This is just amazing, congrats to everyone who worked on this.
From an engineering pov, it must be the highlight of someone's life and a massive amount of fun to be able to work on a product like this.
Car looks half decent too.
To me it looks like a mashup of a Ferrari and a Cybertruck. That's not a good thing.
Bullshit, no it can't.
> Advanced cold-gas thrusters use all-electric actuators to offer precise thrust, completing micro adjustments within a fraction of a second. This helps stabilize the vehicle in flight.
In flight? What? Did I miss the joke, or what? It's a fucking car... The image even shows it hovering off the ground. How is this not blatant false advertising?
ETA: okay, skimmed some of the livestream. These is absolutely no way that any of these features will ever be part of a production model. People get serious whiplash injuries just from being rear-ended at low speed. What do they think is going to happen to the occupant when they tell their car to jump over a semi and do a fucking barrel roll? Seriously, what are we doing here?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Murray_Automotive_T.50
**
Side note, as I was looking for the right stream, youtube gave me a link to a different deep fake 'Musk' stream where he extolled virtues of sending him money ( https://roadster-tesla.com/#participate ). Everything has changed man. I am sure the scammer actually got some people.
That said, the production issues with the Cybertruck mean you’d be a fool to reserve one of these. Let others do it, find out how late it arrives, what glued panels fall off at speed and wait for the inevitable recalls. Tesla has torched their engineering reputation lately and this page is making a lot of promises about revolutionary things.
Given some of the tauted 'features' of this thing, I'd be more concerned about it blowing up in my driveway.
The Lotus Elise was famously glued together instead of welds. The original Roadster also had the same innards.
This is clearly not a car for someone who wants to go from A to B, but a lot of Tesla components gets binned together for the next iteration of the cheaper car because they always order too many of them.
Oddly enough this makes their cheaper cars more reliable than the expensive ones (think about the Audis right when Ferdinand Piech took over Lamborgini).
That's pretty standard. An M3 has long pushed the tolerances of things in the engine more than a base-model 3 series. An S-class has more whiz-bang-hope-it-still-works-in-ten-years stuff than a C-class. A Lexus has more going on than a boring base Corolla.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/tesla-spac...
closed tab. thanks.
Uh what? Rodney Mullen invented the kickflip
Reminds me of this https://youtu.be/LC97wdQOmfI
I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that it'll never make production like this, but what I see as being demonstrated is a suborbital lander/off-world ground transport concept that can work in low gravity environments etc. This will aid autonomous delivery vehicles etc to be dropped from low orbit and find their own landing sites, and then drive to location.
I wonder how many maimed kerbals are stranded around the space X facility while testing this.
The car is just a façade.
Edit: And to expand on this. Owners of GM T.50' say they can't use the ground effect fan anywhere in public due to the debris it picks up and throws, and are ineffective on anything but near perfect roads. So that's not impressive to me. And the jet boosters are also ridiculous, there is not real-world application where you could use them outside of completely closed environments with no one nearby. It's a huge investment into reaction thrusters for a car that would never, ever be used - unless it was to demonstrate thruster technology for another reason.
i.e. Space X.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM-1#Lunar_landing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_1#Landing_att...
It's an incredible engineering achievement to build in massive fans and rocket engines into a high performance car. It's truly wild.
It's being sold in two modes. One with cold gas (no combustion) seemingly just for extra forwards acceleration (no flying) and one with real combustion rocket engines, the latter was in the video and is "invite only".
Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model. I wonder if the combustion version will even break 3 figures sales.
Even just the cold gas variant seems like a nightmare for production, there's a high pressure COPV in that thing and that's gonna make crashes much more.. exciting, and Tesla doesn't have a great record anyways. But very few of these are ever getting sold anyways.
Watch Ford v Ferrari for an idea of what auto companies are willing to invest for bragging rights.
>This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
Neat car though.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-079-introduction-to-convex-opt...
The thing that they showed off isn't something that they could legally sell, it would basically be a bomb. Also, the battery pack that would go in the car would be so large that they couldn't do the stunts they showed in their drone vehicle.
Are we not calling an obvious stock pumping charade what it is out of some sense of politeness?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZpQZSBTi7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2c-B3y7yGQ
I'm not saying that there aren't lower hanging fruit reasons why they wouldn't make more of those, but you can see how the guidance necessary to make this move the way that it does could be dual use.
They have to sell one to say that it exists. It’s marketing.
Absolutely nobody who owns that vehicle will be “flying” it.
- Performance: road ready, seats two, active aero and a “multi-mode suction system.” 0-60 mph in under 1.6 seconds. Available by reservation.
- Thrust: race ready, seats two, adds rear-mounted cold-gas thrusters. 0-60 mph in under 0.9 seconds. Limited release.
- Rocket: seats one, adds thrusters around the perimeter of the car for upward and rotational movement. 0-60 mph in under 0.59 seconds and a top speed of over 230 mph. Invite only.
Per Electrek: https://electrek.co/2026/10/15/tesla-unveils-cyberfied-new-r...
Hahah, the failure modes are going to be exciting.
This would be the opposite of that, though.
My primary scepticism is how much the prototype weighs, and whether it can still jump with 2 passengers + 1000kg of batteries inside.
I am skeptical that this feature will prove to be much more than a publicity stunt, especially since the availability of these models will be so limited.
Just like we will have 1 million robotaxis on the streets by 2021?
EDIT: wow it really can fly, that is crazy
The software industry has taught me how sneaky a demo can be ;). That's without considering Tesla's history of bonkers claims and sus demos (anyone else remember the bulletproof windows?).
Edit: Removed a rhetorical question about the demo. Apparently there was a live audience, so they couldn't have just made a very tiny Roadster haha.
How delusional are people? The emperor is not wearing clothes y'all.
Also "Beyond The Limits of Physics"... would any actual engineers at Tesla/SpaceX agree with that marketing statement?
As an engineer who dislikes polished presentations of unimpressive things, it encourages me that it’s still possible to do a bad presentation about an amazing thing and (most) people don’t grumble too much.
No way?! Elon Musk? Unnatural and cringey?!
It just means you can do jumps and stunts programmed into the vehicle at the push of a button with zero skill at being a stunt driver.
The Dukes of Hazzard had to do that without the thrusters.
Can't wait to see how people kill themselves and other people with those things by being stupid...
Hopefully that shit gets blocked by the DOT and kept off public roads--which is probably the goal to get a bunch of drooling simps outraged over "government overreach" keeping them away from their "flying cars".
That's the bit where we diverge.
* The Fastest Maze-Solving Competition On Earth - YouTube // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQbHMgK2rw
hmmmm. spacex-tesla merger signalling?
I'm more worried about the COPVs exploding in a crash, for the thruster version. Hopefully it will keep the tanks empty unless a special launch mode is enabled with a warning siren sounding as long as they're pressurized.
It's very impressive. Not useful, but impressive.
If they ever deliver a single unit that's a low enough bar to make it completely economically infeesable.
if they somehow managed to sell a couple of thousand... it might become profitable.
this has to be just a fantastic bit of marketing to jazz up their share price.
also.. I'd love to see a blooper roll of making it do these things...
I'm so glad Elon exists. He must have spent over $100 million to build the flying variant with no hope of ever profiting off it. I can't imagine any other CEO ever doing that.
Dunno. Looks like it jumps. Fying seems to require some degree of control over direction but I'm just a gravity-impaired bidep.
Almost all the comments here are just the most generically negative I have ever seen on HN, with just general grumpiness everywhere.
This car is an incredible engineering achievement and a completely unexpected reveal.
Is it going to be fun and engaging to drive? Absolutely not. It doesn’t even have a steering wheel.
Finally, a vehicle that’s perfect for the CEO in your life who wants to upload his brain to a data center powered by the body heat of his employees hooked up to the pods from The Matrix.
It also has steer-by-wire which makes the steering yoke practical as they can tweak the steering ratio to prevent the need to go hand-over-hand. As they did for the Cybertruck.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=USSHxtHLHc8
Driving an F1 car is fun in the same way that cycling in the Tour de France is fun. Everything about that experience is purely for function and competition.
I think Louis Hamilton has a lot more fun in his Ferrari F40 than in his F1 car.
Not that I'd ever spend that much money on a car or need this at all, but for people who buy luxury vehicles I can see it. Definitely something we've never had in car history.
And mass is one of the top engineering concerns for these types of performance vehicles, even those which do not need to fight gravity.
Some cars come with "Donut Mode" or drift modes. Donuts and drifting are definitely not road legal actions. These, and many other capabilities of sports cars, are obviously for track use only. These Roadster gimmicks are no different.
One reason I hope Slate does well - newer cars have too much useless tech across the board. At least with a sports car the gimmicks are part of the appeal. Entry level new cars should be simpler, modular, and cheaper. Just let me drive and stop trying to be so helpful.
For Eg, we have self driving trucks. Nikola admits prototype was rolling downhill in promotional video: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/09/nikola-admits-prototype...
Tesla’s History of Faking Demonstration Videos: https://dawnproject.com/teslas-history-of-faking-demonstrati...
This is probably just to hype up the stock. The stock is down 5% (5 days), up 1% (1 month), down ~7% (6 months), down ~20% YTD, down ~16% (1 year). It has a PE of 336 and dwindling YOY sales. Tesla’s U.S. vehicle sales fell approximately 14% to 20% year-over-year through the first three quarters of 2026. Rest of the world, Tesla is not competitive and will probably go down rapidly soon.
Also Tesla events rarely (if ever) get followed by a durable stock bump.
--
Edit: Credible independent videos have been released on YouTube by reputable people. There's no doubt that the spectacle did happen as shown by Tesla. That's not to say it's anything more than a carefully staged spectacle, but claims that it's fake or AI or CGI are absolutely debunked.
There are lots of ways for sleight of hand. Do you remember the time that guy made the Statue of Liberty disappear?
It appears like they always did a barrel-roll because the car is simply not stable after take-off...
My sense is that this is just more Elon Musk bullshit that will never materialize.
1. If you start flying and land on someone or something, that's a problem. 2. My strong bet is what they demonstrated is as far as the thing can fly, which is definitely cool as a party trick, but that's it.
These cars are obviously chock full of machine-learning algorithms to be able to control themselves in the air in that way. I'd much rather see that ML muscle used for something that actually benefitted someone.
I kind of concluded that they really don't want us messing around up in the air - for reasons. Now, combined with self-driving capabilities, maybe it's back on the table :)
That being said, I suspect that they way do this, as shown in the demo, is sustainable for seconds only. And if I understood it correctly, the system is not really for flight, but for correcting momentum while driving in turns and such.
I kind of concluded that they really don't want us messing around up in the air - for reasons. Now, combined with self-driving capabilities, maybe it's back on the table :)
That being said, I suspect that they way do this, as shown in the demo, is sustainable for seconds only. And if I understood it correctly, the system is not really for flight, but for correcting momentum while driving in turns and such.
Drawing a parallel, manufacturers presented rollable mobile devices already a decade ago, modular devices with replaceable components, etc. The archives of Nokia and Ericsson (and others) are full with these kinds of products. Car manufacturers did the same. They presented a vision, not a commitment to a product because there is much more to this than just "being able" to build it.
But it was never economically feasible or sensible to do this at SUCH a scale of engineering cost, and presented with the unrelenting confidence of "this will be yours in two years", despite all the fundamental roadblocks still to overcome.
It appears that this is the most disrupting aspect of their presentations: People are not used to being presented a "vision" of such a scale with so little regards for practical execution.
They like the journey they are taken on, and willingly fill all gaps and doubts with "they wouldn't present this if they didn't think of everything already"
And also your point: It is a company presenting a jet-pack to actually sell a premium back-pack under the same name.
They invested in the engineering of 1-10 jet-packs, to sell 200-2000 backpacks...
Will the frame itself hold up?
> "Will it even be maintainable?"
Probably doesn't matter. I don't think it will be permitted on public roads anyway.
The presented variant is invite-only, so I guess it will be made to put in the garage of some (Saudi) investor who commits a billion dollar investment...
It turns out the car has a 200L/600L nitrogen tank with 10,000PSI that needs to be filled from external source.
Consumed nitrogen reduces the pressure, so the tank is re-pressurized with ambient air by a in-car compressor.
It must be incredibly difficult to keep the car stable while mid-air at low speeds, I suspect it wouldn't look that "elegant"...
But once that phase is overcome, how stable is the car actually mid-air?
It looks to me that they added the barrel-roll because everything else would have looked worse...
You’d want something that smoothly hovers rather than a launch then catch with boosters.
Was there a second jump without a roll?
The art of deliberately guiding or diverting an audience's attention away from a secret action (such as sleight of hand) so the trick can happen unnoticed. Instead of forcing the audience to look away crudely, good misdirection makes the audience want to look at something else naturally.
> Tesla Sales Slump in Third Quarter
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-sales-fell-in-third...
Tesla Q3 sales will be the same tomorrow.
It doesn't surprise me that any particular companies sales are down at the moment, how does Tesla compare to other car manufacturers out of interest.
This isn't special though. 2023 was their best year and sales have been slowly declining since then. The share price has mostly been climbing since 2023. But soon they'll have a huge driverless fleet and robots or something.
I historically argued for a sort of horror-vehicle that would achieve autonomous driving "early" by exploiting downforce from powerful fans, but I mostly imagined it being used for autonomous deliveries and never imagined there being people inside it.
this site just toast
This is not some suden demo, this is something they've promised and talked of along time ago and has been in development the whole time.
And Tesla is all about manufacturing so mistaking this for some "prototype-only" device is misled.
What people mean by "flying cars" is mass production. Ford Model T.
Also a massive feat of engineering, congrats to their team.
The car clearly does not have enough momentum to go on the ramp all the way upside-down, yet it miraculously does not fall.
Planes also require an enormous amount of space and time between local movements at airports. City street are the same as airports, space or should i say TIME is needed betwee aircraft. Airports have been runing for over 50 years, they never run planes back to back.
Remember one mistake, one crqsh between two flying cars, and both are basically dead.
I have no reason to believe this isn't another Deplorean.
An innovative way to make some whoop-de-dooping billionaires with extra cash to spare land upside down on their rooves.
Back of the fag pack, let’s say it is light for an electric car and weights 1000kg. I’ll also go on a limb and guess the air flow is actually subsonic - 200m/s would make it 0.6 Ma (still insanely fast!). Even then, that requires 50 kg of air every second. Or 40 m^3. Using everyone’s favorite metric, this empties an Olympic swimming pool in 1 minute. It also requires a MW of power. I mean… that’s a lot??? Though admittedly, only about as much as accelerating 0-60 in 1 sec (50% of that in fact). So the flying would draw as much power as accelerating at full throttle.
Power requirements would go down a lot with slower exhaust speed, but then you need to shift more fluid. 40 m^3 already seems like a lot to me.
I get it’s a neat little demo and they have to get SpaceX into the picture somehow, but still I don’t understand how it’s supposed to add up. Also, what do I know - just a humble physicist.
napkins, and envelopes at least kind of make sense.
Who was ever writing on the back of cigarette packs?
British officers planning trench raids in the front lines during WWI. Or, at least, that's where I've been told the expression originates.
Really, though, is it impossible to imagine no one, ever, using a cigarette pack to jot something down? It's a colloquialism. It doesn't even have to be taken literally to make sense. What is gained by questioning it on that level?
Wouldn't the back have printing on it? I could imagine someone ripping the pack open and writing on the insides, which are blank.
Literally no proof of this working in real world conditions.
I call bull.
Tesla has never really shown they can design anything compelling that doesn’t look like a lumpy shoe.
Right now it has 80s delorean look... That was nice then but a bit out of place now especially for a supercar
And many a rocket scientist would be insulted by the comparison of a nozzled rocket motor to the simple pipe of an air rifle.
This one is a hard-top super-coupe and I recommend calling it the "Cyberwedge"
Tesla should be sued into oblivion over "full self driving", but after that, if you believe this nonsense and buy one that's on you.
He complained to me "I keep getting guys coming over to talk about the bike"
What has HN become - just endless anti-tech hate, downstream from idiotic TikTok politics.
Is it the moderation system that amplifies this nonsense here?
If those cold-air thrusters are getting commoditized, the real discussion here should be around what could be built around them. How to HACK them.
Reddit exists for this other nonsense pile on.
Breaking, emergency braking in trucks? Kind of like reverse thrust in airplanes.
Drones are extremely weight sensitive. Adding a heavy thruster would massively eat into the payload.
Trucks are also weight limited by the 80k rule. Brakes are far superior.
5 years of broken promises and actively fighting to make the world worse will do a lot to opinions.
Like the Cybertruck, this is just the Musk "fuck you, get out of my way" worldview realised as metal and plastic.
