Tesla scales back range targets

While we doubt it'll be enough to get any of the lucky few first customers to cancel their orders, those planning a long haul trip in their shiny new Tesla Roadster may find themselves slightly disappointed when they finally get the keys, as the company's pulling back a bit on its promised 250 mile range on a single charge. Apparently, testing the car on an EPA-compliant dynamometer proved to be a bit more taxing than their initial estimates, forcing them to reconsider their boasting. While Tesla's not quite ready to get specific with the new numbers, it says it'll still come in at greater than 200 miles, which would still peg it well above other, less stylish electric vehicles. Now, if they'd only find an excuse to scale back the price.

[LegendZ28 @ Apr 18th 2007 12:40PM]

Still more than enough for 90% of the daily commutes people go thorough, too bad the price tag is still unattainable for most.

[anonymouspimp @ Apr 18th 2007 12:46PM]

scale back the price? Aren't these things going for like $90k? I think its pretty reasonably priced for a car designed by Lotus... is completely electric... and goes 0-60 in like, 4 seconds.

I think this company could do some big things. I think they are starting off the right way... they aren't biting off more than they can chew by trying to mass market an economy car that goes 200 miles on a single charge. But when they can afford to take a whack at that market, I bet they do.

[kadajawi @ Apr 18th 2007 1:00PM]

That's their plan, yeah. Next car something like a 5 series BMW, then a smaller one. Will take a while though they say.

200 miles is still plenty I'd say, especially as it is a car with which I wouldn't take for holiday trips.

[Jeff Foster @ Apr 18th 2007 1:01PM]

I dont think it's much of a big deal.

anything over 150miles/charge is plenty for a huge majority of people. everyone complaining that they can't take coast-to-coast road trips in the tesla needs to ask themselves "when was the last time i took a coast to coast road trip?" or even just when was the last time you drove more than 150 miles in a single day?

sure, i love the convenience of just a 2 minute fill time and my car can run another 250 miles, but in all reality, i only fill up once a week, and only travel more than 150 miles in a single day maybe once every few months. just charging overnight, and NEVER needing to go out of my way to fill up, would be a much better solution.

[Sam @ Apr 18th 2007 1:11PM]

It would be nice to drive by gas stations and giggle at the prices... instead of crying as I pull up to the pump.

[scott @ Apr 18th 2007 1:25PM]

I live 30 miles from everywhere here in Utah, this change wouldnt faze me a bit if i had the funds...

[chris fredette @ Apr 18th 2007 1:26PM]

da, all electric companies have lied before their product is released to inflate sales. Everyone has disappointed.
The real problem other than a giant lithium(read: toxic) battery that will need to be thrown away, is that the actual "millage" will vary greatly with temperature, charge level, and age of the batteries. So you will never really know how far you can go and if your car dies it will need to be towed. AAA can't help you here.
Then the next question is who commutes with a Lotus elise? Nobody. It is the smallest car sold in America and cost $40k and get 35mpg. I want one but it is totally impractical for most people and cost too much to buy on a whim. My bet is this becomes another extra car and doesn't replace another car. Thus just adding more cars which seems counter productive to me.

[Jonathan Sundy @ Apr 18th 2007 1:38PM]

I commute with an MR2 spyder @ 30mpg, why exactly wouldn't you commute with an elise? It's fun to drive, nimble in traffic, a SEXY car, and easy on the gas costs. Most people commute alone, you don't need more than a 2 seater to drive you and your briefcase to work.


I'd totally get this car if I could afford it. The reality is that anyone that can afford it can afford a 2nd car for when they need it.

The biggest problem with this car I want so bad is that it's rumored the battery is 1/3 of it's price, which means replacing a $30,000 battery every 3 to 5 years depending on how much you drive...... that's quite a chunk of change.

