Tesla starts delivering Roadsters as production ramps up, hires hotshot engineering exec

Move over, Elon Musk -- the Tesla owners club is about to get bigger. The upstart electric-car company announced the delivery of the first nine production Roadsters to customers in California earlier this week, with several more to follow at the rate of four per week, and the plan is to start building 100 a month by December, when that new transmission is ready. That's pretty ambitious, but Tesla's brought in some big guns to help make it happen -- the company just hired Mike Donoughe as EVP of Vehicle Engineering and Manufacturing. Donoughe is fresh off a 24-year stint at Chrysler, where he was most recently in charge of revamping all of the company's mid-size sedans. Word on the street is that Donoughe could have written his own ticket at any major carmaker, so it's interesting that he landed at Tesla, where he'll be working on the Model S as well as the Roadster. Oh, and there's a new Tesla store in Menlo Park, in case you were looking to blow a quick $100K in Silicon Valley -- aren't we all?

[kevin @ Jul 12th 2008 5:44PM]

so awesome, awesome car, awesome idea, and crazy speed cant go wrong with that

[helloUser @ Jul 12th 2008 5:57PM]

Yes, finally news about something other than the iPhone.

[Almighty- @ Jul 12th 2008 6:13PM]

Yes! Finally some interesting news. There are to many news about the iCrap :(

[loosely_coupled @ Jul 12th 2008 6:51PM]

Oh stop it you rmorons! Way to ruin an excellent article about a revolutionary company. Even if you can't afford the Roadster, everyone should support this company because they are doing revolutionary things there and will make electric vehicles affordable for everyone. Not to mention provide massive competition to the large auto manufacturers and force them to get off their butts!

[simo @ Jul 12th 2008 6:54PM]

what do you mean? It sounds like the iPhone to me... very smartly designed product that could upset the status quo in it's industry and that few people will buy initially because of how expensive it is.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 12th 2008 7:55PM]

That facility is so new they haven't had the time for the paint to dry, and in the case of the one room you can see inside of, even paint the room.

[Sean @ Jul 12th 2008 6:03PM]

Call it a Whitestar and one day it'll be in my garage.

If my house has a garage.

[Shoumik @ Jul 12th 2008 6:09PM]

These are hot. Hopefully sport car companies such as Porsche or even BMW make a light electric sports car.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 12th 2008 7:59PM]

um why?

[Bunson @ Jul 12th 2008 10:56PM]

um. Why not?

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 14th 2008 4:47AM]

@Bunson

What would be the point of BMW or Porsche producing an all electric vehicle?

This technology has to mature very rapidly before european auto makers get involved.

Search for Prius vs M3 and you may understand why it would not be a good idea at the moment.

[Artie Lange @ Jul 12th 2008 6:22PM]

I'd almost buy this car just to get on the IPO list they are supposedly offering to early adopters. This company will be the next great US auto manufacturer.

[=D @ Jul 12th 2008 8:22PM]

Next?
There's one already?
=P

[jstephe @ Jul 12th 2008 6:43PM]

Cool car to bad they had to go and hire someone with 24 years experience at a company that has been going down hill for 24 Years.

[mkim @ Jul 12th 2008 7:32PM]

I'd be surprised if this guy wasn't more than qualified for this position. Just because a company isn't doing well doesn't mean every single person in that company is not a good engineer or manager or whatnot.

[Saint Dumb Ox @ Jul 12th 2008 7:01PM]

Except Chrysler cars suck...

[Reality Check @ Jul 12th 2008 7:21PM]

Who wants to be the guinea pig for this expensive oversized battery in a tin can?

*me looks around...*

[andres @ Jul 12th 2008 9:44PM]

better a battery than a tank of flammable liquid

[xtasi @ Jul 12th 2008 7:44PM]

"he was most recently in charge of revamping all of the company's mid-size sedans"... the Sebring and the Avenger?

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 7:54PM]

Dude, what's wrong with those cars? Oh yea, everything.

