New Tesla News

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by Lotus Fury

Bloodbath is right. I wonder what's next. I think the Tesla Roadster as a Halo car was a good idea but I wonder about betting the bank on something that is more of a curiosity.

It's not supposed to be a curiosity, it's not designed to be a science experiment. It's supposed to be a real sports car that can compete head-to-head with other similarly priced sports cars. The specs and the reports from people who've driven the prototypes suggest that it can meet that goal.

I can't see how valuewise, the Roadster was going to complete.

Tesla Roadster = $98,000

Lamborghini Gallardo = $186,000

Plus the Tesla has a carbon fiber body and is about 860 pounds lighter overall. Sounds like a good deal to me.

[smicker]

Originally Posted by goldengatehornet

Their trannys can't handle the torque during shifts. There are still battery problems, I believe, that they don't discuss. I hope none of you have any investment in this 'etherware' golf cart. Nice idea but not ready for prime time, other than demo rides in two prototypes.

No battery problems, and there are fourteen prototypes (not two) with hundreds of thousands of miles logged.

--Paul

[Lotus Fury]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

It's not supposed to be a curiosity, it's not designed to be a science experiment. It's supposed to be a real sports car that can compete head-to-head with other similarly priced sports cars. The specs and the reports from people who've driven the prototypes suggest that it can meet that goal.

It's a curiosity because it's not very useful. I know it's not supposed to be "useful" under the normal definition. The thing for me is that I can't drive it to the track, spend most of the day there, then drive home. Why? It runs out of juice. It might have a 250 mile range under normal driving conditions but how much under track/ autocross use? Seriously I couldn't drive this car up to my parents and back without a recharge. Hey Dad, you got an extension cord? Can I have $20-$30 worth of electricity? With a limited range and not so easy "fill ups" the car is a curiosity. It will be a 3rd car for even the people that can afford it unless it's their commuter car so that limits it to warm weather areas. Extremely few people up here where it snows are going to be driving it in the winter. Plus for me no road trips, or at least annoying recharge stops, would suck. Performancewise yeah, it rocks. Max torque from 0 RPMS? That's awesome. Short range and hoping to make it home before it runs out of juice - not so much.

If I worked for Tesla / Zap / whomever my goal would be to build a vehicle that can do NYC to San Francisco in 40 hours or less. I think the new record is just under 32 hours. That would make the car useful and make it at least somewhat comparative with normal gas vehicles for distance. I would do the return trip too just to show it off.

As a commuter car /daily drive yeah it's a great concept. I really want Tesla / Zap / whomever to succeed. But a sports car it's still just a curiosity.

[smicker]

Originally Posted by Lotus Fury

Can I have $20-$30 worth of electricity?

$20-$30? You're off by an order of magnitude, try $2-3.

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's not useful because you can't drive it all day at the track or drive across country in 40 hours. Honestly what percentage of buyers are going to do either of those?

--Paul

[Lotus Fury]

Originally Posted by smicker

$20-$30? You're off by an order of magnitude, try $2-3.

--Paul

That's pretty cool. I thought that it was more but anything less than $50 a fill up for me is great. Big tank + low mileage = big money. I spend ~$7 a day in gas in my daily commute. With a 250 mile range and a 30 mile commute that makes it less than $.50 a day. And again it supports the car as a commuter.

Originally Posted by smicker

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's not useful because you can't drive it all day at the track or drive across country in 40 hours. Honestly what percentage of buyers are going to do either of those?
--Paul

It's not a matter of if they would, it's a matter of if they could. Americans buy SUVs because they need an SUV once a year. How many people buy trucks just to get to work and that single yearly trip to Home Depot? The vast majority of Americans could get buy with a used econobox that gets 30+ mpg and save TONS of money doing so. Why don't they? Why do they buy HUGE SUVs or expensive new full size cars? It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of want. By limiting what a person can do with a car you limit the market. People don't want to mess with thinking about running out of electricity.

If I had a choice between an Elise + $40K, Exige S + $30K or Tesla the Tesla comes in third for the very reasons I've stated above. Lotus sells 1500-2000 cars a year. I doubt that Tesla will be able to get above 200-300 car a year after the first year. Once there are easier ways to recharge then that should change significantly.

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by smicker

$20-$30? You're off by an order of magnitude, try $2-3.

Both estimates are off. According to Tesla's website, the EPA test consumes 31 kwh per 100 miles at 245 miles per charge, and normal driving consumes more. That means that a "tankfull" of electricity is about 76 kwh, minimum. To figure out the cost of this electricity, multiply 76 times the rate that your electric utility will charge you per kwh.