[jakep_82 @ Apr 18th 2007 1:42PM]

If you had spent a few minutes on the Tesla website you would know that lithium ion batteries are both non-hazardous and recyclable. Here's a snippet from the site;

"Battery Recycling

Unlike other batteries that came before them, Lithium ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream. However, dumping these batteries in the trash would be throwing money away. Even a completely dead battery pack contains valuable, recoverable materials that can be sold back to recycling companies for cash.

But reuse is such a key part of our philosophy, we’re doing our best to arrange to have our car batteries safely recycled — even before we’ve sold our first car. Our goal is to include the cost of recycling in the purchase price of each car. "

[chris fredette @ Apr 18th 2007 2:45PM]

Ah, I stand corrected on the battery thing.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/print-partone-20.htm
As long as they force(make it very easy) the users to recycle the batteries it is probably ok.
No talk on the the energy required to produce such a large battery. Although the 30k+ cost speaks to me, and most of the lithium come from foreign sources.
Also, commuting is a smaller car is fine if it is a 20 year old car that probably cost $5k used. My point is that such a small car will not work for most people and the only reason the Tesla gets even 200miles per charge is because it's relatively light weight and small size. The smaller battery needed can thus be charged in a reasonable 3.5hours? Anything practical would need to be twice as heavy, and add 2 to 3 times the battery to make it completive. This would mean a $100k battery that would take 8 hours to charge and would need to be replaced every 3 to 4 years. You can argue some of these numbers but the fact is there is a factor so great operating here that lithium ion battery will never be feasible unless you factor in magic. Another battery technology will be needed.

[The Guy @ Aug 9th 2007 10:15AM]

Then I'm glad we have such great market interest in batteries. As none of us have any insight into future battery technology, I say this with some reserve; prices in the electronics industry wane quickly due to newer smaller better more efficient replacements. We still have opportunities open in which we can further diminish the size and improve the efficiency of most solid state electronic parts. All we need is to give it time while we catch up with ourselfs.

Therefore while the batteries used in the Roadster may be big, heavy, and cost more than a couple economy size cars, that will certainly not be true in the 8 1/3 years (at the national average of 12K miles per year) it will take to reach 100K miles.

Another note on batteries: benchmarks are, in essence, crap. A battery will age depending on the tendencies of it's user. For instance, the Li-Ion battery on my laptop is stated (when new) to have an acceptable 3 1/2 hour charge performing under stated loads. I have been keeping the battery charged fully for long periods of time since I bought it a few months ago, and under heavy loads (playing games like Supreme Commander and admittedly GTA: San Andreas) I have seen more than four hours from a full charge. The behavior of Li-Ion batteries is like that of a rubber band: the more you expand the rubber band to its limit (fully charge the battery), the greater it will be able to expand in the future. Whether or not my laptop battery is dangerous because of this, however, I cannot say.

To me it's disappointing that electric car manufacturers have to post this kind of data. In truth it's inaccurate to try and simulate what conditions a driver will be experiencing, how a driver actually drives the car, their charging habits, etc etc. It would be more reliable to post a mAh rating based on the batteries capacity and the efficiency of the car's circuitry.

[Matt @ Apr 18th 2007 6:35PM]

Lithium Ion batteries aren't hazardous as waste, they're hazardous as a power source :) And what do you expect Tesla to say?

To be sure, *anything* that has stored sufficient potential energy to drive an automobile is always subject to sudden, violent release of said energy in the right conditions. Gasoline, ethanol, natural gas, propane, hydrogen, Li-ion battery. All can go kaboom.

The batteries, however, are the only ones doing it unpredictably and randomly, based on manufacturing issues.

[Twist @ Apr 18th 2007 1:42PM]

Just install a gas powered electric generator in the trunk for recharging on the go.

Actually that idea makes me wonder how many MPG you could get off of a gas powered electric generator running an electric motor versus a normal gas engine?

[Jason @ Apr 18th 2007 1:53PM]

In all likelihood using a gas generator to create electric to drive a motor is probably less efficient than just using a gasoline engine to power your wheels.

