4 ms·

It's pretty impressive overall, but for an SUV (people very often take them for longer camping/ski/road trips) to have a maximal range of only 260 miles (super

It's pretty impressive overall, but for an SUV (people very often take them for longer camping/ski/road trips) to have a maximal range of only 260 miles (super charger stations won't be very common on the way to Yosemite), and base price of $35k MORE than a BMW X5M (while being slower and has way less range), this is truly a niche product for a very niche demographic. I think the technology involved is fantastic, but it feels more like a product where they built it simply because they can. EDIT/Disclosure: I own shares of TSLA. I was hoping of a X5/Q7/Caynne competitor that starts at $50-$70k, not a X5M/Caynne Turbo competitor which in themselves are very, very ridiculous and niche cars.

calcsam 11y ago
>> super charger stations won't be very common on the way to Yosemite With the current demographic of Tesla buyers? Give this three months.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I drove through all of Utah for the last three days, and there were Tesla destination chargers at both best westerns I stayed at, as well as a lodge at Brian Head near Bryce Canyon. Charging infrastructure is the least of Tesla's concerns. They deploy, on average, one new supercharger station each day. This does not include the destination chargers I mention above, which are much cheaper and faster to install.
reklawnos 11y ago
I don't think this is really aimed at people who "take them for longer camping/ski/road trips," though. For a while now, SUVs, like the Audi Q5 and the BMW X5 that the Model X is trying to compete with, have been basically a "cooler" alternative to minivans. The key feature they share is the space and seating that they provide, but having off-road capability is useful to a small subset of SUV owners and is just there to add to the cool factor that differentiates it from a minivan. Tesla is trying to grab the wealthy, 30-to-50-something parents whose focus on luxury and style prevent them from buying a minivan, which would probably suit them and their driving habits better than an SUV. Take a look at wealthier suburbs of San Francisco (e.g. Marin) and you'll see tons of luxury SUVs without a speck of mud on them. The ads for these SUVs really reflect this trend. Audi demonstrates the prevalence of SUVs-as-kid delivery machines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJs3ZUYtLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJs3ZUYtLI While Lexus tries to present the same car Audi was bashing as sexy but safe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rohl8v_IGKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rohl8v_IGKk
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Most importantly for these purposes, the range on the Model X is sufficient to drive from Palo Alto to Lake Tahoe (220 miles) or Yosemite (165 miles) without issue.
  - Tinyyy 11y ago
    And back? You'll definitely have to charge or risk running out.
  - forthefuture 11y ago
    Or back and forth to work / the grocery store. According to the US Department of Transportation, people drive an average of 36 miles per day. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
  - ssmoot 11y ago
    Towing a small pop-up camper? At highway speeds the whole trip? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you ran out of juice before reaching Yosemite. Grades and highway speeds have a huge impact on range IME. Not to mention an extra 500lbs in passengers, a couple hundred lbs in camping gear, and that's not even getting to the camper. The type of miles you're driving definitely matters. A gas vehicle is most efficient around ~60mph. Maintaining maximal range in an electric vehicle is a bad bet if most of your driving is highway miles. At least if my Nissan Leaf experience is relevant.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Tahoe could be trouble with a camper in tow, but the distance to Yosemite is only 2/3rds of the published range for the Model X -- I'd be shocked if there wasn't sufficient range to get there. Curb weight for the X is ~5,400lbs, call it 5,500lbs with driver.. Adding 5 passengers averaging 100lbs (family of 6) and 200lbs of gear would only add ~13% to the vehicles weight which would only minimally impact range since drag is a much bigger determinant for highway trips. I found a nifty little site that takes into account elevation / vehicle weight, etc. for the actual route. Looking at the Model S, base range on the road to Yosemite with normal driving is 240 miles. Adding 700lbs to the car results in a range of 210 miles. So a 40% increase in vehicle weight only corresponds to a 12.5% decrease in range. This can be partially mitigated by driving at a "3/10" instead of a "5/10" in terms of range-extending, which results in about 225 miles of range with the same weight. http://www.jurassictest.ch/GR/ http://www.jurassictest.ch/GR/
betadreamer 11y ago
If you look at the livestream, the target is not for outdoors but more toward families. Car seat was mentioned numerous times and the having front storage for strollers are great. As a new dad i barely use my suv for outdoors anymore (baby gets fussy) and my trunk is always 75% full because of the stroller. Model X is my dream comes true car. Except I can't afford it :P
- Cookingboy 11y ago
  Then make the car cheaper, most families aren't going to care about how they can accelerate their toddlers to 60mph in 3 and half seconds.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    I don't think they're going after "most" families.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ojii 11y ago
    According to the article there's a 8-12 month waiting list. Tesla has little incentive to make it cheaper.
nrp 11y ago
Those price points are for the launch era P90D special editions, which are presumably aimed at the X5M and Cayenne Turbo customer. I imagine the prices on the base 90D and 70D will be closer to X5/Q7/Cayenne after Federal/State tax incentives, though probably still a bit higher.
stefanix 11y ago
Tesla website is pretty clear who they market to. People who buy SUVs to feel safer. See HEPA filter mentioned as central feature. Also this is not a niche demographic. I would not be surprised if the majority of SUVs are commuting and shopping vehicles exclusively.

