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.
> ”It's being sold in two modes. One with cold gas (no combustion) … and one with real combustion rocket engines”
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.
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.
If I'm not mistaken, and please somebody correct me if I am mistaken, Teslas meet or exceed the absolute highest safety regulations in the US and in Europe.
EU safety regs are pass/fail - there's no sources stating Tesla have exceeded anything there, they need to pass in order to be sold in Europe, so they've done whatever the minimum required is for that. To do so, they've needed to make numerous compromises & changes to their cars to make them fit for the EU market - notably no FSD. Hardly indicative of a car brand that exceeds anything.
As for US safety standards, that seems a lower bar...
They make cars that are very safe from a testing protocol perspective, but cars that might also fall off their performance cliff quicker in some real world scenarios where the energy input is just a tad higher.
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.
Euro NCAP rated the 2025 Tesla Model S Autopilot system only "Moderate" for assisted driving. So instead of repeating vague Tesla marketing claims, how about naming the specific regulations and providing actual evidence?
Reading https://www.tesla.com/roadster, it seems like both variants only use cold gas thrusters, and the difference is that the "normal" (lol) one only has them pointed rearwards while the flying one has them pointed in all different directions as well.
There are three modes: Performance ($50k reservation), Thrust ($250k reservation), and Rocket (invite only). Thrust and Rocket mention cold gas thrusters. Where do you see a combustion rocket engine advertised?
https://www.tesla.com/roadster
I'm wondering if its going to be a model like I think Ferrari calls it Cliente Ferrari. Where the car stays with Ferrari, they put on track days at great tracks all over the world. Bring Pro Driver Coaches, Mechanics , Massage Therapists, five star chefs Data Analysts to review your performance. From my understanding Ferrari makes a lot of money doing that.
I have a feeling that the thrust versions (with thrusters) will find huge markets in the Middle East (UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, etc.), and maybe some other "few legal restrictions" jurisdictions (maybe the cartel bosses, African dictators, etc).
> It's an incredible engineering achievement to build in massive fans and rocket engines into a high performance car. It's truly wild.
How confident are you that the flying object in that video is a car?
Some cursory estimates suggest that one really could get several seconds of operation with enough thrust to lift a real car with a big motor and battery and seats and such, but the margins are not great. If I were designing this thing and I cared more about showmanship than about demonstrating an actual credible car, I might use the tiniest battery I could find with adequate power output (lithium titanate? small LFP?), as little motor as I could get away with, and no interior amenities whatsoever.
More cynically, I would also contemplate whether I really really needed the fancy downforce fan for this demo. After all, that’s a very controlled track and I can imagine other ways of getting a car up it.
I thought somewhere in the video they said that it is just regular compressed air that is held in a tank, and that the car itself has a compressor and regenerates the compressed air over time. Obviously to stabilize that amount of weight the gas has to be ejected at such a high rate it is practically frozen at the nozzle outlet, but it is still just regular air.
Where the heck did you see combustion based rocket engines? I haven’t seen that come up once. Was it an AI response? And the video feature only cold gas rockets as far as I knew.
That is incorrect - there are three versions slated, one with no cold gas nozzles, one with forward-only (the 4 in the rear) and a tank in the rear "acceleration", one with 10 nozzles (4 under, 2 side, 4 rear) and a tank in the rear and passenger seat "flight". None of the variants use rocket fuel or other ignited propellent, they're all just compressed gas release systems.
It glides in a carefully controlled demo. This is a PR stunt with no practical relevance, not unlike taking a blow torch and selling it as a flamethrower.
This isn’t a flying car, which could conceivably have some use (like a personal aircraft). It’s a stunt to distract the gullible from Tesla financials, which do not justify the valuation. As you say, it’s not practical in production and never will be.
Musk clearly wants to merge all his companies, so that it’s too big to fail, and this probably came out of the questions that arise from that - how can we use Spacex tech at Tesla?
Tesla’s machine vision research wing became xAI and the compute and resource were transferred over. SpaceX then bought cursor.ai, a small but goated frontier lab. They merged cursor with xAI and it’s now SpaceXAI. So each Tesla uses models trained by SpaceX AI.
The model s has always had Inconel in the frame for strength since relatively early on. But the Inconel came from SpaceX. Inconel is primarily used in aerospace applications. It made the frame of the model s so strong it broke the NTHSA machine used to test rollover strength. Look this up it is easy to verify.
SpaceX materials science has always been a big part of Tesla’s success since the very early beginning. Likewise inversely.
I mean in theory if it did work you could use it to take shortcuts or go over very difficult terrain or a flood or something but I don’t think traffic or aviation laws are anywhere near to allowing that
I expect a future Bonneville speed run to get airborne and set some record. Could still qualify as fastest production car; even with no wheels on the ground.
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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.
> 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.
This is just going to make it even more desirable to a certain market segment.
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)
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."
> devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible mode
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.
Both trims have only cold gas thrusters. The differences are whether they're just for forward acceleration or also stabilization (4 in the back, or 4 in the back, 4 down, and one on each side). The "Rocket" trim also only has one seat.
A number of luxury brands (cars, watches) will build one-off editions for anyone willing to foot the cost. I guess it serves as marketing subsidized by the customer.
Would Musk actually build a hover car if someone was willing to pay for it? Maybe, but it's hard to see the market/target demographic - it'd be a geeky toy rather than something to impress others of your wealth with.
Maybe Musk should do a ghetto rocket car - a gas thruster 30-sec hover add on for the Cybertruck. If he could do it for a few hundred K there might be some takers.
Both versions have giant nitrogen tanks that expel gas. Neither has combustion. I won’t say it’s not novel, I will say that there’s 0 chance it’s street legal with the vertical thrusters, little chance it’s legal with the rear thrusters, and given that it takes 6 hours to fill the tank for a single use that is good for 1/3rd of a quarter mile, almost useless.
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…
It's compressed air from what I can read and it contains a compressor to refill the tank.
A concept car, primarily a track car I think. I would think less than 10000 will be sold but some of the tech will make it into other models over time and the tech could be interesting for military application. Jumping Humvees like cars anyone?
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?
Have they announce pricing on the rocket version? I could see it being priced like a bugatti or koenigsegg, where selling 100-500 of these is a great business.
You know that before EVs were a thing, it was also not economic, and was seen as crazy. So was landing a rocket. And have tons of little satellites in LEO. Don't confuse the first prototype version with it being impossible to succeed.
> 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.
I'm not a Musk fanboy by any stretch of the imagination but this was clearly done as a marketing stunt to drum up hype about the street legal roadster. I didn't even watch the announcement but now everyone in my friend circle is talking about it because of the rocket engines. That's just called effective marketing.
That cool. "Flying" aside, I was more curious how it didn't fall down when upside down with no thruster smoke. Turns out its got suction [1]. 2G's is rollercoaster zone.
Yes, and it would go well on a James Bond movie or something. I'm a bit surprised they didn't go with hydrogen peroxide propellant as that can be refueled fairly quickly. The Bell Jetpack used hydrogen peroxide for example.
Question is when this would be applicable? It can't be approved for the road, right? And even if there was a use over novelty, the tanks must be depleted immediately. Also curious how well it does with extra weight from passengers
Teslas are some of the safest cars on the road. Even if you dislike musk (he’s not a good human), the record stands pretty solidly on their side.
When the NTHSA did the rollover test on the Tesla Model S, it broke the machine they use. It was estimated that it would take the weight of nine model S vehicles ontop of a model S for the roof to collapse. Tesla patented millimeter wave radars in the seats and got approval to install them. They now know if a large adult, small adult, child, animal, or groceries are in a seat. The airbags are reconfigured on the fly depending on what is in the seat. Consumer reports did a test and found Tesla wasn’t great in slam the brakes stopping distance, and did a report about it. Tesla confirmed and did some testing. They had a software update in less than a month to dramatically improve it to generally best in class. They have so many safety features many of which are now mandated in new vehicles that were not required when Tesla started producing vehicles.
Just look at some of the utterly insane Tesla crashes where in most cars all would he dead and folks walk away from them in the teslas. Some of the Teslas use a very special composite metal named Inconel in the frames. Look it up. Inconel is most commonly used in high performance aerospace applications like space rockets, and Tesla is the sole automotive manufacturer in the world with access to a large supply of it and know how. The Tesla model S plaid seats were designed to withstand 9Gs of lateral force, a thing no other street legal car in the world can do. Tesla asked the seat manufacturer that makes most all of the seats in the world to support this and they laughed at them. So Tesla made their own, and it’s safer than any of the other ones due to its design. Don’t trust me, verify this with google. It isn’t hard.
>Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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.
The website lists three modes, which all have the fan but differ in thrusters. The variants are: no thrusters (thus no COPV), acceleration-only thrusters, and flying thrusters. The flying one has the disclaimer "Note: Not approved for public road use." OTOH the acceleration-only thrusters may be street legal. However, I expect that the COPV will be kept empty (thus not dangerous) unless you select a special "launch mode".
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.
It will probably take hours to fill the COPV even on the Thruster model if the onboard compressor works so you will drive around with it pressurized if you want to use it.
> and that's gonna make crashes much more.. exciting
It's not like they care about lives. After all Musk throttled Starlink in Ukraine and that resulted in many civilian deaths. Anyone buying this is supporting this behaviour.
This is so absurd, and reproduces the idea of flying cars from sci-fi and comic books of 1960s and 1970s so directly! And can attach to a wall or ceiling, for bonus points! I think it will be met with a huge demand from well-off people who dreamed about such cars in their childhood. (If it delivers on all these promises, of course.)
That was actually not unexpected. Joe Rogan 2404 [1]. He warned Rogan that the demonstration would be completely "unforgettable, whether it’s good or bad"
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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]?
> 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.
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.
I think to many, and equally as many will argue the counter to this point, and I am not speaking to the validity either way, but I think Elon felt even if not available to the public, his reputation was on the line. He has done amazing things thus far, but also made lying and exageration the norm. He had to come through with 'a flying car'. Credit to him, he essentially did, available or not.
Feel like a rich people toy slash marketing stunt for Tesla.
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.
Everyone's focusing on the cold gas thrusters, which of course is very cool, but not actually shocking that it technically could be done (economically is another question).
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.
I can lift a 200 pound piece of glass with a tiny vacuum sucker. It's the atmosphere keeping that thing up there, and the 2" of ground clearance is what you see around the edge, we don't actually know what the distance is where the evacuation happens. For all you know it as a 3' x 7' plate underneath it that floats just above the surface.
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.
There is a racing car at a car museum, it was either BMW or Mercedes, which was mounted to the ceiling because it had a suction fan that would, in theory, let it do that.
This is not actually the first time that this idea of using a fan to create downforce. It's been something that's been talked about and modeled for a long while and I think a few years ago, the McMurtury Speirling was released. That set the lap record at Laguna Seca among other achievements. The car is about a million dollars, and the fans are basically completely useless anywhere that's not a curated track (think stones, dust, wood, other FOD going through the fans).
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.
I very much doubt the machine we saw flying was 1000kg+. It was either MUCH lighter, supported by cleverly hidden cables, or some other trickery. The dramatic lighting isn't just for visual effect, it makes it easier to hide the reality of the demonstration.
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.
What cable arrangement would you propose to move a car in that way? I think it would be easier to do with gas thrusters than with cables. They'd get tangled in each other.
I have more belief this trim will be made available commercially without significant changes (which is to say "not much belief") than belief you know enough about what was done to e.g. claim what the lighting is for that authoritatively.
So this is a really neat technical demo, using spacecraft cold-gas thrusters and guidance hardware/software to do crazy stunt stuff in a car, but what's the relevance to an actual product that can be sold, even as a small-volume exotic? These are pressurized gas thrusters, so either the tanks, valves, and piping take up most of the interior of the car, or it has a low-single-digit number of seconds of thrust before recharge, probably both. Also the tanks for these things tend to use incredibly high pressures and are apt to explode spectacularly in any sort of accident.
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.
The combination of a 250kg 5500psi pressure vessel, with a huge battery that generates a self fueling fire..... this thing will make for spectacular crashes
There is almost zero practical use for this technology. No one is going to drive around and pop a flip. The only possible use would be when some shit box car loses control and is about to head on crash a billionaire and the billionaire's car kickflips over the shit box and continues to drive while the shit box crashes behind him into flames.
Public transport has inherent problems that cannot be solved that will always have it be less convenient than a car.
(1) Does not pick you up from your home and does not drop you off at where you need to go.
(2) Does not start at your schedule. Missed by a hair? Wait up to 2h.
(3) Impossible to transport more than you can carry.
(4) Does not scale. When there are too many people, some will have to wait for the next train or bus. When there are too few people everything still moves around nearly empty.
(5) Being exposed to the public, which could mean drug addicts and insane people that will stab you in the neck for no reason. But mostly just smelly lowlifes that might take a piss in front of you.
No matter how great your public transport is, it cannot solve these inherent issues while being cheaper than a car.
While I respect the public transit system, it has many disadvantages over private cars. The NYC subway, for instance, is amazing in many ways, but if you're just slightly old or infirm, you can't navigate it. DC's subway, built at a yuge price, does have elevators but they are often broken. And if you're traveling at non-rush hours, you'll have to wait 5-20 minutes and then pause your trip for every stop along the way.
I can see how a young, fit and childless 20 something would be much happier with a good public transport system, but once you stop fitting that narrow model, your affection for urban dreams dies slowly.
And don't get me started on the price for construction and maintenance.
10 or more years ago when Ludacris mode was added people said the same. But the answer was that we need these things so the rich shell out the money and Tesla can use it to fulfill the actual mission of yada yada yada.
I wonder how many still believe this. It’s like Tom Hanks in Big is in charge of both a car and rocket company. Sure it’s awesome but not what we need right now.
It's not self-evident what we need. We currently ended up with this whole free-market capitalism, which is super distorted of course, but still it kinda says that 'we should let people do whatever they want with their money unless they harm others'. "I want clean water. I want a stable climate. I want bees to survive." Yes, so we all. But we set up a system where people can vote with their wallets.
Meanwhile, Elon is trying to buy state parks in Texas after bribing the governor to the tune of $150 million. Sad days ahead when fascists can openly flash their money around and buy influence on the cheap.
Did you say something similar when the Bugatti veyron was released? (Worlds first production car with 1000hp, and fastest) How about the Ferrari F80, or even some super yacht?
Even a $2000 folding phone is obscene when so many don’t have clean drinking water and access to healthcare.
Rich people have always had toys.
If you’re just getting annoyed now, you have not been paying attention, or you just hate Elon/Tesla.
lol. You’re mad because the person is “just getting mad now”. So by your logic they should have come out of the womb angry otherwise it is just unjustified anger? Lol you.
This is one of the coolest marketing stunts/demos that I have ever seen. In fact, it's the second coolest, only after SpaceX/Tesla's Starman.
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
I simply won't believe they'll sell a version that leaves the ground until I see someone who obviously isn't working for Tesla with one. I'd be surprised if the FAA didn't have something to say about it. I just don't believe for a second that a stiff wind or a low ceiling or a power line (public road or not) or a very obese driver with nobody in the passenger seat isn't going to turn a very expensive car into a very expensive upside down piece of scrap. SpaceX has had enough explosions resulting from COPVs that I can't imagine these actually getting into the hands of people with more money than sense. It's a compelling marketing gimmick that can't be real.
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.
>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
While I can appreciate, and he has joked publicly about having "pathological optimism," that he is more aggressive with timelines than the reality of the alignment between technology, practicality (cost, etc.), and regulations, most of what you have listed continues to be progressively released.
Is he careful with his speech in terms of distinguishing a "big audacious goal" from a shipping reality in the near term? Absolutely not.
So going through some of your list..
>automatic charging snake (you left off hot 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.
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 autonomous.
Banish (the opposite that sends the car away) exists but is not publicly available due to safety, operational and regulatory reasons (for example where does the car go if it can't find a parking spot?)
Currently this tech is limited to line of sight (~200 Feet) but the speed and distance continues to increase over time with updates.. again as the tech and regulations come together. Eventually, as we see with Robotaxi, the ability to drive you to work, drop you off, go back home and park and return when you're off work is not science fiction. The end to end solution exists today, the technology and laws/regulation need to come together.
If your complaint is that cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.. but modem HW4 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.
> These are not "empty promises" more so than long term visions (that do manifest) sold as short term shippable options.
By that logic any lie is simply a promise that hasn't been fulfilled yet.
> cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.
He made the promise in 2019! HW3 will almost certainly never have unsupervised FSD (let alone FSD without a human in the car), and HW4 didn't ship until what, 2023? There's more model years in existence where that promise is flatly broken than there are where it's maybe a possibility someday down the road.
But he also promised FSD rideshare in 2016, which arguably makes it even worse of a broken promise. Ten years later not only is it still a broken promise, they're actively working to ship a product that isn't what they promised.
So, are we just going to ignore that the man is literally asking for YEARS of deposits aka free loans, for a car that literally might never come to fruition?
This is insanity. How are shareholders still supporting this man?
This is the guy who led a company to build and catch a flying 20 story building. Say anything else you want about the man (and there is a LOT to say) but he has a track record of achievements that no other human has ever come close to reaching.
> he has a track record of achievements that no other human has ever come close to reaching.
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.
He also has a track record of making promises that he never makes good on, or intends to make good on. In fact, almost all of the things you call achievements are things he did without making broad promises.
Elon is famously managed up by the point people at his companies. I don't really know how much credit you can give him besides having the bravado to greenlight stunts like this. Which, you know, cool -- it appeals to the 12 year old in all of us, which is about how mature he is.
Might never come to fruition? Is there any chance at all that such a car would ever be street legal? Oh, wait the US govt is literally for sale nowadays, so hmm...maybe that's not an obstacle actually.
The maths of the flying is a little puzzling to me.
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.
In the video they claim the air is supersonic at exit, and point out the mach diamonds -- and I think they said 60 kilonewtons of thrust max, which is really a lot. So I think the volume of air would decrease roughly 60% from your estimate? I'm not a physicist.
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.
So let’s double the speed - 1.2 Ma. You need half the mass now - 25kg/sec. If you want to have 10 seconds worth of hover - that’s 250kg of gas. Plus the weight of the storage tank. Plus - this is the amounts for hover. Not for any extra force on top of that.
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.
The "pin to a wall" part uses fans, not the cold gas thrusters. It can probably stay there until the battery runs out. The gas thrusters are only needed if you want to go 0-60 in .8s (with the Thrust version), or if you want to fly (with the Rocket version). Probably those only last a few seconds before the air tanks need to recharge.
> 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?
this is funny because I know so many people who always note down phone numbers and such for the day on cigarette packs. sometimes even carrying a few with them all the time.
Looks like a sensible turning down of the Cybertruck aesthetic into something that looks good.
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.
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).
Lotus did this on their chassis not because it was cheap, but because it allowed them to use lighter, thinner aluminum which would have been ruined by welding. It was almost certainly not cheaper than welding, they had to add little protrusions that kept all the pieces 0.2mm apart, which is what made for the best bonding. They went to a lot of trouble to make this process work, and it resulted in one of the best sports cars of all time in terms of pure driving experience.
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).
> Oddly enough this makes their cheaper cars more reliable than the expensive ones
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.
This type of vehicle isn't intended to drive at speed, at least not very far. It's targeted at collectors who will park it in a garage with their other supercars. It's a status symbol with wheels, not transportation or even a toy for track days. (And I don't mean that as a criticism, there's nothing wrong with wealthy people buying collectibles.)
Everyone is talking about the Cybertruck, but both the 3 and the Y have plenty of engineering problems as well. I believe both cars are listed as below-average reliability by CR.
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.
Early Model 3/Ys built in the US were unreliable. The ones built in Shanghai, though, are excellent. Berlin is somewhere in the middle.
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.
So many things you just said are wrong. The control arms are 100k mile parts, and you can easily replace them with Unplugged Performance versions for under $1k.
> My Toyota Sienna has been far more reliable than the Model 3, despite having many, many more parts.
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.
That was my first thought, Cybertruck: The Car. But then it drove up a wall and stopped on the ceiling and flew down. That was awesome. I'm sure it will be a nightmare to own.
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.
It's what we have collectively dreamed of for decades: a flying car. The things you mentioned are what I'd call implementation details of what boils down to a box with four wheels and a steering wheel.
This isn't anything practical. It's just cool. Like a hoverboard. Or landing on the moon.
Brake by wire and steer by wire are the obvious ones.
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.
> the production issues with the Cybertruck mean you’d be a fool to reserve one of these
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.
The latest car Tesla released, the cybertruck, was one of the biggest automotive flops ever, production is essentially halted, demand is non-existant.
Tesla announced and started taking reservations for their roadster TEN YEARS AGO. People who made reservations and paid the $50k-$250k cost are STILL WAITING.
And now Tesla has announced yet another vapourware car, with a controversial design, taking reservation money again.
- 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.
It helps everywhere... turns and straights - it provides downforce without wings. Wings cause drag, that push the car down but also slow it down. So the car can be going slow and still get incredible grip. On the corners the car won't slide, so it can corner at much higher speeds too. For both these reasons, this suction system was banned by most racing leagues in the 70's for being too powerful.
Mark my words, these thrusters and flying car stunts will eventually be used as a justification to merge Tesla into SpaceX, the same way how they justified space datacenter to merge X.ai onto SpaceX.
There was optimus robots already on Tesla side and inference / r&d funded by x.ai (now spacex).
I don't think it does either, but it's surely overvalued and have to sustain it's ridiculously high forward P/E. Hence the semi-regular news about FSD, TeslaCab, Optimus Bots, and now Flying cars. Seems it's working. It's always priced in with the "potential future".
He promised FSD and an affordable base model for everyone, for close to a decade at this point. Instead he dropped yet another car that's not legal on most roads and doesn't even solve a problem to begin with. Imagine what great things could have been done with the money and resources that went into this.
Cool, but not realistic. This is a prototype, if you have enough money you can build a prototype car that does just about anything. When the car starts shipping the "cool" features will be missing.
What is the practical use case of having a bunch of high powered jets all around the car? It could be used to automatically avoid fatal accidents, or at least reduce risk and damage in an accident situation. I thought everybody who watched the presentation video would reach that conclusion.
I definitely have my issues with Tesla and Elon but this was one of the coolest demos I have ever seen in my life. The engineering needed to do this must have been unbelievable.
No it's not sad, the man was basically an unelected official, laid off thousands of government workers and the second order effects of that will affect millions. All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
If I had paid for a reservation for this car in checks notes 2017(!!!), I'd have some issues with them as well. Very cool tech demo, but come find me when it's getting produced and sold to the people who reserved them a decade ago.
Why is it sad? Over 700,000 avoidable deaths from Elon's dismantling of US AID alone, two thirds of them children. Estimated to be 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030.
I think the qualification is unbelievably tame considering what Elon deserves.
Well unfortunately he's made it necessary to do so. I can like this demo in the same way I can like the V2 rocket as a pioneering achievement in rocketry. There's a very big elephant in the room.
He killed thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of people with his DOGE stunts interrupting USAID, for purely selfish reasons or completely mentally deranged delusions (if you take his twitter posts at the time at face value).
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
its cos he's a prick. The way he pretended to "fairly" sack devs at twitter when he was clearly just trying to cut costs. That he bought twitter to "defend free speech" and then started donating to the Republication party and promoting a very specific political position online. As a euro the Nazi salute alone is enough for me.
The qualifier matters, that guy has serious issues.
I wouldn't exactly call it a demo.. more of a marketing stunt, albeit a very impressive one from an engineering POV.
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.
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?
And that is precisely all it is, a demo. Reminder that BYDs are held at bay in an anti free market policy specifically because American car companies cannot compete with its low cost and quality. We're wasting time and money on this type of tech.
This engineering in this demo was only designed o get lucrative government contracts.
Automotive tariffs in the US are explicitly to keep the ability to make military vehicles in the United States. GM, Ford, and Chrysler retooled their factories to make planes, trucks, and tanks during WW II.
Maybe, but why? Feels like a slap in the face to people who have been waiting ten years for the car. Gimmicky demos just scream waste of money and loss of focus on what matters.
You could make the same argument for hypercars like the McLaren W1, why do you need 1,258 bhp and sub 3s 0-60 times? Seems gimmicky and not practical for the road. But to that I'd argue, why not?
The people who are waiting for this car are waiting for a gimmick anyway.
If you want a car that will take you from A to B reliably, you can buy one today.
most of the things a Tesla Roadster is advertised with is not street legal.
If you look at Tesla pricing and delivery, prices usually well above what was originally talked about - capability/etc a whole different thing with the cyber truck. The 3 engine "cyberbeast" was originally pushed at about 1/2 it's price 8ish years ago.
DHH:
>I put $50,000 on this thing 18 months ago. Not knowing it was going to fucking fly! When it was already years "late". Because investing in whatever Elon does next is not just a great bet, but the most inspiring and fun one too.
Elon doesn't miss with his social media marketing. Compare the announcement tweets from Andy Jassy and the engagement they generate. Meta, with the Muse app (personal AI), is also leaning heavily on social media, but by paying influencers (instead of cool & viral product demos).
A lot of this sentiment is based on jealousy or competiton with Musk, or the pleasure of harassment towards Asperger people: Gimmicky demos are what people remember.
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.
Gimmicky? Within our lifetime it will be a common safety feature like airbags. Can you imagine how many terrible accidents can be avoided if the car can fly out of a bad situation? Doesn't need to fly long distance. Engage your imagination and you'll think of many use cases.
And those rocket drones have a significant proportion of their mass as reaction gas for the thrusters, everything else being designed around lightness, and can still only resist gravity on the order of a few tens of seconds before a full recharge needs to be done. They're very much designed for "small" course corrections outside of atmosphere, or quickly dodging the terminal phase of an interceptor, rather than efficient velocity change.
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".
Quite interesting how things can be seen so differently, because this was one of the most pointless/dumbest demos I have ever seen in my life. There was no doubt someone could build something like this, the question is always "why"? What problem does this solve?
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.
Hagerty has a very good walkthrough video with Lars and it looks pretty real. The thing they failed to mention was that the "flying" version is separate and the entire passenger seat is replaced with a pressure tank.
Someone else commented that this tech might make for a good Bond movie car (maybe better suited to the Roger Moore cheesy era), but I assume nowadays they'd just use AI since it'd be so much cheaper.
Yeah, wouldn’t they rather be doing real impactful engineering work, like figuring out means to display even more ads on personal user devices, maximizing the number of hours kids spend doom-scrolling per day, or making robots that are deliberately designed to take jobs away from as many workers as possible?
But, imagine instead being an engineer of any kind today and you’re only getting paid to work on boring things like advanced automotive technology and building cars that can maneuver themselves in midair and might possibly fly in the future? Ridiculous.
(This message should not be taken as support for Musk or any of his views or business ventures.)
Is there any evidence/footage that this actually happened in front of a live audience? And not just on a screen that was shown to a live audience? Cause that's all can find.
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.
I guess you didn't see the video of a car sitting on a ramp upside down, doing flips in the air, jumping over a semi and other cars...
Odd world we live in when we don't see that as being cool. But, we're seemingly headed there. At some point, it's going to be hard to imagine something that could surprise me.
This video states that it takes 2–6 hours to charge the compressed air for the cold-gas thrusters. And then you can use it exactly once before you have to recharge it. The journalist calls it “beautifully pointless.”
The funny thing is that during the event, Elon claimed that the car can recharge the tanks itself [0], but in the Top Gear video, the Tesla folks say that it is recharged from an external source [1]. In the Top Gear video, they also say that they are filling it from a "high pressure nitrogen system", whereas Elon claims that the tank is filled with air. They can't even keep their own messaging straight.
And the car would have 4 seats(now 2), over 1000 km range(now less than half), and be the fastest car period(now very far off). Then they say it will do 300 and something km/h, but also say it will do Mach 0.5. They are completely clueless, as usual.
Perhaps they use liquid nitrogen and then just allow it to boil off inside the tanks? This would give them a safe and easy way to quickly recharge the tanks for testing.
The stock market agrees. TSLA continues trending downward.
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.
Not trending down anywhere near enough. Their PE Ratio is absurd, but it definitely proves the adage that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
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!
I'm not sure if the stock price means a lot. Tesla is kind of a meme stock, people buy it based on vibes, not based on what it's worth.
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.
I mean, this is something we want to encourage. Everyone always likes to quote fiduciary duty ad nauseum. Here is a public company flying (lol) in the face of that in the spirit of, well, fun.
This isn't the car though, this is a concept demo to keep people subscribed while they continue to delay the real car. I agree supercars are pointless in a lot of ways, but this is just not the same thing because it's vaporware meant to be provocative.
It's a "sports car". At least that is what all the marketing says and has said since forever. Even the title on the website is "Electric sports car". But it's not really a sports car, it's a fantasy car that does not exist, and never will exist.
It's not pointless at all. The car needs wings to become a glider. It doesn't need the fans for downward force or any of the high speed stuff. You take the car as high as you can and glide down. So it would be an airplane first and a car second. That would be seriously cool. The military would use it too. An airphibious/wingsuit vehicle. It could also have a drop-out seat/s for skydiving out of or doing air drops. For landing, another central wheel can be deployed to absorb the main bump or the existing wheels are extended further down. If there's a problem mid-flight there is an emergency chute as well, or can be used if wings not fitted or used.
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.
I would say it's beautifully pointless in about the same way that the tires on a Bugatti Veyron are rated for some absurdly low number of km before they need to be replaced, and they can only be replaced by shipping the entire wheels to specialized facilities which are equipped to do them. The whole levitating car on thrusters thing is a specialty novelty for rich collectors.
You can't really predict how a collision would happen and hence where you should land.
I'd say the best way to avoid collisions at scale is already on the road and its cars with sensors and computers, if we weren't living in a pre-cyberpunk dystopia I would gladly have them coordinate to achieve that
This would be a horrible deal for Tesla investors.
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.
It’s about Elon’s control over these companies. Creating a valuable company with durable revenue that produces products that the market actually wants, with stable governance by a board representing the shareholders of the company? Bah! What am I, a sucker?
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.
> 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).
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.
“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.
Yes, let's combine Twitter, an AI company, and a space company with a solar company, car company, battery company, and robotics company, so that we can have one huge valuation that can't be possibly delivered upon and losses will be absorbed for a short period. What could go wrong?
but... All elon companies. More valuable bundled, because all the elon lovers don't have to pick where they throw their tithes. I'd love it even more if they throw in a tunnel construction and a human brain implant company in the mix while they are at it.
As an engineer myself, watching the Hagerty interview [0] was an ...interesting experience.
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...
He did clarify more than once that what he means is they’re doing things that are impossible if you rely solely on tire grip, because it’s just not enough.
Obviously they’re not literally breaking the laws of physics, but they’re breaking what has traditionally been possible putting power through tires alone.
You're describing the exact process which causes the loss of credibility.
Let's say I ask a SW engineer to describe the code he wrote, and he repeatedly (!) refers to the addition of an index table as "breaking the laws of computer science".
He can clarify more than once that the achieved result would be impossible with sole event-processing alone, and obviously I know that he didn't break any "laws of computer science" by adding a indexed database.
But every time he explains his work with these words, he will lose a bit of credibility.
Can this be scaled down to a Roomba? Then it would both be more useful at picking stuff up off the floor, and able to recover from falling down the stairs.
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).
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.
Using suction to create downforce is an idea that’s been built for race track usage in the past (and been successful in F1 in the ‘70s), but the near certainty of mortal injury from the system failing (and thus destabilizing the vehicle at high speed) made it unpopular and its incorporation has been very limited (McLaren and Ariel did versions, I think). I’m confused how this has (or will pass) regulatory approval for road use. Is the idea that the driver should only utilize this on a track?
> I’m confused how this has (or will pass) regulatory approval for road use.
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.
I think others have used a skirt that needs to extend quite close to the ground to work, so uneven ground can cause sudden loss of suction. Maybe this is solvable somehow?
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.
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.
Love the idea that the kind of person who would still buy a Tesla can now more easily access the fatality rates afforded to the next tier of rich dick who is obsessed with small planes. Go for it, y'all!
What's so disruptive on these kind of events is, that companies always used to do development for PR-stunts, or to show off their capabilities and vision for the future, but never at this scale of pure engineering investment.
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"
That's also true, but I meant to say something different. I am referring to this sheer blindness to the rationality of what's being presented.
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...
It's a cool demonstration, I'll give them that. From what I've seen online, people don't even seem to consider whether or not they would actually want this, just because the novelty of it.
I'd even ignore that and call it good marketing, if that's what they would actually try to sell here - but you need some kind of special invitation access to even get those, while they use this demonstration to boost the pre-orders for a car without the features everyone is talking about (or at least trying to, we'll see how many will actually go for it).
Yeah, that's what I meant. The gap between what's presented as ready-to-order and the actual practical feasibility of the product is so big, it wows people because they are still accustomed to presentations of actually consumable products.
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...
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.
This is the the release of the Roadster introduced 9 years ago. This is what people who put down a deposit (upwards of 250k) back 9 years ago are in line to receive.
Incredible demo but I also have to agree, I will wait for the first Top Gear or Markus Brownlee unsupervised review before believing this project has been achieved.
There is a huge canyon between launching a car into space for fun (test, actually, dead weight) and having a web page where you can type in your card details to pay advance on your own purely marketing purpose circus car. You really don't see the difference? Of course, calling an impractical technical circus engineering is revealing.
The Gas Tank is big and very dangerious, runs for 1-2 seconds and needs hours to re'charge'.
No one was sitting in it for savty reasons but probably also weight.
Just changing the design and adding more electric power is not a real art. They could just do this without building a complete different car which will never see the market
Its marketing an when i see your comment, it seemed to work.
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.
This Tesla event was apparently performed in front of a live audience. Yes I'm sure there's a hype strategy here but equating this with the Nikola scam is a stretch.
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.
Not to disagree that this Tesla event took place, but there was also a "Nikola World" event in 2019 where Nikola presented its product to an audience of 1000+ people.
It's surely not AI, but so far it is little more than all these Jetpack demonstrations of the past decade...
All car manufacturers demo "concept" cars that are real and work(for most parts) but mass production with reasonable price is just not worth it, in this case there is legal challenges too.
They're not afraid of doing tricks in front of live audience either. Look at the battery swap event. No camera placed anywhere near where the "swap" was happening for a few minutes. Then the car drove off Wow! Amazing! And they never talked about battery swap again
I suspect this is going to be a Cybertruck/Boring Company situation, where we may get something ostensibly called the same and may even do something one could consider similar when squinting (maybe a bit higher than U9 jumps in scope) but with the specs and implementation differing so greatly that it shouldn't be considered the same. Exoskeleton vs body panels, 200kph+ on electric sleds vs Teslas (driven by human operators; tells you how much they trust their FSD tech) in a tiny tunnel, FSD on HW3 vs an upgrade maybe someday, etc.
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...
