Tesla's electric roadster is lean, mean and very green

Last night a host of fancy society-types, car buffs and our good friends from AutoBlog got a unique chance to check out Tesla's electric sports car. The zero-emissions whip (it's so green it doesn't even have a tailpipe) will get about 250 miles on a single charge, and reaches speeds of about 130-miles per hour, with a 0-60 time hovering around a pretty impressive 4-seconds. Stop driving it long enough to peek under the hood and you'll find a 3-phase, 4-pole AC induction motor and a Power Electronics Module at the heart of this slick ride. Don't run out to the car dealership yet, as these babies aren't hitting the streets until mid-2007, and when they do, they'll run you somewhere between $80,000 and $120,000. It sounds like a lot, we know, but just think of the looks you'll get as you drive by at 124-mph, completely silently. Plus, it'll be a great place to install your new Bluetooth-enabled head unit. Check the source link for a lot more pictures and even video from the big unveling.

[deuce @ Jul 20th 2006 9:20AM]

So why can an independent company produce a sports car this environmentallly sound but there are no electric Civics, Corollas, Hummers, or F150's around?

[micky @ Jul 20th 2006 9:22AM]

I call bullsh*t. something very fishy about this.

[Rain @ Jul 20th 2006 9:23AM]

wow.. that's kinda pretty :)

[Cubeguy @ Jul 20th 2006 9:28AM]

I'm guessing that Honda or Toyota could do this. But no one is going to buy an $80,000 Civic or Corolla.

[Intrepid @ Jul 20th 2006 9:32AM]

Well I think the reason Toyota, Ford, GM, Honda, etc won't do this is because they are getting 'something' out of petrol driven cars. Wether it's direct kickbacks or something more sinister... I don't know. But there is something going on.

[Cell @ Jul 20th 2006 9:34AM]

Hope it does not become another Tucker Car or EV1. Best luck with the car and hope Tesla soon produces some mass-consumer model!

[tim @ Jul 20th 2006 9:35AM]

Micky, this car is real. It was reviewed in the NY Times a couple months ago.

[oren @ Jul 20th 2006 9:37AM]

Dieseal engines will replace gasoline engines, well before electric or hybrids.

Glad to see someone is realizing the capabilities of electric motors though. Look up brushless motors for R/C cars, then ask yourself "If they can scale 2 stroke motors down to 1/18th scale, why can't they upscale electric motors"

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Jul 20th 2006 9:42AM]

Hm. I think such development can make a turn in accu technologies too. To date, most companies persued solely minituarization of the accumulators. On other side, cars have quite much spare room - accus don't have to be small and can be of overall lower quality (just like different levels of petrol quality).

P.S. And of course they have to NOT explode, like the ones found in mobiles/notebooks.

[quahogian @ Jul 20th 2006 9:42AM]

>>>>>>It's all about the money!

[Spencer @ Jul 20th 2006 9:46AM]

#3 is mostly correct. The technology is there for any car manufacturer, it just isn't economically within the reach of most consumers.

This car is a modified Lotus, which is a $50,000 car to start with, so basically the cost to add the electric power is between 30 and 50k. Just about no one is willing to pay that premium to go green, esp. when there are added restrictions, such as a 250 mile per charge limit.

Even giving the cost factor the benefit of the doubt, and saying at large quantities the premium drops to 20-30k, who is going to buy a 45-55k Civic that can only go 250 miles at a go? Um...right. And the money saved on gas wouldn't be totally free and clear, you would need to put a portion, if not all of it, toward replacing the batteries in 2-3 years.

We are getting closer, we just need the tech to decrease in price before we'll start seeing this become more realistic.

[Sasha S. @ Jul 20th 2006 9:46AM]

what makes this car expensive are batteries and low serial production. This car needs to be married with MIT developing ultracapacitor technology. That would reduce the charge time (minutes instead of hours), weight and cost.

We need this car. We need it badly!

As for car manufacturers being in bed with oil companies I do not thisk we should confuse lazyness and lack of new ideas on the side of car manufacturers with some big complot on the world scale.

[Skeptic @ Jul 20th 2006 9:48AM]

Green? I doubt it. One thing to consider is how much pollution is created by producing the electricity needed to recharge the car. My guess is that the environment is no better off, and possibly worse, by having to recharge cars every 250 miles.

[Oddmanout @ Jul 20th 2006 9:50AM]

"But no one is going to buy an $80,000 Civic or Corolla."

