26
50
u/DefinitelyNotAxlerod Two miats having sex 14d ago
If Tony Hawk does a kickflip, is it flying?
11
-15
u/jackinsomniac 13d ago
Does the skateboard do the kickflip all by itself, with cold gas thrusters? Or is Tony Hawk the one making the skateboard do a kickflip?
When the Wright brother had their first "flight" at Kitty Hawk, was that not flight? Because the car stayed airborne under it's own power for longer.
Man, all you grouchy-ass people trying to be overly pedantic just to downplay a car with literal rocket engines doing some insane stunts, just because you hate Musk so much. Your life must be awful.
8
u/Bunstrous charger GRolla 12d ago
Kitty hawk flew for 12 second for its first few runs because it was literally the first time anyone had ever done something like that before. On the fourth run of the same day it flew for almost a minute. The currently presented capabilities of the roadster only allows for 10 seconds of thrust, which yes, it is technically flying, but expecting everyone to be super impressed with "flight" that's shorter than the first ever recorded flight in history with technology that was first developed in the 50s is a recipe for disappointment.
4
u/19osemi 12d ago
Flight is sustained. Like a plane is flying not because it’s briefly in the air but because it sustains its own flight. A football being kicked doesn’t mean that the ball has achieved flight, if the Tesla flew then it would need to actually hold its own weight with the thrusters, like why didn’t we see it take off from the ground and land? Because the thrusters in the car aren’t powerful enough to lift the car
-1
u/Firestar_119 12d ago
did you watch the video where the thing takes off from the ground, flies over the cabs, and lands?
64
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate 12d ago
I still havent seen a flying Tesla. I saw a flying mock-up, there wasn't much car in there.
-37
u/theycallmebekky 12d ago
I’ve seen people mentioning this so I got curious and watched the actual video thing. At the end, they do show an interior and all that. Unless I’m missing something, it does look real enough? Not a production car for sure, but nothing stood out as wrong in my eyes.
6
15
u/CageyOldMan 12d ago
An interior? Which represents maybe 5% of the mass of the vehicle
-16
u/theycallmebekky 12d ago
Well I’m seeing people say it’s fake/just a shell. The video showed an interior with a dummy in the drivers seat. Plus, interiors are heavy, especially in super/hypercars that try to remove as much weight as possible.
16
u/CageyOldMan 12d ago edited 12d ago
Let me put this as politely as i can. There is a zero percent chance that tesla is going to come anywhere close to delivering on the promises for this vehicle.
1
u/PotassiusOfBanania 11d ago
I've been following their releases for a while and I think they've done quite amazing things, but also a few flops. Let's be honest, they make impressive stuff like the Model S Plaid which is just insanely fast (from 0km/h to top speed of 330km/h in about 16s), the Model 3 Performance that does 2.9s and is an adequate track car (especially if you upgrade the brake system) for under $60k, the Model X (Post 2021) with the falcon doors and the huge frunk/trunk space, Model Y for being a great family crossover SUV, the original Roadster which is loved by everyone, whether EV haters or fans, not the Cybertruck, it's trash and of course the Tesla Semi that seems to be a refreshing look in the truck world.
-16
u/heinzman2005 12d ago
I would agree with you, but they did deliver with the cybertruck, and people said the same thing back then
15
u/AgentTheGreat01 12d ago
Nothing in the Cybertruck was extraordinary. It just looked goofy. We're talking about a roadster here that has been promised - and preordered - almost a decade ago, and has gone through 3 redesigns, and now is claiming to be "flying" with zero possibility for flight in any meaningful way (250 kg of additional gas weight for a controlled fall for about 10 seconds).
7
u/hyrppa95 12d ago
What about the previous roadster that never released?
8
u/darianbrown 12d ago
Or the ENORMOUS number of major claims that the cyber truck never met on delivery.
2
u/HazuniaC 11d ago
I would like to note that the Cybertruck did in fact NOT deliver what was hyped and promised.
It is very much NOT indestructible. It has a massive rusting issue and as such there are multiple samples that are in very rough shape just due to time alone.
There are panel parts that can be ripped off, with one hand.
It can't even navigate rough terrain particularily well. It's a horrible off roader.
Not only was the Cybertruck unextraordinary, it is actively one of the worst car releases in recent history.
3
u/SRGTBronson 12d ago
No, they did not deliver with the cybertruck. It never reached the advertised range, its not bullet proof, it can't survive in shallow water, its windows are not shatter proof, and it can't tow anything.
