Extremely cool! tech demonstrator.
But... what happened to the roadster 2 they announced and started taking large deposits for 9 years ago? I was supposed to start production over 6 years ago, and this is a different car. I'm not just talking rocket and cold gas thrusters. This is clearly a completely different vehicle, from the ground up. The worst part is that even the non-flying version is pretty obviously going to cost WAY more than the 250K price they promised in 2017. Cool tech, bad business model.
I'll be surprised if they actually deliver a single roadster in the next ten years, especially this flying thing.
COMMENTS
- how are ppl beliveing this nonsese. 1) at such low speed how can it climb . 2) how can it go full horizontal before fallig . 3) the fan thoery is nonsense, it woudl create even more thrust to make it fall from the ramp not a low pressure , lol
- My biggest concern is noise. At the demonstration, spectators were kept at a distance and ear protection was provided. Imagine standing a couple of feet away, or living next door to someone using the system.
About 15 years ago, I bought tiny wall-climbing remote-control cars from Harrods. They were around three inches across and used suction to climb walls and ceilings. They worked, but the fan was incredibly loud, almost like a vacuum cleaner with something stuck in it. The car was so light that I wondered whether the fan weighed more than the car. I posted videos on Facebook, but they looked much better with the sound muted!
The Roadster is far more sophisticated, of course, but a feature can work brilliantly and still be unpleasant to live with.
Consider the wall-climbing demonstration. My toy could not drive straight from the floor onto a vertical wall. I had to pick it up and place it there. The Roadster demonstration used a purpose-built ramp that gradually transitioned from horizontal to vertical and eventually upside down. Where would you find an ordinary building designed for that? Houses, offices and normal car parks are not built for cars to drive up their walls and across their ceilings. The environment has to be designed around the machine.
Jet packs raise similar questions. Flying under your own power is extraordinary, but noise, limited endurance, safety and specialist maintenance affect its usefulness. With the Roadster, how long can the thrusters operate? How long does recharging take? What needs servicing, and what will it cost?
Think about a caravan. It offers independence, yet some owners are advised to use campsite toilets for certain needs because of tank capacity, blockages or the inconvenience of emptying them. You buy something for convenience, only to find yourself avoiding one of its features because the practicalities outweigh the benefit.
Could the same happen here? An owner might eventually say, “We are taking the other car today. I cannot be bothered with all the extra hassle.”
Compressors, pressure vessels, valves, seals, nozzles, filters and powerful fans all introduce additional components to maintain. That does not prove the Roadster will be unreliable, but without confirmed servicing schedules and ownership costs, we cannot know how practical it will be.
There are safety questions too. The fan system is intended to generate downforce, but real roads contain dust, leaves, grit, plastic bags, water, pedestrians and animals. I am not claiming the car would suck up a cat or definitely cause a crash. I am asking what happens when powerful airflow meets unpredictable surroundings. Could disturbed debris affect visibility for drivers behind it? What happens when the system operates close to people or small animals? These questions deserve proper testing.
A controlled demonstration does not automatically mean every feature will be permitted on public roads worldwide. Noise limits, vehicle approval and restrictions on particular operating modes could limit where the technology can be used.
I can imagine buyers initially enjoying the status of owning such a machine. Everyone says, “Look at that incredible car!” But if the features prove noisy, inconvenient or rarely usable, the conversation might eventually become, “Look at that expensive car they hardly ever use.” I am not predicting that production will definitely stop. We need to see the finished vehicle and how it performs in everyday life.
Here is the funny part. I would genuinely pay to experience it in a purpose-built attraction. Imagine booking a session, getting inside, experiencing the acceleration and watching the spectacular demonstrations in a controlled environment. The operator handles the maintenance and safety arrangements, while visitors enjoy the experience without owning the machine. I can imagine people paying £509 for an exceptional experience if it genuinely delivered something extraordinary.
Perhaps that is where this technology could shine. It might be impractical as everyday transport but excellent as an experience people will pay for.
My conclusion is simple. I admire the ambition and engineering. I would happily watch the demonstration, but I would not buy the car. Noise, maintenance, limited suitable environments and unanswered safety questions make me cautious.
Perhaps Tesla will solve these problems, and I would be happy to be proved wrong. For now, I would rather pay for the experience than take responsibility for owning the machine.
A great flex does not automatically make a great everyday car. Sometimes the best way to enjoy an extraordinary invention is to buy a ticket, enjoy the show and leave the maintenance to somebody else.
- Got to be. It’s not possible to create enough g force to stay on the ramp when accelerating that slowly. I wouldn’t doubt if it hit the ramp at a higher starting speed MAYBE it could make it around but idk. Then to control the flight (or really controlled decent) of a full car with only gas retro-thrusters… I’m seriously dubious.
I think a more important question is why? With so many important things to be working on and so many people relying on his company to actually accomplish their goals that are long long delayed (see roadster); why would they waste any time or money on this… spectacle. This shit isn’t going to help his case that he’s not committing massive fraud selling ever lengthening deadlines on arguably impossible projects… knowingly lying to investors, which is a pretty serious crime btw; not to mention creating headaches for his existing investors by creating massive headwinds with pointless careless shameful behavior. This isn’t helping and depending on how expensive this was it is arguably a dereliction of his fiduciary obligation to his shareholders.
