The Tesla Model S Insane mode reactions are funny (Vid)

a reply to: Domo1

Practicality, though, means it's more worthwhile being able to take off at the lights quickly than speed around a race track. I mean, even street drags are essentially a quarter mile.

Also, can suspension and handling upgrades be done? I'm an Aussie and this model is rather unknown to me, but exciting nonetheless....and moreso if upgrade packages are available from aftermarket manufacturers.

originally posted by: Bovah2
$100k and it only has a top speed of 155mph. I think I'll pass. It has impressive acceleration but 155mph top end is not that fast.

Yeah because there are a ton of places here in the states that you can drive 155mph.

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
a reply to: DjembeJedi

That was very amusing. Thanks for posting.

Tesla is constantly achieving things that the "Big 3" automotive manufacturers in the USA have miserably failed at. Ford, GM, and Chrysler would have spent ten times the development costs with inferior performance results and epic reliability and maintainability problems.

If it were a Ford, the "insane" button would have to say "maybe".

Yay for Tesla!

I see you have never watched the video "who killed the electric car". GM made a electric car that worked great and had decent range for the batteries that was out back then. The big three companies could have all put out a electric car but that would have made the oil companies sad.

Pretty car...

I would argue that a touch screen is a bad idea for climate controls, radio, etc. as the lack of projections (knobs and buttons) will lead to the driver looking at the screen and not the road. With old-style controls you generally don't have to look at the console to know you are operating the correct control (at least once you get used to your car).

That said I imagine the touch screen was probably put there to appeal to a younger audience.

a reply to: DigitalJedi805




0-60 in 1.8 seconds. 1250ft lbs of torque.

Now, if only Tesla Motors utilized Tesla patents to bring the cars free, zero-point energy...

Alas, it's just a name gimmick. The cars still need the conventional, polluting electricity grid to charge the (relatvely concentional) batteries.

Nothing new, here. Still a typical corporate ruse to make people think it's clean energy, when in fact, it only pollutes INDIRECTLY instead of DIRECTLY.

Sure, the engine is clean, because there's no oil, and no noise, and no exhaust fumes of any kind. But the main problems are not going away with this style, by only giving mild treatment to the symptoms.

So.. what's the point? Until the cars utilize Tesla's actual patents and never have to be recharged/fueled/whatnot, it's just the same-old, tired stuff rehashed in different packages, and made perhaps slightly more efficient.

Boring stuff, actually.

A curious sidenote, that probably doesn't mean anything.

So this guy only knows old people, old hags, women and black people - oh, and a couple of kids.

Where are the white men? Because the driver is a white man, there can't be other white men in the video? How politically-correct can you get?

And where are the asians, come to think of it? It's alwys either some old hag, young had or a black dude. If you are going for a politically-correct 'full spectrum', let the white men in, too. And if you are not, well.. this guy sure hangs out with a weird demographic of all kinds of people, except white men.

White men are so oppressed anyway, but even in a video like this?

Btw, if black people are supposed to be given special privileges because they were treated as slaves, how about researching the truth about WHITE SLAVERY? No? Somehow history lessons in school curiously omitted this important part of what has been going on here on this odd planet.

So, if we find out the truth that white slavery was quite devastating for white people, and that there were actual black slave owners, shouldn't we start treating white people as they deserve special privileges as well? How about starting to treat -everyone- as if they deserve special privileges! Then we'd have actual equality..

.. and NOTHING is as politically incorrect as actual, true equality! Nothing.

originally posted by: jtrenthacker

originally posted by: Bovah2
$100k and it only has a top speed of 155mph. I think I'll pass. It has impressive acceleration but 155mph top end is not that fast.

Top speed is a useless number unless you plan on driving the autobahn, an airstrip or dry lake bed. Acceleration can be handy anywhere.

My thoughts exactly.

Also, I have to imagine that running full throttle in a Tesla would drain the battery VERY quickly so that's probably another reason they limited the top speed.

A 180-200mph top speed is only useful for bragging rights. The Ariel Atom hits 60 in 2.6 seconds but tops out at 155mph...

a reply to: Shoujikina

Perhaps these were the most amusing reactions.

