Tesla announces its first dealership; no, you still can't have one.

We knew Tesla had plans to open up dealerships in some of the, how should we say, more affluent markets in the US, and according to the company its first dealership and service center will be opened in one of the richest neighborhoods in the States, Menlo Park (just an electric hop, skip, and jump away from its San Carlos-based HQ).

[Via AutoblogGreen]

[Evan @ Aug 5th 2007 5:44PM]

I was in Washington DC this past spring where I was interning in the US Senate. I was fortunate enough to see this car for real, and even watched it silently hum around the parking lot. All I got to say is this car brought a smile to my face. It's simply a beautiful car that combines fuel efficiency (the guys told me 125mpg) with looks. It can't be beat, unless you don't have 100k

[Matt @ Aug 5th 2007 8:25PM]

Sweet, 125 MPG out of a completely electric car. You sure you saw this one? Either you didn't, or both you and the owner need to look at the car's specs a little closer.

[Marc-O @ Aug 5th 2007 9:58PM]

@Matt

No offence Matt, but before trying to school someone, do your homework first. The 125MPG figure (actually 135) is an equivalent, not meant to be literal - it is actually straight out of Tesla's website (www.teslamotors.com), right there on the home page. Before acting superior, inform yourself please.

[DJBro @ Aug 6th 2007 2:11PM]

Why would you make a comparison from MPG to an electric engine. Regardless of whether Tesla does it on their website or not, where could they pull that number from? What kind of comparison could they make from that? Its powered by BATTERIES, which are charged using home electricity. Petrol is rarely used to create electricity anymore because of its necessity as a fuel source for automobiles. If anything, they should be telling me how many miles per tube of uranium, or miles per coal brick? Miles per therm of natural gas?

[Taylor @ Aug 5th 2007 4:31PM]

Yay for living close! :)
-Taylor

[David @ Aug 5th 2007 5:13PM]

Yay for coming over to see them, lol

[Ig @ Aug 5th 2007 4:45PM]

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is some kind of small nod to Edison, or a small Bronx cheer (since Mr. Tesla was a former Edison employee and later a competitor).

[DJBro @ Aug 6th 2007 1:38PM]

From their website: "The namesake of our Tesla Roadster is the genius Nikola Tesla [...] We‘re confident that if he were alive today, Nikola Tesla would look over our car and nod his head with both understanding and approval."

BTW, Edison originally operated with DC which requires a lot more copper to move in large voltages and currents than AC, which is why AC caught on for home applications. Tesla favored AC, and did most of his work in AC. It funny that they would name their car after a guy who works mainly with AC when it is powered by DC batteries... :)

[alex @ Aug 5th 2007 4:46PM]

Interesting how Tesla is being sold in Menlo Park, where Edison once worked.


Irony is King.

[Rick @ Aug 5th 2007 6:45PM]

Wrong Menlo Park. Edison's is in Jersey. This one is in California.

[Ryan Block @ Aug 5th 2007 6:28PM]

You're thinking of Menlo Park, New Jersey.

[kojo87 @ Aug 5th 2007 4:46PM]

ridiculously cool car but i don't think i would ever buy one even if i had the money. that two speed transmission is just too weird for me.

why aren't they implementing this technology in smaller, more practical cars? like ones that dont cost 100 Grand even if it means increasing that insane 4 second 0-60 time.

[AC @ Aug 5th 2007 4:48PM]

For a sports car, it has awfully un-sporting proportions. Doesn't make for a very inspiring design.

[Feliks @ Aug 8th 2007 10:54PM]

The proportions seem just fine, similar to an Elise's. Its just the very heavy batteries (I'm assuming) that would make a sports car an odd choice for this company. I also really doubt that the engineers put much focus on sporting potential.

Then again, its a good way to acquire some brand awarness in the early stages of the companies life (Spyker, Buggati (rebirth), Pagani)

[Stan @ Aug 5th 2007 4:50PM]

Menlo Park? You got to be kidding me. In the past several years, all of the car dealerships in the area diminished to nothing. The main road, El Camino Real, in Menlo Park is nothing but a deserted remains of car dealership buildings overtaken by weeds. The city has lost at least five large sized car dealerships, thereby losing all of its car sales revenue.