FYI the dawn project was debunked as crackpot scammers who had their feet on the accelerator pedal to fake an "FSD crash", along with a slew of other underhanded and misleading tricks.
Don't forget that the leader of Dawn Project has financial conflicts of interest:
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.
Does that invalidate their examples? "Did they fake it or not" is a falsifiable claim that can be inspected regardless of personal incentives.
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.
Yeah no, something is very off on this and I cannot put my finger on it, the video looks odd to me. I want to say AIgen feel, but I only saw little tiny vids, rest were blurry as sin.
Makes sense though. First time I saw video of two falcon rockets doing a synchronized landing I felt the exact same way. Our brain is used to this type of stuff in movies and we know it's CGI. So when it happens for real and is filmed in 4K and a cinematic color scheme is added, it's hard for the brain to adapt.
Why do car manufacturers brag about hitting 60 mph in 1, 2 or whatever seconds? For a normal person, does this really matter - what is the big deal if a car hits 60 mph in 5 seconds instead of 1? There are more important things like safety, repairability, longevity etc right?
It’s standard measure of acceleration. If you are going to sell a car on performance (like say… a sporty roadster), it’s a great metric.
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.
It's just one stat and it makes for a good headline. Obviously those other things are important but they don't exactly fit into a headline. Oh and some people like fast cars. Why is that so confusing?
For the Roadster, it's a supercar. None of those things matter much.
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).
As someone who has had a Mercedes AMG that could do 0-60s in less than 4s for a few years, it just gets boring so fast, and it makes you question why you bought the thing in the first place. It's unusable in almost every situation on the road, except for the rare "opportunity" when you stop at traffic lights next to a Golf R and yes turns out you have a bigger.....turbo.....than them. Well done, that 5 second ego boost was really worth all the money and looking like a dick to anyone above the age of 25.
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.
Even assuming it’s real and they genuinely are working on selling these to consumers (they aren’t), why on earth would you think this is built for the average person? At the absolute cheapest this car would be $5M off the lot. It’s for the ultra rich (assuming they ship, which they won’t) who want to drive it one day a year on the track
You answered your own question in your very second sentence. “For a normal person”. The modern economy increasingly does not cater to the “normal person” and they prove this constantly. Granted “normal people” stopped existing a long time ago. You have poor people, soon to be poor people, and people who think they will soon be rich but will really soon be poor. Of course then you have the rest but they are not people.
Speaking for myself I love the quick acceleration of electric cars because it enables you to safely pass other cars quickly on two-lane roads without needing to linger in the oncoming lane.
This is a sports car with a deposit that costs more than an ordinary new car, and with a price that would probably buy you a decent house. Nothing about this is meant for a normal person.
It's one thing they can brag about, you know. Dumbing everything down to a single number, regardless of whether it's meaningful, feels impressive.
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.
as with lots of muscles, it's actually the dudes who care about this the most :D get hugely muscular, buy a nice sports car and dudes will absolutely love you.
Not to mention top speed. The US should have a federal or at least NY/CA state law that modern cars be electronically limited to 112 mph, as it is in Japan. There is no valid reason for a street legal passenger car to be travelling faster than that.
I always think people like you only follow Tesla and think everyone is stupid.
Why do you ignore all the other companies capable of doing this?
Just because other manufacturere don't put hardware in every car and let pay people for tech they can't use for years, doesn't mean these companies don't have the tech.
Nvidia has the tech, BMW has the tech, Waymo has the tech.
And while a Cybertaxi is still not allowed on german streets, Waymo is coming to munich...
It's not a flying car. It's a meme stock marketing stunt. I mean, it looks cool and I enjoyed the video but this stuff is not happening and will not be available, ever, probably.
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 think this is just a matter of him wanting to heat up his sycophants and cultists, and he knows he can, and that's why he bought X.
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.
Went to a trade show where a mechanical factory arm was spinning and moving a car around in the air, demonstrating its dexterity and strength. Also just a marketing stunt because there’s no practical reason for a mechanical factory arm to be doing such things. Just 100x less engineering effort gone into it.
Exactly! people have done hovercrafts and quadrocopters too, big deal. we already know you need 500wh/kg plus to have any kind of sustained flight. so this will be a parlor trick.
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.
I’m guessing the price will be at least 8 figures. If you can afford it you can also afford the 20 acre property with the private test track where you can flip your car in front of your friends.
It's not flying, it's brief hops that probably will be geofenced not to be operable on any public roads. I struggle to understand when the operator of the vehicle will ever find a way to use it for any end that isn't "gross negligence followed by totaling the car". It's not even clear it can calculate trajectories in real time to be used at the operator's discretion.
I'm not saying it's not cool. Parlor tricks can be very cool, and this one is. But it's still a parlor trick because it's not good for anything other than being cool. When people think of flying cars what they generally have in mind is not a car that can do a flip, it's car that can take them somewhere without needing a road so that it doesn't get stuck in traffic. This car can't do that. All it can do is backflips in a parking lot. That's not nothing, but the novelty will wear off very quickly.
I used to wonder about the possibility of using thrusters to decelerate for impending crashes. I think for a substantial fraction of accidents that would be enough to massively reduce the risk.. but hopping over is an option I hadn’t considered practical.
It is certainly an engineering accomplishment, but calling it a 'car' is a stretch. Do you believe that this vehicle has a 100kWh battery pack in it? When Tesla demonstrates this vehicle driving two hundred miles on city streets and recharging to repeat the test, I'll gladly change my mind.
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.
Yeah just the same way the rides at amusement parks are that go faster and higher. The end result won't change anything for the rest of us. It's entertainment.
It is a few notches beyond sitting in a wagon and emptying a fire extinguisher to go for a little ride, and about as practical, but I do not see what makes it some incredible feat of engineering.
In what way is this an engineering achievement? Presumably two thousand years ago people understood that flight requires lift. It's not like anything novel is occurring here.
It's not a flying car in the way that anyone ever imagined growing up. When people think flying cars they think blade runner or fifth element. Not a car that can jump, interesting as a jumping car may be.
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
I think I've seen some undergrad capstones also make flying cars that would never actually be produced or sold...
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.
The fact that the one that can fly is invite-only makes me wonder if there would be ITAR issues with the guidance mechanisms that they have to put into it.
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.
I suspect it's more because some rando could actually try to use it in public space. The invite only means they could send it to people who will give them good PR, are known not to be idiots, and can be invited to sign many responsibility disclaimers.
That makes a ton of sense, yes! To be honest, I was wondering less about their reasons for invite-only and more about whether this kind of gentle and precise guidance with cold gas thrusters might hit ITAR.
I wonder if Musk is entering the brain rot phase, and Tesla will decline from now on. After all, this is something Tesla doesn't need, a second dud after the Cybertruck. I'm sure the decline will take some time though.
When you get into an accident with another car, the explosion of that 10 kPSI tank behind your seat. will make sure you are the coffee. You know...Engineering...
On the bright side, we're going to find out if extremely high pressure explosions can put out lithium ion battery fires. I vote no, but it'll likely remove any nearby debris/combustible material/organic matter/pink mist out of the combustion area.
Production and other realities aside, I've seen some cool shit in my life and this demo is high up there! Did you guys catch 0.5 mach target top speed? That's 600kmh. It'd better do that flying because there probably aren't any rubber tyres that could endure that before exploding within seconds.
Using awe and inspiration to cement themselves as a leading tech company, especially in the minds of up-and-coming engineers, seems like a good goal for recruiting the best and brightest.
I agree. I remember as a kid getting so excited for Detroit concept cars that never hit the market. Now, unless something is actually for sale, I basically ignore it.
Amazing tech demo. I would have liked to see more discussion of the cold-gas thrusters in the earlier Hacker News article. Some people seemed confused and made claims that the demo was a separate "rocket" version that used a combustion technology.
Well it is a separate rocket version, it just doesn't take jet fuel. "Invite only" for the rocket version means probably less than 5 will ever be made, if that.
I strongly suspect that the invite-only version is the tech that was described in the demo, and differs from the $250K version by the size of the air tank and compression motor.
BYD has made the more practical cousin of this, and you can actually buy it. They have a car which jumps over potholes automatically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIKAn8yDkpA
Anyone know the physics of mach diamonds purely from compressed gas? I'm not a physicist, but I thought one of the key aspects of compressed gas is that it can't expand faster than the speed of sound in that gas -- the speed of sound is literally the limit to how fast it can expand?
Cold gas thrusters used in space applications typically produce 60-70 kgf of thrust for 1 kg/s of gas flow, which means the average axial velocity of the jet is just under 600-700 m/s. It is a little more when the gas expands into vacuum and a little less when it expands into ambient air at the sea level.
How fast the gas expands through an opening depends on the pressure ratio between entrance and exit, and for ordinary air the flow reaches the speed of sound at the narrowest part when the pressure ratio exceeds about a factor of two. The flow never becomes supersonic in the constriction itself, but after the constriction the flow can continue to accelerate to supersonic speeds, especially if the constriction is followed by an expanding nozzle (converging-diverging, or de Laval nozzle), although this is not strictly necessary. For example, one can observe shock diamonds in the air coming out of an ordinary plastic bottle filled with slightly compressed gas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61tsXGUc6nU
Thanks for the clear explanation, and you deserve a separate upvote just for that video link. "slightly" -- compared to what Tesla is claiming, sure, but 5+ bar is no joke -- "you'll put an eye out, kid"
I wonder if the shock waves visible in the video are still due to the converging-diverging aspect, just with no bell around the diverging part.
Gas expanding faster than the speed of sound is called a shockwave - and the Mach diamonds are essentially the expanding gas shockwave “bouncing” back and forth as it hits the atmosphere, forming a standing wave of high and low compression zones.
I have to admit that the only thing I give Elon the title of “Genius” for is his ways of putting on shows to launder more money or get larger loans… this economy is a circus.
This is the company that still hasn't delivered FSD and never will because they won't add Lidar to the cars. They can't even drive Robotaxis at night -- why would they try to fly?
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.
Tesla has lost the battery tech, volume EV manufacturing, and humanoid robotics to China (when trade restrictions don't apply). It's time to hype something different.
I feel like a curmudgeon because like yes the demo was really cool, but more from the standpoint that they were willing to do a stunt like that in an industry that is incredibly boring (at least in the US). The engineering behind making a relatively heavy object fly around with thrusters is very well understood at this point, I wouldn't call it "incredible" to rig RCS thrusters on a brick and make it do a barrel roll.
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?
Its pretty cool but its not like its a flying car in the sense of a production car/aircraft. And even then it's like temporary flight.
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.
As much we credit Elon, can we take a moment and credit the amazing engineering feat of the Telsa and SpaceX engineers who have pulled off this feat. Incredible. Thanks for advancing the human race forward.
Assuming this never really ships (ahem), this is basically an upper-tier "YouTuber engineer" stunt video with a NASDAQ symbol attached. And the results there seem to suggest that Musk's marketing schtick is wearing a bit thin...
I thought so at first but then Musk mentioned the thrusters can recharge themselves with pumps in the car. So it will actually be something owners can use repeatedly without needing complicated refills from Tesla service.
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.
But where would you (be allowed to) use that and risk wrecking your car and life? They weren’t confident to put a person in either. I guess it’s for shows only, the reservation page says invitation only. It’s definitely impressive but it will probably stay a marketing tool.
I wonder whether they will actually be able to recharge to that pressure level in a production car. I kind of doubt it, plus it will be noisy, consume a ton of energy and take a long time.
The Brabham was withdrawn after one race because it sprayed debris at following cars. I the thrusters used for better cornering also might push a car being overtaken just enough to get it off track. Even for track-only this won't fly. Not to mention blasting pedestrians.
I”m not going to get into Musk himself. Nor will I get into the artistic absurdity that a moder supercar represents. But I will speak for the hackers amongst us:
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.
Doesn't matter if the product is real.
The idea is to cultivate a sense of wonder and adventure.
To get people talking about you.
Then you sell more of the products that are real.
Doesn't matter if the product is real. The idea is to cultivate a sense of hope that the $250,000 deposit should stay where it's at, no matter what people talking about me think of that idea. At least I haven't bought a cyber truck.
Real?! From these circus folks? Their (lack of) sense for reality (practicality, safety) you see in this circus is scary! Same folks and mentality make those other ones too that you are supposed to use!
Concept cars often having been run through either CFD or a wind tunnel and also haven’t been vetted for NHTSA requirements, and both those and coefficient of friction are why cars all start to look alike.
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.
Steve wasn't an artist. Did Steve ship a product when Atari asked him to redesign pong into a one player game? No, that was Steve Wozniak. Jobs paid him a cool $350 out of the $5k bonus he got for that. Maybe he was an artist. Con-artist.
I've recently come to the conclusion that Musk isn't selling products anymore, he's selling memestocks. He's a master of grabbing attention in an attention economy and it seems to be working out well for him.
This is so spot on. These things work in a bull market and we’ve been in a bull market for arguably 15 years. In a bear market the distortions that were created over the previous years are reversed and usually to an extreme.
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?”
There are plenty of examples in the world where the one is all that is necessary. It's not like there are more than one Burj Khalifa building in the world. Many people pay for a one off car. There are multiple TV shows based on this very concept.
Just because it's not your hobby or within your budget, doesn't mean that others must feel the same way as you.
Concept products are not real products. Their purpose is often to make a point, to prove something is possible, to make a brand look cooler, or just to have fun. I don't think I would ever see this car flying on the road myself. But part of me likes the fact that there are people out there making crazy things like this. It is more fun.
Building concept cars is a very important part of being a car manufacturer. The issue with Tesla is they take reservations as if it will ever go into production
I don't get it. Musk has an insane track record of shipping things. Well later then he claimed but he usually gets it done. I'm not seeing anyone else leading companies that upended the domination of fossil fueled cars, paved the way for brain implants, build re-usable rockets and create global access to the internet.
Others could get this done too. With less lying and more safety.
So why do we hype Musk to get stuff build sooner than ncessary?
Do you think these people who had to die because of musk enjoyed doing so?
We ask the wrong question, you ask the wrong question: Why do we allow Musk, just because he is rich, to manipulate politics so bluntly? Why do we not put Musk behind bars for all the death he is responsbile for?
Why is it okay for musk for being such a horrible rolemodel? X Æ A-Xii Musk, 14 kids of x different woman etc.?
I actually think it's impressive that they have a prototype. It's less of a leap to think it could end up getting shipped. Whereas other competitors in the industry like Ferrari (Jony Ive collaboration) are launching cars with renders.
> I am personally not a fan of pure concept products that exist only to polish the company’s crown
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.
This will not ship with the demonstrated capabilities for reasons discussed elsewhere in these comments. GP isn't calling Tesla a vaporware company. GP is calling this product as demonstrated vaporware.
I think the event was a very Elon Musk way to say, we're not making a Roadster. Which makes sense, Tesla is leaning into completely self-driving cars and the Roadster as originally envisioned would be the opposite of that.
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.
"As methods for by suicide-by-wealth go, it's classier than drugs, and more accessible than a carbon-fiber submarine" -- some Reddit comment.
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.
How is that impressive as a demo? It would be impressive if it's actually a working, mass producible car, but in terms of an demo it's obviously something that is possible in today's world ..
They first started taking deposits on the Roadster 9 years ago in 2017 with a 2020 production date. It’ll be shocking if they ever sell this car they showed today. If they do, it’ll be many years late, not fly, and cost twice what they are saying. Just like the CyberTruck.
Apart from the supercar aspirational enthusiasts and the usual inspiration of innovation with concept cars give, I'm thinking of other audiences for this product. What's the actual future of this?
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.
Been a while since I was impressed with a tech presentation. I was waiting for a clear case of AI assisted movement ( though I personally expected to see it for the first time in a military chopper ).
**
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.
I watched the ~16 minute presentation on YouTube and it was as if Elon and the two other guys presenting were doing a skit at a talent show. They seemed extremely unprepared. Maybe they were intentionally trying to come across as off the cuff, but it felt unnatural and cringey. Together they have the charisma of a paper clip. These guys are so full of themselves that it’s difficult to appreciate whatever accomplishment this may or may not be. And, of course, no
way it will be street legal with air thrusters. What a complete joke.
When presenting the world with a flying car, one doesn't need much extra charisma, the demo does it all. I think most people would be pretty excited (or full of themselves) knowing what they were about to show.
Tesla presentations (and Musk presentations generally) have always been weirdly awkward.
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.
This is concerning, "Delivery. You understand that Roadster isstill under development at the time you entered into
this Agreement and so we cannot guarantee when your vehicle will actually be delivered or if it will be
delivered.".
It's pretty cool that someone finally replicated the turbo boost jump function that K.I.T.T. had. Imagine having the boosters to avoid head on collision at 100km/h.
100kmh+100kmh does not equal the energy of a 200kmh collision. If such a collision avoidance system existed both cars would use side thrusters to avoid each other.
As Doug DeMuro would say, this is a “rich guy go fast” car.
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 has a steering yoke. F1 cars also have a steering yoke. Are F1 cars not fun and engaging to drive?
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.
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.
Thrusters pointed straight back will be illegal on public roads and racetracks, as they'd throw debris at people and cars behind them. However, pointing them upward and forward could give them a chance of being legal and functional, especially for braking.
I genuinely didn't believe they'd ever do more than use cold gas thrusters for a lame boost effect, if at all. Happy to admit I was wrong, that was cool.
So the v2 that people put money down on 9 years ago has been thrown away. Hopefully they'll be able to easily get their money back, ideally with interest.
I'm not an Elon fan, but the timeline here is interesting:
The Model 3 Standard was released in October 2025 priced starting at $37k.
The $7500 federal EV tax credit was scheduled to apply to that car but was killed early by the OBBBA, ending in September 2025. Had the tax credit still been in place as planned, presumably the sticker price would have made it under $30k.
It sure looks like Tesla worked hard to hit their $30k sticker price but then Congress pulled the 'ol switcheroo. Elon left the Trump administration in ~June 2025, just before the OBBBA was passed, calling the OBBBA a "disgusting abomination".
Does gyroscopic crash aversion and gentle downward deceleration count as flight? I would think not, otherwise we'd say a parachute is capable of flight.
I suspect it "actually flies" much the same way the cybertruck is bullet proof and has an ultra hard stainless steel exoskeleton, in that it doesn't. This seems like smoke and mirrors conman shit pumped up to 11.
Is your assertion that the car shaped object we watched drive for a distance and then levitate over a distance was something other than a car that actually flies?
You watched a demo of a car-shaped object flying. Was it an actual car, or just a shell that looks like a car? We won't know until it's actually on sale and in customer hands what this is going to be.
It wouldn't be the first time Musk demoed something and promised something and then never ships.
What distance did you actually see it "drive"? There is no evidence that the car shaped object was anything but a lightweight shell using compressed air to levitate and do tricks like any modern day drone can do.
Watch The man with the golden gun. You’ll see a car do a corkscrew jump. Does that mean all cars of that brand could do that jump?
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.
Yes, the assertion is that it's not the car they'll sell. For example, they demo'd a "Cybertruck" with a never-before-seen durable single piece exoskeleton and then sold a Cybertruck with a unibody construction similar to the existing Honda Ridgeline.
I certainly don't think it was a car that flies. It could be a car that can do dangerous party tricks for no practical reason but I kinda doubt that do. Hell we live in an AI world now, why are you so confident it's what they claim it is, what in Musk or Tesla's track record indicates that this is anything but a hype effort?
yet there's hundred if videos on yt of people shooting their cybertruck and it is indeed bullet proof vs 9mm.
the hate trains folks get on boarded onto just blind them from simple truth. yeah I'm pretty sure the road does indeed fly for short distances. yes it's totally impractical. and yet it does. and it's also quite the feat. doesn't mean one should buy it, but the blindness coming from manufactured hate is really ridiculous.
Your hunting rifle will also go through a cybertruck. Its side panels are proven on video to stop fat and slow handgun rounds like .45 ACP. I would bet pretty good money that if I took a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP and shot the doors of a 1970s steel monstrosity of a passenger sedan it would also dent and not penetrate the doors.
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 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.
Cars seem so full of gimmicky features these days. A friend's car yesterday stopped us when exiting because it thought we left behind belongings in the back seat - it was just an empty package. That was not something I would have ever thought a car would flag. It's not that fancy of a car (entry level SUV) but it is fairly new, it just kind of bothered me.
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.
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.
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 an awesome performance, but I don't know why you'd want this in your actual day to day car and pay a premium for it, all power to you if you do but I wouldn't call not sharing that preference 'poo pooing the incredible tech'.
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.
And land where? This was a controlled, scripted stunt with no human inside. It was already risky. Using it in uneven, unmapped terrain would require real time navigation, waaaay more air time to account for those.
We don't do politics here on HN, but I wouldn't touch a needle made by one of the companies of this douchebag. I'm talking here as a consumer who might end up on the wrong side of this guy's political ambitions.
Once was enough for me. The redbull stunts are way cooler. Check out Ken Blocks videos. Its an actual driver in an actual car. Not a plastic hull with 20 year old compressed air can technology attached to it pretending to be an actual product that will ever be made.
Like many times in the past with Elons smoke and mirrors, this will either never be delivered or will be completely watered down version of the marketed version.
Hagerty has an interview with a Tesla exec that was shot before the release. Answers a lot of the questions people have here. Really interesting https://youtu.be/22rvpUecLts?is=STsYWoVcb4W-2t4D
One interesting idea for this technology is to prevent accidents. Imagine you are about to get hit head-on by a drunk driver. If only you had a set of thrusters to lift your car at the last second. So basically use this a crash collision avoidance "before" your airbag has to go off.
It's a numbers game. As much time as Waymo had been on the road, it has not been long enough to hit a "drunk driver running red light" situation. It'll happen eventually.
I worked at Tesla when they announced the Roadster 2 and said they’d start production. That never happened. Funny to see everyone eat this up, let’s see when or if they deliver.
Imagine if he had just come out to introduce a common sense minivan, shipping in 2027 and lower cost than the Sienna and Odyssey. There are nearly half a million minivans sold every year, I wonder if Tesla could quickly take 30% of that market with regular Tesla look (not cyber punk style).
It boggles my mind that people talk about this as if it is real. It is not real. It is a marketing gimmick. Are we in a 90’s American elementary school talking about WWE wrestling, or are we tech-bro’s discussing “Elon” (first name intended)? Or is there no difference at all between the two, in terms of discernment of and interest in truth?
I guess that puts the final nail in the coffin of the 2019 Roadster that was announced but never arrived. Shame, because I loved how it looked. Some of its aesthetic lives on in the Highland Model 3 at least.
It's not a car, it's a car shaped thing that they created for a demo. People will complain because this should not have any impact whatsoever on TSLA, but people act like it will.
That being said, the stock tanked today so I don't think most people are buying it.
Of all the flying cars I've seen, this probably isn't one. It looked like a car-shaped prop.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that will require more than a scripted demo. Meanwhile, I'll let my full self-driving Tesla drive me to my workplace in the Mars colony, where I currently live. Can't wait to see my coworker, Robby the Tesla Robot.
The car part is pretty neat. I like it, though you can clearly see that they grabbed a Gallardo and stylised it a la retro-futurisric.
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.
BTW, "29 points by InsideOutSanta 11 hours ago [flagged]" is wild. How in the world did people decide to flag the most benign criticism pointing out that tons of stuff Musk demos or predicts doesn't come true?
Those are institutions, not a statement of education.
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.
The video goes against my intuition for how much performance you can get out of cold gas thrusters. I wonder if someone could do some back of the envelope maths on how much thrust and impulse you can get from a setup like this?
My primary scepticism is how much the prototype weighs, and whether it can still jump with 2 passengers + 1000kg of batteries inside.
Based on the statement that the suction fan generates 2g of downforce, and the telemetry showing the fan operating at 4,700 kg @ ~95% load, the Tesla Roadster weighs approximately 2,300 to 2,500 kg.
This is a tech demo until it actually ships. Actual engineering requires things like cost effectiveness, reliability, and reparability that are yet to be seen.
It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.
It is incredible engineering and also a enormous waste of effort by a car company that seems to have stopped caring about releasing cars for the mass market.
FINALLY! When I was in 3rd grade (1977), I checked out a book at the school library about the year 2000 and what the world would be like.
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...
I think my brother had a subscription to Quest magazine that had all manner of forecasts and predictions and I remember it having an article about a flying capsule that was part of a car that would fly away from an accident and avoid the accident. It was utter nonsense.
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.
Some comment here are pretty sad. Yeah it’s not going to be perfect for sure, yeah the rocket version is certainly not going to be road legal for the foreseeable future, but who care ?
It’s an engineering demonstration, it’s main purpose is to make people dream, generate vocation.
Because if we go by this, Apollo mission was also useless, making car who go beyond road limitation is also useless and so on. But every of those projects have serve to make some children dream, children who have made to their jobs because of theses projects.
In a world where the mood appears to push people toward depression, thank you, Tesla, for letting us remain optimistic and keep dreaming.
It’s not Elon Musk in this garage who have conceived this car, it’s an entire teams full of people.
Because if we go into this the Apollo mission has employed literal old Nazi scientists, but nobody say today “Apollo mission was a bad thing” because of that.
I don’t care if the innovation come from somebody who doesn’t share my point of view or the other way, the innovation is the only thing to matter in this case.
As Elon intermingles the company how are investors compensated fairly for this. What does Telsa pay SpaceX for the technology and is there a conflict of interest?
honestly both companies are getting good exposure here for relatively low lift on behalf of space-x team (it's a compressed air tank, nozzles and actuator valves).
It is hard to make that decision without a conflict of interest. How much do you charge Tesla to use SpaceX engineers? At the very least a lot of disclosures should be happening for investors on both sides.
Timelines aside, microsecond traction control paired with zero-speed active downforce is an incredible engineering benchmark. The trickle-down software logic alone will push electric powertrain boundaries.
I’d categorize it as ballistic flight. While it was able to control its pitch, yaw, and roll in midair, it did not have sufficient upward propulsive thrust to balance out or exceed the force of gravity while airborne. So it wasn’t the propulsive kind of flight, where altitude can be readily adjusted in the sense that we would expect from an “flying car”.
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.
It’s cool, I’d love this if I had the money to afford it. Maybe in a decade, it will be more practical and have more legitimate use cases, I’m not sure!
Also a massive feat of engineering, congrats to their team.
I don't know the practicality of this car, or if the production version will have these thrusters, but the demo was epic. It tickled my childhood dream of working with mechanical stuff.
Is this cool? It seems like a typical Elon Musk thing some teenager might like, similar to a monster truck rally mixed with heavy dose of financial fraud.
Those thrusters would make parking a breeze though up on a rooftop, right?
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 dare people get excited by one of the coolest demos we've ever seen. These sort of comment are ironically almost entirely politically driven while also claiming anyone who disagrees is a secret Russian bot account.
It’s not one of the coolest demos. The iPhone was a cool demo. I could see how I would use it every day and it would bring value to my life. This looks more like bravado
Comments: Expectations set, expectations unmet. Fits a notable pattern by Musk of over promising and under delivering. In this age of misinformation, it's perhaps more painful than it could be if it were simply an amusing quirk of an eccentric billionaire.
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.
I've been recently playing a game called Approximately Up. You start from simple building blocks, thrusters and can use the in game logic system to build complex controls. One of the things I came about to learn was something to make a hover system for my ship was a simple PID controller. The side and bottom firing thrusters just remind me of my ship in the game. While the game is oversimplified and a bit arcadey, does anyone know what actually goes into this in the real life and is the huge feat the improvement on the weight of the whole car?
I really want one of these, but more importantly I absolutely don't want my neighbor to have one. This has always been the problem with flying cars as a concept.
1. It shocks me how many people are discussing this as if it will ever even hit private collections but whatever. Whole lot of claims and demos have never made production especially from Tesla.
2. I know fuck all when it comes to real physics but there’s a lot of discussion of this “flying” and some serious napkin math. The demo has this falling, stopping momentum, and landing. Is that demonstration of enough force to produce reliable lift from the ground?
My crap knowledge can come up with arguments either way but I’m leaning towards you can’t possibly have enough force to leave the ground and land safely?
If you have 2.5 seconds of thrust you have 1.25 seconds to use to get off the ground and 1.25 seconds to stop you from absolutely destroying the car as it pounds into the ground in my shit math world, and I feel like there’s no way you could even concept car demo that?
I wonder what the potential applications of this technology could be for emergency vehicles (fire trucks, rescue vehicles, police cars, ambulance, etc.). And, of course … for the military.
Finally. We've been waiting for flying cars for a while now!
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.
Finally. We've been waiting for flying cars for a while now!
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.
The real feat would be to actually ship the gas-equipped models. The on-stage demonstration was certainly quite impressive but handling real world terrain is a whole different story. Not to mention compensating for drivers who will skew lead-footed without any experience of handling a third dimension.
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.
The suction and air recovery part might be forward thinking for how we design roads or tunnels. They might not all need to be flat. Especially when autonomous.
Definitely not upside down, I was thinking of short inclines, possible as a sort of tunnel bypass. Assuming all the cars are networked for mechanical failures and the batteries can handle it. But that's only after the 5 minutes I spent considering the idea and mostly stolen from I Robot movie like most of Tesla's ideas.
This is bending over backwards so hard I think you had to invent new geometry and discover new dimensions.
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.
This car shouldn't be considered just a car. From now on, automotive technology will be used in completely different ways. For example, off-road jeeps may no longer need to cross water.
I was making my way on my rented scooter to drone bomb the Bezos BrainVat R&D center when the new model Roadster suddenly swooped over me in a mighty roar of liberated gas. Oh no, I thought! My mission is in jeopardy... but this is unparalleled quality content for the livestream viewers. I could see the Roadster's laser assembly lazily begin to track me, as if controlled by a joystick. A human pilot! Probably some one percenter out on a pleb hunt. The fool thought that I was unarmed. Heroically, I banked the scooter in a sharp turn while the machine gun on its back acquired the target, multiplying matrices furiously on its ancient low-fi GPU. As flames began to pour from the flying vehicle, I angled the scooter around a corner, timing it so that my black outfit would blur into the Apple ad projected on the side of the building. The Roadster's pilot was leaning out of the window screaming in rage and fear as his machine began a fiery descent toward the city shelter for abandoned kittens. I was torn between feeling bad for the kittens and giving in to the dopamine surge in my cortex as my viewer count climbed toward the stratosphere.
Technically impressive, but hostile to everyone else on the road, i.m.o., similarly to the Cybertruck. Shows the lack of egalitarianism in our public spaces.
I can't wait for them to never actually produce this or, if I'm wrong and they do, I can't wait for someone to seriously injure themselves or someone else.
So this is a completely obvious scam, right? I don't see anyone else calling this out and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
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?
I feel like it's also crazy irresponsible to sell this deathtrap to the public, since it's pretty much guaranteed buyers will joyride this on public roads.
- 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.
It isn't being sold to the public. Of the three versions, the one that is "road ready" doesn't have the gimmicky thrusters. The one that is displayed is available by invite only, and even if you have a quarter of a million to reserve the racing model, you aren't likely to get a license plate for use on public roads.
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.
No kidding. Musk is SIX YEARS late on delivering the previous version of the roadster, which has been superseded by today's announcement, promising its delivery in a few years, and everyone is just lappin' it up.
Well we could examine the history here, for instance when he bought Twitter that it would immediately collapse (now its more popular than ever and Bluesky is the one that's falling apart) and when the Cybertruck was announced there were lots of people saying it could never be made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602437
You forgot about how everyone was insisting the Hyperloop would never work and then it became the principal mode of transportation. Or how we couldn't possibly have a Mars colony in 2024. Or how twitter would never become the West's everything app. Etc.
Elon Musk causes incredible amounts of historical non-examination. There are now so many examples that it's actually difficult to list them all. My guess is that people just get very confused by the difference between late delivery and non-delivery.
It’s crazy how many Cybertrucks I see in my hometown, and I don’t live in that big of a city. They are incredibly popular. This car will be incredibly popular to. Peoples are getting bent out of shape about the “thrust” and “rocket” variants, but who cares? Those will be few and far between. For rich collectors mostly. How about just the base model? It looks wild, I’m sure it will be fun as hell to drive. They are going to sell a ton of these things.
Well I see no numbers saying how long it will fly. Perhaps it "hops", could easily see that happening with a burst of air below the car. (While standing still, accelerating the car upwards for 1 second with a burst of air)
My big question is, would anyone want one? It's an interesting life size hotwheels car but who would want one other than to show at a monster truck rally. The original Tesla Roadster was a masterpiece compared to this new one. Talk about missing the mark by a mile...
> The thing that they showed off isn't something that they could legally sell
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.
I suppose at least we can say there is a working car that seems to be able to actually do the things as advertised, which is more than one could ever say for e.g. the Moller Skycar.
Also let’s talk about the production of the video. It had all the signs of those magic videos you can find on YouTube where the trick is only a camera trick. Dark background, you never see the entirety of the audience, it’s all camera cuts. I’m sure it’s not fake per say but it’s super weird still.
I was #12 Tesla Roadster owner. I spoke across the country with my father. We drove from coast to coast in 2014 at a time when there was a lot of doubt. — I supported elons “mission” and now we know it’s a neo Nazi front of a company. This company and Elon has been a scam since he stole JB Straubel. How do I know? JB Straubel is my father.
If you wanted another pretext to merge Tesla and SpaceX this would be a good way.
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”
He actually says in the video that it might not be legal to operate but they could still sell you one. Anything is legal off-road on your own private property.
I think it’s real, the “invite only” version could probably do the kickflip over the semis, but would probably completely exhaust the tanks and require special equipment to refill or take hours with an onboard pump. And the flip is certainly a scripted stunt, not something you’d actually be able to do live. The math doesn’t seem to be completely unreasonable as a one off demo
They said there is a compressor to re-pressurize the tanks while driving. It made it sound like a power-up in a video game. You can't use it all the time, but if you wait for it to charge up, use it as many times as you want.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised if the presented "invite-only" variant will mostly be aimed at Saudi investors, and they will get an invite if they invest a billion into the company.
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)
When I searched for Tesla on YouTube at the start of the event, the first live event returned was this, an AI generated Tesla presentation with Elon telling users to send bitcoin and he'll send you back double as a promotional event like an X Money thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5EDp2rEbFA. The QR code went to this site: https://roadster.tv. I reported it to YouTube.
China has had flying cars since 2023 so I don't see how this is a scam. The flying mechanism is unique for the Roadster so that's still to be seen how it would perform out in public.
I mean, Tesla demoed, promised, and took reservation money for a roadster reboot that _also_ didn't contain any technology China didn't have in 2017, and at this point they still haven't delivered on that and it feels safe to call it a scam.
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).