This is sort of like demonstrating a car that softens the asphalt in front of it with lasers to get a better grip; difficult, technically impressive, and zero chance that it will ever be allowed on a public road.
Edit: According to this Motor Trend article, it uses a big carbon-fiber pressure vessel at 5500psi, so basically an enormous fragile bomb. And the one that did all the stunts had two of the pressure vessels which would have filled most of the interior.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-roadster-thrust-system...
2: I still want a topless Tesla that could be a good daily driver; an SL63 competitor basically. So, I'm sad.
I'll be listening even more closely to his ideas from now on, even when they defy the "common sense filter" we adults tend to have.
Remember when they sent one into space? Same thing, everyone in the world is talking about it without spending a single cent in ads.
Doesn’t mean we’re getting flying cars.
Cool stunt car though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM
Other cars, if you have to ask where the government will allow you to drive it, you can't afford it.
Plenty of ways to maim/kill people in traditional cars already and I doubt this will be the most common one in roadsters.
The generally available car will have cold-gas thrusters which boost acceleration but is nothing like what was demo'd.
The flying trim will never be sold to general consumers. Even the rear-thruster trim is currently listed at a $250,000 pre-order fee, which is a deposit for a fraction of the full cost of the car. Final cost will be over $1M. Any of the thruster variants will be extremely rare; like, the one guy in your city that has one will show it off at car shows twice a year, McLaren P1, level of rare.
still tries to murder passengers jumping across traffic at shadows
good luck with anything Musk, you are the beta tester, if you die they'll debug it, eventually
Fun demo, never will see the road. There's a billion ways this can kill scores of people instantly.
I mean this isn't even ancient history, it only happened in 2022. He sent three termination notifications before it was determined that he had no grounds to refuse to buy.
I think there is a more rational explanation. Tesla sales have slowed, other companies are catching up, and if it weren't for import issues, Chinese cars would be eating Tesla's breakfast, lunch and dinner. Yet Tesla is trading at a 330 P/E and Musk has to do something to make it seem like Tesla is still light-years ahead of everyone else and just wait, that 330 P/E will be justified any quarter now. Just like shooting a roadster into deep space was just a PR stunt, this is a PR stunt to boost the brand with no actual market relevance.
At this point it's not clear that there's anything other than a 14 year old in him. A greedy, sociopathic 14 year old.
Catching up? BYD has already surpassed Tesla and looks like the gap is going to continue to grow.
There’s no engineering advancement here?
I sure hope they don’t hit the road. Seems like an obviously novel (and terrifying) consumer technology
I'm not sure about those thrusters though, I doubt they'd be legal?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Murray_Automotive_T.50
The thrusters were able to cushion a fall.
That seems useful in ruining the ending of Thelma and Louise, but isn’t really a flying car.
I think this is pretty unique demonstration for something that theoretically may be street legal one day.
(Calling it a "roadster" is cute, but this has nothing in common with a Boxster or Miata. If anything, the ICE analogue would be muscle cars.)
Because there are no real unique driving characteristics, the only engineering you can compete with is raw speed or price. That and crazy gimmicks.
Are you referring to the Tesla Roadster? Because, if not, I am pretty sure that most EVs, except for maybe small compact EV cars, usually weights 2 tons or more.
FSD has no real competition in its capability and market fit.
(still not buying a tesla thooughbeit)
A few considerations, just my own thoughts.
1) I would bet that the actual car shown in the demo weights less than what will eventually be sold to the public. I am not an expert, but the way in which the car reacted to the air boosts suggests a relatively "lightweight" vehicle. Plus, I would imagine perhaps a smaller battery (again, for demo purposes).
2) It is a nice "exercise" as a game, or an expensive hobby for billionaires. I doubt, as Elon hinted, that using these thrusters will be allowed on public roads. Perhaps just on circuits?
3) Overall, Elon said that Tesla's strategy will no longer be about cars, but about robots and AI, and then proceeds to show a car that will cost billions to develop, and might not be the commercial success that justifies the investment.
4) Twitter (now X), Tesla, SpaceX... things are moving, tricks are being shown, and who knows, perhaps next year everything will be merged under ElonX, and he will finally be happy.
(To stop masking and start ‘musking?’)
That sounds extremely explosive and not something any random person should be irresponsibly driving around.
This thing is literally a fucking bomb if it fails, through accident or degradation.
The down-force negative pressure aspect they gleaned from McMurtry though? Really cool. Genuinely useful. I just hope they don't claim it as their own invention.
Which they will, because Musk is all ego.
This is another expensive marketing gimmick nevertheless, and I'm struggling to see the value of it, especially when Tesla is not doing that well.
Looks like it truly is a K shaped economy. Flying cars for 1% and loans for the rest
New, the Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf both start under $30k.
Volkswagen was founded by the Nazi party. Literally.
also wonder how comfy that is? i kind of welcome it tho!
https://news.dupontregistry.com/blogs/ford-news/whatever-hap...
Or, if I'm making up stuff as I go along, you can't crash, the car can just auto-takeoff to dodge whatever you were about to hit.
The fact that Waymos don't get hit head-on by drunk drivers suggests this is a situational awareness versus last-minute dodge problem.
I don't see how we can discuss this demo without acknowledging that fact as well.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-burn...
But can we talk about the just casually driving straight vertical or sticking to the ceiling? I didn't think that would be technically possible for a 1000kg+ car with probably at least 2" of ground clearance.
There's presumably very limited stores of compressed gas, so you might get one hop or a couple 0-60 boosts per charge. But with electric fans, suction is a feature with much longer duration (minutes?), so you could feasibly do the batman driving on the tunnel ceiling past traffic trick.
European or Japanese cars all day.
Also, the stock market's id, aka WSB is not impressed in hilarious and sometimes insightful ways. [0]
From my nerd POV, this looks super cool! From any other POV, ummm, what are we supposed to do with this? This is neat as heck, but you cannot put COPVs on public roadways.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1x73hxs/tes...
What happens when a charged COPV is involved in a car accident?
What is the point of reaction thrusters that turn anyone on the wrong side of the car into pink mist?
Will anyone ever be allowed to drive this on a public roadway?
Also amazing stupidity of people believing anything close to this will hit the streets. Lies and lies for a decade, and now after a flashy demo it is again "2028".
> unsupervised
This guy might be the most biased reviewer on the planet. Dude practically cashes checks from Apple on camera.
The somber music, darkness, 3 awkward people presenting it with 0 presentational skills. Just a random comparison - if Steve Jobs were to present this, he would've killed it. I was watching the demo, impressed by the car so much, but I couldn't help but feel irritated at how badly is was presented. The choice or music, lights, everything.
But the real question: does the roadster come with SpaceX thrusters? If so, they have my attention. Otherwise, boring, even more boring than the boring company. False advertising too. People need to demand that SpaceX thrusters are now an option if only to reboot the Dukes of Hazzard except with a smart car.
Edit: Hi there Elon fanboys! Hope that all meat diet is working out for you. Have you considered taking up smoking knowing full well that AI will cure cancer?
A lot of public funds go into these companies and it just feels like they are playing around with toys instead advancing humanity. I sometimes wonder if we are not allocating resources very efficiently.
Also the public government funds being received are in the form of contracts. It's not like they can just use the money anywhere. Both Tesla and SpaceX are likely using private money (that is to say, funds not from the government) to fund this.
> It's not like they can just use the money anywhere
I mean SpaceX was literally caught buying Cybertrucks it's clear there's some corruption. But aside from that, they also just represent such a large chunk of the market that it's hard to argue that they aren't just siphoning funds from other ventures somewhat even outside of public misappropriation. I wouldn't even mind that if I felt like they earned it, but it just feels like the stock was pumped as a meme or something. The engineering is impressive but not impressive IMO for what they are worth.
Rocket trim is not street legal.
The problem with the demo is that it was vapourware. Period, full stop. It is not the car they are selling to us, and they haven't even begun making them. I am personally not a fan of pure concept products that exist only to polish the company’s crown.
Steve Jobs said that "Real artists ship," because the act of shipping is the act of making the incredibly difficult and important decisions that manage the enormous number of constraints that go into the actual product.
If people like concept cars that don't have to actually work or meet a specific price point, fine. It is entertainment, nothing wrong with that. But I am not and will not be impressed until, like Apple, the thing they show on stage is so far along that you can be expected to buy one within weeks, not years.
I am not telling anyone how to judge this. But by my very old-school standards, vapourware sucks.
Whatever you think about these advancements (like you could marvel at Nazi inventions), make no mistake. Musk and his Tesla should get fucked.
And because he's the richest man in the world, he just does it for fun. Nerd Cool for sure! But given the state of the world, absolutely horrible..
The gimmicky part is not the engineering but the fact that it is not a flying car but a proof of concept of a flying car in a very controlled environment, with no regard for cost, with no actual viability of real world use.
Its like the breakdancing humanoid robots in China, a cool feat of engineering for sure, but it makes you think that robots can do human tasks, when the reality is much further away.
Sure but Tesla is not SpaceX.
Ask yourself who would see the benefit of a vehicle that can jump over obstacles, other dangers or other cars?
Obstacles including barricades, flooded roads, tank traps, rivers, fences and burning cars. Dangers might include IEDs, mines, destroyed bridges, barbed wire, stinger strips, active munitions being fired at it, etc.
Even without such dangers, jumping over moving cars would be useful in pursuits where getting in front of a target gives an advantage.
And the extra mobility would be useful in humanitarian and disaster applications where getting to and from those in need in a timely fashion may save lives.
This is not and will probably never be practical, but it's something that's never really been done before, and for that alone I kinda like it.
https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/tesla/model+y/0961 https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/byd/atto+3/0992/
With high interest rate and tight money supply, this could get them a few billion dollars of 'customer financing'.
My opinion is that the car is conceptually good but requires regulations. As much as I hate regulations, I don't want no flying cars on my head.
It clearly does not look like a smaller Cybertruck though. You're just wrong there.
Sports cars are designed to be impractical, but they can also be impressive feats of engineering.
I imagine the flying variant will be an extremely limited release and mostly just for stunts and shows.
Every time Tesla's VP of vehicle engineering [0] explains the Engineering of the product by stating that they are "breaking the laws of physics", everything he says is losing a bit of credibility...
Obviously they’re not literally breaking the laws of physics, but they’re breaking what has traditionally been possible putting power through tires alone.
And let’s keep in mind this is 100% vaporware; the cars sold to actual buyers may differ significantly in their design and capabilities from what was demonstrated here. It is possible that the COPVs in the car on display took up the entire passenger compartment.
Until everyone who wants to buy a flying car can buy it and have it delivered next week, yes, we have every right to complain.
Until then, this Tesla demo is no different than an AI generated video. Can’t buy the car yet.
And this tech is simply part of the Tesla/SpaceX merge, and right in line with flamethrowers, tunnels, and chainsaws. It's going to funnel loads of cash his way, which was the idea.
It's really time to say Thiel and musk are briics backed inside attackers
It would be an extremely cool demo if this thing was even remotely close to a car that can be produced and sold. Alas, this was something that could be used in a circus at best (where people would need to be very very far since it's very dangerous).
sometimes u gotta just ignore economics and instead make history!
EDIT: I want to make it clear that 1) I'm not talking about the driving upside down thing, and 2) just because I am not sensationalizing the kickflip trick as some incredibly complex endeavor doesn't mean I didn't think it was cool and I'm some kind of hollow, depressed sad sack. The kick flip made me laugh my ass off, but be real. His companies make rockets that can belly flop and land themselves, stream hi res video of reentry using LEO satellite constellations, catch huge boosters in towers, and this is what's blowing your mind?
Elon has been working on this for ~8 years
How long would it take another company to do the same?
Just the engineering alone is impressive regardless of beliefs but this posting has so many Eore replies that makes me wonder if I am one of the few not miserable people on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(second_generat...
Amazing suction power. Waiting to see a video of its crazy turning power.
Part of me though wonders what this would have been like if it had been a slick sciencey presentation that paid real tribute to the talent below the smug denim C-suite. A bit more Engelbart or Feynman or Sagan and a bit less Balmer, Bezos, and Bozo the clown.
Showing the world your flying car is a moment to shine as a serious person. These men seem to be actively trying to not do that!
This is insanity. How are shareholders still supporting this man?
I don't see how a Ponzi scheme involving paying to reserve a future product is even possible. One of us does not understand what "Ponzi scheme" means.
I vividly remember reading we were all supposed to have flying cars by the year 2000. I was so excited and looked forward to the future. As the early 90's approached, it was obvious, NOBODY would have flying cars. Better late than never...
Tomorrow's World on the BBC also was chock full of this.
And Back To The Future II was set in the future (which is now our past) and had flying cars.
I think people are a bit over-optimistic, wanting flying cars for no known reason. People can't manage in 2 dimensions (x and y) so why on earth you'd give them the z dimension too and expect them to get it right is beyond me.
It's also the company that built crap Cybertrucks and the fake humanoid Bots controlled by people remotely.
They will never deliver this. It's an excuse to justify SpaceX rescuing Tesla. Meanwhile, SpaceX is primarily Starlink, a telecom company, masquerading as space exploration and AI.
It’s very late, but it’s here.
However, the COPV-powered reaction thrusters could shred anyone on the wrong side of the vehicle. Even in the non-invite-only 0 to 60 in .6s version, that is also a problem, correct? Meanwhile:
> Tesla 'Cannot Guarantee' Your Roadster Pre-Order Will Ever Be Delivered
https://insideevs.com/news/812247/tesla-roadster-preorder-de...
How many years ago did Elon lie and say the roadster would be available? How about put out the thing people reserved back then instead of skipping to a version of it nobody asked for.
It’s like he’s a bad product manager, forcing you to build things nobody actually wants. Except make that product manager a trillionaire surrounded by sycophants. Nightmare shit.
I'm not denying that there's some cool tech going on in there but this approach just makes me cringe. He knows well what he is doing and that's why I used the term "meme stock". This shit will not make any revenue, ever, probably but the demo moves the stocks.
Does Tesla have value? Yes it does. The cars work. I've never driven one but everyone I've spoken to few people who have, all of which really enjoyed driving them.
Flying cars will not ever be a thing. At least for not the next 50-100 years. Goddammit this shit is so stupid.
Can I put it under grokbot's control?
This is the latter. Four propulsion mechanism that introduce tradeoffs in the structure that remove value for 99% of people.
In other news, the car is very ugly, which is the only thing that was interesting to me. They made it look like an underfed cybertruck for some reason
There was optimus robots already on Tesla side and inference / r&d funded by x.ai (now spacex).
Haggerty has a good video with more details about the engineering. [1]
The uncanny valley is telling me it shouldn't have shaken at the top of the track like that unless it was on a guide rail system for the demo.
Gemini 4 Argon: https://x.com/LechMazur/status/2111255403216384046 GPT-6 Pro: https://x.com/LechMazur/status/2111255536666644932 Opus 5.5: https://x.com/LechMazur/status/2111258566539493402
Harvard, Yale, University of Texas 82
For example, Smale, a descriptively poor student educated in mathematics, didn't work as a janitor in any of the three institutes you mentioned and yet still scored a Wolf Prize, a Fields Medal, and other gongs most of us don't have.
But practicality aside, you have to be an absolute fool to believe any promises Elon makes at this point. Whether it's the automatic charging cable snake, or your car picking you up and dropping you off at the airport, or renting out your car as a self driving ride share, or your cybertruck also being a boat, or the dozens of other empty promises that he's made, there's just no reason to think he's telling the truth about anything until you can try it for yourself.
While I can appreciate, and he's joked publicly, that he is more agressive with timelines than the reality of the alignment of the technology and practicality (cost, etc) and regulations, most of what you've listed continue to progressively be released.
Is he careful with his speech in terms of what is a "big audacious goal" vs a shipping reality in near term, absolutely not.
So going through some of your list..
>automatic charging snake (you left off hit swappable batteries btw)
So prototypes were made and demoed, but ultimately they landed with wireless charging pads.. they are already starting to deploy this for real world testing.
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2026/08/19/tesla-tsla-gears-up-f...
>your car picking you up and dropping you off
I'll preface this that I'm nearing 99% FSD on my Tesla, and most of that 1% was the early miles when I first got it.
Robotaxis exist and hundreds of them in multiple cities are autonomously driving passengers every day. They continue to scale those numbers monthly.
They also have 14 billion FSD miles and growing.
I use summon every day to have my Tesla unpark itself and pick me up at the front door of my office. Short of me holding down a "come to me" button on my phone, it performs this action fully atonomous.
Banish (the opposite that sends the car away) exists but is not publicly available due to saftey, operational and regulatory reasons (for example where does the car gonif it can't find a parking spot?)
