Next Gen Tesla Sportscar

[jcstp]

In my mind, there is room for making a classy coupé and convertible on Model-S-chassis!
A bit like the way the BMW 6 is based on the BMW 5-séries chassis!

 

[stopcrazypp]

If they do decide to build another sports car, I'd expect it to be more of a luxury sports car - something quite a bit larger, with rear seats, and derived from the Model S platform.

I expect that also, something like jcstp mentioned, a coupe and/or convertible based on the Model S chassis, kind of like what Fisker is doing with the Karma Sunset.
A next gen Roadster might be a good halo car, but doesn't seem to make as much sense given all the work done on the Model S chassis. The only way that kind of makes sense is perhaps a shortened/lightened Model S chassis so most of the components can be reused. It'll basically almost be a Model S "Sport" coupe except only two seats and maybe some significant styling/performance changes.

 

[S-2000 Roadster]

Keep in mind that Tesla Motors may have already saturated the market for cramped, electric two-seaters. Americans like huge, oversized vehicles, which I imagine is why Tesla Motors changed their original plan from making a practical car as their third model to making a big SUV as the Model X. The U.S. Roadster 2.5 did sell out when the announcement was made that this summer was the last, but the added 100 Roadsters (50/50 US/EU+) have been slow to sell. I predict that if Tesla Motors tried to make 10,000 Roadsters, they wouldn't really be able to sell them (unless the price was significantly less, but that does complicate the predictions).

I compare the Honda Insight hybrid, made between 2000 and 2006, 88 mpg EPA. Those are way more efficient than the Prius, but the Prius sells in larger numbers because it is a larger vehicle. Unless the general driving public is educated on drag area and energy efficiency, they're not going to easily downsize to a 2-door, 2-seater in large numbers. I believe that the only reason Honda discontinued this version of the Insight (replacing it with a much larger vehicle) is that they effectively saturated the market. These days, the used Insight market seems capable of fully servicing the demand.

Between the fact that the "new roadster" being discussed is not a roadster, and the less-than-popular nature of small, 2-seater vehicles, I'd say that it will be a long time before Tesla Motors considers making a few thousand Roadster 3.0 models. Model R, anyone?

 

[AnOutsider]

Americans like huge, oversized vehicles, which I imagine is why Tesla Motors changed their original plan from making a practical car as their third model to making a big SUV as the Model X.

I'm willing to bet squeezing as much money as possible out of the Model S platform also contributed

The U.S. Roadster 2.5 did sell out when the announcement was made that this summer was the last, but the added 100 Roadsters (50/50 US/EU+) have been slow to sell. I predict that if Tesla Motors tried to make 10,000 Roadsters, they wouldn't really be able to sell them (unless the price was significantly less, but that does complicate the predictions).

I don't know, personally, I didn't get one because of the size and the looks. There are plenty of other 2-seaters on the market that look better (IMO), but have more interior space. Price is likely part of it as well, but that's not stopping Porsche, Audi and others from moving them.

I compare the Honda Insight hybrid, made between 2000 and 2006, 88 mpg EPA. Those are way more efficient than the Prius, but the Prius sells in larger numbers because it is a larger vehicle.

Personally I think marketing and design also played a big part of that. The original Insight was a weird looking quirky car. They made the Prius look more like a car a normal person would drive.

I believe that the only reason Honda discontinued this version of the Insight (replacing it with a much larger vehicle) is that they effectively saturated the market.

I don't get the "saturating the market" bit (here or about the roadster). They didn't sell well... that's saturating?

Between the fact that the "new roadster" being discussed is not a roadster, and the less-than-popular nature of small, 2-seater vehicles, I'd say that it will be a long time before Tesla Motors considers making a few thousand Roadster 3.0 models. Model R, anyone?

I think they can still make a 2-seater (or even 4 seater) sports car and not have it as tiny as the current roadster. I'm happy with a performance car from Tesla, doesn't need to meet the official definition of a "roadster" (I'd prefer it didn't actually).

