs to be beautiful.�
Jan 14, 2015
dpeilow I think if they are going up against the 3 series or A4 then it needs to look like a 3 series or A4. This is a very conservative market. Anything else and they will screw the pooch.�
Jan 14, 2015
AudubonB I was dusting off some long-languishing fluid dynamics over the past days - Raynolds Numbers and the like - and realized to my extremely unpleasant dismay that there is indeed a significant difference between turbulence characteristics in incompressible material, like water, and in a compressible medium, like air.
Soooo..... again, to my extreme frustration, we can't automatically use fishies and porposies and such as exemplars for automobile design.
Until we're building them as underwater vehicles, too..... :love:�
Jan 14, 2015
tga What about falling raindrops?�
Jan 14, 2015
Yggdrasill Falling rain drops do not look at all like people think. They are basically flattened spheres. The surface tension of the water will pull the water together.�
Jan 14, 2015
Model 3 Here is the Model 3 prototype:
�
Jan 14, 2015
AudubonB I know - that's the one I was thinking of. Gee...I wonder where it is now:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:�
Jan 14, 2015
Model 3 I don't know, but my best guess is at Tesla's design center at Hawthorne.�
Jan 14, 2015
tga Duh. I knew that. What was I thinking...�
Jan 14, 2015
scaesare Actually, I believe it was because the extremely low order rate didn't justify the manufacture of a separate pack.
IOW: Nobody bought them.�
Jan 14, 2015
Trev Page Elon said they're leaning towards a "radical" design rather than a smaller version of Model S.... That worries me a bit. I wasn't expecting them to actually shrink Model S down 20% and call it a day but he also said he didn't like "weirdmobiles". So, where's the happy medium?�
Jan 14, 2015
Krugerrand In his mind's eye. Don't worry. He's emphasized functionality, safety and compelling. It'll be awesome.�
Jan 14, 2015
RobStark Aerodynamics and aquadynamics are not identical.
Smart has that race car passenger cell that is not exactly lightweight for such a tiny car.
MPG 34 City and 38 Highway for such a tiny car is not acceptable.
- - - Updated - - -
Never claimed I had insider access and leaked an official Tesla rendering.
Of course it is just someone goofing around with some skill.�
Jan 15, 2015
bxr140 Still has a frunk dent? :tongue:�
Jan 15, 2015
AustinPowers Of course I didn't mean to imply that you had claimed it to be official. Just that I personally was sad that this was not the official prototype as I think this would be rather gorgeous. Like a Tesla version of the e-Golf, which in itself is a great EV, but missing the Tesla touch ;-)
Anyway, another great render by theophiluschin, wo also gave us the Model S estate version that I think many here in Europe would buy in an instant rather than the standard Model S.�
Jan 16, 2015
caps04 My original suspicion when starting the thread is now confirmed. Do I get a cookie? :tongue:
But seriously, the idea to make it different but better than existing designs without crossing the weird line is a tall order. I say this because from a casual observation, it looks like utility and stunning designs are somewhat orthogonal. See Minivans and Camry vs Lambos and Ferraris. 2016 will be exciting.�
Jan 16, 2015
Saghost The shape of a raindrop isn't inherently the shape with the lowest drag - it's actually the result of the interplay between the aerodynamic forces on the outside of the raindrop and the surface tension on the inside.
As a result, the raindrop/teardrop shape is a balance between the lowest surface area per unit volume (sphere) and the lowest drag force - mostly in the form of stretching the surface out into the low pressure region because the pressure differential exceeds the surface tension.
Walter�
Jan 16, 2015
SmartElectric My Smart ED is one of the most efficient cars ever made for city driving, and one of the lightest at under 1000Kg.
While the BMW i3 for example is more efficient, the cost is far greater due to the materials used (carbon fibre re-enforced plastic, etc).
Note:
The reason the old Smart gas model got "unaccceptable" mileage had to do with the engine/transmission.