I mean it looks cool but considering they haven't produced any of the other Roadster models in any meaningful quantity, and have repeatedly come up short on much more reasonable product offerings... Idk I have just the slightest doubt about a flying electric car hitting the market any time soon. Hasn't it been nearly a decade since the promise of a software update that would turn your Tesla into a self-driving taxi that can earn money while you're not using it?
there are approximately 450 in existence.. (ever made)
Lets assume this car costs 1M each. (i bet its less)
so if they sold 450 of these they'd make less than 500 million.
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 suspect the blooper reel is less interesting than we’d expect. SpaceX has demonstrated competency at putting cold gas thrusters on arbitrary masses and making them move as desired.
This reminds me of why Dieter Rams never designed a car: "Rams expressed irritation that the automotive industry has historically focused on building faster cars rather than rethinking the transportation system as a whole to genuinely serve society."
I hate Tesla for their politics, broken promises, and all the drama that we are all aware and tired of hearing about.
That being said, that was the coolest damn thing I've ever seen a car do.
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.
Very cool stuff but all the "extra-terrestrial" stuff is complete bunk. This thing wouldn't survive Max-Q, let alone any kind of landing that isn't on a clean slab of concrete. It's a cool rich person toy, no other notes.
You miss my point. They're demonstrating a landing system, it's just wrapped up in a car to fool the idiots that are going to pre-purchase it again so they can use that money to build more space X technology.
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.
If helipads can only handle one chopper ever few minutes, and they are surrounded by clear and open space, then that tells you that theres no way flying cars with the frequency of typical roads or even quite streets will ever happen.
I think that's to do with the wake/vortices a helicopter creates. Apparently, the effect is so strong that it can affect lift in a fairly large area over a few minutes. There's a recent case where a light plane took off in the neighborhood of a heli that just landed, and it veers off course, and hits the heli.
Thats thats just one part of the problem of flying machines.
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 am amazed at how steady and in control the car was when flipping and jumping. If that kind of control on a vehicle is achieved today, it seems like flying car tech just took a giant lurch forward. Just in time for America's crumbling road infrastructure.
On takeoff you can stabilize against opposing forces, so especially without the weight or inertia of a driver it is quite straight (rockets also don't need to stabilize on take-off).
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...
If I'm understanding this correctly, it uses the electric motor to compress air into large tanks? How much thrust could that generate (and for how long)? It'd be amazing to jump over East River or the Hudson.
This is a showpiece at this point. but I can see these on the roads in ~10 years; but it felt more like a frog car than a flying car? in my mind flying quadcopters felt much safer in videos than this frog. It feels overly complicated based on what i have read; rocket boosters?? why? quadcopters and other flying taxis seem much more economical and using tech that's been reliable for at least last 20 years.
Why Musk would spend probably tens of millions of dollars on this prototype which clearly will never be drivable on roads. One explanation is he is a trillionaire and the 14 year old in him thinks it would simply be cool to do it.
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.
Absolutely, but an even more likely explanation is that he's going to "acquire" Tesla with Space X and pay a premium (on top of the 330 P/E!). The SEC in this country is completely useless. Sure you can't invest in private companies if you're not an "accredited investor" but Musk is free to scam trillions of dollars.
in my opinion, this kind of technology is, at best, only gonna be feasible and most importantly allowed, for automatic safety systems in case someone falls of a cliff or a similar situations.
This sounds more or less like the car my 5 year old son dreamed up a few months back: "Dad, dad! What if we put a bunch of rocket thrusters on the bottom of an electric car? We could even add a really powerful fan as well. And then the car could just hover past traffic jams, and it could even drive along walls or upside down if you put the fans in reverse!".
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.
I do find it extremely comical that they're advertising this as a flying car when this thing uses attitude thrusters for liftoff within the atmosphere of earth. That's like, jumping, bro. There's no way you're flying with this.
The one with the actual rocket engine is not being sold to the public and Tesla website explicitly states it's not legal to drive it on public roads. It's mostly just a cool demo/prototype and I'm sure there will be privately run tracks that let people drive one.
The generally available car will have cold-gas thrusters which boost acceleration but is nothing like what was demo'd.
Teslas already have very strict (annoyingly strict) gating keeping specific functionality off of public roads (Summon). The drag mode thruster-assisted boost will probably leverage that. I also imagine that cameras on the car would stop it from being engaged if it detects humans in its firing area even when not on public roads.
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.
And it's sure going to increase the blast radius when these get into a collision. Even if you can't fire the thrusters, that pressurized tank can't be safe.
I have a friend who drives a Tesla (hates it but signed a lease). On several occasions he has been unable to get into his car when his phone had no battery and he uses it as a key. I'm sure he could use a real car key but that would probably be incredibly inconvenient to carry around.
What's up with wheels not being round anymore? How is that supposed to work? I understand it for Formula 1, but for real world driving, it doesn't make any sense
I don't know why - they said there was a significant chance of failure, they have quite mature technology for it to be driverless. What's the point of putting a meat puppet in there?
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).
Every car manufacturer creates concepts that they never plan on shipping. The goal is to attract engineering talent and do deep research. I’m curious at what price they’d need to sell it to break even…? Probably upwards of $50-100M
A circus showing these would never recoup the cost of even one being built, hah. But it is very cool. It's also neat to see the Brabham BT46 make a return after like 50 years.
we humans are really responsible drivers and we definitely deserve these flying maneuvers on public transportation. there won't be any problems. i assure you.
Sure. But it's also what a horse and buggy owner would say to "make the horse go faster by giving it a lethal dose of laxatives, the poop will propel you".
Not every criticism from someone with a conflict of interest is invalid.
Sure, you'll get a finely chopped hedgehog [1] (the video doesn't depict any animals, it shows roadster suction fans). Things happen. With a conventional car you can get a tendered deer.
we humans are really responsible drivers and we definitely deserve these flying maneuvers on vehicle traffic. there won't be any problems. i assure you.
Wasn't the positioning of Tesla "electric" cars??? Now they make rockets, that will probably never be street legal anywhere? And the public likes it? From a man who did the Nazi salute and destroyed USAid (killing thousands of children in the process)? What's wrong with people.
At least the fans will allow for really short breaking distances.
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.
idk about the safety of involving jumping cars into car crashes, I'd still prefer the brakes (obviously not always enough time). The one useful situation I could see is if you're driving (accidentally I hope) off a cliff.
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.
This would only work until the next Democratic administration, at this point he's put almost half a billion dollars into Republican pockets. All it takes is one President AOC to pull every government contract he has. And he knows this, hence the election spending.
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.
The inspiration from the F35 seems to be quite literal. Spent a lot of time and money making vertical takeoff happen, but forgot to give the vehicle any useful capability once it's actually in the air.
This is false. It's being fielded in large quantities by militaries all over the world as a workhouse multirole fighter. Additionally, it's the best STOVL and SEAD aircraft ever produced.
Given how Tesla's profitability nearly vanished due to Elon outing himself with the "roman salute", I don't see why he thinks his company will be around long enough to actually get this out the door.
I have no reason to believe this isn't another Deplorean.
The rocket flip part looks like CGI, in my opinion. I get the same feeling as when I see CGI on some random B movie. Would be happy to be proven wrong if there was a crowd of people filming from their angle though.
Also "Beyond The Limits of Physics"... would any actual engineers at Tesla/SpaceX agree with that marketing statement?
When I saw the headlines “Tesla shows flying car” I got excited, then watched the demo and was thoroughly disappointed. How can anyone write that headline?
Can't wait for these things to endanger my family's life on some Colorado mountain highways. If the suction works at speed, people are gonna drive even more recklessly.
Very impressive prototype. Certainly an attempt to disrupt a specific segment of the car industry - "race cars", or "sports cars", or whatever you want to call it.
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.
I'm no Musk fan. Like totally repulsed by the dude. But the comments here that there's nothing interesting about the demos are some serious cope. It's this kind of reality-bending bias that makes people disregard everything you have to say. When someone you hate creates something incredible, it's probably best to say nothing because any attempt to convince people otherwise will just backfire.
we're increasingly entering an era where holistic package matters more than cool one offs.
musk is an asshole so he taints everything he does, even if it's kinda cool you're instantly reminded that tesla ships later(or never) and cybertruck isn't that good of a product. oh a car his company made did a 180 loop and landed an aileron roll? fuck you he was part of doge etc etc
same with zucc or any of the "visionaries" nowadays, they have so much history that the forward momentum they need for anything is crazy.
That’s fine. You can say “that’s a cool car but I’m worried it will end like the cybertruck” or “that’s a cool car and he’s a deadbeat dad”, but there are so many people in the comments saying things about how the car isn’t doing anything novel or interesting and that’s just ridiculous. It’s straight up sci-fi.
There already are real flying cars though. They are vehicles with wings that extend out from the car's body and can take short flights. They fly in the sense of what people expect from any other plane -- and thus need flat ground to act as a run way. None of these designs use cold air thrusters because its simply not viable for extended flight.
The reason thrusters work well in space is minimal weight there. You need to work many times harder on Earth to counter act the weight of the object here.
The thing that made the design of the original Tesla cars successful, before they went all in on this "future looks like the future" idiocy, is that they just looked good. Tasteful. All that crazy new tech was put in a package which hid it and it just became a sleek, good looking car on the road. Now Tesla design is obsessed with it cosplaying a Ridley Scott 80's wet dream and it looks stupid. The cars look like a show at universal studios theme park. When you do the "future looks like the future" it's always a sci-fi author's idea of "the future" which is cheesy and outdated as soon as its done. This is a boomer's idea of "future" aesthetics and it's not what the actual future looks like.
A though for the people doing the "boring" engineering at Tesla (like, you know, enhancing the range of the vehicles, improving security, making FSD closer to reality, etc...), who used to get some light (remember "battery day" ?), and are now on the backbench while the sycophants gets the budget for vanity projects like this. At least, at Tesla, the sycophants are _smart_ and pull out cool demos. Not the case in every "new clothes" kingdom.
Very useful in England’s countryside, imagine all the puddles you can jump over! Eliminate these passing bays when cars can jump over each other in the narrow lanes!
Back in the days we used to call these kind of demo cars as concept cars which rarely see the markete. But Kudos to Elon Musk who single handedly running entire Tesla's marketing compaign and keep its stocks and markete value higher than the next 10 car brands combined. Tesla Robots, Robotaxies and now Roadster, these are R&D and concept projects.
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.
You guys. They made a car fly. It was damn cool. I know there’s more to the story and we all need a “take” but I remember watching Speed Racer as a kid and being totally enchanted by the idea of a flying car.
Yesterday, that’s exactly what we saw and it’s ok to just enjoy the spectacle.
When I first saw this I was convinced it was AI slop. Nope! This is absolutely incredible. I've also never really resonated with Tesla aesthetic in the past but they really nailed it here imo. This car looks phenomenal - I hope this style trickles down to other models.
Even if it does, these features aren't useful and can't be used in any realistic scenario. At best they're just party tricks.
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.
Absolutely incredible demo. Jesus Christ, I don't know what I was expecting. Didn't know this was planned and skipped forward to see what they were showing off and thought it was CGI for how outlandish it is. My god, man. This is amazing.
Fool me once, shame on you. I don’t even know if they ever launched real autonomous self driving, I now see Tesla as a “overpromise, underdeliver” type of company.
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".
I mean, this is the gimmicky of gimmicks for the ultra-rich.
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".
Did anyone else feel like Elon and the execs just didn’t really even bother trying with the presentation? The car is a unique and incredible achievement so on the one hand, they’ve earned the right to embarrassing-divorced-dad gas-station-flowers it during the reveal presentation. Maybe they could have been even sloppier, and literally just a-whooped and a-hollered and shouted “this is cool as fuck!” and it would’ve been just as fine.
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!
It's a tech demo marketing presentation with a jumping car in it, not a flying one. It does look pretty cool though. Let's first wait and see if/when this will even be available and not just a marketing stunt.
I absolutely detest the leadership and what he is actively doing to this country... but holy fucking shit. I want to reserve one, but when you're broke as a joke... ooph.
I have to be honest, I am a bit dismayed and sad to see so many negative, hostile, demeaning, and minimizing comments about this announcement. It really makes me sad, because without big dreams a society will cease to grow. It seems that either thick ideological lenses or righteous "this won't be mass produced" optics won't let some of us here appreciate the incredible anymore. I found the flying car awe inspiring and it made me dream and appreciate the incredible feats of progress our civilisation is capable of. I for one welcome our God of demos of awesome tech and honestly fuck everyone else.
This thread is insane. I'm seeing people actually acting like the world's biggest conman is going to deliver a car with thrusters on it. They have given it 2800 comments worth of attention and counting. It is the most commented thread on HN in a year, and I only went back a year in my search. No, it's not lost on me that I just increased that count by one.
My guys. Talking about how it's going to work and the merits of cold gas thrusters on cars is moot. I assure you that you will never, ever see one of these sold to the public or on the road.
Just don't press the button where you have wires over the road... or anything hanging over the road... like signs...Don't press the button when you are about to go into a tunnel... or inside the tunnel... Also, check your passengers have finished their shakes, coffee, and other liquids...
Elon should read Anti-Grav Unlimited. It's a good book, actually a very good book. We want that tech. Time to invent the antigravity rods. AI is here, sorry, SuperIntelligence is here, AGI is on the doorstep, just ask the SOTA models to figure it out.
It's a cool demo and all but I can't help but feel like it's not that impressive considering these companies control such an absurd amount of capital and this is all they can do with it. A stunt for a launch showing off features that obviously won't be in any real product.
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.
I mean if I saw this at a monster truck derby I would think it was cool. When it's companies that represent trillions of dollars it feels a little underwhelming I was expecting more. It's also clearly a gimmick it's not like this is a real product. Even from their own marketing it's obvious.
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.
I mean Chinese EVs have already surpassed Tesla in global volume sales and their CEO helped elect the man who gut the EV industry in America. But I guess it's cool we are doing cool tricks while that happens?
Would you the same thing if it wasn't Elon Musk at the helm of this company? I'm not a big fan of him either, but I get the feeling some don't want to like this demo.
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.
If it was a smaller scrappier company I would think it was neat, but this company and associated companies represents so much of the market and so many resources. And I don't know it just seems like they are doing like...monster truck derby stunts?? It's just kind of underwhelming to see this is what they are spending their time on for me. I was expecting a lot more.
> 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.
> it just feels like they are playing around with toys instead advancing humanity
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.
Jaw-dropping stunts aside, I am really disappointed with where all modern car design is going. What is that ugly low poly shit? The previous Roadster concept had a style, it had sex and taste. How did we get from there to here?
Yes, Rodney Mullen invented the kickflip (and damn near every other skate trick), but the reference here comes from a time when Tony Hawk would drive around and yell "do a kickflip" at skaters, if they did a kickflip he would sometimes give them a signed board or other things. Example video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob0dI05Xz8s - it became a thing for a little where people would yell "do a kickflip" at skaters they saw on the street.
It's apparently not fuel but pressurized air being refueled by the car itself.
> "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...
This is one of those products that offers a thrilling demo but I have no desire to own one. I much prefer the 2020 design that never made it to production.
Nobody needs that kind of acceleration on a car designed for use on public roads, and anyone who uses that capability in the vicinity of other people or vehicles deserves to be arrested. Its just criminally dangerous.
Like the Cybertruck, this is just the Musk "fuck you, get out of my way" worldview realised as metal and plastic.
This is probably going to be banned in EU, like the cyber truck. But, yeah.. kund of meh looking design and obviously i will have nothing to do with anything elon related.
What a wonderful illustration of the technofeudalism that many seem eager to push our world into. That doesn't diminish the engineering feat it embodies, in fact it rhymes pretty well.
I hope not, I use "full self driving" every day! I'm sure your statement is based extensive experience, but mine is that for 2 1/2 years over 40k miles, it has worked very well. Not perfect (parking spot selection has frequent regressions), but astonishingly well.
What's wrong is all of the older models they sold do not have what you experienced. They were sold FSD but their car's hardware can't run the latest software, and the older implementations required much more babysitting (aka not FSD).
Pretty big nothingburger. Production starts 2028 and honestly, the taunted feature... it's not a flying car, it's a jumping car. Do people actually want this for themselves? I'd wager the valuation would go down after this presentation.
OK sure. I don't have a lot of use cases in my day to day commute that would be better handled by this jumping over a semi like it's the TF2 soldier, hence, a big nothingburger.
yes its a nothing burger no one will be able to use this other then a few billionaires... just like that BYD car that can jump wtf are we doing? why do we need cars to jump... we need them to drive us from point a to b
Really disappointing to see such low quality discussion here. Feasibility aside, we would not be seeing such reactions even 5 years ago. Polarization ruins everything.
Why blame this on “polarization” and not on the guy who did the polarizing? Nobody forced Elon to do all that stupid shit that got so many people hating on him. He did it if his own free will. He ruined it.
If you don’t like his politics and lean into that difference in opinions to criticise something orthogonal, like his technical innovation, then it’s YOU that is being divisive and partisan.
One of my friends commutes exclusively on FSD in this Tesla. He even purchased a device on Alibaba that disables the attention checks. He spends most of his time doomscrolling on this phone or napping when the car drives itself.
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.
Oh, it doesn't require a person to continually monitor it now? I missed that change. Until that happens I don't think it qualifies as "full" self driving.
Reminder: anyone reserving one of these then has 30 days to send paper mail to Tesla to opt out of binding arbitration, which is heavily anti-plaintiff biased.
All Musk cares about is Mars. The CT is going to be a Mars vehicle, that's why it looks like that by and large.
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.
Musk really is the master of fraud. Twitter gets bought by Space X to conceal the massive loss in valuation, Tesla gets pumped with endless "we'll have self-driving cars next year", for 10+ years... now that the Tesla bubble is finally popping he needs to dump it on the Space X/Twitter shareholders, so we get this demo of a thing that will never hit the road. Bag holders beware, Musk's masterpiece of market manipulation is about to execute with the merger of all his lies.
No, he bought it because he was contractually obliged to do so even after he tried to wriggle out of it.
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 need a cheap car. Sub 25k that I can use to drop my kids and get groceries and is electric so I can get some respite from these war inflated gas prices. Nobody is offering this. I dont need all the fancy gadgets and the flying and the jumping.
Looks like it truly is a K shaped economy. Flying cars for 1% and loans for the rest
Another thing is that an equivalent ICE version of the Roadster would most likely use premium gas. There is no such thing as premium electricity - an electron is an electron. So the cost savings are even higher.
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.
EVs are nice, and Im full EV on all my cars at this point. But I concede I would not own any EV if I could not charge at home. If I was still in an apartment, I'd be ICE all the way
I've had two EVs and have been driving EV only for about 10 years. I've been driving an ICE vehicle lately due to an issue with a wiring harness on my EV that it is getting service for. It's been so long since I regularly drove an ICE that it has been an unpleasantly shocking experience.
- 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 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.
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 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.
not having much maintenance and charging at home are huge ones. i don’t understand why there is no creative advertising around that. such obviously huge wins
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.
In my experience electric cars aren’t significantly smoother or quieter. Most noise in a modern passenger car is generated by the tires and air drag, and for some reason I found these more pronounced in the electric cars I’ve tried (maybe for the lack of engine noise).
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.
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.
If you don't need a lot of range, a used Leaf is pretty cheap as EVs go. Though you do want to avoid the 1st generation models (before 2017?) as they had much worse battery degradation.
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.
The problem with the Leaf is the lack of fast charging. It’s great if you can charge at home but it’s definitely not a road trip car. You get what you pay for, which is especially true for earlier-generation electric cars.
Agreed. You can buy a lot of gas for the price difference between an old economy ICE car and an EV. Plus cheaper insurance and in many places, cheaper registration fees.
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.
IIRC the difference between new and used has shrunk quite a bit recently (at least for desirable models and types) because many consumers are frustrated by the new-prices and all look towards used.
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.
If you can, wait for a Slate. It's not just cheap for brand new it's a company working hard to move the auto industry in an actually positive direction. I hope to make it my next car as well.
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.
BYD could give us this tomorrow, at the cost of completely gutting and decimating domestic American manufacturers, who are unable to actually compete on price and performance for various reasons.
The problem is not inflation, it’s that America sucks at manufacturing low cost electric vehicles. BYD has demonstrated that tenfold
If they were actually trying, then a dozen or so budget-model cars - from the Hyundai Accent to the Toyota Yaris - would not have been discontinued in the U.S. in the past half-dozen years. And replaced, if at all, with much more expensive models.
If you can increase your budget to 30k, you could consider a Slate EV.
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)
Why does your neighborhood car have to be electric?
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.
10K in gas melts away quickly. I know some people who have ran through that amount in six months. Also, you have to factor in frequent, expensive and time-consuming maintenance with either awful, cheapskate shops or the wildly overpriced dealership.
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.
and yet non-American cheap bare bones EV exist for other parts of the world but we wont let them in because Detroit dinosaurs only want to make gigantic SUV and pickups because they are higher margin. the US is afraid of the Chinese doing what japan and korea did 30 years ago and force the dinos to compete again.
> I need a cheap car. Sub 25k that I can use to drop my kids and get groceries and is electric so I can get some respite from these war inflated gas prices.
I would just get a hybrid Corolla if you can't stretch that budget to an entry level Tesla or similar.
Elantra owner here, just be prepared to have to pay for broken windows and replacing the ignition cylinder every few months. The kia boyz are still active apparently and will try to steal your car repeatedly. Even if you have the newer model or the upgrade that prevents them from actually being able to steal it, it doesn’t prevent them from smashing up your car while trying
Those smaller / cheaper EVs might not be street legal in the US due to safety regulations: they need to allow occupants to survive a crash vs the massive monster trucks on American roads.
It's a shame the infrastructure is so poor in most of the US that a high end electric cargo bike isn't an option most people will consider. I love mine for exactly those use cases.
Adam Curtis had a great line in the 2016 doc HyperNormalisation [1] about Donald Trump turning Manhattan into a playground for the rich from the ~70s-00s.
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?
That's like commenting about needing a Chromebook on a post the newest Blackwell GPU that can serve inference workloads of thousands of people. Just irrelevant.
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.
Seriously. It’s pretty clear that the new Roadster is not intended to be a practical car for the masses. And that’s Ok. There’s room for a “halo” product in any lineup.
If there is limited supply of memory production, and an 16GB student laptop is $800 instead of $500, then I would say the poor folk are justified with naysaying the new 128GB top shelf exotics.
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.
Of course a roadster is not the car to "drop kids and get groceries". I think op was not trying to imply that. But Musk stated his big plan was to sell an expensive roadster in order to afford building an affordable car. That was 20 years ago. The closest it ever got was a promise of a 35K Model 3 which at launch cost 50K. So, yeah, from that perspective, op's comment is relevant.
I do not get this kind of complaint. Every thing you consider an important part of your life today (including cars and smartphones) started out as toys for rich kids. Complaining about it is asking to go back to the stone age, because all the advancements since were brought to you by someone's desire to make money and someone else being rich enough to afford it, till economies of scale made the poor old you able to afford it too.
LOL. Enron Musk collect 1000x 250k pre-orders 10 years ago for a car that doesn't exist.
Now he made a stunt (doesn't fly) and the fanbois go "ooo it flies". And he'll collect 1000x 250k more. Great return on investment, truly genius businessman.
Amazing to see Elon making his childhood dreams reality. It's something to behold.
I hope we don't lose that spirit. The amount of negativity is very worrying.
One of the coolest tech demos in 2026 and it's on the 3rd page of HN morning after because of the downvotes.
Hackernews is full of losers and retards and this thread is a perfect example. Literally fucking flying cars and ppl are complaining that it's not realistic or it's dangerous or might not make a profit. Some of the biggest losers on the planet on this site tbh
If Doc Brown's time machine was real and posted here, HN would be complaining that it's noisy, unimpressive, not street legal, uninsurable, and attacking Brown's personal character because he's a dangerous nutcase.
The time machine actually accomplishes something. I fail to see what this accomplishes other than a very cool circus stunt. Straight out of fast and furious. Which is great and all, but not a production car.
Honestly, the fact that they are talking about this being a production car is what kills the cool. If they just said they were showcasing some cool technology that they could do, then I think it would at least be honest and people wouldn't shit on it so much. But with how many times they said the new Roadster would be on the market, can you really blame anybody for not believing it?
Remember concept cars? Companies have been doing gimmickey shit forever and nobody expected those things to make it to production.
Well this isn't real so that's not a very good analogy. I also don't think Doc Brown (who's also not real) was famous for committing fraud and lying habitually to manipulate the market.
Maybe it makes for a closer analogy. Neither the time machine or the flying car are real, but we react to the "inventors" differently. We're not haters. We just have taste.
Yes, Elon Musk and Doc Brown are really, really comparable. Great metaphor. Who can forget when Doc Brown famously stole a bunch of government data? Or tried, numerous times, to overthrow democracy? Or bought a heavily used social media site to turn it into a propaganda box?
What a well-thought out comparison. You've definitely got something, here.
You gotta admit the car looks nice compared to the Cybertruck, and the technology is indeed impressive. I think it's an organic reaction, unless they're defending Elon personally.
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.
The technology is jaw-dropping, the engineering staggering, and this thread -- it's just embarrassing. I've been on HN since the beginning and I don't even recognize it anymore.
"RCS thrusters in a car" is one of a few technologies on the human tech tree with 0 ROI. If the US can't ship a $25,000 EV like Musk promised, then China won the export market. The only point of this Mr. Beast-style showmanship is to bail out Tesla with a SpaceX merger. IMO that's a waste of Tesla's time, money and energy.
Maybe you feel differently. I don't really care though.
Why is this all so political? Why can't you meanies just maintain my priors that this man is personally engineering the coolest tech and saving humanity despite all evidence he is an idiot and hates people? I am going to find a forum where I'm not subject to this
Yea, i was going to reserve one of these sub 1 sec 0-60 vehicles with rocket motors and suction fans, but then I didnt because of the ergonomics of the door handle design.
Yeah Apple really synthesising a platonic ideal of Steve’s product release smarm without any of his hubristic charm at this point. Tesla and SpaceX seem like humans just getting on with sh*t and onto the next.
I can’t do a tech demo of a simple software feature on zoom without at least one thing messing up. They launched a car off a ramp live and were honest from the beginning of the stream it might not work.
The last decade of social media has shown that humans care more about authenticity than perfection in presentations.
It did work! The point is they did a terrible job of producing the event and being clear what they were talking about and showing the product. The product, for all four people who will be able to buy it ("invite only"), seems very cool. But that is not what I was commenting on!
Have you heard starlink cut access to Ukrainians in the middle of an attack? The story has been buried on HN (wonder why). Who is the "killjoy"?
But please, give more money and fame to Musk, so that he can get Paxton elected. He's already down a quarter billion $ trying to make that lying cheater senator.
I'd agree it's novel if it is, in fact, a rocket car. I'm skeptical about the car part, though. It's much less impressive if it's just a lightweight prop. I haven't seen the full presentation, though, to see if they drive it, if someone can climb in and so on.
Rapid adjustment of drone flighpaths with micro-thrusts?
Getting interceptors out of tubes faster without explosions/temps/fumes?
Anything where rocket propellant, heat is a problem?
Breaking, emergency braking in trucks? Kind of like reverse thrust in airplanes.
(i do not think he's a nazi, I think he is an edge lord who dogwhistle to Nazis to look 'cool'. Which honestly is fine for a teenager influencer, but should stop once you're 25)
> just endless anti-tech hate, downstream from idiotic TikTok politics.
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.
IMO reinforcement learning on par with teaching quadcopters to do weird things.
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?
To be fair, I think this is very doable with modern technology. If you've seen their rocket landing videos the technology is quite similar in nature.
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.
Well, think you're only seeing the most splashy uses. For instance, at high speeds, could use the thrusters to first, increase acceleration and speed, and second, have them also able to do a bit of thrust vectoring to help push the car's tires on to the pavement for better traction. And then on turns, have thrusters firing to help push the car into the turn.
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
May come in handy if someone blocked your car on a parking and you don't have time for the tow truck to arrive. Or when you're stuck on I-95 during a major snowstorm.
It can only fly for a few seconds, no? Where are you going to land in a snow storm if the literal Interstate is impassable? Everywhere else would be worse.
Let's get real, the entire point of a roadster is to look cool and have good sensations. Try to beat that!
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.
The car is not using momentum and centrifugal force to stay on the ramp. It has fans providing tons of downforce - so much downforce that it's able to stick to the road nearly completely inverted
> Our multi-mode fan and ground sealing system acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the vehicle. This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
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?
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.
If you scroll down on the page, it shows that the "rocket edition" is invite-only. Probably gonna sell it to a few friends in hopes that the 3-5 they make sell for millions down the road, so to speak.
>> Our multi-mode fan and ground sealing system acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the vehicle. This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
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".
The reality of EVs is that they all provide more or less identical driving experience - immense amounts of speed in straight lines and pure control around corners. But you can't really make something nimble or chuckable when it weighs 1.5 tons.
(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.
You should go look up the weight of a 911, Boxter, or Miata. And then, I suspect, you will not return here to reply to this comment. You'll invent some other reason why EVs can't be "nimble" or whatever, because it can't be your worldview that's wrong, it has to be the world.
Have you actually taken any of these cars along a twisty country road? They are not at all similar.
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.
This thing is covered in cold gas thrusters, I'm betting it can go around a corner faster than almost any other car. The limitation might be G forces on the driver. Maximum performance may only be achievable in self driving mode.
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.
tesla roadster weights 1.6-1.7 tons, thats prob without compressed air. But common, if you buy a rocket car, that is capable to suck itself to the road, you will not care about this extra 300-400 kg of weight, that probably will be compensated by perfect low center of gravity and several motors.
After Elon almost died in 2000 when he lost control of his McClaren I wonder if the real reason for these thrusters isn't actually to recover when controlling this beast proves too much for the driver and it starts to spin out or accidentally launches into the air.
Yeah no thanks. I think I will stick to BYD and other reputable chineese brands for my EV needs. Safety is a thing for cars. Teslas were not the safest cars before and now they are adding gas thrusters, oh boy, what could possibly go wrong. I would not feel safe driving behind or infront of this car.
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.
these comments are so ridiculous ( and probably paid for by competitors ).
Tesla made something actually cool. They did a live of demo of it. No one in these comments or anywhere else on earth could do what they just did. Even if they don't sell a single one they've received billions of views on these videos. Even if it wasn't commercially meaningful ( and of course it isn't given the small output of extremely expensive cars compared to mass manufacturing vehicles ), it's still just cool and props to them for doing something cool. The world needs more cool stuff
Ok, so it actually flies. That was unexpected.
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.
> ”It's being sold in two modes. One with cold gas (no combustion) … and one with real combustion rocket engines”
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.
Can't help but recall the JATO Rocket Car
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.
3 replies →
Rocket version also has an additional 400 liter COPV which takes up the passenger seat. Thrust version has a 200 liter COPV behind the seats.
5 replies →
[flagged]
If I'm not mistaken, and please somebody correct me if I am mistaken, Teslas meet or exceed the absolute highest safety regulations in the US and in Europe.
They have the highest rate of fatal accidents across all car brands, more than double the average.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highes...
22 replies →
The cybertruck remains banned in most of Europe because it does not meet standards for pedestrian safety.
https://autoedgeview.com/ev-reviews/europe-cybertruck-ban-ex...
5 replies →
Like the people who get trapped in case of accident when the electricity fail and is burned inside?
41 replies →
EU safety regs are pass/fail - there's no sources stating Tesla have exceeded anything there, they need to pass in order to be sold in Europe, so they've done whatever the minimum required is for that. To do so, they've needed to make numerous compromises & changes to their cars to make them fit for the EU market - notably no FSD. Hardly indicative of a car brand that exceeds anything.
As for US safety standards, that seems a lower bar...
7 replies →
There is a large situation happening about their doors.
The manual override is not obvious and people have burned to death in crashes because they could not get the door open after the power went down.
1 reply →
The “Cybertruck” (ffs …) is not legal in the EU due to safety regulations, so I would say that you are mistaken.
25 replies →
They make cars that are very safe from a testing protocol perspective, but cars that might also fall off their performance cliff quicker in some real world scenarios where the energy input is just a tad higher.
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.
6 replies →
Euro NCAP rated the 2025 Tesla Model S Autopilot system only "Moderate" for assisted driving. So instead of repeating vague Tesla marketing claims, how about naming the specific regulations and providing actual evidence?
Reading https://www.tesla.com/roadster, it seems like both variants only use cold gas thrusters, and the difference is that the "normal" (lol) one only has them pointed rearwards while the flying one has them pointed in all different directions as well.
I'm sure having a cold gas thruster is going to be no problem at all for road approval. /s
68 replies →
There are three modes: Performance ($50k reservation), Thrust ($250k reservation), and Rocket (invite only). Thrust and Rocket mention cold gas thrusters. Where do you see a combustion rocket engine advertised? https://www.tesla.com/roadster
I'm glad that marketing was able to talk Elon out of modes Suck, Blow and Boing.
3 replies →
> kinda wild they devoted this much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
Watch Ford v Ferrari for an idea of what auto companies are willing to invest for bragging rights.
Endurance racing has 100% more practical uses than stunt car.
1 reply →
Ford and Ferrari aren’t on the brink of extinction
66 replies →
I'm wondering if its going to be a model like I think Ferrari calls it Cliente Ferrari. Where the car stays with Ferrari, they put on track days at great tracks all over the world. Bring Pro Driver Coaches, Mechanics , Massage Therapists, five star chefs Data Analysts to review your performance. From my understanding Ferrari makes a lot of money doing that.
I have a feeling that the thrust versions (with thrusters) will find huge markets in the Middle East (UAE, Kuwait, Saudi, etc.), and maybe some other "few legal restrictions" jurisdictions (maybe the cartel bosses, African dictators, etc).
That would make sense for the rocket version. I have my doubts it'll ever be more than this demo though.
> It's an incredible engineering achievement to build in massive fans and rocket engines into a high performance car. It's truly wild.
How confident are you that the flying object in that video is a car?
Some cursory estimates suggest that one really could get several seconds of operation with enough thrust to lift a real car with a big motor and battery and seats and such, but the margins are not great. If I were designing this thing and I cared more about showmanship than about demonstrating an actual credible car, I might use the tiniest battery I could find with adequate power output (lithium titanate? small LFP?), as little motor as I could get away with, and no interior amenities whatsoever.
More cynically, I would also contemplate whether I really really needed the fancy downforce fan for this demo. After all, that’s a very controlled track and I can imagine other ways of getting a car up it.
The demo car they showed most likely has no batteries or even a metal frame. They basically built a car shaped drone powered by compressed air.
Example RC toy car that drives on the ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uR_mNcRlNsA
I don't think so: https://youtu.be/_lq-DpCE9rU?si=DF8YVr5AB35pKN4i&t=924
2 replies →
I thought somewhere in the video they said that it is just regular compressed air that is held in a tank, and that the car itself has a compressor and regenerates the compressed air over time. Obviously to stabilize that amount of weight the gas has to be ejected at such a high rate it is practically frozen at the nozzle outlet, but it is still just regular air.
