I maintain that the entire event was to create a trail of evidence that justifies merging Tesla and SpaceX. No car will ever ship.
You can hear it in the voices of the creators, when they're giving an overview of the car to MotorWeek and other car media outlets. 99% focused on the rocket and battery tech/innovation, almost zero about the actual driving characteristics of the car, or that it -is- a car. Seems more like a rolling marketing mule.
The specs of the base (non-rocket-powered) car are pretty mediocre: RWD-only with 320 mile range. That's not terribly impressive in 2026, by 2028 it will be obsolete on delivery. The styling can charitably be described as generic. I agree, I don't think they have any intention of making this car.
To be fair the claimed ~1.6sec 0-60 acceleration speed is impressive - this is the benefit of electric - although if you have enough money you can already do that today in the way sexier looking Rimac Nevera R.
As much as I dislike Tesla, a lot of this feels like pretty standard legalize that would be in most reservation or pre-order documents to protect the company. Can anyone speak to if this is truly unique for in this case?
If there's anything we've learned in the US in the past ten years, is that this new breed of corporations and government officials will gladly take the "standard" set of rules that everyone has been operating in in good faith and exploit the gaps as hard as humanly possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, no one has taken delivery of the Roadster announced 9 years ago; all of your examples are cars having more demand than supply (and in the case of the Trabant and the Lada, fewer years); as for the Morgan Plus 8, Morgan make a deliberate choice to keep the production figures where they were, despite the high demand. The key difference seems to be between little supply (your examples) and no supply.
Usually, if you had been unable to deliver a product in that time, it's probably about time to cancel it. Of course, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 9-year-ago-announced Roadster has not been cancelled, and people have not been refunded.
Gotcha, essentially, unique in that the supply has remained zero, and no fulfilled orders/deliveries thus far, despite a nine year duration between initial announcement and the current date. I guess if that bothers you, cancel your order and get a refund? MKBHD has reportedly done so and gotten a full refund[0].
> Usually, if you had been unable to deliver a product in that time, it's probably about time to cancel it.
Why? Seems like demand (in this case) is sufficient enough to still launch the product. If a business has the demand for the product and sufficient capital to continue investing in an area they deem to have a viable product, isn't that their prerogative?
Sure, a space-age flying car which isn’t in production yet might have a waiting list. But what about eastern bloc econoboxes like the Trabant or the Lada? That are literally made of cardboard?
You’ve got to be kidding. If your point is that waiting lists for cars can exist, I concede that. I see no other parallels.
This has to be a satirical response. Please tell me it's satire. If it's satire it's actually a pretty bad caricature of elon fan boys.
Because I can't believe anyone would seriously make a comparison to a 55+ year old car manufactured in a communist country.
It's like saying that an email server that takes a week to send emails is fine because the wait times for a posted letter in the 1960s could take 2 weeks.
Getting tired of all the bystander commentary. It's a toy for rich people. If there's 0 chance you're going to buy it, who really cares about your opinion.
The first (much nicer looking!) Roadster Version 2 prototype was announced ~10 years ago (2017), and was never released, and has now been replaced with this, so it's a matter of faith to say it'll ever be released. It'd never sell in sufficient numbers to move the needle for Tesla, probably not even sufficient to recoup development costs.
Note that the only version of the car that could conceivably be street legal is the base one with fan only, and no cold thruster launch - NTSB is never going to approve throwing out a condensation cloud smokescreen on the highway!
The "other side of that bet" would be betting that ordinary consumers will be driving it in 2028, which is what Elon claimed. A lot can happen in ten years---if Tesla ends up selling a clean-sheet sports car called something else by 2036, would that still count? Or are we talking about this specific model with these specs?
$250k USD invested today is ~$400k to ~$600k in 2036.
And that $50k deposit made 9 years ago? That could have been nearly $300k in 2036.
"A fool and his money..."
I don't have any particular problem with a modest (a few 10s of thousands) deposit on a ~3 year timeline that's reasonably confident. But six figures on a 100% speculative consumer good (ie not even remotely an investment)? Oof, no thanks.
If you mean one that can do the stunts from the demo I'm in, but not for $10k: that's more than I'm willing to bet with people I don't know. How about $100, since most of the point of a bet is formalizing a disagreement and showing that you're serious?