calcsam 11y ago

>> super charger stations won't be very common on the way to Yosemite With the current demographic of Tesla buyers? Give this three months.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I drove through all of Utah for the last three days, and there were Tesla destination chargers at both best westerns I stayed at, as well as a lodge at Brian Head near Bryce Canyon. Charging infrastructure is the least of Tesla's concerns. They deploy, on average, one new supercharger station each day. This does not include the destination chargers I mention above, which are much cheaper and faster to install.

reklawnos 11y ago

I don't think this is really aimed at people who "take them for longer camping/ski/road trips," though. For a while now, SUVs, like the Audi Q5 and the BMW X5 that the Model X is trying to compete with, have been basically a "cooler" alternative to minivans. The key feature they share is the space and seating that they provide, but having off-road capability is useful to a small subset of SUV owners and is just there to add to the cool factor that differentiates it from a minivan. Tesla is trying to grab the wealthy, 30-to-50-something parents whose focus on luxury and style prevent them from buying a minivan, which would probably suit them and their driving habits better than an SUV. Take a look at wealthier suburbs of San Francisco (e.g. Marin) and you'll see tons of luxury SUVs without a speck of mud on them. The ads for these SUVs really reflect this trend. Audi demonstrates the prevalence of SUVs-as-kid delivery machines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJs3ZUYtLI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJs3ZUYtLI While Lexus tries to present the same car Audi was bashing as sexy but safe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rohl8v_IGKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rohl8v_IGKk

mikeyouse 11y ago
Most importantly for these purposes, the range on the Model X is sufficient to drive from Palo Alto to Lake Tahoe (220 miles) or Yosemite (165 miles) without issue.
- Tinyyy 11y ago
  And back? You'll definitely have to charge or risk running out.
- forthefuture 11y ago
  Or back and forth to work / the grocery store. According to the US Department of Transportation, people drive an average of 36 miles per day. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm
- ssmoot 11y ago
  Towing a small pop-up camper? At highway speeds the whole trip? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you ran out of juice before reaching Yosemite. Grades and highway speeds have a huge impact on range IME. Not to mention an extra 500lbs in passengers, a couple hundred lbs in camping gear, and that's not even getting to the camper. The type of miles you're driving definitely matters. A gas vehicle is most efficient around ~60mph. Maintaining maximal range in an electric vehicle is a bad bet if most of your driving is highway miles. At least if my Nissan Leaf experience is relevant.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Tahoe could be trouble with a camper in tow, but the distance to Yosemite is only 2/3rds of the published range for the Model X -- I'd be shocked if there wasn't sufficient range to get there. Curb weight for the X is ~5,400lbs, call it 5,500lbs with driver.. Adding 5 passengers averaging 100lbs (family of 6) and 200lbs of gear would only add ~13% to the vehicles weight which would only minimally impact range since drag is a much bigger determinant for highway trips. I found a nifty little site that takes into account elevation / vehicle weight, etc. for the actual route. Looking at the Model S, base range on the road to Yosemite with normal driving is 240 miles. Adding 700lbs to the car results in a range of 210 miles. So a 40% increase in vehicle weight only corresponds to a 12.5% decrease in range. This can be partially mitigated by driving at a "3/10" instead of a "5/10" in terms of range-extending, which results in about 225 miles of range with the same weight. http://www.jurassictest.ch/GR/ http://www.jurassictest.ch/GR/

betadreamer 11y ago

If you look at the livestream, the target is not for outdoors but more toward families. Car seat was mentioned numerous times and the having front storage for strollers are great. As a new dad i barely use my suv for outdoors anymore (baby gets fussy) and my trunk is always 75% full because of the stroller. Model X is my dream comes true car. Except I can't afford it :P

Cookingboy 11y ago
Then make the car cheaper, most families aren't going to care about how they can accelerate their toddlers to 60mph in 3 and half seconds.
- epistasis 11y ago
  I don't think they're going after "most" families.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ojii 11y ago
  According to the article there's a 8-12 month waiting list. Tesla has little incentive to make it cheaper.

nrp 11y ago

Those price points are for the launch era P90D special editions, which are presumably aimed at the X5M and Cayenne Turbo customer. I imagine the prices on the base 90D and 70D will be closer to X5/Q7/Cayenne after Federal/State tax incentives, though probably still a bit higher.

stefanix 11y ago

Tesla website is pretty clear who they market to. People who buy SUVs to feel safer. See HEPA filter mentioned as central feature. Also this is not a niche demographic. I would not be surprised if the majority of SUVs are commuting and shopping vehicles exclusively.