Report: Tesla’s Design Is Light Years Ahead of BMW, GM, And Nissan Because Of “Ground-Up” Design

OCT 12 2017 BY EVANNEX 84


Tesla Model 3 followed by a BMW


One distinct competitive advantage often considered for Tesla is the company’s complete commitment to an electric vehicle future. Their cars don’t sacrifice anything in the design process — they’re built from the ground up to take advantage of a wholly unique electric vehicle architecture.

And, according to Reuters, “Electric motors are smaller than petrol or diesel engines, so electric vehicles designed from scratch can benefit from better interior packaging which allows a bigger passenger space.”

It’s reported that, “There are two ways to make battery-driven vehicles: use a clean-sheet design like Tesla, or a traditional vehicle platform that can use all types of motor: combustion, electric or a hybrid of the two.”

In contrast to Tesla, BMW’s vision for the future appears to be one that allows for an amalgam of vehicle technologies consolidated into one design as opposed to committing, completely, to an electric vehicle architecture.

Above: A look back at why Tesla originally decided on a clean-sheet design approach in order to engineer an electric vehicle “from the ground up” (Youtube: Tesla)

BMW is, “betting they can mass produce new electric cars based on conventional vehicles.” Looking at their plans, “BMW is preparing to launch an all-electric version of its popular X3 offroader by 2020, and… a new electric BMW, the i Vision Concept, [which] will use the same underpinnings as future versions of the BMW 3-Series. Electric and petrol versions will be built on the same production lines.”

*This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Matt Pressman.


It’s not just BMW — here’s an example of EV design compromise from the Nissan Leaf (left) which doesn’t provide extra storage like the Tesla Model S (right) inside the front trunk (Source: Auto Evolution / Green Optimistic)

According to BMW’s research and development chief Klaus Froehlich, “It is easy to build an electric car. It is difficult to earn money with it.”

Reuters notes however that clean-sheet design for electric vehicles does, indeed, require significant upfront investment as, “their unique design requires a dedicated production line and expensive new factories.”

Therefore, BMW looks to be hedging its bets by relying on the same production lines that pump out gas cars. And, they’re looking to pre-existing gas car architectures re-purposed (and reborn) as electric cars.


Another automaker, GM, displays an example of busy EV design — looking under the “skin” of the Chevy Bolt (left), the Tesla Model S (right) appears far less cluttered (Source: Hybrid Cars / EV News)

On the one hand, “Froehlich said vehicle designs dedicated to only one powertrain were no longer required.”

However, Carsten Breitfeld, a former electric vehicle engineer at BMW, disagrees. Breitfeld, who headed BMW’s i8 sportscar program, explains, “Trying to adapt a volume architecture to produce electric, diesel and plug-in hybrids is fundamentally flawed, because these products will be compromised.” Breitfeld points to Tesla’s clean-sheet design as the right approach: “Tesla was pathbreaking with its electric car, and that’s what everybody is seeking to develop now.”


Tesla’s advantages of clean-sheet design (Image: Business Insider)

This difference of opinion became a divisive issue, internally, at BMW. And, “Breitfeld is so convinced of this that he left his job at BMW in 2015, where he was part of a small team working on clean-sheet electric cars.” The team’s only clean-sheet EV design that made it to production was its i3. However, it turns out that BMW’s internal “i Division” team appears to now be moving its focus away from electric cars.


Moving forward, BMW will be taking a very different approach from Tesla when it comes to electric vehicle design (Image: Vox)

Does compromising EVs with gas car design characteristics epitomize a company clinging to the past? “Breitfeld sees the German carmakers’ answer to the expected surge in electric car demand – putting an electric motor in a conventional car – as a mistake. He believes it leaves the industry vulnerable to a ‘Nokia moment’: when a new player uses a transformational design to seize control of an established market, as Apple’s iPhone stole a march on Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia a decade ago.”


*Source: Reuters

*Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX, Check out the site here.

Categories: BMW, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "Report: Tesla’s Design Is Light Years Ahead of BMW, GM, And Nissan Because Of “Ground-Up” Design"

newest oldest most voted

This might need an editor’s note to keep the comments section from going off course:

“The team’s only clean-sheet EV design that made it to production was its i3”

Should also mention the low volume i8 here too. The original Reuters story included the i8:

“BMW learned this the hard way after pouring billions into bespoke carbon-fibre based electric cars, the i3 and i8”

Feel free to delete this post if you choose to add a note.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

GM had the “Skateboard” platform for the Hydrogen prototypes.
They probably should’ve adapted it for the BEV platform. Maybe they could’ve had a Frunk too?