The new 2016 Smart gas model is far more efficient due to improvements in that area.�
Jan 16, 2015
muleferg Harley Earl is back.
Tail Fins are back in style.�
Jan 16, 2015
Rheazombi Gross. Could do without the third picture�
Jan 16, 2015
bxr140 Indeed. It's an ugly, vile thing.
I don't much care for the girl either. :tongue:�
Jan 16, 2015
SteveG3 We know Tesla is freed from ICE need for an engine block in the front trunk area. As mentioned in this thread, even with Tesla's skateboard design the front trunk area still serves the purposes of offering storage capacity and a crumple zone for safety, and it's size and shape impact aerodynamics.
Everything in that last sentence is also true of the back trunk area. My point is, Tesla can take advantage of the lack of a need for a place for the engine block in it's design of the front or back, or some combination of new design opportunities for both. They can work out a balance between same/better aerodynamics, same/better storage, and same/better safety with innovative shaping of either of those spaces or both.�
Jan 16, 2015
dmckinstry They also have a much lower terminal velocity than the highway speed of automobiles.�
Jan 16, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney The Tesla Teardrop, defining the new normal.
You might think it wouldn't be practical, but it will be great for carrying stuff: traffic cones, tomato cages, anything within reason.�
Jan 16, 2015
Rheazombi Didn't someone already try this?
R.I.P. Aptera�
Jan 25, 2015
sixvolts I'm guessing it means they might eschew a few things we all expect in modern-shaped cars like the front of the car that currently contains the frunk in the Model S. I bet it will have a little bit shorter nose. It really doesn't serve much of purpose other than to look like we expect cars to look. My second bet is that it will be a hatch, with a rear-end either like the Model S or a traditional hatchback (say, the mazda 3 - Franz used to work for Mazda). Trunks are overrated. I think the cost will eliminate the ability to have super radical things like the falcon wing doors.
The skateboard powertrain might not be as low-cost either. They could build a battery box more like what the roadster had, situated somehow in the car. That would make it easier to protect the battery from the underside (titanium shields are expensive), but who knows. They could also cover up the wheel wells (like the rear wheels on the original honda insight), to improve aerodynamics, at the cost of looking "different".
I'm sure the design team will make the thing look good, and Elon won't let it look like crap. I'd put a deposit down on the Model 3 right now if it was possible.�
Jan 25, 2015
TEG Umm, er, safety crumple zone...�
Jan 25, 2015
tga You're not the first to say this, but I'm not sure we've ever seen any claim that falcon wing doors are necessarily more expensive.
IMHO, "Insight-like covered wheel wells" == "looks like crap"
I used to think that, but the "won't look like other cars" comment has me scared - Hopefully we'll see sketches or a model before we have to get in line�
Jan 25, 2015
pmadflyer I have no worries about the model 3 front end. If the nose is shortened from that of a conventional sedan, I bet they will answer the safety concern to an extant that is still far superior to the average ICE sedan.
To sixvolts the battery will be in the floor pan. The only reason that other manufactures don't do the same is the requirement that a battery fit in an existing platform with minimum redesign. As a vehicle designed from the ground up to be electric, the safest, most efficient, and easiest place to put the battery is the floor pan. The model S was found to be safe without a shield. Tesla went above and beyond expectations and made a safe product safer. Since the Model 3 will be built using the knowledge gained from the S, the additional shielding, or equivalent, will be considered in the original design. Also, using just in time manufacturing practices and battery packs produced at the Gigafactory, the batteries can be slid into the bottom of an otherwise completed automobile.�
Jan 26, 2015
RubberToe On the Insight, you couldn't take it to a regular car wash that had tire brushes. The wheel covers had two bolts that needed to be unfastened with a special tool to uncover the wheel. Then you needed to align the cover and slide it upward and then refasten the two bolts to put it back on. Extraordinary PITA. For a significant % of the population, that would be a complete non-starter. So I'm thinking they won't do this.
