So far it looks like the seats covers are leather in all the photos. Any chance of a leather-free option for those of us who aren't fond of sitting on dead animal skin? How about the steering wheel?
Re-attempt--doesn't appear to work when "submit" is pressed as it's gone to a blank page . . . .
I find it quite amazing that so many of the otherwise intelligent readers on this forum would be so ill-informed regarding the ethical, moral, and environmental implications of eating animals and, by extension, leather interiors.
I am a few days away from cancelling my Model S reservation, mostly due to Tesla's punishment for those of us wishing to take the "moral high road."
Here's the text of an email I sent in reply to Tesla advising me that one cannot have memory seats, etc., if one doesn't have the brains of several cows blown out:
Sadly, as a vegan I cannot accept being penalized by Tesla Motors (again) for choosing a reduced-cruelty interior. By way of background, I have purchased five (yes, that's "5") BMW 3 Series over the past 13 years because they were available WITHOUT a leather interior, among other reasons. BMW, for the most part, does not penalize customers for choosing the leatherETTE (their standard, non-leather interior) by limiting the buyer's other options. Tesla Motors, however, seems to insist on it.
Given the fact that you at Tesla are forging a new, fresh path, I find it amazing and depressing that Tesla chooses to "punish" customers that take the higher moral road.
May I please ask a favor of you? Please forward this email widely within Tesla.
Let me be frank--as a TSLA stock holder and an environmentalist, I want you to succeed. Tesla Motors is doing incredibly important work. In my case, given my family proclivity toward buying BMW's 3 Series, I'd love to retry with the Tesla Motors "Gen III" in a few years, hopefully to replace both of our 2011 BMW 335i's. BUT: I'd like the same seat memory (and interior trim choices, performance options, etc.) that those ignorant (or just plain cruel?) buyers do. (Just in case you aren't aware, Model S buyers that select the leather interior cause five or six cows to be murdered so that they can sit on their toxically treated skins. For details on how leather is "produced" I encourage you to visit www.Meat.org. Leather isn't a "by product"--it's a source of additional profit for those that murder sentient beings for money. For heaven's sake, you're in California--you should "get it." But I guess someone missed the memo on "How not to be cruel" and now you've lost a sale.)
You can do better; let's hope you can influence Tesla's decision makers to make this happen for the Gen III.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like additional information, but in the interim I'd like a refund of my $5k deposit sometime after March 8th. (That's my supposed deadline for locking in my Model S order at 2012 prices; there's a 1% chance I might change my mind and just go with the limited options forced by taking the moral high ground.)
p.s. I haven't even touched on the massive global warming impact that cows produce, but surely your executives know this as well?
Duplicate post. Hover pointer over logo, Edit, move to "None Selected".
Are you kidding?
Seriously, you did not know of the leather seats and suddenly now you need to make a big stink?
The fact is that the textile seats supplied for cars with the new pricing DO have memory, are heated, etc. The dilemma for me was that it seemed kind of much to pay $2500 for those features, but that is an option if you want textile seats with memory. What I was also concerned about that without the memory seats, one also lost the whole driver profile feature, which is a shame that hopefully future software releases will fix.
I guess Model S sales will be poor in India.
I feel your pain (ahimsa). I have had my Model S (with microfiber seats) for almost 3 months now and have been very satisfied. It is true that the steering wheel is covered in animal skin unfortunately. But consider the benefit to the environment that comes with driving such a car (as being vegan also benefits the earth). I think it is a small price to pay.
I must be a horrible person because I read the title with a comma in it, ie:
Dead animal, free upholstery
And thought we would get free upholstery if we brought in a dead animal.
@shs - "with memory" was removed from the textile seats on the Options and Pricing page a little while ago while the wording was retained for leather. It does not appear memory is available with textile even with the 2013 price increase though the seats are now heated and have 12-way adjustment.
That is weird. Can't image why. While discussing option with Customer Service, I had the distinct impression that if I was willing to cough up $2500 the new textile seats would have memory, etc. I didn't go that way.
I makes sense to me - animals have memory, textile doesn't.
"Are you kidding?
Seriously, you did not know of the leather seats and suddenly now you need to make a big stink?
With all due respect, what's "Amazing!" is that your parents brainwashed us into believing that cats and dogs were part of our family, but the cows, chickens and pigs that were murdered for their flesh and skins were unfeeling, unthinking, non-sentient beings . . . . That was a lie.
I encourage you to watch the intro video at www.Meat.org and then we'll talk. Until then, I suggest you become better informed on the lies our parents told us.
p.s. Just so you know, we're not designed to eat animal flesh either:
Mark, why don't you just get the microfiber/textile interior???
And we're not designed to wear clothes. It just happens to improve efficiency over naked grazing and gathering.