Currently this tech is limited to line of sight (~200Feet) but the speed and distance continues to increase over time with updates.. again as the tech and regulations come together.
If your complaint is that cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.. but modem HW3 is more than capable and the tech and laws are continuing to adapt.
>renting out
A far future vision sold as near term, for sure.. but it's not a matter of if but when as tech and regulations close the gap. Robotaxis are essentially doing this today.
These are not "empty promises" more so than long term visions (that do manifest) sold as short term shippable options.
Yesterday, that’s exactly what we saw and it’s ok to just enjoy the spectacle.
hparadiz said it would be much more impressive if they had driven it off a cliff.
It occurs to me that's a much more interesting use case -- to the extent that the jump tech is functional and can recharge itself in a reasonable time frame (?), it would be much more useful in an off-road vehicle. Tree trunk in your way? Don't even bother to slow down -- in fact, speed up -- and jump that thing. Likewise for gullies and other obstacles, even relatively small cliffs, and rivers.
Square-cube scaling being what it is, I think it'd be much more reasonable to use propellers (like quadcopters) than try to scale down COPV's to a Vroomba! size. That's actually an interesting product idea. A small flying vacuum cleaner could clean a variety of surfaces; not only floors.
(And you could even mount the charging station on the ceiling, so it doesn't take up floor space).
https://www.amazon.com/window-cleaning-robot/s?k=window+clea...
Fan cars are pretty old. From that perspective, the driving upside down part is "less impressive" but screw it, still cool.
I want to see it on a track going all out, but something about what they decided to focus on tells me nobody gives a damn about this actually doing anything performance car related.
Watch the video - the car jumps into the air. Not exactly flight or what we’d consider a flying car, but it’s careering through the air off the ground.
I mean, this isn't crazy. In fact, it's already been done. Ever heard of McMurtry? (https://mcmurtry.com/). They're notorious for exactly this - using fans to provide extreme downforce (urr... upforce if you're hanging upside down?).
> In flight?
Did you see the stunt where it literally flew over vehicles? I mean, maybe it's a bit closer to a controlled super-leap like the original Superman, but... yeah, my personal reaction to that was more "holy shit" than "well, that's not flying".
> Bullshit, no it can't.
A proof of concept already exists:
Tesla has very different reasons for doing what they did on the cybertruck. It's very much a form over function. Lotus has always been function over form (to a fault, in terms of their financial position).
You can add glass microspheres to adhesives to guarantee bondline thickness. It's often done nowadays whenever you have different metals meeting with a glue bond because it keeps them electrically isolated, preventing galvanic corrosion.
The issue isn't glue, its that parts are falling off.
9 years since the announcement of Roadster v2, people who paid 50k deposits are still waiting.
Time to up the promises, and ask for more $50k deposits for v3!
there's a whole lot of systemic issues with wealthy people buying low-poly cars to their collection.
Worse, there are no 3rd parties producing cheaper suspension parts, so your old Model 3 is going to have to spend 2000-3000$ on an yearly basis until you get sick of fixing the suspension. Tesla claims to have fixed the issue on newer models (and apparently they did a lot of work on the suspension), but they don't really take responsibility for their old cars so I doubt they will take responsibility when their design causes problems for you.
I do enjoy driving my 2019 SR+ Model 3, but I hate when people do the whole "Well on first principles, EVs have less parts so they are more reliable..." thing. My Toyota Sienna has been far more reliable than the Model 3, despite having many, many more parts.
FWIW, I'm into my fourth year of (Chinese-built) Model 3 ownership and it's been rock solid, the only services so far were to replace the air filter and wipers.
Rip away center tunnel carpet on rhs (lhd vehicle), remove 2 screws from below glove compartment, fold away panel, remove cap from filter compartment, remove 2 filters - put back together in reverse order.
That's literally a 20 minute job if you about know what you should be doing - a.k.a. read about the process in the free service manual of Tesla (only need an account, free) or watched a YT video...
Besides that, EVs are just really heavy and weight wears out tires. Just a fact of life.
This is less about EVs vs ICEs and more about Toyota's engineering quality vs Tesla's engineering quality, which is hovering somewhere in the vicinity of Homer Simpson's barbecue pit.
(Also my Tesla is 74.5k miles, so nowhere near 100k)
-edit-
I was a victim of misinformation from my local EV repair shop.
https://www.dormanproducts.com/pages/products/oe-fix/article...
The prices you are talking about are incorrect but there are 3rd party parts now.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/NextGenT...
(just personal preference)
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Lamborgh...
Sound advice for people looking for a practical car. But if you have Lambo money who cares? I have never seen a supercar described as reliable.
I always heard they were a pain to get serviced with long wait times. Not sure how well they hold their value either.
Even if they make this work, what exactly is it revolutionizing?
Every generation of high-dollar sports cars has had something you could point to and say "that was way ahead of its time" or "they pioneered that." A few examples: fuel injection in the 1950s, variable valves and CFD the 1980s-1990s, dual-clutch transmissions in the 2000s, hybridization and electrification more recently.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that 20 years from now, my commuter will be outfitted with cold-gas thrusters and fans sucking it into the pavement.
Supercars have always been gaudy playthings for the wealthy. I think the difference is that Tesla doesn't even pretend the Roadster represents anything else.
Though they have not confirmed it, it’s basically a given it has teslas new networking, and is 48v which both lead to vastly less wiring (lighter, cheaper)
ALL of those things will be in every automobile within 10 years.
There are 20 year old family sedans with brake by wire. Unless you're referring to EMB specifically.
I'd argue it's not the Cybertruck that is evidence of lack of care, but the fact that this car was promised 10 years ago and Elon took people's money to fund it. And now it's going to "fly" somehow and it's still years away.
Until they sold all their compute to anthropic, Ai was the boat anchor.
No way in hell is Twitter making a lick of profit.
For a while, didn't Amazon do the same? They basically ran a loss with Amazon retail but profits on AWS, until they spun off?
So yes, this is fairly common with conglomerates, (Amazon sold diapers at a loss to put diapers.com out of business). And in fact, this tactic is a target for anti-trust laws where they exist.
In the US, GE makes your microwave, aircraft engines, and also the gas turbine your power plant uses.
Siemens makes appliances, MRI machines, and even nuclear reactors I believe.
Or in Korea: Samsung, Hyundai, LG. Samsung makes chips, TVs, washing machines.
Japan: Mistubishi makes washing machines and excavators and mining equipment.
India: Reliance has cell phone service, grocery stores, and oil rigs. Tata makes cars, has tier 1 datacenters, and runs hotels too.
This is hardly a novel idea.
The only recent exception is Samsung because of memory suddenly costing 10x.
Long-term investors would lose about 40% of their investment to subsidize the inflated valuation of X (bought by xAI), the inflated valuation of xAI (bought by SpaceX), and SpaceX (whose valuation is based on the assumption that demand for inference is effectively unlimited, and that everyone will prefer hardware in space over Earth).
The valuation of both companies was inflated prior to acquisition, and Tesla shareholders will be asked to dilute their investment by absorbing that cumulative inflation.
Not even to mention that Musk would have exclusive control over the entire conglomerate, with not even the pretense of a Board to check his power.
When even Steven Mark Ryan is like "let's pump the breaks a little bit," you know it's bad.
Well, that and being the only reusable rocket company ever with an even bigger version on the horizon and a global Internet service that's about to get a whole lot better thanks to aforementioned rocket. Both of which are hugely profitable.
We do, at least at the time of the merger, as it existed as separate parts prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceXAI#Finance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering_of_Spa...
He wants control, so that he can use investor’s cash to do epic stuff like humanoid robots, cyber trucks, an AI that tells you that apartheid was actually cool, rocket cars, real life brain controlled robot bacon chungus, etc.
“Other shareholder meetings are snoozefests but ours are bangers. Look at this. This is sick.”
Elon’s pay package: he gets 400 million Tesla shares if he raises the market cap of tesla(xspacextwitterxAIx) to $8.5 trillion (nominal). He spent a cool 250 mil on making friends with the republicans, so as to ensure that his incoming epic awesome merger is not blocked.
A merger, plus the amount of inflation this government has already produced over the next decade, will probably see X co hitting Elon’s salary goals.
This feels like a delivery mechanism to drop hardware from terrestrial orbit. At least the last leg after parachutes
Also, assuming the delivery vehicle is destroyed at the end of each "delivery", what will it cost?
I think you are on an entirely different page.
The only new western car company in decades to not fail, based on a technology nobody believed in at the time, least of all other car companies
SpaceX being a private space company, which was completely unheard of. No experts though they could succeed
Smaller earlier businesses like Zip2, paypal, etc
These are gigantic high risk companies with high failure probabilities, the chance they they all happened to be successful despite Musk and not at least in part because of him is stretching reasonable doubt for me.
I'm absolutely no fan of his politics or personality, but the man can run a business that nobody else even dares try (at least until he demonstrates viability and the market starts to generate competitors)
Of course it’s still early days for all these companies and they’re not exactly fiscally solid, but if Tesla had not made all those cars, someone else would have.
Three sucesses.
Not so successful: Solar City, Neuralink, TBC, X.
(X exists, but before it was valued-and-bought by one of Musk's other companies, it appeared to have lost about half its value).
Richard Branson he aint.
They put out this video of a patient with ALS regaining the ability to communicate.
Hard to see that not being successful, once it passes the FDA, assuming it's real.
I'm interested to meet someone online who's short both on-shore US silicon fabs and the market for humanoid robots. Can you say more about your thinking?
Why exactly do you think he keeps repositioning them as a robotics oh wait no I mean an AI company? Why is he clearly positioning Tesla to be acquired by SpaceX? Why is Tesla investing into xAI to be converted into SpaceX shares?
Tesla’s actual business, making cars, continues to degrade. The Roadster (obviously) is not going to help.
They have a huge balance sheet so it’ll take a while but Musk obviously sees the writing on the wall. The sheen is wearing off their shitty products and he doesn’t know how to add the sheen back or make the products less shitty.
No it's not.
>Tesla’s actual business, making cars, continues to degrade.
False. Revenue and deliveries beat so far this year, Q3 also a beat.
Don't let your Elon Derangement Syndrome cloud your ability to think rationally.
TSLA is down 18% YTD. That's because their business is doing so well?
You're aware that the "expectations" are they run a profitable company, right?
>You're aware that expectations are increasingly that Tesla's business is struggling?
You're aware that the expectations are increasingly that Tesla's business is stable, and showed record deliveries and backlog in Q2?
>TSLA is down 18% YTD. That's because their business is doing so well?
Auto manufacturing sector (DJUSAU) is down 16% YTD, and Tesla's stock is overpriced to begin with. Tesla's most direct competitor in the US, Rivian, is down 34% YTD. Stop getting your business/economic news from BlueSky/reddit.
That's why Musk is trying to claim Tesla isn't an automotive company (except when comparisons to such suit him and his cultists, of course).
And where should they get them? From Twitter?
Credible business/economic news outlets.
>From Twitter?
No.
October 2: Tesla deliveries fall 2% as US consumers buy fewer EVs
July 23: Tesla shares tumble 11% as discounts hit profits
April 2: Tesla reports weaker than expected 6% rise in global deliveries
January 29: Tesla scraps models in pivot to AI as annual revenue falls for the first time
Tesla growth is slowing, margins are getting crunched, competition is heating up. Tesla knows they're fucked so they're pivoting into AI. The pivot into AI might work, but Musk himself unambiguously thinks Tesla is fucked as an automotive company.
You've also cherry-picked an instance where Tesla reported weaker than expected growth but you've omitted the times where it reported stronger than expected growth.
As for shrinking margins, that's largely due to growing R&D spending. That's not necessarily or even normally a negative thing.
The growing investment into AI and autonomy is part of a very long standing trend that has been declared for about decade. It's not an indication of desperation (beyond the ever-present desperation that companies always feel with the heat of competitive fires under their feet) or some failure of some previous plan.
I am not sure you can detach these two concepts. Tesla is currently valued around 3x the next top 5 auto companies combined, so to an extent you need to judge the company on these expectations. I happen to think they do have a pretty good business selling cars, and maybe a very good business selling autonomous cars, but there's so much uncertainty I think it is hard to see the current market cap as anything other than hugely inflated.
This is historical artefact: HK with its short distances is very suitable to EVs, and the government initially supported EVs with tax breaks. In other words, people bought a lot of Teslas when it was the only game in town.
For new registrations, BYD overtook Tesla back in 2025 with a yoy growth of 67.8% vs Tesla -3.8%, and in the latest available month (June) had more than 4x as many registrations as Tesla.
It's not exactly market-dominating growth justifying a 300+ P/E ratio.
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news/article/319010/EVs-make-...
https://kr-asia.com/pulses/155906
https://hkcarrank.com/jan-2026-private-car-registration-data...
https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/transport_fi... -> check table 4.1(e)
Musk keeps it running as a mouthpiece/propaganda and vanity project, but it's not a viable business anymore due to all the $13B Musk borrowed to acquire it, as well as loss of advertizers. It's estimated to break even on an operational basis, but loses about $1B/yr when you include interest on the debt.
I'm looking at the same post on a players status for this weekend from 2 hours ago on 3 platforms:
- Threads: 5 likes, 2 comments, 15 shares
- BlueSky: 19 likes, 3 comments, 3 shares
- Twitter: 1500 likes, 105 comments, 281 shares
Doesn't really seem like twitter is the one that's almost dead...
For anything politics related the activity is almost all bots.
Turns out you just love Trump.
That isn't even snark, it's plain cold hard on-the-record facts.
Anyway, here are Elon's emails to Epstein. Where is he begging for access to the island?
All that can be definitively proven by Musk’s own statements is that the Epstein files convinced him that Trump is a child rapist and Musk has nonetheless chosen to defend Trump, work with him, fund him, and according to Musk single-handedly get him re-elected.
Thank god Musk is not a scam artist though. That’d be a real indictment of his character. And you know, it might even be an indictment of the character of his valiant supporters.
So the publicity is arguably priceless.
A regular Tesla that sucks, you mean?
Even the base model has “active aerodynamics and a multi-mode suction system that maximizes downforce for next-level performance on and off the track.”
It's compressed air RCS. The compressor, regulators and a ton of hardware take up the entire space from the seats back to literally the very last inch of the car. Hard pipes run along the door frame for the forward RCS, meaning only one person (driver) can sit in it and enter from the drivers side. Huge carbon RCS tanks fill every other space.
No idea how long it would take to recharge the tanks after venting them.
There's no room for 'car' stuff in it.
Interestingly there is a big... sleeve of wizard... that extends down under the car to assist the ground effect fan. Packaging that and the RCS stuff into it is a real engineering feat.
But it didn't look to have crash structures, or any other production ready hardware.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/13/nasa-releases-summary-...
1. Why don't they show a driver entering or exiting? 2. How much do that particular "car" weigh?
Aku: You can fly?!
Jack: No, jump good.
Okay, so I guess it doesn’t fly in the same way a rocket doesn’t fly? Distinction without meaning in this case.
The site states it's cold-gas thrusters for both models: "Features a multi-mode suction system paired with cold-gas thrusters positioned around the perimeter of the vehicle that support forward and upward acceleration as well as lateral rotational movement."
I can imagine the lateral thrusters helping it turn faster on the track. Although I wonder if the extra weight is going to net out positive for lap times.
But really, a few very rich people will buy the full-rocket version to impress their friends. They'll play with them on private property.
Can't help but think of the not-a-flamethrower
(friend bought one for $500, now they seem to be worth $1500-$2000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boring_Company#Merchandise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_B_Meyer_Inc.
that sounds quite amazing, and it looks like something out of ghostbusters.
And that makes a big difference, right? Right?
Here's an RC car that can drive on the ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uR_mNcRlNsA
My general assumption is that anything and everything that wasn't necessary for that demo was removed to trim enough weight to make the demo possible.
Tesla's website literally says the Rocket version is "Not approved for public road use." And has "Seating for one." Any battery that can perform that demo can certainly power basic driving. You're accusing them of deception when every modification you describe is plainly stated on their website. (E.g. It's drive-by-wire, and the seats are modeled chassis elements. Yes, it's wildly minimal.)
The expectation that a vehicle that did a literal standing barrel roll (even if only a single time) be functionally equivalent to a Toyota Camry is madness to me. The much more interesting question is what type of localization system in 3D space were they running?
You fell for Elon's three-cup monte.
What we saw was impressive, but it’s a trick. The car’s tanks are surely empty after this, and now you have a loud compressor filling them up for minutes. You can’t use those thrusters near people and cars cause you’re at risk of getting them in trouble.
It’s part of a long history of useless tech in supercars. Impressive, but useless.
