I would like a Turbo button, just like on computers in the 80s/90s.

[Shrink36s]

My first car topped out at 55 as along as I was going downhill with the wind at my back. I think 8s is going to be just fine.
Bonus if both Slate windows roll down and the a/c works.

 

[cadblu]

I would keep the windows rolled up and the roof closed (on the SUV) to reduce wind turbulence. The fact that the roof panel is removable on the SUV, although a nice feature, is somewhat concerning. I’m referring to the “coke bottle” effect. Also known as “Helmholtz resonance.” Feels like your eardrums are going to pop.

 

[KevinRS]

I would keep the windows rolled up and the roof closed (on the SUV) to reduce wind turbulence. The fact that the roof panel is removable on the SUV, although a nice feature, is somewhat concerning. I’m referring to the “coke bottle” effect. Also known as “Helmholtz resonance.” Feels like your eardrums are going to pop.

I think the open air version would be meant for relatively low speeds, not freeway so much. Just having one or more back windows open in my car and not the front I feel resonance that is very uncomfortable for my ears, but the wide open open air kit shouldn't have that much problem, at least at lower speeds.

 

[CorvusCorvax]

My first car topped out at 55 as along as I was going downhill with the wind at my back. I think 8s is going to be just fine.
Bonus if both Slate windows roll down and the a/c works.

Yeah, my 1978 VW Scirocco had all of 75HP. I had to flog it hard to get it up to highway speeds in any kind of reasonable time. As I recall, the 0-60 times were in the 11-12 second range. But driving a classic Porsche, a new BMW and a supercharged Audi have spoiled me with the flexibility that quick acceleration provides. Three things that make driving pleasurable - good steering, good brakes and good acceleration. And having driven farm trucks in my long-ago past, I'm not sure some of them even could get to 60mph with a full load on. But that doesn't imply that driving them was in any way fun. Utility and enjoyable aren't the same thing - one of the prime reasons I want to get rid of our F-150 at the soonest opportunity.

 

[Shrink36s]

Yeah, my 1978 VW Scirocco had all of 75HP. I had to flog it hard to get it up to highway speeds in any kind of reasonable time. As I recall, the 0-60 times were in the 11-12 second range. But driving a classic Porsche, a new BMW and a supercharged Audi have spoiled me with the flexibility that quick acceleration provides. Three things that make driving pleasurable - good steering, good brakes and good acceleration. And having driven farm trucks in my long-ago past, I'm not sure some of them even could get to 60mph with a full load on. But that doesn't imply that driving them was in any way fun. Utility and enjoyable aren't the same thing - one of the prime reasons I want to get rid of our F-150 at the soonest opportunity.

Mine was a 1980-something Buick Skyhawk. Basically, a Chevy Cavalier. It was beat-up, had passed through other family members. But it was wheels that got me around, and helped get to work at the grocery store to save money and buy the next thing. The engine on this thing would spit oil back into the carburetor and soak it choking the engine out. I kept a spare in the trunk and changed it rather regularly. I'm no mechanic and have no idea how that even could happen. Great first car. No thrills, strict utility to learn to earn my way.
The next car was a 1989 Ford Escort GT. Manual. It was much more fun to drive, but broke down all the time. That's when I learned a lot about the basic mechanics of a car and how to fix them.

 

[Driven5]

I also have been wondering if Slate, as the un-teSla, is initially under-stating their specs like range and 0-60... Or perhaps, reporting for their worst case scenario offered configuration, like a lifted SUV on oversize all-terrain tires, rather than a blank slate.

Consider that the Chevy Bolt, an EV with effectively the same weight, hp, and max speed, runs a 6.5-7.0 second 0-60. The only real advantage it has is better aero, which if anything probably does less to help than a FWD launch does to hurt for 0-60. It would also get 200+ and 320+ miles on the standard and long range Slate batteries respectively.

Only time will tell though...

 

[CorvusCorvax]

I also have been wondering if Slate, as the un-teSla, is initially under-stating their specs like range and 0-60... Or perhaps, reporting for their worst case scenario offered configuration, like a lifted SUV on oversize all-terrain tires, rather than a blank slate.

This is what I am hoping. Not so much that the range is under-stated, but that the acceleration is reported for the worst-case scenario.