“Disguised”? 🙂

Designing something from the ground up has its advantages but also its disadvantages.

So the fact that BMW has designed and built 2 EVs from the ground up classifies as “not so much”? Unsurprisingly those cars are expensive for what they are.

Taking conventional car models and adding in a battery and electric motor typically results in a more affordable vehicle albeit with certain disadvantages.

Not everyone can afford a $80k+ vehicle so I think both methods have their places in the market right now.

“Another automaker, GM, displays an example of busy EV design — looking under the “skin” of the Chevy Bolt (left), the Tesla Model S (right) appears far less cluttered”

Umm. what? The Tesla picture is only showing the battery & motor. How about all this stuff?

Or this stuff?

Exactly – just show what you want to make the point you want.

Exactly. Tesla Marketing always shows the bare bones cars with almost nothing on them when the pictures provided here show the actual car as manufactured. All one has to do is look at the world’s WORST 12 volt battery installation (which my Canadian friends tell me has to be replaced every year – and to make matters worse its a special battery you can’t get from your neighborhood parts store) which, when the warranty of it is over, is so expensive to replace (over $400) that some “S” owners have rewired their cars to put all the connections and monitoring off of the battery real estate, and have shoe-horned in a readily-available corner-store battery. Another thing: – not to pick on them, and I don’t think Tesla even claims this – this article is being written by a compromised after-marketer with an axe to grind – but they have been DEAD LAST to finally put a 20th century AC motor to replace the 19th century jobs used in all teslas prior to the model 3. So, my pint is that other EV manufacturers are not all that bad. GM in fact is quite conservative compared to BMW what with the… Read more »

Bill H. I own an early Model S (P038XX) and all the early “S” had their 12 volt batteries replaced, mine included at no charge.

4.5 years later the 12 volt battery is alive and well. Same is true of many of my Tesla friends. I do not know whee you got your annual $400 battery replacement info but it is news to me.

P.S. I do seem to have to replace the 12 volt battery in my Subaru, Toyota, and Alfa every 3-4 years but that only costs about a $100.

Well I repeatedly ask my canadian friends what EXACTLY the trouble is and they say its something to do with the 12 volt battery isn’t charged when the main battery is plugged in, etc, but no one I’ve talked to seems to know EXACTLY what the issue is, and they all have had their batteries replaced multiple times under warranty, so I think the cold must have something to do with it. $400 is what things cost in canada – probably $200 here, but then you’d have to talk to someone who has had to replace their battery out of warranty. If there are ranger/rover charges, I could see where it could easily be that much. The last article on the battery included a picture illustrating what I mean.

Don’t you get the fact that it is Tesla fan boi article (By crappy EVANNEX) that has direct interests to promote Tesla.

So, don’t let that often debunked the picture comparison to fool anyone.

It’s not about more or less stuff but about better packaging….

Electric cars have only a fraction of the parts ice cars do. PHEVs have at least partly both ice and electric car parts combined. So in this sense they are the worst.

Exactly, and part of the reason the Bolt EV looks so crowded is it is a compact car with a midsize interior. After I looked at one there really isn’t as much there as it looks in the photo, it just doesn’t have the room to spread out like Tesla does in the huge (Wasteful space) front.

Yup. You have to disassemble the frunk to get to the 12 volt battery…brilliant.

Is that really Tesla Model-S, if so where is the space for Frunk. Looks like some cooked up pic.

I get you guy’s point. I’m not saying you are wrong. But keep in mind that BMW’s PHEV’s have all that stuff too, just buried underneath a big gas engine and transmission so you can’t see any of those parts at all. I agree it is sensationalized writing though.

oops! Just realize both posts were from Kdawg, and not two different posters. Oh well, my bad. You get the idea.

I agree that the pics in the article are misleading, yet both the Spark EV and the Bolt don’t have frunks…Some of that may have to do with the design choice with the extreme front end rake…

That was my thought also. The uninitiated would think Tesla uses magic to move electricity to all its components, nope, just doesn’t include them in the image.

Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing but got to this article late. That photo is a hilariously wrong or intentionally misleading comparison. Does the author really think there is just a battery pack and maybe a computer under the frunk of a Tesla?!

GM and BMW both have multiple ground up EV designs. If just talking conversion vehicles like a CT6, 530e, Ford Fusion etc then that’s fine. But GM and BMW have both created multiple ground up plug-in designs. So they should be listed along with Tesla as examples of why this is the better way to do it.

Not sure the pain is as great as described, just putting EV’s As an option is a huge improvement. The problem for most companies is they will not push EV ‘s until EV profit equals ICE profit. That may be too late!

The Bolt, for example, is built on the same assembly line as ICE vehicles…GM touted that part of the Bolt’s battery replaces the fuel tank…Ultimately if you’re building multiple drivetrains on the same assembly line, this will give you the ultimate flexibility…

Right you can all your production down at the same time.

Door handles popping out is a masterpiece? I call it unnecessary complications that make for unreliable car, especially as it ages. Door fetish SUCKS, and Tesla’s a master at it.

As for light years ahead due to “ground-up”, SparkEV is still the quickest charging EV in the world by charging to 80% in 20 minutes. Ground-up doesn’t mean better as you can see from Nissan Leaf, especially the old 24 kWh version.

Evannex overreached their point when they attempted to compare the Bolt with Tesla. The original Reuters article was well written but about German automakers vs Tesla. GM shifted to a clean-sheet ground-up design for the Bolt EV and in an apples-apples comparison (which the “comparision” illustrations are not), the Bolt holds its own well with Tesla in taking advantage of the clean-sheet design. The Model S illustration shows the basic skateboard floor pan + motor + battery pack + wheels. Period. The Bolt’s illustration – in addition to pan + pack+ motor+ wheels – shows ALL the required accessory equipment, including AC, heater, power electronics, thermal management systems with various radiators, pumps, etc. And because it is FWD, it packs ALL of that, plus the motor and power electronics, in the compact front. The COMPLETE package, less body and interiors. The Model S de-skinned, when including all the same stuff as the Bolt, also looks very busy. The Evannex just cherry-picked photos to back up his biased assertion. I assert that GM showed that it can create a “clean sheet” EV design AND still fold the EV’s production into the same line with other conventional vehicles at an already-operational production… Read more »

The Bolt is built on a ICE car production line. This has an impact on the design for sure…

That has an impact on assembly line planning and tooling. Not necessarily on the Bolt’s design.

The Bolt EV started life on the Sonic’s platform and evolved onto it’s own platform…We won’t know until we know, but the Gen2 ICE Sonic hatchback could essentially be on the Bolt EV’s platform…

The front rake is extreme the hood is very short…

I don’t like the long hoods from Tesla, like the Bolt or i3 compact format.

I think my “OP-ED” piece about Bolts using Tesla destination stations was way less OP-ED’y than this piece by EVANNEX. It’s hard to read their “articles” without my eyes rolling off the table.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous


I like Tesla but this one had my eyes roll outta my sockets and pinned by BS’ometer.

Yep, ya’ll said it.

I do not diss Tesla, GM or BMW when it comes to their plug-in offerings.

Pro-Tesla slant is one thing, and none of these manufacturers are perfect… but this article is just really bad.

And – if your eyes roll off the table – watch out for Gravity! it will Suck Them Down…Down…Down!

Yeah I really don’t get these heavily-slanted Tesla stories, haha. Especially when they simultaneously prop up one automaker and put down others.

“Another automaker, GM, displays an example of busy EV design — looking under the “skin” of the Chevy Bolt (left), the Tesla Model S (right) appears far less cluttered.” I’m sorry but that’s a dumb statement. GM’s illustration of the Bolt EV accurately shows the car with all of its innards and just the outer body skin removed. Tesla’s illustration strips out the innards — of course it looks far less cluttered. Duh. In reality, both cars have roughly the same type and amount of innards like coolant lines and radiators, brake lines and boosters, air conditioning lines and a compressor, cabin heating components, headlights, window washer fluid lines and tank, high voltage cables, etc. And Tesla cars also often come with front motors and front wheel drive gearing. It’s all pretty much the same stuff and sometimes from the same auto parts suppliers. GM shows it. Tesla doesn’t. That’s probably a win for Tesla’s marketing department. As for the frunk, that’s not particularly specific to electric cars. VW beetles had a frunk. Having a frunk results in a longer hood which, in my opinion, makes a car look more like a conventional gasoline car that needs that room for… Read more »

I stopped reading after “EVANNEX”

I’m about to go on and petition IEVs to stop posting these Tesla propaganda pieces by EVANNEX. I mean you even have Tesla fans on here commenting how lame the “articles” are.

