Poll: Slate's second model - what do you think it will be?

[1yeliab_sufur1]

I think they should do a car just because the original concept was called the slate car XD

 

[Dorbiman]

I think they should do a car just because the original concept was called the slate car XD

I'd love a Slate car. Keep it super simple and cheap, like the 90s Civics and Corollas. Decent efficiency and range. Would be a sweet commuter.

 

[phidauex]

I'd like to see a slightly beefier truck/SUV w/ AWD as a 2nd offering. However, I think the current skateboard would be more suited to a Transit-type van, in both a fleet version and a light camper version. That would let them capture more fleet buyers, as well as the van-life world, which still lacks reasonably priced options or EV choices.

Small car would be interesting, but I think it could be hard to out-Leaf the Leaf. People say that they miss small sedans, but, do they really? I'm not sure.

 

[KevinRS]

The transit type vans I've seen seem to be significantly larger. Slate just isn't long enough, to start with.
Look up the Rivian trucks Amazon is using now, I don't think the form factor of the Slate can compete in large fleets.

 

[fuzzyweis]

I think a 4 door, 4WD suv, like an old Blazer/Explorer size would be a natural progression, keep the same face and even the same back as the suv kit but add a 2nd set of doors and another motor up front.

 

[ScooterAsheville]

If Slate survives to deliver a second model, and it's way premature to declare that a done deal, it seems pretty obvious that it will be a small commercial utility van. Slate's niche market is a bunch of fringe loonies (that's you and me) on the consumer side, and some small businesses on the fleet side. Those small businesses will likely want a bare bones variant that's weather tight with ample space for cargo.

And yes, I really did just declare all of us on this forum to be fringe lunatics in the automobile market. We are not even close to existing in the automotive mainstream.

 

[ElectricShitbox]

I think they'll do a small delivery van type vehicle ( think Ford Transit Connect from like a decade ago) similar to the cargo top, but minus the ability to change the body style. Fewer seams equals less risk of leaking, and it could end up even cheaper.

They'll also definitely do a 4 door SUV. Unfortunately, that's what everyone wants, so they'll have to for demand.

 

[Luxrage]

Slate's are short enough they could get away with the Nissan NV High Roof option, a Slate van that retains the nose but adds a taller stand-up interior with large rear doors would probably be a beneficial second variant:

 

[Johnologue]

Something to consider regarding Slate's hypothetical next vehicle is how their situation will have changed and what they'd aim to achieve.

The Slate Truck itself is in many ways an exercise in managing limited resources for development. Stealth mode, limited funding/staff, etc. would have been a limitation and is likely why their plans rely on outsourcing.

Their next vehicle will probably be planned around the expectation (or realization) of profitable Slate Truck development.
They'll have financial resources, a full team, institutional experience, etc.
From that position, they might want to reduce their reliance on outsourcing by building a larger factory with more upfront capital expenses.

They might also want to design a vehicle that would've been impractical to refine with their original limited development staff, or something that would have been harder to market as a completely new reputationless automaker than a utility vehicle.

I think an economy hatchback/coupe platform, made at a larger factory in higher volume, might actually fit that new context, especially if they want to be particularly ambitious in challenging the auto industry.

They'd be able to handle more complexity on a design/production level for things like independent rear suspension.
They'll have tested (and hopefully proven) their service network and quality for a broader audience.
A larger factory and reduced outsourcing could lower costs further and allow(/require) them to target higher-volume sales.

More "traditional" economy cars are a neglected blindspot of major manufacturers, much like two-door pickups.
Cars like the Toyota Corolla haven't stopped selling just because cars like the Toyota Corolla Cross exist. People still want cars even if automakers and dealerships don't want to market/sell them.

My thoughts are a bit scattered here, but I think I've gotten most of what I'm thinking down and I can't afford to spend another hour refining it.

 

[atx_ev]

second iteration will 100% be AWD.

I agree that a second vehicle could be a van, I would want EREV though. A generator that charges the battery while you drive.

 

[smack daddy]

4 wheel drive, trucks are driven off road on muddy roads in muddy fields to feed cattle and such snow etc… I have a 4x4 but I would like this truck to also have it so I don’t have to switch out depending on the weather and cheap price cheap cheap cheap

 

[Johnologue]

I really don't think AWD is a priority.

It's possible Slate is making the most of their limitations by defending the choice to make it RWD, but I think it's more likely they genuinely see AWD as an example of an extra feature used for "up-selling" people, particularly on EVs.

BEVs have less to gain from AWD.

ICEVs almost always have a front-heavy weight distribution because that's where the heavy engine is. BEVs like the Slate can have a balanced (or rearward) weight distribution more easily thanks to most of their weight being in the battery.
That means there's going to be less grip to use on the front wheels anyways, except while braking (which causes weight to shift forward, thus front brakes being much larger/more powerful than rear brakes).
The instant response of an electric motor also gives them a traction advantage in general, since the motors/sensors can directly detect and react to slipping.

On the other side of things, AWD is more of a burden for an EV.

It's not an extra set of gears and shafts in the transmission (which does at least avoid some mechanical complexity), it's a whole extra motor. It's not as bad as having a second ICE, but it's still a big chunk of copper windings and electronics. Having the battery power two motors is also less efficient, sapping range.

Depending on the feedback they get once people are actually driving the trucks, it's possible Slate's next platform will be designed to better accomodate an optional front motor; but it also sounds like Slate prioritized a frunk over including an extra motor, and I think that's going to be much more practical and useful for most people.

 

[KevinRS]

but it also sounds like Slate prioritized a frunk over including an extra motor, and I think that's going to be much more practical and useful for most people.

That is something to consider. The frunk isn't all that big to start, 2 carry-ons in size. put a motor in there, and it might just about go away entirely, just because it would be too small to be useful.

 

[ElectricShitbox]

Just to clarify some of this, the front end (at least in pre-production trucks we've seen) is already designed for a front motor. The steering knuckles are designed for a CV shaft, the sway bar snakes around nothing, and the area directly under the frunk has everything tucked into the corners to leave a big front motor sized hole. I'm guessing the frunk would lose some of its depth with a motor there, but it wouldn't go away completely.

 

[Johnologue]

Just to clarify some of this, the front end (at least in pre-production trucks we've seen) is already designed for a front motor. The steering knuckles are designed for a CV shaft, the sway bar snakes around nothing, and the area directly under the frunk has everything tucked into the corners to leave a big front motor sized hole. I'm guessing the frunk would lose some of its depth with a motor there, but it wouldn't go away completely.

I'm partly drawing on a recent-ish article (can't remember which it was at a glance) that seemed to have been written in communication/contact with Slate which noted the frunk was in some way chosen over accommodating a front motor. My assumption was that they would be leaving it out of newer prototypes/refinements of the design.

The article (and I) could've been plain wrong, of course.