But... what happened to the roadster 2 they announced and started taking large deposits for 9 years ago? I was supposed to start production over 6 years ago, and this is a different car. I'm not just talking rocket and cold gas thrusters. This is clearly a completely different vehicle, from the ground up. The worst part is that even the non-flying version is pretty obviously going to cost WAY more than the 250K price they promised in 2017. Cool tech, bad business model.
I'll be surprised if they actually deliver a single roadster in the next ten years, especially this flying thing.
LISTEN ORGINAL NEWS
- how are ppl beliveing this nonsese. 1) at such low speed how can it climb . 2) how can it go full horizontal before fallig . 3) the fan thoery is nonsense, it woudl create even more thrust to make it fall from the ramp not a low pressure , lol
- My biggest concern is noise. At the demonstration, spectators were kept at a distance and ear protection was provided. Imagine standing a couple of feet away, or living next door to someone using the system.
About 15 years ago, I bought tiny wall-climbing remote-control cars from Harrods. They were around three inches across and used suction to climb walls and ceilings. They worked, but the fan was incredibly loud, almost like a vacuum cleaner with something stuck in it. The car was so light that I wondered whether the fan weighed more than the car. I posted videos on Facebook, but they looked much better with the sound muted!
The Roadster is far more sophisticated, of course, but a feature can work brilliantly and still be unpleasant to live with.
Consider the wall-climbing demonstration. My toy could not drive straight from the floor onto a vertical wall. I had to pick it up and place it there. The Roadster demonstration used a purpose-built ramp that gradually transitioned from horizontal to vertical and eventually upside down. Where would you find an ordinary building designed for that? Houses, offices and normal car parks are not built for cars to drive up their walls and across their ceilings. The environment has to be designed around the machine.
Jet packs raise similar questions. Flying under your own power is extraordinary, but noise, limited endurance, safety and specialist maintenance affect its usefulness. With the Roadster, how long can the thrusters operate? How long does recharging take? What needs servicing, and what will it cost?
Think about a caravan. It offers independence, yet some owners are advised to use campsite toilets for certain needs because of tank capacity, blockages or the inconvenience of emptying them. You buy something for convenience, only to find yourself avoiding one of its features because the practicalities outweigh the benefit.
Could the same happen here? An owner might eventually say, “We are taking the other car today. I cannot be bothered with all the extra hassle.”
Compressors, pressure vessels, valves, seals, nozzles, filters and powerful fans all introduce additional components to maintain. That does not prove the Roadster will be unreliable, but without confirmed servicing schedules and ownership costs, we cannot know how practical it will be.
There are safety questions too. The fan system is intended to generate downforce, but real roads contain dust, leaves, grit, plastic bags, water, pedestrians and animals. I am not claiming the car would suck up a cat or definitely cause a crash. I am asking what happens when powerful airflow meets unpredictable surroundings. Could disturbed debris affect visibility for drivers behind it? What happens when the system operates close to people or small animals? These questions deserve proper testing.
A controlled demonstration does not automatically mean every feature will be permitted on public roads worldwide. Noise limits, vehicle approval and restrictions on particular operating modes could limit where the technology can be used.
I can imagine buyers initially enjoying the status of owning such a machine. Everyone says, “Look at that incredible car!” But if the features prove noisy, inconvenient or rarely usable, the conversation might eventually become, “Look at that expensive car they hardly ever use.” I am not predicting that production will definitely stop. We need to see the finished vehicle and how it performs in everyday life.
Here is the funny part. I would genuinely pay to experience it in a purpose-built attraction. Imagine booking a session, getting inside, experiencing the acceleration and watching the spectacular demonstrations in a controlled environment. The operator handles the maintenance and safety arrangements, while visitors enjoy the experience without owning the machine. I can imagine people paying £509 for an exceptional experience if it genuinely delivered something extraordinary.
Perhaps that is where this technology could shine. It might be impractical as everyday transport but excellent as an experience people will pay for.
My conclusion is simple. I admire the ambition and engineering. I would happily watch the demonstration, but I would not buy the car. Noise, maintenance, limited suitable environments and unanswered safety questions make me cautious.
Perhaps Tesla will solve these problems, and I would be happy to be proved wrong. For now, I would rather pay for the experience than take responsibility for owning the machine.
A great flex does not automatically make a great everyday car. Sometimes the best way to enjoy an extraordinary invention is to buy a ticket, enjoy the show and leave the maintenance to somebody else.
- Got to be. It’s not possible to create enough g force to stay on the ramp when accelerating that slowly. I wouldn’t doubt if it hit the ramp at a higher starting speed MAYBE it could make it around but idk. Then to control the flight (or really controlled decent) of a full car with only gas retro-thrusters… I’m seriously dubious.
I think a more important question is why? With so many important things to be working on and so many people relying on his company to actually accomplish their goals that are long long delayed (see roadster); why would they waste any time or money on this… spectacle. This shit isn’t going to help his case that he’s not committing massive fraud selling ever lengthening deadlines on arguably impossible projects… knowingly lying to investors, which is a pretty serious crime btw; not to mention creating headaches for his existing investors by creating massive headwinds with pointless careless shameful behavior. This isn’t helping and depending on how expensive this was it is arguably a dereliction of his fiduciary obligation to his shareholders.
Posts
0 Comments