Side-by-side comparison of prototypes shows how Tesla botched the production redesign process

[cvalue13]

And I have yet to see anyone with enough integrity to place a bet involving eating a shoe/hat/etc and then following through with said bet when they lose. It's an easy bet to make if you never intend to follow through. But that also indicates a low level of trustworthiness and reliability. Just saying.

I once spent a day being interviewed by this gentleman:

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

No need to assume surprise is a negative outcome.

you’re so eager to smash your “defend Tesla” button you don’t even care to follow the conversation?

I would be “surprised” if Tesla didn’t speed/conditions limit its active air suspension, because - in order of importance - not doing so would be unsafe, cause excessive mechanical wear (if only of the tires), and create poor performance.

that you’re - what - arguing? against that, with platitudes about Tesla behind great, is just…

… weird

 

[FutureBoy]

you’re so eager to smash your “defend Tesla” button you don’t even care to follow the conversation?

I would be “surprised” if Tesla didn’t speed/conditions limit its active air suspension, because - in order of importance - not doing so would be unsafe, cause excessive mechanical wear (if only of the tires), and create poor performance.

that you’re - what - arguing? against that, with platitudes about Tesla behind great, is just…

… weird

As I said before

Personally I'm not betting one way or another on any features.

I'm not arguing, for or against. Just noting that you're so certain that you are committing to eating your shoe over a feature and specific functionality that no one outside Tesla has any idea how it will function.

In my experience, Tesla has surprised everyone before. I wouldn't commit myself to eating a shoe over my certainty that I know what Tesla will do.

And isn't it curious that you keep trying to respond to someone you think doesn't

even care to follow the conversation

 

[cvalue13]

And isn't it curious that you keep trying to respond to someone you think doesn't

you @‘d me

 

[LiveFreeOrDieBob]

if that’s true, it would be the first adaptable air suspension from an OEM that would allow that sort of behavior

Until Tesla shocks and surprises by ignoring/changing the reasons for that, I’m gonna stick with assuming that those reasons continue to apply

Are you sure? My wife’s Audi SQ5 alllows you to change suspension height by drive mode or manually at any point. Teh only one you can’t use on the highway is “off-road”.

 

[Ogre]

I disagree. As previously mentioned by others, I'm very impressed at how close the production vehicle is to the concept. It looks very close, and still looks unlike anything on the road today.
I like the tighter overall appearance. The thicker bumper makes the front end look more balanced. I like the mirrors, and I can live with the BAW.

In this picture, the front end looks practically indistinguishable from the concept from the bumper up.

Also, the term "botched" is more appropriately applied to GM and the Chevy Bolt.

Bolt was almost decent when it launched. It’s the years in between the Bolt launch and now which have been a never ending train wreck.

 

[cvalue13]

Are you sure? My wife’s Audi SQ5 alllows you to change suspension height by drive mode or manually at any point. Teh only one you can’t use on the highway is “off-road”.

Yes and I’m not saying, and have never said, there won’t be permitted manual adjustments.

But just as your wife’s sedan has speed/conditions limited parameters, restricting half of its articulable range, so too I expect the CT to have such limits.

Probably moreso. Where your wife’s Audi can adjust ~3” total (from full down to full up), the CT may have ~3 times that articulation, and from a base tire height already several inches taller.

It’s really not a controversial point, as your wife’s Audi shows, that the CT will be unlikely to let people cruise the highway in higher/offroad modes.

 

[Kami]

I feel like I'm going to be scraping these hub caps just like I do with my 3

 

[anionic1]

Can anyone actually prove that the bumper change had anything to do with safety or crash mitigation. I hear that said a lot and people throw out NHTSA codes without showing specific examples of the change. Would Tesla really put bumpers on a prototype knowing they wouldn’t meet safety standards?

 

[JWass]

Dude put down the pipe. I have no idea what you’re thinking. How many production vehicles have you ever seen come out this close to the concept?!?

The bumper and front changes were probably required for pedestrian safety regulations. The other changes were more than likely done to make it at the price point you would want it to be in addition to other production compromises.

The length and width changes sound like they were intentional for all good reasons, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[cvalue13]

Can anyone actually prove that the bumper change had anything to do with safety or crash mitigation. I hear that said a lot and people throw out NHTSA codes without showing specific examples of the change. Would Tesla really put bumpers on a prototype knowing they wouldn’t meet safety standards?

the original bumper was metal - that don’t work

the original bumper wasn’t optimized for aero/range - that don’t work

 

[anionic1]

the original bumper was metal - that don’t work

the original bumper wasn’t optimized for aero/range - that don’t work

This is exactly what people have been saying for years with no proof. What exactly does the code say. I have a 2000's Ford truck with a metal bumper in my driveway right now. There is no way that the new bumper is more aerodynamic than the original. it has much more cross sectional surface area.

 

[cvalue13]

This is exactly what people have been saying for years with no proof. What exactly does the code say. I have a 2000's Ford truck with a metal bumper in my driveway right now. -

I was using shorthand for brevity, but if you're interested in double-clicking

It's not that 'metal' bumpers are prohibited, it's that the bumpers must meet certain collision standards that tend to cause OEM's to use plastic/honeycomb/etc. in order to satisfy those requirements.

49 CFR Part 581, “The bumper standard,” prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2½ mph across the full width and 1½ mph on the corners.​

​

This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.​

There is no way that the new bumper is more aerodynamic than the original. it has much more cross sectional surface area.

This comment just betrays a lock of understanding of basic aerodynamics.

• Is cross-sectional surface area bad for aero, all else equal? Sure. But other effects on aero can outweight the increase in cross-sectional area.
• Also, you appear to be incorrect that the new bumpers increase cross-sectional area: in the original prototype, there was still cross-sectional area below that bumper, it was just bumpy/lumpy stuff back up under the nose of the truck.

For a convenient example of both points above, see for example the areo deflectors now in front of the front wheels. On one hand, these are not increasing the cross-sectional area of the truck (because the wheel are behind them, which also represent cross-sectional area if exposed to the front); on the other hand, even if they did increase cross-sectional area, they are designed to better move the around and below the tires and wheel wells, avoiding the larger costs of that turbulence on overall Cd.

And since @PilotPete is watching these days ( ): none of which is to suggest I'm an aero expert; instead it's to suggest that I don't think one is needed to understand this level of basics.

But Pilot will correct me (and I welcome it) if I've too outside my curriculum vitae.

 

[PilotPete]

I was using shorthand for brevity, but if you're interested in double-clicking

It's not that 'metal' bumpers are prohibited, it's that the bumpers must meet certain collision standards that tend to cause OEM's to use plastic/honeycomb/etc. in order to satisfy those requirements.

49 CFR Part 581, “The bumper standard,” prescribes performance requirements for passenger cars in low-speed front and rear collisions. It applies to front and rear bumpers on passenger cars to prevent the damage to the car body and safety related equipment at barrier impact speeds of 2½ mph across the full width and 1½ mph on the corners.​

​

This is equivalent to a 5 mph crash into a parked vehicle of the same weight. The standard requires protection in the region 16 to 20 inches above the road surface and the manufacturer can provide the protection by any means it wants. For example, some vehicles do not have a solid bumper across the vehicle, but meet the standard by strategically placed bumper guards and corner guards.​

This comment just betrays a lock of understanding of basic aerodynamics.

• Is cross-sectional surface area bad for aero, all else equal? Sure. But other effects on aero can outweight the increase in cross-sectional area.
• Also, you appear to be incorrect that the new bumpers increase cross-sectional area: in the original prototype, there was still cross-sectional area below that bumper, it was just bumpy/lumpy stuff back up under the nose of the truck.

For a convenient example of both points above, see for example the areo deflectors now in front of the front wheels. On one hand, these are not increasing the cross-sectional area of the truck (because the wheel are behind them, which also represent cross-sectional area if exposed to the front); on the other hand, even if they did increase cross-sectional area, they are designed to better move the around and below the tires and wheel wells, avoiding the larger costs of that turbulence on overall Cd.

And since @PilotPete is watching these days ( ): none of which is to suggest I'm an aero expert; instead it's to suggest that I don't think one is needed to understand this level of basics.

But Pilot will correct me (and I welcome it) if I've too outside my curriculum vitae.

LOL!
no, my brother, you are spot on, as always.

still laughing

Sponsored