Supposedly, there is a rumor that those car dealerships will be relocated near the Porsche dealership. Even then, the Porsche dealership revenues goes to Redwood City. I personally won't believe it until I see it.

[glucoseboy @ Aug 6th 2007 12:39AM]

So, they can pick up one of these "deserted car dealerships" for cheap then right?

[Tim Burns @ Aug 5th 2007 4:52PM]

I don't think you understand the concept of the car or even know what the company's future plans might be.

This is an industry first (fully electric, non-hybrid) vehicle and the body is even full carbon fibre and a light as $hit frame.

They also designed it with the maximum amount of usable aerodynamics so as to make it easier to move at high speeds. All this and it still only has a 300 mile range.
They do have plans to make a more affordable sedan for families, however, they are waiting for the battery industry to improve a bit so as to make it feasable to use. As a 4 door, trunk weilding, safety conscious, non-aerodynamic, family vehicle will weigh much more than the Roadster and the current technology will give it a much smaller drivable range.

[Dan @ Aug 5th 2007 4:55PM]

Umm... Edison = Menlo Park, NJ. Tesla Motors = Menlo Park, CA.

Small point, but still.

[East Coast @ Aug 5th 2007 5:02PM]

Well our family knows one of the main investors in the Tesla car, and we had been really considering buying one, but it can really only go about 250-350 miles on a charge, so it is pretty useless.

Its a really great idea...and with a bigger battery it could really be amazing.

[kojo87 @ Aug 5th 2007 5:09PM]

you know most cars are figured to get about 400 miles per tank on the highway (and way less in the city) so 350 isnt that bad.

but yes refue...err recharging would be a bit of a problem when driving long distances. its not like every BP station has these chargers all set up and everything

[M @ Aug 5th 2007 5:10PM]

My Honda Civic goes about 300 miles on a tankful of gas, so I guess it must be pretty useless too.

[Joel Purvis @ Aug 5th 2007 5:12PM]

250-350 miles on a charge = useless? How far do you commute? My Acura RSX only gets 235 miles on a tank of gas & it's a small 2 door. I think 250+ miles on a charge is unfreakingbelievable! Do you really imagine someone that can spend 100k on a car really doesn't own a backup for road trips?

[East Coast @ Aug 5th 2007 5:28PM]

well, the problem is that we need to be able to do 300 miles, even if there is traffic or anything that would hurt the battery life. and we don't really want to have to stop for an hour or so to charge the car...and its not like you can stop anywhere.

yes, we have other cars that are gas, and can easily do the distance, but why would we spend 100k on a car that we can't even fully use.

[Joel Purvis @ Aug 5th 2007 5:39PM]

If you can afford a 100k car and you have to commute 300 miles, you're
waisting a minimum of 5 hours of your life every single day! You're right, don't
waste your money on this car. Invest in a closer freaking house!

[East Coast @ Aug 5th 2007 5:55PM]

its not a commute. its a common drive.

[Mike D @ Aug 5th 2007 10:32PM]

You're apparently either very young or don't have a clue what you're talking about. Sports cars aren't cars for driving all the time and lots and lots of people buy Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Porsche's. Sports cars can be used as long drivers but this obviously isn't marketed as that as it doesn't have a high top speed.

The car has an amazing range and the price is freaking amazing considering what it does.

[Ratchet the Lombax @ Aug 6th 2007 12:17AM]

@Mike D
You are right in most cases high end sports cars are not drove for long distances. I own a '07 Lamborghini Diablo (Lottery FTW) and although I do drive it everyday I wouldn't take it on a long distance drive of say over say 350 miles. It's just not practical, as it's not really a family car. But I didn't really buy it for going on vacations I have an SUV for that. Also 50 to 75 mile one way commute is not that bad, I once knew a guy that worked a little over 100 miles from where he lived. This was due to the fact that his company gave him a promotion and relocated him. He didn't want to move so he just drove the 200+ mile round trip everyday. Before

[J. Neutron @ Aug 6th 2007 9:06AM]

1-800-TBS-funny.
Yes hello.... did they make a diablo in 07?
no sir, they ceased production in 01
oh, ok... so is it ok to LMFAO at this n00b?
roll on the floor sir.