The idea behind the electric car is that your power comes from a gigantic power plant which is much more efficient than an engine in your automobile.

[Jason @ Apr 18th 2007 1:53PM]

However having a backup gas generator for emergencies is probably a good idea. :)

[Adam @ Apr 18th 2007 2:32PM]

Too bad the electricity that supplies the batter is powered off of COAL (more than likely). This completely ruins the "green" nature of the electric autos. Maybe we could all rejoice if the electricity was from wind, water, solar, etc. However, this usually isn't the case.

[Kenban @ Apr 18th 2007 1:58PM]

I agree with twist there should be a gas engine to charge the batteries on the go at least as an option. Most cars which use this type of setup get between 50 and 80 MPG that I have seen. Its much more efficent to charge a battery then to drive the car directly off a gas engine. This is the whole point behind the Chevy Volt concept car. Its batteries only last about 40 miles but even when it does need to use the gas engine it gets very good gas milage.

[Jason @ Apr 18th 2007 2:59PM]

Even still the efficiency of large power plants is much higher than that of individual car engines.

We should be working towards greener electricity, I personally buy my energy from a generation facility that's 50% wind and 50% hydroelectric.

[Frankenstein Black @ Apr 18th 2007 2:39PM]

***as he dreams, hard ;^)*** I will be holding out for Tesla 2.0? You know, the SOLAR CHARGING, ENERGY POSITIVE (creates more juice than it uses) version. They should call it the SR (i.e. Solar Reactor). Did I mentioned ENERGY POSITIVE!!

PS That plus all of the other pluses (enviornment, lower maintaince cost, bla, bla, bla). You know the more I think about Tesla and its potental impact, the more scared I get for the life of those involved. Think about it... and if you dont get it, go rent Chain Reaction...

[chris fredette @ Apr 18th 2007 2:48PM]

one more thing, if you are believing everything on the Tesla site you are already wrong. This article is the proof. These new numbers put the battery life around 75k miles. We will see.

[OddManOut @ Apr 18th 2007 2:49PM]

"...makes me wonder how many MPG you could get off of a gas powered electric generator running an electric motor versus a normal gas engine?"

I had similar thoughts when I first learned that most commuter trains in the US have a diesel engine that runs electric motors. Given that fact I would posit that it must not be all that fuel/cost efficient on the scale of a 1 - 8 passenger road vehicle, else someone would already be producing such...

Unless of course someone tried to and now they are permanently entombed under the corner stone of some big oil magnates summer home...

It could be an interesting experiment though...such a vehicle. Perhaps a new take on the 'hybrid design'. Small 1 - 1.6 liter engine (maybe even a rotary type to save space)normally used to drive an electric generator (perhaps even with in-hub motors) for the front wheels. Add in batteries to take advantage of regenerative braking (and so the car can still be used over a short distance even if gasoline is unavailable), and plug-in charging to take advantage of external power sources (usually better for the environment than running a small gas engine). BONUS - Add in a transaxle in the back so that in bad driving conditions you can enable 4WD (front gets electrical, rear gets mechanical power from the gas engine), or should the electrical system fail the vehicle can be driven soley from the gasoline engine as a RWD.

Overly complex and hideously expensive ? Yes. Likely to be built in reality? Hardly. Cool if fantastical in concept ? I think so, but to each their own. I know there's probably 50 people out there who would love to tell me how stupid this idea is. Whateva...

Mitsubishi kinda did something like this with their 'e-boost' system, but it has yet to hit the market in any production vehicle, and it wasn't intended for economy or safety, but for performance.

[kadajawi @ Apr 18th 2007 3:22PM]

Making this car a hybrid would ruin it. Adds weight, weight is bad.

Yes, it's not the most useful car in the world, but it makes EVs popular, and they get experience with EVs. I also think that this is probably the EV that makes the most sense at this point of time. Later smaller cars will be EVs too. Later.