My guess is that most Northern California residential owners, for example, buying electricity from the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, will find that charging car batteries will put their monthly usage into the third rate tier, which is priced at about $0.22 per kwh. So that makes the price of a tankful of electricity about $17 for EPA-style driving, and more for normal driving. But you have to look at your own bill to figure out what rate will apply, because different people will end up in different rate tiers depending upon other household electricity uses.

Any lower battery charging costs that have been speculated upon depend upon the granting of a permanent rate subsidy to electric vehicle charging, at someone else's expense. That may happen, but it hasn't yet. And it may be a false hope.

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

It's not supposed to be a curiosity, it's not designed to be a science experiment. It's supposed to be a real sports car that can compete head-to-head with other similarly priced sports cars. The specs and the reports from people who've driven the prototypes suggest that it can meet that goal.

Tesla Roadster = $98,000

Lamborghini Gallardo = $186,000

Plus the Tesla has a carbon fiber body and is about 860 pounds lighter overall. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I dont think that anyone is really questioning the ability of the tesla to compete with other high end sports cars: there are plenty of one-off or limited edition cars made by small builders that do just fine in the performance area.

The issue is that Tesla is presenting this car as a real production vehicle with the reliability and engineering to prove it. This has been questioned recently and the transmission debacle is proof positive...

There is a difference between having a design or materials issue with a part like the transmission that requires a redesign but thats not what is happening here. Tesla has *scrapped* the entire 2 speed transmission and decided to move to a 1 speed and then as a band-aid improve the output of the PCM as well as its cooling to compensate. Essentially they couldnt make the 2 speed work so they are going to operate the power controller and motor at a higher limit than originally planned instead. (anyone want to take bets on motor/controller/battery overheating issues)

This indicates that there was a major problem with the design in the first place to necessitate a radical change like this which does not bode well for a vehicle overall reliability. Imagine if ford decided to change to an entirely different engine 2 months before a particular model went into production. At this point they do not even have the proper amount of time to test this "change" before the tesla goes into production in march.

This is what happens when you start an auto manufacturing company without any experience in doing things like... building autos.

[bgsterling]

Hi all,

Just a little more info that came across my homepage today:

Tesla Test Drive

Tesla Track Version

Hmmm...

[Kramer]

Road & Track First Drive: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6393

[Stewart W]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

What is your source for that?

I've been following Tesla very, very closely, and I've never heard even a hint from the company about any kind of battery problems. What I have seen is a lot of speculation from reporters.

Whenever there's any problem or delay with the car, some reporter thinks to himself: "It must be a problem with the batteries, because everybody knows lithium batteries explode!" Then he writes his speculation that Tesla is having battery problems. Then somebody from Tesla calls the reporter -- or his editor -- and chews him out and threatens him with libel lawsuits and forces him to publish a retraction, which nobody ever sees anyhow.




I've got a deposit down. I'm number 315, and figuring on delivery about September if there are no more monkey wrenches thrown into the works.

*******************
# 165 here

[bunta]

Tesla front end would look good on a Elise...

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

I've got a deposit down. I'm number 315, and figuring on delivery about September if there are no more monkey wrenches thrown into the works.

Originally Posted by Stewart W

*******************
# 165 here

So did you guys have to put down a 100% deposit? That is what I read on one of the links in this thread.

[Stewart W]

Originally Posted by Stephen

So did you guys have to put down a 100% deposit? That is what I read on one of the links in this thread.

******
The Signature 100 required full payment in advance.
The 100-200 numbered cars required $75K..downpayment
I cannot comment on current program...

[Rennstore]

Also in Autoweek:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73307647197744

[J. Salmon]

If you put a big deposit down on a Tesla, I would be very nervous. If they go out of business, good luck.

Until there is a viable energy source beyond fossil fuels in this country, then electric cars are an overall negative impact, and that is a simple fact. If you have a significant percentage of nuclear, solar, wind, or hydro- power where you are located, fine.

Otherwise, you are pissing in the breeze.

[smicker]

Originally Posted by J. Salmon

If you put a big deposit down on a Tesla, I would be very nervous. If they go out of business, good luck.

Until there is a viable energy source beyond fossil fuels in this country, then electric cars are an overall negative impact, and that is a simple fact. If you have a significant percentage of nuclear, solar, wind, or hydro- power where you are located, fine.