Well Madbro, maybe your could just stop reading them?

Oh, I forgot. As a troll you feel it necessary to pop in and carpet bomb your overwhelming mental negativity of all threads mentioning Tesla.

nothing says ‘troll’ less than purposely altering someone’s screen-name when addressing them.

I agree trippie!

Haha! Just kidding. 😀

I think bro 1999 has evolved into more of a Tesla “Rug Puller”, than a Tesla “carpet bomber”.

Remember it is getting hard now, with the Model 3 starting to become a huge EV distraction for all the Trolls and Goblins, as the current looming witching hour hastily approaches. It’s like fright nite every evening with these Tesla Trouncers!

Why isn’t this article listed as an opinion piece?

As a bolt driver, I’m glad that GM finally utilized the skateboard platform that they invented as its advantages are many.

All other models and manufacturers building EVs by adapting ICC platforms are really missing out on those advantages and this is where Tesla as a dedicated EV builder is really reaping the benefits of this design.

BTW, I really like the I3 concept of a skateboard PEV with a add-on range extender, this should be the way to go for capturing the advantages of the skateboard with batteries comprising the floor AND allowing a range extender as an option.

Now BMW just needs to make a bigger car more suitable for families then the I3 to fully realize this architecture.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

They should’ve adapted the below old Hydrogen skateboard platform (Hy-Wire?) for an EV…


Haha, anyone notice the picture.
“Moving forward, BMW will be taking a very different approach from Tesla when it comes to electric vehicle design ”

Apparently what they meant by that is that BMW will be moving forward meanwhile Tesla will be driving in reverse down the street.

Where I live you get ticketed for parking the wrong way on the street!

So says the serial anti-Tesla troll.

Can someone teach this guy how to reply t individual comments? It’s not rocket science.

It must be exhausting always trying to ostracize yourself from normal society…

Sorry, forgot my audience. This should help –

Keep dreaming trolls.

I noticed that Madbro is now trolling Electrek and TMC. Are too DJ under another username?

What a desperate loser.

Glad you finally stringed together enough brain cells to learn how to reply properly. *Slow clap*

Typed from your mom’s basement.

Leave his Mom’s basement out of it, its the underside of the bridge that is getting all the Tesla Shade “lived in look”!

This article is stupid and mis-leading….

BMW using existing ICE platforms for their “new” electric models has advantages and disadvantages. Under advantages you can list reduced investment in new production lines and faster time to market as the main structure of the vehicle carries over. Under disadvantages, BMW has tied its BEV engineers hands to fit everything they need to package into an existing ICE based design. This will lead to packaging compromises for the BEV which may impact range and reliability: range by allowing fewer batteries and reliability by suboptimal heat dissipation of electrical components. I can understand why BMW adopted this strategy: a big reduction in investment required for production and faster time to market due to less engineering compared to a clean sheet design of a complete automobile. However, the possibility of a very compromised BEV design with poorer performance may cripple sales when the car goes on sale. The devil will be in the details of how well the BEV engineers can package all the components needed. Unfortunately, the resignation of a leading BMW BEV engineer over this point doesn’t give me confidence that the big boys at BMW made the right decision. If the BEV flops in 2020 due to poor… Read more »

You forgot to quote one essential piece of the original article. But fear not, I’ll do that for you:

“Since BMW started selling the i3 in 2013, vehicle battery performance has improved by 40 percent, allowing carmakers to make electric cars with the same heavy underpinnings used by petrol cars and still get a range of 500 km from one charge. This, they believe, gives them an advantage over makers of custom built electric vehicles.”

So you can’t easily compare retrofitting ICEVs with batteries from then to now. BMW sure thinks it can work out fine. Hyundai already shows it with a car being designed from ground up to fit all technologies. BMW will do the same with the 3-series. VWs new E-Golf also now has adequate range in the region of small hatchback pure EVs (Zoe/Leaf). Kreisel retrofits all kinds of vehicles with more than enough range.