It's not about sales numbers, it's about putting rockets in cars, so that SpaceX can acquire Tesla and give Musk supervoting shares
Where the heck did you see combustion based rocket engines? I haven’t seen that come up once. Was it an AI response? And the video feature only cold gas rockets as far as I knew.
In the Top Gear interview, they even state that using a fuel "would not be a Tesla thing to do".
1 reply →
It's cool as fuck but calling it flying is misleading. It jumps and can maneuver in space.
Documented in this immortal scene from Samurai Jack: https://youtu.be/l2KCUaKK_0A?t=12
Aku: You can fly?!
Jack: No, jump good.
"That wasn't flying. That was falling with style!"
1 reply →
> moving or able to move through the air with wings:
Okay, so I guess it doesn’t fly in the same way a rocket doesn’t fly? Distinction without meaning in this case.
3 replies →
That is incorrect - there are three versions slated, one with no cold gas nozzles, one with forward-only (the 4 in the rear) and a tank in the rear "acceleration", one with 10 nozzles (4 under, 2 side, 4 rear) and a tank in the rear and passenger seat "flight". None of the variants use rocket fuel or other ignited propellent, they're all just compressed gas release systems.
This is explained in the deep dive video with Lars - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts
[flagged]
32 replies →
Honey, did you remember to also charge the compressed gas tank on the Tesla?
Sorry, I'll start it from the app!
chug chug chug chug
6 replies →
You know the force from these thrusters is going to injure a pedestrian and the whole idea will be scrapped.
They can’t even build a proper Mini anymore because the hood was so low it elked pedestrians face first into the windshield.
5 replies →
> so it actually flies
It glides in a carefully controlled demo. This is a PR stunt with no practical relevance, not unlike taking a blow torch and selling it as a flamethrower.
Falls in a controlled way would be more accurate.
This isn’t a flying car, which could conceivably have some use (like a personal aircraft). It’s a stunt to distract the gullible from Tesla financials, which do not justify the valuation. As you say, it’s not practical in production and never will be.
Musk clearly wants to merge all his companies, so that it’s too big to fail, and this probably came out of the questions that arise from that - how can we use Spacex tech at Tesla?
Its sold as invite only, basically just selling your own amusement park ride. Its not a car. They're trying to up-brand into that hyper-car market.
30 replies →
Tesla’s machine vision research wing became xAI and the compute and resource were transferred over. SpaceX then bought cursor.ai, a small but goated frontier lab. They merged cursor with xAI and it’s now SpaceXAI. So each Tesla uses models trained by SpaceX AI.
The model s has always had Inconel in the frame for strength since relatively early on. But the Inconel came from SpaceX. Inconel is primarily used in aerospace applications. It made the frame of the model s so strong it broke the NTHSA machine used to test rollover strength. Look this up it is easy to verify.
SpaceX materials science has always been a big part of Tesla’s success since the very early beginning. Likewise inversely.
4 replies →
Musk already talked about the cold gas thrusters for the Tesla Roadster in 2018.
It would seem that your theory that the idea arose out of a need to distract from current financials doesn't hold merit.
He probably just wanted to design a cool car.
16 replies →
I mean in theory if it did work you could use it to take shortcuts or go over very difficult terrain or a flood or something but I don’t think traffic or aviation laws are anywhere near to allowing that
6 replies →
I don’t see Musk as a nefarious actor; more of a nerd — albeit a visionary one — who is socially awkward but got unfathomably rich and powerful.
28 replies →
No, it doesn't fly. It fell a bit slower than it would have without the compressed gas.
Curiosity, on the other hand, is a car that actually hovered, and that was on Mars, in 2012. https://youtu.be/Ki_Af_o9Q9s?is=uepnp2XLG81tHacn
Ok, I hadn't seen the jump video when I wrote the above. That's more impressive than the ramp video.
I expect a future Bonneville speed run to get airborne and set some record. Could still qualify as fastest production car; even with no wheels on the ground.
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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.
> 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.
This is just going to make it even more desirable to a certain market segment.
But unless that market segment pays 1000x for it, that won't help Tesla.
Tesla has a very good record for crashworthiness
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)
https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/tesla/model+y/0961/
> and one with real combustion rocket engines
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."
> devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible mode
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.
> Just like economically infeasible Twitter, it has tremendous PR value
The power to shape governments to his liking is worth a lot more than what he paid for Twitter.
6 replies →
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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
Isn't it just a relabeled weed burner?
4 replies →
Both trims have only cold gas thrusters. The differences are whether they're just for forward acceleration or also stabilization (4 in the back, or 4 in the back, 4 down, and one on each side). The "Rocket" trim also only has one seat.
Neither has combustion rockets.
A number of luxury brands (cars, watches) will build one-off editions for anyone willing to foot the cost. I guess it serves as marketing subsidized by the customer.
Would Musk actually build a hover car if someone was willing to pay for it? Maybe, but it's hard to see the market/target demographic - it'd be a geeky toy rather than something to impress others of your wealth with.
Maybe Musk should do a ghetto rocket car - a gas thruster 30-sec hover add on for the Cybertruck. If he could do it for a few hundred K there might be some takers.
Both versions have giant nitrogen tanks that expel gas. Neither has combustion. I won’t say it’s not novel, I will say that there’s 0 chance it’s street legal with the vertical thrusters, little chance it’s legal with the rear thrusters, and given that it takes 6 hours to fill the tank for a single use that is good for 1/3rd of a quarter mile, almost useless.
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.
https://youtu.be/JdkIOhFmbKI
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…
Even Wall Street bets was mocking it on Reddit. You know it’s bad when the apes turn on one of their champions.
5 replies →
> I’m not sure who this car is for
People couldn't figure out what to do with airplanes other than racing them. Until WW1, when it was first used for observation.
I wonder if this technology will revive the jet pack. At least it won't set your ankles on fire! And it's a lot simpler than a jet engine.
4 replies →
Its for influencers
19 replies →
> …there’s 0 chance it’s street legal with the vertical thrusters…
Page says:
> Note: Not approved for public road use.
2 replies →
Best summary:
| ... cybertruck of sports cars ...
Replacing Tesla Cybertruck as the primary emergency escape vehicle for astronauts?
I think it's really for use off-planet..
The timing of this stunt with the release of the Musk documentary seems more than a coincidence.
It's compressed air from what I can read and it contains a compressor to refill the tank.
A concept car, primarily a track car I think. I would think less than 10000 will be sold but some of the tech will make it into other models over time and the tech could be interesting for military application. Jumping Humvees like cars anyone?
2 replies →
>Ok, so it actually flies
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
>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?
1 reply →
Have they announce pricing on the rocket version? I could see it being priced like a bugatti or koenigsegg, where selling 100-500 of these is a great business.
They save on advertising to spend on mind-blowing demos.
This is a marketing stunt. This is the advertising.
It's very economically feasible if it pumps up the stock price
> I wonder if the combustion version will even break 3 figures sales.
Ferrari sells a few of each models in a production run and it does exceptionally well financially.
No chance it will get a permission to drive on the streets in my country. It also is a completely useless feature but it is still awesome.
Guess it is for advertising mainly.
I see potential in the circus industry.
"Let's repeat the success we had with the flamethrower"
I guess Tesla has officially entered its The Boring Company stage? Ambition does come in unexpected form, occasionally.
You know that before EVs were a thing, it was also not economic, and was seen as crazy. So was landing a rocket. And have tons of little satellites in LEO. Don't confuse the first prototype version with it being impossible to succeed.
> 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.
I'm not a Musk fanboy by any stretch of the imagination but this was clearly done as a marketing stunt to drum up hype about the street legal roadster. I didn't even watch the announcement but now everyone in my friend circle is talking about it because of the rocket engines. That's just called effective marketing.
Plenty of concept hypercars barely scrape 100 sales, the point is largley marketing in most cases
That cool. "Flying" aside, I was more curious how it didn't fall down when upside down with no thruster smoke. Turns out its got suction [1]. 2G's is rollercoaster zone.
https://youtu.be/eqOfmtTJD1A?si=f4fvuFvupgg_YMtP&t=108
to be fair we don’t actually know yet that this is a high performance car. We only saw it drive a few mph without rocket assistance
I would like to know two things:
1. Why don't they show a driver entering or exiting? 2. How much do that particular "car" weigh?
4 replies →
Good point. It can't have much battery. Also wonder if the propellant/s are cryogenic. Monopropellant? You could tell from analyzing the plume.
16 replies →
It doesn’t fly though. Not to reduce the engineering feat, but it’s more a jumping car than a flying car.
The rocket version is also just cold gas thrusters, not carbon fuel based.
Yes, and it would go well on a James Bond movie or something. I'm a bit surprised they didn't go with hydrogen peroxide propellant as that can be refueled fairly quickly. The Bell Jetpack used hydrogen peroxide for example.
> .... into a high performance car
If that is what they have done. That may just be a large drone looking like a car.
Question is when this would be applicable? It can't be approved for the road, right? And even if there was a use over novelty, the tanks must be depleted immediately. Also curious how well it does with extra weight from passengers
Incredible definition of "flies."
It's not like it's legal to operate. Such an out of touch product. Make a demo sure, but what in the k hole...
Teslas are some of the safest cars on the road. Even if you dislike musk (he’s not a good human), the record stands pretty solidly on their side.
When the NTHSA did the rollover test on the Tesla Model S, it broke the machine they use. It was estimated that it would take the weight of nine model S vehicles ontop of a model S for the roof to collapse. Tesla patented millimeter wave radars in the seats and got approval to install them. They now know if a large adult, small adult, child, animal, or groceries are in a seat. The airbags are reconfigured on the fly depending on what is in the seat. Consumer reports did a test and found Tesla wasn’t great in slam the brakes stopping distance, and did a report about it. Tesla confirmed and did some testing. They had a software update in less than a month to dramatically improve it to generally best in class. They have so many safety features many of which are now mandated in new vehicles that were not required when Tesla started producing vehicles.
Just look at some of the utterly insane Tesla crashes where in most cars all would he dead and folks walk away from them in the teslas. Some of the Teslas use a very special composite metal named Inconel in the frames. Look it up. Inconel is most commonly used in high performance aerospace applications like space rockets, and Tesla is the sole automotive manufacturer in the world with access to a large supply of it and know how. The Tesla model S plaid seats were designed to withstand 9Gs of lateral force, a thing no other street legal car in the world can do. Tesla asked the seat manufacturer that makes most all of the seats in the world to support this and they laughed at them. So Tesla made their own, and it’s safer than any of the other ones due to its design. Don’t trust me, verify this with google. It isn’t hard.
> 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 not a high performance car. It's a shell of a car.
>Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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.
Musk does not have anywhere close to a trillion US dollars.
3 replies →
Yes it was an impressive demo. But I would have appreciated putting all that engineering work into getting Model Y to 800v architecture instead.
Tesla has an EXCELLENT safety record. Why's your post so tainted? Compare them to any other vehicle manufacturer's crash records.
Probably because of the Nazi salutes.
> and one with real combustion rocket engines, the latter was in the video and is "invite only".
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.
They might not consider the cold gas thrusters to be particular trade secrets. They're very simple devices.
> Tesla doesn't have a great record anyways.
Of what, being the safest production car on the road that you can buy?
there is no independent data that suggests this.
It is concept art and a bunch of promises.
It's not being sold in any configuration. It's a hype toy to keep a vibe based valuation valuable.
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
You could say the same thing about the Cybertruck.
that "cold gas" is actually just regular air.
it fills its tanks with air from the atmosphere.
Presumably this isn't an actual roadster but a motor in a hollow car
The website lists three modes, which all have the fan but differ in thrusters. The variants are: no thrusters (thus no COPV), acceleration-only thrusters, and flying thrusters. The flying one has the disclaimer "Note: Not approved for public road use." OTOH the acceleration-only thrusters may be street legal. However, I expect that the COPV will be kept empty (thus not dangerous) unless you select a special "launch mode".
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.
It will probably take hours to fill the COPV even on the Thruster model if the onboard compressor works so you will drive around with it pressurized if you want to use it.
The body was hollowed out
> and that's gonna make crashes much more.. exciting
It's not like they care about lives. After all Musk throttled Starlink in Ukraine and that resulted in many civilian deaths. Anyone buying this is supporting this behaviour.
Invite only, so just fireworks for gullible investors as usual.
This will be the justification for merging SpaceX and Tesla.
"Integrating SpaceX thruster tech is absolutely essential to Tesla in the future!"
This is so absurd, and reproduces the idea of flying cars from sci-fi and comic books of 1960s and 1970s so directly! And can attach to a wall or ceiling, for bonus points! I think it will be met with a huge demand from well-off people who dreamed about such cars in their childhood. (If it delivers on all these promises, of course.)
The cult is personality with this man requires him to keep stacking chips. Cow chips.
>there's a high pressure COPV in that thing and that's gonna make crashes much more.. exciting
It's probably going to be like the titan submersible of cars.
> Ok, so it actually flies. That was unexpected.
That was actually not unexpected. Joe Rogan 2404 [1]. He warned Rogan that the demonstration would be completely "unforgettable, whether it’s good or bad"
References:
[1] https://youtu.be/O4wBUysNe2k?t=2312
Un incredible achievement that betters humanity. Amazing
> I wonder if the combustion version will even break 3 figures sales.
It’s an Apple Vision Pro.
They’ll do fine over the decade.
> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model.
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]?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj6LaYFall4
> 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.
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.
When has frontier engineering ever gone directly to low cost mass production?
"Crazy new thing also crazy expensive" is the norm, not a regression.
I think to many, and equally as many will argue the counter to this point, and I am not speaking to the validity either way, but I think Elon felt even if not available to the public, his reputation was on the line. He has done amazing things thus far, but also made lying and exageration the norm. He had to come through with 'a flying car'. Credit to him, he essentially did, available or not.
Feel like a rich people toy slash marketing stunt for Tesla.
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.
anything still takes this conman serious? Must be bots..
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Ok, so it actually flies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhVLgTsoMhQ
"That wasn't flying! That was... falling with style!"
Everyone's focusing on the cold gas thrusters, which of course is very cool, but not actually shocking that it technically could be done (economically is another question).
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.
Saw pictures of its undercarriage on Twitter and it looks like it well have been a empty shell of a car
I saw the pictures but it wasn't clear to me that it was empty. I certainly saw comments saying it was. It looked like it was flat.
16 replies →
Link?
https://mcmurtry.com/upside-down-driving/
I wonder how the roadster got around any patents that McMurty might have.
2 replies →
That is very clearly not what is happening
2 replies →
I can lift a 200 pound piece of glass with a tiny vacuum sucker. It's the atmosphere keeping that thing up there, and the 2" of ground clearance is what you see around the edge, we don't actually know what the distance is where the evacuation happens. For all you know it as a 3' x 7' plate underneath it that floats just above the surface.
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.
Could you pick up, say, a manhole cover?
8 replies →
There is a racing car at a car museum, it was either BMW or Mercedes, which was mounted to the ceiling because it had a suction fan that would, in theory, let it do that.
2 replies →
This is not how it works. It’s not sucking against the road, it’s pushing against it with thrusters at the top of the car.
6 replies →
This is not actually the first time that this idea of using a fan to create downforce. It's been something that's been talked about and modeled for a long while and I think a few years ago, the McMurtury Speirling was released. That set the lap record at Laguna Seca among other achievements. The car is about a million dollars, and the fans are basically completely useless anywhere that's not a curated track (think stones, dust, wood, other FOD going through the fans).
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.
There was a Fan Car in F1 decades ago. Was good until it was banned!
11 replies →
> but it looks like a practically useless vehicle for 99.9999% of the population
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.
It has pretty good filtration [1], and redundant fans. Some rocks aren't a problem. But, you can't be driving through LA.
[1] https://youtu.be/xkXvL8YCtIE?t=721
3 replies →
I mean it’s a 250k car. Why is it supposed to be practical?
5 replies →
I very much doubt the machine we saw flying was 1000kg+. It was either MUCH lighter, supported by cleverly hidden cables, or some other trickery. The dramatic lighting isn't just for visual effect, it makes it easier to hide the reality of the demonstration.
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.
What cable arrangement would you propose to move a car in that way? I think it would be easier to do with gas thrusters than with cables. They'd get tangled in each other.
1 reply →
To even entertain the possibility that they would use cables is ridiculous, to say the least.
I have more belief this trim will be made available commercially without significant changes (which is to say "not much belief") than belief you know enough about what was done to e.g. claim what the lighting is for that authoritatively.
To be fair: it wasn't really flying. More like it was "falling with style."
4 replies →
It had 4700kg of downforce. It would’ve been quite a feat to make a vehicle (or prop, call it whatever you like) like that less than 1 tonne.
1 reply →
They said it's under 700kg in an interview
3 replies →
The audience wasn't that close.
Man, you guys are nuts. Cables? really?
14 replies →
I don't think the car in the video weighed even close to 1000kg.
This is very simple physics and has been done before by other cars. Most recently the McMurdo
It’s entirely real, and nothing “shocking” from a physics standpoint.
On todays to gear video they said the car weighs < 1700kg
[flagged]
Really doubt that demo was on a 10k kg car. It was probably stripped down to practically a shell for that trick.
> 10k kg car
Did you typo this? Absolutely no way it's a 10 metric ton car.
1 reply →
So this is a really neat technical demo, using spacecraft cold-gas thrusters and guidance hardware/software to do crazy stunt stuff in a car, but what's the relevance to an actual product that can be sold, even as a small-volume exotic? These are pressurized gas thrusters, so either the tanks, valves, and piping take up most of the interior of the car, or it has a low-single-digit number of seconds of thrust before recharge, probably both. Also the tanks for these things tend to use incredibly high pressures and are apt to explode spectacularly in any sort of accident.
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...
> a big carbon-fiber pressure vessel at 5500psi
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.
It looks like those tanks are 5-8kg? The Tesla's is apparently 250kg.
1 reply →
I thought carbon fiber wasn't good with pressure, hence OceanGate Titan implosion
8 replies →
You an actually see what the pressure vessel looks like in the recent Top Gear episode.
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.
Well, yeah. The full thruster version only seats one, and is invite only for purchase, and is not street legal.
I'm wondering if it could even be sold to individuals given that the thrusters probably count as restricted military technology?
4 replies →
*Not street legal in 48/50 states
[dead]
It did say the flying version is a single seater.
The combination of a 250kg 5500psi pressure vessel, with a huge battery that generates a self fueling fire..... this thing will make for spectacular crashes
There is almost zero practical use for this technology. No one is going to drive around and pop a flip. The only possible use would be when some shit box car loses control and is about to head on crash a billionaire and the billionaire's car kickflips over the shit box and continues to drive while the shit box crashes behind him into flames.
I don't want flying cars.
I want clean water. I want a stable climate. I want bees to survive.
Haha, there's something so true and so boring about the fact that we'd all be much happier with a good public transport system than flying cars.
Public transport has inherent problems that cannot be solved that will always have it be less convenient than a car.
(1) Does not pick you up from your home and does not drop you off at where you need to go.
(2) Does not start at your schedule. Missed by a hair? Wait up to 2h.
(3) Impossible to transport more than you can carry.
(4) Does not scale. When there are too many people, some will have to wait for the next train or bus. When there are too few people everything still moves around nearly empty.
(5) Being exposed to the public, which could mean drug addicts and insane people that will stab you in the neck for no reason. But mostly just smelly lowlifes that might take a piss in front of you.
No matter how great your public transport is, it cannot solve these inherent issues while being cheaper than a car.
5 replies →
> we
The problem is that the same "we" won't let you build it.
While I respect the public transit system, it has many disadvantages over private cars. The NYC subway, for instance, is amazing in many ways, but if you're just slightly old or infirm, you can't navigate it. DC's subway, built at a yuge price, does have elevators but they are often broken. And if you're traveling at non-rush hours, you'll have to wait 5-20 minutes and then pause your trip for every stop along the way.
I can see how a young, fit and childless 20 something would be much happier with a good public transport system, but once you stop fitting that narrow model, your affection for urban dreams dies slowly.
And don't get me started on the price for construction and maintenance.
8 replies →
10 or more years ago when Ludacris mode was added people said the same. But the answer was that we need these things so the rich shell out the money and Tesla can use it to fulfill the actual mission of yada yada yada.
I wonder how many still believe this. It’s like Tom Hanks in Big is in charge of both a car and rocket company. Sure it’s awesome but not what we need right now.
It's not self-evident what we need. We currently ended up with this whole free-market capitalism, which is super distorted of course, but still it kinda says that 'we should let people do whatever they want with their money unless they harm others'. "I want clean water. I want a stable climate. I want bees to survive." Yes, so we all. But we set up a system where people can vote with their wallets.
1 reply →
It's not even that awesome, tbh.
We have clean water, climate was never stable, the bee thing was never an actual problem.
Youre letting youself be exploited by doomerist clickbait.
[dead]
Those things would be great but I would not expect them from Tesla.
I want all of those things AND flying cars
Meanwhile, Elon is trying to buy state parks in Texas after bribing the governor to the tune of $150 million. Sad days ahead when fascists can openly flash their money around and buy influence on the cheap.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/boca-chica-spacex...
Did you say something similar when the Bugatti veyron was released? (Worlds first production car with 1000hp, and fastest) How about the Ferrari F80, or even some super yacht? Even a $2000 folding phone is obscene when so many don’t have clean drinking water and access to healthcare.
Rich people have always had toys.
If you’re just getting annoyed now, you have not been paying attention, or you just hate Elon/Tesla.
lol. You’re mad because the person is “just getting mad now”. So by your logic they should have come out of the womb angry otherwise it is just unjustified anger? Lol you.
3 replies →
Hadn't actually heard of that Bugatti, but I have been annoyed for a very long time.
As it becomes clearer that my kids are having their future stolen, I am getting enraged.
You pass butter
Butterflies, too!
what a useless unproductive comment . are you 5 yo?
Okay come to the EU I'll trade you my citizenship
You can whine all day about climate and I'll have the flying car
You would not be the one with the flying car lol
Yeah Tesla is really polluting all the water and increasing CO2 emissions…
How is the new datacenter powered again? Clean energy or gas turbines?
1 reply →
This is one of the coolest marketing stunts/demos that I have ever seen. In fact, it's the second coolest, only after SpaceX/Tesla's Starman.
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...
https://archive.is/P3S40
Volvo's Epic Split comes to mind.
As does Volvo Truck! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_wKkV5dwQ
(Link to Volvo's Epic Split: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FIvfx5J10)
I think people are too quick to forget “Stanley” from Stanford.
Stanley was POC for self-driving. What concept is this demo proving? Genuine question here, I don't claim to know everything.
3 replies →
I simply won't believe they'll sell a version that leaves the ground until I see someone who obviously isn't working for Tesla with one. I'd be surprised if the FAA didn't have something to say about it. I just don't believe for a second that a stiff wind or a low ceiling or a power line (public road or not) or a very obese driver with nobody in the passenger seat isn't going to turn a very expensive car into a very expensive upside down piece of scrap. SpaceX has had enough explosions resulting from COPVs that I can't imagine these actually getting into the hands of people with more money than sense. It's a compelling marketing gimmick that can't be real.
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.
>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
While I can appreciate, and he has joked publicly about having "pathological optimism," that he is more aggressive with timelines than the reality of the alignment between technology, practicality (cost, etc.), and regulations, most of what you have listed continues to be progressively released.
Is he careful with his speech in terms of distinguishing a "big audacious goal" from a shipping reality in the near term? Absolutely not.
So going through some of your list..
>automatic charging snake (you left off hot 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 autonomous.
Banish (the opposite that sends the car away) exists but is not publicly available due to safety, operational and regulatory reasons (for example where does the car go if it can't find a parking spot?)
Currently this tech is limited to line of sight (~200 Feet) but the speed and distance continues to increase over time with updates.. again as the tech and regulations come together. Eventually, as we see with Robotaxi, the ability to drive you to work, drop you off, go back home and park and return when you're off work is not science fiction. The end to end solution exists today, the technology and laws/regulation need to come together.
If your complaint is that cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.. but modem HW4 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.
> These are not "empty promises" more so than long term visions (that do manifest) sold as short term shippable options.
By that logic any lie is simply a promise that hasn't been fulfilled yet.
> cars purchased in 2016 can't do this, sure I'll concede.
He made the promise in 2019! HW3 will almost certainly never have unsupervised FSD (let alone FSD without a human in the car), and HW4 didn't ship until what, 2023? There's more model years in existence where that promise is flatly broken than there are where it's maybe a possibility someday down the road.
But he also promised FSD rideshare in 2016, which arguably makes it even worse of a broken promise. Ten years later not only is it still a broken promise, they're actively working to ship a product that isn't what they promised.
5 replies →
So, are we just going to ignore that the man is literally asking for YEARS of deposits aka free loans, for a car that literally might never come to fruition?
This is insanity. How are shareholders still supporting this man?
You could first reserve the roadster in 2017. So in about 10 years, they'll "reveal" the next version.
We love the star citizen funding model.
What happened of the deposits btw ??
1 reply →
Then don’t make the deposit?
Coz the company is 1 trillion plus valuation. So your argument falls flat. I understand if customers are pissed, but not investors.
Supporting the insanity is the hobby of the rich people.
$250K deposits / car
This is the guy who led a company to build and catch a flying 20 story building. Say anything else you want about the man (and there is a LOT to say) but he has a track record of achievements that no other human has ever come close to reaching.
Space lasers, man.
> he has a track record of achievements that no other human has ever come close to reaching.
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.
3 replies →
He also has a track record of making promises that he never makes good on, or intends to make good on. In fact, almost all of the things you call achievements are things he did without making broad promises.
Elon is famously managed up by the point people at his companies. I don't really know how much credit you can give him besides having the bravado to greenlight stunts like this. Which, you know, cool -- it appeals to the 12 year old in all of us, which is about how mature he is.
> he has a track record of achievements that no other human has ever come close to reaching.
Your obsequiousness is disgusting.
How long will you let Elon live rent free in your head?
Might never come to fruition? Is there any chance at all that such a car would ever be street legal? Oh, wait the US govt is literally for sale nowadays, so hmm...maybe that's not an obstacle actually.
Don't US car makers self certify their cars? The cybertruck is a death trap for pedestrians.
1 reply →
This is what we actually call a Ponzi scheme. It'll come crashing down, eventually, but will take a long time due to the current state of the DoJ.
Not even close. It is a supercar, the order number vs the Model 3’s and Y’s is a rounding error.
The Roadster is about marketing as racing is to every other car manufacturer.
They do not need the measly deposits for this car to sustain Tesla, not even close.
> This is what we actually call a Ponzi scheme
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.
2 replies →
Then it’s not really a Ponzi scheme. Those crash under their own weight pretty quickly. Not just because of govt intervention.
1 reply →
The maths of the flying is a little puzzling to me.
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.
In the video they claim the air is supersonic at exit, and point out the mach diamonds -- and I think they said 60 kilonewtons of thrust max, which is really a lot. So I think the volume of air would decrease roughly 60% from your estimate? I'm not a physicist.
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.
So let’s double the speed - 1.2 Ma. You need half the mass now - 25kg/sec. If you want to have 10 seconds worth of hover - that’s 250kg of gas. Plus the weight of the storage tank. Plus - this is the amounts for hover. Not for any extra force on top of that.
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.
9 replies →
The "pin to a wall" part uses fans, not the cold gas thrusters. It can probably stay there until the battery runs out. The gas thrusters are only needed if you want to go 0-60 in .8s (with the Thrust version), or if you want to fly (with the Rocket version). Probably those only last a few seconds before the air tanks need to recharge.
Mach diamonds in a compressed air jet aren’t surprising. You can get them from a canned compressed air duster: https://hackaday.com/2024/02/18/canned-air-is-unexpectedly-s...
> phase one - you drive around, and excess energy goes to compressing air.
It's an electric car - unless you've got an incredibly long charging cable, there is no "excess energy" when you're driving around.
2 replies →
It _does_ go supersonic, otherwise the converging-diverging nozzle doesn't make sense.
You have the answer in your calculations, you just need to take to its logical conclusion. I say its was balsa not cartoon...
> Back of the fag pack,
napkins, and envelopes at least kind of make sense.
Who was ever writing on the back of cigarette packs?
> 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?
9 replies →
this is funny because I know so many people who always note down phone numbers and such for the day on cigarette packs. sometimes even carrying a few with them all the time.
in india.
Smokers who didn't have napkins or envelopes handy, presumably.
[dead]
Back of the what ? Shame on you
Looks like a sensible turning down of the Cybertruck aesthetic into something that looks good.
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.
> what glued panels fall off
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).
Lotus did this on their chassis not because it was cheap, but because it allowed them to use lighter, thinner aluminum which would have been ruined by welding. It was almost certainly not cheaper than welding, they had to add little protrusions that kept all the pieces 0.2mm apart, which is what made for the best bonding. They went to a lot of trouble to make this process work, and it resulted in one of the best sports cars of all time in terms of pure driving experience.
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).
4 replies →
> Oddly enough this makes their cheaper cars more reliable than the expensive ones
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.
2 replies →
Most cars have glued joints and body panels these days.
The issue isn't glue, its that parts are falling off.
> Let others do it, find out how late it arrives, what glued panels fall off at speed and wait for the inevitable recalls.
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.
People with lambo money generally also want a car that doesn't fall apart constantly AND rapidly lose its value.
5 replies →
This type of vehicle isn't intended to drive at speed, at least not very far. It's targeted at collectors who will park it in a garage with their other supercars. It's a status symbol with wheels, not transportation or even a toy for track days. (And I don't mean that as a criticism, there's nothing wrong with wealthy people buying collectibles.)
> (And I don't mean that as a criticism, there's nothing wrong with wealthy people buying collectibles.)
there's a whole lot of systemic issues with wealthy people buying low-poly cars to their collection.
7 replies →
It’s not premium enough for collectors. I could see plenty of tech people buying one as a daily driver that they also take to the track though.
1 reply →
Everyone is talking about the Cybertruck, but both the 3 and the Y have plenty of engineering problems as well. I believe both cars are listed as below-average reliability by CR.
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.
Early Model 3/Ys built in the US were unreliable. The ones built in Shanghai, though, are excellent. Berlin is somewhere in the middle.
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.
10 replies →
So many things you just said are wrong. The control arms are 100k mile parts, and you can easily replace them with Unplugged Performance versions for under $1k.
2 replies →
> My Toyota Sienna has been far more reliable than the Model 3, despite having many, many more parts.
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.
2 replies →
That was my first thought, Cybertruck: The Car. But then it drove up a wall and stopped on the ceiling and flew down. That was awesome. I'm sure it will be a nightmare to own.
> glued panels fall off at speed
Given some of the tauted 'features' of this thing, I'd be more concerned about it blowing up in my driveway.
Hardly a concern when you can't afford one.
> revolutionary things
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.
It's what we have collectively dreamed of for decades: a flying car. The things you mentioned are what I'd call implementation details of what boils down to a box with four wheels and a steering wheel.
This isn't anything practical. It's just cool. Like a hoverboard. Or landing on the moon.
Brake by wire and steer by wire are the obvious ones.
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.
3 replies →
I liked the rounded one lots better:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/NextGenT...
(just personal preference)
Looks good? The previous version looked incredible. This looks like the Delorean and the Cybertruck had an unwanted child.
at least the CyberTruck shipped.
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!
> the production issues with the Cybertruck mean you’d be a fool to reserve one of these
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.
I think the front view reminds me of the old lamborghini countach.
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/tesla-contents/image/upload/...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Lamborgh...
Reminds me of the car they'd dress up to look like a Countach, the Fiero.
I just wanted to get one for $1mln I have laying somwhere, but now I'll wait for more reviews. Thanks for the tip.
Just buy it in 15 years when it has depreciated to nothing /s
Looks like a Fiero
[flagged]
Tesla's most recent project was the largest flop in automotive history lol.
10 replies →
The latest car Tesla released, the cybertruck, was one of the biggest automotive flops ever, production is essentially halted, demand is non-existant.
Tesla announced and started taking reservations for their roadster TEN YEARS AGO. People who made reservations and paid the $50k-$250k cost are STILL WAITING.
And now Tesla has announced yet another vapourware car, with a controversial design, taking reservation money again.
If you fall for this, you are a fool.
1 reply →
[flagged]
1 reply →
There are three configurations:
- 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...
“Configurations”
Like any of this will materialise. Where’s the original Roadster people actually put down payments on?
The original roadster was Tesla's first car.
1 reply →
> every usable void in the car is packed with carbon-fiber overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) to store compressed gas
Hahah, the failure modes are going to be exciting.
When I heard "carbon-fiber" and "pressure vessel" in the same sentence I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_submersible_implosion
This would be the opposite of that, though.
Does the thrust version not have suction too?
What is the suction useful for? The engineering blows my mind but why would someone use this? Does it help on turns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downforce
Yes, and at high speed, it helps make sure you don't take flight accidentally.
When you don't have enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e21ZjwZGjiQ
2 replies →
It helps everywhere... turns and straights - it provides downforce without wings. Wings cause drag, that push the car down but also slow it down. So the car can be going slow and still get incredible grip. On the corners the car won't slide, so it can corner at much higher speeds too. For both these reasons, this suction system was banned by most racing leagues in the 70's for being too powerful.
It's for more traction. Not a road car, but this one does 0-100kph in just under 1s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQIu5tZ0vbQ
The rocket version is the real life bat-mobile to me. Impressive.
Mark my words, these thrusters and flying car stunts will eventually be used as a justification to merge Tesla into SpaceX, the same way how they justified space datacenter to merge X.ai onto SpaceX.
There was optimus robots already on Tesla side and inference / r&d funded by x.ai (now spacex).
They don't need a justification, they already hinted they're doing it and analysts predict the same, by end of year.
People have been saying that would happen for as long as Elon has led both companies at the same time. So not exactly a novel prediction.
They said the same thing about XAI too, and they were right.
does it need a justification? twitter has nothing to do with rockets also
Yeah, true. It’s sad to see the Market forces being nothing more than a whimper on these massive untenable mergers.
while there's definitely some reality distortion i don't think Tesla bleeds as much money as Grok yet?
I don't think it does either, but it's surely overvalued and have to sustain it's ridiculously high forward P/E. Hence the semi-regular news about FSD, TeslaCab, Optimus Bots, and now Flying cars. Seems it's working. It's always priced in with the "potential future".
Would that be terrible for the investors?
He promised FSD and an affordable base model for everyone, for close to a decade at this point. Instead he dropped yet another car that's not legal on most roads and doesn't even solve a problem to begin with. Imagine what great things could have been done with the money and resources that went into this.
This is not a gov-owned business. It's not your money to decide how they should spend their resources to benefit yourself.
Freedom of speech is a thing, and it's well within that right to criticize how private resources are spent.
