How The Tesla Model X's Falcon Wing Doors May Well Ruin The Company

"Joe6pack" (joe6pack) 03/02/2015 at 11:00 • Filed to: Tesla, Model X, Model S, Model 3, Falcon Wing Doors, Nissan Leaf, EV

10

38

When I first read that the Model X would go into production with these doors I thought it was possibly the single stupidest corporate decision since "New Coke".

Let me get this out of the way right now. I am not a Tesla hater. Au Contraire. My daily driver is a 2012 Nissan Leaf and if I had the available cash, it would instead be a Model S.

No, I am quite the fan of Tesla. But that said, I think they are screwing up royally. This recent article from Green Car Reports lists three reasons they believe that the Tesla Model X is late to market.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For those of you who do not know, the Model X is supposed to be Tesla's next model to be produced alongside the company's flagship all electric Model S four-door sedan (some 70,000+ sold to date). It is envisioned as a luxury family SUV in the mold of the Infiniti FX-35, the BMW X5, the Acura MDX and any number of other crossover utility vehicles. I like to think of them as minivans for those too insecure to drive a minivan.

GCR lists three primary reasons for the Model X's tardiness that I will iterate for you now:

Range

Falcon Wing Doors

Towing Capability

I, on the other hand, have come up with my own list of reasons why I believe the Model X is late:

Falcon Wing Doors

Falcon Wing Doors

Falcon Wing Doors

Firstly, a little background. The falcon wing doors are basically an updated version of the gull wing doors that have been around since the fifties and that were used on such cars as the Mercedes 300SL, the Bricklin SV-1, the DeLorean DMC-12 and most recently, the 2011+ Mercede-Benz SLS-AMG. The reason these doors have never been used on a large volume production automobile is that they are very difficult and expensive to engineer. The load that the doors produce when open is transmitted to the roof of the vehicle, which means that this area must be heavily reinforced. This results in additional expense not to mention additional weight up high on the vehicle – right where you do not want it. Also, with today's airbag and side impact requirements, the doors must be substantially heavier than what might have been required in previous generations which makes the task that much more difficult.

And while we are talking about safety, there is another problem with these doors. You see, in the event of a rollover crash, rear passengers can become trapped inside. If the vehicle is upside down, the doors can't open. Mercedes overcame this obstacle on the wildly expensive SLS-AMG by fitting the car with "explosive bolts". As Car and Drive put it:

"After the car is inverted and motionless for 10 to 15 seconds, a pyrotechnic charge detonates in the upper portion of each of the doors, pushing bell cranks, which throw latches that release the door hinges from the doors themselves. At that point, your SLS will be in three pieces—if not more—but, hopefully, you and your passenger will still be in one."

Sounds simple, right. I honestly have no idea how Tesla is planning to overcome this challenge. I've seen it suggested in jest that in the event of such a crash, one door could be opened and the X would simply right itself - lol.

Another problem caused by the doors that $200,000+ hyper-cars don't have, but family CUVs do is the fitment of a roof rack. With the door hinged along the spine of the vehicle, there is no room for one. Maybe this isn't a world-ender, but in a family vehicle of this type, it is something to think about.

And finally, the biggest reason that I think these doors are a fail is that they simply are not necessary. Ostensibly, Tesla has said that the Falcon Wing Doors will make it easier to open said doors in tight parking areas as the doors stay within the overall footprint of the vehicle. Fine, but I am failing to see how this one possible advantage is worth all of the other shortcomings and compromises. Its not like we are all driving around in whatever we have today pining for the moment that Ford finally gives us that gull wing Explorer we've been dreaming about.

The main selling point for a Tesla, or any all-electric vehicle for that matter is that it is all-electric. Sure, the Model S, by all accounts, is a great car. But then again, so is a Mercedes S-class. All things being equal, Tesla will not gain or lose one sale because of these doors. But, all things are not equal. I believe these doors are the primary driver behind the Model X's delays. The Model X was introduced in February of 2013 and was supposed to go into production by the end of 2013. It was supposed to be an evolution, not a revolution. And, as such, it should be on the market by now. Tesla has now said that deliveries will begin in the third quarter of 2015 – we shall see.

I realize my headline may be seen as a bit of hyperbole and I have no first hand knowledge of where Tesla may be with the doors or the Model X as a whole. I am simply speculating. But, history is littered with the corpses of first mover companies that burst onto the scene and quickly flamed out after a larger and savvier competitor came along and expropriated the good and discarded the bad and seized the market. Tesla is a small company that makes one model and they cannot afford many mistakes. Every bit of additional effort that Tesla has spent engineering these doors is effort that was unnecessary and could have been spent on something else – like the Model [three horizontal lines]. And therein lies the crux of the problem. The Model X isn't even supposed to make Tesla profitable. That's the Model [three horizontal lines] job and it's not due out for another three years. Meanwhile Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Nissan, GM, etc. are not sitting still and are bringing about their own all electric models to compete throughout the automotive spectrum.

