5 ms·
Not really unfair IMO. They're just pointing out the enormous relative versatility of the car.
by arcticfox 10y ago
Not really unfair IMO. They're just pointing out the enormous relative versatility of the car.
- serge2k 10y agoThe ferrari and porsche aren't meant to be versatile. They will beat the Tesla every time at what they are meant to do. On the other hand, the Tesla is a much better family sedan.
- tanderson92 10y agoThat their purpose isn't to be versatile isn't a point in favor of their versatility. Tesla still wins this point as a net, regardless whether it matters to you personally.
- serge2k 10y agoIt's like saying a multitool is more versatile than a hammer. It's true, but a multitool still makes a shitty hammer. If I want a hammer and you hand me a multitool I'm gonna be disappointed.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe exposition of the relatively versatile features was placed in the same paragraph as the acceleration claim. You'd expect the two to reconcile. However, according to the disclaiming asterisk, the acceleration claim hasn't even been tested and is only an estimate, making the title claim particularly dubious.
- FireBeyond 10y agoNot playing down the versatility of the car at all. But it's very apples and oranges if you're saying on one hand the Tesla is "better" because of the additional capacity, when both the Porsche/Ferrari were tested using exactly the same capacity as the Tesla (i.e. "a driver"), and saying "but this can carry seven people" without "at quite a lower speed"... But it's a press release, so it is what it is.
- mikeash 10y agoNot at all. They're saying that you can use the same car for hauling the family on vacation as you use to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, where with one of these other cars you'd need to buy two separate vehicles. They're in no way implying that the car does both things simultaneously.