[Feliks @ Aug 8th 2007 11:25PM]

@ J.Neutron

Ummm, its not that funny, somtimes people get confused as to what cars they drive, and i mean a murcielago and a diablo look pretty much the same, right? And don't you even dare think that he drives a mid 90's ford explorer.

[Ben @ Aug 5th 2007 5:13PM]

Batteries are about to die a horrible death. Ultracapacitors, baby. EEStor says they're going to put UC's with almost 3x the energy of the best lithium batteries on the market *this year*.

Even if they blow it, UC's are improving fast and when you have an energy storage device that can charge hundreds of times faster than a battery, survive a million full charge/discharge cycles without degrading performance, and can deliver literally hundreds of times the current of a battery without failure or heating... bye-bye, batteries.

Not to mention the UC discharge curve is much more manageable and reliable than that of a battery.

Give Tesla five years and they've have a real barn-burner there. This is a great start, though.

[Frankenstein Black @ Aug 6th 2007 10:03AM]

Add to this the ability to charge the UCs via Solar means (i.e. everyday there is news of higher yields and lower costs pannel tech, even printable ones) and you not only have a barnburner but one with FU POWER to Big Oil as well! Happyness is a 2012 Tesla SR (i.e. Solar Reactor) model that is "Energy Positive" (meaning producing more juice than it can use). You dont plug you car into the house, you plug your house into the car. And "we didnt land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us" Oops, sorry, got carried away :^)...

[Stan @ Aug 5th 2007 5:15PM]

Ah...my bad. I'm just glad that it's in THAT Menlo Park and not the one that I know of...can you tell that I'm upset with the losses of the dealerships??? :-)

[Josh @ Aug 5th 2007 5:23PM]

$100,000? Great. So now drivers of this car can look down their noses at others because they've fooled themselves into thinking they're saving the planet AND because they have a 100-grand car.

Drivers, start your smug senses of superiority!

[chris @ Aug 5th 2007 5:23PM]

Shortest...post...ever.

[Todd Smith-Schoenwalder @ Aug 5th 2007 5:32PM]

this car ROXS!!

[Jason @ Aug 5th 2007 5:52PM]

I agree completely, I mean...how much does R&D REALLY cost anyway.

[Mike @ Aug 5th 2007 5:57PM]

For the people who are complaining about the price, and wondering why they don't make a family car for $10,000. Its expensive because its high tech, not just because its a sports car. If they made it into a sedan, it would probably still cost $70,000-$80,000. They made a sports car because sports cars are already expensive and impractical, so it fits right into the niche.high performance what people expect for this sort of money. When the average person hears 'electric car' they expect the usual jumped up golf buggy, so making a sexy supercar gives a high profile and credibility to the tech.

[DaveK @ Aug 5th 2007 6:14PM]

I can't understand these "it only goes 300 miles on a charge" arguments, unless your daily commute is more than 150 miles! If you're going to drive your Tesla around town, 300 miles is plenty of distance. We don't have the infrastaructure for cross-country trips on an electric vehicle liek this, but since probably 90% of a car's use is spent within 50 miles of the home, it doesn't seem an undue hardship. $100K - that's an undue hardship...

[Luke @ Aug 5th 2007 10:32PM]

I'm with you on this one. People are absolutely stubborn to turn down something like this. I'd say the farthest someone would have to travel for work is 75 miles, and even THAT is pushing it. This car would be perfect for 95% of the public.

Another thing: as of right now, it will take a little while to recharge the car. Use that to your advantage! Take your children to the park, or take your wife to a hotel for some sweet lovin'. I think it would change the dynamic of the road trip, but not in a bad way. People are so concerned with where they're going that they don't notice where they are. This changes things. However, as batteries get more efficient and as ultra-capacitors come into the market, recharge time will shrink immensely. When that day comes and people are still refusing to get electric cars, then I will probably start throwing rocks.