True, but a couple thousand people bought $80,000 NSXs (NSXi???), which was a luxury performace vehicle from Honda. Unfortunately if this vehicle actually does come to market the majority of said NSX owners will get smoked by this electro-beast (well, if it doesn't have a tailpipe maybe not...).

I agree that something is a little fishy about this. It's too good to be true, which is a pretty good indication it's not (true). Even if the tech isn't dubious, it's likely problematic. How often do you need to replace the batterys and at what cost ? How long does it take to charge ? Does my 250 mile range get cut in half if there are two people in the vehicle ? If I'm going uphill ? HP ? Torque ? Safety factors ? Will I suffocate from ozone if I drive it? Are they cleared for use on puplic roads ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled by each and every stride we make in alternative energy and in decreasing our use/dependence on petrochemicals, but I'd rather hear the bad news with the good before I shout "hallelujah".

Still, it's a pretty nice looking roadster for the wealthy at any rate. And if the tech itself is sound hopefully this vehicle will serve as a good testbed for the it, they'll work out the flaws in it, and it will eventually trickle down and find it's way into those economically priced Civics and Corollas.

IF the designers don't end up in a ditch that is...

[deuce @ Jul 20th 2006 9:52AM]

Spencer, I agree with you but I think that the 250 mile per charge limit is a solo case on this car. It can go 0-60 in 4 seconds and 130mph. Civics wouldn't use that kind of daily power. My guesstimate: they'd probably get closer to 400 miles per charge.

Like all things that involve economics, the cost of the electric cars would start high and eventually come down. Rememeber when plasma tv's were $50k?

[Synergy @ Jul 20th 2006 9:52AM]

Skeptic,

Would it not depend on how that electricity was generated? If it were pure coal with no filtration then yes you would be right. Nat gas, solar, nukes are not that polluting.

[Paix247 @ Jul 20th 2006 9:53AM]

it IS all about the money.
There could easily be an electric civic... just tone down the speed on the crazy beast and take away some of the luxuries and you could easily sell it under the honda brand for $20,000. Big Oil has their product running through the veins of auto makers. Plain and simple.

[Paix247 @ Jul 20th 2006 9:57AM]

Gas is produced from one thing - fossil fuels. Where as electricity comes from a wide range of environmentally friendly sources (solar, wind & water) and of course, fossil fuels too. It is a step in the right dirrection. and a regular Lotus doesn't get great gas mileage and I doubt the tank is that big, so it wouldnt get much more than 250 miles anyway.

[Rob @ Jul 20th 2006 10:07AM]

If this company (tesla motors) can produce a 4 door sedan that can compare to a Honda Accord or even a Civic, than I'll be the first one to order one. I will gladly keep the Tahoe in the garage and drive one of these things back and forth to work. The site, look it up for yourself if you don't believe me, says it takes roughly 3.5 hours to recharge the car at night. That means, plug it up when you get done driving for the day and let your wall socket do the rest of the work for ya. Lets see.... a buck a night to recharge my car (guess-stimation there) or 80 bucks a week in gas. Hmmmm.... I really could'nt care less about pollution, hence the reason I drive a Tahoe, its the economics of it that I care about.

[flip @ Jul 20th 2006 10:11AM]

Everyone's commenting on the cost of producing energy. But the other "green" aspect that's equally as important is that it has zero emissions. Couple that with wind-generated power and you've got greenies everywhere smoking a celebratory bowl.

(JK on the smoking part. Only about half of the die-hard environmentalists I know are into that.)

[DBX00 @ Jul 20th 2006 10:25AM]

The current 250 mile limit is only a problem if the proper infrastructure isn't built to support the system. It would be sufficient for the average daily use to and from work (assuming charging daily). The only problem is if you were going on a weekend trip that was 250 miles away. They would have to have some type of solar charger attachment that could recharge the batteries for these things. That would completely relinguish your need for gas stations and make it realistic to pay an additional $15k or whatever for the system.