The folks at TM called me a few days after finalizing my car in December (not delivered yet). They were concerned because I ordered the Textile interior. The staff member had been asked to call people in my position to inform us that the Textile interior has leather trim. Basically, the Textile interior is the same as a leather interior except for the middle of the seats where cloth is used. I didn't want any leather but there was no other choice.
I'm actually naked right now. I must admit, it feels pretty good.
@mrspaghetti -- but are you grazing and gathering?
Mark, it's actually dead goats; "Nappa leather" is goat leather. I had to get it because I'm allergic to the polyester, which is what the "microfiber" is.
FWIW, I believe the goats were being killed already anyway for their meat, so it's not like minks, it's an Eskimo-style "use the whole animal" thing. If this influences anyone.
(I could also point out that the polyester is made from fossil oil which is at least partly from long-dead animals.)
It depends on the definition of those terms. I "gathered" a box of Ritz crackers from my pantry and now I'm "grazing" on them from my easy chair. Does that count?
Hey, and Ritz have no meat, so I'm in keeping with the thread! Score one for me.
Ritz are soaked in cheese ...
Holy thread necro, Batman!
If we didn't eat cows they'd be practically extinct. The biggest threat to wildlife is the loss of habitat from agriculture. Farmers tend to drive away or shoot animals that eat their crops.
We evolved as hunter-gatherers eating a variety of animal and plant foods. Hunter-gatherers ate plenty of meat. Many of them revered the animals they ate and didn't separate man from the animal kingdom. They realized that today we eat the animal, but tomorrow the worms will eat us.
Our human brains evolved over millenia to the current volume with the help of the proteines delivered by meat.
In the (near) future, however, an additional food source could be insects (put some salt and chili on that!).
@ Robert Hodgen, Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers and ate meat out of a necessity for survival when nothing else was available. The advent of agriculture changed all of that. Today we eat meat largely because we like the taste, it is convenient, and we are separated from the actual killing of the animal and processing it into the form that's on your plate or neatly wrapped in the meat counter at Safeway. In short, we continue to eat meat because it is tasty and easy, but the historical and clinical evidence show that we should not be eating meat if we desire to live long lives and in an environmentally sustainable way.
The cattle industry is one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. Pound for pound, methane's impact on climate change is 20x worse than CO2. You say that the biggest threat to wildlife is from agriculture and farmers shooting wildlife? This sounds so incredibly absurd I'm (almost) at a loss for words. Let's just completely ignore the impact of cattle ranching and how much grazing land cattle need. If more people stopped eating meat to the betterment of their health and the world around us, we would have far fewer cattle ranches and much reduced impact on climate change.
In your view, cows should thank us for their endless slaughter because we keep them from becoming extinct and the biggest threat to wildlife is the agrarian farmer who shoots animals that eat his crops. Um, when was the last time you saw a bear, mountain lion, or wolf gnawing on a stalk of corn? or celery? I'm certain that coyotes eating cauliflowers is a big problem...
@ tobi_ger, actually homo sapien's brain size has remained the same over the millennia. The size of our brain is dictated by our DNA, not by what we eat. Gorillas have huge body mass, yet eat only leaves. Homo Neanderthalensis, an ancestor of homo sapiens, actually had a larger brain size and was presumably more intelligent, yet neanderthals went extinct.
Please read: http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html
With millenia I wasn't talking about the past 2K years, but rather 2-3M years.
All this written by people who's very existence takes away habitat for animals. The only real solution is to just stop eating and by doing so let the land return to the creatures that lived there before you built your house on it.
I feel sorry for all those Micro Fibers slaughtered just so you can sit on them.
One "study" linked in the article (actually not a study, but a lone archaeologist from Spain) draws its conclusion from a skull fragment containing evidence of anemia. Because anemia is typically caused by a B9 and B12 deficiencies, one Spanish archaeologist concluded that correlation equals causation - vegans sometimes suffer from B12 deficiencies and anemia, therefore this skull fragment is evidence that the victim had a "meat poor" diet and therefore early humans needed meat to evolve. However, the same archaeologist went on to say that the same type of anemia is caused by malaria and parasites - which have nothing to do with eating meat.
So one study is not really a study, but just the opinion of a single Spanish archaeologist who based his conclusion on one skull fragment that showed evidence of anemia. After having uncovered this, I decided not to investigate the second supposed "study" referenced by this article. Drawing meaningful conclusions from an extremely limited amount of evidence when other explanations also exist shows a bias, in my opinion.
My philosophy is to live and let live, but those who want a cruelty-free option for materials and interiors of their Model S should certainly have that option.
No sneaking vitamin pill supplements.
Soon enough, we'll all be able to get vat meat. Fake long pig (human flesh) would be ideal!
BTW, even pandas will eagerly eat scavenged meat if they come across it!
X Deutschland Site Besuchen