4 ms·

Why is it objectively better to have less rear visibility? Note you can have both excellent rear AND cameras/sensors. Do you not feel its tiny when driving on

Why is it objectively better to have less rear visibility? Note you can have both excellent rear AND cameras/sensors. Do you not feel its tiny when driving on the freeway?

11thEarlOfMar 5y ago
Not sure how you'd get to objectivity, but there are tradeoffs. The M3 and MY have higher rear which provides more trunk and rear passenger space. I drive an M3 and usually keep the rear seats folded down to add a little more visibility out the back. Cameras and visualization compensate sufficiently in my view. It's to me a minor negative in a long list of positives, and not a reason to avoid Tesla.
hansendc 5y ago
The Y's overall visibility is objectively better than my old sedan. It's also really hard to have that really aerodynamic shape and good rear visibility. The Y's visibility reminds me of a Prius in a lot of ways. I've never thought once that the rear visibility was a problem on the freeway.
- azinman2 5y ago
  Thanks! FWIW We went with the VW ID.4. $20k cheaper with federal rebate, and absolutely love it. Doesn't feel cheap. No issues with visibility or headrest size, prefer mechanical door locks, and appreciate not having a single offset screen. Wish CarPlay was a little more integrated with the rest of the car, and I miss physical buttons for things like setting temperature (which is even worse on a Tesla Y as there are no buttons, but it seems at least their touch screen has more things visible at once than the VW does). Having to touch a touchscreen while driving is difficult, even as a passenger, because unless you're on the most perfect road ever the shaking will make it hard to tap your target.
ajross 5y ago
> Why is it objectively better to have less rear visibility? Because it's an artifact of the tapered afterbody that makes the cars the most energy-efficient on the road. Teslas beat every other EV on range, and the tiny handful of cars that do better (Lucid Air being the most notable) do so with significantly larger batteries. Everything has tradeoffs. FWIW: a few years of driving a van in my youth cured me of reliance on the center mirror anyway. This is very much an ejectable feature in my mind, something very much worth trading for ~30 miles of extra range or whatever. There are plenty of other quirks like this. The Y has a very poor turning radius (to reduce the void size in the wheel wells) too. It only comes in five boring colors. The third row seating is real and useful, but the headroom is comically small (same tapered afterbody). Everyone has their own list. The car isn't perfect. But it's absolutely as close to perfect as anything else I've driven.
- clouddrover 5y ago
  > and the tiny handful of cars that do better (Lucid Air being the most notable) do so with significantly larger batteries The Lucid Air does it with both a bigger battery and better efficiency.
  - ajross 5y ago
    I think the Air is sort of the exception that proves the rule. Though it's also early and independent verification on production vehicles is still in the future. They're only barely shipping right now.
    - clouddrover 5y ago
      No, there are no rules being proven. The Air is just a more efficient car. The Mustang Mach-E has greater range for less money than the Model Y: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s That's more battery for your money.
      - ajross 5y ago
        The Mach-E RWD variants with the 88 kWh battery get about the same range as the Y with 77.8 kWh. That's significantly less efficient, not more.
        clouddrover 5y ago
        I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money. In the end what's going to matter to most people is how far they can drive for the money they spent. You should also watch the video. Tesla's EPA range figures are inflated. You need to do range tests in the real world (like in the video) to see more practical results.
        ajross 5y ago
        > I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money. In response to my point that Teslas were more efficient than other cars, though. I guess I don't understand "battery for your money" as an advantage. If you buy a pickup instead of a sedan, do you usually claim that it has "more fuel tank for your money" when people complain about gas mileage? Ford ships a slightly cheaper car with a significantly more expensive part. That's bad for Ford and at best a wash for the consumer (though it does cost more for electricity, that's a small pert of operating an EV). That's a disadvantage, right?

Why is it objectively better to have less rear visibility? Note you can have both excellent rear AND cameras/sensors. Do you not feel its tiny when driving on the freeway?

11thEarlOfMar 5y ago

Not sure how you'd get to objectivity, but there are tradeoffs. The M3 and MY have higher rear which provides more trunk and rear passenger space. I drive an M3 and usually keep the rear seats folded down to add a little more visibility out the back. Cameras and visualization compensate sufficiently in my view. It's to me a minor negative in a long list of positives, and not a reason to avoid Tesla.

hansendc 5y ago

The Y's overall visibility is objectively better than my old sedan. It's also really hard to have that really aerodynamic shape and good rear visibility. The Y's visibility reminds me of a Prius in a lot of ways. I've never thought once that the rear visibility was a problem on the freeway.

azinman2 5y ago
Thanks! FWIW We went with the VW ID.4. $20k cheaper with federal rebate, and absolutely love it. Doesn't feel cheap. No issues with visibility or headrest size, prefer mechanical door locks, and appreciate not having a single offset screen. Wish CarPlay was a little more integrated with the rest of the car, and I miss physical buttons for things like setting temperature (which is even worse on a Tesla Y as there are no buttons, but it seems at least their touch screen has more things visible at once than the VW does). Having to touch a touchscreen while driving is difficult, even as a passenger, because unless you're on the most perfect road ever the shaking will make it hard to tap your target.

ajross 5y ago

> Why is it objectively better to have less rear visibility? Because it's an artifact of the tapered afterbody that makes the cars the most energy-efficient on the road. Teslas beat every other EV on range, and the tiny handful of cars that do better (Lucid Air being the most notable) do so with significantly larger batteries. Everything has tradeoffs. FWIW: a few years of driving a van in my youth cured me of reliance on the center mirror anyway. This is very much an ejectable feature in my mind, something very much worth trading for ~30 miles of extra range or whatever. There are plenty of other quirks like this. The Y has a very poor turning radius (to reduce the void size in the wheel wells) too. It only comes in five boring colors. The third row seating is real and useful, but the headroom is comically small (same tapered afterbody). Everyone has their own list. The car isn't perfect. But it's absolutely as close to perfect as anything else I've driven.

clouddrover 5y ago
> and the tiny handful of cars that do better (Lucid Air being the most notable) do so with significantly larger batteries The Lucid Air does it with both a bigger battery and better efficiency.
- ajross 5y ago
  I think the Air is sort of the exception that proves the rule. Though it's also early and independent verification on production vehicles is still in the future. They're only barely shipping right now.
  - clouddrover 5y ago
    No, there are no rules being proven. The Air is just a more efficient car. The Mustang Mach-E has greater range for less money than the Model Y: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s That's more battery for your money.
    - ajross 5y ago
      The Mach-E RWD variants with the 88 kWh battery get about the same range as the Y with 77.8 kWh. That's significantly less efficient, not more.
      - clouddrover 5y ago
        I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money. In the end what's going to matter to most people is how far they can drive for the money they spent. You should also watch the video. Tesla's EPA range figures are inflated. You need to do range tests in the real world (like in the video) to see more practical results.
        ajross 5y ago
        > I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money. In response to my point that Teslas were more efficient than other cars, though. I guess I don't understand "battery for your money" as an advantage. If you buy a pickup instead of a sedan, do you usually claim that it has "more fuel tank for your money" when people complain about gas mileage? Ford ships a slightly cheaper car with a significantly more expensive part. That's bad for Ford and at best a wash for the consumer (though it does cost more for electricity, that's a small pert of operating an EV). That's a disadvantage, right?