I dunno...
Without the sound of the engine growling it just doesn't cut it for me. Whatever the 0-60 speed is.
Gotta hear her roar!

originally posted by: jtrenthacker
Since moving to Portland, I've seen a dozen of these S Models. They are pretty sweet looking and the technology looks to be coming around but 100k? Still a rich man's play toy. Maybe 10 -15 yrs down the line, we will see a 300+ mile range Tesla that looks good and costs less than 40K. Doubt it.

How about 2-3 years time! That's when the Tesla model 3 comes out. 200 miles range for less than $40k.
Also Nissan and GM will also bring out 200 mile range EV's at the same time to compete (The leaf mark 2 and the Chevvy Bolt).

originally posted by: SilentE
I dunno...
Without the sound of the engine growling it just doesn't cut it for me. Whatever the 0-60 speed is.
Gotta hear her roar!

I've got to say, since driving an EV, engine roar is the last thing I want. I associate it with slow inefficient and sluggish performance.

An EV is 80% efficient, all that electric energy is available instantly to the wheels with no gearing.
An ICE engine is only 20% efficient, it converts all the other energy into heat and noise.

Ok I miss the heat a little in the winter but not the noise.
Once you've driven an EV most people would never go back (I won't).

A merging lane dream car, when you have to get up to 60 mph fast, to merge, and do it daily in your commute, this has great value to me.

I don't understand why those cars don't have the bodywork made of solar panels.
And why you can't rotate the touch screen to horizontal position to use it as wide screen monitor to watch your favorite movies etc. Too complicated?
There will be a good asian copy sooner or later.

originally posted by: Dr X

originally posted by: jtrenthacker
Since moving to Portland, I've seen a dozen of these S Models. They are pretty sweet looking and the technology looks to be coming around but 100k? Still a rich man's play toy. Maybe 10 -15 yrs down the line, we will see a 300+ mile range Tesla that looks good and costs less than 40K. Doubt it.

How about 2-3 years time! That's when the Tesla model 3 comes out. 200 miles range for less than $40k.
Also Nissan and GM will also bring out 200 mile range EV's at the same time to compete (The leaf mark 2 and the Chevvy Bolt).

You're right. Probably closer to 5 years. I didn't know about the Model 3. I have only been reading some news about their Model X suv. However, the few spy shots I've found of the Model 3 looks similar to a Prius. I know it's still in development but, if it looks anything like a Prius, no thanks. I want an EV that doesn't look like I'm driving an EV.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
I don't understand why those cars don't have the bodywork made of solar panels.
And why you can't rotate the touch screen to horizontal position to use it as wide screen monitor to watch your favorite movies etc. Too complicated?
There will be a good asian copy sooner or later.

Bodywork repair is expensive enough with all the different materials and unibody construction. Solar panels would just be another complication leading to more cost. Though, I do think solar panels would be fine to cover the roof and perhaps trunk lids. Some auto manufacturers are already doing this I believe.

As far as the touch screen, the last thing a driver needs is more distraction. No way should you be able to play movies anywhere within the drivers field of view. That's why in-car entertainment systems are located in the back for the rear seat passengers.

This car is in my top 5 list if I ever win the lottery. (I'd probably get 'em all with the 360mil Powerball. Like that'd ever happen.)

Insane mode definitely has it's appeal for those highway on-ramps that are just too dang short as they are in comparison to the speeds traffic actually moves at. In my opinion, insane mode definitely has it's use regarding insane traffic.

I was sitting in one today. I wish I had known about this. Damn

Great, 0-60 3 secs, and 400 mile range with 1000 mile range next milestone, 30min 50% recharge aim, and FREE top ups at service/fuel stops in all major towns in big countries. This IS becoming a serious car so fast. Makes me so angry the car makers have been working WITH/FOR oil corps to keep fuel efficiency so awful.

a reply to: DjembeJedi

originally posted by: Elton
Pretty car...

I would argue that a touch screen is a bad idea for climate controls, radio, etc. as the lack of projections (knobs and buttons) will lead to the driver looking at the screen and not the road. With old-style controls you generally don't have to look at the console to know you are operating the correct control (at least once you get used to your car).

That said I imagine the touch screen was probably put there to appeal to a younger audience.

Nice comment. The devil is in the details! YOu're right.

Maybe some of those features can be voice-activated? For example, if I like listening to 105.1, I can "Goto station 105.1." Or if I want the volume lower, I might say "Volume 40 percent."