[Amer @ Jul 12th 2008 7:46PM]

The only thing I'm worried about is what those billion dollar oil companies are going to do to sabotage this company.

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 7:49PM]

Um, a $100,000 2 seater with a minuscule trunk that can only go 200 miles on a 30 hour charge. I don't think the oil companies have anything to worry about.

[hiko36 @ Jul 12th 2008 7:56PM]

@ Chris Fredette

I think they have everything to worry about. I drive 2 miles round trip to work 4, sometimes 3, days a week. I fuel up once a week at about 35-40 dollars a week. That's a nice chunk of change once something like this goes into mass production...

[Ignatius @ Jul 12th 2008 8:04PM]

What the hell? You drive 8 miles a week and expend your entire gas tank?

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 8:12PM]

Seriously? This car is three things that make it work:
Made of aluminum
The second smallest car in america(smart is smaller)
It uses Li-ion batteries

There is currently no mass produced aluminum car because it is way too expensive. Supply of aluminum is currently stressed and I don't know a way they could start making millions of tons of it.

Small cars are fine but they better be cheap. The smart is not that great a deal at $14k but it is cheap. How will the new magical car compete with a $14k smart car or a 425k Prius. Answer: it will never come close

Even the "expensive for what it is" Prius doesn't use use li-ion batteries because they are too expensive. It uses toxic NiMH that are created with a large carbon footprint(read not environmentally friendly to produce and you will need 2 of them at least to get to the end of life of the vehicle)
The Prius is mass produced and you need to drive it somewhere near 200k miles to start saving money.

This is not magic people it's just physics.
I assume you live in the state of CA where there seems to be a lack of people who know anything about engineering or physics. Strangely these are produced in this state where the labor rate has got to be insane.

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 8:19PM]

I think hiko36 drives a Hummer.
Dude get a scooter They cost like $4k and get over 100MPG. I got a Ducati monster three years ago for $2500; it gets 50MPG and can toast a Tesla(I assume).

[hiko36 @ Jul 12th 2008 11:12PM]

@ Everyone who replied to my stupid comment...

I guess my other driving slipped my mind lol... I drive a VW Beetle so I get great gas mileage. My comment was a little misleading... just a little haha

[JKR @ Jul 13th 2008 1:39AM]

@chris fredette
8 hour charge on 240V, which every house in the US has.

[Blastar @ Jul 13th 2008 4:29AM]

HEY GUYS GUYS GUYS and especially Amer!!

To produce electricity you still need to Burn something !!
Even if this is oil or not... The biggest amount of energy comes from BURNING.
If they ll stop selling the Gas to the cars they ll sell it to the Power Plans.

Don't worry the company is quite safe I thing and an as about the oil industries, they are also "safe".

[Jaimi @ Jul 13th 2008 9:25AM]

@blastar:
>> HEY GUYS GUYS GUYS and especially Amer!! To produce electricity you still need to Burn something !!

Wow, massive fail. Where I live (american midwest), it's mostly Nuclear and Hydro power, and there are new windfarms coming online next year just down the road from me!

Not everywhere is like where you live, where apparantly they burn petroleum for fuel (??)

[Jon Doe. @ Jul 13th 2008 1:57PM]

Chris you sir are so full of shit I can smell it across the internet. There are cabies who have run over 150,000 on the same damn battery. No problems because the Prius neither fully discharges or fully charges the battery. And you do NOT need to drive 200,000 miles to recoup the purchase price. As for the carbon footprint. Yah right. Do you know the plants these batteries are manufactured in? Do you know the efficiency vs. what is on the road? No? Figures. Either you are a troll or just another uninformed looser on Engadget who shoots off their mouth without knowing shit.

