backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Feb 22 at 1:08 AM


Tesla Model X electric SUV crossover vehicle
It was also the third most searched term on Google

Just last week, Tesla Motors revealed the all-electric Model X crossover, which is the follow-up to its Model S. It has been less than a week since the EV's introduction, and it has already achieved star status with car lovers everywhere.

According to The Detroit News, Tesla received $40 million in pre-sales of the all-electric Model X just one day after unveiling the car. It was also the third most searched term on Google.

"On Thursday evening, the night of the reveal, traffic to teslamotors.com increased 2,800 percent," said Tesla. "Two-thirds of all visitors were new to the website."

The all-electric Model X was introduced for the first time on February 9. The new EV features dual motor all wheel drive, the choice between a 60 or 85 kWh battery, and falcon doors. The Model X can sprint from 0 to 60 in about 4.4 seconds, and offers a rear-mounted 300 HP motor and an optional 150 HP front-mounted motor. The driving range is between 214 and 267 miles.

Price hasn't been announced for the Model X yet, but Tesla said it will be competitively priced with other premium SUVs.

While the Model X has been receiving plenty of attention, it's not the only one. The Model S, which is Tesla's full-sized battery electric sedan that is expected to be delivered in mid 2012, had a 30 percent boost in reservations last week after the Model X was revealed.

Tesla initially entered the electric vehicle arena with the Roadster, which is a $100,000 two-seater that launched in 2008. The Model S is Tesla's second electric vehicle, which features a 40 kWh lithium-ion battery pack (or 85 kWh battery pack in the top-end model), 160-mile range (300 miles on the top-end model), and a $57,400 to $87,400 price tag.

Model X production will begin at the end of 2013, with market launch scheduled for 2014. It is expected to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit, and Tesla hopes to produce 10,000 to 15,000 units annually.

Sources: SlashGear, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: interesting
By kattanna on 2/15/2012 11:34:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Talk about something that I'll NEVER see the benefits of. Human spaceflight, really?


the level of ignorance in that statement is astounding, WOW.. just WOW


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/2012 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 1
Well the all knowing Reclaimer has spoken so it HAS been said. Congratulations on STILL not being able to understand the difference between an opinion ans fact
. Acting like an arrogant while proclaiming your own superiority doesn't actually make you or your opinion superior. You are a trip.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyone support EV subsides or is convinced they're the solution, is coming from nothing BUT ignorance.


Why do you always have to go too far?

Stick to the political rhetoric.

Stay away from the economic and engineering analysis. We all know you do not have the capacity to perform the analysis or the ability to find enough supporting data for your point of view.

Just some advice.


RE: interesting
By corduroygt on 2/15/2012 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
Kettle, meet Pot.


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry tayb, your nearly as bad. (Though you rarely resort to name calling)

You often utter completely bizare statement without even some rationale. Take the "No benefit from Human Space flight"

Considering the dozens of inventions that are in part or in whole dervived past from efforts in human spaceflight, its just not believable that you would recieve "no" as in zero benefit from future efforts.

Now, could I agree that in principle Human Space flight at for the forseeable future provides less benefit for the same cost as robotic exploration... sure. Could I agree that you do not vew the few benefits in your life due past human space flight as worth the billions used to produce them... well... thats an arguable point, but at least its an opinion based in reality that we could both provide examples and data in support of either position.


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/2012 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time or would have been found regardless replacing humans with robots. Advances in plastics, scratch proof glasses, memory foam, thermometers, communications, and battery tech (ironic) just to name a few would have most likely been discovered in their own right. This doesn't include "global prowess" that most people claim as a benefit as well.

I could definitely do a much better job qualifying my statements but they are rarely without rationale. The idea that advancing EV technology is a waste but human spaceflight is not is silly.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:42:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time


Okay I'll play that game. Why can't EV's eventually hit the market in their own right, in due time, without the subsidies and CAFE pressure?

Also you're flat out wrong on space flight and advancements that came out of it. I know you live with your mother still, hasn't she ever told you "necessity is the mother of invention"?

There would be no reason for those technologies to advance at the rate they did if they did not HAVE to be invented. End of discussion.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some of the best inventions from the space program would have been discovered in their own right in due time or would have been found regardless replacing humans with robots. Advances in plastics, scratch proof glasses, memory foam, thermometers, communications, and battery tech (ironic) just to name a few would have most likely been discovered in their own right


Maybe, maybe not. I think thats a really tough position to take... that inventions sought specifically for a goal would have occured -at nearly the same time- without the goal. I'd like to see some evidence that research teams, independant of the space program, were make similiar progress. I am not aware of any such data.

quote:
The idea that advancing EV technology is a waste but human spaceflight is not is silly.