Let me fix the headline for you:

“Tesla Model 3 experiences production hell because of clean sheet design.”

Or perhaps,

“Tesla has the only ground-up EV designs, except for BMW and Bolt.”

Or perhaps,

“Tesla’s ground up designs make for pretty pictures, but can’t be manufactured profitably.”

Let me fix your title for you Four FUDsters!

The rest of your serial drooling can be ignored.

How is the Bolt ground up design? There are four models, ice cars, that look exactly like it, and GM did not even design it.

More FUD from GM haters.
The Bolt was designed by a team at GM Korea. GM Korea is still GM for those slow on the up take. The Bolt was designed from the ground up as an EV by GM. Period.

Other than the skateboard design, the aluminum construction of the Model S/X is very conventional. It’s the same exact method used by other aluminum vehicles like Jaguar XJ, Audi A8 from 15 years ago and more recently even in the mass produced Ford F-150.

Even the shape of the Model S is derivative of a lot of other luxury cars. That give is both a conventional look and makes it easier for buyers to accept. It’s not “light years” ahead in design.

The i3/i8 using molded CFRP is groundbreaking and more technically interesting in terms of manufacturing. Especially the i3, the shape is a result of the new drivetrain, material selection and manufacturing. Also, I would say less of a compromise to marketing and conventional thinking, but not traditionally beautiful.

What is the policy of InsideEVs in accepting, reviewing, and decisioning articles from sources such as this?

If the ‘author’ stated the Model S had a gasoline engine in the frunk would you accept and publish the article without concern for the author’s competency to speak on the topic.

Not a good day for InsideEVs

This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Matt Pressman.

I will hold Evannex responsible for this article.

The Bolt EV photo comparison is absolutely baffling and of all the manufacturers to use as examples for the articles premise, GM and BMW were two of the worst they could use. Since both have produced ground-up plug-in platforms. Its all the more impressive that they do not need to segregate EV and ICE manufacturing.

I expect Evannex to provide pro-Tesla articles (this is appropriate because Tesla rocks) but c’mon. That Bolt comparison photo belongs in the electrek comment section at best. XP

If I had to replace a component on the Leaf vs the Tesla, I’d pick the Leaf. The components are easily accessed by opening the hood, just like they are in ICE cars. You don’t need to cut through several layers of proprietary covers to get to things. Surely that would reduce the labor required to repair and diagnose a Leaf as well.

Actually the Bolt is more of a clean sheet design than a model S. The fact that the Bolt is so much smaller but has more headroom and legroom in the front and back is evidence of that. Also, the Model S has the big front end which is only necessary if it had an ICE in there.

The Bolt (which I drive) has more headroom because it is taller with its associated drag penalty and difficult to put 3 adults/large children in back because of its narrowness.

The Bolt’s narrow cabin is a way to try and mitigate some of that CD penalty of being tall by slightly reducing the CDA figure by going narrow.

Tesla designer Franz Von Holzhausen has made the Tesla cars look more sporty and conventional with excellent drag for increased range. Also, the longer hood allows for a better crumple zone and a Frunk.

Both designs are deliberate choices and so far the Tesla has proven more popular because sexy looks sells as opposed to dorky looks.

The Bolt just got me with how dorky it is. It’s drives ok, has some pickup, but I just don’t like it all that much. At least not 40k worth.

Tesla S back seat comfort sucks, because af the high floor level.
Every car design has its compromises.

Yeah, not a big fan of this article either. Not just the i3 is a clean-sheet design — so’s the Leaf, which is a more significant BEV volume-wise. Not While they ended up not being marketed in commercial numbers, the e-Golf and PHEV Golf & Passat are semi-clean designs — they weren’t conversions like the Focus Electric, but could accommodate multiple drivetrain types, incl. BEV, PHEV and ICE. All BEVs going forward will be clean sheet designs, not just Tesla’s, and it’s clear why: Established carmakers had to be convinced first that the market will be there. Now that they are (and Tesla does deserve a lof of credit for that, but so does Nissan/Renault), they can afford to make the necessary investments. Likewise, Tesla didn’t invent the skateboard design. It’s a completely obvious location for the battery. As for the details: 1) lack of a frunk on the Leaf is an advantage, not disadvantage — the front “box” is smaller than it would be otherwise, and storage space isn’t split front/back, so you can carry larger items in the single cargo space. 2) The motorized door handles on the S are a disadvantage. A motor should never be used… Read more »

BMW will lose sales QUICKLY.
The fact is, that in under 3 years, few ppl will want to buy an ICE car. Too expensive and will lose its value WAY TOO FAST.