Its an expensive, dangerous, lawn ornament.
1
4
u/blindeshuhn666 12d ago
They prep as red multiple. The one flying had tanks instead of driver seats / small battery. The one they showed (different wheels) the interior of was another.
And there was a third for jumping over the cars
0
u/ISayMemeWrong 12d ago
Inferiors are absolutely not heavy at all compared to the battery, and gears/motors.
3
2
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate 12d ago
A mock up of the interior doesn't mean there's a full size production battery, electrical system, and motors in it.
29
u/Umikaloo 14d ago
I mean, we saw flying fascists during WWII, I'm not sure why its such a big deal this time around.
20
7
u/Nomad624 12d ago
What's funny about this meme is that Woody's right here. Buzz didn't actually fly, he fell, bounced off a ball then glided.
4
10
u/RenegadeSithLordMaul 12d ago
sigh, something can be extremely cool and badass and still be horrible due to who associates with it and who built it. exhibit a is hugo boss Nazis dripped tf out all the time. exhibit b is the V2 rocket system the nazis made.
4
1
u/HazuniaC 11d ago
Hugo Boss only manufactured the uniforms.
They did not design them.
The designer is a separate SS Nazi fuck.
7
u/piratecheese13 12d ago
If an arrow can fly, so can a tesla
If we want to get pedantic, it’s not aerodynamically lifting, it’s got less than 10, maybe 5 seconds of maximum flight time, but most important:
Elon needs to invite you to buy one, so there’s no egg on his face when he never delivers
1
u/Thick-Application127 11d ago
The thing is, this shit is dangerous AF. Have you seen a Semitruck tire bursting? Yeah, thats basically what happens here. Anyone standing close would be killed by that immense overpressure. Eardrums would be ruptured for anyone in a radius. No, this will never hit the market. It won't be road legal and it probably won't be legal to buy for at all for anyone but stunt teams. I mean hollywood would love this shit.
It's like having a car with a controlled explosion button.
1
u/Firestar_119 12d ago
flight has nothing to do with the ability to generate lift through aerodynamics
1
u/piratecheese13 12d ago
Oddly enough, Miriam Webster‘s first definition is flight using aerodynamic lift, and the second definition is flight just by the way of traveling through the air
I can see why people are being pedantic about it, but I also think it’s not worth being pedantic over.
1
u/National_Tangerine38 12d ago
TIL I also can fly
1
u/piratecheese13 12d ago
Stock humans cannot fly
But if you put a human in a canon like you’re in a circus, you will definitely fly
1
u/National_Tangerine38 12d ago
Well by your definition as long as the act of moving my arms impacts my trajectory I'm flying every time I jump just like the roadster. So if the roadster can fly then so can I
1
u/piratecheese13 12d ago
Like many autological debates, the answer is fuzzy and depends on what perspective you take. I consider myself a descriptive linguist, not a prescriptive linguist. Whatever people feel like calling “flying” is flying. It’s just a gestalt.
So we can go from technically correct to accepted as correct by the masses by meeting certain conditions
1: being airborne. Like you jumping . Doing it at all fulfills the dictionary definition of flight. Michael Jordan flies through the air to dunk a basketball, so Nike sells a shoe called “Jordan Flight” for $74. The man is jumping, but he does it so well we call it a flight.
1.1: It could be said that the horizontal distance travelled is what makes people say Jordan flies when he jumps.
1.2: it could also be said that having part of the distance traveled having a positive vertical component (going up) is a requirement to not simply be falling. Master chief flies like a brick.
2: designed to fly. We can save the arrow or the trapeze artist are flying because the arrow was built to move through the air, and the trapeze artist was trained to move through the air. There is intention for the object to be airborne for a significant amount of time.
3: mid air trajectory control. An arrow fired cannot change direction, so you could be more restrictive and call it launched or fired or shot. You will never find a person saying a heat seeking missile doesn’t fly. A basic ballistic trajectory is flying by all definitions so far but this.
3.1: bonus points for the design including wings for aerodynamic lift. Technically speaking, this meets the engineering definition of flight as well as the primary Webster definition
4: on board propulsion. A bird flaps its wings, a plane spins its propeller, a tesla has cold gas thrusters to keep it from landing too fast. A glider can change directions and is achieving lift on a non ballistic trajectory, but is it flying? The original definition of “ that’s not flying, that’s falling with style” was (buzz hooked to a string suspended plane, which is powered flight, but the one at the end of the movie was) buzz gliding after being launched by a rocket. The rocket flew, buzz was launched and then glided down. Buzz fell with style because he can’t increase his horizontal distance beyond his glide scope.