Look, I am all for pushing the envelope, thinking outside the box, etc. But at some point, you have to realize that it simply isn't worth it and it just might ruin your company.

yamahog > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 11:11

1

With you 100%

Sometimes, especially in an industry with this many safety regulations, there's a reason why things are done. Are gull wing doors desirable enough to justify the cost, weight, etc ? If so, we'd probably see a whole lot more on the road.

BigBlock440 > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 11:11

3

And while we are talking about safety, there is another problem with these doors. You see, in the event of a rollover crash, rear passengers can become trapped inside. If the vehicle is upside down, the doors can't open.

I see this all the time, but does anyone actually know this to be true? They're hinged in the middle, so the bottom section could still probably open.

Also, what's stopping the passengers in the rear from using the front doors, which open normally? Or one of the windows that are probably smashed out?

PS9 > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 11:33

1

They're very late to market with the Model X, but because they can afford to be. It's not like the people who signed themselves up to the waiting list for this thing are lacking in MPV/crossover options; BMW, Mercedes, Audi - and soon even Bentley if those first three weren't good enough for you already - make something like what the MX will be minus the batteries, and if thats what MX customers wanted, they would have already brought that. When you have the thing everyone wants, everyone waits for you. Them's the rules. This isn't the first time Elon's over promised and under-delivered and it's looking like the Model 3 is going down the same road in terms of delays.

You say you don't understand how the door will let someone out in case of a roll over...but right before that, you post the answer to your own question; blow the doors off. You can't assume the solution is out of reach just because the other car that does this happens to cost $200k.

E. Julius > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 11:35

0

The roof design also makes meeting impact standards much more difficult. Every modern car has some form of impact countermeasure (foam, collapsible plastic cones, something) between the headliner and the actual roof to absorb energy so that the car can meet crash standards. That little skinny beam running down the middle and the glass panels on the roof of the wings means that it needs some big countermeasures in that center bar to meet the standard, which can also create packaging issues for other hardware that needs to go in there. This is in addition to the difficulties of designing a roof/headliner to meet those standards with such minimal effective area in the first place, often a challenge on cars like this or cars with those huge panoramic sunroofs.

Flat Six > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 11:43

0

Great article, I never considered any of these problems with gullwings!

One minor quibble though - I'm not a minivan hater, but modern crossovers have many advantages over minivans:

MUCH more fun to drive. Some crossovers handle/drive nearly as well as sedans.

Shorter, easier to park. Not everybody needs 3 rows.

Better fuel economy.

More towing capacity.

Minivans have advantages too, but it is not so cut-and-dry that "crossovers are minivans for those too insecure to drive a minivan". It might be more accurate to say that crossovers are wagons for those too insecure to drive a wagon.

swaptastic > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 12:02

2

My guess is they are betting huge on mothers loving the door design. The extra room will feel like a minivan sliding door without the look of a minivan sliding door.

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 12:22

0

Personally I think the gull wings are very cool but silly. Your point about the roof rack is a good one—I hadn't thought about that.

Maybe Tesla is ambivalent about roof racks because of the aerodynamics. Interestingly on the Model S, you can't fit a roof rack if you don't buy the panoramic sunroof option—though maybe the aftermarket has found a solution for that.

ranwhenparked > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 15:24

0

The gullwings were fine on the concept car, concepts are supposed to have a few silly features to get attention, and they work fine on limited volume sports cars, but you are totally right that they seem conspicuously out of place on a family CUV.

The question will be whether Tesla shareholders will continue to tolerate Elon Musk's vanity projects like this. The rear facing 3rd row seat in the Model S was one thing, it didn't cost much money and is a useful feature that other Model S owners can use. The gullwing doors could be a step too far, they've already cost the company time and money for no real discernible benefit. Given the commonality with the Model S, the Model X could probably be on sale already without them, earning money for the company.

I fully expect this will be the first and last model Tesla builds with this style of door.

Joe6pack > PS9 03/02/2015 at 19:07

4

Apparently you are missing the point. It's not that they cannot be made to work. It's that they are a total waste of time and resources.

Joe6pack > BigBlock440 03/02/2015 at 19:12

3

It's not that it's a problem that can't be solved. Adding countermeasures to solve a problem that they shouldn't have to solve is a self-inflicted wound.

Manic Otti > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 19:23

1

I'm with you on this. I like Tesla and want them to succeed, but these doors are unnecessary and overcomplicated and who knows what the long term functionality will be. Plus, the delay is giving everybody else time to play catch up. They should have just made this with regular doors to start, then added the Falcon door model later as a "special version".

BigBlock440 > Joe6pack 03/02/2015 at 22:36

0

And I'm saying that I don't think there's necessarily a problem that needs to be solved. The hinge in the middle seems like it would completely negate any rollover concerns as far as opening, and the hinge was there when it was shown 2 years ago. Anywhere a normal door will open, you shouldn't be trapped in an X. I don't think anybody's got evidence to the contrary. Heavy doors, roof crush strength, maybe they're unresolved problems, but I don't think opening them upside down is one. Especially when there are two normally opening doors on it as well.

sklooner > Joe6pack 04/07/2015 at 18:51

1

and real fun in areas with snowfall open them up and the backseat passengers get wet

anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq > Joe6pack 04/07/2015 at 19:24

2

As well as all your reasons, I think the doors are stupid because what are you going to do when you enter a garage or something that's too low for them to open? Look at the picture with the rear view of the doors. They're extremely tall.

savethemanualsbmw335ix > Joe6pack 04/07/2015 at 19:24

0

also, thinking about who is going to be sitting back there, kids. they're not going to be able to reach the doors to close them. people complain about the long reach in the sls to the doors and that's an adult closing the door on a low slung sports car.

JR1 > Joe6pack 04/07/2015 at 21:47

0

I could not agree more. The falcon doors were a stupid marketing move created by Musk's big ego. What practical person would want falcon doors?

Nauraushaun > Joe6pack 04/08/2015 at 00:12

0

All things being equal, Tesla will not gain or lose one sale because of these doors.

I'm certain that this isn't correct. The SUV market is a crowded market full of boring cars trying to differentiate themselves. These doors will really stand out, particularly at the school when you're dropping off your kids. I also think the fact that they've almost exclusively been installed on super-expensive cars in the past will elevate the Tesla's status. I reckon mothers will pounce on them.

LongbowMkII > Flat Six 04/08/2015 at 08:29

1

I have a murano and while it has a surprising amount of steering feel, it's not exactly fun it the twisties. Still quite a lot of FWD biased car to move. CVT is hardly helpful either.

Fuel economy is a wash between the murano and my old sienna, slight edge to the Nissan if i had to pick. Both about ~18mpg mostly in town.

LongbowMkII > anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq 04/08/2015 at 08:31

0

if they actually bring out the self parking software that may not be a problem.

Flat Six > LongbowMkII 04/08/2015 at 08:50

1

Interesting comparison, but there are many options for CUVs - great mileage diesels and Mazdas, high performance SRTs, AMGs, etc... The Murano has some negatives but at least it is smaller and easier to maneuver.

r9ninor9 > Joe6pack 04/08/2015 at 08:57

0

Elon Musk is a much smarter man than I am, so I will wait until it comes out and people start using it before making an assumption that the idea is totally insane.

LongbowMkII > Flat Six 04/08/2015 at 08:59

2

I'm just going with what I know. The murano is the nicer car, but the sienna was a better family hauler. I'm definitely going with a 3 row vehicle next time, but hoping to get the best of all worlds with a mazda5. I'm sure I can squish them all in.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > Joe6pack 04/08/2015 at 09:24

0

I'm going to side with you partly in that when Mercedes brought back the gull-wing doors on the SLS, they had to reengineer the fenders. When a normal car has a front-end collision, the fenders are designed to push back and be OVER the door skin so the fender does not pinch the door closed.

Mercedes had to design the SLS fenders to move UNDER the doors to the gull-wing feature would still allow you to open the door.

However, the doors being the driving force to the delay may be a bit too much.

doubleplusten > Flat Six 04/08/2015 at 11:42

1

"Shorter, easier to park." (assuming "crossover," not the mini CUVs in the CR/Rav/Nissan thing vein)

What, you can't handle 9 inches? Sienna: 200.2"; Highlander: 191.1"; Or even 3 inches? Explorer: 197.1"

Or for even a two row SUV like the the RX, the difference less than a foot: 187.8. The difference with a Murano is even smaller: 189.9" Moreover, at least with my experience, easier to park is typically more a function of viewing angles and visibility than simply size. In that vein it is easier, for me, to parallel park a Sienna than an E36 M3.

As for fun to drive, the only crossovers (leaving aside the Mazdas) that are more interesting to drive (as opposed to just accelerate) are significantly more expensive (more than a used miata) than most minivans.

As for mini-CUVs, those are not really competitors to mini-vans (and they certainly do not have more towing capacity than say a Sienna (3500lbs)).

doubleplusten > BigBlock440 04/08/2015 at 11:53

0

Not sure about what rollover safety standards actually say, but somehow, I don't think requiring people to climb through the cabin of an upside down vehicle to escape is acceptable in any way. As for the double hinging and whether they "completely negate any rollover concerns," it really depends on how the hinges are set up; the hinges are shown to fold inwards, towards the body of the car as they rise.