 

[Kevin Harney]

What I would like to see is something along the lines of BMW 3 series convertible out of the S platform instead of a Roadster 3.0.

 

[vfx]

.... They made the Prius look more like a car a normal person would drive....

First time I've heard anyone say this.

 

[AnOutsider]

First time I've heard anyone say this.

VS

imo the Prius is far easier to digest.

 

[jcstp]

sons of the same mother, but different fathers I guess!
Or the other way round!

 

[doug]

See also this thread: Next gen Roadster

 

[S-2000 Roadster]

Personally I think marketing and design also played a big part of that. The original Insight was a weird looking quirky car. They made the Prius look more like a car a normal person would drive.

I don't get the "saturating the market" bit (here or about the roadster). They didn't sell well... that's saturating?

No, I'm not saying that. Usually, when a car doesn't sell well, you never see it again and it continues to sell poorly in the used market. In contrast, I see several examples of the 1999-2006 Honda Insight driving around Seattle all the time, and when they appear as a used vehicle at the dealership, they sell really fast. So, what I am saying is that a finite number of people want to drive that smaller car to get the 88 mpg, but that this market of people is entirely served by the existing cars. Honda cannot really produce any more of them because the people who want them already have one or would prefer to spend less on a used one.

It all goes back to my observation that the American public believes that larger vehicles are safer, and that they're unwilling to drive a smaller car despite the laws of physics (conservation of momentum, drag area, etc.).

As for the looks, it's a matter of personal taste. I did think the Insight looked a little awkward when I first saw it, but it is an example of form following function. I even considered taking off the wheel covers to get a more typical look. Now I think it's cute, and I'd be willing to maintain the aerodynamic wheel covers to save gas. On the other hand, the Prius is butt-ugly, always has been, and always will be - I can't ever see myself considering it to be a thing of beauty, but I guess there are a lot of other ugly cars on the read. Toyota already had the ugly Yaris before the Prius, and there was nothing about that design that is necessary for energy efficiency. The Prius doesn't even look aerodynamic - it looks like a wedge-shaped wind-brake. Admittedly, it's quite aerodynamic for its size, but a smaller Prius would be more efficient, and they could also make it look a lot more palatable without sacrificing the aerodynamics they have.

As for the tiny size of the Roadster, I totally agree that it is not for everyone. But a larger sports car will be less efficient. The tiny area of the front of the Roadster is part of what maximizes its energy utilization. For all single drivers and couples who drive as a pair, these tiny - or at least short - cars are going to use less energy than something like the Smart which is very tall. This is less of an issue if you never get on the freeway, which is why the Smart is a good option for in-city-only driving under 30 mph. But whenever I see someone crossing Lake Washington at 60 mph in a Smart that's taller than the SUVs on the freeway, I can't help but think the opposite of Smart.

 

[vfx]

The first Prius looked like a normal car as you showed. Then Toyota brilliantly realized that the car HAD to look unique and unsual so people could advertise thier green cred.

comparison.

 

[Bud]

Prius owners are among the most intelligent and successful people I know, and the least concerned about their automotive image. That particular attempt at explanation of the phenomenal success of the Prius seems a bit, well, smug.

 

[TEG]

The first Prius looked like a normal car as you showed. Then Toyota brilliantly realized that the car HAD to look unique and unsual so people could advertise thier green cred.

comparison...

Not sure if you noticed, VFX, but your Prius picture was of a prototype, not a production model.

 

[vfx]

Not sure if you noticed, VFX, but your Prius picture was of a prototype, not a production model.

I stand by my post.

 

[vfx]

Prius owners are among the most intelligent and successful people I know, and the least concerned about their automotive image. That particular attempt at explanation of the phenomenal success of the Prius seems a bit, well, smug.

Not sure if this is directed at me. I am willing to back my statement if it was.

 

[ChadS]

The first Prius looked like a normal car as you showed. Then Toyota brilliantly realized that the car HAD to look unique and unsual so people could advertise thier green cred.