[wiidude420 @ Aug 5th 2007 6:24PM]

until they can both offer equal performace of a corvette or better, and get atleast 600 miles per charge as well a s abatter than charges in less than 30 min, this car will go nowhere

[Sean @ Aug 5th 2007 6:42PM]

Battery life shouldn't be a problem in stop-and-go traffic as with gasoline; the "engine" doesn't need to run when you're stopped, a la Prius. The only thing that would limit it in this case would be accessory use while stopped.

[Mr. Yetti @ Aug 5th 2007 6:46PM]

lord a'mighty, man, read their damned website! This car is designed to change a paradigm! They want to eliminate the stigma of all production (and non production, save a few) electric vehicles being slow and fugly. By releasing a viciously fast, Lotus-backed car, they want to grab people by the eyeballs and say "Look! You can get you testosterone/speed fix from an electric, too!"

[wmorin @ Aug 6th 2007 5:24AM]

Who is reporting that the Tesla is getting 300 or 400 Miles to a Full Battery? The Tesla website confirms your likely only to get 200+ . ( nominal 240 Miles on a Peak, New Battery)

But I'm not arguing.. Just pointing out the Fact ..

But it is great they are starting to think about average Joe, instead of Richy Richy.. If the company was mine, my market would be Average Job.

But then again, I live in the Great North, and I will not see the Tesla, or any form of fully electric car for about 3-5 years. LOL.

Yippie..

[Colin Jensen @ Aug 5th 2007 7:59PM]

If they want to ever be profitable, their car needs to sell for at least 2X the parts cost to pay off the development costs. At least at first. I really don't think they can make a $30K car at this time. They do have future plans for family vehicles, just not now.

It doesn't cost much more to build a sports car because electric engines inherently have tons of torque so they accelerate like a bat out of hell. You don't have to do anything special to an electric engine to make it work well in a sports car.

And people are used to paying tons for sports cars. So that fits their pricing needs.

So in sum, they are aiming for a market in which they are a natural fit and can make enough money to sustain the company long enough to enter additional markets. They are smart.

[H @ Aug 5th 2007 8:16PM]

most sports cars get horrible gas milage...as they aren't made for cross country trips...plus who drives a extreme sports car at more of a distance than to just out for a night on the town or to show off when you go shopping anyways?? clearly not driving more than 300 miles in a day, so charging not an issue to me

[AlexP @ Aug 5th 2007 8:30PM]

Tim Burns, the fact that it's a full electric is far from being an industry first - re: GM's EV-1.

[KC @ Aug 5th 2007 8:41PM]

@ Jason

For the Tesla Roadster, R&D cost were almost nothing as the only things that are not "off the shelf" on that car is the sheet metal skin (yes and the lights and some of the interior moldings) and the software that drives controls the electronics. Everything else is existing off the shelf parts from a Lotus chassis, to a bunch of run of the mill laptop batteries strung together.

[KC @ Aug 5th 2007 8:52PM]

The Tesla DOES NOT get 300 miles per charge! The official Tesla position on the range of the car is "about 200 miles per charge"

They originally promised 250 miles through computer simulations, but had to revise it down because they couldn't meet it in real world testing. So, no this car isn't going to get anywhere close to 300 miles out of a charge and if you are driving on anything other then a flat, straight 200 mile stretch with no radio or A/C on you probably wont ever see 200 miles out of a charge

[Leo @ Aug 6th 2007 12:20AM]

I'm hopping on the '300 miles isn't enough' bandwagon, this sounds fun!

*cleans throat*
Until the car can go 6000 miles on a single charge, and recharge in under 4 minutes for free and has detachable wings for that special 300 mile commute, I'm looking in your direction Mr. East 'My Family Knows the Investor' Coast. The car is PURE garbage and useless.

*clears throat again*
Now my real opinion. I'm a normal person, I drive 20 miles a day round trip. If I could drive a Tesla for 15 DAYS without recharging it and never have to have an oil change or worry about a tune-up I'd love it.

Look at a damn Ferrari or Lambo or whatever exotic car, if they got 10k miles on them, they are VERY used and people complaining that 300 mile range isn't enough? This is an EXOTIC sports car designed for use as an EXOTIC sports car, NOT for moving your 8 member family from Oklahoma to Nebraska while towing your trailer.

[Datacide @ Aug 5th 2007 9:53PM]

All I have to say is that they have a fucking beautiful looking website.