[syad @ Jul 20th 2006 10:26AM]

Electric cars are currently some of the most efficient vehicles on the road and power station is much more closely regulated than a car is. I bet this car gets around 100+mpg when you covert its energy useage. Here is one of its competitors:

Wrightspeed X1 (Electric Ariel Atom)
• 0-60 ~ 3.0 seconds
• Standing quarter mile ~11.5 seconds
• Top speed 112mph (electronically limited)
• Range >100 miles in urban use
• Charger: onboard conductive. Input 100-250V 50 or 60 Hz. Current: user adjustable up to 80A
• Energy consumption 200 WHr/mile in urban use, equivalent to 170 mpg (33,705 WHr/gallon)

[Rick Bowman @ Jul 20th 2006 10:27AM]

They ought to try enginerring a flywheel battery into it. These batteries will probably be the future of batteries... see link

http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/projects/flywheel/papers/NASA_Flywheel_Battery_Project_Final.pdf

[kaybee @ Jul 20th 2006 10:29AM]

Skeptic,
check out this white paper they posted on the site: http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers.php
It gives a good explaination and quantifies why the Tesla is much more efficient(and "green") than other cars. It is over twice as efficient than full hydrogen and hybrid cars.

Rob,
They are producing a 4 door sedan: http://wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71414-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

[Spyvie @ Jul 20th 2006 10:31AM]

An electric Lotus, pretty cool.

Of course the actual range will be less than advertized and the batteries will need to be replaced every year or so, but pretty cool anyways. Electric motor make %100 of their torque available from a dead stop, so the performance isn’t surprising but I gotta believe the range is optimistic.

Give it a decade and we’ll all be driving electric cars with impressive acceleration and new fast charging capacitor/battery tech.

[seeder @ Jul 20th 2006 10:33AM]

When I was in college, I used to dream about owning an electric corvette. That was about 20 years ago... Nice to see technology catching up with my imagination.

[Spyvie @ Jul 20th 2006 10:44AM]

Electric motors produce ozone. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, ozone in the air we live in is very bad. I don’t know how much ozone levels would increase if everyone drove something like this but it has to be a concern.

[Simon Potter @ Jul 20th 2006 10:51AM]

considering that it now cost $40 to fill up your tank on gas, paying an extra $40K over the lifetime ownership of a car like this isnt really bad. If you factor in the fact that the cost of gas will only rise over that period of time, you will at the very least break even on the up front investment, and probaly actually save money.

[Pinkerton @ Jul 20th 2006 11:02AM]

Electricity (even from coal plants) is much more efficient than most people realize. I'm not saying that burning coal will solve our dependence on foreign oil. Besides, nearly half of our engergy comes from other sources.

A car with a gas engine only uses 20-30% of the potential energy in the gasoline to actuallly move the car.

[aaron @ Jul 20th 2006 11:15AM]

They are located a couple of blocks away from my shop. I have seen them tear up and down the street for the past year and a half. You can't hear them coming, and they haul ass.

[Edward @ Jul 20th 2006 11:28AM]

Why is everyone so concerned about having an electric 4 door sedan (Corolla/Civic)?? If you want an eco-friendly grocery getter, go buy a Prius. This car works so well because it's built on the same chassis as the Lotus Elise, a bonded aluminum structure that weighs something like 250 lbs. If you tried to put this same powertrain on a Honda Civic, I would guarantee it would have only a 100 mile range due to the ADDED WEIGHT of useless things like back seats, a spare tire, power window lifts, etc.

As far as the $80K NSX is concerned, that's a completely different demographic than those looking at an $80K grocery getter. NSX buyers want Ferrari 348 performance with Honda reliability. Wealthy treehuggers who want to be coddled in luxury should get a Lexus GS450h. Anyone who doesn't get the beauty and simplicity of a Lotus Elise shouldn't be looking at this Tesla Roadster.

[Brando @ Jul 20th 2006 11:32AM]

"Lotus doesn't get great gas mileage and I doubt the tank is that big, so it wouldnt get much more than 250 miles anyway."

Yeah, but it doesn't take 3 hours to fill up the tank! And forget about day long jaunts in the mountains on a nice twisty road. Where you gonna stop for a charge? Maybe they can setup little charging stations with squirrels running in hamster wheels hooked to a generator.

[Brando @ Jul 20th 2006 11:45AM]

Now if they add solar panels. Well, that's a different story. At any rate, it's still a pretty cool vehicle. Just wish you could hear some kind of motor sound. That would take a while to get used to.

[Chris @ Jul 20th 2006 11:47AM]

People...it DOES NOT help the environment to exchange the use of petrol with the use of coal generated power. Plugging this car into your house, recharging the battery with electricity that is generated from the burning of coal, which pollutes much more than oil, is redonkulous! The only areas that these "green cars" are actually beneficial are those few states that can produce enough wind and hydroelectric power. Everywhere else....well? Just something to chew on...