1 reply →
The livestream has the stunts: https://x.com/Tesla/status/2110788059008819215
The flying-on-RCS-in-gravity reminds me of those old videos of exoatmospheric kill vehicle tests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnofCyaWhI0
Patently absurd, of course, but amazing too.
Not RCS (used a gimbaled turbofan instead), but the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle) is also incredibly cool.
Cool!!! Whoever thinks this is *not cool* please, leave your cool card at the door
This sounds like it was written by Elon when he was posing as one of his family members. (in case people forgot he did that)
Cool, but not realistic. This is a prototype, if you have enough money you can build a prototype car that does just about anything. When the car starts shipping the "cool" features will be missing.
4 replies →
Hi Elon!
[flagged]
This is something straight out of Rocket League. Completely impractical, but awesome at the same time.
What is the practical use case of this? https://x.com/JehovaTrades/status/2110906028971938252
Literally dozens of scenarios have been documented. e.g. https://youtube.com/watch?v=f1B21Nd9oZ4&t=1000s
1 reply →
Americans will do anything to avoid roundabouts.
Neat, but that car has to be practically empty. It appears to have very low inertia.
By rough estimate, using hydroxide jet packs as a reference, I’d say they got it down to about 600kg.
2 replies →
You were never stuck in traffic I take it:D Insurance will be a bitch, but people will move out of your way.
5 replies →
WTF, that the most cartoonist thing i've seen today. Does it really have to do the flip ?
1 reply →
To show off? Like whatever you think of it the market for supercars is rich men who want to show off so Tesla is playing in that market.
2 replies →
To play Spy Hunter irl?
Uhh to be sick af?
Flexing on the poors
To brag to other, lesser billionaires.
What is the practical use case of having a bunch of high powered jets all around the car? It could be used to automatically avoid fatal accidents, or at least reduce risk and damage in an accident situation. I thought everybody who watched the presentation video would reach that conclusion.
17 replies →
I'll admit, that was pretty cool
Fast forward to 11:15 to see the tricks.
Some smart cookies put up a scam video topping Google searches for the announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5lmBq00utE
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)
Youtube terminated the account :)
I definitely have my issues with Tesla and Elon but this was one of the coolest demos I have ever seen in my life. The engineering needed to do this must have been unbelievable.
How much does the car actually weigh? It feels more sleight of hand than actually a flying car.
About 3800 pounds. (from Hargety interview)
13 replies →
Honestly, I think what is shown is sleight of hand, it was probably a step up from this DIY project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MybApXQIO5Q
> I definitely have my issues with Tesla and Elon but...
Sad that people feel the need to add this qualification. I see it regularly.
No it's not sad, the man was basically an unelected official, laid off thousands of government workers and the second order effects of that will affect millions. All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
69 replies →
If I had paid for a reservation for this car in checks notes 2017(!!!), I'd have some issues with them as well. Very cool tech demo, but come find me when it's getting produced and sold to the people who reserved them a decade ago.
Why is it sad? Over 700,000 avoidable deaths from Elon's dismantling of US AID alone, two thirds of them children. Estimated to be 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030.
I think the qualification is unbelievably tame considering what Elon deserves.
20 replies →
Well unfortunately he's made it necessary to do so. I can like this demo in the same way I can like the V2 rocket as a pioneering achievement in rocketry. There's a very big elephant in the room.
2 replies →
He killed thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of people with his DOGE stunts interrupting USAID, for purely selfish reasons or completely mentally deranged delusions (if you take his twitter posts at the time at face value).
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
its cos he's a prick. The way he pretended to "fairly" sack devs at twitter when he was clearly just trying to cut costs. That he bought twitter to "defend free speech" and then started donating to the Republication party and promoting a very specific political position online. As a euro the Nazi salute alone is enough for me.
The qualifier matters, that guy has serious issues.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I wouldn't exactly call it a demo.. more of a marketing stunt, albeit a very impressive one from an engineering POV.
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.
Distinguishing “demo” from “marketing stunt” here feels like a distinction without a difference and smells like motivated reasoning.
1 reply →
> wonder what the point of this was?
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?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_car
How about catching the space rocket with chopsticks?
And that is precisely all it is, a demo. Reminder that BYDs are held at bay in an anti free market policy specifically because American car companies cannot compete with its low cost and quality. We're wasting time and money on this type of tech.
This engineering in this demo was only designed o get lucrative government contracts.
Automotive tariffs in the US are explicitly to keep the ability to make military vehicles in the United States. GM, Ford, and Chrysler retooled their factories to make planes, trucks, and tanks during WW II.
https://michiganology.org/stories/arsenal-of-democracy/
When all of your industry will have gone to China and you'll have no knowledge and specialised workers left, you'll have only your eyes to cry.
Maybe, but why? Feels like a slap in the face to people who have been waiting ten years for the car. Gimmicky demos just scream waste of money and loss of focus on what matters.
You could make the same argument for hypercars like the McLaren W1, why do you need 1,258 bhp and sub 3s 0-60 times? Seems gimmicky and not practical for the road. But to that I'd argue, why not?
12 replies →
The people who are waiting for this car are waiting for a gimmick anyway. If you want a car that will take you from A to B reliably, you can buy one today.
most of the things a Tesla Roadster is advertised with is not street legal.
1 reply →
Not a lot of tears to shed for folks waiting a long time for a $250k (starting, at least at the time) toy.
I'd bet most of them see this as a cooler, shinier toy.
If you look at Tesla pricing and delivery, prices usually well above what was originally talked about - capability/etc a whole different thing with the cyber truck. The 3 engine "cyberbeast" was originally pushed at about 1/2 it's price 8ish years ago.
Still waiting for high speed rail
That's exactly how I see it too. Not a tesla shareholder but if I was I'd be running for the hills.
4 replies →
DHH: >I put $50,000 on this thing 18 months ago. Not knowing it was going to fucking fly! When it was already years "late". Because investing in whatever Elon does next is not just a great bet, but the most inspiring and fun one too.
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
1 reply →
There's 3 trim levels. Flying is the top tier. They already publicly announced that.
yeah if I had a preorder for a roadster, I'd be wondering about how much time they're spending on this compressed air thing.
Elon doesn't miss with his social media marketing. Compare the announcement tweets from Andy Jassy and the engagement they generate. Meta, with the Muse app (personal AI), is also leaning heavily on social media, but by paying influencers (instead of cool & viral product demos).
1 reply →
A lot of this sentiment is based on jealousy or competiton with Musk, or the pleasure of harassment towards Asperger people: Gimmicky demos are what people remember.
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.
9 replies →
Gimmicky? Within our lifetime it will be a common safety feature like airbags. Can you imagine how many terrible accidents can be avoided if the car can fly out of a bad situation? Doesn't need to fly long distance. Engage your imagination and you'll think of many use cases.
6 replies →
We've had rocket powered drone for 30 years https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NL1UF2bvaEM this is just a larger version
And those rocket drones have a significant proportion of their mass as reaction gas for the thrusters, everything else being designed around lightness, and can still only resist gravity on the order of a few tens of seconds before a full recharge needs to be done. They're very much designed for "small" course corrections outside of atmosphere, or quickly dodging the terminal phase of an interceptor, rather than efficient velocity change.
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".
1 reply →
Quite interesting how things can be seen so differently, because this was one of the most pointless/dumbest demos I have ever seen in my life. There was no doubt someone could build something like this, the question is always "why"? What problem does this solve?
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.
[flagged]
Hagerty has a very good walkthrough video with Lars and it looks pretty real. The thing they failed to mention was that the "flying" version is separate and the entire passenger seat is replaced with a pressure tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts
28 replies →
Still frames showing the underside appear to show that it is basically hollow, so fake.
Making a car with a heavy EV battery and powertrain fly like that is probably not something they're able to do.
I think it's not that difficult when you have full access to SpaceX know how and infrastructure.
My only issue with it is that beyond being impressive and very cool, it's pretty useless.
3 replies →
Movie special effects has been doing this forever, lol
Someone else commented that this tech might make for a good Bond movie car (maybe better suited to the Roger Moore cheesy era), but I assume nowadays they'd just use AI since it'd be so much cheaper.
[dead]
[flagged]
Was Google's 20 percent time a waste of its talent?
This looks like a genuinely fun project to have worked on. That can be the difference between a top engineer burning out and staying motivated.
7 replies →
Tesla's marketing budget is something close to $0. Stuff like this is why.
3 replies →
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your statement as true, who cares?
Telsa board doesn’t, they need moonshots to justify their valuation. Elon doesn’t care, the engineers sure as shit don’t.
Maybe a midline quality control and reliability person? That’s not likely where many of the engineers for this project came from though.
Yeah, wouldn’t they rather be doing real impactful engineering work, like figuring out means to display even more ads on personal user devices, maximizing the number of hours kids spend doom-scrolling per day, or making robots that are deliberately designed to take jobs away from as many workers as possible?
But, imagine instead being an engineer of any kind today and you’re only getting paid to work on boring things like advanced automotive technology and building cars that can maneuver themselves in midair and might possibly fly in the future? Ridiculous.
(This message should not be taken as support for Musk or any of his views or business ventures.)
the pursuit of perfection should not always require justification :)
I don't think so. The engineering behind an F1 car is not relevant to those buying consumer cars, but it helps sell them regardless.
1 reply →
You must be miserable in your job. All the good engineers I know would gladly take some pay cut to be able to do projects like this.
They learned a lot, and pushed their tools further, in ways that left them with new insights and possible engineering paths for more practical work.
“Play” “fun”, curiosity” and “challenge for challenges sake” are adaptive strategies for learning unexpectedly useful things.
4 replies →
Is there any evidence/footage that this actually happened in front of a live audience? And not just on a screen that was shown to a live audience? Cause that's all can find.
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.
Okay that's one of the coolest things I've seen in a while since the rockets landing.
Car looks half decent too.
[flagged]
I like the fun retro look, similar to the N Vision 74 [1]. This actually has some taste unlike the Cybertruck.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_N_Vision_74
3 replies →
[flagged]
I guess you didn't see the video of a car sitting on a ramp upside down, doing flips in the air, jumping over a semi and other cars...
Odd world we live in when we don't see that as being cool. But, we're seemingly headed there. At some point, it's going to be hard to imagine something that could surprise me.
35 replies →
Nah, this ain't it chief. I own exactly 0 directly. Too volatile and don't really care for Teslas at all. I love my gas cars.
> Car looks half decent too
To me it looks like a mashup of a Ferrari and a Cybertruck. That's not a good thing.
Same; there are stylish super cars... this again looks like a 5 year old kid drawing like the Cybertruck does.
This video states that it takes 2–6 hours to charge the compressed air for the cold-gas thrusters. And then you can use it exactly once before you have to recharge it. The journalist calls it “beautifully pointless.”
https://youtu.be/JdkIOhFmbKI
The funny thing is that during the event, Elon claimed that the car can recharge the tanks itself [0], but in the Top Gear video, the Tesla folks say that it is recharged from an external source [1]. In the Top Gear video, they also say that they are filling it from a "high pressure nitrogen system", whereas Elon claims that the tank is filled with air. They can't even keep their own messaging straight.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/live/qt5p-_tE8d0?si=V5csPghK02wwd0or...
[1] https://youtu.be/JdkIOhFmbKI?si=ULvyIRWDRZRWlIWA&t=1340
Elon _always_ lies and exaggerates during these things. He seemingly can't stop himself.
I assume it's both...
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.
1 reply →
And the car would have 4 seats(now 2), over 1000 km range(now less than half), and be the fastest car period(now very far off). Then they say it will do 300 and something km/h, but also say it will do Mach 0.5. They are completely clueless, as usual.
He's only 78% correct.
promise everything now, work out everything else later.
Perhaps they use liquid nitrogen and then just allow it to boil off inside the tanks? This would give them a safe and easy way to quickly recharge the tanks for testing.
Air is basically nitrogen. It can probably use both.
4 replies →
It's pretty simple, actually, Elon is a pathological liar.
The stock market agrees. TSLA continues trending downward.
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...
Not trending down anywhere near enough. Their PE Ratio is absurd, but it definitely proves the adage that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
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!
I'm not sure if the stock price means a lot. Tesla is kind of a meme stock, people buy it based on vibes, not based on what it's worth.
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.
5 replies →
I mean, this is something we want to encourage. Everyone always likes to quote fiduciary duty ad nauseum. Here is a public company flying (lol) in the face of that in the spirit of, well, fun.
6 replies →
> TSLA continues trending downward
uh.. zoom out a bit? The stock price is double what it was two years ago
9 replies →
It's just a supercar. Supercars are allowed to be pointless.
This isn't the car though, this is a concept demo to keep people subscribed while they continue to delay the real car. I agree supercars are pointless in a lot of ways, but this is just not the same thing because it's vaporware meant to be provocative.
It's a "sports car". At least that is what all the marketing says and has said since forever. Even the title on the website is "Electric sports car". But it's not really a sports car, it's a fantasy car that does not exist, and never will exist.
It's not pointless at all. The car needs wings to become a glider. It doesn't need the fans for downward force or any of the high speed stuff. You take the car as high as you can and glide down. So it would be an airplane first and a car second. That would be seriously cool. The military would use it too. An airphibious/wingsuit vehicle. It could also have a drop-out seat/s for skydiving out of or doing air drops. For landing, another central wheel can be deployed to absorb the main bump or the existing wheels are extended further down. If there's a problem mid-flight there is an emergency chute as well, or can be used if wings not fitted or used.
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.
That sounds fine. Charging time isn't the problem though.
I would say it's beautifully pointless in about the same way that the tires on a Bugatti Veyron are rated for some absurdly low number of km before they need to be replaced, and they can only be replaced by shipping the entire wheels to specialized facilities which are equipped to do them. The whole levitating car on thrusters thing is a specialty novelty for rich collectors.
The obvious use case is to avoid a collision!
Single use is perfectly fine for that purpose. No one complains that airbags are single use.
You can't really predict how a collision would happen and hence where you should land.
I'd say the best way to avoid collisions at scale is already on the road and its cars with sensors and computers, if we weren't living in a pre-cyberpunk dystopia I would gladly have them coordinate to achieve that
1 reply →
It's a typical Tesla/Elon marketing stunt and nothing more.
This was 100% precursor to the absorption of Tesla into SpaceX and I’m here for it
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/tesla-spac...
This would be a horrible deal for Tesla investors.
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.
It’s about Elon’s control over these companies. Creating a valuable company with durable revenue that produces products that the market actually wants, with stable governance by a board representing the shareholders of the company? Bah! What am I, a sucker?
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.
> 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).
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.
4 replies →
Yeup. In 2025–
“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.
Yes, let's combine Twitter, an AI company, and a space company with a solar company, car company, battery company, and robotics company, so that we can have one huge valuation that can't be possibly delivered upon and losses will be absorbed for a short period. What could go wrong?
Have you heard of the concept of Conglomerates?
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.
2 replies →
Japanese companies manage fine doing this kind of thing.
17 replies →
It would almost be as big a monstrosity as Amazon
but... All elon companies. More valuable bundled, because all the elon lovers don't have to pick where they throw their tithes. I'd love it even more if they throw in a tunnel construction and a human brain implant company in the mix while they are at it.
Add weapon and tank and they will reach the scale of Samsung.
Tesla-Yutani
As an engineer myself, watching the Hagerty interview [0] was an ...interesting experience.
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...
[0] https://youtu.be/22rvpUecLts?t=791
He did clarify more than once that what he means is they’re doing things that are impossible if you rely solely on tire grip, because it’s just not enough.
Obviously they’re not literally breaking the laws of physics, but they’re breaking what has traditionally been possible putting power through tires alone.
You're describing the exact process which causes the loss of credibility.
Let's say I ask a SW engineer to describe the code he wrote, and he repeatedly (!) refers to the addition of an index table as "breaking the laws of computer science".
He can clarify more than once that the achieved result would be impossible with sole event-processing alone, and obviously I know that he didn't break any "laws of computer science" by adding a indexed database.
But every time he explains his work with these words, he will lose a bit of credibility.
2 replies →
Can this be scaled down to a Roomba? Then it would both be more useful at picking stuff up off the floor, and able to recover from falling down the stairs.
Vroomba!
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).
All the dust around it on the floor would end up airborne again.
That's OK if it's just to save itself from dying in the event of a fall down the stairs. Should be infrequent!
1 reply →
Roombas are already programmed not to yeet themselves off of stairs
I guess nobody informed my roomba of this.
1 reply →
I was a house guest when one definitely decided it was time to throw itself to its doom. Incredible sound.
Imagine walking up stair and suddenly a roomba launch itself at your face.
The bright side is that it would immediately vacuum all the debris it would cause in the process
Queen face hoover
Yes, it isn't even special at all.
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.
Using suction to create downforce is an idea that’s been built for race track usage in the past (and been successful in F1 in the ‘70s), but the near certainty of mortal injury from the system failing (and thus destabilizing the vehicle at high speed) made it unpopular and its incorporation has been very limited (McLaren and Ariel did versions, I think). I’m confused how this has (or will pass) regulatory approval for road use. Is the idea that the driver should only utilize this on a track?
> I’m confused how this has (or will pass) regulatory approval for road use.
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.
I think others have used a skirt that needs to extend quite close to the ground to work, so uneven ground can cause sudden loss of suction. Maybe this is solvable somehow?
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.
> Maybe this is solvable somehow?
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
Are they worse than a gasoline tank exploding?
6 replies →
The T50 has a fan for down force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Murray_Automotive_T.50
The "base" model will pretty much be McMurtry Spéirling at promised quarter of the price.
what about like a countless random debris on the road? wouldn't that get sucked up and damage the fan?
> I’m confused how this has (or will pass) regulatory approval for road use.
Corruption? Musk is already down a quarter of a billions in donations to the GOP for these incoming elections.
Probably allowed outside of California.
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.
> You'd immediately fly off the road if you lost any suction
This is why it was banned in F1 cars.
Okay, that's some of the most impressive feats I've ever seen. Congratulations to the engineers!
Is that "flying" car a "real" car? As in full battery and standard weight or is it just a shell stripped down to the minimum to save weight.
Looking at the promo video... This thing weights less than 500 pounds, guaranteed.
No to mention there was no actual driver in it.
9 replies →
Because it makes zero economic sense to make a car do that?
Remember when you were a child and your imagination wasn't killed yet by money and politics?
3 replies →
Most supercars and hypercars make zero economic sense.
3 replies →
you fail to understand the psychology of billionaires
Love the idea that the kind of person who would still buy a Tesla can now more easily access the fatality rates afforded to the next tier of rich dick who is obsessed with small planes. Go for it, y'all!
Tesla Roadster vaporware edition MK2: now with actual vapor!
I know its marketing but still it's super inspiring to me. Try pulling it off in real hardware. It's incredible.
It’s a CO2 canister with no battery or motors on wheels. What was incredible again?
Do you have any proof of this, or are you just parroting claims that others are making?
1 reply →
It can’t be CO2 because they said it refills itself.
3 replies →
What's incredible is how Elon lives rent free in your head
What's so disruptive on these kind of events is, that companies always used to do development for PR-stunts, or to show off their capabilities and vision for the future, but never at this scale of pure engineering investment.
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"
Lots of words to say they built something useless to impress manchildren and investors, get ready for yet another "fell for it again" medal
That's also true, but I meant to say something different. I am referring to this sheer blindness to the rationality of what's being presented.
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...
It's a cool demonstration, I'll give them that. From what I've seen online, people don't even seem to consider whether or not they would actually want this, just because the novelty of it. I'd even ignore that and call it good marketing, if that's what they would actually try to sell here - but you need some kind of special invitation access to even get those, while they use this demonstration to boost the pre-orders for a car without the features everyone is talking about (or at least trying to, we'll see how many will actually go for it).
Yeah, that's what I meant. The gap between what's presented as ready-to-order and the actual practical feasibility of the product is so big, it wows people because they are still accustomed to presentations of actually consumable products.
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...
And more to the point: want what?
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.
3 replies →
I'm reminded of that time that guy made the Statue of Liberty disappear.
The audience for this must get really scared when the magician cuts the lady in half
I'm sure they'll release this one as soon as the release the Roadster introduced 9 years ago.
This is the the release of the Roadster introduced 9 years ago. This is what people who put down a deposit (upwards of 250k) back 9 years ago are in line to receive.
Wonder if this round of suckers is going to have to wait 9 years for the next demo too.
Incredible demo but I also have to agree, I will wait for the first Top Gear or Markus Brownlee unsupervised review before believing this project has been achieved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdkIOhFmbKI
> Markus Brownlee
> unsupervised
This guy might be the most biased reviewer on the planet. Dude practically cashes checks from Apple on camera.
2 replies →
This is just Tesla marketing. Usually companies just dump money into marketing campaigns. Musk dumps it into engineering instead.
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.
There is a huge canyon between launching a car into space for fun (test, actually, dead weight) and having a web page where you can type in your card details to pay advance on your own purely marketing purpose circus car. You really don't see the difference? Of course, calling an impractical technical circus engineering is revealing.
But that it is what it is?
The Gas Tank is big and very dangerious, runs for 1-2 seconds and needs hours to re'charge'.
No one was sitting in it for savty reasons but probably also weight.
Just changing the design and adding more electric power is not a real art. They could just do this without building a complete different car which will never see the market
Its marketing an when i see your comment, it seemed to work.
1 reply →
But you can’t type your card details on the circus car variant. That one is invite only.
1 reply →
I wouldn't trust promo videos.
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.
This Tesla event was apparently performed in front of a live audience. Yes I'm sure there's a hype strategy here but equating this with the Nikola scam is a stretch.
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.
Sure. But do we have any confidence the "car" wasn't made of styrofoam?
There are lots of ways for sleight of hand. Do you remember the time that guy made the Statue of Liberty disappear?
85 replies →
Not to disagree that this Tesla event took place, but there was also a "Nikola World" event in 2019 where Nikola presented its product to an audience of 1000+ people.
It's surely not AI, but so far it is little more than all these Jetpack demonstrations of the past decade...
3 replies →
This is the same company that showed off "bulletproof glass" on the cybertruck.
2 replies →
All car manufacturers demo "concept" cars that are real and work(for most parts) but mass production with reasonable price is just not worth it, in this case there is legal challenges too.
They're not afraid of doing tricks in front of live audience either. Look at the battery swap event. No camera placed anywhere near where the "swap" was happening for a few minutes. Then the car drove off Wow! Amazing! And they never talked about battery swap again
5 replies →
zOMG!1!!! Proof of concept demonstration was carefully staged.
I suspect this is going to be a Cybertruck/Boring Company situation, where we may get something ostensibly called the same and may even do something one could consider similar when squinting (maybe a bit higher than U9 jumps in scope) but with the specs and implementation differing so greatly that it shouldn't be considered the same. Exoskeleton vs body panels, 200kph+ on electric sleds vs Teslas (driven by human operators; tells you how much they trust their FSD tech) in a tiny tunnel, FSD on HW3 vs an upgrade maybe someday, etc.
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...
I'm still baffled by the human drivers for those tunnel runs. I can't imagine a more controlled environment where self driving should be capable.
1 reply →
FYI the dawn project was debunked as crackpot scammers who had their feet on the accelerator pedal to fake an "FSD crash", along with a slew of other underhanded and misleading tricks.
Don't forget that the leader of Dawn Project has financial conflicts of interest:
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.
2 replies →
this wasn't a promotional video, it was a live demonstration in front of hundreds of people.
dawnproject.com is a well known Tesla critic with commercial ties to Mobileye, a Tesla competitor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/11/tesla-s...
tesla.com is known fabricator of news about Tesla
Does that invalidate their examples? "Did they fake it or not" is a falsifiable claim that can be inspected regardless of personal incentives.
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.
PE of 336?? That's a buying opportunity if ever I saw one!!
Do you buy stocks by sorting by P/E?
Yeah no, something is very off on this and I cannot put my finger on it, the video looks odd to me. I want to say AIgen feel, but I only saw little tiny vids, rest were blurry as sin.
Makes sense though. First time I saw video of two falcon rockets doing a synchronized landing I felt the exact same way. Our brain is used to this type of stuff in movies and we know it's CGI. So when it happens for real and is filmed in 4K and a cinematic color scheme is added, it's hard for the brain to adapt.
1 reply →
Any self respecting trader buys Tesla stocks based on this?! OMG!
It would encourage me to sell, if I had, seeing this nonsense.
You're not alone, TSLA is down on the news. You can only commit fraud so many times before people get tired of holding the bags.
Why do car manufacturers brag about hitting 60 mph in 1, 2 or whatever seconds? For a normal person, does this really matter - what is the big deal if a car hits 60 mph in 5 seconds instead of 1? There are more important things like safety, repairability, longevity etc right?
It’s standard measure of acceleration. If you are going to sell a car on performance (like say… a sporty roadster), it’s a great metric.
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.
It's just one stat and it makes for a good headline. Obviously those other things are important but they don't exactly fit into a headline. Oh and some people like fast cars. Why is that so confusing?
For the Roadster, it's a supercar. None of those things matter much.
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 are interested in speed performance. What other measure should we use?
As someone who has had a Mercedes AMG that could do 0-60s in less than 4s for a few years, it just gets boring so fast, and it makes you question why you bought the thing in the first place. It's unusable in almost every situation on the road, except for the rare "opportunity" when you stop at traffic lights next to a Golf R and yes turns out you have a bigger.....turbo.....than them. Well done, that 5 second ego boost was really worth all the money and looking like a dick to anyone above the age of 25.
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.
5 replies →
Even assuming it’s real and they genuinely are working on selling these to consumers (they aren’t), why on earth would you think this is built for the average person? At the absolute cheapest this car would be $5M off the lot. It’s for the ultra rich (assuming they ship, which they won’t) who want to drive it one day a year on the track
You answered your own question in your very second sentence. “For a normal person”. The modern economy increasingly does not cater to the “normal person” and they prove this constantly. Granted “normal people” stopped existing a long time ago. You have poor people, soon to be poor people, and people who think they will soon be rich but will really soon be poor. Of course then you have the rest but they are not people.
> The modern economy increasingly does not cater to the “normal person”
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.
3 replies →
Some cars are not for a normal person.
Not all products have to be aimed at you.
Speaking for myself I love the quick acceleration of electric cars because it enables you to safely pass other cars quickly on two-lane roads without needing to linger in the oncoming lane.
This is a sports car with a deposit that costs more than an ordinary new car, and with a price that would probably buy you a decent house. Nothing about this is meant for a normal person.
The more powerful the motor, the better the brakes and safety features.
I hope.
lol.
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)
It matters a lot, when playing Top Trumps [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Trumps
It's one thing they can brag about, you know. Dumbing everything down to a single number, regardless of whether it's meaningful, feels impressive.
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.
Bruh. Chicks man. Chicks dig fast cars.
as with lots of muscles, it's actually the dudes who care about this the most :D get hugely muscular, buy a nice sports car and dudes will absolutely love you.
2 replies →
Haha, that's exactly the reaction you could hear from the crowd in the demo video. Made for bros by tech bros.
Not to mention top speed. The US should have a federal or at least NY/CA state law that modern cars be electronically limited to 112 mph, as it is in Japan. There is no valid reason for a street legal passenger car to be travelling faster than that.
I live in Germany, and routinely drive faster than that. With good roads and reasonably trained drivers this isn't an issue
2 replies →
I take my road car to racing events (SCCA) and get above 112 routinely.
I think Nissan had a workaround I could live with: GPS fencing around known tracks would activate/deactivate the speed governor.
1 reply →
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono... - Worth a read if you haven't already
What does this have to do with this story?
Imagine thinking this means anything but that he's a chronically optimistic over-achiever.
FSD has no real competition in its capability and market fit.
I always think people like you only follow Tesla and think everyone is stupid.
Why do you ignore all the other companies capable of doing this?
Just because other manufacturere don't put hardware in every car and let pay people for tech they can't use for years, doesn't mean these companies don't have the tech.
Nvidia has the tech, BMW has the tech, Waymo has the tech.
And while a Cybertaxi is still not allowed on german streets, Waymo is coming to munich...
It's not a flying car. It's a meme stock marketing stunt. I mean, it looks cool and I enjoyed the video but this stuff is not happening and will not be available, ever, probably.
It’s like.. cool! I guess?
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.
When you’re the trillionaire you are the customer and product manager. They are building things for themselves. Cybertruck is another great example.
I think this is just a matter of him wanting to heat up his sycophants and cultists, and he knows he can, and that's why he bought X.
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.
9 replies →
Went to a trade show where a mechanical factory arm was spinning and moving a car around in the air, demonstrating its dexterity and strength. Also just a marketing stunt because there’s no practical reason for a mechanical factory arm to be doing such things. Just 100x less engineering effort gone into it.
Are you all shocked and writing about it. Mission accomplished.
Exactly! people have done hovercrafts and quadrocopters too, big deal. we already know you need 500wh/kg plus to have any kind of sustained flight. so this will be a parlor trick.
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.
> Ok, so it actually flies.
For a few seconds. It's a parlor trick. And the flying configuration will not be street-legal.
I’m guessing the price will be at least 8 figures. If you can afford it you can also afford the 20 acre property with the private test track where you can flip your car in front of your friends.
>And the flying configuration will not be street-legal.
It may not be US legal anyway. The FAA will almost certainly have something to say about something that can go up in the air and propel itself.
It doesn’t fly. It jumps. Like the Mark V.
Apparently Pops Racer works for Tesla.
The Mach Five uses pneumatic jumping jacks though. This thing is more like a Gundam. Pretty rad to watch it maneuver mid air with RCS thrusters.
1 reply →
"that's not flying, it's falling with style"
It's not flying, it's brief hops that probably will be geofenced not to be operable on any public roads. I struggle to understand when the operator of the vehicle will ever find a way to use it for any end that isn't "gross negligence followed by totaling the car". It's not even clear it can calculate trajectories in real time to be used at the operator's discretion.
1 reply →
i would have been more impressed if they drove it off a cliff and landed it softly
2 replies →
“Yeah my dog plays piano, but only one chord at a time.”
I'm not saying it's not cool. Parlor tricks can be very cool, and this one is. But it's still a parlor trick because it's not good for anything other than being cool. When people think of flying cars what they generally have in mind is not a car that can do a flip, it's car that can take them somewhere without needing a road so that it doesn't get stuck in traffic. This car can't do that. All it can do is backflips in a parking lot. That's not nothing, but the novelty will wear off very quickly.
5 replies →
Smashing the piano with a paw is technically a chord.
because an insufferable man put raspberry pi controlled rapid tire inflation gas canisters on his paws
This was done at night like all large scale David Copperfield magic tricks, so it's more like someone else played a chord and said the dog did.
13 replies →
What if the purpose is not flying but accident prevention when falling off a bridge or cliff?
What does it prevent? At most it makes you fall in the water in the correct orientation.
At the price of your passenger seats being occupied by gas tanks, that surely are safe in a collision that's far more likely occurrence.
It's PR stunt, nothing more.
3 replies →
I used to wonder about the possibility of using thrusters to decelerate for impending crashes. I think for a substantial fraction of accidents that would be enough to massively reduce the risk.. but hopping over is an option I hadn’t considered practical.
9 replies →
I’d rather have an eject seat if I was so worried of falling off bridges lol
the purpose is: look at me everyone look at me
As opposed to just exploding from the high pressure tanks of gas onboard due to an otherwise survivable fender bender?
1 reply →
“Parlor trick” - it’s a flying car ffs. It’s an incredible engineering accomplishment, even if just for a few seconds
"Just a good ol' boys, Never meanin' no harm". Cars have been flying for a few seconds on a regular basis since the 70s.
14 replies →
It's barely a shell of a proper car, complete gimmick for "car people" who think car industry came to be with Tesla two decades ago
1 reply →
Right? People here cant enjoy the show. I don't see anyone else having soo much fun engineering a car. Too be on that team would be legit fun.
8 replies →
> It’s an incredible engineering accomplishment
Many of the best parlor tricks are.
It’s falling with style
Its a hollow shell RC car with air canisters.
3 replies →
If this is the metric of a flying car then we had working prototypes in the 60s.
Any car can be made to fly if "just for a few seconds" is as stringent as your requirements get.
3 replies →
It is certainly an engineering accomplishment, but calling it a 'car' is a stretch. Do you believe that this vehicle has a 100kWh battery pack in it? When Tesla demonstrates this vehicle driving two hundred miles on city streets and recharging to repeat the test, I'll gladly change my mind.
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.
6 replies →
Yeah just the same way the rides at amusement parks are that go faster and higher. The end result won't change anything for the rest of us. It's entertainment.
It is a few notches beyond sitting in a wagon and emptying a fire extinguisher to go for a little ride, and about as practical, but I do not see what makes it some incredible feat of engineering.
It's a car with rocket thrusters attached. Mythbusters did it 20 years ago.
1 reply →
> It’s an incredible engineering accomplishment
Yeah just like the Tesla screen in the car. Quite a problem since it lacks physical buttons.
I dunno. We have all kinds of flying machines. What exactly makes this a car? The shape?
5 replies →
That’s a very generous interpretation of “flying” tbh.
my honda civic can fly too if I floor it on the hill nearby.
Rockets have been around for a hundred years.
2 replies →
In what way is this an engineering achievement? Presumably two thousand years ago people understood that flight requires lift. It's not like anything novel is occurring here.
Flying car… That was Aerocar back in what, 2011?
It's not a flying car in the way that anyone ever imagined growing up. When people think flying cars they think blade runner or fifth element. Not a car that can jump, interesting as a jumping car may be.
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
5 replies →
Basically, KITT from Knight Rider turned real.
I think I've seen some undergrad capstones also make flying cars that would never actually be produced or sold...
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.
Very impressive. You might even call it Full Self Flying
It's a joke. A clever trick. To what end? ... absolute joke.
Do you know what gets me excited? Have you seen the new Porsche Mission S?
Form, function and beauty ...
5 replies →
What's the accomplishment here? It's 50 years old tech.
2 replies →
No it’s actually not. Expect police cars to have this tech
Police cars? For what?
The car was empty because it was to dangerious to drive it. It was for sure also striped of everything it not needed.
This tech needs a LOT of space and an Air Tank which needs a lot of space.
What type of bot are you that you think there is any realistic way this 'tech' will land in any normal car ever?
1 reply →
Use case imagined: Jumping off cliffs onto side roads. That makes it more than a parlor trick.
That makes it a disaster waiting to happen.
1 reply →
The fact that the one that can fly is invite-only makes me wonder if there would be ITAR issues with the guidance mechanisms that they have to put into it.
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.
I suspect it's more because some rando could actually try to use it in public space. The invite only means they could send it to people who will give them good PR, are known not to be idiots, and can be invited to sign many responsibility disclaimers.
That makes a ton of sense, yes! To be honest, I was wondering less about their reasons for invite-only and more about whether this kind of gentle and precise guidance with cold gas thrusters might hit ITAR.
And they will have a remote lockout installed on which the buyer will agree to.