[chris fredette @ Jul 13th 2008 6:16PM]

OK Jon Doe, if that's your real name. Obviously you need a refresher in the definition of a troll. It's exactly what you just posted.
First a cab driver should see a sooner ROI because they drive a million more miles that the average person. They also drive in cities where the Prius makes more sense and should allow the battery to last for more miles. I would guess 50% longer. Also the battery will slowly die making comparison to a new vehicle difficult(mileage will drop).
I also didn't say anything about factories. As I've mentioned before this can be easily fixed with nuclear and wind power.
I did some calculations using the DOT mileage numbers and default gas prices(higher than current) and edmunds true cost of ownership.
I can't post a spreadsheet so after 5 years, 15000 miles a year or 75000miles and I cam up with:
Smart 27030
Matrix 35899
Jetta diesel 38299
Prius 38309
all 08 cars
So the general payback can be 5 years or 75000 miles when compared to the Jetta. Better that I thought but based on $4.33 per gallon, Diesel: $4.65 per gallon. This does not cover the added pollution for the battery production and replacement but I'll let that slide.
The Prius will do better in the city but those people usually don't drive 15k a year. I'd get the Smart in that case. If you pound on the miles you are probably on the freeway a ton and would do better in the Jetta.
So if you want to save money the Prius is good if you keep it for about 100,000 and drive 15k miles a year in the city. Nobody I know does this but you are free to have different acquaintances.
Personally buying and maintaining a used car and destroying really old cars is best for the environment.
Also, if you can't do the math yourself please troll elsewhere.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/toyota/prius/100920099/cto.html?setzip=53154&vdp=off

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 7:47PM]

An old school Detroit guy. Just what they need for success.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 12th 2008 7:58PM]

well at least he's not an accountant, or related to cereberus, or in the pocket of the EPA.

only the first interview will tell.

[chris fredette @ Jul 12th 2008 7:52PM]

I think he was brought in to design a new transmission because the old one sucks. I hear Chrysler makes those real good.

[chris @ Jul 12th 2008 7:56PM]

Sexy car and a great start, but add a small gas engine for when you absolutely need to go more than 200 miles

[John @ Jul 12th 2008 8:09PM]

They are going to! Google the Tesla Model-S.

[deyanimay @ Jul 12th 2008 8:58PM]

or solar panels to recharge the battery.

[jbarrychristian @ Jul 12th 2008 9:21PM]

Excellent idea, but that still wouldn't save this hyped car.
To the commenter suggesting solar power for this car, keep this in mind; one square meter of sunlight has about 1 kilowatt of power. The very best very expensive solar cells used in space can convert about 30% of that into electricity. The regular, but still expensive, solar-cells you can buy off the shelf can convert about 15%. So let's go with the best ones:
30% of one kilowatt is 300 watts. Even a very large car has maybe 15 square meters of surface area. Even if ALL of that faced the sun at a perfect 90 degree angle (perpendicular) ALL of the time, that would generate 4.5 kilowatts. One horsepower is equal to about .75 kilowatt. So that would translate to about 6 horsepower! That is only a little more horsepower than a kids go cart. Not enough to run a car or charge batteries that in turn power a car.

[ddub @ Jul 12th 2008 9:34PM]

Elon specifically said that Model S will be solely electric.

[deyanimay @ Jul 12th 2008 10:42PM]

I know it makes a small impact but still its is something to improve distance even ever so slightly. Worst case scenario, replace the passengers seat with a second battery to double the millage. JK =)

[nikster @ Jul 12th 2008 8:08PM]

My hat is off to Elon Musk - you are a genius. When he founded PayPal and cashed out like crazy he was just like any other lucky entrepreneur.
When he started building expensive cars for billionaires like himself a few years back I thought it's like many other billionaires who can never reproduce their one lucky break. They go around the valley, founding companies with their riches, getting crazy VC capital because the VCs like proven winners... and never go anywhere again.

Especially Tesla... building very expensive cars, building cars in general, and electric cars which were just for eco freaks at the time. It seemed like the best they could hope for was a moderate success selling 100 cars a year.

Nowadays electric cars are the hottest thing on the planet and Mercedes is buying technology from Tesla. It's hotter than the internet. Everyone wants a piece of them. In hindsight, it was a brilliant idea, and done at the exact right time, and in addition executed very well.

