So this might be close to the design of the model 3?
Hmm i won't say what i think but here is the url for you all.
I certainly hope that is not what we will see. Recruiting from Maserati and Mazda should garner much better results.
These arent from tesla. They from stumpf studios.
I 'like' the upper version compared to the lower version, but artfully overplaying the contrast button ruins the lower one for me--makes it look mini-DONK. I'd buy an 'upper one' but then I like wagons and hatchbacks a LOT since my first BTTW useful as a hatchback (not, however, as a car in any sense of the word) Renault 5. The upper one has lines that slightly remind me of, but much improved upon, a standard Prius, in the same way that a new Prius is similar to, but much improved upon a Pontiac Aztec. Many won't like the upper one compared to an S, but having that stylized T front and back will remove many qualms about a 20% smaller but super useful design. Even if you hate the overall design, you'd have to admit that the lines flow well within the design.
I suppose I'll get used to it, but the 'new' Mazda 3 look harkening back to Talbot sports cars and the like grates on me. Both in pictures, and up close from all angles yesterday--just no.
I loathe true actual sedans with a trunk with a passion for losing good space and utility but of course the Model S has loads of appeal even if trying to look somewhat sedan-ish. Truly a felicitous design.
Spam, spam, spam, spam spam spam spam....
- Monty Python
Thank god. This design is horrible. I guess i was too excited to notice it wasn't real.
I was thinking that it didn't look radical enough.!!!
Sorry for the deek.
Is there some mechanical reason for the hump in the rear window?
What a turn off.
A great joy with Tesla is the lack of bumps, humps, ridges and stuff.
These renderings are stunningly ugly.
The 'designer' took all the worst aspects of a Honda Odyssey and accentuated them by reducing it to 5/8th scale.
The 25" wheels are utterly ridiculous.
The overall design isn't even as good as the Volvo C30 or Hyundai Veloster.
There is no correlation to any design themes by Franz von Holzhausen at all.
No one, anywhere, would consider this a viable competitor to Acura TLX, Infiniti G50, or Lexus IS, let alone AUDI A4, BMW 3-Series, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class. So obviously, the 'designer', or whomever commissioned the renders for their article, does not believe that will be the case. This is the sort of [BOLSHEVIK] I might well expect out of Detroit, but never for Tesla Motors.
In short, they are calling Elon Musk a liar, and begging the world to believe them.
I am also pretty down on this design. I know that Elon is toying w/ a "revolutionary" design, but I hope it looks much nicer than this. One avenue they may take is doing the cross-over version first or at the same time as a sedan version. But other than that possible divergence (if you can call it that), I am hoping the Model ≡ takes a lot more queues from the Model S.
I know Elon has stated he would like much more than just a smaller Model S, but I could live with that. Especially if the alternative looks like these renderings.
Forgive my ignorance about the size of this car, but here is a Jag that looks 100% better than the renderings. It does not strike me as a "full-size" sedan, but that could be a trick of the camera.
Regardless of how it may be styled, I think that the large glass area and the practical hatchback design is a good idea.
... cues from the Model S.
I was hoping the model 3 would look like a scaled down version of the model s. If it is put my name on the list of potential buyers. But if it looks anything like this rendering count me out. I don't want something that looks like many of the "stubby" looking hybrids already on the market!
They arent alpha images. They are not from tesla.
I sure hope it doesn't look like that pile of garbage. Can't see Elon letting that happen.
I freaked out when I initially saw these too. However I eventually noticed that these were "concept" images from Stumpf Studios and they even state on their official website that this is what they "envision" the Tesla 3 will look like.
Based on what I've been researching and also after a visit to my local Tesla store this past week I am pretty assured the Tesla 3 is going to look nothing like this.
Essentially like Invisiblesight mentioned previously it will most likely look like a scaled down version of Tesla Model S. The Tesla employee mentioned to me it will be a competitor to the BMW 3-series, convincing me that it will be a 4-door sedan that's a bit smaller than the Tesla S (I think there were reports a while back saying it will be 20% smaller)
Still have roughly a year till they OFFICIALLY reveal the Tesla 3, so expect to keep seeing these more concept images floating around until Tesla finally makes their big announcement in March of 2016.
I agree it's all someone's concept and Tesla's WILL be different.
However if you start by making the Model S smaller, then make a few modification to keep cabin size large and more streamlined, you get what this concept shows.