At the same time, the MAJORITY of EVs today, lose their values quickly as well. Why? Becase they were NOT designed from the ground up and have SERIOUS issues.
BMW? i3? Junk.
Nissan Leaf? Junk.
GM Bolt? Quasi Junk (still looks ugly, is slow, and has the interior of a $20K car, while selling for 40K).

Note that Tesla roadster has also not kept its value that well. It dropped because it was basically an ICE car with an EV drive train.

BUT, the MS/MX, and I suspect the M3, are holding values and demand continues to exceed supply.

Brutal but fairly accurate.

Yep, truth hurts!

Especially when the bulls eye is located by the said projectile!

Also it will be interesting to follow the KOBE steel story as various manufacturers used inferior products produced by them, which could lead to serious consequences.

Bad steel for cars, that can be a bit of a problem.

Bad steel for Nuclear Reactors, Fukushima huge problemo.

At least the i3 has no problems with its CFRP strength

Yeah FFBJ I’ve also commented on the KOBE scandal – mostly due to the fact they are also building ‘turnkey’ hydrogen compression/refrigeration dispensers in california so since they have to dispense h2 gas at 10,000 psi, I’m wondering if the weaken KOBE steel pipes will burst when in operation and make in effect a nice bomb, seeing as many KOBE products do not have the extreme strength the company has claimed and has only recently been found cheating.

“Apparently my last post was pulled for using a perfectly fine English word for excrement, which I said this article is…”

***mod edit (staff)***
No, it was pulled for slander. As one can see from the comments in this thread, it is fine to voice your opinion. We are adults, we can take the criticism, and we will take the reception to this post to heart for future articles – not every story is a winner. But you still don’t get to slander the site, even if we stub our toe.

You might not like that, but it is our house – and we don’t let people come into it and slap our kids if they don’t come home with a passing grade, anymore that you would allow the same thing where you live. We should also mention that the moderation isn’t personal * you were not centered out, it is a ToS rule we have had in place since day one, and it is enforced 100% without exception. We only mention or explain an edit when a person returns to a thread and questions why that decision was made.
***mod edit***

Hopefully, my comment will not turn out to be true. InsideEVs has been one of the most balanced EV news sources on the web. I would not have been at all shocked to find this piece on many other sites, which appear brandcentric, or even hostile to EVs, despite their claims of being “green.” Objectivity will be harder to maintain, but even more important to your readers, over the next few years, now that Wall Street, and powerful politicians have started paying attention.

This explains why Tesla is able to provide FRUNK with a clean look in the front, but other automakers are not able to provide this feature. Great job Tesla.

Looking under the hood of our Bolt, I can see and lay hands on all the important components found in any EV. It would have been easy for GM engineers to move these devices, mostly electronics in aluminum boxes, to the periphery, leaving space for a plastic cover, with a tub in the middle. As someone who has worked on his own cars all his life, I appreciate their not doing so. This design is a nightmare.

Just to be clear, I am not referring to the very nice replacement battery. I am talking to the ridiculous situation they have created for servicing the 12 volt battery.

Ridiculous is right…. No wonder insurance repairs for this car are so high. If changing the battery is such a chore, and the amateurish way they just piled all the connections on top of the non-standard battery – its a total joke. How much of the rest of the car is designed like this?

The magpies always claim I should look at an “S”, and not go back to issues I had with the Roadster. Well, to change the motorcycle battery in the Roadster (why ev’s need anything more than a tiny battery is beyond me), all you had to do is turn the steering wheel to one side to get at the battery box. But taking a good chunk of the front of the car apart? They’ve definitely gone down hill on the design here, and I’m glad I don’t own one, even though I test drove an “S” 3 times but finally decided against it.

That was one smart decision.

“EV’s have no maintenance.”

That statement doesn’t apply to Teslas.