You can strike it lucky once, but two times... that's not luck. I am truly impressed. And I hope that those guys modding VW camper vans with batteries next door in Palo Alto who were way before their time in electric car research, I hope that those guys are making lots of money. They were building electric cars with almost no funding and at a time when the gallon cost less than $1 and the Ford Expedition was a best seller.

[Reader @ Jul 12th 2008 9:05PM]

Hotter than the internet? Now you're just getting carried away...

[Riot Nrrrd� @ Jul 13th 2008 12:53PM]

My hat sure isn't off to Elon Musk. He sounds like an @ss to me:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/10/technology/copeland_tesla.fortune/index.htm

[John Christian @ Jul 12th 2008 9:09PM]

Unfortunately, the laws of physics pay no attention to coolness. The current generation of batteries, heck, even the next generation or two of batteries can't turn this into a viable mode of transportation. It is a VERY, VERY heavy, expensive car that takes too long to charge.
1. Most of our power still comes from coal, and although a power plant can use hydrocarbons more efficiently than a bunch of individual internal combustion engines, it still has lots of problems that go along with it.
2. Battery manufacturing and the mining of the materials that go into it is much more harmful to the environment than "big-electric" car companies would admit.
3. Even if ll of our power plants were were solar powered, storing excess daytime electricity in hydrogen by using electrolysis, the costs of these batteries will still be tremendous and cause this to fail. Batteries just suck as a power source. Fuel cells are so much better, but also still too expensive and not perfected for consumer use.
4. Even if you get a 220 volt, 80 amp plug at home you are limited to relatively short trips in it. For people who say they only have a couple of miles to drive each way to work, why not take a bike then or walk? $100,000 for 20-30 miles per week? Are you kidding me? When I lived where there was public transit, I took the bus. What is wrong with that?
5. The best current batteries have shown a great potential for dangerous fires. If you don't believe me, ask the people on the forefront of solar-powered cars. It is one of the biggest dangers they face.

Granted, if you have more money than sense and don't mind spending it on a car that will need a new set of batteries costing in the tens of thousands of dollars in less than 100,000 miles, and you only need to carry two people, and you don't care what strip mining the materials for the batteries did to the environment and if you don't mind having a very limited range with nothing to do but get a room somewhere for a couple of days once you exhaust the batteries and need to charge them for 30 hours at a regular outlet, and if driving around in a heavy fire trap, then by all means, buy one now.

This car company will never make it unless they drastically change what they are offering. If there was no more oil or if there was a true shortage they might have a chance, but no, probably not even then. Companies like Aptera and Volkswagen are on the right track with relatively low cost, aerodynamic three wheeled vehicles.

If there was a futures market to bet against companies like Tesla, I would mortgage my house and my parent's house to place that "bet". Anyone who has even a smidgen of understanding of basic physics can see that this is almost 100% hype. I ma not alone in this belief either. Just ask eminent scientist Richard Muller of UC-Berkeley.

[ddub @ Jul 12th 2008 9:46PM]

Your points 1,3,4, and 5 are all false and also the statement about it taking too long too charge. I don't feel like elaborating on it more, because someone else will; but if not, then I will.
I do agree that Aptera is more promising, but they don't have any vehicles in production yet. And the sad part is, I don't think enough people will buy a lightweight 3 wheel car.

[jbarrychristian @ Jul 12th 2008 10:25PM]

Thanks for the reply DDUB, but I wish you would not leave it to someone else to elaborate. After all, if you say that my statements (1, 3, 4, and 5) are false, you would be the best person to know what you meant.
In the absence of specifics in your rebuttal, I will do my best to show you that my statements are not false:
Point 1. According to the Department of Energy, as of January 2008, 50.3 percent of power generated in the United States was generated in coal-powered plants. Google it or look it up on the doe.gov website if you do not believe me
Point 3. This point covered a broad spectrum. I will need you to tell me which part you think is false before I can intelligently reply.
Point 4. This one was partially opinion so I don't see how it can be categorically called false. However, what is wrong with walking or taking a bike for a short distance. I think my reasoning was sound. I am not forcing the person to walk or bike, just suggesting it. Perhaps you think that a 220 mile range is sufficient, and it might be for you. Perhaps you think that a minimum 3.5 hour charge time from a full discharge using a specially installed home charging station is okay. If so, more power to you, but that would not work for me.
Point 5. Maybe they have made lithium-ion batteries much safer than they were in the past, but I don't think that has been proven. Look into the players in the solar powered car challenges. They have lost ore than a few cars to lithium-ion battery fires.