I've never bought that argument. Usually it goes "the Prius sold better than the Honda Civic Hybrid, but it looks weird, so people must like the weird looks". But as a person that made that particular comparison several years ago, that's exactly backwards. I wanted a Honda Civic Hybrid because I'd had great luck with many Hondas--they usually have the best mpg in their segment--and I thought the Civic looked much better than the Prius.

But the looks were the only advantage the Honda had. The Prius was the same price, and had a bigger back seat, bigger cargo area, and most importantly--notably better mpg; and that's what people looking at those cars are trying to get. I bought the Prius despite the fact that it looked weird--other advantages outweighed that.

I later bought a 2003 RAV4-EV. It looks very normal and gets ignored all the time. But I like it a lot better than the Prius because it burns less gas.

 

[TEG]

Yep. I thought the Civic is the best looking of Civic/Leaf/Prius, but the others win on technological prowess.
Honda builds reliable little engines, but their hybrid technology isn't as good as Toyota's.
If Honda had made a Civic with EV drivetrain I would have likely gone with it instead of the Leaf.

 

[S-2000 Roadster]

With all else equal, a skateboard design implies a taller seating position and thus a taller vehicle. Air drag, which accounts for most of the power on the highway, goes up with area. For rough numbers, increasing the height from four feet to five feet implies 25% more drag and requires maybe 20% more power, yielding something like that much less highway range for an EV. Wow, what a concept!

Uh, no. A skateboard design implies any seating position you care to put onto it. Without the engine blocking your view, you could lay the drive prone.

You both make good points. While the skateboard does allow prone seating, it cannot actually allow the seating arrangement afforded by the Lotus chassis. In the Tesla Roadster, we are actually sitting below the top of the structural members of the frame. You can't really do that with the Model S platform unless you move the batteries out of the way and hollow out a spot for the driver (and passenger).

I don't think Bud's comments are "bashing" or "sour grapes" as others have suggested. Instead, I think that too few people consider the physics of taller cars. The Smart is a ridiculously tall vehicle - taller than most SUVs on the freeway - and it doesn't make sense to drive that kind of car outside the city or above 30 mph, and certainly not for long distances on the freeway at 60 mph. I realize that many people have to sit on a bar stool to drive their bread trucks and FedEx/UPS delivery trucks, but distance commuters without significant cargo should seriously consider their wind profile and seek vehicles with lower drag area than most cars offer. The Honda CRX HF (50 mpg EPA) and original Honda Insight (61 mpg EPA, 88 mpg actual) have near the lowest drag area of any production vehicle, and I think Tesla should offer cars with similarly low drag area along with their 7-seater models.

P.S. Earlier today, I was considering the possibilities for a pickup truck variation on the Tesla Roadster; one which maintains the low profile but has a wide, long bed for storing large flat objects. Obviously, such a vehicle could not carry tall things, but if you need to transport relief maps or other large documents that maybe cannot be rolled up, or anything else that is sizable in two dimensions but not the third like sheets of glass, then there seems to be an opportunity for a new class of cargo vehicle that has a very low drag area. No idea how much cargo that fits these dimensional constraints is moved around these days, but if Tesla Motors designs a reusable platform then perhaps it would not take a great deal of work to alter the body this way.

 

[jcstp]

P.S. Earlier today, I was considering the possibilities for a pickup truck variation on the Tesla Roadster; one which maintains the low profile but has a wide, long bed for storing large flat objects. Obviously, such a vehicle could not carry tall things, but if you need to transport relief maps or other large documents that maybe cannot be rolled up, or anything else that is sizable in two dimensions but not the third like sheets of glass, then there seems to be an opportunity for a new class of cargo vehicle that has a very low drag area. No idea how much cargo that fits these dimensional constraints is moved around these days, but if Tesla Motors designs a reusable platform then perhaps it would not take a great deal of work to alter the body this way.

Is this the kind of car you want?

A chevrolet camino ss