Otherwise, you are pissing in the breeze.

Anything that runs on fossil fuels has an overall negative impact. Electric cars however have a far less negative impact on fuel supply and emissions than the ICE based cars they replace. How can this possibly not be a worthwhile effort?

[J. Salmon]

Originally Posted by smicker

Anything that runs on fossil fuels has an overall negative impact. Electric cars however have a far less negative impact on fuel supply and emissions than the ICE based cars they replace. How can this possibly not be a worthwhile effort?

If you charge an electric car with a plug that has power generated via coal or some other fossil fuel (as is usually the case in the US) then you burn MORE fossil fuel for the work done than if you just ran a gas engine at the source. The car doesn't put out anything, but the power plant does. If you are in France and the power is via nuclear, then that is an improvement.

[J. Salmon]

"According to the California Energy Commission, EVs are 0 to 25 percent more efficient than gasoline vehicles, and 10 to 30 percent less efficient than diesel vehicles. This comparison accounts for the entire fuel cycle — the energy used to extract, produce, and transport gasoline to the pump or to get the electricity to the plug, plus the energy used by the vehicle."

I am not meaning to be offensive, but I do admit I get a bit heated about all the hoopla over pollution from cars. Mostly because I would prefer to ride my bike to work - and even to run errands - but it is pretty dangerous in my town. I used to ride in 3-4 times a week, but a coworker was killed last summer, and that did rattle me. I get REALLY good mileage on my bike (though I occasionally do put out some toxins; I love the burrito...)

I consider cars to be fun, but a pretty stupid way to get around town. I only live 5 miles from work, and like most I cannot get enough excercise.

Plus, cars are just a political scape-goat, as they only account for at most 15% of the greenhouse gas production, most of which is power production. Even if you get rid of all of them, you won't fix the problem. Nuclear is the way to go, in my opinion. and THEN the Tesla will be sweet!

[tonybelding]

Originally Posted by J. Salmon

If you charge an electric car with a plug that has power generated via coal or some other fossil fuel (as is usually the case in the US) then you burn MORE fossil fuel for the work done than if you just ran a gas engine at the source.

That statement contradicts every study I've read on this subject. They all showed that the electric car produces less CO2 emissions per mile driven than comparable gasoline cars. If your electricity is produced from 100% coal-fired plants, then the electric car only has a small advantage. However, the US power grid is only about 50% coal now, and we have to assume it's going to be cleaned up further as time goes by.

FURTHERMORE, very little electricity is produced from oil. (I think Hawaii is the only state with significant oil-fired power.) So running an electric car basically gets you completely off petroleum fuel, and that's good for dealing with Peak Oil and our foreign oil dependence issues. I actually care way more about those issues than I do about the global warming hysteria, which I think is largely bogus.

[Rich H]

Originally Posted by tonybelding

That statement contradicts every study I've read on this subject. They all showed that the electric car produces less CO2 emissions per mile driven than comparable gasoline cars. If your electricity is produced from 100% coal-fired plants, then the electric car only has a small advantage. However, the US power grid is only about 50% coal now, and we have to assume it's going to be cleaned up further as time goes by.

FURTHERMORE, very little electricity is produced from oil. (I think Hawaii is the only state with significant oil-fired power.) So running an electric car basically gets you completely off petroleum fuel, and that's good for dealing with Peak Oil and our foreign oil dependence issues. I actually care way more about those issues than I do about the global warming hysteria, which I think is largely bogus.

Suggest reading the studies more carefully. Perhaps the best to date is the EPRI/NRDC PHEV study published in 2007 (available on the EPRI web site). Volume one analyzes CO2. Volume two analyzes air pollution.

Electric vehicles can reduce CO2 so long as the electric utility system used to charge batteries emits less CO2 than burning gasoline in vehicles. This is not automatic, and requires regulation of utility CO2 emissions. Also, the practicalities of utility system dispatching dictate that, for the most part, natural gas will be the marginal fuel used to charge vehicle batteries. So CO2 impacts may boil down to deciding whether to regulate car emissions directly, or indirectly via electric utilities.

Its the same for air pollution. Electric vehicles can reduce pollution to the extent that utilities adding new generation to charge batteries must stay within overall pollution caps that don't apply to auto makers. But they will increase utility pollutants not subject to such caps.

And J. Salmon is correct. The same amount of mechanical energy is required at the wheels to move a given vehicle, regardless of the original source of that energy or the conversion process. And charging batteries incurs delivery losses from power plant to meter.