[Stephan @ Apr 18th 2007 3:47PM]

Am I the only one that thinks Tesla, the great man of AC (yes he did a lot for electricity in general) is the name of a car that uses only DC?

[Siva @ Apr 18th 2007 9:30PM]

The Tesla roadster uses AC induction motor not DC. So, yes the man of AC is the appropriate name for the company.

[Johan S @ Apr 18th 2007 7:58PM]

Something else Tesla worked on was motors.
From wikipedia: "The Tesla Roadster's powerplant is basically a Tesla three-phase electric motor."

[BillinSoBe @ Apr 18th 2007 4:06PM]

The Tesla Roadster IS NOT a Lotus elise. Whoever said this is WRONG. Check the Tesla Website and compare against the Lotus elise. Completely different cars.

Check your facts before speaking. PLEASE!

[kadajawi @ Apr 18th 2007 6:31PM]

Really? I thought it was designed by a Lotus designer. The chassis and handling is from Lotus. Lotus is actually building it. Sure, it's not 100% a Lotus, but they did play a big part in the development.

[Grizz @ Apr 18th 2007 4:11PM]

at 15cents per KwH its still better per mile than gas if you don't factor in the price of the car. Bring on cheaper hybrids for us poor folk'

[TIMMAH! @ Apr 18th 2007 4:11PM]

"From what I read, the charge time is a few hours (8?). Did they develop a system for automatically interchanging the batteries? Maybe some kind of mechanical system that unlocks the battery compartment and replaces the batteries?"

Uh, yeah have you seen the battery box on this thing. It probably weights a few hundred pounds (if not more). Your "mechanical system" better include something like a forklift...

[itguy07 @ Apr 18th 2007 4:15PM]

"I had similar thoughts when I first learned that most commuter trains in the US have a diesel engine that runs electric motors. Given that fact I would posit that it must not be all that fuel/cost efficient on the scale of a 1 - 8 passenger road vehicle, else someone would already be producing such..."

It's not really the efficiencies, it's that by using electric motors, there doesn't need to be a transmission, clutch, etc for the train. The motor (with its torque available from 0-max RPM) can either drive a gear directly or the wheel directly. Makes things marginally more efficient and tons simpler.

[Lewis @ Apr 18th 2007 8:07PM]

I think the best result of Tesla's work is starting a positive trend towards attractive alternate transportation methods. I recently read about a similar project coming out from a company called Zap! (the ! is part of the name, not for emphasis... though it is cool stuff).

http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560

I don't know when these will be available or what the price will look like, but I'm darn excited for these. Competition means lower $$$ for the end user in the end. Sweet!

[Murc @ Apr 18th 2007 8:59PM]

wow...you people really love this car...its range falls 20% are the majority of you shrugg it off as no big deal.

There is no way these batteries will last 75,000 miles. I would also like to see range statistics in the winter...since everyone knows cold batteries arn't good at holdering a good charge.

it around 40,000 miles (my estimate) when these batteries are crap, how much would it cost you to put in all new ones?...another 5-10k?

[sniper1rfa @ Aug 17th 2007 6:50PM]

40,000 miles is only 200 charge cycles. When was the last time you had a laptop battery last only 200 charge cycles?

[Johan S @ Nov 21st 2008 2:26PM]

From what I read, the charge time is a few hours (8?). Did they develop a system for automatically interchanging the batteries? Maybe some kind of machanical system that unlocks the battery compartment and replaces the batteries?

Advantages:
1) You can charge spare batteries while out .. so that when you get back from work for the day, you can go out at night (won't have to stay overnight to charge).

2) Gas stations can have battery interchanges.

For gas stations to interchange batteries they'll need a system to figure out the charge capacity of the battery you're giving them. This shouldn't be hard to do/calculate based on rate of charge etc. If there is an issue then your deposit to the gas station chain will be kept or something.