You took Reclaimer out of context. He didn't say EV technology was more wasteful than spaceflight (although its a reasonable guess he feels that way), he said funding Tesla EVs is more wasteful than funding SpaceX. Which I think is pretty true. Providing a 10% or less discount on future garage queens does seem less useful than funding research and testing into launch capacities (for both human and robotic missions) to space. Now, if Tesla was producing a mass market sedan in the 30,000-40,000 price range that was going to be driven 10,000-15,000 miles a year, the equation might become different. But thats not the case. Tesla's customers are benefiting from an unneeded 7,500 at a time when our Federal Government is overspending and people have difficulty finding work. Nor does Tesla seem intent on producing that mass market sedan (apparently the Model X is more important).


RE: interesting
By The Raven on 2/16/2012 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think this whole string of replies illustrates exactly why the gov't shouldn't be involved at all in either space flight (of course unless there is a credible defense issue), EVs or much anything else.

It would be nice to jump in Doc Brown's Delorean, go back in time and rip this idea of gov't subsidies from the national consciousness and then watch all of these comments (hateful and otherwise) disappear.

The conversation would continue as how we progress on each front, but only where people are open to the ideas instead of having them shoved down their throats (i.e. funded out of their pockets).


RE: interesting
By Raraniel on 2/15/2012 4:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
Once again I feel xkcd has a quote which appropriately sums up the ultimate benefit of manned spaceflight.

"the universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space -- each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Stay away from the economic and engineering analysis. We all know you do not have the capacity to perform the analysis or the ability to find enough supporting data for your point of view.


This is a cheap shot and completely uncalled for. If I was for EV's you never would have said this. That's all this is about.

quote:
Just some advice.


Keeir you're nobody's father here. I watch you stick it to everyone here regardless of position or opinion. Even on things you support. That makes you a troll. Probably the best one I've seen in years, but still a troll.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 4
That's inconsistant Reclaimer.

quote:
If I was for EV's you never would have said this. That's all this is about.


quote:
I watch you stick it to everyone here regardless of position or opinion. Even on things you support.


Which is it? I am confused how these statements are not directly contrary to each other.

quote:
Anyone support EV subsides or is convinced they're the solution, is coming from nothing BUT ignorance.


I think this was pretty uncalled for as well. Mostly since you can't back up either side of the statement. Though the broad and unfocused ad hominum attach on anyone who might disagree with you is also not really satisfying.

quote:
That makes you a troll. Probably the best one I've seen in years, but still a troll.


I find this really curious. The most I do is ask that people use facts and constant logic... on a Technology and Science blog site. Yet somehow this is considered trolling from someone who essentially using rhetoric, hyperbole, and ad hominum to surpress any fact based discussion which might be percieved as against their ideology.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
My my, you really are an anal retentive bugger aren't you? That's not good for your health.

quote:
The most I do is ask that people use facts and constant logic


And who are you to ask?

Facts can be twisted, so can numbers. I prefer to focus on the pure, righteous, and self evident truths to which I hold dear.

So you see, just relax. When I speak, it's golden.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 4:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Facts can be twisted, so can numbers. I prefer to focus on the pure, righteous, and self evident truths to which I hold dear.


So, you prefer to argue from blind belief? And this is supposed to be "good" when discussing technology and science how again? Again, I am confused. You accuse others of ignorance, while professing a deep pride in your own.

As I've said in the past, there are plenty of fields and places where blind belief is tolerated and maybe even encouraged (politics is one that leaps to mind), but Science and to a less extent Technology revolve around the constant questioning of assumptions through data gathering.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.

And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.

When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.

I think there are many fine websites and forums where your strict adherence to science, facts, and math would be most welcome. Frankly, you're wasting your time on Daily Tech.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 5:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.


Usually because someone logically challenged trys to use ideology to pass a technical judgement.

For example only

Government should not pick winners and losers. (Ideology)
Current Government selects PHEV, and EVs. (Fact)
...
Therefore PHEV and EVs will not work. (Unsupported Opinion)

QED, there can be no other option!

quote:
And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.


Isn't inability to admit the possibility one is wrong considered on the symptoms of blind belief?

quote:
When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.


