[slipangel]

As an auto enthusiast, I generally feel "yucky" after surveying the comments and feedback following a Tesla press release. C&D and MotorTrend generally bias hard for anything American made, which is fine and par for the course. My discomfort comes from the feeling that journalists are making the Model S out to be a competitive alternative to a high performance automobile, which it is not.

A Model S can't make a single lap in anger around Mazda Raceway without the software putting it in limp mode to prevent heat build up from causing permanent damage. A half-day jaunt through twisty mountain roads is absolutely out of the question. It is a car that can drag race from a stop, hit a freeway on-ramp with some gusto, and give you carbon-free credentials the rest of the time.

No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance is cross-shopping a Model S as a like-for-like option, but the press consistently paints the picture that Tesla is a gas-free alternative or even superior to current offerings. I don't intend to degrade what it is, because it is a marvel of modern business, politics, and a little engineering that this car exists. I simply feel gross when I see how much hype puts it up for the Model S being something it isn't.

[icandownvote]

Drive one. Rent/borrow one for a day: it's possible and doable. Take it to a mountain road, take corners faster than you should, then report back.

I owned and tracked E46 M and E37 M Roadster. Sold the last one when I got my Model S. Now I will never go back to an Internal Combustion Engine. Yes, the Model S is not an M3 and won't last through a lap on any decent raceway. But it's not the goal. It's beyond adequate for everyday driving AND for fun through the mountain curves. It's got impeccably precise throttle response, unbelievable lateral grip and no body roll due to incredibly low center of gravity. The fact that it's fully charged every morning for nearly free, that the juice is free in the superchargers and that it's cargo volume and crash safety are out of its class, is just icing on top. The point is: for ALL uses (but tracking) this $70-120K car is better than anything in the $100-300K category.

My friends own 997 4S, E93 M, Viper, E39 M, F10 M, S6 and whatever the GTR Nizmo is (all US spec). Some of them are tracked, some are not. Half of them have deposits down for a Model S.

Another point: Juan Pablo Montoya owns one and uses it as his daily driver.

[mikestew]

> No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance

Yeah, but how many of those folks exist? I can't count the number of times I'm stuck behind an M3, 911, or AMG on the uphill chicane entrance ramp I frequent in my Nissan Leaf wishing Mr. SlowPoke in his $80K car would give it some stick. Oh, they're trying as evidenced by them gunning it up the straight part, but as soon as that ramp goes anywhere but straight they're testing the throttle-lift oversteer. (The ramp goes to the Microsoft campus, so I get to test this theory frequently.)

People more often than not buy a car because of the badge on the back end, not because they're doing track days. They'll punch it in a straight line from a stoplight and that's about the extent of their performance testing. For that use case, the Tesla does just fine.

[forrestthewoods]

But 98% of M3, 911, or AMG owners will never take their car to the track or engage in such long-duration, high-performance jaunts. So I don't think the comparison is as unfair as you make it out to be.

[justin66]

Realistically, it's probably more like 99.9%, if we're talking about new car purchasers. Out of the box these are trophies, not race cars.

I bet the percentage of people taking their car to the track is actually quite a bit higher if we're talking about, for example, used 911s. I don't know if that will hold true forever, though. There are a lot of super expensive parts on the newest cars.

[scott_karana]

I'm not sure about your statistics.

Yes, many drivers won't ever drive them to a track; however, when you look at general attendance at public road courses, 911s (and less-so M3s) appear to be grossly overrepresented in proportion to their street popularity.

I wish we had better data to work with here.

[seanflyon]

I think it is safe to say that less than 2% of automobiles are ever driven on a track, so assuming the 98% figure is correct, you would expect to see exactly what you describe.

If 2% of 911s and M3s were regularly driven on a track, I would expect tracks to be full of them.

[scott_karana]

By that logic, tracks would be filled with the Camry, Corolla, Civic, and Accord, but that's not the case...

[seanflyon]

I think you took my comment to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

[andykellr]

As a Tesla owner, I actually feel like the press is too generous in their comparisons to similarly priced vehicles. Unless I was buying a car for a special purpose like track racing, I can't imagine spending the same amount or more on a legacy vehicle with a lower passenger capacity, less storage space, more mechanical complexity, and the constant hassle of having to stop to buy gas.

We're in the process of replacing our second car and that will end up being less than half the price of the Tesla. But if I were going to spend > 60k, I would buy a second Tesla without the slightest hesitation.

In 37k miles I've never experienced limp mode and don't know much about it. I regularly drive for over 2 hours at Midwest highway speeds.

Can you describe your half-day jaunt through the mountains in more detail? I'm having trouble figuring out how this is out of the question.