RT�
Jan 26, 2015
Rheazombi
Sounds like a design flaw of the insight, not wheel covers in general. Some clever engineering could have the wheels uncovered at the touch of a button with some robotic mechanism (like the trunk's auto closing).�
Jan 26, 2015
BerTX As an owner of an Insight with the wheel spats, I agree they are "different". I don't find them difficult to remove (on mine, the "special tool" required is called a "screwdriver"), but they do create a few issues other than just appearance. Tire and wheel choices are limited because of reduced clearance. Having tires rotated or replaced requires the owner to remove the covers, since they do take a bit of knowledge to get them back on securely, and you definitely don't want to lose one -- they are expensive to replace!
I like the idea of having the car appear "normal" in city driving, where the aerodynamics are less critical, then having a series of changes occur as speed increases, to improve aerodynamics. Your powered covers could slide into place when speed gets over 50 mph.�
Jan 26, 2015
pmadflyer I thought about the idea of sliding wheel covers as I read your post, BerTX. I can't get the image out of my mind of the "winking," retractable headlights of an older car. Or getting in a fender bender and having a wheel cover that slides only half way out, adding insult to injury.�
Jan 26, 2015
Rheazombi I dunno, I like the idea. They could make it look cool and Transformers-y. Could be the best of both worlds - it's all in the execution.�
Jan 26, 2015
beths11 I am disappointed at seeing pictures skimpily clad women on this site. I have enjoyed the high level of discussion and sharp wit. Sad to see it taken to such a low level.�
Jan 26, 2015
aronth5 Agree, certainly in bad taste and based on the criticism I suspect it won't be repeated.�
Jan 26, 2015
bluenation one day, we will stop shaming the human body and accept expressions of sexuality as something other than deviance...�
Jan 27, 2015
Rheazombi I'm no prude but there is a perpetuation of a stereotype that only guys like to oogle cars, hence booth babes, pinup girl car posters etc. Wish there was more equal opportunity for oogling but I rarely see hot dudes posing suggestively next to a car
Regardless, there's not much appreciation for the human form going into that shot of that chick's butt crack. Just sayin.
Anywho, so hows about those Model 3 renders, eh ppl?�
Jan 27, 2015
sjd I don't usually like to combine my love of cars and my love of pornography so I see no need for these pictures on the site.
There are however, exceptions and there are some excellent retro hot rod pinup websites with the girls usually pretty clothed. Not to mention curvy and tattooed.
Back to the Model3. I don't care for any side skirts even retracting ones. They fall under weirdmobile to me. This car has to be beautiful.�
Jan 27, 2015
JRP3 I used to hate the side skirt look, but I suspect that was because they were poorly executed. I think they can be done well, and one of my favorite examples is the VW X1
I realize not all will like the look, but I don't see why they couldn't be easily removable and/or optional. I also like the look of the aero front wheels, much better than Tesla's aero attempt, which I hope will never be repeated :scared: Maybe a more curved "spoke" pattern would be nicer. Also an active louver system where rotational forces close off the wheel openings at speed might be interesting.�
Jan 27, 2015
sjd See to me the X1 is a weirdmobile. Yes, I understand why it is like that but Tesla has shown that EV's can be beautiful.�
Jan 27, 2015
JRP3 I've come to appreciate the sexiness of well designed aerodynamics. :smile: Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And to be clear, I think Tesla can do a much better design and still end up with great aero. If Tesla does not offer wheel skirts I will probably make my own, at least to test out the potential improvements.�
Jan 27, 2015
bluenation there is a evolutionary biological reason for this
(unless you dont believe in evolution in which case,....nvm)
on topic: as long as the 3 doesnt look like the aborted fetus (fetii?) of its EV competitors, i think we have little to worry about.�
Jan 28, 2015
trils0n Aerodynamic vehicles look like airplanes to me. (That is a good thing!) Model S has a very airplane vibe, and the X1 as well. Other cars look so busy next to the Tesla. Accent and style lines galore. You don't see many useless creases and style lines on airplanes, and most still look awesome.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét