upvote
How much does the car actually weigh? It feels more sleight of hand than actually a flying car.
reply
About 3800 pounds. (from Hargety interview)
reply
There is absolutely no way that you'd keep a vehicle that heavy suspended for more than a fraction of a second with the size airtanks shown.
reply
I would put good money on the flying demo one being a custom lightweight version.
reply
Honestly, I think what is shown is sleight of hand, it was probably a step up from this DIY project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MybApXQIO5Q
reply
> I definitely have my issues with Tesla and Elon but...

Sad that people feel the need to add this qualification. I see it regularly.

reply
No it's not sad, the man was basically an unelected official, laid off thousands of government workers and the second order effects of that will affect millions. All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?
reply
"No it's not sad, <I disagree with his politics>." really just proving GP's point imo. Imagine if you couldn't post a thread about Microsoft products on HN without republicans feeling the need to jump in to talk about how much they hate Bill Gates for his donations to Kamala Harris's campaign in 2024. It's really tiresome.
reply
Where is the hyperloop? Where are the tunnels? Where is the mars program? Where are self driving cars?

He's a bloviating conman and no rational person should believe that this demo will ever see the light of day, if it wasn't faked.

This is completely outside of politics.

reply
If they fired 90% of the government employees, nobody would feel the difference. Most people are just paper pushers and part of the nonsense system. He wanted to manage it like a company, and what any CEO would do when they just start working: trim the fat.
reply
They might choose to do that after gaining a cursory understanding of the actual inner workings of the organisation. Especially if that organisation functions differently than corporations.
reply
100% of the people I know that got DOGE’d were amazing people drastically underpaid for their efforts already…

3 or 4 data points isn’t a whole lot more than an anecdote, but it’s still more data than baseless claims line you’re throwing around here

reply
I hope you get fired, too.
reply
"If you want a reduction in seat warmers in government you deserve to lose your job where you're actually being a productive member of society"

Guess he hit a nerve, eh? My condolences you got hit by the layoffs, try to not browse Reddit and Facebook all day at your next government job. Or do, but ONLY if you work for the IRS or ATF, they deserve nothing less.

reply
You are so easily taken in by a conman, saying he's doing one thing while doing something else (destroying investigations into his charlatanism).

You'd have loved L Ron Hubbard back in the day.

reply
> the man was basically an unelected official

Only the President and Congress were elected. The rest are all appointed.

> laid off thousands of government workers

He did at the direction of the President, who was elected. Government service is not a jobs program.

> the second order effects of that will affect millions

speculation

> All while he also toys with Ukraine and lives are lost so that he appeases an autocrat?

Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.

reply
> Only the President and Congress were elected. The rest are all appointed.

So an unelected official would be correct, right?

> He did at the direction of the President, who was elected.

Where is your evidence? Reporting contradicts what you say - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/trump-cabinet-musk-...

> speculation

Not really. Multiple independent sources and reports have confirmed the damage done by Musk during his time at DOGE.

> Decisions about Ukraine go through Trump. Musk is in a delicate position - it is illegal for him, as a private businessman, to be a combatant, but he seems thrust into that position.

He is as "thrust" into that position as he was "thrust" into the DOGE role.

What are your thoughts on his illegal state-sanctioned intimidation of ex-FEMA CFO?

reply
Yeah, and even with all the qualifications here, the man is still an absolute asshole.

All you need to do is see how frequently he posts on Twitter to know he's broken and trying to fill the hole with money and attention.

reply
> absolute asshole

I've worked with engineers "on the spectrum" my entire career. They can be difficult to get along with. None of them were evil, none intended to offend or hurt others. It would just come out wrong.

Once I understood, it wasn't an issue for me any more.

reply
Reporting literally just came out that throttling starlink for ukraine was his idea…but sure he is just a helpless innocent billionaire with no control whatsoever
reply
Musk replied to that post, defending his company's involvement. "Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS," he wrote. Musk added that Starlink is for "civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8wy9veedgygo

reply
I must defend the pdf billionaire
reply
This isn't TikTok. You can say "pedophile" here.
reply
[flagged]
reply
> laid off thousands of government workers

Preferably those tasked regulating his companies.

reply
If I had paid for a reservation for this car in checks notes 2017(!!!), I'd have some issues with them as well. Very cool tech demo, but come find me when it's getting produced and sold to the people who reserved them a decade ago.
reply
So many Elon haters around here

People should find a better hobby

reply
He's a neo-nazi that killed millions with his illegal USAID cuts. That qualification is the bare minimum.
reply
Well unfortunately he's made it necessary to do so. I can like this demo in the same way I can like the V2 rocket as a pioneering achievement in rocketry. There's a very big elephant in the room.
reply
The V2 as a military weapon was a complete failure (due to inaccurate guidance). It also consumed so much of the Reich's resources that it materially shortened the war.
reply
its cos he's a prick. The way he pretended to "fairly" sack devs at twitter when he was clearly just trying to cut costs. That he bought twitter to "defend free speech" and then started donating to the Republication party and promoting a very specific political position online. As a euro the Nazi salute alone is enough for me.

The qualifier matters, that guy has serious issues.

reply
Why is it sad? Over 700,000 avoidable deaths from Elon's dismantling of US AID alone, two thirds of them children. Estimated to be 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030.

I think the qualification is unbelievably tame considering what Elon deserves.

reply
Since you care so much, you must be donating a ton of money to save lives?
reply
> Over 700,000 avoidable deaths from Elon's dismantling of US AID alone

google: did congress restore food aid funding?

reply
How does that absolve Musk?
reply
I've seen wildly different estimates.
reply
How about catching the space rocket with chopsticks?
reply
We've had rocket powered drone for 30 years https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NL1UF2bvaEM this is just a larger version
reply
And those rocket drones have a significant proportion of their mass as reaction gas for the thrusters, everything else being designed around lightness, and can still only resist gravity on the order of a few tens of seconds before a full recharge needs to be done. They're very much designed for "small" course corrections outside of atmosphere, or quickly dodging the terminal phase of an interceptor, rather than efficient velocity change.

There's no getting away from the rocket equation - reaction mass is heavy. The sheer number of design compromises that need to be made to allow a cold gas thruster system means I can't see anything but ending up with an awful car for the sake of a few seconds "air time". And the rest of the time you'll still be (at least) doubling the mass of your car from the propellant plus whatever the thrusters, tanks, linkages and everything else weights. I guess you could leave it empty, then only charge it for the "Party Trick", but it still seems a lot of compromises for the occasional "Hey, this looks cool".

And then really only usable in a nice empty, flat, controlled environment - the "real world" driving experience has things like other cars, people, buildings and street surfaces that likly wouldn't appreciate what are effectively localised hurricane-force level winds from the car next to them.

This is a car rigged for a specific stunt. And there's a reason why people don't just drive around rigged stunt cars. They suck as being "cars".

reply
Maybe, but why? Feels like a slap in the face to people who have been waiting ten years for the car. Gimmicky demos just scream waste of money and loss of focus on what matters.
reply
You could make the same argument for hypercars like the McLaren W1, why do you need 1,258 bhp and sub 3s 0-60 times? Seems gimmicky and not practical for the road. But to that I'd argue, why not?
reply
I don't think they're saying its bad, rather, the previous roadster has been in the works for 10 years and still hasn't been manufactured due to issues. Considering that how are they going to manufacture this by 2028? feels unlikely unless LLMs can help them here
reply
Those are cars you can drive. This is not.
reply
Well yeah you have to fly this car.
reply
Have you seen it fly? Hovering for a is not flying
reply
OK, it was falling with style. :)
reply
the difference here being that hypercars actually exist in the real world
reply
Not sure why you're being downed. The Corvette E-Ray was one of the most impressive cars I've ever seen from design and styling to it's incredible performance, at a price point well below many cars it could stand toe-to-toe with. A big part of that impressiveness is that I can open Chevrolet's website right now, and find one to actually buy.

The demos for the future tech are fun for sure, but the Cybertruck and Tesla Semi started this exact same way. The Cybertruck arrived incredibly late, wildly missing even conservative estimates of it's capabilities, and at damn near double the price they teased, AND the units that have shipped have been a fucking mess, to such a degree where Tesla seemingly can't even give them away. And the Tesla Semi has still failed to materialize at all.

So yeah it's a bit of a joke to me to have them hocking a flying car, when their pickup truck can't even drive up a steep unpaved hill, that even my old clapped out F-150 on it's SUV tires would manage just fine.

Edit: and to clarify, I know that it can do that, because I helped a friend move some exercise equipment he bought at auction back to his house, and he has an open-back basement. We backed my truck with trailer down the hill, unloaded it through his basement patio door, and the truck then had to climb back up to the road. And I was a little nervous to be honest, but it did do that, despite as I said having SUV tires on 22-inch rims LOL

reply
F-150s are quite amazing in their ability to climb and maintain an even footing. But you never ever want to get near the point where it will start to roll because of the high ground clearance it is very hard to recover from that. I pulled a bunch of kids with their car out of a Colorado mountain pass near Ft. Collins that had gone 'off roading' in their parents car and it was borderline, almost ended up rolling my own car because of the drag of the other vehicle. Still, it worked and I was even more impressed by the F-150 than I was before then. I live in Europe now and such a vehicle would be completely out of place here but if I would ever end up in the sticks that's the car I would want.
reply
One difference being that those in some way relate to performance of a vehicle and engineering ability to achieve it in a package which can be used for its intended purpose. This is just a vehicle with massive tanks strapped in and and obviously non production (not even remotely on path to production) package to make it achieve what has been proven since the 1970s as feasible for stunts.
reply
> Seems gimmicky and not practical for the road

By that logic any performance car is useless. There are, albeit few, people that do track these cars.

reply
Tracks exist and people can drive there, even if not common. I’m not aware of any real world scenarios you could jump a car like this, except I guess if you have the money to hire a stunt crew on your own massive property. That’s still very different than having an unreasonably fast car you can bring to a track. The closest I can think of are the prototype flying cars… also not practical, but generally intend to be able to take off and land and perform some function. A driving bomb that can perform controlled stunts is in a different class.
reply
The people who are waiting for this car are waiting for a gimmick anyway. If you want a car that will take you from A to B reliably, you can buy one today.

most of the things a Tesla Roadster is advertised with is not street legal.

reply
Some, sure. The one person I know who reserved this owned the original roadster, believed in Tesla (quite wealthy by putting money where his mouth was in stock), and genuinely trying to advance the EV industry. He was so annoyed at this, and generally the last half decade of Tesla.
reply
Not a lot of tears to shed for folks waiting a long time for a $250k (starting, at least at the time) toy.

I'd bet most of them see this as a cooler, shinier toy.

reply
If you look at Tesla pricing and delivery, prices usually well above what was originally talked about - capability/etc a whole different thing with the cyber truck. The 3 engine "cyberbeast" was originally pushed at about 1/2 it's price 8ish years ago.
reply
Still waiting for high speed rail
reply
That's exactly how I see it too. Not a tesla shareholder but if I was I'd be running for the hills.
reply
Well, given that you’re not a Tesla shareholder, you likely give poor financial advice anyway. How long have people been trying to short Tesla? A decade at least?
reply
> How long have people been trying to short Tesla? A decade at least?

Still hoping.

reply
yeah if I had a preorder for a roadster, I'd be wondering about how much time they're spending on this compressed air thing.
reply
There's 3 trim levels. Flying is the top tier. They already publicly announced that.
reply
DHH: >I put $50,000 on this thing 18 months ago. Not knowing it was going to fucking fly! When it was already years "late". Because investing in whatever Elon does next is not just a great bet, but the most inspiring and fun one too.

https://x.com/dhh/status/2110983188910923926?s=20

Why the second hand outrage. If you didn't buy a car and feel bad about the wait time, just enjoy the demo! :D

reply
Birds of a feather I see
reply
Elon doesn't miss with his social media marketing. Compare the announcement tweets from Andy Jassy and the engagement they generate. Meta, with the Muse app (personal AI), is also leaning heavily on social media, but by paying influencers (instead of cool & viral product demos).
reply
"Elon doesn't miss with his social media marketing".

He just misses with his products these days: Cyber Truck, Robotaxi, Grok...

reply
A lot of this sentiment is based on jealousy or competiton with Musk, or the pleasure of harassment towards Asperger people: Gimmicky demos are what people remember.

Everyone here can probably still remember the time to the minute that Steve Jobs in 2007 said "an internet communicator, a music player, a phone" and the 3-faced cube transformed into a single device. That's what gimmicky demos are for.

reply
> or the pleasure of harassment towards Asperger people

I expect that motivates exactly zero percent of the criticism that Musk gets.

reply
The thing that Steve Jobs was demoing actually released just 6 months later. I'd be very surprised if anything close to what was demoed here is released even 6 years later.
reply
deleted
reply
Yeah, and it showed up in 2007.

--

Sent from my iPhone

reply
> A lot of this sentiment is based on jealousy or competiton with Musk

Maybe. Another possibility is a feeling of opposition to the idea that the world's richest person continue to accumulate wealth, while using said wealth to dishonestly manipulate elections, support openly fascist and bigoted political parties, and, most recently, tip the scales of international conflict (by limiting Starlink use by Ukraine).

You might love his products, but Elon Musk should not have more power. That's a statement not based in envy, but in a revulsion for what he spends that money on, and how it impacts innocent people.

reply
Out of curiosity, I checked how Musk's wealth of $1.02T is allocated.

  75.7% SpaceX
  15.1% Tesla
  1.3% The Boring Company
  7.6% Other
His political donations for the 2025-26 cycle are apparently $366M.
reply
Careful. You will be flagged.
reply
Getting downvoted by Musk fanboys is a badge of honor
reply
[dead]
reply
Gimmicky? Within our lifetime it will be a common safety feature like airbags. Can you imagine how many terrible accidents can be avoided if the car can fly out of a bad situation? Doesn't need to fly long distance. Engage your imagination and you'll think of many use cases.
reply
Flying/jumping doesn't instantly kill momentum.

Could it theoretically help to avoid *some* crashes? Yes

But in most cases, it'll just trade a frontal crash for a crash against obstacles off/above the road... Which is way more dangerous for pedestrians, buildings, etc.

Driver assistance can in some cases brake before an obstacles. But we've also seen Teslas drive into obstacles. Regardless if it's going to be driver assistance or a human with too much confidence in their ability to avoid obstacles... I wouldn't want to be near a Roadster leaping off the asphalt

reply
Not an engineer then, are you?
reply
No, it will not.
reply
It can also create terrible accidents by blowing up in a collision
reply
Fly out of a bad situation and straight into another one.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Hagerty has a very good walkthrough video with Lars and it looks pretty real. The thing they failed to mention was that the "flying" version is separate and the entire passenger seat is replaced with a pressure tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rvpUecLts

reply
> and the entire passenger seat is replaced with a pressure tank.

That sounds extremely explosive and not something any random person should be irresponsibly driving around.

reply
You can make a brick fly if you strap enough thrust ($$$$) to it. That doesn't mean a human without suicidal thoughts would ever want to be strapped to the same brick.

This is hot wheels. It's pretty clear Musk finally had enough of the culture wars at X and decided to go interfere with Tesla some more. Instead of producing a car people might actually want, he made them do this. This is the worst waste of a company you're likely to see in your life.

TSLA is probably not a good stock to be holding right now.

reply
Not at a PE of ~336 in a world where BYD will eventually arrive in the US.

But TBF if they offered the SpaceX thrusters as an option, the SF effective altruists would slurp them right up to be their daily drivers even if they have to be strapped in next to a tank of toxic boom boom to use them. And Sam Altman would cry into his protein-supplemented energy drink because his Koenigsegg doesn't have them and I'd happily hand over 50 Quatloos to watch that.

reply
> Instead of producing a car people might actually want, he made them do this.

Looks like the base version would be the one for that.

reply
There are a few problems with this approach.

1. The kind of person who buys a sports-car often doesn't want the "base version". They want luxury. They want status. They don't want to face the choice of being upsold to an impractical deathtrap or driving around in the "base version" like someone who could barely just afford it.

2. This demo does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the abilities of the base version. I reiterate, a brick could have been made to fly in this way. The base version will no doubt have good paper stats because Musk understands that numbers must be big, but that doesn't mean the base model will be pleasant to drive.

3. The styling of this car is "wankpanzer with a few extra polygons". Given how well the wankpanzer sold, demand for this thing, even if the base model is a competent auto, will be limp.

4. Musk is currently trying to buy another election. With Musk visibly taking an interest in Tesla again, that's likely to backfire on Tesla. They need to cut ties with Musk, not keep doing the sort of puerile things he's known and frequently lambasted for.

reply
Yup. SpaceX lost four spacecraft to issues with these.

CRS-7, Amos-6, Starship 36, and Super Heavy 18.

reply
How is that different than having my wife there?
reply
If you go on the website that version is listed as "Invite only"
reply
You should look into hydrogen fuel tanks found in Toyotas! Much more terrifying.
reply
Where I live aftermarket modified LPG cars are extremely common. We don't have explosions often.
reply
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-roadster-thrust-system...

> You can think of the COPV like the fuel tank in a compressed natural gas (CNG)- or liquid propane gas (LPG)-powered vehicle, except the nitrogen mixture in the COPV is stored at a much higher pressure, up to 10,000 psi, similar to the pressures in modern hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

LPG cars have somewhere between 100 and 300 psi.

reply
LPG explosions are real combustion due to tank rupture (often due to installation damage or rust). A nitrogen COPV can not rupture (that's why the CO in COPV is there) but it can leak. And that COPV, when it leaks, will be a rocket. But not an explosion.

10,000 PSI? That is beyond absurd. I can not imagine what alloy and how wrapped that pressure vessel is... Or what type of crazy pump is recharging it!

reply
> A nitrogen COPV can not rupture (that's why the CO in COPV is there) but it can leak.

They'll happily burst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ-__PlU4gM) and blow up your vehicle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71AwkBt3_ts).

https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/...

"'Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing,' the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19)."

> LPG explosions are real combustion due to tank rupture…

They're mostly designed to vent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupture_disc) to prevent a BLEVE. Big fire, big mess, but without oxidizer in the tank and much lower pressures, relatively safe by comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDyNjCNxVY

reply
How do gas pressures in the COPV in the Roadster compare to pressures in lost rockets?
reply
I'm not able to find solid numbers on that, but given the shared heritage (I presume those gas thrusters come straight from SpaceX) and premium in a space vehicle for payload space, and the fact that SpaceX lost four vehicles to the things, I suspect similarly quite high.
reply
And the P in LPG stands for Probably not flammable.
reply
Tank pressures are of different magnitudes. With LPG it's only for storage, here it's for thrust.
reply
Big Elon fan boy here but you are 100% right. It’s basically the “Titan” submersible in reverse.
reply
May he drive this toy everyday and face the same fate.
reply
I know you are a kind person irl and don’t really wish that!
reply
Why would you call yourself a fanboy? I can't get past his meddling in governments worldwide and clear self-seving in DOGE.
reply
Purely because the tech he (or the companies he funds) build is otherworldly ..
reply
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you probably pass at least one very explosive tank of something very volatile each and every day on your commute.
reply
Perhaps, but not at quite this level of pressure.

This thing is literally a fucking bomb if it fails, through accident or degradation.

The down-force negative pressure aspect they gleaned from McMurtry though? Really cool. Genuinely useful. I just hope they don't claim it as their own invention.

Which they will, because Musk is all ego.

reply
Still frames showing the underside appear to show that it is basically hollow, so fake.

Making a car with a heavy EV battery and powertrain fly like that is probably not something they're able to do.

reply
I think it's not that difficult when you have full access to SpaceX know how and infrastructure.

My only issue with it is that beyond being impressive and very cool, it's pretty useless.

reply
> I think it's not that difficult

First you have to build SpaceX.

reply
Of course, that's why I start from the premise of owning both Tesla and SpaceX.
reply
deleted
reply
And that is precisely all it is, a demo. Reminder that BYDs are held at bay in an anti free market policy specifically because American car companies cannot compete with its low cost and quality. We're wasting time and money on this type of tech.

This engineering in this demo was only designed o get lucrative government contracts.

reply
deleted
reply
Movie special effects has been doing this forever, lol
reply
Someone else commented that this tech might make for a good Bond movie car (maybe better suited to the Roger Moore cheesy era), but I assume nowadays they'd just use AI since it'd be so much cheaper.
reply
Is there any evidence/footage that this actually happened in front of a live audience? And not just on a screen that was shown to a live audience? Cause that's all can find.

Sorry for being skeptical but Elons track record of being honest at such demos isn't stellar.

Edit: To the downvoters, this is a serious question. I'd really love to see such evidence.

reply
[dead]
reply
[flagged]
reply
Was Google's 20 percent time a waste of its talent?

This looks like a genuinely fun project to have worked on. That can be the difference between a top engineer burning out and staying motivated.

reply
At a time when Tesla is struggling to make sales? I agree it's an impressive demo, but it has zero practical value. EVs were supposed to help the environment, not make very brief flights. Would this be under control of the driver? Should be part of the autopilot, maybe for collision avoidance?

This is in the same category as the Tesla flamethrower or the Teslaquila.

reply
> it has zero practical value

After Cybertruck and the LARPing as a humanoid-robotics company, I was genuinely unsure if Tesla still had top-tier engineering talent. This shows otherwise. Maybe some of these improvements will trickle down to the Models Y and 3.

(It also looks like a lot of SpaceX engineering. I could see folks there wanting to take a break, particularly if this happened while the pad was busted.)

reply
You have not addressed the main point - this has zero practical value. No this will not trickle down to Y or 3, how would it? What possible use would this have? It’s a silly expensive gimmick.

Also, I imagine the cold gas thrusters and control software are all from spacex, this is what starship uses to orient itself in the air.

reply
> this has zero practical value. No this will not trickle down to Y or 3, how would it?

You’re that confident none of the materials or techniques aerospace engineers used to lighten this car are relevant to the rest of the lineup?

> I imagine the cold gas thrusters and control software are all from spacex, this is what starship uses to orient itself in the air

Not really, it uses grid fins and gimbals. The closest cold gas comes to air on Starship is in the upper atmosphere.

reply
Yes, confident none of this belongs in a budget car. It’s not even useful in the roadster, it’s a gimmick, not flying but falling in a controlled way.

Nice pedantry on the thrusters in air, but I imagine the software here to orient the car quickly using thrusters was borrowed from spacex, the thrusters certainly were.