In the event of a rollover, those same hinges would need to fold outwards from the body as well. Further, support for outward folding hinges would necessitate a pop-off panel or some other way of removing the obstructing sheet metal on outside of the car (a bendable panel may work, but then you have ordinary durability concerns). In any event, all this is more engineering (and more weight) than a regular door.

But hey, maybe the cool factor can capture more sales than who knows.

Flat Six > doubleplusten 04/08/2015 at 13:54

0

You probably can't find a crossover with all the benefits I mentioned at the same time for a low price :) However for many people including myself, some of those reasons are higher priority than 3 rows of comfortable seating. If you have 3 or more kids, or elderly parents that live with you, yeah you are probably better off with a minivan.

anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq > LongbowMkII 04/08/2015 at 22:26

1

How would that make a difference?

LongbowMkII > anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq 04/08/2015 at 22:42

0

if it can park itself with no one in the car the doors wouldn't need to open.

anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq > LongbowMkII 04/08/2015 at 22:54

1

Makes sense, but it's still a bit dumb to need a self-parking system, reinforcement, and a bunch of other stuff just to have some fancy doors. And what about getting into the car? Would it be able to drive out of the spot?

Joe kool > Joe6pack 08/21/2015 at 14:59

0

Just give it up your not going to get through to these thick headed fanbois

Joe kool > LongbowMkII 08/21/2015 at 15:01

0

Is it going to back itself out of the garage too?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Joe6pack 10/01/2015 at 08:46

0

I still think that this minivan is sick.

jjhats > PS9 10/01/2015 at 08:59

0

additionally if the x is completely upside down on its roof the dual hinges let just the side part of the door open even when the roof part isn’t budging. this is something that would never work on a single hinged gullwing like the benz. and if the car is on its side there is still anotherside free to open

OriginalDarkComet > anon-sxmcyecofnu1eocpqsk9iq 10/08/2015 at 22:06

0

The doors are useful for many reasons:

- Groceries

- Kids piling in the car

- Avoiding kids hitting the car next to you with the door

- Easy access to get baby seats in and out

- Getting dogs in and out

- When you want to have a seat at your kids sports games and can use the door as shade above your head

-Not having to worry about your kid getting the door taken off by a passing car when parked near a road

- Able to get out easier during a crash when on the side because you have assisted help from the hydrolic powered doors

- And probably many other things...

Also remeber suvs are utility cars and this car is focused on buyers who are parents or people who need space or transport a group of people.

For the door height concern:

The door raising to high can probably be fixed or be a setting for the car to remember making it to where the door doesn’t raise the total 7 feet high. But if your roof is any smaller than that and the average man is 5’7” then maybe you shouldn’t be able to raise your hands as well.

Driving out of spot problem:

Who said you would drive out of the spot? With autopilot it will be ready waiting for you at the front of your house with the internal car temp at your liking.

Yes, maybe the doors are unnecessary, but it has it’s uses and it’s nice for a company to innovate on certain areas. Would you say autopilot was unnecessary as well since you can already drive for long trips and wait in traffic jams? Also who needs to put something on the roof (besides maybe a canoe, kayak or christmas tree)? Is it because they need more space? Because doesn’t all the Teslas have a front trunk (in addition to a rear trunk) where the motor would be in a standard gasoline powered vehicle? So why store things on the top besides long items?

Bytemite > Joe6pack 02/05/2016 at 04:23

0

My god look how thick those doors are. What does Tesla think they’re building, vaults?

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > Joe6pack 02/05/2016 at 13:57

0

I know, I know, I’m one of those replying to a post a year later. But, first off I agree (and you’ve better articulated) that the falcon doors are just silly.

And, having just seen a production Model X in the wild at a supercharger station, I was underwhelmed. Especially by the fact that with the doors closed, the front and rear door handles don’t line up as they should unless the falcon doors close just precisely so. And this brand-new example wasn’t even close, which made it look really sloppy. A shame.

And, and, before I’m accused of being a Tesla hater, Mrs. NotUnlessRoundIsFunny daily drives a Model S.

Joe6pack > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny 02/05/2016 at 19:36

1

I feel kind of vindicated in that Tesla is now suing the original supplier. Honestly, as an engineer, I don’t see how they came up with a workable solution in such a short amount of time once it was clear the supplier couldn’t deliver. I don’t think this is the last we will hear about these doors. Damned silly.

Mark > Joe6pack 02/06/2016 at 04:01

0

What on earth am I missing here, and why has no one brought up this gigantic contradicting issue? - What is the point of these fancy doors if the front doors open normally and need a “normal” amount of space to do so??? Doesn't this completely defeat the purpose? Someone please offer an explanation.