Satellites are on a ballistic trajectory, they don't 'hover' but they will stay aloft long enough to be useful. A bullet fired horizontally is going to follow a parabola and then impact (the ground or something else) it does not hover. A car that is dropped that ejects a significant fraction of its mass in any direction is going to alter its trajectory but that won't change much: it's going to come down, and sooner rather than later, it isn't 'hovering' it is just very temporarily staving off the inevitable.
If you show me this car staying in place for more than a couple of seconds I would agree it is hovering, the mass ejection trick would have to be replaced by something that actually works. But this is just a gimmick: it gives the illusion of a hover by ejecting a bunch of mass so large that outside of a split second demo it isn't going to work, it's going to come down within a very short time and there is nothing that will stave that off.
It wouldn't be the first time Musk demoed something and promised something and then never ships.
And I'm the one with "derangement".
Then again, maybe I'm forgetting about the corrupt lawless country they operate out of...
I'm not saying its impossible but it seems pretty naive to just assume on face value
For what it’s worth, my $600 hunting rifle will go clean through both sides of any bulletproof vest, and it’s nothing special.
For everything that is bulletproof, there is always a calibre of projectile that will go through it.
Skins on cars are shocking thin.
Example RC toy car that drives on the ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uR_mNcRlNsA
Even if it is, they show interior, wheels & a distance shot of the rear opening showing a large air tank - very little can be seen of the actual chassis or engine.
Whatever tricks were done for the demo - whether the car is real or fake - it's highly unlikely what was shown today will ever be like-for-like accessible to consumers in the production model.
Just like economically infeasible Twitter, it has tremendous PR value. There is a huge economy revolving around people annoying other people just for a glimpse of their attention. This captures the attention and pleases people. Other car companies should start getting creative too.
The power to shape governments to his liking is worth a lot more than what he paid for Twitter.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/how-the-military-will-hack...
The twitter purchase likely did little either way
Hopefully there will also be a warning siren while it is pressurized. "Dangerous enough to need a warning siren" seems like a plus for the target market, honestly.
If that is what they have done. That may just be a large drone looking like a car.
I don't think they'll sell these, at all in the future. No way they'll hound out actual rocket engines to en users. Too much IP in there.
Teslas evaluation is based on hype. This is as hype as it gets for a car. To me it looks like they were in need for "the coolest thing". To me, this has the smell of desperation implying the beginning of the end of their high evaluation.
Guess it is for advertising mainly.
You could say the same thing about the Cybertruck.
It's staggering to consider how many resources we've diverted from people who could use them into building this novelty.
If ever there was a sign of a society of decadence in decline, it's that the most powerful person on earth is free to create toys like this exclusively for others in the ruling class.
"Crazy new thing also crazy expensive" is the norm, not a regression.
If this ships, it will deliver a fraction of what's promised here. My money is on the "flying" version being delayed repeatedly until it's quietly cancelled. Anyone remember the fast battery change stations[1]?
It's only wild if you ignore Musk's role in this. Not even trying to bash him or anything, but he's a trillionaire. This is the kind of shit you do when you have more money than you can ever possibly waste.
I mean, if this is how he wants to spend his money, then I guess that's his prerogative. But I think it's a bit misleading to suggest this is a decision made by "Tesla" when this is clearly an irrational decision for a company to make. This is a decision made by Musk based on satisfying his own personal goals.
In terms of net worth, you are closer to Jeff Bezos than Bezos is to Musk.
If you offer 0.0000001% of your LLC for sale and I purchase one share for $1, the value of your company becomes $1 billion dollars.
That’s exactly what SpaceX did. But with 5% shares for sale.
This is explained in the deep dive video with Lars - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts
Sorry, I'll start it from the app!
chug chug chug chug
Or an easier way to escape rioters blocking the road and threatening your life.
They can’t even build a proper Mini anymore because the hood was so low it elked pedestrians face first into the windshield.
It’s cool tech demo. I’m not expecting to see one fly in private hands ever.
However, those assuming it will never be sold or even legal to be sold may not be aware there already exist astronomically expensive, completely impractical, quite unsafe, track-only hypercars which are not legal to drive on any street.
As for the technical legality of the 'flying' features ask your LLM about: the Ground-Effect & "Sustained Flight" Jurisdictional Boundary in FAA / NHTSA regs, Off-Road Track-Only exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and PHMSA / DOT-SP (Special Permit) authorization for consumer COPV pressure vessels. Making the "hopping" version for sale is a wildly impractical marketing stunt but they can probably do it, although it'll cost far more and ship much later than whatever they promise and will sell at most a few dozen.
And supercars are typically not submitted for NCAP testing, so It'll likely be less safe than a Model Y for example (to be determined, no reports out yet)
> Tesla doesn't have a great record anyways.
That things which are good for an individual but bad for everyone else deserve scrutiny?
I personally saw one in Krakow, Poland.
Cybertruck does not have EU homologation so Tesla can't sell it in EU. Because at the moment they don't want to.
You can buy it, import it and certify for legal use. It requires minor modifications but is perfectly legal.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highes...
> The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws.... Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well....
> “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities”....
The more rigorous data is the IIHS driver death rates, which use real registration data and adjust for driver age and gender (iihs.org/topics/driver-death-rates). It shows the RWD Model 3 is about half its class average (15 vs 29 deaths per million vehicle-years) and the Model S is about average. The AWD Model 3 is above average (39 vs 29), which points more to how fast cars get driven than to the car itself. IIHS hasn’t published a Model Y rate yet.
So Teslas aren’t the deadliest brand. The faster versions show more risk, which is the same pattern IIHS sees with muscle cars.
https://vsp.virginia.gov/virginia-state-police-trooper-rescu...
And 14 others - that I'm aware of - to date.
As for US safety standards, that seems a lower bar...
Quite ironic.
https://autoedgeview.com/ev-reviews/europe-cybertruck-ban-ex...
There are exceptionally few steel hoods left on European cars, not because of weight or cost or anything except that the EU likes the way human heads bounce on aluminum more than steel.
They engineer to robustly pass tests, seemingly without a lot of consideration of "beyond" the test. It's not uncommon for most OEMs to target the test metrics, but you can still make design choices along the way where you may recognize with EJ when there is a "design cliff" and you may avoid it.. if desired.
I'm going to quote Buzz Lightyear: this is falling... with style.
On a serious note, this was unexpected. You can't deny, he has style
Those SS uniforms were snappy.
But what is the point of this? Did Musk think everyone would forgive him, turn to white-supremacy and re-vote in his patsy's associates if only they saw a weird car demo?
For a few seconds. It's a parlor trick. And the flying configuration will not be street-legal.
Do you know what gets me excited? Have you seen the new Porsche Mission S?
Form, function and beauty ...
It's a glorified Beetle.
Yeah just like the Tesla screen in the car. Quite a problem since it lacks physical buttons.
I'm not saying it is ballistic, it clearly isn't if it is steered in flight.
I just don't know how "laminar" ended up in there, it is impossible to believe that these thrusters are not causing turbulence.
And frankly I'm not sure the engineering is all that impressive. I'm sure someone could've done similar a long time ago, there's just no point to it beyond, well, the parlor trick. Even millionaires have no use for a single seat, road-illegal vehicle with no storage that happens to be able to jump
Many of the best parlor tricks are.
Until then, this is simply a purpose built drone, powered by compressed air to perform specific tricks in order to grift and hype up interest in the company.
I can buy a drone from DJI that performs more impressive flying maneuvers than what Tesla showed.
But they lacked a lot of the showmanship here.
You can basically engineer almost anything with enough money for a demo. It's a lot different to engineer something that'll actually get commercialized.
Sometimes I think this sub, being software heavy, downplays the achievements of their own field and overplays the achievements of other fields they lack experience in.
Apparently Pops Racer works for Tesla.
"Integrating SpaceX thruster tech is absolutely essential to Tesla in the future!"
Impressive engineering but utterly impractical. There are semi-practical flying car designs around folding wings or quad rotors (basically a big car sized drone) and the reason we don’t see them has more to do with safety, traffic control, and energy cost. Aircraft, like rockets, tend to get more energy efficient with size, so tiny flying machines are power wasters.
This is just going to make it even more desirable to a certain market segment.
No, both versions use cold gas thrusters. There are no combustion rocket engines involved here.
The difference between the “thrust” and “rocket” versions is the number of thrusters: “rocket” has additional thrusters that enable it to fly. The “thrust” version just has them at the back for acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO_Rocket_Car
The famous JATO Rocket Car story was one of the original Darwin Awards winners. I remember reading it out loud to my buddies and us all rolling withlaughter when it was published in News of the Weird. pre-Internet.
For a 1000 kg car and with 200 m/s nozzle exit velocity, to hover the car you need (with m_0 g = m_a v/t) about 50 kg of air per second, so we're talking about roughly 2.5 seconds of flight (from those 400 litres).
[1] https://youtu.be/6D5MlPZQFOw?si=5x7x96SqdW3Z7OzJ&t=769 [2] https://youtu.be/22rvpUecLts?si=pq6EuQnDWdH9tgBf&t=264
Of what, being the safest production car on the road that you can buy?
It's not a high performance car. It's a shell of a car.
It’s an Apple Vision Pro.
They’ll do fine over the decade.
Ferrari sells a few of each models in a production run and it does exceptionally well financially.
It made for a great marketing stunt, it is absolutely useless for a production car. And you can tell the designers realize it but were at the whims of Elon in their interview.
We were promised an awd, 620 mile range monster almost a decade ago, and then again 6 years ago. We were delivered a “maybe 310 mile” range, rwd doorstop.
I’m not sure who this car is for, but it’s definitely not car guys. It is the cybertruck of sports cars, and that’s not a good thing…
Bonus: use cars!
| ... cybertruck of sports cars ...
If only I had been given fidicuary responsibility for millions of peoples life savings. Then I could build a car that has 0 chance of ever reaching production, just to impress my friends.
Imagination is powerful.
No to mention there was no actual driver in it.
For current performance motors, they each weigh between 100 and 150 pounds. It's very likely the roadster ones will weigh more.
The "gearbox" equivalent is about 200 pounds on modern teslas, and again the roadster will need a beefier one.
So literally just the essentials of motors and wheels and "gearbox" is now at a bare minimum of 600+ pounds. This isn't including the actual frame and structure itself, the battery, the wiring and electronics, and literally the entire vacuum/cold gas system.
I would like anyone to comment how the demo unit could possibly be under 500 pounds "guaranteed".
If you do the math that gets you about 13 seconds of hovering.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/australias-first-flyin...
Just because the technology is technically feasible doesn't mean that a specific company is not scamming you when they promise it.
And Tesla already has enough of a history of fake promises (your tesla will be a self-driving robotaxi earning money while you sleep within a few years, FSD will take you across the country while you sleep by next year, humanoid robots, the new roadster is taking reservations now and will deliver soon, regulation is the only thing holding up FSD, etc etc).
The existing tech fab plus this car maybe makes it harder to sue once the merger happens - but he will still be sued. “Look we’re making it rocket cars with AI of course we should be one company”
Was it a an amazing demo? yes.
Looks like 4 seconds or so.
Is that your claim?
with the most notorious pedophile on earth?
> Virginia Giuffre alleged in a lawsuit that in the early 2000s, when she was 18, she participated in an orgy on the island with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and eight girls who "appeared to be under the age of 18" and did not speak English.
What exactly are you defending here?
Prove what exactly?
Epstein pled guilty in state court in June 2008 to procuring a minor for prostitution, and was subsequently registered as a sex offender. His conviction, the child victim, and his plea-deal scandal were all public record and nationally covered by the media in 2008. Prior to November 2012, the publicly available records linking "pedophile island" (as it was referred to by locals) to abuse of minors was multiple 2008–2009 lawsuits and the 2011 media coverage. Said media coverage was the UK press turning the case into an international story from February 2011, that included: photos of Andrew and Epstein in Central Park, the Mail on Sunday photo of Andrew with Roberts and Maxwell, details about Sarah Ferguson being paid to clear her debts, and Andrew stepping down as trade envoy in July 2011.
The facts we have currently are via this truncated DOJ release, because prior to that Elon lied about their relationship on several occasions:
- “he never toured SpaceX” (July 2020).
- “Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED” (Sept 2025)
And the facts are that Elon was asking the world's most notorious pedophile when he could visit the private island so he could attend his wildest party. This might be normal for you, but if I knew someone who was a convicted pedophile I wouldn't want to speak to them ever again, let alone begging to be invited to their wildest party on a remote private island.
"What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?"
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA006616...
"Do you have any parties planned? I've been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I'm looking for."
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02563...
October 2, 2013 - https://www.etonline.com/news/139074_Woody_Allen_Daughter_Br... - "Woody Allen's adopted daughter Dylan opens up to Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth about the sexual abuse scandal involving her famous father."
Sat, Nov 23 - Epstein: "will you come to caribean this xmas? , woody alien with me, you might enjoy", Elon: "Yes"
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01944...
That kind of liar is what I would expect of someone who goes around claiming Elon's a Nazi though.
Straubel, in the year 2000 at the age of 25, may very well have had unprotected sex out of wedlock !!
Also yes you can legally sell it. Whether you can legally operate it is a different question.
Also Cybercab.
How many Optimus robots are out in the wild?
It is a scam, 100%.
Optimus is coming, the huge factory in Austin is being built now.
Late? Always. But coming.
Two outta three ain’t bad.
Cybercab is operating already on the roads? They're building the factory for mass producing them right now.
Optimus robot is still in development.
This was an air tank with a styrofoam shell held together with glue. It's a rough prototype of a concept car.
And they did build one pilot station that did the battery swaps and did some swaps with real owners cars, but drivers didn't like the idea so they abandoned it.
And yes to my point, I said Tesla product, namely something that is sold to customers as is. So yeah it's relevant.
Which serial numbers? I see no evidence of any customer shipments with this capability. Happy to be corrected with factual evidence, though.
> I said Tesla product, namely something that is sold to customers as is.
That’s not what the word “product” means. It’s not limited to products shipped to end users. Components used only in service stations, dealers, or for their own internal use that are produced by them are also products. Quite literally anything that comes out the output side of a production process is a product.
The corvette ZR-1 had a special key that would unlock all the performance. I don't think it met emissions when unlocked.
Lots of newer muscle cars have performance modes and dragstrip modes that you shouldn't use.
Even other teslas, like model 3 performance and model s plaid have have track mode and dragstrip mode that shouldn't be used on public streets.
The Mitsubishi Outlander outsells it.
I can’t imagine a car without a steering wheel benign fun to drive. Tesla has never been known for handling and driving dynamics.
Numb steering, crashy handling, that’s what the gearheads seem to say about Tesla vehicles.
They go fast but they are absolutely not at the top of the class for driving dynamics.
I’ve test driven a Model Y Performance and the steering was lighter and more numb than my basic economy car. The car goes fast but that’s all it does.
If the roadster has drive by wire like the cybertruck that’s going to be even worse.
There is no universe in which I would compare any Tesla model to an M3 or WRX.
First of all we should consider that their direct competitor the Ioniq 5 N is a better performance car.
The M3 finishes Willow Springs faster than the Model 3, so we can’t even go by raw performance. In track conditions the battery thermals and stock tires on the Model 3 can’t keep up.
Comparing the emotions you’re going to get from a V8 gurgling and thrashing through gears compared to a silent EV motor is just not even in the same league. The Ioniq 5 N actually does something about that and reviewers are impressed. They directly state that it is more fun than Tesla performance models.
Then your other problem is that the Model 3 performance looks identical to your uber driver’s car. Someone dropping $60k on a performance car wants to feel special. The trim and upholstery options on the M3 alone are more exciting than the Model 3.
They sell 20k of them per year. It's the opposite of popular
They ARE popular, I see 10-20 a day when I drive around. Now if you want to compare to a corolla, I don't care.
They're distinctive.
Count Corollas for a day. You can probably see 10-20 at once in some spots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
(When I got a Toyota Echo back in the early 2000s, I suddenly saw them everywhere, too. And yet… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Platz#Sales)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
- The cold-gas only version will shotgun debris into onlookers, and possibly yeet anyone behind it.
- Active suction is very cool until a rock punches through your intakes.
- Lithium batteries and pressurised tanks in the same package, yippee!
Thank god it'll take them years to manufacture this thing.
They'll make a handful that a select few billionaires will get to keep in a hanger somewhere for bragging rights.
There's a reason we don't see a driver in these demos and they don't do anything beyond very choreographed stunts. There's no way a human can actually control those thrusters in a way that doesn't kill you. Unless you're a fighter pilot.
I wouldn’t want to sit in it tho (and I’m guessing no one in the demographic this will be sold to would want this level of risk either).
I'm not even sure if a fighter pilot could. The passenger compartment of the "Rocket" model is probably packed full of tanks and other equipment, to deliver total of a few seconds of flight time. Doing anything in the air would probably require such precise timing no person could do manually, and it probably can't even be done automatically outside very controlled conditions.
I think the bigger issue with be making it street legal. Kickflipping over traffic, and refusing visibility for everyone to 0 in the process, can't be good.
For closed courses, movies, etc it's really cool.
The Tumbler? Oh, you wouldn't be interested in that.
The base model has the suction fans which will make huge gains.
Next model up has rear thrusters for the acceleration, which will be more insane. It’s limited production.
Final model that can fly is invite only and will be a joke on the track, using those thrusters to go around corners way, way faster than normal.
I wish they had shown track laps and 1/4 mile times instead of the gimmick of flying.
They also wouldn’t have wanted it on test tracks before today.
If that thing would have looked like a huge drone (which I strongly suspect it is) no one would be up in arms about it.
And they already did that with a cybertruck pulling a 911, already done.
When you were a kid, if you saw a car fly and flip you would be amazed. You are old and jaded like me so nothing gives you wonder anymore.
This would even be a sensible choice for Tesla, because it will put that car in a garage far away from public scrutiny...
(thinking just about all the debris damage-potential of those thrusters here, not even any potential quality issues)
The cybertruck is for sale and FSD is active in the US. The US lets automakers "self-certify" that they are safe. So although I don't think this thing should ever be sold, it may end of on US roads.
Flying / rocket acceleration are special versions they can sell one offs capable of doing the stunt once per canister change.
Yes, and at high speed, it helps make sure you don't take flight accidentally.
When you don't have enough:
Like any of this will materialise. Where’s the original Roadster people actually put down payments on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(second_generat...
I don't see much difference between a more affordable autonomous bus or van option vs a subway. The benefit will eventually be access to the tunnels more than the fact it's large and on a track. But in cities it's also incredibly expensive to build anything without a hundred stakeholders interfering so a large amount of new tunnels is probably DOA just like most high speed rail projects have been.
Fan cars are old. Nothing about them is new or special or unique. Trying to build infrastructure dependent on such a feature would be the dumbest thing since monorails.
Just build subways for heaven's sake.
But you know, that's just off the top of my head.
Based on the record of Musk & co straight out LYING in such events (remember Solarcity?), I am very confident in saying that a large portion of what they demonstrated they have not actually solved how to fit in a real production car.
They could be in the unit when its happening and there would still be some counterclaim.
It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.
This doesn't tend to end well. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...
Why would you solve that? Open roads aren't a track, we don't build highways with 90 degree turns, there is no need for such thing
It won't.
And this is also true of being able to go over 90 MPH, despite many sports/premium cars touting an ability to reach a top speed above 150 MPH. Some cars come with "Donut" or drift modes. Donuts and drifting are definitely not road legal actions. These, and many other capabilities of sports cars, are obviously for track use only. These Roadster gimmicks are no different.
The suction system is interesting. It's possible for it to work on the street but incredibly dumb. The kind of gap you have to keep is millimeters off the ground and your typical streets in the real world have so much damage and inconsistency it's hard to imagine it working for anything but straight line acceleration on a newly paved road. This would be a suicide mission to drive this on Skyline with the expectation to get 2-3g in the bends.
The concerns about debris and so forth are somewhat valid but can be taken care of. Similar to dust collectors for woodworking - this will have a cyclone separator, mesh, and whatnot that will prevent the blades from getting wrecked by a rock. But wouldn't want to tail this thing. It'll be pelting your car.
It'll be another "car goes really fast in a straight line" feature which electric cars have always done well with. While it'd be cool to use the suction system to get incredible g forces in bends - it'll be too dangerous for public roads. You'd immediately fly off the road if you lost any suction and I don't know what public roads (especially in the Bay Area) you could run such a system reliably on.
Corruption? Musk is already down a quarter of a billions in donations to the GOP for these incoming elections.
Kinda, but not really. In Germany you can do that on public roads. And there are many circuits you can do track days at that only require a street legal car and a helmet.
Meanwhile even the suction functionality of the roadster will probably be banned at most track days because it throws a bunch of rocks and dirt at cars behind you.
Surely the intake will need to be minimally filtered, my guess is something similar to fly screen mesh (screen door material, for the yanks) or finer. Debris would then just fall to the ground when the fans aren’t running.
Nope.
List of cars I know to go over 90MPH. Supposedly. 2000 Dodge Neon with 800 pounds of man in it and only 3 out of 4 cylinders functional. 2004 Toyota Camry with broken O2 sensors, and it loves it. Anything by VW. Pretty much anything parked in your local highschool.
Most modern cars can hit 90 MPH with ease, that's what modern aero and 145HP being "underpowered" means! Supposedly cars are electronically hard limited to 115mph and I have never been able to confirm that in practice
Of course, this implies that you might be able to own some of these features, with the actual crime being using them. Like that Beetle with a helicopter jet turbine.
It's not at all conspiracy theory. It's just same old over promise and under deliver that Elon does.
All major exterior panels are welded and/or bolted on. On the earliest revisions, the thin upper door trim strips were bonded using a bad structural adhesive which became brittle with temperature cycling. These were recalled and remedied with a different structural adhesive plus a welded stud. Such recalls are very common; the current generation Ford Explorer had multiple recalls for exterior panels falling off.
A car company that as a long history of making false claims?
I agree: one of us is delusional. I think we disagree about whom.
But hey, you're right. If it's not styrofoam I'm sure we'll see proof of that very soon now. Like a person riding in it. Or it out where someone can actually touch it. Try to lift it.
(And if we don't....)
That is of course very very far away from reality (though, progressing to a feasable program faster than any space observers predicted.)
THat, combined with Elon signaling to investors/market that tesla no longer produces cars.....it's hard to imagine the company splitting their very, very , very over-commited engineers to a flying car. At least, they aren't commiting the point that this will be a consumer-market car, or even a halo car.
No contradiction between "more than everyone else combined" and "it is unfeasable to launch 36,500 metric tons per year compared to the about-2,500 tons in the last 12 months".
Especially as the working launch vehicle is getting retired and the replacement has only had one circularized orbit, and is currently behind the development pace set by the Saturn V, N1, and even the Space Shuttle.
I assume you’re dirty on Usain Bolt for not running faster?
Given that they have largely relied on reusability rather than strongly ramping up production of boosters for Falcon 9, and given that they have performed 3 launches in a single day, one launch per day is clearly achievable without any further advances, and without even using Starship.
To be clear, the stated goal for Starship is one launch per hour throughout the year, which would still be a tiny number compared to, say, airline flights, but quite impressive for orbital flight.
Nobody else comes close, whether considering individual companies or entire nations.
This is a mathematically silly assertion. Over the past decade, SpaceX has scaled their launch capacity from ~20 metric tons per year to ~2,300 metric tons per year. That's more than two orders of magnitude. It's not unreasonable to imagine that they could scale a further 0.3 orders of magnitude if there were customers willing to pay for this amount of lift.
A car company that has a long history of making false claims? Are you really asking me that?
It’s dangerous for you to let your dislike of someone or some company to cloud your judgement like this. You know other companies have launched failed products too, right?
I think it's the dead kids.
All those dead kids.
Fool me once...
Even if they didn’t deliver FSD, the data says they delivered something people are choosing to pay $100 per month for.
This is a circus stunt.
Tesla will continue to rule the US for the next two years due to the admin but the Euro and Canadian markets are likely going to continue to close to them. It might be that home-grown competitors will step up to the plate or maybe they'll open their doors to Chinese exports - it's hard to say. So while it's hard to identify a winner, the loser is clearly Tesla.
Well then, I'm sure it'll be disproven very shortly, right?
They won't keep the vehicle hidden and out of sight, right?
Let's just revisit in a couple months, shall we?
It's surely not AI, but so far it is little more than all these Jetpack demonstrations of the past decade...
They've been promising those since the 1970s...
Meanwhile Chinese EV maker Nio has built over three thousand battery swap stations. We can speculate all we want about Tesla's motives, endlessly entertaining as that is, but the fundamental idea was sound.
The failure of the demonstration got vastly more coverage than if it would have if the, um rock?, just hit the window, went donk and fell down. If your goal was to communicate to the maximum number of people that you had put bulletproof glass in your cars, it would be quite a reasonable tactic.
His software company, named Green Hills, supplies the RTOS for Mobileye, which formerly supplied driver-assistance hardware and software to Tesla (and continues to do so for other car companies). Mobileye is no longer a Tesla supplier because Tesla insourced their ADAS.
So he has a very real financial incentive to convince the world that Tesla's system is bad.
Mobileye is no longer a Tesla supplier because Tesla wouldn't stop using their tech in ways they did not approve of, turning back all the safety limits to allow the public to do things Mobileye knew were unsafe. Mobileye publicly called them out, saying that Tesla was "going to hurt the interests of [Mobileye] and hurt the interests of an entire industry, if a company of our reputation will continue to be associated with this type of pushing the envelope in terms of safety".
This is one of the reasons why S/X ADAS performance famously got significantly worse in late 2016 with HW2, they had of course been working on their own tech but because they'd already built their brand around ADAS they felt compelled to put it out unfinished when they no longer had the Mobileye system to sell.
And inevitably two groups will clash, one pointing out how much this deviated from the original, often decade long promises vs another pointing at the identical naming, how it's still a product they like and of course the all time winner "I don't see you do X"...
For what it's worth, I'd file this as a RCS demo for SpaceXGrokSI (or whatever they call themselves this week) above all else and if I were a betting man, might be a prelude to fusing them into SpaceXSuperXTeslaXIntelligenceX...
It would encourage me to sell, if I had, seeing this nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/11/tesla-s...
Also I feel like it should be said that anyone who doesn't like fascism and Nazi salutes should be a critic of Tesla, and if you aren't, that speaks volumes.
The demonstrations seems to be very specific, it probably can't do anything more than fall to the ground. The practicality of actual levitating the car may out of reach.
Everyone calls it a "flying car" the idea is planted in people's mind and they let people's imagination or credulity do the rest. Stock price goes up.
Even if we would accept the premise that flying cars will be the norm at some point, I'm not sure what people imagine that would do for them. Technically you could solve traffic jams to some degree, but still not entirely because I can't imagine that at any point flying cars would mean that you just fly wherever you want. It would give us multilayered traffic, which is cool to reduce traffic jams, but does it really do anything else?
But prior to any of that, I'm fascinated by how irrational it is to think that this jumping car is even remotely feasible to participate in any kind of traffic.
That's why I assume that the general public expects that Tesla has already solved all these problems, as they otherwise wouldn't announce such a product.
In reality, we apparently have entered times where they could present a teleporting machine and start a 200k USD pre-order with little to no public scrutiny.
You can clearly see what it does. If nobody buys it or it can't be driven on public roads, so what.
This event was like Disney presenting a mass-production rollercoaster you can pre-order for your home, but the general public seems to glance over how utterly irrational this is.
So far companies did alot of fundamental due diligence before making such an announcement (and the prior R&D investment!), because the consequences could be fatal.
The average consumer apparently still assumes that this due diligence phase was passed, thinking it's impossible that a known company presents something that big it cannot deliver on...
A barrell roll is a specific manoeuvre involving pitching up vertically before commencing the roll.
Learnt something today, thank you!
I took the OP's question to really be a question about the origin of that phrase, and with your answer, I learned something I didn't know before. So I, for one, am happy the question was asked.
The OP's question was clearly skeptical though:
---
napkins, and envelopes at least kind of make sense.
Who was ever writing on the back of cigarette packs?
---
Implication being that writing on the back of cig packs does not make sense. I'd agree with your reading if not for the "at least kind of make sense" bit.
in india.
I'm imagining this in two phases: phase one - you drive around, and excess energy goes to compressing air. Phase two - you use that compressed air which takes very little additional power, so you get to double up on force. I guess likely a 'running mode' where it's using some power to keep suction on.
I'm curious how much time you get at full blast vs 'just' enough to keep the car pinned to a wall, e.g. 1 vs 2 g.
It still doesn’t make much sense to me. And that’s before considering what happens when you get rocket stream hitting a tarmac road. Never mind public roads, this sounds like a major hazard anywhere. Plus the quantity of compressed gas son board (if that’s how it works)… not a pretty crash. At these numbers, imagine 10MJ released all of a sudden - apparently that’s about 2.5kg of TNT.
Surely I’m missing something… as I say, I can’t make sense of it.
ETA: this is a horrifying amount of energy to be sitting on top of.
It's an electric car - unless you've got an incredibly long charging cable, there is no "excess energy" when you're driving around.
Nowadays as a "petrol head" when I look at stats I want to see weight - as little of it as possible. Horsepower needs to begin with 2, maybe with 3 in some cars, any more than that and it's silly. I want reviewers to say the car puts a smile on their face driving it to work every day, not doing 160mph on the race track. And of course, high speed is "fun" - one of my favourite memories is driving at 158mph past Berlin at 4am - incredible. But the modern obsession with horsepower and 0-60 is...just stupid. Fast 0-60 time does not make for a fun or an engaging car. It just makes it fast.
Yet it's a useful, comparable, measure for acceleration and is frequently exercised on track. If you had an AMG and haven't taken it for at least one track day then I question why you bought it. Image?
Maybe 30-70 would be more useful for determining overtaking capability, but that would require everyone in the motoring industry to agree to change at the same time.
Oh I have, and it was awesome. But 99% of the time I drove it to work and back, sitting in traffic, thinking to myself I'd much much much rather be in something more comfortable, more quiet, something that isn't using quite so much fuel just sitting there and something that didn't require new tyres every 8000 miles.
Like yes, speed is awesome - fast acceleration is cool. But the obsession with it is destroying the industry - like, it's so clear that a lighter Lamborghini with 400bhp would be a lot more fun to drive than a 2 tonne one with 1000 horsepower, no? Even if the latter does pretty good on the race track. But because everyone only cares about 0-60 times and horsepower we are where we are.
Most young boys have the Lamborghini poster on the wall even if it actually sucks to drive, especially the iconic Countach, I find pure joy in driving my old beetle now, or the past weekend a friends 1957 MGA, horrible safety, tiny engines, zero comforts, not even a radio, just a pure carthat can't even be sold anymore, but there will never be a better driving experience than an proper ancient British roadster.
Of course, it's also less safe. But the threat of a quick death in a lithium fire is the only reason some of us get up in the morning.
I hope.
I think of F-150s that have quickly climbed over 400hp and can pull a giant trailer... but I don't think the brakes and suspension match.
(f-250 or f-350 might be more balanced when pulling those 30'+ trailers)
The vast majority of LLM users -- not the average person here on HN -- doesn't know which "model" they are using, can't tell the difference and don't care, including many software engineers. You could ask the same thing about those LLM benchmarks.
For something like the performance versions of their high-volume vehicles, it's partially for the same reasons people like sports cars, or at least how some people like a sports car that is faster / quicker and gives them more excitement while driving (obviously a lot of the appeal for sports cars otherwise is the sporty look/sound of the engine, which Tesla doesn't really deliver on at all).
People in the market for a car like this care far more about performance than they do safety, repairability or longevity.
That’s why performance oriented cars talk about their acceleration, and minivans talk about safety, and pickup trucks talk about longevity. Their target market determines which of the various metrics are going to be the headline.
Is that a bad thing? Aren't there always a range of products that cater to different levels of interest?
If you're a "normal person" you don't need a 8000dpi mouse with RGB, or a Louis Vuitton purse, or a large big mac meal.
This is not poverty it is prosperity.
Sure.
I think the poster you are replying to is trying to say that the “k-shaped” economy is incentivizing the market to cater only to the high end and simply ignoring the low end.
A few businesses I own are dealing with this issue now. It’s just much more profitable and logistically easier for them to charge what seems like an absurd price, justify it with some inexpensive “white-glove” service, and just ignore the rest of the market.
On the one hand, this is a tribute to modern marketing that high value-add products and services can match with customers more efficiently. On the other hand, it has the potential to create a bizarre “race to the top” such that only suckers will cater to anything other than the top 1% of their target market (in terms of wealth / willingness and capacity to pay).
Where I currently live, this is happening with frightening efficiency with health care. Almost all of the “good” PCP doctors are going concierge, and the concierge prices are increasing at a rapid clip.
But to be clear, in my example products aren’t the only thing to which the economy doesn’t cater to normal people for (lower-middle class but increasingly middle and lower class). War, corruption, and genocide are all bad for the average person. Generally things that funnel money into hurting or enriching individuals. Both of these are inefficient and the inefficient use of resources, is hurtful to normal people. E.g. enriching an oligarch to build roads could be twice as much road if he takes a 50 percent cut. And the money sitting with him does harm, oppresses people. Food for thought.
