News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old Assembly Line. Parent comment

Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by mattmaroon on Thursday March 28, 2024 @11:14PM (#39860281)
I really don’t understand it. How many MPGe could door handles subtract? 1? Is it even that much?

Is it aesthetics? I don’t think theirs look any better. And they feel flimsy AF. They give you nothing to hold onto when manipulating the door. Even if they didn’t freeze, I just don’t like them.

So we’re going to make this more complicated, more failure prone thing that looks and feels worse for no real benefit?

The worst part is that other EVs are adopting it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by Solvency on Friday March 29, 2024 @12:08AM (#39860599)
It's Elon. Do you really have to ask? It's the most braindead, arrogant, Elon Musky possible decision.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by pandaman on Friday March 29, 2024 @11:25AM (#39865207)
It's not Elon. Many other EVs have the similar handle-less design. E.g. Mustang Mach, Hyundai Ioniq/ Kia EV, Lucid Air, etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by jen20 on Friday March 29, 2024 @12:29PM (#39865965)
Recessed door handles to avoid MPG impact was a solved problem by the Fiat Panda, at least (probably earlier!) - the only rationale is cost, or meme copying.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by dzhiurgis on Friday March 29, 2024 @04:34AM (#39861816)
It all compounds. Lower mpge > increased range > less battery weight > increased range + lower cost.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by dghlsakjg on Friday March 29, 2024 @10:29AM (#39864526)
So why are the tires super wide on Teslas, with consequently high rolling resistance?

The door handle is a gimmick, afaict, with so much other low hanging fruit in the design.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by dzhiurgis on Friday March 29, 2024 @04:24PM (#39868616)
No one wants an anaemic Tesla either.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by SECProto on Saturday March 30, 2024 @01:33PM (#39876820)
I would much rather drive an anemic Tesla - skinny cheaper tires, lighter so easier to change myself.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by etempleton on Saturday March 30, 2024 @01:24PM (#39876733)
Because the cars are heavy and with have high torque. They need the extra grip to have those insanely low 0-60 times.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tesla's $25,000 Car Means Tossing Out the 100-Year-Old As... by wyre on Friday March 29, 2024 @12:16PM (#39865811)
>1?

My hunch says less than that. Door handles have more physical moving parts which are going to increase costs and we know Tesla loves to do anything they can to keep those down.

[ Parent | on HN ]