So, this new promise negates the original 3-year delivery timeline promised in 2017? That timeline, taken alongside Musk's recent "we're no longer a car company" statements is... well, you do you, I guess, but I'm not in the business having handing piles of cash to a billionaire.
Did we invent a new logical fallacy? If you believed that you'd bet money on it and since you aren't betting money on it then your argument is invalid!
one one hand, i think showmanship can be used to generate interest for something that is far off and thus allow humans to pursue long term goals and i think elon has used this tactic in the past for the right reasons but these days it seems like he just uses this tactic to deceive people - almost like trump.
It’s all about how you frame it. He could have framed it as a technology demo instead of as a new car that will ship. That would have been equally impressive and more honest.
While I understand your thinking, he rolled Twitter into SpaceX. He absolutely uses it as a financial vehicle, regardless of how legitimate the space business is.
It is standard practice for companies to have some of their businesses subsidize other parts of the overall business. Not sure why people are so fixated on this case. It is also not unique to technology at all.
Because the sky high IPO valuable was mostly based on SpaceX being an AI company that has a huge TAM. Things that have nothing to do with space (please don't say space data centers).
X is less of an "other part of the overall business [SpaceX]" and more of a bolted-on, completely unrelated part merged together b/c of financial difficulties.
Geezus_42, why do you and others care so much about that?
Is it because you are a SpaceX shareholder and you feel your interests as a shareholder are undermined? If you have not vested interest in SpaceX, why would you care that it supports some shitty venture like Twitter/X?
That'd be funny. An insurance where if you want to make a claim, you just get met with a Grok-bot that'll do the airbnb-style fucking to you (ignore the complaints, minimize them, be as stupid and slow as possible, and offer 10% of the refund that the complainant will frustratedly take as "at least it's something").
There's probably going to be a single trick car someone can demo remotely (no passengers) somewhere like an hour away from LA, it will very often be down for maintenance, and everyone will only be able to buy the street legal version of the car which won't be available for another 3 years
Recently the name of the producet was updated to be called "FSD (Supervised), ffs, even if it was delivered, it was called FSD in 2017...basically 10 years ago.
"We are here at SpaceX's uh rocket test and development center in McGregor, Texas. It's 4,000 acres. Thank you for having us. Thank you for hosting us, SpaceX."
Establishes SpaceX as a giant.
"we're 20 years from when Elon first introduced the Roadster to the world. And it was really a proof of concept that proved EVs were viable product, fun to drive, could go the distance."
Establishes Elon/Tesla as an innovator. Spells out clearly the context "proof of concept." Associates "demonstrations" with "proof." Introduces the concepts of "fun", "viable", and "longevity" aka "distance."
"They were real cars. And look at how far we've come in those 20 years."
Compares introduction of a car, with current demonstration, and establishes the idea that todays "flying car" is going to be just as successful, given time.
"But you know, the last time we had Roadster and SpaceX together, we put Elons's into orbit."
Establishes "the sky as the limit" as to what these two companies can do together. The heart of the entire sales pitch.
"And you can see there, and you know, Starman is still out there somewhere. Amazing feat."
Defines "creating more space junk for publicity stunts" as an "amazing feat."
"you're going to see the results of what happens when you have a collaboration with the world's best car company and the world's best rocket company."
Repetition of the sales pitch to cement it.
"The future is autonomous, Elon, right? Yes. But this is not an autonomous car. It is the last. Well, it it is technically autonomous for this demo to make sure we don't kill anyone. Correct. So, just in case. Uh, but uh this will actually be long-term the only uh manually driven car that Tesla makes. You're going to have some fun sometimes. Yeah. And so, if you're going to have only one manually driven car, let's uh let's take it to the limits and way past the limits."
Confusion. Establishes autonomous with inevitibility. Claims demo car is not automous, then claims it is autonomous, because its dangerous to drive it manually. Plants the idea that its the only car you're gonna need, you can drive it manually, and its the ultimate experience.
Then, as everyone is confused, they start the countdown, and the magic show commences.
Either you see the scripted psyop aka sales pitch or you don't.
We all watched the same demo.
Some of us saw an amazing future.
The rest of us saw a circus selling timeshare condos.