They know they can't make it properly.
It’s way simpler than that, it’s just a collector car like a special edition Ferrari.
They have to sell one to say that it exists. It’s marketing.
Absolutely nobody who owns that vehicle will be “flying” it.
"This is not a safety-optimized car"
Indeed, even for the demo they did not put a human inside.
IRL I can think of so many failure modes it makes this "car" unpractical for anything but a tech demo.
I wonder if Musk is entering the brain rot phase, and Tesla will decline from now on. After all, this is something Tesla doesn't need, a second dud after the Cybertruck. I'm sure the decline will take some time though.
SpaceX is the largest buyer of Cybertrucks. They've spent more than $100 million on them. Link: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-buying-own-cyber...
What is your statement telling us?
That you agree and they are alive because they are moving money around?
1 reply →
Brother Tesla has been in decline roughly in tandem with Musk’s decision to stop masking
(To stop masking and start ‘musking?’)
I could have used that when leaving Costco last Saturday.
Can't help but think of the super-large size toilet paper pack getting sucked into the fans...
Does anyone have more info on the cupholders? I need to know it won’t spill my coffee.
When you get into an accident with another car, the explosion of that 10 kPSI tank behind your seat. will make sure you are the coffee. You know...Engineering...
On the bright side, we're going to find out if extremely high pressure explosions can put out lithium ion battery fires. I vote no, but it'll likely remove any nearby debris/combustible material/organic matter/pink mist out of the combustion area.
2 replies →
Not spilling coffee during a roll is a solved problem: https://youtu.be/V9pvG_ZSnCc
Comes with a Stanley cup and a small cork
"gimbal cupholder" is what you want to google.
They're typically used to affix your beer to the steering wheel of your boat.
Production and other realities aside, I've seen some cool shit in my life and this demo is high up there! Did you guys catch 0.5 mach target top speed? That's 600kmh. It'd better do that flying because there probably aren't any rubber tyres that could endure that before exploding within seconds.
Looks like more hype nonsense to keep excitement going while continuing to delay actually delivering a real product.
Using awe and inspiration to cement themselves as a leading tech company, especially in the minds of up-and-coming engineers, seems like a good goal for recruiting the best and brightest.
I agree. I remember as a kid getting so excited for Detroit concept cars that never hit the market. Now, unless something is actually for sale, I basically ignore it.
Amazing tech demo. I would have liked to see more discussion of the cold-gas thrusters in the earlier Hacker News article. Some people seemed confused and made claims that the demo was a separate "rocket" version that used a combustion technology.
Well it is a separate rocket version, it just doesn't take jet fuel. "Invite only" for the rocket version means probably less than 5 will ever be made, if that.
I strongly suspect that the invite-only version is the tech that was described in the demo, and differs from the $250K version by the size of the air tank and compression motor.
Cold gas or not, these are still rocket motors.
Without fuel or an oxidizer or combustion? Not really. It's compressed air, like an air rifle.
3 replies →
It takes genius to take rocket motors and cover them in cringe.
BYD has made the more practical cousin of this, and you can actually buy it. They have a car which jumps over potholes automatically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIKAn8yDkpA
Anyone know the physics of mach diamonds purely from compressed gas? I'm not a physicist, but I thought one of the key aspects of compressed gas is that it can't expand faster than the speed of sound in that gas -- the speed of sound is literally the limit to how fast it can expand?
Cold gas thrusters used in space applications typically produce 60-70 kgf of thrust for 1 kg/s of gas flow, which means the average axial velocity of the jet is just under 600-700 m/s. It is a little more when the gas expands into vacuum and a little less when it expands into ambient air at the sea level.
How fast the gas expands through an opening depends on the pressure ratio between entrance and exit, and for ordinary air the flow reaches the speed of sound at the narrowest part when the pressure ratio exceeds about a factor of two. The flow never becomes supersonic in the constriction itself, but after the constriction the flow can continue to accelerate to supersonic speeds, especially if the constriction is followed by an expanding nozzle (converging-diverging, or de Laval nozzle), although this is not strictly necessary. For example, one can observe shock diamonds in the air coming out of an ordinary plastic bottle filled with slightly compressed gas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61tsXGUc6nU
Thanks for the clear explanation, and you deserve a separate upvote just for that video link. "slightly" -- compared to what Tesla is claiming, sure, but 5+ bar is no joke -- "you'll put an eye out, kid"
I wonder if the shock waves visible in the video are still due to the converging-diverging aspect, just with no bell around the diverging part.
1 reply →
Gas expanding faster than the speed of sound is called a shockwave - and the Mach diamonds are essentially the expanding gas shockwave “bouncing” back and forth as it hits the atmosphere, forming a standing wave of high and low compression zones.
I have to admit that the only thing I give Elon the title of “Genius” for is his ways of putting on shows to launder more money or get larger loans… this economy is a circus.
This is the company that still hasn't delivered FSD and never will because they won't add Lidar to the cars. They can't even drive Robotaxis at night -- why would they try to fly?
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.
A comment like this sounds like my ex-wife's ability to clearly see and articulate my worst traits.
But they launch a lot of satellites to build their telecom, no?
There are 300 robot axis with no steering wheel or pedals ferrying people around Austin right now.
It’s very late, but it’s here.
The goalpost moving never cease to amaze me
Tesla has lost the battery tech, volume EV manufacturing, and humanoid robotics to China (when trade restrictions don't apply). It's time to hype something different.
Look Trump is the entire reason the world is moving to briics with a foundation of geopolitics / multipolar background
It's really time to say Thiel and musk are briics backed inside attackers
I feel like a curmudgeon because like yes the demo was really cool, but more from the standpoint that they were willing to do a stunt like that in an industry that is incredibly boring (at least in the US). The engineering behind making a relatively heavy object fly around with thrusters is very well understood at this point, I wouldn't call it "incredible" to rig RCS thrusters on a brick and make it do a barrel roll.
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?
How about the part when it drove upside down on a ramp, launched into midair and then used controlled thrusters to land with near-0 vertical speed
Its pretty cool but its not like its a flying car in the sense of a production car/aircraft. And even then it's like temporary flight.
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.
What about it?
6 replies →
This entire release just reeks of desperation from musk.
So, if you crash and the air tank ruptures do you just... die?
The air tank has a feature called "only making like 10 of them... probably" which will significantly reduce the potential damage that could be caused.
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.
[flagged]
As much we credit Elon, can we take a moment and credit the amazing engineering feat of the Telsa and SpaceX engineers who have pulled off this feat. Incredible. Thanks for advancing the human race forward.
Assuming this never really ships (ahem), this is basically an upper-tier "YouTuber engineer" stunt video with a NASDAQ symbol attached. And the results there seem to suggest that Musk's marketing schtick is wearing a bit thin...
Cool marketing gimmick. The suction is cool though, let’s see how it will do on the track. Basically your own Brabham BT46, very cool
I thought so at first but then Musk mentioned the thrusters can recharge themselves with pumps in the car. So it will actually be something owners can use repeatedly without needing complicated refills from Tesla service.
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.
But where would you (be allowed to) use that and risk wrecking your car and life? They weren’t confident to put a person in either. I guess it’s for shows only, the reservation page says invitation only. It’s definitely impressive but it will probably stay a marketing tool.
2 replies →
I wonder whether they will actually be able to recharge to that pressure level in a production car. I kind of doubt it, plus it will be noisy, consume a ton of energy and take a long time.
1 reply →
The Brabham was withdrawn after one race because it sprayed debris at following cars. I the thrusters used for better cornering also might push a car being overtaken just enough to get it off track. Even for track-only this won't fly. Not to mention blasting pedestrians.
What happens if there's a rock in the road and it gets sucked up?
We say McMurtry Spéirling this century :)
I”m not going to get into Musk himself. Nor will I get into the artistic absurdity that a moder supercar represents. But I will speak for the hackers amongst us:
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.
Doesn't matter if the product is real. The idea is to cultivate a sense of wonder and adventure. To get people talking about you. Then you sell more of the products that are real.
Doesn't matter if the product is real. The idea is to cultivate a sense of hope that the $250,000 deposit should stay where it's at, no matter what people talking about me think of that idea. At least I haven't bought a cyber truck.
Yup, integrity doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how many dollars you have in your bank account to buy influence!
Exactly, are we forgetting the apple airpower? or apple intelligence?
5 replies →
Unless the products that are real are Cybertrucks. No way in hell you're selling more of those.
That's true in practical terms but that doesn't mean I like anything about this sort of approach. It's not a positive thing; it's a successful thing.
Real?! From these circus folks? Their (lack of) sense for reality (practicality, safety) you see in this circus is scary! Same folks and mentality make those other ones too that you are supposed to use!
Concept cars often having been run through either CFD or a wind tunnel and also haven’t been vetted for NHTSA requirements, and both those and coefficient of friction are why cars all start to look alike.
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.
The one I remember is the Pontiac Aztek.
The Mercedes W124 had a cfd of 0.29. It doesn't look anything like modern cars with similar cfd. (VW Arteon, Volvo S60, Lexus IS)
It seems the 3 demos shown were even done with differing cars - it's likely that no single prototype car could do all 3 things!
The gas tanks take hours to refill, so even with one car that could do it all they'd need 3 of them.
2 replies →
Steve wasn't an artist. Did Steve ship a product when Atari asked him to redesign pong into a one player game? No, that was Steve Wozniak. Jobs paid him a cool $350 out of the $5k bonus he got for that. Maybe he was an artist. Con-artist.
I've recently come to the conclusion that Musk isn't selling products anymore, he's selling memestocks. He's a master of grabbing attention in an attention economy and it seems to be working out well for him.
Yeah especially about his Mission to mars and dyson sphere. You can't take this serious as an adult with a brain.
This is so spot on. These things work in a bull market and we’ve been in a bull market for arguably 15 years. In a bear market the distortions that were created over the previous years are reversed and usually to an extreme.
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?”
There are plenty of examples in the world where the one is all that is necessary. It's not like there are more than one Burj Khalifa building in the world. Many people pay for a one off car. There are multiple TV shows based on this very concept.
Just because it's not your hobby or within your budget, doesn't mean that others must feel the same way as you.
Concept products are not real products. Their purpose is often to make a point, to prove something is possible, to make a brand look cooler, or just to have fun. I don't think I would ever see this car flying on the road myself. But part of me likes the fact that there are people out there making crazy things like this. It is more fun.
it's like saying, don't make no concept cars. No car manufacturers will follow that.
Building concept cars is a very important part of being a car manufacturer. The issue with Tesla is they take reservations as if it will ever go into production
Yeah, not judging either.
Looking at the pictures, design-wise, I’m almost tempted to ask: “what was the prompt?”.
I don't get it. Musk has an insane track record of shipping things. Well later then he claimed but he usually gets it done. I'm not seeing anyone else leading companies that upended the domination of fossil fueled cars, paved the way for brain implants, build re-usable rockets and create global access to the internet.
I too remember when we started colonizing Mars back in 2021. And that time I called my neighbor's Tesla robotaxi to drive me around in 2020.
2 replies →
Tesla Solar roofs?
Others could get this done too. With less lying and more safety.
So why do we hype Musk to get stuff build sooner than ncessary?
Do you think these people who had to die because of musk enjoyed doing so?
We ask the wrong question, you ask the wrong question: Why do we allow Musk, just because he is rich, to manipulate politics so bluntly? Why do we not put Musk behind bars for all the death he is responsbile for?
Why is it okay for musk for being such a horrible rolemodel? X Æ A-Xii Musk, 14 kids of x different woman etc.?
1 reply →
> it was vapourware. Period, full stop.
What sad reaction to a real life flying car.
What was demonstrated was not flight.
6 replies →
Are you new? Flying concept cars have been around forever. It’s not a new thing.
the timeline we're in is various adjectives including sad. reality never hits how you envision when you're 10.
Out of curiosity, what is your sad P(>500 people owning a flying Tesla by 2030)?
4 replies →
I actually think it's impressive that they have a prototype. It's less of a leap to think it could end up getting shipped. Whereas other competitors in the industry like Ferrari (Jony Ive collaboration) are launching cars with renders.
Its not a prototype of a car.
Its Airtank and all of this tech wouldn't fit the car.
It jumped for 1-2 seconds and needs 6 hours to be ready again.
It did not had a driver.
It probalby/for sure was striped of evertying unnecessary to even make it to these 1-2seconds
[dead]
It is pretty common for automobile companies to show concept cars!
Most concepts never leave the ground. Sorry, I had to...
Thousands of people put down deposit for this car. Well, for a car called roadster.
1 reply →
> I am personally not a fan of pure concept products that exist only to polish the company’s crown
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.
What a weird thing to be angry about.
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.
This will not ship with the demonstrated capabilities for reasons discussed elsewhere in these comments. GP isn't calling Tesla a vaporware company. GP is calling this product as demonstrated vaporware.
1 reply →
Idk I’m a fan of companies doing really cool stuff even if they don’t sell it
I think the event was a very Elon Musk way to say, we're not making a Roadster. Which makes sense, Tesla is leaning into completely self-driving cars and the Roadster as originally envisioned would be the opposite of that.
>It is not the car they are selling to us
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.
"The problem with the demo is that it was vapourware. Period, full stop."
I want to short anything you touch. Please give us stock predictions.
[flagged]
[dead]
I mean, if you were a dealer and had a customer like Musk, wouldn't you do the same?
"As methods for by suicide-by-wealth go, it's classier than drugs, and more accessible than a carbon-fiber submarine" -- some Reddit comment.
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.
There is so much wealth that brilliant engineers spend time building things nobody needs, only to impress.
You're talking about the pyramids in Giza right?
Original roadster is one of the best looking car designs for my taste. This... subdivision modifier over the Cybertruck.
Makes sense, it was a Lotus Elise.
With a weird horizontal loop cut.
It's just a Lotus body, though I agree that Lotus cars are pretty
How is that impressive as a demo? It would be impressive if it's actually a working, mass producible car, but in terms of an demo it's obviously something that is possible in today's world ..
I bet this goes so hard if you are ten years old.
This is not a serious car. It's a project for Tesla and SpaceX engineers to do something crazy. I am sure they had a ton of fun with it.
I would put it in the same class as the McMurtry Spéirling. Let's just see how far we can push a car if there is no concern for cost or maintenance.
I think if this ever makes it to production (doubtful) it will be a let down like the Cybertruck.
Credit where it's due: this car is both awesome and insane.
Haggerty has a good video with more details about the engineering. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts
aka a $245,000 loan to tesla with no interest for 10 years
They first started taking deposits on the Roadster 9 years ago in 2017 with a 2020 production date. It’ll be shocking if they ever sell this car they showed today. If they do, it’ll be many years late, not fly, and cost twice what they are saying. Just like the CyberTruck.
The one that doesn’t fly is only a $45,000 loan
I think it is $50,000 to reserve.
It’s a remote controlled CO2 canister on wheels with a skin that looks like a car. It’s a stupid publicity “stunt”. Har har Elon.
A silent (and yet so noisy) cry for attention?
Apart from the supercar aspirational enthusiasts and the usual inspiration of innovation with concept cars give, I'm thinking of other audiences for this product. What's the actual future of this?
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.
Are you six years old?
Genuinely impressed, incredible demo
Been a while since I was impressed with a tech presentation. I was waiting for a clear case of AI assisted movement ( though I personally expected to see it for the first time in a military chopper ).
**
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.
I watched the ~16 minute presentation on YouTube and it was as if Elon and the two other guys presenting were doing a skit at a talent show. They seemed extremely unprepared. Maybe they were intentionally trying to come across as off the cuff, but it felt unnatural and cringey. Together they have the charisma of a paper clip. These guys are so full of themselves that it’s difficult to appreciate whatever accomplishment this may or may not be. And, of course, no way it will be street legal with air thrusters. What a complete joke.
When presenting the world with a flying car, one doesn't need much extra charisma, the demo does it all. I think most people would be pretty excited (or full of themselves) knowing what they were about to show.
Tesla presentations (and Musk presentations generally) have always been weirdly awkward.
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.
really weirdly awkward
> it felt unnatural and cringey.
No way?! Elon Musk? Unnatural and cringey?!
Some cars, if you have to ask what it costs, you can't afford it.
Other cars, if you have to ask where the government will allow you to drive it, you can't afford it.
This is concerning, "Delivery. You understand that Roadster isstill under development at the time you entered into this Agreement and so we cannot guarantee when your vehicle will actually be delivered or if it will be delivered.".
It's pretty cool that someone finally replicated the turbo boost jump function that K.I.T.T. had. Imagine having the boosters to avoid head on collision at 100km/h.
is the other car a roadster too? Bang! A 200km/h head on collision
100kmh+100kmh does not equal the energy of a 200kmh collision. If such a collision avoidance system existed both cars would use side thrusters to avoid each other.
As Doug DeMuro would say, this is a “rich guy go fast” car.
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 has a steering yoke. F1 cars also have a steering yoke. Are F1 cars not fun and engaging to drive?
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.
Steer by wire is fun? How? I think the wheel being directly connected to the road is more fun.
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.
2 replies →
F1 cars are not fun to drive
1 reply →
This gets more attention than it deserves.
Thrusters pointed straight back will be illegal on public roads and racetracks, as they'd throw debris at people and cars behind them. However, pointing them upward and forward could give them a chance of being legal and functional, especially for braking.
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
All currently living acme coyotes will buy this.
I genuinely didn't believe they'd ever do more than use cold gas thrusters for a lame boost effect, if at all. Happy to admit I was wrong, that was cool.
(still not buying a tesla thooughbeit)
This is not a flying car. It's a falling car. It's good at falling though.
Falling with style
it's a cat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5vsHHPVhJg
So the v2 that people put money down on 9 years ago has been thrown away. Hopefully they'll be able to easily get their money back, ideally with interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(second_generat...
Or this is what they're calling the v2 to re-hype it again.
Where's that 30k Tesla he promised. That would be a lot more useful right now, but stupid gimmicks get more attention.
I'm not an Elon fan, but the timeline here is interesting:
The Model 3 Standard was released in October 2025 priced starting at $37k.
The $7500 federal EV tax credit was scheduled to apply to that car but was killed early by the OBBBA, ending in September 2025. Had the tax credit still been in place as planned, presumably the sticker price would have made it under $30k.
It sure looks like Tesla worked hard to hit their $30k sticker price but then Congress pulled the 'ol switcheroo. Elon left the Trump administration in ~June 2025, just before the OBBBA was passed, calling the OBBBA a "disgusting abomination".
Does gyroscopic crash aversion and gentle downward deceleration count as flight? I would think not, otherwise we'd say a parachute is capable of flight.
I've yet to see this thing fly.
I bet it could clear the shark enclosure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark)
I suspect it "actually flies" much the same way the cybertruck is bullet proof and has an ultra hard stainless steel exoskeleton, in that it doesn't. This seems like smoke and mirrors conman shit pumped up to 11.
Is your assertion that the car shaped object we watched drive for a distance and then levitate over a distance was something other than a car that actually flies?
You watched a demo of a car-shaped object flying. Was it an actual car, or just a shell that looks like a car? We won't know until it's actually on sale and in customer hands what this is going to be.
It wouldn't be the first time Musk demoed something and promised something and then never ships.
6 replies →
What distance did you actually see it "drive"? There is no evidence that the car shaped object was anything but a lightweight shell using compressed air to levitate and do tricks like any modern day drone can do.
Here's an RC car that can drive on the ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uR_mNcRlNsA
14 replies →
Watch The man with the golden gun. You’ll see a car do a corkscrew jump. Does that mean all cars of that brand could do that jump?
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.
7 replies →
Would you say a bullfrog that can hop from pad to pad can fly?
8 replies →
Yes, the assertion is that it's not the car they'll sell. For example, they demo'd a "Cybertruck" with a never-before-seen durable single piece exoskeleton and then sold a Cybertruck with a unibody construction similar to the existing Honda Ridgeline.
I'd assert that it being something other than a car is an extremely reasonable assumption given all evidence available.
I certainly don't think it was a car that flies. It could be a car that can do dangerous party tricks for no practical reason but I kinda doubt that do. Hell we live in an AI world now, why are you so confident it's what they claim it is, what in Musk or Tesla's track record indicates that this is anything but a hype effort?
1 reply →
What is demo'd and what actually ships are two completely different things
I'm not saying its impossible but it seems pretty naive to just assume on face value
1 reply →
yet there's hundred if videos on yt of people shooting their cybertruck and it is indeed bullet proof vs 9mm.
the hate trains folks get on boarded onto just blind them from simple truth. yeah I'm pretty sure the road does indeed fly for short distances. yes it's totally impractical. and yet it does. and it's also quite the feat. doesn't mean one should buy it, but the blindness coming from manufactured hate is really ridiculous.
Elmo has manufactured DOGE savings. Maybe there is a connection there.
> This seems like smoke and mirrors
Technically it’s water vapor, not smoke.
The cyber truck is more bulletproof than any normal car, there are tons of videos of it stopping handgun rounds.
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.
Some old cars bodies probably could stop small pistol rounds too.
4 replies →
Your hunting rifle will also go through a cybertruck. Its side panels are proven on video to stop fat and slow handgun rounds like .45 ACP. I would bet pretty good money that if I took a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP and shot the doors of a 1970s steel monstrosity of a passenger sedan it would also dent and not penetrate the doors.
2 replies →
Maybe the most useless feature for a car. I'd imagine you need some commercial performance license to actually own this feature.
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 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.
Cars seem so full of gimmicky features these days. A friend's car yesterday stopped us when exiting because it thought we left behind belongings in the back seat - it was just an empty package. That was not something I would have ever thought a car would flag. It's not that fancy of a car (entry level SUV) but it is fairly new, it just kind of bothered me.
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.
2 replies →
150mph is the "gentleman's agreement" speed. If a car can do 150 chances are it can do 200.
2 replies →
> Also true of being able to go over 90 MPH
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.
1 reply →
>Also true of being able to go over 90 MPH,
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.
And it begins. I can't wait to hear all the ways people will poo poo this incredible tech tomorrow.
It's an awesome performance, but I don't know why you'd want this in your actual day to day car and pay a premium for it, all power to you if you do but I wouldn't call not sharing that preference 'poo pooing the incredible tech'.
Imagine driving on highway and suddenly a Tesla car fall on your car and kill the entire family
is it me or does it just look ugly?, was expecting the original roadster looks...
Tesla has been in the business of ugly cars for some time.
The original roadster was a Lotus Elise, all Tesla did was swap in an electric drivetrain.
Tesla has never really shown they can design anything compelling that doesn’t look like a lumpy shoe.
I think OP means the one they revealed 8/9 years ago, which still had a less-boxy supercar look.
1 reply →
Maybe they meant the original v2 Roadster
What??!? You don't like the design of the cybertruck?
It looks like a DeLorean to me. Someone needs to do an AI mashup taking Back to the Future and replacing the car with this.
They're probably all over X, but I wouldn't know.
I made a game so you can land your tesla https://tesla.mcnaveen.com
Meanwhile, Renault makes small and useful cars being sold more in France, for a fraction of Tesla's valuation.
By all means, enjoy your Renault.
Others have questioned the utility of this.
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.
And land where? This was a controlled, scripted stunt with no human inside. It was already risky. Using it in uneven, unmapped terrain would require real time navigation, waaaay more air time to account for those.
We don't do politics here on HN, but I wouldn't touch a needle made by one of the companies of this douchebag. I'm talking here as a consumer who might end up on the wrong side of this guy's political ambitions.
> It challenges the limits of design, engineering and physics to deliver an expertly crafted extra-terrestrial vehicle.
closed tab. thanks.
This video, like the one catching the rocket with chopsticks, is so ridiculously cool even on the 20:th rewatch.
Once was enough for me. The redbull stunts are way cooler. Check out Ken Blocks videos. Its an actual driver in an actual car. Not a plastic hull with 20 year old compressed air can technology attached to it pretending to be an actual product that will ever be made.
Like many times in the past with Elons smoke and mirrors, this will either never be delivered or will be completely watered down version of the marketed version.
>Tinted glass windows are designed to mimic the copper coating that gives spacesuit visors their gold radiance.
Aren't spacesuit visors actually gold plated, not copper?
This is an incredible feat of engineering. I have my doubts of the 2028 mass production timeline, but I am quite amazed.
Hagerty has an interview with a Tesla exec that was shot before the release. Answers a lot of the questions people have here. Really interesting https://youtu.be/22rvpUecLts?is=STsYWoVcb4W-2t4D
One interesting idea for this technology is to prevent accidents. Imagine you are about to get hit head-on by a drunk driver. If only you had a set of thrusters to lift your car at the last second. So basically use this a crash collision avoidance "before" your airbag has to go off.
I too solve my problems by getting catapulted multiple feet in the air without a clear landing plan
> Imagine you are about to get hit head-on by a drunk driver
The fact that Waymos don't get hit head-on by drunk drivers suggests this is a situational awareness versus last-minute dodge problem.
Can you think of some alternative explanations? I can.
It's a numbers game. As much time as Waymo had been on the road, it has not been long enough to hit a "drunk driver running red light" situation. It'll happen eventually.
1 reply →
I worked at Tesla when they announced the Roadster 2 and said they’d start production. That never happened. Funny to see everyone eat this up, let’s see when or if they deliver.
If you can afford something this ridiculous, then IMO you aren't being taxed enough.
Wondering how loud this would be if you were in the driver's seat or, worse, standing nearby.
Imagine if he had just come out to introduce a common sense minivan, shipping in 2027 and lower cost than the Sienna and Odyssey. There are nearly half a million minivans sold every year, I wonder if Tesla could quickly take 30% of that market with regular Tesla look (not cyber punk style).
What happened to the last one they announced? Is it just gone? are the preorders carried over?
I never thought I'd live to see K.I.T.T
I'm thinking the car from the Sega Genesis game "Outrun 2019" (and only a few years late!)
If this turns out to be real, I am happy purely on the basis of innovation.
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.
It boggles my mind that people talk about this as if it is real. It is not real. It is a marketing gimmick. Are we in a 90’s American elementary school talking about WWE wrestling, or are we tech-bro’s discussing “Elon” (first name intended)? Or is there no difference at all between the two, in terms of discernment of and interest in truth?
I guess that puts the final nail in the coffin of the 2019 Roadster that was announced but never arrived. Shame, because I loved how it looked. Some of its aesthetic lives on in the Highland Model 3 at least.
Well, there goes the share price. Dear me. It's quite amazing they have actually tried this.
[flagged]
I go back periodically and watch the bulletproof glass demo on the cyber truck.
It beggars belief that was not scripted by a comedian. Comedic timing was perfect.
you can make cars fly and people will still complain
It's not a car, it's a car shaped thing that they created for a demo. People will complain because this should not have any impact whatsoever on TSLA, but people act like it will.
That being said, the stock tanked today so I don't think most people are buying it.
2 replies →
There's a new flying car every year. They're just never very practical, so there's a lot to prove when a new design is proposed.
Of all the flying cars I've seen, this probably isn't one. It looked like a car-shaped prop.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that will require more than a scripted demo. Meanwhile, I'll let my full self-driving Tesla drive me to my workplace in the Mars colony, where I currently live. Can't wait to see my coworker, Robby the Tesla Robot.
The car part is pretty neat. I like it, though you can clearly see that they grabbed a Gallardo and stylised it a la retro-futurisric.
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 didn't fly, it landed.
> you can make cars fly and people will still complain
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.
5 replies →
If you also constantly lie, then people will complain about the lying.
[flagged]
BTW, "29 points by InsideOutSanta 11 hours ago [flagged]" is wild. How in the world did people decide to flag the most benign criticism pointing out that tons of stuff Musk demos or predicts doesn't come true?
[flagged]
[dead]
It doesn’t fly.. it falls gracefully. Please state your education on every post for now on.
Harvard, Yale, University of Texas 82
Those are institutions, not a statement of education.
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.
The point flew over your head and landed gracefully
The video goes against my intuition for how much performance you can get out of cold gas thrusters. I wonder if someone could do some back of the envelope maths on how much thrust and impulse you can get from a setup like this?
My primary scepticism is how much the prototype weighs, and whether it can still jump with 2 passengers + 1000kg of batteries inside.
Based on the statement that the suction fan generates 2g of downforce, and the telemetry showing the fan operating at 4,700 kg @ ~95% load, the Tesla Roadster weighs approximately 2,300 to 2,500 kg.
This is incredible engineering and deserves nothing but applause.
It's only incredible engineering once it performs in the hands of buyers. It's an incredible demo until then.
I thought it was less of a demo and more like perfromance art?
They still had to engineer the demo unit.
6 replies →
It's not like demos are bereft of engineering. It's still incredible engineering even if they never ship a single car.
7 replies →
Who are you to decide it's not allowed any criticism at all?
It’s a spec sheet. It will be incredible engineering when it’s in the hands of customers.
It’s incredible engineering right now.
1 reply →
This is a tech demo until it actually ships. Actual engineering requires things like cost effectiveness, reliability, and reparability that are yet to be seen.
It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.
It is incredible engineering and also a enormous waste of effort by a car company that seems to have stopped caring about releasing cars for the mass market.
Engineering is practical, not self serving entertainment. This may be classified as interesting technological study perhaps.
"My heart goes out to you"
Thank you.
o/
Uhhhh sure if rocket propulsion is fair game now? Seems a little overdone. Is my local DOT okay with this?
FINALLY! When I was in 3rd grade (1977), I checked out a book at the school library about the year 2000 and what the world would be like.
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...
I think my brother had a subscription to Quest magazine that had all manner of forecasts and predictions and I remember it having an article about a flying capsule that was part of a car that would fly away from an accident and avoid the accident. It was utter nonsense.
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.
Some comment here are pretty sad. Yeah it’s not going to be perfect for sure, yeah the rocket version is certainly not going to be road legal for the foreseeable future, but who care ?
It’s an engineering demonstration, it’s main purpose is to make people dream, generate vocation.
Because if we go by this, Apollo mission was also useless, making car who go beyond road limitation is also useless and so on. But every of those projects have serve to make some children dream, children who have made to their jobs because of theses projects.
In a world where the mood appears to push people toward depression, thank you, Tesla, for letting us remain optimistic and keep dreaming.
I fail to see anything optimistic around Musk.
It’s not Elon Musk in this garage who have conceived this car, it’s an entire teams full of people.
Because if we go into this the Apollo mission has employed literal old Nazi scientists, but nobody say today “Apollo mission was a bad thing” because of that.
I don’t care if the innovation come from somebody who doesn’t share my point of view or the other way, the innovation is the only thing to matter in this case.
This will never be allowed to be anywhere near a road I hope.
As Elon intermingles the company how are investors compensated fairly for this. What does Telsa pay SpaceX for the technology and is there a conflict of interest?
honestly both companies are getting good exposure here for relatively low lift on behalf of space-x team (it's a compressed air tank, nozzles and actuator valves).
It is hard to make that decision without a conflict of interest. How much do you charge Tesla to use SpaceX engineers? At the very least a lot of disclosures should be happening for investors on both sides.
Timelines aside, microsecond traction control paired with zero-speed active downforce is an incredible engineering benchmark. The trickle-down software logic alone will push electric powertrain boundaries.
It reminds me of Lockheed Martin's Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV-L).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC97wdQOmfI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Kill_Vehicle
Did the car technically fly? To me it seemed more like a controlled graceful landing. Would we technically call that flying?
I’d categorize it as ballistic flight. While it was able to control its pitch, yaw, and roll in midair, it did not have sufficient upward propulsive thrust to balance out or exceed the force of gravity while airborne. So it wasn’t the propulsive kind of flight, where altitude can be readily adjusted in the sense that we would expect from an “flying car”.
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.
I dig the commitment to the low poly look! Really cool and fits in with the new design direction.
It has rockets to accelerate, but no rockets to decelerate to fix a launch mistake, or a launch in the wrong direction. It's a death trap.
I must be old. I just keep thinking about what kind of whiplash I'd get with those flips
After “Autopilot“ there is now a new Tesla “Roadster”.
That can do kickflips.
1: That's an amazing demo, just fantastic. That makes me happy
2: I still want a topless Tesla that could be a good daily driver; an SL63 competitor basically. So, I'm sad.
Historians will look at this moment and go this was the beginning of the end
It’s cool, I’d love this if I had the money to afford it. Maybe in a decade, it will be more practical and have more legitimate use cases, I’m not sure!
Also a massive feat of engineering, congrats to their team.
Is this page geo-locked? All I get is a page telling me that I'm unauthorised to view the page.
Call me idiot, stupid, bastard... but in contra we call it SUBNORMALIDAD.
I don't know the practicality of this car, or if the production version will have these thrusters, but the demo was epic. It tickled my childhood dream of working with mechanical stuff.
[flagged]
Most of us could never afford a roadster in any form, and just like to see cool stuff on the internet.
It clearly does not look like a smaller Cybertruck though. You're just wrong there.
Is this cool? It seems like a typical Elon Musk thing some teenager might like, similar to a monster truck rally mixed with heavy dose of financial fraud.
2 replies →
Man, why is this comment flagged when it's probably the most relevant in the whole thread?
Those thrusters would make parking a breeze though up on a rooftop, right?
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.
It's moreover not the product that will be on sale.
It's a backpack company presenting the engineering of a jetpack to promote the sales of a premium backpack with the same name.
How dare people get excited by one of the coolest demos we've ever seen. These sort of comment are ironically almost entirely politically driven while also claiming anyone who disagrees is a secret Russian bot account.
It’s not one of the coolest demos. The iPhone was a cool demo. I could see how I would use it every day and it would bring value to my life. This looks more like bravado
3 replies →
> How dare people get excited by one of the coolest demos we've ever seen.
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.
1 reply →
Comments: Expectations set, expectations unmet. Fits a notable pattern by Musk of over promising and under delivering. In this age of misinformation, it's perhaps more painful than it could be if it were simply an amusing quirk of an eccentric billionaire.
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.
[dead]
The fact that this is not the top comment clearly speaks volumes of the current state of affairs in tech.
The comment was seven minutes old when you posted this reply, on a 19-hour-old post.
A toy for the ultra-rich. I don't see any other practical use for it, but yeah, it's cool...
I wonder if they developed something to reduce the G forces
I've been recently playing a game called Approximately Up. You start from simple building blocks, thrusters and can use the in game logic system to build complex controls. One of the things I came about to learn was something to make a hover system for my ship was a simple PID controller. The side and bottom firing thrusters just remind me of my ship in the game. While the game is oversimplified and a bit arcadey, does anyone know what actually goes into this in the real life and is the huge feat the improvement on the weight of the whole car?
SpaceX uses convex optimizers, like CVX.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-079-introduction-to-convex-opt...
I really want one of these, but more importantly I absolutely don't want my neighbor to have one. This has always been the problem with flying cars as a concept.
1. It shocks me how many people are discussing this as if it will ever even hit private collections but whatever. Whole lot of claims and demos have never made production especially from Tesla.