I think Nissan had a workaround I could live with: GPS fencing around known tracks would activate/deactivate the speed governor.
The hate and politics obsession of the people you're complaining about on here pales in comparison to the guy doing this presentation. He is doing it 24/7 I'm not even sure he sleeps he is so engaged in it.
If, instead, you had a grounded, balanced opinion about the man, you'd understand the great good he's delivered, and continues to deliver for the world, from Tesla (making electric cars desirable and mass-market) to Neuralink (making viable brain computer interfaces to give heavily disabled people back their lives), to SpaceX (giving humanity hope for a brighter, more exciting future in space, as governments once did, but have since failed to do).
(I assume your instinct will be to defend him because said rescuer was mean first. Don’t bother, as you can see I am well aware and it doesn’t change my opinion.)
I can totally understand if you think the good outweighs the bad. I tend that way myself: I own two Teslas and I eagerly watch every Starship launch. But I also think Musk has shown himself to be a real piece of shit. A real piece of shit who has done some great stuff, but that doesn’t negate it.
What has Musk actually done to get us closer other than talk about how humanity ought to do it?
Starship has only even achieved LEO once, in an unmanned mission a few weeks ago. Starship has so far cost about $15 Billion, the entire Saturn V launch program (excluding Apollo, to keep things apples-apples here) cost about $35 Billion in today's dollars.
Other cars have these tanks, but full of flammable fuel, not just air.
Off the top of my head, the honda civic CNG (3600 psi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_GX#Specifications
the toyota marai (10,000 psi hydrogen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#High-pressure_hyd...
and probably the other cng or hydrogen cars.
Fry: "How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?"
Professor Farnsworth: "Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."
At this point I look at wikipedia what happened to the submarine bamboozled mentioned. Ooops. Heh, the pressure of water is as evenly distributed as can be. Seems my background in watersports is not enough to moonlight in material engineering.
carbon fiber is great in tension, i.e. a compressed air tank, or COPV
carbon fiber is much less great in compression, i.e. OceanGate
Also the OceanGate construction process was bad, even for carbon fiber, because the CEO didn't listen to actual engineers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdkIOhFmbKI&t=1239
Doesn't look too big, tbh. They also explain some of the mechanics used to make it happen.
The only time he takes over is in a very tight garage where you need to drive really close to walls and FSD freaks out a bit.
I'm not condoning his behavior, but it tells me that FSD if "mostly works" for normal applications.
They're typically used to affix your beer to the steering wheel of your boat.
No advance. Its engineering gimmicks to hide the fact self driving is 15 years late, and all recently announced Tesla models are worst, and more expensive, than any Chinese alternative.
You can't call this beauty of engineering a muscle car.
911 is not really a roadster - it's a full on sports car. Even then the older ones top out at about a ton. Same as the Boxster and Miata.
Most serious sports EVs start at 2 tons or more. It's really impressive what they can do to hide the weight, but because it's all digitally controlled, it's really not a dynamic driving experience in the same way.
More importantly to my point - all of them have nearly identical drive characteristics. Outside of raw performance, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to describe the difference in handling between a Tesla, Mach-E, or a Polestar - I'm not sure I could give you anything.
Not sure there would be a distinction.
Remember concept cars? Companies have been doing gimmickey shit forever and nobody expected those things to make it to production.
What a well-thought out comparison. You've definitely got something, here.
> You can think of the COPV like the fuel tank in a compressed natural gas (CNG)- or liquid propane gas (LPG)-powered vehicle, except the nitrogen mixture in the COPV is stored at a much higher pressure, up to 10,000 psi, similar to the pressures in modern hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
LPG cars have somewhere between 100 and 300 psi.
10,000 PSI? That is beyond absurd. I can not imagine what alloy and how wrapped that pressure vessel is... Or what type of crazy pump is recharging it!
They'll happily burst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ-__PlU4gM) and blow up your vehicle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71AwkBt3_ts).
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...
"'Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing,' the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19)."
> LPG explosions are real combustion due to tank rupture…
They're mostly designed to vent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupture_disc) to prevent a BLEVE. Big fire, big mess, but without oxidizer in the tank and much lower pressures, relatively safe by comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDyNjCNxVY
CRS-7, Amos-6, Starship 36, and Super Heavy 18.
This is hot wheels. It's pretty clear Musk finally had enough of the culture wars at X and decided to go interfere with Tesla some more. Instead of producing a car people might actually want, he made them do this. This is the worst waste of a company you're likely to see in your life.
TSLA is probably not a good stock to be holding right now.
But TBF if they offered the SpaceX thrusters as an option, the SF effective altruists would slurp them right up to be their daily drivers even if they have to be strapped in next to a tank of toxic boom boom to use them. And Sam Altman would cry into his protein-supplemented energy drink because his Koenigsegg doesn't have them and I'd happily hand over 50 Quatloos to watch that.
Looks like the base version would be the one for that.
1. The kind of person who buys a sports-car often doesn't want the "base version". They want luxury. They want status. They don't want to face the choice of being upsold to an impractical deathtrap or driving around in the "base version" like someone who could barely just afford it.
2. This demo does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the abilities of the base version. I reiterate, a brick could have been made to fly in this way. The base version will no doubt have good paper stats because Musk understands that numbers must be big, but that doesn't mean the base model will be pleasant to drive.
3. The styling of this car is "wankpanzer with a few extra polygons". Given how well the wankpanzer sold, demand for this thing, even if the base model is a competent auto, will be limp.
4. Musk is currently trying to buy another election. With Musk visibly taking an interest in Tesla again, that's likely to backfire on Tesla. They need to cut ties with Musk, not keep doing the sort of puerile things he's known and frequently lambasted for.
5. When does this silly thing even release? They say 2028, but do we believe them? How long has it been since the last model released? We're talking half a decade between models. What the heck are they doing at Tesla? Making bricks fly apparently.
My only issue with it is that beyond being impressive and very cool, it's pretty useless.
First you have to build SpaceX.
Making a car with a heavy EV battery and powertrain fly like that is probably not something they're able to do.
I'd bet most of them see this as a cooler, shinier toy.
https://x.com/dhh/status/2110983188910923926?s=20
Why the second hand outrage. If you didn't buy a car and feel bad about the wait time, just enjoy the demo! :D
Everyone here can probably still remember the time to the minute that Steve Jobs in 2007 said "an internet communicator, a music player, a phone" and the 3-faced cube transformed into a single device. That's what gimmicky demos are for.
Maybe. Another possibility is a feeling of opposition to the idea that the world's richest person continue to accumulate wealth, while using said wealth to dishonestly manipulate elections, support openly fascist and bigoted political parties, and, most recently, tip the scales of international conflict (by limiting Starlink use by Ukraine).
You might love his products, but Elon Musk should not have more power. That's a statement not based in envy, but in a revulsion for what he spends that money on, and how it impacts innocent people.
75.7% SpaceX
15.1% Tesla
1.3% The Boring Company
7.6% Other
I expect that motivates exactly zero percent of the criticism that Musk gets.
The demos for the future tech are fun for sure, but the Cybertruck and Tesla Semi started this exact same way. The Cybertruck arrived incredibly late, wildly missing even conservative estimates of it's capabilities, and at damn near double the price they teased, AND the units that have shipped have been a fucking mess, to such a degree where Tesla seemingly can't even give them away. And the Tesla Semi has still failed to materialize at all.
So yeah it's a bit of a joke to me to have them hocking a flying car, when their pickup truck can't even drive up a steep unpaved hill, that even my old clapped out F-150 on it's SUV tires would manage just fine.
Edit: and to clarify, I know that it can do that, because I helped a friend move some exercise equipment he bought at auction back to his house, and he has an open-back basement. We backed my truck with trailer down the hill, unloaded it through his basement patio door, and the truck then had to climb back up to the road. And I was a little nervous to be honest, but it did do that, despite as I said having SUV tires on 22-inch rims LOL
most of the things a Tesla Roadster is advertised with is not street legal.
He just misses with his products these days: Cyber Truck, Robotaxi, Grok...
Still hoping.
Could it theoretically help to avoid *some* crashes? Yes
But in most cases, it'll just trade a frontal crash for a crash against obstacles off/above the road... Which is way more dangerous for pedestrians, buildings, etc.
Driver assistance can in some cases brake before an obstacles. But we've also seen Teslas drive into obstacles. Regardless if it's going to be driver assistance or a human with too much confidence in their ability to avoid obstacles... I wouldn't want to be near a Roadster leaping off the asphalt
The one that flies has two COPVs- watch the top gear video
The negativity and nay saying on HN is next level.
Do you say the same thing every time McLaren/ferrari/bugatti/porsche announce the new hotness?
This engineering in this demo was only designed o get lucrative government contracts.
I wonder what the point of this was? Seems likely related to anticipated purchase of Tesla by SpaceX. Maybe meant to (irrationally) justify a high offer price for Tesla?
Can't say I'm a fan of the styling of the car - I guess it'd look at home parked beside a Cybertruck, but something like the Porsche Mission S is way sexier.
You seem triggered by the choice of wording. Do you think the upside down rocket car doing aerial flips deserves a more product-ish name like "concept car"? I don't.
Car manufacturers have been doing pointless things for over a century [1], with no plan to even try to make them available to the public. Why is this getting so much heat?
There's no getting away from the rocket equation - reaction mass is heavy. The sheer number of design compromises that need to be made to allow a cold gas thruster system means I can't see anything but ending up with an awful car for the sake of a few seconds "air time". And the rest of the time you'll still be (at least) doubling the mass of your car from the propellant plus whatever the thrusters, tanks, linkages and everything else weights. I guess you could leave it empty, then only charge it for the "Party Trick", but it still seems a lot of compromises for the occasional "Hey, this looks cool".
And then really only usable in a nice empty, flat, controlled environment - the "real world" driving experience has things like other cars, people, buildings and street surfaces that likly wouldn't appreciate what are effectively localised hurricane-force level winds from the car next to them.
This is a car rigged for a specific stunt. And there's a reason why people don't just drive around rigged stunt cars. They suck as being "cars".
Sad that people feel the need to add this qualification. I see it regularly.
Preferably those tasked regulating his companies.
Guess he hit a nerve, eh? My condolences you got hit by the layoffs, try to not browse Reddit and Facebook all day at your next government job. Or do, but ONLY if you work for the IRS or ATF, they deserve nothing less.
You'd have loved L Ron Hubbard back in the day.
3 or 4 data points isn’t a whole lot more than an anecdote, but it’s still more data than baseless claims line you’re throwing around here
Only the President and Congress were elected. The rest are all appointed.
> laid off thousands of government workers
He did at the direction of the President, who was elected. Government service is not a jobs program.
> the second order effects of that will affect millions
speculation
> All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.
All you need to do is see how frequently he posts on Twitter to know he's broken and trying to fill the hole with money and attention.
I've worked with engineers "on the spectrum" my entire career. They can be difficult to get along with. None of them were evil, none intended to offend or hurt others. It would just come out wrong.
Once I understood, it wasn't an issue for me any more.
That’s an amazing claim in this context.
He's a bloviating conman and no rational person should believe that this demo will ever see the light of day, if it wasn't faked.
This is completely outside of politics.
On the road.
> Where is the mars program?
Starship is the required precursor.
> He's a bloviating conman
Enough of what he promised has been delivered that has made him a trillionaire.
We also weren't discussing GoDaddy as a registrar without mentioning it's CEO killing elephants and being an all around douchebag. Or Oracle without the lawnmower.
It's tough to ask people to dissociate the CEO from the company, especially when he's doing all the PR by himself.
I think the qualification is unbelievably tame considering what Elon deserves.
google: did congress restore food aid funding?
Wildly different estimates or not, this is a matter of principle not of degree.
Donating other peoples' money is not virtuous. Donating your own is.
The qualifier matters, that guy has serious issues.
People should find a better hobby
This should literally be the first thing that comes to mind when you think of this guy - a mass murderer working his way up to the level of the despots of the early 20th century
Sorry for being skeptical but Elons track record of being honest at such demos isn't stellar.
Edit: To the downvoters, this is a serious question. I'd really love to see such evidence.
Sorry, but in world where the vast majority of people can't afford groceries, gas, housing, or healthcare... I just can't look at these silly things the billionaires are spending their money on and get even remotely excited about it. It's just so absolutely tone deaf in the moment we're in right now.
Tesla? (yes)
It now has 225k miles and I haven't done a single thing to it but change the oil.
It's still on the original factory brake pads and rotors, which look to be about 50% on the pads.
Truly I dislike the guy and everything he did in government but I don’t think that buying a used Tesla is any endorsement or direct benefit to Elon.
Slap an “I bought this used” bumper sticker on it and your fellow anti-fascists should leave you alone.
They are trying. Inflation keeps moving the bar. It's not like they want their cars to be expensive; the components and fabrication prices just are.
Used you can achieve sub-25k easily.
The problem is not inflation, it’s that America sucks at manufacturing low cost electric vehicles. BYD has demonstrated that tenfold
American labor is expensive but BYD owes its success to vertical integration more than cheap labor. They are moving into Europe to build there before long. Americans have an uninformed notion that China simply couldn’t have superior technology, they’re just cutting corners, dumping chemicals in the river etc (as if American companies would never)
It might just be that china is better at building cars.
The real win for environment would be building cities and towns to support not having to drive everywhere.
> it works great
I have a feeling that you can and do work on it, because maintenance otherwise would easily be triple the market price of that car yearly. That significantly changes the economics of old cars.
Say, you go for the cheapest option and get minor services done at around 500-700$. Okay, a medium or major service is going to be over 1K and you're bound to have one. Down 2-3K if nothing goes wrong, at all.
But if something breaks, you're going to be down 2K at minimum for the part itself (not counting labor) and your car is going to be in the shop for two months while the part that broke is imported, and that's if you bought a Chinese replica. Original parts might as well equal the total value of that car.
In England if I go to my local garage and ask them to replace something like A radiator or water pump it will be like $200 for labour plus maybe $250 for the part ( unless I get it myself off ebay for like $30 and install it myself ).
For example a plastic fender came off, I just bought it for $15 and all I need to do is click it in place when it arrives by post. Im not a mechanic.
EDIT > Incase you all think Im crazy I did the numbers as Im not "a poor man" and quite fancy a cool new car even if 2nd hand, if I get a 2nd hand Landrover Hybrid for 40k, the MPG will be double my old Mini, ONLY if its charged at home, I dont stop at petrol statinos etc, otherwise it would be more!
The Slate is probably the closes to what you want.
A cargo e-bike is a good solution too, if urban.
Getting Renault e-Twingo / Citroen e-C3 street legal in the US wouldn't really rise the production cost much. But nobody is going through all the trouble, because (obviously) almost no American would buy such a car, even though they start at <$20k new.
This was in a gated parking garage in a nice neighborhood. Every few months is admittedly a bit dramatic but it’s happened once and we’ve only been living here a year
47 MPG on the highway (but it goes down dramatically when driving around town to ~35). My Limited trim has a glass cockpit with all the popular safety features. Its exterior also looks more expensive than it is and at the time was way cooler than Civic or Corolla.
It remains to be seen what happens around 100K miles/10 years though and how it compares to my previous Corolla experience.
Get a Mitsubishi Mirage and pocket the extra $10k for gas.
What you want does not exist because EV buyers are mostly "look at me" types with deep pockets. That's why they're all luxury vehicles full of gadgetry. They build what the 90% customers want and you ain't it.
See: non-smart TVs etc.
Also, it shouldn't come as a surprise, but if you're spending upwards of two to four hours daily sitting in traffic, you want it to be the nicest experience possible. Punishment boxes like the Mirage are desperation plays, and people upgrade as soon as they can.
300 miles a week in a full sized van and 10K is a three year supply of gas at current prices.
Though, to be fair, that one specific case is a bit extreme (someone with a 100-150km round-trip daily commute and a not-especially-economical car). My commute is about 20km round-trip daily, but I also end up saving money over the long term because a lot of that time is spent sitting idle and wasting gas with nothing to show for it.
Really?. Define "quickly" please.
Edit: nvm. 10k would be just around 95k kms.
Saving money on gas is only one reason to own an EV.
Other reasons include:
- rarely having to take it in for service
- never having to stop for gas when commuting
- a much quieter ride
- a much smoother ride (no transmission)
- instant torque
- no emissions
There are probably others I’m forgetting. But I can’t wait for the day I’ll not need to own an ICE vehicle (still better for long trips).
But in the plugin hybrid, the change in noise is very noticeable when the car goes from pure EV into hybrid and the engine kicks in. It's specially loud when the engine revs up as you're accelerating, but even when the car is cruising, I can still hear the engine noise.
