Wow, tough crowd here
. Geez guys, I have a day job!
Brianman said:
The space between the letters of "MODEL" is good, but you need more between "MODEL" and "S". It blends together into "MODELS" quickly, especially at a distance.
I'll try to tweak this.
Brianman said:
The "MODEL S" font looks normal or thin, while the rest of the sheet looks bold or thick. I prefer the former. Especially for the specifications section. I'd go
with a "generally thinner" font but still sans serif family.
I'll try to tweak. I wanted to be careful to make sure the text is still visible from a distance.
Brianman said:
I think your previous "on the road" (instead of "of any car") works better from a correctness standpoint, and because it keeps "any car" from showing up on two lines in a row.
I'll tweak.
Brianman said:
I think you bolded "for life" but it doesn't really show up well. Italics might. But it might also look too busy.
Will give this a try.
Brianman said:
If you want to have a little (more) fun with it put a small font disclaimer below the specifications box. With text something like...
Warning: Tesla Model S is known to cause a persistent grin for occupants of the driver seat. Do not test drive unless you plan to buy. Because you will once you do.
Funny idea. Not sure if it will fit, but I'll try it out.
vfx said:
Consider moving asterisk to after the )*
Will do.
mnx said:
May I suggest that saying "American car maker Tesla Motors in Fremont Calfornia" is redundant? Everyone knows California is in the US right?
Also a good point.
Martini said:
I would eliminate the box of bullet points in the middle as it is largely redundant to the text above and specifications below,
Not quite redundant, IMHO, but I'll be tweaking these.
Martini said:
Also, the picture of the blue car is slightly higher than the red one, so I would level those out (you might also consider eliminating the blue one and sticking with the red only, in larger scale).
I'll level them out. That's the highest resolution I can find. Any larger and they'll look bad when printed--plus I want to show a front quarter and rear quarter view.
Martini said:
Under the specifications, you might consider changing the unit for charge rate from MPH to "time for full charge", as MPH has a different common understanding.
I recognize that, but if people can't figure it out, and they care, they'll ask. The problem with using "time for full charge" is that charge rate tapers dramatically near high
SOC. When using the Supercharger network, they're spaced such that you don't have to fill 'em up. As a result your charge stop is much shorter.
For instance, at a Supercharger you might just stay 30 minutes to get 50% (150 miles) of charge (if you come in near a low SOC), which sounds much better than saying that an empty-to-full Supercharge takes ~1.5 hours.
Martini said:
For operating cost, I would delete the second "approx" as it is redundant.
Well the cost per gallon makes a different set of assumptions (such as 30 MPG), so they aren't really redundant...but you're right--I'll try to merge these two.
Martini said:
The 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are claims for a specific car (the same car or two different ones?)
Same car.
martini said:
while the price is given for a couple of different configurations.
They are all prices for the performance version. The only difference is in options (sunroof, sound upgrade, etc.)
martini said:
You should give specifications either for the specific vehicle displayed or use Tesla's numbers as they give them.
I am using Tesla's numbers as they give them. Just like in auto shows, when they give a "base price" and a "fully equipped" price. Only difference here is I'm using a base performance price, not base 40 kWh price.
martini said:
The black bar containing the text "MODEL S" divides the Tesla "T" logo and makes the bottom part of the logo look like a bit of an orphan. You might consider using transparency to clarify this.
I'll fiddle with this.
mknox said:
Is it actually the quickest American sedan? GM's official 0-60 numbers for the Cadillac CTS-V is 3.9 seconds (with the standard 551 HP V8).
Motor Trend and another article (was it Road & Track? Car and Driver?) confirmed this. Google "Model S quickest American Sedan". 3.9 s for the CTS-V is a marketing number. From the comments I've seen from reputable car magazines, the P85 is quicker.
arondaniel said:
Good job on the poster, very informative. Have fun at the auto show. Where exactly is it? I think I'll be in town that weekend, but will be a hard sell for my wife.
Thanks! I believe it will be in Carrollton, VA...but not quite sure yet. It's probably not going to be some gigantic show...just a local area car show.
arondaniel said:
Listing the specs for model s is kinda tricky, it looks like your specs on the poster are for MSP, and your car is a MS 80kwh?
I have the non-perf 85 kWh model. I have no problem showing specs for the performance version. It's a car show. It's about getting respect for Tesla and EVs in general. I'm going to post the numbers for the top of the line model. If someone asks, I'll tell them mine is the non-perf model. Not a big deal IMHO.
bbmertz said:
I would prefer to keep the middle text box, but revise the third bullet to read as "Free access to Tesla supercharger network." Overall, great work, Todd!
Thanks--I'll revise this.
ToddRLockwood said:
The only thing I would change is the Operating Cost. 3-cents/mile won't mean much to the average person. Instead, I would give them the average cost to go 300 miles.
Hmmm...good point. I think the 90cents/gallon sure makes sense...but yes, cost for 300 miles seems better than cost per mile!
vfx said:
Lemme incorporate these 500 other changes and I'll give it a try
.
celter said:
I think you should use the same colour on the cars.
Me too. Alas, I live in a world with limited available staged photos of the Model S--and unfortunately don't have that luxury. I think it's OK to show two different colors though.