Tesla and SpaceX are "engineering companies." Engineering is at the heart of what they do.
Wouldn't you have more confidence, if they had engineered something useful for a demonstration as an investor, instead of the song and dance ?
Companies are supposed to produce useful products to generate profits, which is why investors invest, right ?
To me it looks like they are out of actual real useful ideas. If they had a new useful idea why didn't we see it ?
I think this might have lowered institutional investor confidence because it looks like a vegas show and smells like a tourist pump and dump intended to capture the "retail publics" money.
You can do better Elon. I know you can.
ps. I am a Starlink subscriber, and I love the service. Please don't cancel me.
To be clear, my intention was not to throw shade on SpaceX or Tesla as companies, or on any of their USEFUL products. I like both companies, and their products. I'm a customer.
My intention was to demonstrate the intent behind the demonstration, as physics says this is 100+ times more inefficient than a business jet, and will never fly more than 5 miles given its current size. Thats not me, thats PHYSICS.
This was a sales pitch for a corporate merger, not a product launch.
This is financial engineering.
So by "do better" I meant, think longer term, solve a real problem. They have the resources, and the talent, and we got a donkey show.
It climbed the ramp very slowly. It doesn't require insane acceleration at all, just a reasonable amount of power at the wheels combined with a fan that can hold it to the track.
You can hear it in the voices of the creators, when they're giving an overview of the car to MotorWeek and other car media outlets. 99% focused on the rocket and battery tech/innovation, almost zero about the actual driving characteristics of the car, or that it -is- a car. Seems more like a rolling marketing mule.
The Trabant often had wait lists of ten or more years[1][2].
The Soviet Lada often had wait times of five to ten years[3].
Even the Morgan Plus 8 had wait lists of (reportedly) a decade long as recently as 1990[4].
[1] - https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbp016 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant [3] - https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71079/1/10390647.pdf [4] - https://www.morganville.org/history/the-waiting-list
Usually, if you had been unable to deliver a product in that time, it's probably about time to cancel it. Of course, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 9-year-ago-announced Roadster has not been cancelled, and people have not been refunded.
> Usually, if you had been unable to deliver a product in that time, it's probably about time to cancel it.
Why? Seems like demand (in this case) is sufficient enough to still launch the product. If a business has the demand for the product and sufficient capital to continue investing in an area they deem to have a viable product, isn't that their prerogative?
[0] - https://podscripts.co/podcasts/waveform-the-mkbhd-podcast/wh...
You’ve got to be kidding. If your point is that waiting lists for cars can exist, I concede that. I see no other parallels.
Because I can't believe anyone would seriously make a comparison to a 55+ year old car manufactured in a communist country.
It's like saying that an email server that takes a week to send emails is fine because the wait times for a posted letter in the 1960s could take 2 weeks.
Someone add that to the list of bullshit he said.
He tweeted back in 2019 there would be a flying roadster.
Promises made, promises kept?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1083095876392964096
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1083128521801822213
Broken clock, etc.
https://elonmusk.today/#flying-roadster
If you believe what you write, it’s easy money for you. Deal?
Note that the only version of the car that could conceivably be street legal is the base one with fan only, and no cold thruster launch - NTSB is never going to approve throwing out a condensation cloud smokescreen on the highway!
And that $50k deposit made 9 years ago? That could have been nearly $300k in 2036.
"A fool and his money..."
I don't have any particular problem with a modest (a few 10s of thousands) deposit on a ~3 year timeline that's reasonably confident. But six figures on a 100% speculative consumer good (ie not even remotely an investment)? Oof, no thanks.
Elon's M.O. is to roll his tapped-out prior ventures (including debts) into the current white-hot thing.
> Elon's M.O. is to roll his tapped-out prior ventures (including debts) into the current white-hot thing.
SpaceX is the long game. It started before Tesla. It is not a fly by night operation.
> Because the sky high IPO valuable was mostly based on SpaceX being an AI company that has a huge TAM
OK, but why do you care so much about that? Are you disadvantaged or harmed in some way? I'm truly trying to understand.
Is it because you are a SpaceX shareholder and you feel your interests as a shareholder are undermined? If you have not vested interest in SpaceX, why would you care that it supports some shitty venture like Twitter/X?