Then don't take it in for servicing if it's not needed. DIY the few things an electric car actually needs, or take it to an independent mechanic if you can't be bothered or lack the skills.
This is particularly nice when you're warming the car up in the garage during cold snaps. Hard to do this with ICE vehicles without risking carbon monoxide buildup.
I generate 80% of the power I drive on (PHEV + 10kW of PV on the roof), though I mostly commute by bike so I don't drive a ton.
Not to mention that even in the current state of affairs in the US, the emissions are far lower on average. Even in states where production is 60% coal: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2023/ph240/stafford1/
Can we just say it out loud? Because it's good for the environment and we don't want our children or their children to have an unlivable planet. This should probably be the number one reason, but yes EVs are better in many other ways too.
Best I can say about EVs is they’re quiet and don’t wear out their brake pads, and the lack of other service is economically efficient, so in that sense they are progress towards a vehicle less likely to fail on you (software updates not withstanding!)
If you care about the environment you get an old VW or ideally a Mercedes that runs on used vegetable oil. A thousand pound lithium battery per household is not a tenable way out of destroying ecosystems.
This is not realistic nor scalable. The reality is that the US and Canada were built around cars, and even if we had huge transit projects there would still be a need for roads and vehicles due to the size and rural/industrial areas.
Lithium batteries can be recycled. All the studies have shown that electric cars are a huge net win for the environment, and the cries about the environmental cost of building the cars in the first place don't actually match the reality. Especially when you consider that future ev ecosystems should and hopefully will have a strong battery recycling operation.
This need not be permanent, there is a Pareto improvement to be made and it has nothing to do with Rural/industrial areas.
ICE cars are pretty reliable, frequent service tends to be for luxury brands.
> - never having to stop for gas when commuting
This is achievable with ICE by just watching your tank. Also, it's not really a benefit because charging takes a lot longer than a gas fill up.
> - a much smoother ride (no transmission)
Unless it puts the motors in the wheels, they have transmissions and gearboxes.
> - no emissions
They have emissions base4d on the electricity generation method, but even so it's still a lot less than ICE and this is a huge benefit.
Plug in at home takes way less of your personal time than a gas station and costs significantly less than public charging.
Personally it wouldn’t be worth the money to me because the only thing that matters is the time to plug it in and the time to unplug it.
I own an ICE car and an EV. We use the EV for long trips and it is great. The only time we hesitate is when we are going out into the middle of nowhere.
EV advantages on trips:
- Smooth ride
- Always-ready A/C
- Pet mode
- Self-driving
You do have to plan a bit more. The Tesla route planner is excellent. Having a charger at your destination really seals the deal.
Maybe people want to take leisurely strolls while charging up or will be stopping for lunch at that truck stop anyway, but that does not solve for my problems as well. I don't have a pet, my car's heating/cooling is perfectly cromulent, and I enjoy the act of driving a car.
Also, what is "smooth ride"? Are we talking suspension or accelleration/braking?
You don't have to buy it and it costs you nothing. The sales people aren't sleazy either.
Just try it so you can speak from experience.
You should be able to recharge at least 200 km of range in a 20 minute stop which is probably enough until your next break. An ICE lets you cut out those breaks but you really shouldn't because breaks are good for you (and your driving).
Either your car or whatever you use for GPS directions already handles the planning for you. It will automatically find and route you to chargers as needed.
But personally I would recommend people consider a used Model 3. They can be $25-30k which is new Prius territory. I don’t recommend other manufacturers because IMO the competition only started making good electric cards in the last year or two, so these tend to be higher-priced because they’re newer.
I think this reason is understated. A friend was attacked at a gas station years ago, and since then she's had a major fear of gas stations. Her husband would fill her car for her so she could commute to/from work. She bought an EV a few years ago, and this was a major reason for it - she can fuel-up on her own without being a pain to her husband.
- The cost savings are as much as a car payment. >$100/week in gas when my entire household electric bill averages only $200/month. Up until this recent issue at 85k miles, I've had $0 in maintenance costs (excluding tires). Those same miles in an ICE would have cost me about $2000 in oil changes and brakes by now.
- Getting gas sucks. Sure, it is easier to get gas than charge an EV at a public charger. But it is far more convenient to charge at home every day. In 10 years, I've used a public charger maybe 10 times, but I have to get gas at least once a week. Would you rather have a phone with 6-7 days of energy but you had to drive to a dirty gas station to fill it, or just plug it in every night?
- ICE range anxiety when I have a quarter tank left. I know I can get gas all over the place, but it is pretty rare that my EV has as little range in it at the start of the day as this ICE vehicle with a quarter tank left. Either I go to the gas station more frequently, or I have to account for going to a gas station before driving 30-40 miles away.
- EV powertrains are so much better than gas powertrains. More powerful, smoother, quieter, drive better especially due to the better weight distribution (front to back, and height of the center of gravity).
I can't wait to get my EV back.
Of course right now EV prices are probably inflated for the exact reasons you cite. Even with $4-5/gallon gas, an economical ICE can still be overall more affordable because you can buy them for a few thousand dollars.
And then Musk has the gall to claim India is not open to Starlink because Ambani is in charge! https://twstalker.com/elonmusk/status/2108604227643719745
I've heard it said (literally, it was a podcast) that US car-companies are caught in a kind of prisoner's-dilemma: They all want to be the ones selling expensive (high profit margin) cars, and nobody wants to be serving the low-end. But in the long run, somebody has to, or else the market gets... Weird.
Tesla's efforts on the original Roadster made them be able to transform the whole EV industry to the point that EV's are nowadays actually affordable. Not everything is exactly about your specific needs, and you shouldn't shout people down when they're lifting the whole field.
Back to the K shaped economy, it’s not just annoying that some people have more money than everyone else, but given the gap in economic power, the goods that are produced are made for the people with money. With limited resources to produce material, are you going to sell to the bottom or the top? So the people not buying flying cars are left behind in more ways than one.
A 2023 crossover with 50k miles should suit you fine. I like Subarus and Hondas.
1. New
2. Electric
3. Sub $25k
Drop any one of those, and you'll have plenty of options. This isn't about a K-shaped economy -- it's about adding significant constraints and being unwilling to compromise on any of them.
Also what's wrong with "loans for the rest"? Most new cars are bought with financing and have been for a long time.
Here’s one place with 26,000+ cars that cost less than 25k: https://www.carvana.com/cars/under-25000
This is the natural flow of things. People with disposable income buy nice new stuff, suffer the rapid, early depreciation, and then they trickle down to the next tier of consumer who can't afford or doesn't want brand new things.
Cars and houses all work like this. Very rarely have the lowest income tiers ever gotten brand new, expensive things.
And if you're high income and smart, you still get used things because you recognize this is the most fiscally responsible thing to do and a great way to build and preserve wealth.
They are, they just aren't allowed to sell in the USA. And they're looking to make the ban permanent [1]. Canada is getting some though!
[1] https://apnews.com/article/senate-chinese-ev-ban-elections-m...
Electric cars are still an underdeveloped form factor, so it makes sense that you can't get a car big enough for many passengers that is cheap enough for your budget (the battery needs to scale for passengers/weight, so the market so far is tiny cars or big expensive cars. The middle comes as the tech develops)
The idea of cheap, modular base and a focus on user accessibility/customization is in my view a very cool and sorely needed model in an industry that looks more about shoving in features, consolidation and ever increasing costs and complexity. Not to mention the rampant protectionism in the United States because Musk is terrified of Chinese EVs.
Now we're turning everywhere into a playground for the rich. The sad part is that they're unimaginative and in such poor taste that it gives you pause about the dynamics of human hierarchies. Wealthy people used to be dignified; I'm not quite sure what you call today's crop. Insecure chic?
I would just get a hybrid Corolla if you can't stretch that budget to an entry level Tesla or similar.
I do think that this could only work for a short timespan and getting it to work perfectly each time with variances in weight would be hard. I'd imagine the thrusters and the tank would would wear out over time too, would be a nasty landing if only some of the thrusters worked.
Did you typo this? Absolutely no way it's a 10 metric ton car.
The new roadster is obviously cool, but it looks like a practically useless vehicle for 99.9999% of the population. It's purely going to be a track princess -- with lots of extra weight for frankly pointless (but very cool) thrusters.
Imagine a normal car having to carry around the added weight of fans, COPVs, and the plumbing to make it work. And only being able to use those only if the track is clean and there are no other cars nearby.
Not f1, Can-Am but yeah, I'm really surprised this isn't a more common approach to modern track cars. Obviously banned in most motorsport but I'm surprised with all of the one-offs these days that it's not more common.
There are some McLaren street cars that use passive venturi channels which from their shape alone, generate more down force at high speeds than the car's weight. In theory, the car could drive upside down (if there was a Daytona-sized race track shaped like a ~30 ft diameter pipe).
Well it's effectively useless for 100% of the population. It's just that 99.9999% cannot afford an expensive, useless car. Some people can, though.
If there was a live audience anywhere near that stage they wouldn't have been able to use thrusters to fly something that actually weighs as much as a car.
It’s strange that people need to convince themselves that this is fake.
10 years from their initial offering of the roadster, I'd like to see them release a well functioning, cool looking car. Why are they spending time/energy trying to make it fly?
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/691843612950003743/15...
The one that thrusts downwards removes the front passenger seat for another 400 litre tank. I don't think there are any pictures of that though.
I personally would find it scary sitting next to a huge 10,000 PSI pressure vessel but there you go.
They will not attempt to make it legal to use on normal roads, but intend to try and certify it to be in a road legal car but only usable while not on the road.
It also takes like 6 hours to fill and can be used one time per fill for a single use. It's a party trick for sure.
I've done a lot of vacuum picking and it is surprising how large an object you can pick up with a tiny bit of surface.
The seal won't be perfect so you'll be running the pump more or less continuously. Apropos manhole covers: I wonder what would happen if this car would drive over one. Or was that your point?
https://www.youtube.com/live/GbqKwPktCdo?xstg=CAMSBhUDze3xHw...
Tesla seems to disagree with you as well, they call it a "multi-mode suction system" [1] suggesting that the evacuation under the car is what does the job. And that's far more likely than that the ejection of that little bit of air at the top is what keeps the vehicle planted upside down. But with vacuum that is almost a trivial accomplishment.
[1] https://x.com/Tesla/status/2110907039493038577 ; third slide; caption under the photo.
"Multi-mode fan & ground sealing system pulls air from beneath the vehicle, generating enough suction to hold it upside down while stationary"
I'll just note that again, my hypothesis and the actual way it works are very similar to each other, and both are very dissimilar to the suction cap analogy. Suction cap works by passively utilizing atmospheric pressure, this utilizes moving a large amount of air in the direction opposite to the road. The only difference is that it's taking the air from below instead of pushing from above. I imagine that is the case to utilize the same outlets that are used for lifting the car.
It’s entirely real, and nothing “shocking” from a physics standpoint.
On todays to gear video they said the car weighs < 1700kg
I can see this being a thing in a cyberpunk dystopia, so.. in a few years I guess?
1. In countries where that is popular, due to unfortunate events, they are not allowed in many indoor parking lots.
2. Does anyone have a comparison of pressures and volumes between a car's propane tank, and the Roadster's COPV?
3. The converted car propane tank does not have exhaust ports in various directions that could shred meat, whenever the driver chooses.
For 2: my basic research shows that Roadster's COPV has 50x to 100x the pressure.
uh.. zoom out a bit? The stock price is double what it was two years ago
There are 1000 variables that go into it
Also 2 years ago is a pretty specific time point where it was near the lowest it's been looking back a less random 5d, 1M, 6M, 1Y and 5Y it's only up on the 5Y chart and that's a relatively meager 25%.
You'll see the stock go up when Robotaxi and the Semi hit the market.
Robotaxi is trying to enter an already crowded market and isn't exactly flourishing there. I'm still seeing every one in Austin with a human behind a steering wheel.
As for the Semi, yeah, if it actually comes to fruition. But like all things Elon ... let's wait and see.
they have about as many unsupervised robotaxis on the road as there are waymos in austin, as spotted by an AI watching public camera feeds
And as a nerd, while it's a cool demo in a controlled environment, cars like that are the last thing I want on the road near me as a driver, passenger, or pedestrian!
But this technology is as useless as a toothbrush with a rocket engine. Some rich car crazy guys will buy it, sure. But maybe a few thousand units. This technology doesn't bring any substantial revenue for a billion dollar company. People who own this rocket car it will try it out once or twice and then it will end up in some pretty garage for a few decades.
There's a little secret you should know about the value of all stocks...
Most companies are valued at a price that somewhat reflects their current or near-future revenue. Tesla is mostly hopes and prayers. This doesn't mean they won't come though. But it's valued like the chance of living up to their promises is nearly 100%.
But there is also not a lot of money to be made on supercars. A lot of those manufacturers are struggling financially for a good reason. Extremely expensive to develop, hard to manufacture at scale and limited pool of buyers.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/live/qt5p-_tE8d0?si=V5csPghK02wwd0or...
it has its own pump, but if you don't want to wait 6 hours to recharge, you can fill it with a nitrogen cylinder.
I've seen some claims that the gas is stored at a pressure of 10000 psi/690 bar in a 200 l tank. If that's true, then that is a gas volume of 138000 l. A commercial, stationary scuba compressor compresses around 850 l/min [0] to 350 bar. A compressor like that would take around 160 min just to compress 138000 l to 350 bar (so significantly less than 690 bar), is a _large_ appliance, and _loud_. Compressing gas quickly also produces heat. An on-board compressor seems quite unrealistic to me unless I'm missing something.
[0] MIL-PRF-27401
Single use is perfectly fine for that purpose. No one complains that airbags are single use.
It could also be made into a water/air vehicle instead and useful for getting over rough seas or air-docking with superyachts or destroyers. Floating/inflatable solar panels would be great too. Another interesting use case would be for airplane passengers and their baggage to leave a plane without the plane actually landing. The landing car could re-dock with the plane on its return flight. That'd be tricky, though.
you have to be pretty jaded to think a car that can fly through the air is not impressive.
If it was like "we figured out this technology and it will be available to the public and we will be working with regulators to usher in a new age of flying cars!" I would be pretty stoked. But it's pretty obviously just a stunt for the launch.
I don't know I just...I feel crazy but I feel like these resources could be doing something amazing and we getting like stunt tricks.
You don't think electric vehicles and battery storage advance humanity?
On the contrary I would rather my big companies didn't try so hard to advance humanity. Elon has a lot of takes around creating a Utopian society which do not sit right with me. Really it's not the advancement that's the problem, it's the requisite power and resources necessary to achieve the elaborate visions. Humanity should be advanced by a collective, not by a few gifted individuals, even if that means more bureaucracy and less efficiency.
In other words, you are advocating for communism.
I'm not claiming any of these are worth the complexity and cost of rocket boosters, but there are uses!
I guess as long as we’re thinking up increasingly outlandish use cases, how about being able to park at the top of buildings when there are no parking spots available. Or being able to hop over the parking gates at theme parks. What about bypassing the speed limit at school zones or hopping over stopped school buses. Oh and no more waiting for draw bridges or railroad crossings. The uses really are endless!
If you want a sensible car, get a Toyota Corolla, or a Model Y if you want to stay with Tesla. They will get you to your destination just as well for cheaper and with more space for your stuff.
Also, maybe the car is able to hover for short to medium distances, which for a military and offroad vehicles, could be very useful to cover all types of terrain
No human could survive this rocket-jump without a neck-brace.
I can’t recall the vehicle now but there was a futuristic car around the turn of the century that had a lot of buzz, but changed dramatically for production and nobody liked it. But an engineer on the project said the concept car had less aerodynamic drag going backward than forward, which is quite an achievement.
That is one of at least a dozen experiences I have had that tell me not to get attached until the prototypes ship to car reviewers for examination.
What sad reaction to a real life flying car.
No.
It’s a cool concept car, and very impressive engineering. I don’t get why people hate on it so much.
It is very impressive engineering, just not very useful or ever going to result in any viable product. It’s a dead end. A waste of somebody’s engineering effort and talent for a one-time rich guy demo item. People hate on it because they get it.
This machine demonstrated zero ability to gain altitude in the air alone.
I’d need to go deep into something like being able to maintain altitude in the medium of air without positive impulse or something, but again, I don’t have a strong enough definition at this point.
The first orders for this car were in 2017, still yet to be fulfilled. Tesla will keep taking money, without delivering anything, for decades to come.
For context: https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/24/apples-250-million-siri-settl...
Looking at the pictures, design-wise, I’m almost tempted to ask: “what was the prompt?”.
Disregarding that, all stuff that Tesla (and SpaceX) have demoed had become commercial products, so I wouldn't call Tesla a vaporware company.