2. I know fuck all when it comes to real physics but there’s a lot of discussion of this “flying” and some serious napkin math. The demo has this falling, stopping momentum, and landing. Is that demonstration of enough force to produce reliable lift from the ground?
My crap knowledge can come up with arguments either way but I’m leaning towards you can’t possibly have enough force to leave the ground and land safely?
If you have 2.5 seconds of thrust you have 1.25 seconds to use to get off the ground and 1.25 seconds to stop you from absolutely destroying the car as it pounds into the ground in my shit math world, and I feel like there’s no way you could even concept car demo that?
I wonder what the potential applications of this technology could be for emergency vehicles (fire trucks, rescue vehicles, police cars, ambulance, etc.). And, of course … for the military.
Nothing. Single-person VTOLs are a 70 year old technology and lose out to helicopters in both markets.
We were promised flying cars, all we got was a jumping car.
Once. Every six hours [1].
[1] further conditions may apply.
How did they get it to stick to the track just hanging there. It didn’t look real at all.
Finally. We've been waiting for flying cars for a while now!
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.
Finally. We've been waiting for flying cars for a while now!
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.
What a weird fever dream of a product.
All cars can fly, if you put the effort in.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aVjlh_QGKi0
I will wait for any other company to build one
The real feat would be to actually ship the gas-equipped models. The on-stage demonstration was certainly quite impressive but handling real world terrain is a whole different story. Not to mention compensating for drivers who will skew lead-footed without any experience of handling a third dimension.
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.
The suction and air recovery part might be forward thinking for how we design roads or tunnels. They might not all need to be flat. Especially when autonomous.
So the CyberCab will drive on the ceiling of the Boring Company’s tunnel?
Definitely not upside down, I was thinking of short inclines, possible as a sort of tunnel bypass. Assuming all the cars are networked for mechanical failures and the batteries can handle it. But that's only after the 5 minutes I spent considering the idea and mostly stolen from I Robot movie like most of Tesla's ideas.
5 replies →
also parking.
This is bending over backwards so hard I think you had to invent new geometry and discover new dimensions.
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.
Looks like the Ford GT90.
https://news.dupontregistry.com/blogs/ford-news/whatever-hap...
There are a lot of accusations and predictions in this thread. I think it will be fun to come back in 2029 and see how they fared.
This car shouldn't be considered just a car. From now on, automotive technology will be used in completely different ways. For example, off-road jeeps may no longer need to cross water.
Stop digging for hidden layers and just be impressed.
I like the spirit
sometimes u gotta just ignore economics and instead make history!
I was making my way on my rented scooter to drone bomb the Bezos BrainVat R&D center when the new model Roadster suddenly swooped over me in a mighty roar of liberated gas. Oh no, I thought! My mission is in jeopardy... but this is unparalleled quality content for the livestream viewers. I could see the Roadster's laser assembly lazily begin to track me, as if controlled by a joystick. A human pilot! Probably some one percenter out on a pleb hunt. The fool thought that I was unarmed. Heroically, I banked the scooter in a sharp turn while the machine gun on its back acquired the target, multiplying matrices furiously on its ancient low-fi GPU. As flames began to pour from the flying vehicle, I angled the scooter around a corner, timing it so that my black outfit would blur into the Apple ad projected on the side of the building. The Roadster's pilot was leaning out of the window screaming in rage and fear as his machine began a fiery descent toward the city shelter for abandoned kittens. I was torn between feeling bad for the kittens and giving in to the dopamine surge in my cortex as my viewer count climbed toward the stratosphere.
Technically impressive, but hostile to everyone else on the road, i.m.o., similarly to the Cybertruck. Shows the lack of egalitarianism in our public spaces.
Wow, cool aesthetic. I feel like the this is what the cybertruck should have looked like but they didn't quite finish the design.
Why not just put wheels on a helicopter?
If this helps accelerate the case for a Tesla-SpaceX merger just a tiny bit, it's well worth the investment (for Musk).
Does anyone know what sort of fuel the cold-gas thrusters use? It seems like it would likely end up as an environmental contaminant.
It's regular air. It doesn't need any special propellant.
I can't wait for them to never actually produce this or, if I'm wrong and they do, I can't wait for someone to seriously injure themselves or someone else.
Not everything has to be about safety. Motorbikes are extremely dangerous. Wingsuits are absurdly dangerous.
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.
So this is a completely obvious scam, right? I don't see anyone else calling this out and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
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?
I feel like it's also crazy irresponsible to sell this deathtrap to the public, since it's pretty much guaranteed buyers will joyride this on public roads.
- 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.
It isn't being sold to the public. Of the three versions, the one that is "road ready" doesn't have the gimmicky thrusters. The one that is displayed is available by invite only, and even if you have a quarter of a million to reserve the racing model, you aren't likely to get a license plate for use on public roads.
They're not selling this to the public.
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.
5 replies →
No kidding. Musk is SIX YEARS late on delivering the previous version of the roadster, which has been superseded by today's announcement, promising its delivery in a few years, and everyone is just lappin' it up.
Who cares about six years, thats the past.
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.
The people lapping it up aren't prospective customers, they're just people enjoying the spectacle.
Well we could examine the history here, for instance when he bought Twitter that it would immediately collapse (now its more popular than ever and Bluesky is the one that's falling apart) and when the Cybertruck was announced there were lots of people saying it could never be made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602437
You forgot about how everyone was insisting the Hyperloop would never work and then it became the principal mode of transportation. Or how we couldn't possibly have a Mars colony in 2024. Or how twitter would never become the West's everything app. Etc.
I'll just leave this here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
Elon Musk causes incredible amounts of historical non-examination. There are now so many examples that it's actually difficult to list them all. My guess is that people just get very confused by the difference between late delivery and non-delivery.
1 reply →
It’s crazy how many Cybertrucks I see in my hometown, and I don’t live in that big of a city. They are incredibly popular. This car will be incredibly popular to. Peoples are getting bent out of shape about the “thrust” and “rocket” variants, but who cares? Those will be few and far between. For rich collectors mostly. How about just the base model? It looks wild, I’m sure it will be fun as hell to drive. They are going to sell a ton of these things.
9 replies →
Well I see no numbers saying how long it will fly. Perhaps it "hops", could easily see that happening with a burst of air below the car. (While standing still, accelerating the car upwards for 1 second with a burst of air)
This is not flying, it's a semi-controlled crash landing.
https://x.com/tesla/status/2110913438293647789/video/1
Looks like 4 seconds or so.
3 replies →
My big question is, would anyone want one? It's an interesting life size hotwheels car but who would want one other than to show at a monster truck rally. The original Tesla Roadster was a masterpiece compared to this new one. Talk about missing the mark by a mile...
> who would want one
The Tumbler? Oh, you wouldn't be interested in that.
> The thing that they showed off isn't something that they could legally sell
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.
I suppose at least we can say there is a working car that seems to be able to actually do the things as advertised, which is more than one could ever say for e.g. the Moller Skycar.
Also let’s talk about the production of the video. It had all the signs of those magic videos you can find on YouTube where the trick is only a camera trick. Dark background, you never see the entirety of the audience, it’s all camera cuts. I’m sure it’s not fake per say but it’s super weird still.
I was #12 Tesla Roadster owner. I spoke across the country with my father. We drove from coast to coast in 2014 at a time when there was a lot of doubt. — I supported elons “mission” and now we know it’s a neo Nazi front of a company. This company and Elon has been a scam since he stole JB Straubel. How do I know? JB Straubel is my father.
I can't make soup of this. Your dad is a billionaire and you're left to fend for yourself? That's got to be some story.
2 replies →
Elon is my dad and he could beat up your dad
[dead]
JB Straubel married in 2013. Unless you're 13 years old, JB Straubel isn't your father.
That kind of liar is what I would expect of someone who goes around claiming Elon's a Nazi though.
2 replies →
Neo Nazi? Seems a bit much.
27 replies →
McMurtry Spéirling is 900 kg with 1000hp and 100KW battery and 2000 kg suction fan.
Flying / rocket acceleration are special versions they can sell one offs capable of doing the stunt once per canister change.
Flying is obviously a gimmick, but when Elon said this will crush all track records he wasn’t kidding.
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.
If they could have they would have shown it.
5 replies →
That’s why it’s invite only.
If you wanted another pretext to merge Tesla and SpaceX this would be a good way.
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”
A pretext that convinces the most credulous people on the planet. Clever guy this Musk.
I mean is it ever actually being released? probably not.
Was it a an amazing demo? yes.
What are you talking about re: the battery pack?
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is an especially interesting comment given that it misunderstands the Dropbox comment in the common way.
I think calling it a scam is a crazy thing to say. Tesla has never not (eventually) shipped a product they said they would .
Also yes you can legally sell it. Whether you can legally operate it is a different question.
May I remind you of the promised 90 second battery swap…13 years ago? https://youtu.be/Oj6LaYFall4?si=RGE8mbZQFdElq0sq
5 replies →
The roadster hasn't shipped after 9 years. Including a referral program for preorders. I find it incredibly more insane to be trusting of this
There are a long list of cars that have not-really-legal abilities.
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 second generation Roadster (reservations for which opened in 2017) literally is the product they didn't ship.
Also Cybercab.
How many Optimus robots are out in the wild?
It is a scam, 100%.
6 replies →
He actually says in the video that it might not be legal to operate but they could still sell you one. Anything is legal off-road on your own private property.
4 replies →
He took preorders for the roadster nine years ago. It never shipped.
5 replies →
this is a new roadster, the previous roadster hasnt sold a unit
4 replies →
I think it’s real, the “invite only” version could probably do the kickflip over the semis, but would probably completely exhaust the tanks and require special equipment to refill or take hours with an onboard pump. And the flip is certainly a scripted stunt, not something you’d actually be able to do live. The math doesn’t seem to be completely unreasonable as a one off demo
They said there is a compressor to re-pressurize the tanks while driving. It made it sound like a power-up in a video game. You can't use it all the time, but if you wait for it to charge up, use it as many times as you want.
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.
1 reply →
I wouldn't be surprised if the presented "invite-only" variant will mostly be aimed at Saudi investors, and they will get an invite if they invest a billion into the company.
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)
When I searched for Tesla on YouTube at the start of the event, the first live event returned was this, an AI generated Tesla presentation with Elon telling users to send bitcoin and he'll send you back double as a promotional event like an X Money thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5EDp2rEbFA. The QR code went to this site: https://roadster.tv. I reported it to YouTube.
Why are you reposting links to scams?
1 reply →
https://roadster.tv/.netlify/functions/redirect
China has had flying cars since 2023 so I don't see how this is a scam. The flying mechanism is unique for the Roadster so that's still to be seen how it would perform out in public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZpQZSBTi7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2c-B3y7yGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU5viDOjWLw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSjXf7IUSDw
I mean, Tesla demoed, promised, and took reservation money for a roadster reboot that _also_ didn't contain any technology China didn't have in 2017, and at this point they still haven't delivered on that and it feels safe to call it a scam.
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).
1 reply →
wow i did not realise this. are there videos of these flying cars? can you buy them?
4 replies →
none of these are videos of flying cars
I mean it looks cool but considering they haven't produced any of the other Roadster models in any meaningful quantity, and have repeatedly come up short on much more reasonable product offerings... Idk I have just the slightest doubt about a flying electric car hitting the market any time soon. Hasn't it been nearly a decade since the promise of a software update that would turn your Tesla into a self-driving taxi that can earn money while you're not using it?
At least this one doesn't look horrible. I can't see myself buying it, but I don't feel like I want to gag either.
“This isn’t flying, this is falling with style.” - Buzz
Flying cars before GTA6.
Rockstar better get to work adding this car to the game.
People who already have a Veyron should go for this.
It's very impressive. Not useful, but impressive.
there are approximately 450 in existence.. (ever made) Lets assume this car costs 1M each. (i bet its less) so if they sold 450 of these they'd make less than 500 million.
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 suspect the blooper reel is less interesting than we’d expect. SpaceX has demonstrated competency at putting cold gas thrusters on arbitrary masses and making them move as desired.
Even in HN, I'll never cease to be amused at the amount of people who fall for Elon's smoke and mirrors.
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
So has he hired anyone who does not exist to champion the cause of the innocent and helpless in a world of criminals who operate above the law?
This reminds me of why Dieter Rams never designed a car: "Rams expressed irritation that the automotive industry has historically focused on building faster cars rather than rethinking the transportation system as a whole to genuinely serve society."
I personally see this like a 1UP for rich idiots that are about to drive themselves into oblivion. Beats the solution in Demolition Man.
The engineering team did an amazing job!
Great, now how about putting some of those amazing engineering brain cells into solving the impending water crisis.
[flagged]
I hate Tesla for their politics, broken promises, and all the drama that we are all aware and tired of hearing about. That being said, that was the coolest damn thing I've ever seen a car do.
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.
Very cool stuff but all the "extra-terrestrial" stuff is complete bunk. This thing wouldn't survive Max-Q, let alone any kind of landing that isn't on a clean slab of concrete. It's a cool rich person toy, no other notes.
You miss my point. They're demonstrating a landing system, it's just wrapped up in a car to fool the idiots that are going to pre-purchase it again so they can use that money to build more space X technology.
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.
2 replies →
What is this wonderful "autonomous delivery vehicle" capable of delivering?
Also, assuming the delivery vehicle is destroyed at the end of each "delivery", what will it cost?
...why would you assume it would be destroyed? What even is your point?
I think you are on an entirely different page.
It is really awesome, but seems like it's the start between Tesla and SpaceX acquisition
Not beating the "Elon is 12" allegations any time soon.
If helipads can only handle one chopper ever few minutes, and they are surrounded by clear and open space, then that tells you that theres no way flying cars with the frequency of typical roads or even quite streets will ever happen.
I think that's to do with the wake/vortices a helicopter creates. Apparently, the effect is so strong that it can affect lift in a fairly large area over a few minutes. There's a recent case where a light plane took off in the neighborhood of a heli that just landed, and it veers off course, and hits the heli.
Thats thats just one part of the problem of flying machines.
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 am amazed at how steady and in control the car was when flipping and jumping. If that kind of control on a vehicle is achieved today, it seems like flying car tech just took a giant lurch forward. Just in time for America's crumbling road infrastructure.
It's great to watch these types of videos and tech ideas. It makes me really happy.
It seems it's not a convertible anymore? Which means it shouldn't be called a Roadster.
Whatever millions they spent on developing this car, are dwarfed by the amount this press coverage is worth.
Reminds me quite a bit about Compressed Gas Supercharging:
https://casupercharging.com/
Just curious: Was there a demo of a stable straight jump as well, or always barrel-rolls?
It must be incredibly difficult to keep the car stable while mid-air at low speeds, I suspect it wouldn't look that "elegant"...
Wasn’t stable. The straight jump they did was more like a mini rocket launch over some parked cars.
You’d want something that smoothly hovers rather than a launch then catch with boosters.
the jump over the cars I saw also had a barrel-roll as soon as the thrust of lifting off was over.
Was there a second jump without a roll?
2 replies →
In the kickflip video it launches straight up and then proceeds to do a flip mid jump. The straight takeoff looks pretty solid to me.
On takeoff you can stabilize against opposing forces, so especially without the weight or inertia of a driver it is quite straight (rockets also don't need to stabilize on take-off).
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...
Is the copy grok's writing style? It feels inhuman but still more readable than Opus
They wanted to copy the McLaren F1, but didn't have the guts to do a central driving seat.
If I'm understanding this correctly, it uses the electric motor to compress air into large tanks? How much thrust could that generate (and for how long)? It'd be amazing to jump over East River or the Hudson.
So where is FSD that has been promised since 2017?
Cool stunt car though
Would not want to stand near this.
This is a showpiece at this point. but I can see these on the roads in ~10 years; but it felt more like a frog car than a flying car? in my mind flying quadcopters felt much safer in videos than this frog. It feels overly complicated based on what i have read; rocket boosters?? why? quadcopters and other flying taxis seem much more economical and using tech that's been reliable for at least last 20 years.
Why Musk would spend probably tens of millions of dollars on this prototype which clearly will never be drivable on roads. One explanation is he is a trillionaire and the 14 year old in him thinks it would simply be cool to do it.
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.
> other companies are catching up
Catching up? BYD has already surpassed Tesla and looks like the gap is going to continue to grow.
It is because he is very desperate for nerds to think he is cool so he lies and does PR stunts to that end and it works
Absolutely, but an even more likely explanation is that he's going to "acquire" Tesla with Space X and pay a premium (on top of the 330 P/E!). The SEC in this country is completely useless. Sure you can't invest in private companies if you're not an "accredited investor" but Musk is free to scam trillions of dollars.
Is this your first time seeing a concept car?
with a preorder button, yes.
> One explanation is he is a trillionaire and the 14 year old in him
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.
in my opinion, this kind of technology is, at best, only gonna be feasible and most importantly allowed, for automatic safety systems in case someone falls of a cliff or a similar situations.
This seems less like a consumer product than a stock market demonstration of the supposed synergies of merging SpaceX and Tesla.
Still waiting for the autonomous charging arm that you aren't supposed to bend down near.
You can hate the man, but you must respect him. Flying cars have truly arrived.
No they haven't? It can hop at best, in a demo unit, designed specifically for that demo.
Correct. I will wait until Elon does a flip in it himself.
No. Respect is earned.
Nice Testarossa!
This sounds more or less like the car my 5 year old son dreamed up a few months back: "Dad, dad! What if we put a bunch of rocket thrusters on the bottom of an electric car? We could even add a really powerful fan as well. And then the car could just hover past traffic jams, and it could even drive along walls or upside down if you put the fans in reverse!".
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.
> an expertly crafted extra-terrestrial vehicle.
hmmmm. spacex-tesla merger signalling?
Isn't it weird for Tesla to start adding non-electric propulsion to their car?
Totally thought this was AI when I first saw this.
And I though the BYD U9 jumping car was a gimmick...
I do find it extremely comical that they're advertising this as a flying car when this thing uses attitude thrusters for liftoff within the atmosphere of earth. That's like, jumping, bro. There's no way you're flying with this.
If used on public streets, these thrusters could easily maim/kill people- reckless to include them on a car.
The one with the actual rocket engine is not being sold to the public and Tesla website explicitly states it's not legal to drive it on public roads. It's mostly just a cool demo/prototype and I'm sure there will be privately run tracks that let people drive one.
The generally available car will have cold-gas thrusters which boost acceleration but is nothing like what was demo'd.
It's mostly just stock fraud and laying the way for the Space X acquisition of Tesla at a hyper inflated valuation.
Teslas already have very strict (annoyingly strict) gating keeping specific functionality off of public roads (Summon). The drag mode thruster-assisted boost will probably leverage that. I also imagine that cameras on the car would stop it from being engaged if it detects humans in its firing area even when not on public roads.
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.
There is no world in which that car comes off the lot for $1M. That’s a $5M car, minimum
In a video by Hagerty’s, Tesla claimed that both variants will be sold, for whatever that’s worth.
1 reply →
So it's a car for wankers. Makes sense.
And it's sure going to increase the blast radius when these get into a collision. Even if you can't fire the thrusters, that pressurized tank can't be safe.
I’m no Musk fan but I found it cool and try to balance my negativity towards the person with what I’m seeing.
Plenty of ways to maim/kill people in traditional cars already and I doubt this will be the most common one in roadsters.
I have a friend who drives a Tesla (hates it but signed a lease). On several occasions he has been unable to get into his car when his phone had no battery and he uses it as a key. I'm sure he could use a real car key but that would probably be incredibly inconvenient to carry around.
Rocket-inspired design hints at desire to merge Tesla and SpaceX?
I no longer like Elon and Tesla but, damn, that's a great looking Lamborghini, and a cool stunt to launch it!
Nice way to insult Lamborghini ?
What's up with wheels not being round anymore? How is that supposed to work? I understand it for Formula 1, but for real world driving, it doesn't make any sense
What kind of car doesn't have round wheels? This comment section must be the craziest I have seen so far on HN:
They're talking about the steering wheel, champ.
My bad, I made a typo. I meant "wheel" not "wheels"
Probably among the least comfortable cars to be hit by as a pedestrian or cyclist.
Did you see 0 to 60 in 0.81 second, now THAT is flying!
It would have been more impressive with a human in the car during some of the stunts.
Get a few cervical collars ready, first.
I don't know why - they said there was a significant chance of failure, they have quite mature technology for it to be driverless. What's the point of putting a meat puppet in there?
Why?
Is that the Draco engine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Draco
No, they're cold gas thrusters. The car has an air compressor, a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) and 10 nozzles.
Tesla faking it at its best !
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).
Every car manufacturer creates concepts that they never plan on shipping. The goal is to attract engineering talent and do deep research. I’m curious at what price they’d need to sell it to break even…? Probably upwards of $50-100M
Yep, but other manufacturers don't pretend it's a real car that will start shipping soon !
A circus showing these would never recoup the cost of even one being built, hah. But it is very cool. It's also neat to see the Brabham BT46 make a return after like 50 years.
And I don't go to the circus to see expensive engineering. I go to the circus to see individuals doing amazing stuff.
1 reply →
Something is very wrong with how that car travelled at the top of the ramp.
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.
I am actually seeing what I envisioned growing up. Pretty exciting times!
The lack of imagination in this thread is appalling. Especially given this crowd.
'Thrust' version takes $245,000 of downpayment (not the flying version that is 'invite only'). That money is neither escrowed nor earns an interest.
With high interest rate and tight money supply, this could get them a few billion dollars of 'customer financing'.
Was there any demo showing the car stabilized mid-air?
It appears like they always did a barrel-roll because the car is simply not stable after take-off...
What's with the ugly design these days... even that new electric Ferrari just look terrible coming from Ferrari not even the right color
we humans are really responsible drivers and we definitely deserve these flying maneuvers on public transportation. there won't be any problems. i assure you.
The corpses that this thing generates will be astonishing.
[flagged]
Sure. But it's also what a horse and buggy owner would say to "make the horse go faster by giving it a lethal dose of laxatives, the poop will propel you".
Not every criticism from someone with a conflict of interest is invalid.
1 reply →
God I REALLY hope all the Musk dickriders get this car and blast themselves into smithereens, it'd be so fucking funny
With such a powerful suction system, I can see this replacing street-sweeping trucks in a few years.
I you sweep up an hedgehog, will it be thrown out through the exhaust?
Sure, you'll get a finely chopped hedgehog [1] (the video doesn't depict any animals, it shows roadster suction fans). Things happen. With a conventional car you can get a tendered deer.
[1] https://youtu.be/_lq-DpCE9rU?t=1011
Or a banana. Mario Kart suddenly starts making sense.
Other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50112380
Screw the car, sell me a spaceship!
we humans are really responsible drivers and we definitely deserve these flying maneuvers on vehicle traffic. there won't be any problems. i assure you.
Wasn't the positioning of Tesla "electric" cars??? Now they make rockets, that will probably never be street legal anywhere? And the public likes it? From a man who did the Nazi salute and destroyed USAid (killing thousands of children in the process)? What's wrong with people.
Flies, or jumps?
Dunno. Looks like it jumps. Fying seems to require some degree of control over direction but I'm just a gravity-impaired bidep.
Finally a vehicle for Bangalore!
interesting they're going back to the fixed-seat bench design of the 40's-60's kind of car design - didn't know these were allowed anymore
also wonder how comfy that is? i kind of welcome it tho!
I have no words. Its like Elon asked Grok where can I take my business, and it suggested combine rockets and cars.
Good for a date I suppose. It has the suspension bridge effect.
Elon definitely played too much Rocked Leag
There’s a phrase I often used to use when referring to Elon Musk: Don’t bet against Elon.
> Note: Not approved for public road use.
Rocket trim is not street legal.
The PT Barnum of the 21st century
Flying car? That looks more like a jumping car to me - great engineering but a bit misleading imho.
It should have been a Delorean.... Still cool though
At this point Tesla is basically Acme Inc.
It can fly? Wow! What a time to be alive!
Is this legal to have on street cars?
No
Awesome technical demo (assuming these weren't prop cars). Painfully awkward presentation.
It could have military applications; it's hard to imagine any civilian applications.
in theory it could avoid car crashes in practice the dudes that buy these cars will probably cause more crashes;)
At least the fans will allow for really short breaking distances.
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.
idk about the safety of involving jumping cars into car crashes, I'd still prefer the brakes (obviously not always enough time). The one useful situation I could see is if you're driving (accidentally I hope) off a cliff.
Is this a broken link for anyone else?
Misdirection
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...
Misdirection only works if you cash in during the interval immediately after the misdirect before the subject can refocus.
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.
It's ok they'll merge with space x and basically be part of the US military which means sales figures won't matter anymore
This would only work until the next Democratic administration, at this point he's put almost half a billion dollars into Republican pockets. All it takes is one President AOC to pull every government contract he has. And he knows this, hence the election spending.
Tesla board meeting last week: Board: So guys, our sales are slumping. What do we do? Elon: I have this cool idea...
> Tesla Sales Slump in Third Quarter
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.
The Mother of All Car Demos.
The inspiration from the F35 seems to be quite literal. Spent a lot of time and money making vertical takeoff happen, but forgot to give the vehicle any useful capability once it's actually in the air.
This is false. It's being fielded in large quantities by militaries all over the world as a workhouse multirole fighter. Additionally, it's the best STOVL and SEAD aircraft ever produced.
Ready to buy and sue for fraud
Given how Tesla's profitability nearly vanished due to Elon outing himself with the "roman salute", I don't see why he thinks his company will be around long enough to actually get this out the door.
I have no reason to believe this isn't another Deplorean.
Invite Only on the Rocket Version: Word on the street is you have to provide proof you voted Republican ticket to qualify ...
The rocket flip part looks like CGI, in my opinion. I get the same feeling as when I see CGI on some random B movie. Would be happy to be proven wrong if there was a crowd of people filming from their angle though.
Also "Beyond The Limits of Physics"... would any actual engineers at Tesla/SpaceX agree with that marketing statement?
https://x.com/itskyleconner/status/2110901867823718434
Thank you!
Crash test rating: undefined
So it can fly?
Just like we will have 1 million robotaxis on the streets by 2021?
EDIT: wow it really can fly, that is crazy
Invite-only variant can jump, not fly. Other two variants can't jump.
When I saw the headlines “Tesla shows flying car” I got excited, then watched the demo and was thoroughly disappointed. How can anyone write that headline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Coming_Out_of_Her_Well
If someone cares so much about flying, wouldn't they get much better range out of a helicopter?
Tesla hitting their lambo era?
Can't wait for these things to endanger my family's life on some Colorado mountain highways. If the suction works at speed, people are gonna drive even more recklessly.
The suction can only work on a cleaned track. On a standard public road, they have to deal with capturing and disposing debris.
Thankfully this will never hit the road, it's just market manipulation.
It absolutely will hit the road. It's just how gravity works.
But hey, 0 to 60mph in 2.7 seconds isn't bad, assuming that ramp is 37 metres high...
What do you mean “just market manipulation”?
There’s no engineering advancement here?
I sure hope they don’t hit the road. Seems like an obviously novel (and terrifying) consumer technology
5 replies →
Didn’t expect an ad of a company with a muss murder aiding and abetting CEO staying so long on the front page.
What, no Trixie or Chim-Chim?
Am I missing something? At what point did the car fly?
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.
There is a video where it is flying over some other Teslas. Actually taking off, barrel roll and landing
It flies the same as a chicken. Cushion and long jumps but not flying as in flying car or plane.
More like a turkey.
There were multiple demos; its possible you only saw one, and then raced to comment about something you had incomplete knowledge about.
"It's not flying, it's falling with style!"
I think this is pretty unique demonstration for something that theoretically may be street legal one day.
yes it cushioned the fall, but not sure if it was overly modified beyond realistic car weight for production / public.
Yes, you missed the middle of the video.
A car that jumps - am I missing something? The speed numbers are cool.
Very impressive prototype. Certainly an attempt to disrupt a specific segment of the car industry - "race cars", or "sports cars", or whatever you want to call it.
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.
As a father of a growing family, I am still waiting for the RoBovan.
Is there a betting market for if this car actually ships or? Cuz I don’t think it will.
This sounds exactly like what John Carmack discussed on Episode #309 of the Lex Fridman Podcast.
What a downgrade from the renders we've seen so far.
Potholes no longer an issue, just hop over them.
I'm no Musk fan. Like totally repulsed by the dude. But the comments here that there's nothing interesting about the demos are some serious cope. It's this kind of reality-bending bias that makes people disregard everything you have to say. When someone you hate creates something incredible, it's probably best to say nothing because any attempt to convince people otherwise will just backfire.
we're increasingly entering an era where holistic package matters more than cool one offs. musk is an asshole so he taints everything he does, even if it's kinda cool you're instantly reminded that tesla ships later(or never) and cybertruck isn't that good of a product. oh a car his company made did a 180 loop and landed an aileron roll? fuck you he was part of doge etc etc same with zucc or any of the "visionaries" nowadays, they have so much history that the forward momentum they need for anything is crazy.
That’s fine. You can say “that’s a cool car but I’m worried it will end like the cybertruck” or “that’s a cool car and he’s a deadbeat dad”, but there are so many people in the comments saying things about how the car isn’t doing anything novel or interesting and that’s just ridiculous. It’s straight up sci-fi.
There already are real flying cars though. They are vehicles with wings that extend out from the car's body and can take short flights. They fly in the sense of what people expect from any other plane -- and thus need flat ground to act as a run way. None of these designs use cold air thrusters because its simply not viable for extended flight.
The reason thrusters work well in space is minimal weight there. You need to work many times harder on Earth to counter act the weight of the object here.
The thing that made the design of the original Tesla cars successful, before they went all in on this "future looks like the future" idiocy, is that they just looked good. Tasteful. All that crazy new tech was put in a package which hid it and it just became a sleek, good looking car on the road. Now Tesla design is obsessed with it cosplaying a Ridley Scott 80's wet dream and it looks stupid. The cars look like a show at universal studios theme park. When you do the "future looks like the future" it's always a sci-fi author's idea of "the future" which is cheesy and outdated as soon as its done. This is a boomer's idea of "future" aesthetics and it's not what the actual future looks like.
A though for the people doing the "boring" engineering at Tesla (like, you know, enhancing the range of the vehicles, improving security, making FSD closer to reality, etc...), who used to get some light (remember "battery day" ?), and are now on the backbench while the sycophants gets the budget for vanity projects like this. At least, at Tesla, the sycophants are _smart_ and pull out cool demos. Not the case in every "new clothes" kingdom.
No way this is road legal in any country lmao
Very useful in England’s countryside, imagine all the puddles you can jump over! Eliminate these passing bays when cars can jump over each other in the narrow lanes!
so, can I program it over an API ?
Can I put it under grokbot's control?
Back in the days we used to call these kind of demo cars as concept cars which rarely see the markete. But Kudos to Elon Musk who single handedly running entire Tesla's marketing compaign and keep its stocks and markete value higher than the next 10 car brands combined. Tesla Robots, Robotaxies and now Roadster, these are R&D and concept projects.
That surpassed all expectations.
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.
$100M to boost Tesla shares by billions of $, how generous...
Hundreds of thousands of dead Africans may not be so happy he exists.
Unavailable to visit?
well Im suitably impressed
Looks like Tesla didn’t learn from the abject cybertruck failure
You guys. They made a car fly. It was damn cool. I know there’s more to the story and we all need a “take” but I remember watching Speed Racer as a kid and being totally enchanted by the idea of a flying car.
Yesterday, that’s exactly what we saw and it’s ok to just enjoy the spectacle.
EPA won't like the gas emission
It's compressed air.
Nitrogen specifically
Paid subscriptions everyere, I bet.
Jumping my way out of traffic.
When I first saw this I was convinced it was AI slop. Nope! This is absolutely incredible. I've also never really resonated with Tesla aesthetic in the past but they really nailed it here imo. This car looks phenomenal - I hope this style trickles down to other models.
If this is real, it's going to kill people.
So they are going to send one of to space again?
I recall that about 8 (10?) years ago the “Roadster 2” was advertised. Am I correct that that was repeatedly delayed and never delivered?
My sense is that this is just more Elon Musk bullshit that will never materialize.
Even if it does, these features aren't useful and can't be used in any realistic scenario. At best they're just party tricks.
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.
Control theory is classical. We did it in 1960. Why would you think it requires ML?
Absolutely incredible demo. Jesus Christ, I don't know what I was expecting. Didn't know this was planned and skipped forward to see what they were showing off and thought it was CGI for how outlandish it is. My god, man. This is amazing.
Are they serious about the rocket version??
Since some there's some misinformation in the top comment right now, here's a video with a lot more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts
Loadstir, more like.
Very COOL, I like this Roadster retro style
No windshield wiper?
Doesn’t matter, it can’t get wet
What a beautiful car!
Fool me once, shame on you. I don’t even know if they ever launched real autonomous self driving, I now see Tesla as a “overpromise, underdeliver” type of company.
When Musk does first principle thinking he’s unbeatable. When his inner child gets involved anyone can beat him.
This is the latter. Four propulsion mechanism that introduce tradeoffs in the structure that remove value for 99% of people.
of all the things you could do for the world.
No doubt, exceptional engineering achievement.
But, I just wish it didn't resemble a Lamborghini so much.
The unreleased roadster (2017) looked amazing. Tesla is capable of incredible totally original design.
Amazing demo.
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".
I mean, this is the gimmicky of gimmicks for the ultra-rich.
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".
> and other people
That's the bit where we diverge.
Did anyone else feel like Elon and the execs just didn’t really even bother trying with the presentation? The car is a unique and incredible achievement so on the one hand, they’ve earned the right to embarrassing-divorced-dad gas-station-flowers it during the reveal presentation. Maybe they could have been even sloppier, and literally just a-whooped and a-hollered and shouted “this is cool as fuck!” and it would’ve been just as fine.
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!
He literally made good on the long time promise of FLYING CARS and this is not the top post????
this site just toast
It's a tech demo marketing presentation with a jumping car in it, not a flying one. It does look pretty cool though. Let's first wait and see if/when this will even be available and not just a marketing stunt.
It accelerates and maneuvers in-air, that is not a "jump". It legit flies.
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.
5 replies →
Most roadways in the US are lined with wooden poles supporting wires with electricity running through them
Will this car ever ship?
Incredible.
I absolutely detest the leadership and what he is actively doing to this country... but holy fucking shit. I want to reserve one, but when you're broke as a joke... ooph.
Ok, it's cool. Now, why Musk betrayed Ukraine?
At this point this is some sort of IQ test right?
Sorry about the eggs honey, I had to use the thrusters to get past this cyclist.
Reading some of this feels like I’m having a stroke.
>This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
Neat car though.
They combined all of the things that Formula 1 should never have restricted in one car. Damn impressive.
We are a nation of dullards, entertained away from our real problems by billionaires jingling keys in our faces.