I don't understand.
That'd be funny. An insurance where if you want to make a claim, you just get met with a Grok-bot that'll do the airbnb-style fucking to you (ignore the complaints, minimize them, be as stupid and slow as possible, and offer 10% of the refund that the complainant will frustratedly take as "at least it's something").
He still has a lot of wealthy acolytes (for some reason) and they live for exclusive new shit.
I have FSD and it’s amazing.
There's 1000 people that preordered their Roadster in 2017 for 250k $....
And they are rumoring now 2028 production, which in Tesla style will be deep in 2030s. If it ever happens.
The dialog of the event spelled it out.
"We are here at SpaceX's uh rocket test and development center in McGregor, Texas. It's 4,000 acres. Thank you for having us. Thank you for hosting us, SpaceX."
Establishes SpaceX as a giant.
"we're 20 years from when Elon first introduced the Roadster to the world. And it was really a proof of concept that proved EVs were viable product, fun to drive, could go the distance."
Establishes Elon/Tesla as an innovator. Spells out clearly the context "proof of concept." Associates "demonstrations" with "proof." Introduces the concepts of "fun", "viable", and "longevity" aka "distance."
"They were real cars. And look at how far we've come in those 20 years."
Compares introduction of a car, with current demonstration, and establishes the idea that todays "flying car" is going to be just as successful, given time.
"But you know, the last time we had Roadster and SpaceX together, we put Elons's into orbit."
Establishes "the sky as the limit" as to what these two companies can do together. The heart of the entire sales pitch.
"And you can see there, and you know, Starman is still out there somewhere. Amazing feat."
Defines "creating more space junk for publicity stunts" as an "amazing feat."
"you're going to see the results of what happens when you have a collaboration with the world's best car company and the world's best rocket company."
Repetition of the sales pitch to cement it.
"The future is autonomous, Elon, right? Yes. But this is not an autonomous car. It is the last. Well, it it is technically autonomous for this demo to make sure we don't kill anyone. Correct. So, just in case. Uh, but uh this will actually be long-term the only uh manually driven car that Tesla makes. You're going to have some fun sometimes. Yeah. And so, if you're going to have only one manually driven car, let's uh let's take it to the limits and way past the limits."
Confusion. Establishes autonomous with inevitibility. Claims demo car is not automous, then claims it is autonomous, because its dangerous to drive it manually. Plants the idea that its the only car you're gonna need, you can drive it manually, and its the ultimate experience.
Then, as everyone is confused, they start the countdown, and the magic show commences.
Either you see the scripted psyop aka sales pitch or you don't.
We all watched the same demo.
Some of us saw an amazing future.
The rest of us saw a circus selling timeshare condos.
Tesla and SpaceX are "engineering companies." Engineering is at the heart of what they do.
Wouldn't you have more confidence, if they had engineered something useful for a demonstration as an investor, instead of the song and dance ?
Companies are supposed to produce useful products to generate profits, which is why investors invest, right ?
To me it looks like they are out of actual real useful ideas. If they had a new useful idea why didn't we see it ?
I think this might have lowered institutional investor confidence because it looks like a vegas show and smells like a tourist pump and dump intended to capture the "retail publics" money.
You can do better Elon. I know you can.
ps. I am a Starlink subscriber, and I love the service. Please don't cancel me.
That was perfect.
My intention was to demonstrate the intent behind the demonstration, as physics says this is 100+ times more inefficient than a business jet, and will never fly more than 5 miles given its current size. Thats not me, thats PHYSICS.
This was a sales pitch for a corporate merger, not a product launch.
This is financial engineering.
So by "do better" I meant, think longer term, solve a real problem. They have the resources, and the talent, and we got a donkey show.
Instead of S3XY cars we get stunts. Solar roofs, Concept car roadsters, and of course humanoid robots.
If only Tesla would be interested in cars again.
Insane acceleration to get up the ramp and enough fuel to land safely.
Unless you have a giant ramp or a penchant to drive off cliffs who is lining up for this?
It climbed the ramp very slowly. It doesn't require insane acceleration at all, just a reasonable amount of power at the wheels combined with a fan that can hold it to the track.
I suppose the Fast and Furious guys are work shopping a scene around this.