[AK @ Jul 20th 2006 12:10PM]

Yo, all those who think this isn't real. Take a quick gander over at http://www.teslamotors.com/. It is as real as it gets. They just released the car today and it will go on sale mid 2007 in select cities.

As for a consumer version, they are already working on a sedan version for the mass market. They expect the sedan to be out in a couple of years. Buy a Corolla until then and wait for it...

Yes, electricity leaves a large footprint environmentally. However, electricity can be generated in multiple ways. Have a few solar panels in the backyard and charge up your roadster if you like it so much!

[Tnyc @ Jul 20th 2006 12:13PM]

electric, hybrid, hydrogen, e85..whatever, I don't care as long as we move away from gasoline and stop depending on foreign countries to feed our insantible hunger for energy on the roads. The sooner the better. Is there even any doubt at all that gas is bad for our pockets as well as for the environment???It a national tragedy that a country like the U.S. which sent ppl to the moon, built nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines doesn't put its full effort into solving this energy crisis? If you ask me, I'd blame it on the BIG oils with their armies of lobbyists in Washington who basically dictate energy policies for this country. Money buy power and influence...even in a democracy society like the good U.S of A.

BTW, remember 9/11? Do you think it doesnt have a little something to do with our desire to keep oil flowing in from the Middle East by being friendly to the Saudis? Why should be depending on them and chosing sides? In so doing, we pissed off fuckers like Bin laden and his thugs. Why not just solve our own energy dependent problem and never have to depend on anyone else? Besides, fossil fuel supply isn't unlimited. We should just make our own energy, cut ties with Israel and leave those Arab countries alone (like with N. Korea) and concentrade on advancing our economy and society as a whole. By then they have NO reason to mess with us, but if they do then we will nuke them. But I digressed.

[Norm @ Jul 20th 2006 12:56PM]

Finally, one step closer to Tom Swift's Electric Runabout!

[Mark MacLeod @ Jul 20th 2006 1:03PM]

Unless it's charged by the sun, wind, or water (nuclear power is close alternative) it's not exactly a zero emission vehicle. If your house is supplied power by a coal-fired power plant then your tailpipe resides at the powerplant.

[MosquitoControl @ Jul 20th 2006 1:06PM]

They openly admit the sedan will be much heavier and therefore get far less than 250 miles per charge (although they hope batteries advance more in the 2 years before they hope to release.)

Let's be honest - a sports car getting 250 mpc is one thing, $120k sports cars are usually garaged and babied, rarely driven. The 250 mpc limit wouldn't crush. But a family car getting that? I wouldn't be able to drive from NY to Boston. Youd have to pry gas cars out of my cold, dead hands before I'm willing to limit myself that much.

Plus, it runs on laptop batteries. It's a Vectoresque car fire waiting to happen, haha.

[Rooster @ Jul 20th 2006 1:18PM]

First off, I think this thing is awesome. Now that's out of the way...here are my 2 cents…

Only about 30% of the US energy is produced using "renewable" resources. The rest is some form of fossil fuel (www.epa.gov). More electric cars means more fossil fuels burned to keep up with the increased energy demand. Don't like that? Write to your congressman, maybe they’ll speed up the renewable energy process…but I doubt it.

I can't imagine that using solar panels would be a very efficient way to recharge this thing. A solar panel generates about 45mW/sq. inch (maybe a little more nowadayz). Knowing that, to recharge that car with solar panels in a timely manner would probably require an ENORMOUS panel array, those batteries are probably pretty heavy in the amp/hour department.

No matter how it's produce, energy ain't free (yes, solar still costs money, it takes a loonnngg time to recoup the initial cost and the panels don’t last forever); so a good chunk of what you save in gas will probably be eaten up monthly in your electric bill. 1 cent a day? I’d like to see what kind of driving they were doing to get that…cuz I'm betting you wouldn't see that type of efficency driving that thing the way it's supposed to be driven (hard and fast).

I think a more important point is that people seem to miss is that batteries have a finite lifespan. After that...guess what...you have to replace them and dispose of the old set. Last time I checked, the materials in a battery (no matter what type) is pretty darn toxic. Start populating the country with large numbers of battery powered cars and you wind up with a whole new environmental problem. Recycle the batteries, you say? That takes a lot of energy to do...now where does 70% of the US energy come from again?

Incidentally, the stock Lotus Elise uses a Toyota Celica engine and has an EPA rating of 24/29 mpg and has a 10.5 gallon tank, giving it a range of over 300 miles. I’m not sure but it may even qualify as a LEV.