Sure, it takes them decades ... but that's different from not shipping.
Just because it's not your hobby or within your budget, doesn't mean that others must feel the same way as you.
Concepts cars are cars.
What was shown on stage is closer to the Apollo lander training rigs than a vehicle that you could purchase and drive on a public road.
It can never, ever be sold as a production vehicle! The COPV gas storage is under enormous pressure, and would explode with the force of a decent sized bomb if damaged in an accident.
These things would be regularly turning their owners into pink mist, emulating Stockton Rush at a larger scale.
I am. These machines push the limits of prevailing technology. Strong organizations set stretch goals and pursue them regardless of market viability. Sometimes they share this with everyone, and convention has named this practice "concept" cars. I appreciate when they take the risk to do this. And when they do it well, credit is deserved.
There are real engineers and technicians behind this. A lot of them. And they will tell the story of this event for the rest of their lives. I've known a number of people with such stories. They're among the best people I've ever met.
It is possible to exist without cranking the cynical knob to 11 at all times.
It’s somewhat notable that Tesla was up significantly overnight and closed the day down 2%.
I wonder if this is the beginning of a very lengthy period after which people will look back and wonder “what the hell was everyone thinking?”
Well, it's not the car he's selling to me because I'm not going to support white supremacist fascists who flip heil Hitlers when they celebrate buying an election. It could be the best car in the World, I'm not sending Musk money, I'd rather walk.
The sooner y'all stop funding this shit the better.
I want to short anything you touch. Please give us stock predictions.
I mean, it's fun but useless? It's like those semi trucks with a jet engine on them. It looks awesome but it's utterly useless.
If this is for entertainment, sure. But they're trying to sell you something here.
And, speculation by Chris Norland YouTuber is the Roadster being fitted with literal rocket boosters is a portion of an argument to help justify SpaceX financially helping Tesla.
It's a backpack company presenting the engineering of a jetpack to promote the sales of a premium backpack with the same name.
It could hover up through a large elevator shaft into a spot as well. That way no one gets annoyed by the sight and sound from the street. I wonder how nimble it is in the air.
How’s that FSD from 2017?
Has it been delivered yet?
Rideshare on Tesla Network making money for you while you sleep? Oh, “concept”. Right.
That being said, the stock tanked today so I don't think most people are buying it.
The problem is not the car, is the flying part. No doubt is pretty impressive but I can't see myself buying it even if I had the money, the car: yes, the flying part: no.
This is just a technology demostrator trying to perhaps increase the stock value of SpaceX and Tesla.
Consider also that there could be people not interested in the car but in the hardware and the flying technology itself. The level of precision shown in the demo makes me believe that you truly don't want to commercialize such a product: is too much advanced tech for peanuts for the ones who have other plans.
It beggars belief that was not scripted by a comedian. Comedic timing was perfect.
From one non-miserable person to another: the trick to a happy life is to not engage with people whose minds cannot be changed. Tesla haters and Apple haters are on that list, and you’re replying to someone who is both.
> Tesla haters and Apple haters are on that list
I'm only seeing one of us that's making inflexible assumptions here. Did you know that I used to be an Apple fan?
Edit: another user in this comment section said "This is not a flying car. It's a falling car. It's good at falling though."
I think the downforce fans themselves are notable and pretty impressive however. It's like a McMurty
It would be interesting if they could add the RCS to the production model and have it solely as a "safety" feature if you fall off a cliff or need to break or something. I have a hard time imagining how you would integrate the flight control systems without designing the whole vehicle around it, so maybe it could have some "automatic landing" program.
Space lasers, man.
Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine. Smallpox killed 300 million in the 20th century alone and was eradicated in 1980.
Or maybe Norman Borlaug, who invented a kind of high yield wheat that is estimated to have saved a billion from starvation.
These certainly aren’t the kind of achievements Musk aims for (quite the opposite in fact) but I’d argue they have a far, far greater impact than anything he has even tried to do.
He’s got cooler demos though, I’ll grant you that.
Your obsequiousness is disgusting.
My main suspicion is that this is done to prop up SpaceX stock till the next big unlocks are done and eventually it gets included in major indexes. after that its Adios Suckers!
In any case they should first deliver on tesla semi than keep jumping onto these gimmick low volume products.
Musk is similar to Zuck in that they get some credit for sheer courage to turn the wheel on their massive businesses, but they also have to be right. Aside from his anticompetitive behavior, Zuck continues to miss. Musk's pattern has been that the more Musk is personally involved, the worse the outcomes. Cybertruck was his baby. Optimus is his baby.
If Tesla is doing so well as an automotive business, then why doesn't he just continue making it a great automotive business?
Maybe a mid length answer is if you agree with his assessment on say humanoid robots in terms of market and you believe they might have a geometric growth factor in production (eg robots can make more robots) then you’d want that business build out done by a team that can scale rapidly.
For fabs spacex and Tesla are significant consumers of the output- vertical integration is preferred by lots of companies.
Correct, and I think having a CEO who's totally unaccountable to a board and is temperamentally unable to focus on his core business is not good.
SpaceX and Tesla are nowhere near large enough consumers to justify vertically integrating a fab. The demand is predicated on Optimus producing millions of units per year.
This circularity will probably end up being seen in retrospect as so transparently absurd that it'll beggar belief that anyone accepted it.
That said I think these bets will pay off. Let’s check in in five years!
Do you have particular predictions we can evaluate in five years?
2) more than 1mm optimus produced and sold in the US
Happy for any counters :)
1MM Optimus sold in the US is hilarious too.
Want to make bets on these?
My prediction is Musk will become less and less stable, more and more flamboyant and performative, and less and less effective.
He's already saying he suffers from occasional AI psychosis, and there is no chance that's going to get better on its own.
I'd bet that in 5 years time Optimus total sales are in the 10's of thousands at best, with few to no large scale industrial users (other than self-use by Musk). Customers will be similar to what AgiBot and Unitree currently have - entertainment, hospitality, academic, small scale trials, plus a few Tesla fanboy sales that don't do anything actually productive.
So I got no idea how you can even compare these two completely different systems and go from a launch failure to an explosive car accident?
Including boring old nitrogen blowing up a Starship: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...
> "Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing," the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19).
If you SCUBA, your tanks need regular checks (https://dan.org/alert-diver/article/inspecting-and-testing-s...), because pressurized air can indeed kill (https://divemagazine.com/scuba-diving-news/diver-killed-in-s...) if the tank fails. The gas for these thrusters will happily accelerate you with the same force they're using to make a car fly given the chance.
Just for reference this is 50% more pressure than the pressure that crushed that submarine at the titanic.
---
Whoa, was just watching the video (great link btw). People have been debating the specs, but they're shown unambiguously right here. [1] It has 95 kn peak thrust, 6g peak acceleration, pressure of 5500 PSI, and a min operating temp of -200F.
Like leaded gazoline, whose effects can still be seen presently...
No. That's the road safety mind speaking.
Swipes are not allowed on HN, and comments that invoke national/regional/cultural stereotypes are particularly out of line here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That meets the definition of hovering.
Add it to the list, boys! "Inflatable Rescue Submersible", FSD, Bulletproof windows, Mars any day now, Hyperloop... am I missing anything?
Not if it ruptures.
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...
SpaceX lost four spacecraft this way.
A large amount of air that wants to go somewhere fast causes humans serious troubles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
"Investigation by forensic pathologists determined that Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, gross dismemberment ensued; it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in fragmentation of his body, followed by expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine. These were projected some distance from the bell, with one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door."
It will yeet you, and you weigh a lot less than the flying car does.
We actually do already have Jetsons style flying cars - those things that look kind of like big drones are basically that, and those are actually practical.
Forget the comparison to the Jetsons if it upsets you, let's just compare to actual flying vehicles.
You could only pressurize it right before your jumping stunt.
Perhaps some billionaires will buy it, good for them.
Why do you guys contort yourselves into knots trying to find any and every conceivable problem with something that doesn't affect you ... get over it already. Go ahead and flag me.
and if you've been in Teslas that are a few years old, you might have experienced phantom braking. random hard braking for no apparent reason. i try to avoid being behind Teslas on the road if i can help it.
i remember reading about the first cobra in the 60's, where a huge percentage of the owners didn't live to make the second payment.
Working backwards from their stats & FARS data, I calculated that for their claims to be true, each Model Y would need to accumulate only 4,300 miles per year. This is far below Tesla's reports of 13,000-14,000 miles per year. Also iSeeCars claimed that an average of 2.8 vehicles were involved in fatal accidents for every billion miles traveled. But at the time the US had 13.3 deaths per billion miles traveled. So for their data to be correct, the average fatal accident would need to have five fatalities.
At least on the newer ones it looks like it at least has signage and is less obstructed: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-A7A60DC...
[has X]
[has X designed, built, and visible in the car such that it can be easily found and operated whilst panicking for your life, or rushing from outside while trying to save a trapped passenger's life]
There are people who would tell you that while Tesla may have the first, it does not have the latter, but they cannot because they are dead, and should not be.
I could just punch a hole in the door and route it, as many have done, but it has no child lock integration which could be problematic.
They also re-used a lot of "stock" footage.
Go look at the emails. It kinda shows Elon was clueless about what the island was about.
Also he wasn't notorious at the time.
> What exactly are you defending here?
Ah you're going to accuse me of defending pedophilia now? Figures with your type.
I literally linked one in my first post - I'm clearly more familiar with them than you are.
> Also he wasn't notorious at the time.
you're right, it's not like the UK press had implicated Prince Andrew in 2011 which was international news, three years after Epstein's conviction for procuring a minor which was also international news.
> It kinda shows Elon was clueless about what the island was about.
In the released emails we have thus far, Musk was the first to bring up the concept of a party, on 25 November 2012. So no, that doesn't indicate at all that Musk was clueless about what the island was all about.
> Ah you're going to accuse me of defending pedophilia now?
I don't need to, but given the evidence (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50126559) it is very weird behavior to go out of your way to defend him.
There's absolutely an argument to be made there but in this case it's a bit more specific.
Anyone that repeatedly emails the most notorious pedophile on earth, begging to be invited to the wildest party on their private island is absolutely a pedophile.
Here you go. AI can be so helpful when you're confused.
https://claude.ai/share/5d3b41f2-56e4-460e-84a4-4d34cef47fcf
And there are high-speed tunnels connecting major cities?
And that guy who saved those kids in Thailand is a pedophile?
And not a single person has died due to the USAID cuts?
Ok. Sure. I hear you. Perfectly.
AHAHAHAHAA... I've never heard that defense before.
"Yes, I tell lies. But not EVERYTHING I say is a lie."
I have no idea what your game is now - but I'm not playing.
I suspect the decision to put unfinished FSD into the hands of average people will be Tesla's undoing. I wouldn't cite it as a win quite yet.
There are a couple Chinese companies with better tech, but you obviously can’t get those in the US.
They’ve been selling it for a decade, when exactly do you expect it to undo them?
The moment his criminal shield is removed from power.
Watch.
--
Sent from my iPhone
By that logic any performance car is useless. There are, albeit few, people that do track these cars.
So an unelected official would be correct, right?
> He did at the direction of the President, who was elected.
Where is your evidence? Reporting contradicts what you say - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/trump-cabinet-musk-...
> speculation
Not really. Multiple independent sources and reports have confirmed the damage done by Musk during his time at DOGE.
> Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.
He is as "thrust" into that position as he was "thrust" into the DOGE role.
What are your thoughts on his illegal state-sanctioned intimidation of ex-FEMA CFO?
Just doing his job and following orders?
Have a read about his actions on Ukraine, even just this last week. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/16/musk-appro...
Its the character. Buying a global media platform to "promote free speech" and then shunt the entire thing and himself behind a particular political party. This guy uses his money and his twitter account to support neo-nazi hate groups in my country (Britain First, Patriotic Alternative, Hundred Handers, Tommy Tennames). He has no self-restraint. Its abhorrent. Its not "about politics" when the politics is about racial superiority and ethnic cleansing.
> Imagine if you couldn't post a thread about Microsoft products on HN without republicans feeling the need to jump in to talk about how much they hate Bill Gates for his donations to Kamala Harris's campaign in 2024. It's really tiresome.
and if Bill Gate was literally campaigning for the Dems, getting up on stage, handing voters cheques and THEN being employed by the government to run a department then you'd have a point.
He repeatedly crosses the line of what is appropriate. People with that level of wealth should stay the fuck away from politics and respect democracy instead of using their money and business to have excessive influence on democratic outcomes. Its unseemly and disrespects the idea of everyone getting the same amount of votes. I respect that donations have similarities but there's a difference between making a donation and being excessively public.
Then you are indeed virtuous.
2) No of course we are not necessarily morally obligated to donate aid in perpetuity. We can decide to stop if we want to. But it was not Musk's or even Trump's decision to make. But since they assumed that mantle of illegitimate authority, they assumed the moral blame that comes with it.
(And yes, every Trump voter also shares significant moral blame for the deaths of all those people. Atrocity was a predictable and likely consequence of a Trump vote in 2024)
In 20 years: I got a garage to replace a radiator after a stone hit it, for $600 Also 2 tires once, for like $200.
I might not drive as much as you all, but when I do its at a relaxed pace and the roads are good where I live. I have a manual transmission and Im always careful how I accelerate and how I brake and change gears. It has about 100k on the mileage now
Its a Mini Convertible if anyone cares
I assume you're in the US? Are things that much worse there?
Yes, we're not there yet, and that's why I prefaced with "True", but I think this kind of splitting hairs is part of the problem. EVs are vastly better for the environment and have no emissions of their own. Yes emissions do come from somewhere in the current state, but path to a cleaner environment is not radically far away and the thesis that "emissions come from somewhere so that's not a reason to buy an EV" is ludicrous at best and disingenuous at worst.
Naively you might think this (eg here in Australia the majority of electricity is still generated by burning coal) but:
- this is not true during certain times of day, and,
- this is not true for a growing number of buildings that have PV solar
Wait till you learn when, and how, the typical Australian EV gets charged!
So I will speculate, there could be a more adequate supply of used cars if we found ways to keep old cars running longer. back in the 90s, a 200,000mi car was a real beater, doomed to transmission failure at least, uneconomical to repair. cars made in the 2010s are lasting into half a million miles just from improvements in engineering (Toyota hybrid planetary drivetrain eliminates many points of failure: no clutch, no alternator, 0 belts. Brake pads are only engaged below 5 mph and may not need replacing in the useful lifetime of the vehicle)
I don’t even know why I’m such a hater on EV, it is better in the same ways, it’s just also a luxury vehicle that is heavy and fast af. I would love to see more ev hype for efficiency, like this car is so lightweight it goes twice as far for the same kWh. Maybe Aptera will pull it off.
Unfortunately, lithium is abundant enough that it will always be cheaper to manufacture from virgin material, battery recycling will probably just look like power grid load balancers. When batteries age they don’t fail, they just lose the ability to deliver hundreds of amps when you floor it.
> This isn't flying, it's falling with style.
delichon•1d ago
charlesfries•1d ago
morkalork•1d ago
iugtmkbdfil834•1d ago
throwaway173738•15h ago
iugtmkbdfil834•15h ago
mcmcmc•9h ago
dghlsakjg•7h ago
dylan604•6h ago
cjbgkagh•1d ago
By rough estimate, using hydroxide jet packs as a reference, I’d say they got it down to about 600kg.
td521534f12•1d ago
phoghed•1d ago
mrheosuper•1d ago
jopython•1d ago
ls612•1d ago
wallst07•16h ago
ceejayoz•14h ago
ndriscoll•1d ago
abrookewood•1d ago
soderfoo•1d ago
carlosjobim•23h ago
sippingabonedry•23h ago
doublerabbit•22h ago
garte•20h ago
root_axis•17h ago
I find it genuinely hilarious that anyone could possibly think this is a good idea.
ceejayoz•14h ago
Or make a few! https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...
> SpaceX thinks it knows why its newest Starship spacecraft went boom this week. "Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing," the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19).
mcmcmc•9h ago
B1FF_PSUVM•1d ago
AI Elon pressure selling "act decisively, double your money" by transferring crypto to some wallet and getting 2x back - yeah, right
(PS Google shut it down)
kkotak•1d ago
accountrequired•1d ago
flowerlad•1d ago
ralusek•1d ago
flowerlad•14h ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD2__BcAxSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9hdO8avWbo
https://journal.classiccars.com/2026/10/16/delorean-enters-f...
margalabargala•12h ago
still-learning•
silisili•1d ago
abrookewood•1d ago
robotnikman•23h ago
daemonologist•22h ago
Patently absurd, of course, but amazing too.
radicalcentrist•21h ago