 

[cadblu]

I admire automakers that publish conservative ratings for performance. Historically BMW has taken on this approach. Hoping that Slate follows this practice.

 

[JoeBlow-Kokomo]

Telo seems nice, I don't think there's reason to be hostile with another independent small EV truck that's clearly trying to be something different than Slate. We're on the same side, and not really competing! I recall hearing that the Telo people were friendly with Slate as well.

I do personally dislike the emphasis on 0-60 in EVs. My understanding is that the main "performance" issue is usually acceleration dropping-off toward the top, but I don't know if that's current (no pun intended).

For extreme 0-60s, I just think it needlessly constrains the choice of tires/wheels on vehicles that already tend to be heavy, and where rolling resistance is especially relevant; while not being especially relevant to making an EV feel fun to drive. But that's an internet opinion, not an experience-based one.

Sorry, but 500hp in a tiny vehicle IS nuts. I had a reservation for awhile, then noticed the obcession with 0-60 times. As ex-Tesla guys I' guess that's all they know. Sure is time to move beyond that attribute. JMO
Building a dangerous vehicle that feeds silly peoples need for power in the name of making a buck isn't ok to me. On both test drives I've watched, the passengers reached for something to hold onto when they gassed it. Fun, sure. Stupid? Sure. I'm not anti speed, I've had fast cars. But cars that were designed for that. Not trucks..... Even moreso, tiny little trucks with no wheelbase and skinny little track.
EV's already have a higher single car accident rate than gas, in large part from people not knowing how to handle hp. This little bugger will raise everyones rates! But doubtful we'll have to worry or for long. 40K+ means a very limited market. Good luck to them.

 

[JoeBlow-Kokomo]

You guys have all been spoiled. The fastest car I ever owned was a 2012 Kia Soul with the good AT6 and 2.0 with 164hp and 148ft-lbs. That thing would do 0-60 in under 8 seconds. I'm sure the 2800-pound cub weight helped. Above 70 or so, aerodynamics took over and acceleration slowed considerably.

That car had in interesting quirk. I'd let off the accelerator at 60-65 mph, count to two, then floor it. The car produced a white smoke screen that was truly glorious. It only lasted a few seconds, but would blind anyone a hunded feet behind. The check engine light would flash for a few seconds to let me know I was was in James Bond mode - as if the whiteout in my rearview wasn't enough. The car didn't stumble or suffer decreased performance during the event. I could do the trick only once per drive.

My Kia did this even when new. It didn't burn much oil (until after 150,000 miles, anyway), and I never lost coolant. So I never learned what was at play. I do know some other Kia owners have reported it - but only with the 164hp 2.0 like mine.

You dumped a whole bunch of gas into the combustion chamber that couldnt' all be burned and it washed the cyl walls of their oil film. Thus, smoke.

 

[JoeBlow-Kokomo]

I also have been wondering if Slate, as the un-teSla, is initially under-stating their specs like range and 0-60... Or perhaps, reporting for their worst case scenario offered configuration, like a lifted SUV on oversize all-terrain tires, rather than a blank slate.

Consider that the Chevy Bolt, an EV with effectively the same weight, hp, and max speed, runs a 6.5-7.0 second 0-60. The only real advantage it has is better aero, which if anything probably does less to help than a FWD launch does to hurt for 0-60. It would also get 200+ and 320+ miles on the standard and long range Slate batteries respectively.

Only time will tell though...

That' is the way some manufacturers are going. Understating range to not get raked over the coals when (some) people get less. Chevy in particular has several models routinely getting 20-50 miles more range than quoted. (for some people)

 

[Luxrage]

This is what I am hoping. Not so much that the range is under-stated, but that the acceleration is reported for the worst-case scenario.

I was trying to think back to an EV maker that put a lifetime limit on the number of launches you could do as it was detrimental to the battery or motor system or something like that. Certainly not the best method of doing it but it makes sense why an EV maker would want to under-rate or dial back the performance a bit in return for a longer battery life.

If the Slate were to have some sort of Turbo button, it'd be great for a 1 minute high power passing mode. Double tap the accelerator like the Cruisn' World arcade game, just without the wheelie lol. My 89 Nissan's transmission would switch to POWER mode if you stomped the gas while driving in a similar way.

Edit: It was the Fisker Ocean, 500 launches for the entire life of the car..