Hmmm... EVs roam the planet right now. I saw 3 on my way to work today. Oh, and 1 PHEV. And do you count Electric motorcyles as EVs? Saw two of those. Guess I can say your wrong then?


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Again, way too anal retentive. Do the Internet a favor and stick to the topics, not browbeating others for not expressing their opinion to your satisfaction.

aka, trolling.

quote:
Government should not pick winners and losers. (Ideology)


That's an absolute FACT. Please show me where the Constitution grants this power to the Government. Where?

quote:
Isn't inability to admit the possibility one is wrong considered on the symptoms of blind belief?


Okay maybe I'm only 90% right all the time. That's good enough for government work, as they say :)

quote:
Hmmm... EVs roam the planet right now. I saw 3 on my way to work today. Oh, and 1 PHEV. And do you count Electric motorcyles as EVs? Saw two of those. Guess I can say your wrong then?


Is this your idea of being cute? You know full well what that phrase means.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 6:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's an absolute FACT. Please show me where the Constitution grants this power to the Government. Where?


Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution. The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology. Nor is it truely sound to say actions outside the Constitution in reality are prohibited. The US government has a storied history of acting outside the Constitution that started pretty much before the ink was dry.

quote:
Is this your idea of being cute? You know full well what that phrase means.


I am not a mind reader. I can only guess at your intentions.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution.


That's a meaningless statement with no bearing on anything.

quote:
The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology


???

It's the high water mark for THIS countries government structure. If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now. Because I have nothing to say to you. Following the rule of law is NOT "ideology".

So your position is that I'm wrong because the Constitution doesn't count? Well I guess you ARE a flaming Liberal then.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 8:00:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now.


If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are automatically wrong? Slipping back into the symptoms of blind belief...

Sorry, there are many good things in the Constitution. Many many good things. Doesn't mean the document is perfect.

Since your into the Constitution so firmly,

Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?

We can go round and round, but simply put,

The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years. This has been true regardless of the political affiliation of the White House, Congress, or the people on the Supreme Court. To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement about an IDEAL world. Thus IDEOLOGY since in practice, this has not been a reality for a very long time.

But whether you view this as "fact" or "ideology" is not entirely material.

It has little bearing on the technical or economic feasibility of a technology. Which is my point. People too often take unrelated ideology/facts into their statements as if they constitute proof.

Here's another your well familiar with

Burning Oil Pollutes the Environment (Fact)
Protecting the Environment is worth any cost (Ideology)
...
Therefore everyone should us EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)
or even worse
Therefore the government should steal money from people and give it to others to support EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
*yawn*

You aren't even credible anymore. I never said the Constitution is perfect. Guess what? It doesn't have to be. If you need to change it, make an Amendment.

Now please show me the Amendment that grants them that power?

quote:
Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?


No Lincoln was a tyrant who smashed the Constitution, suspended our most sacred rights, and declared war on his own people without even trying to sue for peace.

In his mind I understand he was only doing what he thought he had to. So I guess that made him a noble tyrant.

The end result of Lincolns decisions was a larger more infringing federal government and the weakening of states rights. But alas, hindsight is 20/20.

quote:
To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement


That's your opinion.

You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.

quote:
The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years.


First off, that's wrong. Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.

Secondly, if today is evidence of what happens when we stray from the document for so long, that's a pretty good indication of where we went wrong.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 8:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.


I never said they were. I said that ideological "facts" are not good basis for evaluating technology, even if true.

quote:
Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.


Really? How about Alexander Hamilton's National Bank? Didn't that get established in 1791? I am fairly sure Hamilton supported a wide range of actions that were fairly loosely based on Constitution. Unless I have trouble counting, 2012-1791=221 years. Hundreds.

Isn't the whole argument about "implied" powers almost directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment? How could we claim that the US was strictly Constitutional when before Ratification was even completely people were using "implied" powers arguments to justify actions. The Federal Government could not even stay inside the STATED powers for the ratification period!

Sorry, I can't agree that the US was ever strictly Constitutional. But even if it was at some date in the past, it is no longer. Should we return to a more strict form? Sure. But that's ideology at this point. Clearly there is no real world mechanism that has acted to force the US government to stay strictly adhered to the Constitution.


RE: interesting
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:13:51 PM , Rating: 1
If forced to choose between ideology and your apathy, I'll pick ideology.


RE: interesting
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 1:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If forced to choose between ideology and your apathy, I'll pick ideology.


I am not sure how acknowledging reality is "apathy"


RE: interesting
By tayb on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki