[HN Gopher] DeLorean returns with 300-mile Taycan rival for 2024
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       DeLorean returns with 300-mile Taycan rival for 2024
        
       Author : rmason
       Score  : 45 points
       Date   : 2022-05-30 20:45 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.autocar.co.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.autocar.co.uk)
        
       | duxup wrote:
       | I would love an identical looking but updated DeLorean...
       | 
       | A local guy has a DeLorian and folks in town LOVE seeing that car
       | around town. Young, old, everyone.
        
         | GordonS wrote:
         | I saw one just the other day, in the small, rural Scottish town
         | I live in - pretty sure the first I've ever seen in the UK!
         | 
         | I had my young son with me, and I was gesticulating
         | excitedly... then I remembered he hasn't even heard of the film
         | :)
        
       | KerrAvon wrote:
       | > Each will serve as an avatar for an associated NFT, meaning
       | they won't be road-registered and suitable only for track use.
       | The rest of the production run, while still low-volume, will be
       | built and marketed more conventionally and so will go through the
       | necessary homologation processes for legal use on the road.
       | 
       | LOL. John DeLorean would have approved of the grift.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | greatpostman wrote:
       | Looks like a Tesla with a couple delorean features thrown in. I
       | hope this company fails
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | Flockster wrote:
       | > "Initially, de Vries explained, the car will be sold in a
       | limited run of 88 - referencing the speed needed to time-travel
       | in the 1985 sci-fi film Back To The Future, in which the DMC
       | famously starred.
       | 
       | Each will serve as an avatar for an associated NFT, meaning they
       | won't be road-registered and suitable only for track use."
       | 
       | Why?!
        
         | jhgb wrote:
         | > suitable only for track use
         | 
         | Ah, so NFT means Not For Transportation here, then.
        
         | krallja wrote:
         | EUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUREUR
        
           | Flockster wrote:
           | Yes, but then they follow up with:
           | 
           | > "The rest of the production run, while still low-volume,
           | will be built and marketed more conventionally and so will go
           | through the necessary homologation processes for legal use on
           | the road."
           | 
           | Why can't the fancy, expensive, showoff NFT cars go through
           | the same process?
        
             | ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
             | Seems like a lot of early builds go through recalls (e.g.
             | Lucid's new Airs have been recalled a couple of times
             | already). If collectors are willing to spend big bucks and
             | buy cars that don't come with road-worthiness and legal
             | compliance, why not take their money?
        
               | ipspam wrote:
               | This comment is the only time I have EVER said, "yeah, I
               | guess an NFT makes sense"
        
         | jccalhoun wrote:
         | To get attention and maybe they can actually get enough
         | investment based on attention to actually go into production.
        
         | yuppie_scum wrote:
         | It gets dumb people with lots of expendable money excited
        
         | messe wrote:
         | What purpose does the NFT serve when there is a physical object
         | to back it?
        
           | warning26 wrote:
           | Well, you see, the physical object can be funged, while the
           | NFT cannot!
        
             | xt00 wrote:
             | So after it disappears into the 1950s in two streaks of
             | flames you can claim you still own it of course..
        
           | tyrfing wrote:
           | NFT to represent ownership or something like that, since they
           | aren't road legal they probably won't have titles. As for
           | actual purpose, it is of course marketing.
           | 
           | Side note: it looks like they tried to sell a DeLorean DMC-12
           | via NFT last year, but didn't actually sell it.
           | 
           | This is a brand licensing company, not a car production
           | company, thus the vagueness of what the vehicles actually
           | are.
           | 
           | https://brandsuntapped.com/licensing-haus-maria-alcaide-
           | on-c...
        
           | newsclues wrote:
           | The ability for the manufacturer to get a cut from resales.
           | 
           | And whatever they bundle to force the above.
        
             | zeusk wrote:
             | I could sell the car without ever caring about the
             | "associated NFT".
        
         | colechristensen wrote:
         | NFT shouldn't have anything to do with roadworthiness, it's
         | just an early production run for collectors that doesn't go
         | through the various hoops to get rated for public roads and
         | perhaps breaks some rules in order to be more fun on tracks.
         | NFT is just a gimmick on top of a limited edition they can
         | charge extra for and use to test things for the real run.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | rfwhyte wrote:
       | So a company who's only operational history is repairing and
       | rebuilding ICE DeLoreans from old stock parts now wants us to
       | believe they're capable of building a modern EV? I'd put good
       | money on this one being yet more EV vaporware that will never
       | actually see a production model roll of the line.
        
         | colechristensen wrote:
         | >"The car is being built in Italy - we've outsourced that - and
         | we have some partners on the UK on the powertrain side."
         | 
         | They're using existing platforms from other companies and
         | customizing them.
         | 
         | Similar to how the original Tesla Roadster was based in the
         | Lotus Elise, they took the basic design and modified it to be
         | an EV keeping as many parts as possible to simplify the design
         | and safety process.
         | 
         | It's easier to modify an existing design than to start from
         | scratch and you get to outsource much of the process.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | Would also note that EVs are massively easier to build than
           | ICE vehicles.
        
             | LanceJones wrote:
             | Then why are so many legacy ICE manufacturers struggling so
             | badly with manufacturing and production at scale?
        
             | yuppie_scum wrote:
             | But still not easy. Look at the dicey early examples of any
             | Tesla for example..
        
           | LanceJones wrote:
           | Note that this is not true in Tesla's case. Elon and team
           | _thought_ it would be easier to modify an existing design,
           | but have since admitted that it was a mistake to do so.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | rob74 wrote:
         | > _CEO Joost de Vries, previously a high-ranking official at
         | Tesla and Karma [...] has taken the helm from Brit Stephen
         | Wynne, who had run DeLorean as an aftermarket support service
         | since 1995, when he acquired the brand rights following the
         | high-profile demise of the original company._
         | 
         | ...to me that sounds like de Vries has taken over the company
         | just so he can use the name, so what the previous owner did
         | with it is not relevant. As to when something will actually
         | roll off the line, that remains to be seen. Personally, I think
         | they should have resurrected the original DeLorean (or
         | something more closely resembling it) as an electric car,
         | rather than this pretty interchangeable sportscar design...
        
       | whywhywhywhy wrote:
       | What's the point in a Delorean without the Delorean design
       | language.
        
       | imwillofficial wrote:
       | I am more an more convinced that the modern world cannot create
       | interesting art in the post modern age in pop culture. Mere
       | rehash existing properties with no respect to the original.
       | 
       | Nostalgia is played out.
        
       | jimmaswell wrote:
       | I read a while ago that they had the rights and could potentially
       | get a limited reproduction permit for the old model. I was really
       | hoping they'd make it the same as the iconic one but with
       | electric. This design is good though. Nice to see cool style come
       | back to cars somewhat with the likes of this and Tesla, as
       | opposed to the soulless blobs of 1990 onwards.
        
       | ardit33 wrote:
       | I think it looks pretty good, but a bit away from the spirit of
       | the original (which is more squarish). The CyberTruck gets closer
       | to that sharp edges delorean look than this one.
       | 
       | But, overrall looks good. It has some elements from the C4
       | Corvette in the front end.
        
       | samstave wrote:
       | I like the car on its own, but I personally think its a joke to
       | call it a delorean and make only passing references to the design
       | of the original.
       | 
       | It looks like someone just up the resolution on a Jag or
       | something.
       | 
       | The wheels are a weak ref, and the nose isnt even in the same
       | species.
        
       | candiddevmike wrote:
       | These are the doors of a billionaire
        
       | netsharc wrote:
       | Feels like DeLorean has been "returning" for at least a decade
       | now...
        
       | avalys wrote:
       | Whatever. They're going to make 88 of them (hah hah). This isn't
       | a Taycan rival, it's a novelty project.
        
       | phpisthebest wrote:
       | This disappointing car seems like it is just waiting for
       | hollywood to ruin another childhood franchise.
       | 
       | No Flux Capacitor, no nostalgia at all other then them limiting
       | the production run to 88... This has nothing in common with a
       | Delorean
       | 
       | Modern Hollywood takes a generic script and slaps a popular IP on
       | it.... This is a taking a generic car and doing the same thing
        
       | sschueller wrote:
       | How is this a Tycan rival when it won't be road legal until a
       | later point at which this whole company may be bankrupt again?
       | Did they already run performance tests on track or are these just
       | predictions?
        
         | reitzensteinm wrote:
         | At least they didn't call it a Tesla killer.
        
       | layer8 wrote:
       | No flux capacitor no buy.
        
         | drfuchs wrote:
         | Yeah, but there's 55 pounds of cocaine in the trunk.
        
         | bitlax wrote:
         | FCs are aftermarket.
        
       | anm89 wrote:
       | What a missed opportunity on the styling. Very little resemblance
       | to the original and just plain boring and ugly.
        
       | pnut wrote:
       | Sorry but it looks boringly generic, straight off the wind tunnel
       | supercar, also-ran snooze-a-thon assembly line.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | Etheryte wrote:
       | The design feels like a massive lost opportunity. There's a lot
       | of legacy to pay homage to, but if you showed me the images with
       | the logos removed, I couldn't even remotely guess what company
       | came up with it. If anything, it looks like a fancy version of
       | Polestar [0], never in a million years would I connect this to
       | DeLorean.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/official-
       | polestar-...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-30 23:01 UTC)