Model 3 won't look like other cars

[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.

 

[Model 3]

I think the only way it can be freaky is if it is absolutely AMAZING in all other categories.

But that is a thing we know it will be, don't we?

 

[Johann Koeber]

OUCH. Hurts the eye.

Hmmmm, maybe will get used to it.

 

[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.

 

[Yggdrasill]

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.

As I mentioned before, I think Elons comment suggests the implementation of the falcon wing doors.

 

[Bearman]

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.

Agree, the mirai and i3 look like dog turds because they must not be able to compete on an equal level.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I think you can forget about Falcon wing doors on the III, if for no other reason that cost containment.

There's no reason why the doors have to be particularly expensive.

 

[tga]

There's no reason why the doors have to be particularly expensive.

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.

 

[wart]

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.

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.

 

[tga]

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.

Yeah, I guess that pesky emergency egress could be an issue... :wink:

 

[AudubonB]

How do you get out of the car after a crash in which it ends up upside down?

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.

 

[Yggdrasill]

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.

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.

 

[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:

 

[wart]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Model 3]

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.

Agree on the Lotos/Tata doors present here But a falcon wing door done right might be the right thing.... Maybe. Guess it may be a bit better then the rotary drop down doors?
http://www.disappearing-car-door.com/slideshow/show/phpslideshow.php?directory=pics&currentPic=0

 

[malcolm]

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.

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.

 

[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-c...-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.

 

[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).

 

[roblab]

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?

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.