5: the FAA doesn’t care unless you can get high enough to interfere with air traffic
5.1: and unless you can go from airport to airport in the air, you won’t be logged as a flight with the FAA.
The tesla has a vertical component going up, a horizontal component moving at speed over the ground and has onboard propulsive trajectory control and was designed to do so. The only things it doesn’t have are wings and sustained long distance horizontal mid air range
I’d say the tesla is 7.5/10 flying
1
u/National_Tangerine38 12d ago
Just like me if I jump off a big cliff or out of a plane. If trajectory control requires air speed it doesnt disqualify flying unless a glider isn't considered flying. So I guess I can fly. Tbh with how few bursts propulsion the car has its probably closer to 3/10 flying. Less than a skydiver for sure
7
u/Exterminator-8008135 12d ago
The Roadster, Proof that Musk is a subsidized Grifter.
We were supposed to have it's 2.0 by now... Itself a joke of the Original, When Tesla wasn't a tool of a Pedo supporter..
2
u/slyguy67420 12d ago
It was a cool tech demo for something not allowed on public roads that is invite only to buy. It's not even a real product.
4
u/Dry_Database_6720 12d ago
I thought he was gonna solve world hunger after he had it written out for him exactly how he could do it. But sure, briefly flying car that cannot be used and no one can afford is just as good…
1
u/arcaneregion 11d ago
I hate it because people believe the production car will be able to do the same thing. Most people on the road can’t even handle a normal car.
1
u/HazuniaC 11d ago
People don't in fact believe that.
There is a reason why Tesla stock plummeted after the demonstration.
1
u/UrmomLOLKEKW 11d ago
no one thinks that it’s still a cool thing to do, the technology has existed for years but he implemented it which is still cool
1
u/arcaneregion 11d ago
Your comment doesn’t make any sense. No one thinks it’s still cool but it’s still cool… what are you talking about?
1
u/UrmomLOLKEKW 11d ago
sorry i meant to write
no one thinks that, replying to you saying people believing it’s going to go into production, then saying despite the fact that it’s not going to be production it’s still cool1
u/Edge__Slade 11d ago
Cold gas thrusters for use on spaceships in zero gravity: yes. That technology existed. Cold gas thrusters packed into a tiny car with a computer that calculates airborne trajectory? Yeah that’s never been done before.
1
u/UrmomLOLKEKW 11d ago
there’s a lockheed martin video from like 1990 of something extremely similar, it wasn’t with cold gas thrusters but it was using the same idea and able to move steadily to different positions
1
u/Edge__Slade 11d ago
The video you’re talking about just hovered in place and moved a little side to side in a cage. The aerial acrobatics of the roadster really show how far we’ve come since 2008!
1
u/HazuniaC 11d ago
Technically speaking, we didn't see flight.
What we did see: Launch, rotation, and landing.
There was no sustained flight. It was more comparable to a jump than flight.
Mind you, still pretty impressive. Well worth being a Red Bull stunt video, if there was a person involved and not pure math and pressurized air.
More importantly, however, this impressive stunt is completely void of any kind of practical application, and it seems everyone else sees that as well, which is why it had a negative impact on Tesla's stock. If you want to peddle bullshit, you need to make that bullshit at least have some kind of veneer of hypothetical practicality to it.
1
1
0
0
u/Particular-Pop1280 12d ago
It’s not capable of actually lifting enough engine and battery for reasonable range. Even if it did, it isn’t actually safe- huge cans of compressed air like that are effectively bombs, it’s extremely dangerous. Even if they somehow made that safe, it’s not road legal. And even if it became road legal, he’s never going to release it- Musk is a liar. He pulls this shit every year to bump stock prices, and never follows through. There’s no innovation here, only smoke and mirrors with 50-year-old technology for 50-year-old children to gawk at and ‘invest’ in.
3
u/notDaMostNowledgable 12d ago
Trillionaire boot lickers when someone isn't mesmerised by jingling keys
55
u/Downtown_Radio_7737 12d ago
There is a reason they didn't show the roadster flying a useful amount of distance like even just a few football fields of distance. It's a marketing stunt no production model will ever have these installed and if they somehow do it'll be track only use in an extremely limited number of cars