My logic there is that you keep the wheel base as long as you can, push the cabin forward while reducing frunk size, and you try to give a slightly more tear drop shape. If it has a smaller physical size battery it might be able to remove the battery thickness just for foot-room for rear passengers too, thus also dropping the rear seat height and giving head room. These all provide greater internal space.
I think it's possible to consider this concept as fitting the simpler to build, more standard look that EM said they'd start with. But I'm really not sure.
I expect Model S to be more like this:
than what OP post shows.
It will not be a golf cart. Not even the very basic version of it.
The Aventador? Not even close.
More like that than the OP post. Not that it would be anything close to that either.
Do you think the concept looks like a golf cart timo?
The Honda is strong with this one...
See... perhaps it's weird, but I see the concept in the OP to be very different to those Hondas. It's more pushed forward and with less drag, longer wheel base. The streamlining is significant.
It took an effort for me to see the similarities...but yes in gross setup it's similar.
Look at the actual shapes, not the lines tgast are there to distract, mislead the eye, as optical illusions.
@grega, yes. That's an ugly golf cart.
@Timo. Interesting. I think it looks distinctly better than at least 1/3 of the cars on the road.
It has a snub nose, push forward look that goes beyond what people will generally accept, and that's why I'm undecided further than that.
ie: The large differences become a caricature
I can see it being a future look, mainly because I had already tried to think of the ideal aerodynamic shape and then pushed a smaller car shape towards that.
I'm sure the industry will move in that direction for their shape... but not so fast, it'll take a few more steps and people getting used to an industry shift towards smaller engine compartments (ICE) with better aerodynamics.
There actually isn't anything particularly beautiful about our current chosen shapes for cars, they're just what we're used to, and our neural interpretation of beauty is based on the fine tuning and differences from the accepted norm.
Grega, better than one third means worse than two thirds.
Tesla cannot afford any styling that is controversial. A dud at this point would be terrible. Odd styling is for cars that have no other attributes to really stand out.
I am nervous about any plan to go avant grade with the styling. Make it pleasant looking, practical, great performing, affordable and easy to charge up.
I'd just choose more cabin room and range for the same price, even if it looked a bit bulbous from the outside.
I do agree that if I could get bigger cabin and same drag coefficient from a more ModelS shaped car and keep a smaller size too I'd take that. But there are certain laws of space to contend with :)
@DTsea, grega is not wrong, that is worse-looking than two thirds. At least. IMO it is worse-looking than 99% of the cars.
So being practical, would you choose the better looking car even if it had smaller cabin space and lower range?
The site made this concept because it has those advantages.
No, I would choose better looking car with same cabin space and higher range. Which is what Tesla will do :-)
Yes, it doesn't have to be 20% smaller. But I believe it will be.
We can philosophically disagree I think.
I'm still interested in which car you would choose if the "forward pushed" cabin provided a distinctly bigger interior without other problems (beyond the weird look).
carlgo2 reasoned, "Odd styling is for cars that have no other attributes to really stand out."
grega commented, "I'd just choose more cabin room and range for the same price, even if it looked a bit bulbous from the outside."
You must have loved this one, then:
1997 Toyota Previa
MPG: Up to 18 city, 22 highway
Engine: 2.4L 4-cylinder
Towing capacity: 3,500 lbs
Horsepower: 161 HP
Don't worry about it. The Tesla Model ≡ will be significantly more aerodynamic than its competitors, while being stunningly beautiful. All without escorting to weirdmobile/future pod design schemes.
That was: Don't worry about it. The Tesla Model ≡ will be significantly more aerodynamic than its competitors, while being stunningly beautiful. All without escorting to weirdmobile/future pod design schemes.
Where did 'escorting' come from?
Grega, most people really do care about aesthetics.
I like your counter examples, they make me question what I'm saying.
Firstly yes if I needed 7 seats I would consider the minivan. I'd also look at cost, performance etc - but I'm also quite against size for the sake of size (because that's not a real benefit!) I want a car to be practical to my actual needs and uses, I don't need a foot of headroom etc or spacious interior, and dislike the parents I see wanting to be high up so they can see everything and feel safer... yet they're actually more likely to run over kids.
I would consider any car with 7 seats if I needed 7, including the Model S with the rear kid seats (not permitted in Australia btw). The ModelS is better for many reasons - even if I assumed the minivan had full electric drive equivalent to the ModelS.
Rather than use the psychology of design, a description I once read in a political article made a lot of sense to me. This professor described every major political system as an average of the one before and the one after it - and ultimately said if you want to see what will come next, imagine today's setup is the average of the previous way things were done, and the future that you are wondering about. He was wrong in several ways but the concept was thought provoking and worthwhile.