Again, I'm not harshing on this car or trying to say that fossil fuels is the only way to go (personally, I'm more in the bio-diesel camp). I think coming up with stuff like this will solve our problems...eventually. I'm just trying to spin a different point of view...

[MosquitoControl @ Jul 20th 2006 1:31PM]

"I'm more in the bio-diesel camp"

From what I understand, we don't have enough farmland to ever make this work.

Although switching to bio-diesel will likely lead to the rainforest being further destroyed in order to grow soybeans for fuel.

[steve @ Jul 20th 2006 1:38PM]

There are a couple of problems with electrics - how you make the electricity (which can be very green, but often is not) and the energy density of batteries vs liquid fuels.

The best Li-Ion rechargeable batteries have specific energy densities of about 200 watt-hr/kg and volumetric energy densities ranging up to about 500 watt-hr/liter.
Gasoline, by comparison, is 12,700 watt-hr/kg and 8,760 watt-hr/liter.

I'm guessing the range is on some very conservative commuting loop model - a few 0-60 accelerations would really cut into the range as would driving with any speed.

Electrics can be very practical for commuting - particularly for short to medium distances in stop and go traffic, but they make poor sports cars (I would hate to think of the handling of something with over 1000 pounds of batteries to get a bit of range)

[Dave @ Jul 20th 2006 1:57PM]

Hopefully Dell will not provide the batteries.

[Johannes Vinke @ Jul 20th 2006 1:59PM]

I am soooo getting that car.

Only have to figure out if it meets "emission standards" here in Europe, LOL

[Cosine @ Jul 20th 2006 2:11PM]

"Unless it's charged by the sun, wind, or water (nuclear power is close alternative) it's not exactly a zero emission vehicle. If your house is supplied power by a coal-fired power plant then your tailpipe resides at the powerplant."

Man I am getting tired of this stupid comment. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Because the power may come from a plant that polutes we might as well not use it?

It is accurate to call the vehicle itself zero emissions as the vehicle itself isn't generating any. How the electricity is generated isn't the carmakers responsibility.

Saying it shouldn't be called zero emissions because the power may come from coal is like saying bread has lots of fat in it because you might put mayo on it.

[Stellar Developer @ Jul 20th 2006 2:15PM]

my comments here ...

http://www.pixelthieves.com/index.aspx?View=ForumReply&PostId=216

[Billy_McSkintos @ Jul 20th 2006 2:40PM]

Its all a conspiracy man! The efficiency (approx. 25%) of the internal combustion engine has not improved dramatically since its inception; unlike almost every other invention during the 20th/21st century. Why? There are engines such as the gun engine which efficiently burns gasoline at close to 95% efficiency , meaning 200 miles to the gallon. It also will burn hydrogen with no modifications. Why is this technology not being implemented? Whilst I appreciate all efforts to use electric power, ultimately a vast majority of the electricity is still generated from non-renewable fuels. If we are going to resolve this issue we need to develop propulsion methods that do not use non-renewable fuels. I recently read that a dutch company is selling giant kites as sails to pull tankers across the atlantic...

[Jeff Foster @ Jul 20th 2006 2:44PM]

@ steve: "(I would hate to think of the handling of something with over 1000 pounds of batteries to get a bit of range)"

My 3600lb supra has pretty damn decent handling...

this thing LOOKS fantastic. the 250 mile range woudn't bother me much if they could get the charge time down to 2 hours or so, but even with 5 hour charge times, i rarely go more than 100 miles in a day, and i could just have a second car for road trips. :) ....or pack a diesel generator for road trips. haha :P

slap some solar panels on this thing for a little trickle-charge action, and maybe i'll get another 45 miles of range after watching my 2 hour matinee, or eating lunch for an hour.

shit - outfit my office with an extension cord and start putting pay-outlets in parking meters. :)

if i had the money, i'd buy one in a heartbeat.

the real issue is - how long do these batteries last? if i have to pay $1600 a year for replacement batteries, there's no way. the cost of new batteries, when averaged out per year, needs to be economical, as well as a green way to dispose of them (recycle.)

[Tim @ Jul 20th 2006 2:46PM]

Thats funny cause the "real" Tesla car, a Pierce-Arrow was way cooler...
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1062

[Jason @ Jul 20th 2006 3:00PM]

everyone needs to see the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car" I wrote a post in my blog about it and how auto companies and oil companies are hurt by electric cars.