latest picture of model X

latest picture of model X

Interestingly at the TM website the picture of the MX doesn't show rear view mirrors, only a thin arm sticking out with most likely a camera at the end.

grant10k | 16 août 2015

This website?

That's the prototype. It was originally supposed to have rear view cameras, but that's against the law, so it'll have mirrors (I'm hoping as well as cameras) until the law gets changed.

rossRallen | 20 août 2015

Rendering of the Model X on the web page hasn't changed for more than 26 months: the time I've been waiting for mine. And, whazzup with that?

Pbfoot | 20 août 2015

OK, I'll do the honors. Idiot! flagged

ian | 20 août 2015

@Pbfoot - You forgot something...

Buy a KIA


jjs | 21 août 2015

I drove by a Kia once. Don't think I would buy a Kia though. | 21 août 2015

Rented a Kia Optima from Avis last month. It was pretty basic but with surprising amount of cargo space. Based on that experience, the Model ≡ ought to be quite capacious, if somewhat more expensive.

jordanrichard | 22 août 2015

Can we please give people the benefit of the doubt, before calling them "idiots". The OP may very well be relatively new to the world of Tesla and doesn't know the whole history of the company and models.

I do think Tesla should at least place a disclaimer on the picture for the X, stating that it was a concept picture as of "xxxx".

Remnant | 22 août 2015

@ grant10k (August 16, 2015)

<< It was originally supposed to have rear view cameras, but that's against the law, ... >>

This is not true. It's NOT against the law to use side rearview cameras.

It is, however, still required to have and use side rearview mirrors.

Tesla could supply both and make the mirrors easy to remove and, perhaps, reinstall (for jurisdictions that might still require them, after the date when NHTSA will allow their removal), either by the owner or by the Service Centers.

It is important to note though that the cameras and the mirrors should have different locations.

The traditional side mirror locations (in the front angles of the side windows) is not needed for cameras, because they do not have to have a line of sight to the driver (while mirrors obviously do).

There is nothing to see on the cameras themselves;it's only the images they transmit to the dashboard that the driver needs to see, in order to monitor the rear corners of the car.

eric.zucker | 22 août 2015

Those side cameras might also be useful for the autopilot software...

And certainly if able to record might give evidence of someone steals your wheels or scratches the paint with a key... Or in case of accident.

grant10k | 22 août 2015

Me: "It was originally supposed to have rear view cameras, but that's against the law, so it'll have mirrors (I'm hoping as well as cameras) until the law gets changed."

I thought I was being fairly clear, but to be unambiguously specific, it's against the law to have just cameras (i.e. no mirrors).

vperl | 22 août 2015

Buy a KIA, be happy. | 22 août 2015

I think @vperl is a salesman for a certain Korean car company, not to be named.

@Remnant: I fully understand your thoughts about side rear view camera location. However, for some reason, Tesla engineers stuck them where the mirrors would have been on the prototype. I wonder why.

@grant: Are you getting a little frustrated about being misunderstood? Think of Elon back when he was pitching Tesla to VCs. If he managed to get a call back, it was just to blow him off. You have been the source of many posts chock full of good information. No need for the f-bomb. People who are ahead of their time are often misunderstood.

I should know.:-)) | 22 août 2015

Just for fun I googled the laws governing rear view mirrors.

I learned first of all that side and rear view mirror laws are state by state. Didn't know that.
Rear view mirrors on the sides of vehicles are not required in many states. Some states require them for vehicles that have conditions that block the view of an ordinary rear view mirror inside the vehicle: tow trucks, big rig tractors etc. No state bans the use of rear view cameras on the sides of vehicles. They are not against the law but, as @grant so clearly states, cameras cannot be the "exclusive" source of the side-mounted rear view. In order to be compliant In all 50 states a vehicle requires a rear view mirror on the left and right sides, mounted so as to be visible to the driver. So far, I have not found any applicable federal laws.


Bottom line: it is okay to have mirrors and cameras but not okay to not have mirrors in most states.

Isn't this fun?

aesculus | 22 août 2015

I think the logic about putting the cameras in the same location as the mirrors is so the driver sees the same sort of perspective he/she would see if a mirror was there. Its probably more of a transition/compatibility issue than one of pure engineering logic.

grant10k | 22 août 2015

Yeah, a little frustrated in this case. I write one sentence, the guy reads half of it, and goes on a micro tirade to correct me and write my own point back to me.

There is no need for an f-bomb, but I thought it apt anyway.

vperl | 22 août 2015

"Buy a KIA" is mine, those that use my signoff are copycats and agree with me.

Beware, that is dangerous territory, few have survived.

vperl | 22 août 2015

Sorry, Georgia ,good you did not use my signoff. But, if you do, shame on you.

Never owned a car not U.S.A. CAR COMPANY.
MOST folks here brag about their foreign cars. If those complain about the MX, I just say they need to go else where.
So, they need to be happy....

Buy a KIA, and leave . | 23 août 2015

@vperl: I'm beginning to think you have a Kia referral deal. If so, how do they reward you? With kimchi?

ronmerkord | 23 août 2015

Hey, we owned a Kia Sedona for years. Loved it. Lots of room for kids and dogs.

OK, maybe the cheaply made plastic door handles broke frequently, but I've heard that the Model S often has door handle problems as well.

SigX #1015

Pbfoot | 23 août 2015

Maybe I was quick to flag the 'idiocy' of this post. It was a tongue-in-cheek obvious reference to Mclary, but newbies might not be in on the joke.

It was also because of some frustration with the titles people give for their new topic posts. Some people are obviously going with a click bait approach to lure people. Have wasted time looking at many a post which was very different from what one might expect from the title. This one being an example.

I appreciate people who post their topic as a question if they are asking something. I think most people would think that a post entitled 'Latest picture of Model X' contains a new picture, something which many of us have been eagerly following since tesla had been slow to show the final design.

I am sure the OP did not mean to deceive people. And it's only ten seconds wasted out of my life. So my apologies.