More like they've strapped us to the chair, and now are dangling the keys trying to convince us it's our moral failing that the keys are in our face.
When I first saw the car slowly invert and stay inverted on the ramp...."what the heck am I looking at exactly?"
Amazing suction power. Waiting to see a video of its crazy turning power.
Anyone really wanting to give more money to Musk?
He recently shut down Starlink, weakening Ukrainians.
I really don't think people should feed that billionaire any more, no matter the reason.
I have to be honest, I am a bit dismayed and sad to see so many negative, hostile, demeaning, and minimizing comments about this announcement. It really makes me sad, because without big dreams a society will cease to grow. It seems that either thick ideological lenses or righteous "this won't be mass produced" optics won't let some of us here appreciate the incredible anymore. I found the flying car awe inspiring and it made me dream and appreciate the incredible feats of progress our civilisation is capable of. I for one welcome our God of demos of awesome tech and honestly fuck everyone else.
“big dreams”: it’s a car.
as I was saying :D, sad.
[dead]
If it allows me to fly over a traffic jam, I'll buy it
This thread is insane. I'm seeing people actually acting like the world's biggest conman is going to deliver a car with thrusters on it. They have given it 2800 comments worth of attention and counting. It is the most commented thread on HN in a year, and I only went back a year in my search. No, it's not lost on me that I just increased that count by one.
My guys. Talking about how it's going to work and the merits of cold gas thrusters on cars is moot. I assure you that you will never, ever see one of these sold to the public or on the road.
"On the road".
Just don't press the button where you have wires over the road... or anything hanging over the road... like signs...Don't press the button when you are about to go into a tunnel... or inside the tunnel... Also, check your passengers have finished their shakes, coffee, and other liquids...
Who is the impressive to? 12 year old boys and Elon Musk?
Elon should read Anti-Grav Unlimited. It's a good book, actually a very good book. We want that tech. Time to invent the antigravity rods. AI is here, sorry, SuperIntelligence is here, AGI is on the doorstep, just ask the SOTA models to figure it out.
cool asf
"grok, my flying tesla is dirty and there is a carwash 50 metres away. should i walk, drive or fly?"
I'd buy one for the police chases. Hell yes. Not that I'm in the billionaire invite-only inner circle, and not that they'll ever ship it.
This is pure marketing fluff. No way in hell this would ever make it into a street legal car.
It's a cool demo and all but I can't help but feel like it's not that impressive considering these companies control such an absurd amount of capital and this is all they can do with it. A stunt for a launch showing off features that obviously won't be in any real product.
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.
> it's not that impressive co
you have to be pretty jaded to think a car that can fly through the air is not impressive.
I mean if I saw this at a monster truck derby I would think it was cool. When it's companies that represent trillions of dollars it feels a little underwhelming I was expecting more. It's also clearly a gimmick it's not like this is a real product. Even from their own marketing it's obvious.
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.
They do happen to build the number one selling electric vehicle in the world.
I mean Chinese EVs have already surpassed Tesla in global volume sales and their CEO helped elect the man who gut the EV industry in America. But I guess it's cool we are doing cool tricks while that happens?
Would you the same thing if it wasn't Elon Musk at the helm of this company? I'm not a big fan of him either, but I get the feeling some don't want to like this demo.
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.
If it was a smaller scrappier company I would think it was neat, but this company and associated companies represents so much of the market and so many resources. And I don't know it just seems like they are doing like...monster truck derby stunts?? It's just kind of underwhelming to see this is what they are spending their time on for me. I was expecting a lot more.
> 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.
1 reply →
> it just feels like they are playing around with toys instead advancing humanity
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.
> 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.
1 reply →
The homies have had flying cars for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJDQURYkSvc
How come this totally cool thing with 397 points is on the third fucking page being #65.
So, almost 10 years after the reservation for this version of the Roadster.
Oh look, not street legal.
Fun demo, never will see the road. There's a billion ways this can kill scores of people instantly.
Stupid fucking shit I've ever seen. Meanwhile civilians are dying in Ukraine from Elon dropping starlink/starshield from them
Jaw-dropping stunts aside, I am really disappointed with where all modern car design is going. What is that ugly low poly shit? The previous Roadster concept had a style, it had sex and taste. How did we get from there to here?
"Tony Hawk would be called, we call that the kickflip."
Uh what? Rodney Mullen invented the kickflip
Reminds me of this https://youtu.be/LC97wdQOmfI
Yes, Rodney Mullen invented the kickflip (and damn near every other skate trick), but the reference here comes from a time when Tony Hawk would drive around and yell "do a kickflip" at skaters, if they did a kickflip he would sometimes give them a signed board or other things. Example video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob0dI05Xz8s - it became a thing for a little where people would yell "do a kickflip" at skaters they saw on the street.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the origin of that meme.
I predict the next James Bond movie will be a Tesla ad.
Will it even be maintainable? Never mind the rocket fuel...
Will the frame itself hold up?
It's apparently not fuel but pressurized air being refueled by the car itself.
> "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...
Correcting myself (and Elon) here.
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.
I wonder if the jets will be able to assist breaking or control of the car in emergency situations.
oh they'll assist breaking all right
turbo boost
I'm sure having a bunch of rocket engines, fuel, plumbing, etc, on my car will make it great in the twisties. This is such a stupid compromise.
This is one of those products that offers a thrilling demo but I have no desire to own one. I much prefer the 2020 design that never made it to production.
Relevant.
* The Fastest Maze-Solving Competition On Earth - YouTube // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQbHMgK2rw
Is this a gas that needs to be refilled with the cold thrust one?
Can you imagine being behind this thing and the air blowing rocks and shit all over your car?
you already deal with this to some extent from others driving larger cars, everyone should be in a sedan
Now put six of them in a field and throw in a huge soccer ball.
oh man, this is so ugly.
Nobody needs that kind of acceleration on a car designed for use on public roads, and anyone who uses that capability in the vicinity of other people or vehicles deserves to be arrested. Its just criminally dangerous.
Like the Cybertruck, this is just the Musk "fuck you, get out of my way" worldview realised as metal and plastic.
This is probably going to be banned in EU, like the cyber truck. But, yeah.. kund of meh looking design and obviously i will have nothing to do with anything elon related.
What a wonderful illustration of the technofeudalism that many seem eager to push our world into. That doesn't diminish the engineering feat it embodies, in fact it rhymes pretty well.
Idiotic all around. Truly american.
Clearly, the coolest car demo of all time… and once again: hacker news, trying and failing to shit on it. It’s gonna be a road legal in Dubai.
DHH post incoming
> An invite-only "Rocket" variant is a single-seat model with a "full flight system."
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.
I hope not, I use "full self driving" every day! I'm sure your statement is based extensive experience, but mine is that for 2 1/2 years over 40k miles, it has worked very well. Not perfect (parking spot selection has frequent regressions), but astonishingly well.
Why? I’ve sat in a self driving Tesla, with the attendant’s body rotated towards me while we chatted in Florida. What specifically is wrong?
What's wrong is all of the older models they sold do not have what you experienced. They were sold FSD but their car's hardware can't run the latest software, and the older implementations required much more babysitting (aka not FSD).
1 reply →
This is going to be the next oceangate and I fully support it.
"Jumping the shark" is now officially shamed by "jumping the Tesla"!
An innovative way to make some whoop-de-dooping billionaires with extra cash to spare land upside down on their rooves.
I cant wait to see what type of batshit crazy motorsport series they invent for these.
SpaceX have great inertial measurement units and cold gas thrusters. We get it. Musk remains a fascist and can keep his cars.
Pretty big nothingburger. Production starts 2028 and honestly, the taunted feature... it's not a flying car, it's a jumping car. Do people actually want this for themselves? I'd wager the valuation would go down after this presentation.
I never thought I would say this, but.. have you been like.. born 70 or something?
Late 80's
Bro the car literally jumped over a semi like its the TF2 soldier. Nothingburger???
OK sure. I don't have a lot of use cases in my day to day commute that would be better handled by this jumping over a semi like it's the TF2 soldier, hence, a big nothingburger.
yes its a nothing burger no one will be able to use this other then a few billionaires... just like that BYD car that can jump wtf are we doing? why do we need cars to jump... we need them to drive us from point a to b
1 reply →
Really disappointing to see such low quality discussion here. Feasibility aside, we would not be seeing such reactions even 5 years ago. Polarization ruins everything.
> we would not be seeing such reactions even 5 years ago
5 years of broken promises and actively fighting to make the world worse will do a lot to opinions.
The main polarization with Tesla is between fantasy and reality.
Is this polarization or is this just people finally figuring out the grift after 10 years of "we'll be on Mars in 2 years"?
Name a single person on Earth who has got us closer to Mars than Musk.
3 replies →
Why blame this on “polarization” and not on the guy who did the polarizing? Nobody forced Elon to do all that stupid shit that got so many people hating on him. He did it if his own free will. He ruined it.
If you don’t like his politics and lean into that difference in opinions to criticise something orthogonal, like his technical innovation, then it’s YOU that is being divisive and partisan.
4 replies →
This reminds me of the time Elon Musk was only known because of the supercool stuff his companies did.
It is not a roadster. A roadster is defined as an open-air, two-seat convertible.
This one is a hard-top super-coupe and I recommend calling it the "Cyberwedge"
i thought the top came off?
That the supposedly smart ppl here get their knickers in a twist over this theatre piece is telling.
Literally no proof of this working in real world conditions.
I call bull.
Yay the (almost) 10th anniversary of the 2nd generation Roadster reservations, and now it's got fucking rockets apparently?
How delusional are people? The emperor is not wearing clothes y'all.
Technology: spectacular, design: ugly as fuck
FSD doesn't even work properly TEN YEARS after it was announced
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
One of my friends commutes exclusively on FSD in this Tesla. He even purchased a device on Alibaba that disables the attention checks. He spends most of his time doomscrolling on this phone or napping when the car drives itself.
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.
If you still believe FSD doesn't work, you're operating on outdated intelligence. Frankly, like a boomer saying that email doesn't work.
Oh, it doesn't require a person to continually monitor it now? I missed that change. Until that happens I don't think it qualifies as "full" self driving.
5 replies →
Now that I have seen the new Roadster I want flying cars. Great work by Elon and Team!
I don't understand why they don't recruit an Italian designer...
Bertone was not for sale, or not worth the authenticity, one.
Are you kidding me? That was real? I laughed that off as AI BS and went about my day.
Oh cool they released the roadster
Oh no, they are letting people “reserve” their roadster
How is anyone still falling for this grift?
fuck this retard
Reminder: anyone reserving one of these then has 30 days to send paper mail to Tesla to opt out of binding arbitration, which is heavily anti-plaintiff biased.
Nazi-funding explosive-gas car is still a Nazi-funding car.
All Musk cares about is Mars. The CT is going to be a Mars vehicle, that's why it looks like that by and large.
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.
We are truly in the dumbest timeline
Why the hell is anyone taking this seriously?
Musk really is the master of fraud. Twitter gets bought by Space X to conceal the massive loss in valuation, Tesla gets pumped with endless "we'll have self-driving cars next year", for 10+ years... now that the Tesla bubble is finally popping he needs to dump it on the Space X/Twitter shareholders, so we get this demo of a thing that will never hit the road. Bag holders beware, Musk's masterpiece of market manipulation is about to execute with the merger of all his lies.
Twitter wasn’t bought to conceal the loss in valuation. It was bought so Elon can influence the populace with his narrative.
No, he bought it because he was contractually obliged to do so even after he tried to wriggle out of it.
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 need a cheap car. Sub 25k that I can use to drop my kids and get groceries and is electric so I can get some respite from these war inflated gas prices. Nobody is offering this. I dont need all the fancy gadgets and the flying and the jumping.
Looks like it truly is a K shaped economy. Flying cars for 1% and loans for the rest
A lot of people responding to this thread saying to buy a cheap ICE vehicle.
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).
Another thing is that an equivalent ICE version of the Roadster would most likely use premium gas. There is no such thing as premium electricity - an electron is an electron. So the cost savings are even higher.
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.
EVs are nice, and Im full EV on all my cars at this point. But I concede I would not own any EV if I could not charge at home. If I was still in an apartment, I'd be ICE all the way
2 replies →
I've had two EVs and have been driving EV only for about 10 years. I've been driving an ICE vehicle lately due to an issue with a wiring harness on my EV that it is getting service for. It's been so long since I regularly drove an ICE that it has been an unpleasantly shocking experience.
- 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.
> still better for long trips
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.
4 replies →
> - no emissions
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.
> never having to stop for gas when commuting
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.
not having much maintenance and charging at home are huge ones. i don’t understand why there is no creative advertising around that. such obviously huge wins
6 replies →
Quieter maybe, but it sounds like a ghost at 3am driving through my neighborhood. Damn it neighbor stop scaring me.
I'll stick with my s2000. Thank you.
2 replies →
> - no emissions
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.
5 replies →
In my experience electric cars aren’t significantly smoother or quieter. Most noise in a modern passenger car is generated by the tires and air drag, and for some reason I found these more pronounced in the electric cars I’ve tried (maybe for the lack of engine noise).
3 replies →
No emissions is simply not true the majority of the time. The emissions are coming out of the gas/coal powerplant somewhere else.
8 replies →
> - rarely having to take it in for service
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.
4 replies →
This is what used cars are for.
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.
So... you want a car that is:
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.
last i saw, byd will be selling a few models for ~25k CAD when they bring them to canada. that's like ~18k USD and meets all 3 criteria.
No, you do not need to compromise, you just have to look outside the US.
1 reply →
In other words: BYD.
Auto loans have gotten out of hand. 5, 6, or even 7-year car loans? That's not a good sign of the economy.
>> Nobody is offering this
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...
A BYD seagull offers this and is 10k€ in Spain
If you don't need a lot of range, a used Leaf is pretty cheap as EVs go. Though you do want to avoid the 1st generation models (before 2017?) as they had much worse battery degradation.
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.
The problem with the Leaf is the lack of fast charging. It’s great if you can charge at home but it’s definitely not a road trip car. You get what you pay for, which is especially true for earlier-generation electric cars.
1 reply →
Man you Americans, here I am with me 20 year old Mini and it works great I think it’s only valued at about 2k
Agreed. You can buy a lot of gas for the price difference between an old economy ICE car and an EV. Plus cheaper insurance and in many places, cheaper registration fees.
6 replies →
The average car in the US is 12.8 years old. The used car market has adjusted to the fact that many of them go for 20 years/200K miles.
> 20 year old Mini
> 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.
5 replies →
There's multiple offering this, they're just banned from your country.
A used Model 3. There you go. They only start at $37k brand new.
37>25
4 replies →
A used Ioniq electric can be under $10k
[flagged]
13 replies →
If you need a cheap car, then why buy new? Plenty of good used options out there, and sometimes more reliable than new cars
IIRC the difference between new and used has shrunk quite a bit recently (at least for desirable models and types) because many consumers are frustrated by the new-prices and all look towards used.
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.
If you can, wait for a Slate. It's not just cheap for brand new it's a company working hard to move the auto industry in an actually positive direction. I hope to make it my next car as well.
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.
> Nobody is offering this.
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.
BYD could give us this tomorrow, at the cost of completely gutting and decimating domestic American manufacturers, who are unable to actually compete on price and performance for various reasons.
The problem is not inflation, it’s that America sucks at manufacturing low cost electric vehicles. BYD has demonstrated that tenfold
6 replies →
If they were actually trying, then a dozen or so budget-model cars - from the Hyundai Accent to the Toyota Yaris - would not have been discontinued in the U.S. in the past half-dozen years. And replaced, if at all, with much more expensive models.
To all people responding purchase a used car, I forgot to add that I don’t want to spend another 25k on repairs please
At 25k you can easily get a used car from the dealership and purchase the warranty if you're very risk averse.
A 2023 crossover with 50k miles should suit you fine. I like Subarus and Hondas.
You definitely won’t have to spend that on a used Tesla, there are very few parts to replace
1 reply →
if only you could buy BYD in the US
The US has the best free markets in the world. Of course you can buy BYD.
1 reply →
If you can increase your budget to 30k, you could consider a Slate EV.
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)
Why does your neighborhood car have to be electric?
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.
10K in gas melts away quickly. I know some people who have ran through that amount in six months. Also, you have to factor in frequent, expensive and time-consuming maintenance with either awful, cheapskate shops or the wildly overpriced dealership.
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.
3 replies →
and yet non-American cheap bare bones EV exist for other parts of the world but we wont let them in because Detroit dinosaurs only want to make gigantic SUV and pickups because they are higher margin. the US is afraid of the Chinese doing what japan and korea did 30 years ago and force the dinos to compete again.
> I need a cheap car. Sub 25k that I can use to drop my kids and get groceries and is electric so I can get some respite from these war inflated gas prices.
I would just get a hybrid Corolla if you can't stretch that budget to an entry level Tesla or similar.
Used EV's can be had for sub 25k all day long. The Slate is also technically sub 25k
> I need a cheap car. Sub 25k
Here’s one place with 26,000+ cars that cost less than 25k: https://www.carvana.com/cars/under-25000
Check out the Nissan Ariya. I see them for around $20k for a 2023 low mileage model.
Sir, you're in the invitation required vehicle discussion.
China is offering this. Guess why they got banned though.
Dacia Spring is around 20.000 € in Europe. LE: I realise you're not in Europe, so my comment is not very useful — on the contrary.
Get an Elantra, keep the difference to pay for gas.
Elantra owner here, just be prepared to have to pay for broken windows and replacing the ignition cylinder every few months. The kia boyz are still active apparently and will try to steal your car repeatedly. Even if you have the newer model or the upgrade that prevents them from actually being able to steal it, it doesn’t prevent them from smashing up your car while trying
5 replies →
There are lot's of affordable Chinese cars, but US doesn't want them to be on our roads.
Was just in Europe and saw plenty of smaller / cheaper EVs. Unfortunately they're not offering them in the US.
The Slate is probably the closes to what you want.
A cargo e-bike is a good solution too, if urban.
Those smaller / cheaper EVs might not be street legal in the US due to safety regulations: they need to allow occupants to survive a crash vs the massive monster trucks on American roads.
1 reply →
Two thumbs up for the Slate vehicles. Simple, cheap, non trackable.
You could but the government won't let you buy one from China.
It's a shame the infrastructure is so poor in most of the US that a high end electric cargo bike isn't an option most people will consider. I love mine for exactly those use cases.
Adam Curtis had a great line in the 2016 doc HyperNormalisation [1] about Donald Trump turning Manhattan into a playground for the rich from the ~70s-00s.
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?
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c
Hyundai Inster.
Just get a used Tesla 3
That's like commenting about needing a Chromebook on a post the newest Blackwell GPU that can serve inference workloads of thousands of people. Just irrelevant.
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.
Seriously. It’s pretty clear that the new Roadster is not intended to be a practical car for the masses. And that’s Ok. There’s room for a “halo” product in any lineup.
If there is limited supply of memory production, and an 16GB student laptop is $800 instead of $500, then I would say the poor folk are justified with naysaying the new 128GB top shelf exotics.
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.
Of course a roadster is not the car to "drop kids and get groceries". I think op was not trying to imply that. But Musk stated his big plan was to sell an expensive roadster in order to afford building an affordable car. That was 20 years ago. The closest it ever got was a promise of a 35K Model 3 which at launch cost 50K. So, yeah, from that perspective, op's comment is relevant.
I do not get this kind of complaint. Every thing you consider an important part of your life today (including cars and smartphones) started out as toys for rich kids. Complaining about it is asking to go back to the stone age, because all the advancements since were brought to you by someone's desire to make money and someone else being rich enough to afford it, till economies of scale made the poor old you able to afford it too.
there are more and more cars that close to that price, look at kia ev3, or ioniq 3, or BYD
Several Chinese brands (like BYD or Xiaomi) have such offerings, but the US is too beholden to Musk to let them in.
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
Yes. Makes me sick . US consumers have lower and lower standard of living as oligarchs reach trillion dollar net worths.
amen!
The Slate car with SUV add on should do the job I imagine
Slate starts at 25k though... the SUV is at 30k. And that's without things like power windows and some basic amenities right?
2 replies →
I believe it's just under $30K with the SUV back.
Slate is still vaporware.
Like someone said, you're asking for too much. Decent used sub-10k cars are available for your purposes https://www.carmax.com/cars?price=0-10000
Hard pass
> Ok, so it actually flies.
LOL. Enron Musk collect 1000x 250k pre-orders 10 years ago for a car that doesn't exist.
Now he made a stunt (doesn't fly) and the fanbois go "ooo it flies". And he'll collect 1000x 250k more. Great return on investment, truly genius businessman.
Now if he could just focus on such stuff and stop undermining democracy and working with fascists, he would be quite a cool guy.
Amazing to see Elon making his childhood dreams reality. It's something to behold. I hope we don't lose that spirit. The amount of negativity is very worrying. One of the coolest tech demos in 2026 and it's on the 3rd page of HN morning after because of the downvotes.
Hackernews is full of losers and retards and this thread is a perfect example. Literally fucking flying cars and ppl are complaining that it's not realistic or it's dangerous or might not make a profit. Some of the biggest losers on the planet on this site tbh
If Doc Brown's time machine was real and posted here, HN would be complaining that it's noisy, unimpressive, not street legal, uninsurable, and attacking Brown's personal character because he's a dangerous nutcase.
Seriously, I bet these are the same people who were shitting on the Hyperloop!
You forgot the part where Doc Brown purchased parts for the vehicle through funding by terrorists.
He actually defrauded the terrorists and stole their plutonium giving them junk in return.
1 reply →
The time machine actually accomplishes something. I fail to see what this accomplishes other than a very cool circus stunt. Straight out of fast and furious. Which is great and all, but not a production car.
Honestly, the fact that they are talking about this being a production car is what kills the cool. If they just said they were showcasing some cool technology that they could do, then I think it would at least be honest and people wouldn't shit on it so much. But with how many times they said the new Roadster would be on the market, can you really blame anybody for not believing it?
Remember concept cars? Companies have been doing gimmickey shit forever and nobody expected those things to make it to production.
Well this isn't real so that's not a very good analogy. I also don't think Doc Brown (who's also not real) was famous for committing fraud and lying habitually to manipulate the market.
Maybe it makes for a closer analogy. Neither the time machine or the flying car are real, but we react to the "inventors" differently. We're not haters. We just have taste.
1 reply →
Doc Brown canonically did defraud Libyan terrorists.
1 reply →
Yes, Elon Musk and Doc Brown are really, really comparable. Great metaphor. Who can forget when Doc Brown famously stole a bunch of government data? Or tried, numerous times, to overthrow democracy? Or bought a heavily used social media site to turn it into a propaganda box?
What a well-thought out comparison. You've definitely got something, here.
As per Telegraph Musk has offered Trump the idea to slow down the Starlink, which resulted in deaths of many civilians.
Whatever you think about these advancements (like you could marvel at Nazi inventions), make no mistake. Musk and his Tesla should get fucked.
[dead]
Having been raised watching the Dukes of Hazzard, I'm not impressed.
They really should have paused the video mid-flip for a quick voiceover.
"So, next morning Daisy took off to serve breakfast at the Boar's Nest where they serve tough greasy cookies. Don't miss that if you can."
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
I've never been so convinced by dead internet theory than I am today with this huge wave of bots advertising for Tesla today.
Just cuz you're not impressed doesn't mean only bots are. That's a hell of a demo, and a sweet looking ride to boot.
You gotta admit the car looks nice compared to the Cybertruck, and the technology is indeed impressive. I think it's an organic reaction, unless they're defending Elon personally.
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.
Nice compared to the biggest flop of the century? Sure. I'd still instantly judge anyone driving this as an asshole.
1 reply →
Still waiting for the underground maglev highways and buses, coming any day now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j70GvgXt-lE
Which accounts posting in this thread do you think are bots?
This demo took place roughly 30 hours after Starlink betrayed the Ukraine by dropping support for Ukrainian high speed intercepts and drones [1].
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...
We can discuss the demo without acknowledging this because it has literally nothing to do with the roadster.
"Literally nothing"? The guy who cut Starlink service is the guy who's making the roadster.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Wouldn't drive a Tesla if it was given to me.
European or Japanese cars all day.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't think people want to buy it - we just think its cool that its possible.
You should try having fun and enjoying things once in a while...
Maybe avoid speaking for others ( "we" ) and snark at other HN users ( "You should" ).
see: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
1 reply →
[dead]
[flagged]
I’m incredibly surprised as to how fast people are forgetting who the CEO and largest shareholder of Tesla is.
Whatever breakthrough they’re making, is it worth funding the dismantling of democracy?
Money, power, and pleasure over everything else: the hacker[1] ethos.
[1]: Silicon Valley edition
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Exactly this... Which city will allow for a car they cannot chase with a patrol?
It would have been much better if it was a skateboard, tbh.
Not from the US, but I don't see political pushback on rocket launchers for police cars.
[flagged]
[flagged]
The technology is jaw-dropping, the engineering staggering, and this thread -- it's just embarrassing. I've been on HN since the beginning and I don't even recognize it anymore.
"RCS thrusters in a car" is one of a few technologies on the human tech tree with 0 ROI. If the US can't ship a $25,000 EV like Musk promised, then China won the export market. The only point of this Mr. Beast-style showmanship is to bail out Tesla with a SpaceX merger. IMO that's a waste of Tesla's time, money and energy.
Maybe you feel differently. I don't really care though.
5 replies →
[flagged]
Why is this all so political? Why can't you meanies just maintain my priors that this man is personally engineering the coolest tech and saving humanity despite all evidence he is an idiot and hates people? I am going to find a forum where I'm not subject to this
[flagged]
I wish all the Elon haters put as much effort into making their comments as humorous as yours. Well done.
It also blows.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yea, i was going to reserve one of these sub 1 sec 0-60 vehicles with rocket motors and suction fans, but then I didnt because of the ergonomics of the door handle design.
"Ergonomics" is an interesting phrase to use for "critical safety issue".
But yeah, that's not the part of the vehicle that's gong to kill its first victim.
1 reply →
If you watched the video, which you didn't, you'd know it appears to have a traditional door latch with recessed handles.
[flagged]
It was fine? I'd rather this than hyper rehearsed CGI human Apple launch video. At least its just real people talking like humans.
Yeah Apple really synthesising a platonic ideal of Steve’s product release smarm without any of his hubristic charm at this point. Tesla and SpaceX seem like humans just getting on with sh*t and onto the next.
It was not fine.
I can’t do a tech demo of a simple software feature on zoom without at least one thing messing up. They launched a car off a ramp live and were honest from the beginning of the stream it might not work.
The last decade of social media has shown that humans care more about authenticity than perfection in presentations.
It did work! The point is they did a terrible job of producing the event and being clear what they were talking about and showing the product. The product, for all four people who will be able to buy it ("invite only"), seems very cool. But that is not what I was commenting on!
[flagged]
[flagged]
Leave Volkswagen out of this. Day belongs to Tesla.
Not just you.
[flagged]
It's not for you.
[flagged]
[flagged]
4 replies →
Have you heard starlink cut access to Ukrainians in the middle of an attack? The story has been buried on HN (wonder why). Who is the "killjoy"?
But please, give more money and fame to Musk, so that he can get Paxton elected. He's already down a quarter billion $ trying to make that lying cheater senator.
5 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
7 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It is a wonder how anyone thinks this is novel when there are so many other rocket cars in the market already
I'd agree it's novel if it is, in fact, a rocket car. I'm skeptical about the car part, though. It's much less impressive if it's just a lightweight prop. I haven't seen the full presentation, though, to see if they drive it, if someone can climb in and so on.
This "roadster" isn't in the market either, with or without the rockets. Or a folding roof.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Can we get the original Dropbox hater guy to comment here too?
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.
I'll bite. What do you see as applications of for commodity cold gas thrusters? Excluding rockets.
Rapid adjustment of drone flighpaths with micro-thrusts? Getting interceptors out of tubes faster without explosions/temps/fumes? Anything where rocket propellant, heat is a problem?
Breaking, emergency braking in trucks? Kind of like reverse thrust in airplanes.
1 reply →
More important to signal that they think Elon is a nazi, apparently.
(i do not think he's a nazi, I think he is an edge lord who dogwhistle to Nazis to look 'cool'. Which honestly is fine for a teenager influencer, but should stop once you're 25)
> just endless anti-tech hate, downstream from idiotic TikTok politics.
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.
At least this is a break from all the bullshit AI agent garbage posted on this site.
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.
Now with more explosions!
IMO reinforcement learning on par with teaching quadcopters to do weird things.
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?
[flagged]
it's be more impressive if it wasn't so pointless
I just want to know how they faked it. Because I actually have zero trust that this is a realistic demonstration.
To be fair, I think this is very doable with modern technology. If you've seen their rocket landing videos the technology is quite similar in nature.
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.
> If you've seen their rocket landing videos the technology is quite similar in nature.
Sure but Tesla is not SpaceX.
3 replies →
Air Hogs!
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Air-Hogs-Zero-Gravity-Sprint-RC-C...
[dead]
Ai slop on a billion dollar company should tell you everything you know about how we are doomed by this ai experiment
Wow, this might be the most phenomenal tech demo I've ever watched.
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.
[dead]
[flagged]
Suckers
Unbelievable useless for the actual use of the car.
Well, think you're only seeing the most splashy uses. For instance, at high speeds, could use the thrusters to first, increase acceleration and speed, and second, have them also able to do a bit of thrust vectoring to help push the car's tires on to the pavement for better traction. And then on turns, have thrusters firing to help push the car into the turn.
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
Literal "Neck Breaking" speeds.
No human could survive this rocket-jump without a neck-brace.
1 reply →
May come in handy if someone blocked your car on a parking and you don't have time for the tow truck to arrive. Or when you're stuck on I-95 during a major snowstorm.
It can only fly for a few seconds, no? Where are you going to land in a snow storm if the literal Interstate is impassable? Everywhere else would be worse.
8 replies →
Yeah, I mean how are you even going to get a family of seven and a dog in there
https://www.alamy.com/jim-varney-diedrich-bader-erika-elenia...
Let's get real, the entire point of a roadster is to look cool and have good sensations. Try to beat that!
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.
Don't be fooled! This is AI generated slop.
The car clearly does not have enough momentum to go on the ramp all the way upside-down, yet it miraculously does not fall.
The car is not using momentum and centrifugal force to stay on the ramp. It has fans providing tons of downforce - so much downforce that it's able to stick to the road nearly completely inverted
Was this real? I thought some wires were visible?
Re-watching it, the wires are on the ramp. Part of the support of the loop.
A car that can make you, your friends, and your family deaf. Amazing.
That’s if it doesn’t kill you
> Our multi-mode fan and ground sealing system acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the vehicle. This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
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?
Amazing such instant expertise.
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.
[dead]
This isn't even the first car to demo holding and driving upside down using a ground effect fan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6LYcgaQ46c
It's supposed to be funny. Or it's not? Really not sure.
There is another car [1] with a fan to improve downforce.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Murray_Automotive_T.50
"There is another system."
Watch the livestream
If you scroll down on the page, it shows that the "rocket edition" is invite-only. Probably gonna sell it to a few friends in hopes that the 3-5 they make sell for millions down the road, so to speak.
>> Our multi-mode fan and ground sealing system acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the vehicle. This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary.
> Bullshit, no it can't.
A proof of concept already exists:
https://mcmurtry.com/upside-down-driving/
> Bullshit, no it can't
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".
Tesla death throes, looks cool but they’re done.
So Elon's entities are really using SI instead of AI? Interesting. Or was he the one who actually suggested the name change to POTUS?
Super
I guess robotaxi is failing? This is my only explanation of that jumping gimmick.
The Robotaxi just started rolling out beyond Austin a few months ago. You think they threw together a flying car on a whim in a matter of weeks?
Kind of disturbing how hard he's leaning into the futurism aesthetic here, given its history.
[flagged]
Tesla has been doing this for a while, having all their promo shots at night etc. The terafab announcement stuff has an especially dystopian vibe
I can't wait for some rich asshole going 120 mph to backflip their Tesla into my Outback on the interstate.
Don't worry, the first time they drive through a city the fans will suck up some trash and ruin the motors
The reality of EVs is that they all provide more or less identical driving experience - immense amounts of speed in straight lines and pure control around corners. But you can't really make something nimble or chuckable when it weighs 1.5 tons.
(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.
You should go look up the weight of a 911, Boxter, or Miata. And then, I suspect, you will not return here to reply to this comment. You'll invent some other reason why EVs can't be "nimble" or whatever, because it can't be your worldview that's wrong, it has to be the world.
Have you actually taken any of these cars along a twisty country road? They are not at all similar.
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.
This thing is covered in cold gas thrusters, I'm betting it can go around a corner faster than almost any other car. The limitation might be G forces on the driver. Maximum performance may only be achievable in self driving mode.
yes, you can, if you think like an engineer. they have suction mechanism, low center of gravity that helps you to beat any ICE counterparts.
You can't call this beauty of engineering a muscle car.
> when it weighs 1.5 tons.
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.
Yup. I'm pretty sure my Model 3 Performance is around 4,000 lbs, about 500 lbs more than my wife's Honda CR-V.
The M3/MY are 2-2.5T. The Roadster will be lighter, and 1.5-2T is the same weight class as the 911 and Boxter.
tesla roadster weights 1.6-1.7 tons, thats prob without compressed air. But common, if you buy a rocket car, that is capable to suck itself to the road, you will not care about this extra 300-400 kg of weight, that probably will be compensated by perfect low center of gravity and several motors.
After Elon almost died in 2000 when he lost control of his McClaren I wonder if the real reason for these thrusters isn't actually to recover when controlling this beast proves too much for the driver and it starts to spin out or accidentally launches into the air.
Yeah no thanks. I think I will stick to BYD and other reputable chineese brands for my EV needs. Safety is a thing for cars. Teslas were not the safest cars before and now they are adding gas thrusters, oh boy, what could possibly go wrong. I would not feel safe driving behind or infront of this car.
Tesla Model 3 and Y are some of the safest cars to have been tested in history. Obviously, a flying car is not meant for the mass market.
https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/tesla/model+y/0961 https://www.euroncap.com/assessments/byd/atto+3/0992/
Tesla with FSD is 8 times safer than other cars.
This is literally the richest man in the world going "We were promised flying cars!"
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..
He may have done it to improve the optics of a potential Tesla–SpaceX merger.
If the optics were meant to be a 6th grader playing with his toys.
The demo presentation was horrible.
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.
these comments are so ridiculous ( and probably paid for by competitors ).
Tesla made something actually cool. They did a live of demo of it. No one in these comments or anywhere else on earth could do what they just did. Even if they don't sell a single one they've received billions of views on these videos. Even if it wasn't commercially meaningful ( and of course it isn't given the small output of extremely expensive cars compared to mass manufacturing vehicles ), it's still just cool and props to them for doing something cool. The world needs more cool stuff