[DEinspanjer]

While I don't agree with the tone or much of what the grandparent poster said, the "limp mode" is arguably true. Several people who have taken their P85 or P85+ to a track and run it hard have quickly hit slow-downs due to overheating. You can do some searching on teslamotorsclub.com for details if you are interested.

Having previously taken our S85 into the White Mountains for vacation, I can agree that it would be tough to get even 200 miles out of a single charge. The elevation changes, steep grades at highway speed, and especially the occasional strong winds will sap away the battery much faster than you'd want. We were able to get by just fine with a small amount of foresight and planning, but that is something many people don't want to deal with.

Granted, those factors would all hit an ICE just the same, but people are comfortable with the ability to pull over into even a tiny backroad town and find a gas station somewhere. That is a valid complaint.

[not_with_retard]

Those same gas stations also have power outlets if need be.

[DEinspanjer]

Yeah, but I would never provide that as an argument for equability. Charging from a 110 volt outlet typically provides as little as 3 miles of range per hour of charge, and I have personally experienced the FUD factor from various business owners when I have tried to make charging arrangements on a long trip, including one RV park owner who insisted that plugging my car in to one of his RV outlets would likely cause an explosion or at least set fire to it. :/

[jotux]

>constant hassle of having to stop to buy gas

I agree with the other benefits you highlight, but the model s has a similar range to most gas vehicles. You could just as easily complain about the constant hassle to stop and charge your model s (and the fact that charging stations are less common than gas stations).

[andykellr]

I don't typically drive more than 250 miles a day, so I charge at home almost exclusively. Everyday I start with a full charge.

Imagine every few days having to take your cell phone to a special store to charge it. That's what we've been doing with cars and we just accept it as an inherent part of car ownership.

Fueling at home is extremely liberating, more than making up for the rare need to find a charger.

[chrisBob]

If an electric car is your daily driver then you charge it each night, and never worry about how many more commuting trips you can make before you have to stop at the gas station. In one sense you are filling up every day, and at the same time you never have to worry you will be late in the morning because you have to stop and fill up.

Road trips are a completely different issue. For me, trips over 200 miles happen once every few months, and I think I get out more than a lot of people do.

[uniformlyrandom]

Also, it still weighs 4830lb.

Yes, the weight is better distributed - but in the sharp turn on the curvy road, I am more worried about the inertia rather than the body roll.

[umsm]

I don't own a high-performance car and have never driven a Model S, but to me this car is truly unique in it's category.

You can't compare the Model S with gas-powered engines that had many decades to be refined. Considering everything, the Model S appears to have made a larger jump than any other car in recent history.

It's not designed to be raced on a track, but it does give you an edge in some situations where any other EV or most gas powered vehicles won't.

[rebootthesystem]

> You can't compare the Model S with gas-powered engines that had many decades to be refined.

Well, there's nothing in a Model S that is earth shattering in terms of technology.

The batteries are used in laptops and model airplanes. That technology has been around for ages and continues to improve well outside of the automotive industry.

We've known how to make super high efficiency electric motors for, well, I am only guessing, a century [1]. Large electric motors that are over 90% efficient were built decades ago. With the shift to brushless Cobalt and Neodymium based motors we've been able to shrink them and increase their output power. Again, I'll use the example of the early pioneers in model airplane electric flight who were building high efficiency 2KW motors that fit in the palm of your hand decades ago. Switched reluctance drives have also been around for decades, they can deliver insane amounts of power in a very small volume with no magnets and really good efficiency. Control is more difficult.

If I had to guess I would suggest that the advances brought forth by Tesla have been in control and safety. Building a huge battery pack that is safe in a crash requires careful engineering. They had to figure that out. Of course, they build their own motors and have developed their own advanced control electronics for these motors. The rest is, if I dare say, standard automotive engineering work.

Again, not diminishing Tesla in any way. I am just countering the "walking on water" aura that seems to orbit around anything Tesla. They should be praised for what seems like flawless execution and laser-like market focus. They are building a fantastic world-class high-end electric car. And it is fantastic. Supernatural? No. A work of engineering art? Absolutely.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor

[umsm]

> Well, there's nothing in a Model S that is earth shattering in terms of technology.

Of course the car or company is not supernatural. But there's a HUGE difference between saying "anyone could have done it" and ACTUALLY doing it. That's the key to understanding the reviews.

I am not sure anyone is reviewing the electric motors. They are not reviewing how efficient their motor is or even how small it is. They are reviewing the car as a whole.

I believe you can say similar things of any market leader. Rarely does someone change a market and invent great technology or are involved in engineering marvels. But they do solve the problem in such a way that is significantly gives them a lead.

[nawitus]

Is Tesla the market leader? Nissan's Leaf is the best selling electric car in history.