Again, none of this has a practical application - it’s like the flamethrowers- Elon thought it would be cool, so they made it.

reply
Tesla's marketing budget is something close to $0. Stuff like this is why.
reply
A flying car is a lot more valuable to the Tesla brand than some Super Bowl ads
reply
> Tesla's marketing budget is something close to $0.

Come on. They literally sent a car into space.

reply
Nobody would launch an actual payload on the initial flight, and they had to do 3 successful launches to satisfy the USAF´s NSSL requirements before they could launch very profitable payloads for them.

The Roadster was Musks personal vehicle, so Tesla didn't pay for that either.

reply
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your statement as true, who cares?

Telsa board doesn’t, they need moonshots to justify their valuation. Elon doesn’t care, the engineers sure as shit don’t.

Maybe a midline quality control and reliability person? That’s not likely where many of the engineers for this project came from though.

reply
the pursuit of perfection should not always require justification :)
reply
I don't think so. The engineering behind an F1 car is not relevant to those buying consumer cars, but it helps sell them regardless.
reply
Yeah, wouldn’t they rather be doing real impactful engineering work, like figuring out means to display even more ads on personal user devices, maximizing the number of hours kids spend doom-scrolling per day, or making robots that are deliberately designed to take jobs away from as many workers as possible?

But, imagine instead being an engineer of any kind today and you’re only getting paid to work on boring things like advanced automotive technology and building cars that can maneuver themselves in midair and might possibly fly in the future? Ridiculous.

(This message should not be taken as support for Musk or any of his views or business ventures.)

reply
You must be miserable in your job. All the good engineers I know would gladly take some pay cut to be able to do projects like this.
reply
They learned a lot, and pushed their tools further, in ways that left them with new insights and possible engineering paths for more practical work.

“Play” “fun”, curiosity” and “challenge for challenges sake” are adaptive strategies for learning unexpectedly useful things.

reply
Imagine how boring the world would be if we refused every idea that didn't have an immediately practical purpose. Rocketry was probably overkill here but it did achieve at least one thing for the Tesla and SpaceX engineers: you can do things you did not believe were possible.
reply
It does bring up the question of what’s left in car design.

RAM jets?

A car could get 10–30% better energy efficiency than a conventional car at the same speed. Initially, the air jets would reduce and then eliminate wheel drag, and then hold for safety maneuvers. At speed, off-wheel-lift would be generated aerodynamically, with the option to also spot redirect air pressure from the RAM jet, or the air jets.

Then 2.0 would be the fully redesigned one-eyed two-seated flying Tesla Bodywingster.

All for the environment!

reply
Quite interesting how things can be seen so differently, because this was one of the most pointless/dumbest demos I have ever seen in my life. There was no doubt someone could build something like this, the question is always "why"? What problem does this solve?

Sorry, but in world where the vast majority of people can't afford groceries, gas, housing, or healthcare... I just can't look at these silly things the billionaires are spending their money on and get even remotely excited about it. It's just so absolutely tone deaf in the moment we're in right now.

reply
I wouldn't exactly call it a demo.. more of a marketing stunt, albeit a very impressive one from an engineering POV.

I wonder what the point of this was? Seems likely related to anticipated purchase of Tesla by SpaceX. Maybe meant to (irrationally) justify a high offer price for Tesla?

Can't say I'm a fan of the styling of the car - I guess it'd look at home parked beside a Cybertruck, but something like the Porsche Mission S is way sexier.

reply
Distinguishing “demo” from “marketing stunt” here feels like a distinction without a difference and smells like motivated reasoning.
reply
I'd take "demo" to mean "product demo", and there is not going to be any product that drives vertically or upside down, nor does aerial flips - i.e. any of the stuff that was "demonstrated".

You seem triggered by the choice of wording. Do you think the upside down rocket car doing aerial flips deserves a more product-ish name like "concept car"? I don't.

reply
> wonder what the point of this was?

Car manufacturers have been doing pointless things for over a century [1], with no plan to even try to make them available to the public. Why is this getting so much heat?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_car

reply