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.
Based on the specs, I wouldn't compare the (non-existing) roadster to regular electric cars, but rather to something like the McMurtry Spéirling, which also has active downforce. It's not about range, but acceleration and cornering speed.
There should be legal investigations into this practice, because it’s extremely deceptive.
Someone add that to the list of bullshit he said.
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
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.
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").
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.
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.
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.
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 downforce fan only, and no cold thruster launch (boost) - NTSB is never going to approve throwing out a condensation cloud smokescreen on the highway!
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.
That was perfect.
(How many layers of sarcasm does this comment have...)
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.
Yes, and note that this has already happened: the original Roadster v2 from 2017 never shipped and was replaced with this one.
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.
This isn’t a comment on your broader point.
It got to the point where even Tesla's lawyers had to get involved, and numerous reports from Tesla disclaim that "Elon Musk's statements are aspirational and may not reflect engineering realities".
That’s even worse then, because it was supposed to be released by 2020. Here we are in 2026 and I still don’t think it’s possible to cram 200kwh into a sports car. I take this as an admission straight from the horse’s mouth that either: 1) they were lying and had no intention of shipping the car as specified when it was announced, or 2) they’re completely inept at making predictions about the trajectory of technology core to their products. Both are extremely bad.
I love adrenaline, and a 2s (or less) 0-60 time is exhilarating. But a 3s isn't much less fun, and on a commute, is not practically any different.
That's your conclusion.
> Most people with performance cars love going 0-60mph, at least here in the USA.
I drive in traffic and I care a lot more about handling than I do about 0-60 which you rarely if ever will do without a car in front of you.
And then I get the joys, living near a base, of 19 year old E-2s with base Challengers thinking they have a "performance car" and constantly wanting to race me.
At this point, the Roadster doesn't exist either, at least as a production car. The sibling comment lists several potential competitors. My guess is that if the Roadster somehow draws a bunch of new pre-orders, there will be more by 2028.
It's about right there with other sports cars rated ranges; 911/M4 get around 300-350 and the Corvette hits 400ish.
a road rally from LA to LV is 270ish miles. What else do you need a hyper-car-thing for?
Now we just need to get some goofy Musk tunnels involved so there's a reason to have the fan suction.
(aside from breaking the windows of traffic behind you with road debris)
They also enable the insane launch traction needed for the non thrust 0-60.
It's the key to the cars performance.
"It's completely different than what you're talking about"
"Guys...who even cares?"
> 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 because it seems to me many of these arguments are not really oriented around deepening understanding or changing minds, but rather about the boring business of standing one's ground and repeating the same arguments (and I'm thinking both of FOR and AGAINST positions). It is just so dull.
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...
[0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/10/sam-altman-wants-a-refu...
And then this year Musk's band of merry clowns announces that they've "completely redesigned the windows" because, I shit you not, "Turns out there’s a lot of infrastructure in the world, whether it’s a badge reader, or your toll booth, or you’re talking to somebody on a call box. There’s all kinds of stuff right at that height, and it became evident that we needed a roll-down window in order to make that infrastructure easier to interface with."
Spectacular R&D on which to tie your mission critical infrastructure to. Oh, and the charger network, "still a 'hurdle'", says an anonymous Tesla employee in a feat of understatement.
It was so ridiculous that people would buy the car in the US and bring it here. Other people gave up and started importing 30 year old Japanese minivans — I see JDM minivans relatively commonly now.
As such an X year wait for a car isn't new even outside the dysfunctional communist block.
However I'm pretty sure Toyota will deliver eventually, can't say the same for the Roadster.
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.
As for the rest, this is the Internet, and a cat may look at a king.
It's like a sucker's (or a fraudster's) war cry to say that the people who are already hooked into a venture are the only ones who should be allowed to point out that it might be a scam.
As for economics, it depends on Starship achieving high flight rates and very low costs.
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.
a) to understand why people are so worked up about this man and his antics. I think it is very interesting because it can also reveal something about myself.
b) interesting, novel conversation that broadens understanding
I don't care about the man or his antics or predictable conversations that are boring.
But I think you've hit on something true: I should just move on and let people churn on this stuff and don't get entangled myself. Thanks for pointing it out.
(1) because he is currently (I believe) the wealthiest man in the world
(2) because he uses that wealth to influence politics across the globe, from Germany and the UK to the United States
(3) that - and this is my opinion - this influence should be illegal
(4) that he has a long history of lying, overpromising, under delivering, not withstanding his other achievements
(5) that he is in bed with the current US administration which is doing a lot of damage inside the United States.
(6) that he personally took on roles in that government and did a lot of damage outside of the United States
(7) That he was very much a darling of the left leaning portion of society and used that position to enrich himself and then did a 180 and aligned himself directly and openly with various extreme right parties all over the world. Some people feel betrayed.
So Musk elicits a lot of emotions, for better or for worse.
Does that help?
I assumed he ordered his Starlink-lackeys (also a group of self-serving cowards, in my opinion from the point of view on my high horse) because he wanted to remain/get back on Trump's good graces...
I wonder how those employees feel and why they didn't refuse the order. Let him do it himself.