[rebootthesystem]

I don't think we disagree. As I pointed out, they excel at execution. Few ideas in electrics are new. This could very well segue into a discussion about patents, because some of the same issues exist there.

Given enough funding, a team of capable engineers and a solid vision (both of which are present at Tesla and other companies) the expectation of results should be the norm, not the exception. We, as engineers, are trained to solve problems using the scientific process.

To use battery packs as an example, there are probably thousands of engineering teams around the world who could design excellent battery packs that could withstand the rigors of automotive use. Tesla (and others) don't happen to have the only 12 engineers in the world who can do that. The same could be said of motors, electronics, software, suspension systems, chassis systems, etc.

I --and this is just my own bias-- am not impressed by what I consider to have to be the normal result of posing a problem to a capable group of engineers. That is to be expected. If you can't expect that out of engineers there's something seriously flawed with the way we are trained.

Of course, there's a continuum of capabilities out there. There is such a thing as lousy engineers with no imagination and a lack of understanding of reality despite years of schooling. Hiring is important. A company forming a substandard team will produce substandard results.

The patent segue is that there really isn't a lot today that most of us would consider to be true invention. Most everything being patented are implementations, which is a tragedy.

What is hard in the context of an organization, despite money and possibly vision is to execute on a consistent basis, keep focus on a reasonable mission and do so on a timely manner and within a reasonable budget. A good comparison of a polar opposite to a company like Tesla is just about any government-run organization where money is never a problem yet they fail to deliver consistently on even the simplest projects.

Tesla doesn't walk on water, but they have been executing a vision in what appears to be a constant series of flawless moves. They have good people who obviously work well together, they seem to know very well where they are going and, of course, they have the drive and funding to make it happen. Larger car companies could very well have to try to push the same ideas forward while mired with unmotivated and inefficient teams that just can't get anything done at the same time scale. And then there's the organizations themselves getting in their own way, AKA, "The Innovators Dilemma" [1]. There's plenty of history on that last point.

To some extent Tesla doesn't have to be a super organization, they just have to keep to their mission and they will outplay everyone else who is still failing through good management while trying to sell 5.25in drives because that's what their customers tell them they want (a reference to the book).

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-B...

[avn2109]

Subsystems integration is an engineering discipline in its own right, and is perhaps the one with the greatest impact on user experience. The SI work that Tesla does is not often mentioned but IMHO it's a big part of the secret sauce.

[rebootthesystem]

It's execution, which I did mention as their strength.

[TrainedMonkey]

That is precisely his point, you can't, but all the reviews do.

[scott_karana]

Electric motors predate the internal combustion engine, keep in mind.

[umsm]

But how many resources were spent on improving EVs and how many resources were spent on improving ICE-vehicles?

[larrys]

"No one shopping for an M3, 911, or AMG product who actually intends to use them for their performance i"

I was easily able to pull .9 g's in my 911 (2012) [1] at least according to the g meter that it had (yes it has one and which measures forces in all direction) on a highway on ramp.

Not that I ever looked into it but I'm now seeing the 911 can pull 1.04 g's.

One other thing to note that is important. The size of the car matters not just the speed and the lateral g's. For example in the Porsche Macan S I have now the performance and ride is great. But the simple larger physical size makes it a completely different experience than driving the 911. [2] To quiet, to comfortable (but really nice not complaining..)

[1] Noting that I earned the money for this car by a traditional, what would be called here "lifestyle" business, not a hit the lottery internet VC funded win.

[2] For that matter a Mini Cooper S that I owned a few years before was more fun in many situations even though the tires and grip were way less and the acceleration palled in comparison to the 911. (But it was well over 1/4 the price and well worth it..)

[lectrick]

Going to paraphrase this as "yes, it is better in every way but in this 2% corner case that almost no one will ever encounter so it makes me nauseous to read reviews seriously comparing it to neanderthal-generation cars which manage to cover that 2%."

I've got a better comparison for you. Has the owner of [any given model year] BMW ever sued BMW because [any given model year plus 1] was that much better for the same price? We've gotten used to this with computers for years, it's frankly about time we got this pace of development with cars. I mean, real jealousy for the next year's generation of the same car. Tesla will create that. Who else is creating that?

[richiezc]

I recently purchased a 991 911 Carrera S and previously owned a 987 Boxster that I tracked. I actually did cross shop the cars and had a deposit down on the Model S before it was even released. Ended up not getting the Model S b/c its simply to big to drive in SF and it was questionable if I could get my condo to let me install a charger.

The model S is no sports car but its rather capable and the low center of gravity helps negate its massive curb weight.

As far as the car not making it around MRLS, thats not true. Every year speed ventures puts on an EV day and there are certainly Model S in attendance: http://www.refuelraces.com/