Put another way, take today's station wagon, and the designs from 10 years ago, and look at the trends in hood/bonnet space, and tapering on the roof etc. Assume today's design is half way from the old to the new.
Partly that's because aesthetically we make our judgement based on difference from the average - it has to be similar but different. So when a huge hood/bonnet is expected then your design can only differ so much before it's unappealing. A car design shape will slowly change, often accidentally towards the new shapes that get the most attention, and also driven by the practicality (more space, or less engine, etc). That sets the new average/expectation, and the differences continue.
Essentially I concede to myself that all of our tastes are changing all the time and this concept is a predictable evolution in what people WILL like, even though I don't like the look of the concept (yet). I also think that that look is more than 2 years away from being a natural progression, though as such it might lead the way.
More importantly... after all my talk about extra space and the counter-arguments that the aesthetic is more important, I have to go back to see whether the extra space provides something worthwhile. I have a similar size car now to what the Model3 should be, and don't really need more space. So looking again at the concept art what does the extra space actually provide that I would need (to trade off against ugly looks).
The concept looks like it provides a Model S sized interior in a smaller car. I am starting to feel the space constraints, and sometimes drive a Lexus and I like the size. My 5 and 4 year olds will continue to grow, and the middle seat might need more space for a friend, so perhaps. I'll probably have more need of a 6 seat interior though... and will require a bigger car to get it (unless a pushed forward cabin will provide an extra row).
To a degree I know I've been sliding towards one side of the argument, but I agree with all the counterarguments I'm jus trying to see the full picture ... I see this concept as a realistic possibility (a very educated guess), one that will grow on people as a whole.
Look in any parking lot in CA, at least, and what do you see? Vast fleets of SUV and crossovers. That is what people are buying here (in addition to a million trucks).
People obviously find this configuration attractive enough, and the practicality is vastly better. Would the real-world range be so much worse, all things being equal?
But, some crossovers are attractive, others less so, and some like the example here are hideous. There is never a need or an excuse for that.
grega: Your continual average theory doesn't really apply to the automotive industry. Most of them are afraid to move that half step you speak of... You can see it in the concept cars they released over decades.
The most adventurous advances in design go perhaps 1/8th of the way by the time a production car is released. Even then, traditional buyers hate the result, slowing the progression even more. A prime example is how the Porsche 928 was so hated, but pretty much every Porsche on the road today sports styling cues that were originated with the 928.
The Stumpf concept is horrible.
Let's review the competition:
@RedSage wrote "Your continual average theory doesn't really apply to the automotive industry. Most of them are afraid to move that half step you speak of... You can see it in the concept cars they released over decades."
I'm not sure that you understand what I said, sorry if I wasn't clear.
Nobody decides to move half way to some future design, or half way to a future concept. It's very clear looking at the last 50 years of cars in 10 year steps that they change, and there is a progression to it. If there wasn't a visible evolution in the look of cars, that would kill my description, but I don't think that's what you are saying.
I'll call the hood/bonnet the 'nose' just for convenience :)
I think you can clearly see the nose of cars getting smaller (in parallel with engines getting smaller), and I think it's fair to assume the trend will continue. Even today's good-looking smaller nose cars would have looked repulsive 10 years ago, it is too different to people's expectations.
So all I'm saying is that it is a worthy 'guess', and that in 5 years many people won't think it's ugly. But Tesla will hopefully do amazing things that we don't predict :)
My point is that concept cars have pushed the notion of a forward cabin position, longer wheelbase, and shorter overhangs for decades. Around 25 years ago, I did an illustration that I used to prove a point to a friend of mine. I pointed out that when it came to the driver's seating position in sports cars, it was always in the center of the overall car length, regardless of drivetrain. When the cars were designed, they were given certain lines that act as a sort of optical illusion to draw the eye away from that revelation. But whether they were front engine rear wheel drive, mid engine rear wheel drive, or rear engine rear wheel drive the seating position relative to overall length was the same. That hasn't changed.
A very few cars have short overhangs. Most simply fake it, by having very aerodynamic curved corners front and back. There are practical reasons for this, such as meeting crash regulations, of course.
I believe it is possible to design and build a true cab-forward design without the result looking like a van or weirdmobile. It will require a lot of hard work though. And I'm rather confident that Franz von Holzhausen hasn't been sitting on his hands since 2012.
Fair point about the look RS.
In cab-forward, the driver is part of the crumple zone.