As to my point about charge time that you also mentioned, keep in mind that only the specially installed home charging station can "quickly" charge the batteries in "as little as 3.5 hours" (quote from the Tesla Motors website). The mobile charger will take around 30 hours to fully recharge the batteries.

Also, Tesla's own FAQ says the batteries will last approximately 100,000 miles or 5 years, whichever comes FIRST. How much will the new set of replacement batteries cost? Tesla has been very quiet about this, but estimates are that the current battery costs are as much as 25% of the car's cost and that Tesla is hopeful they can get that cost down to around $12,000 in another five years when they expect the first batch to start failing in quantity. Do the math. Examine the physics closely. This isn't a deal no matter how you slice it. If somebody still wants it because they want it and can afford it, then fine, but don't try to convince me that it makes any kind of economic or even environmental sense at the moment.

[ddub @ Jul 12th 2008 11:04PM]

Okie dokie here goes nothing.

1. You said that power plants are more efficient than ice, but there are problems that go along with it. That's pretty vague, I don't see any argument against BEV's there. Most of the tesla roadsters will be sold in california which is mostly powered by natural gas.

3. I don't know why extra power from solar plants would be stored as hydrogen. Power plants use pumped water or flywheels to store surplus power generated during off peak hours. I think thats much more efficient. Anyways, I don't think solar panels will be generating any extra power anytime soon. Furthermore, batteries are not a power source and I don't give any reason why fuel cells are better.

4. The 200 mi range of a Tesla shouldn't be a problem for anybody's commute. If you plug it in every night, I don't think you'll get stranded anywhere. Long trips is more of a problem; too bad our rail system in this country is so poor. But if electric cars were to become popular, there's no reason why we wouldn't see electric charging stations like gas stations. Newer battery systems can charge with 15-20 min. Or a solution like Project Better Place could work as well. But yes if someone lives 2 miles from work, I don't know why they would drive anyways. And more people should use mass transit if they have that as an option. Right now for me it would take me more than 2 hours to get to work taking the bus instead of a 20 minute drive.

5. New LiPo batteries that have been developed are not flammable like ordinary li-ion found in electronics. And I don't think li-ion is more dangerous than gasoline.


If you read the FAQ's more carefully, it doesn't say you will have to buy new batteries every 5 years, it says the performance will be reduced to 70 percent. Also the maintenance cost on these cars will be much lower than a standard vehicle. I think by the time they come out with the model s you will see improved battery performance and reliability.

[Will @ Jul 12th 2008 11:41PM]

1. (my own numbers)
I commute a lot... and on a bad week, I'll drive around 400 miles. That's two charge cycles on the Tesla. If I had the charger installed, that's about 7 hours of charging per week over 7 days. Assuming I sleep, that's perfectly fine. Without the charger that's 60ish hours of charging, which is definitely less fine. On an average week of about 300 miles... 45 hours of charging.. 6.42 hours a night. It's a stretch, but possible. Solution? Get the charger.

2. The Tesla Roadster has a wheel-to-well efficiency ratio of 1.14 km/MJ(megajoule). The Toyota Prius (~55 MPG) has a wheel-to-well efficiency ratio of 0.556 km/MJ and a VW Diesel Jetta (~50 MPG) has a w-to-w efficiency ratio of 0.53 km/MJ. Even assuming that the Tesla is obtaining energy from a source equally as dirty as burning gasoline, the Tesla Roaster is more than twice as energy efficient than either of those other cars, thus causing lower pollution.

3. The Tesla Roadster was designed in California and very obviously around California standards and the West Coast power grid. California only obtains 20% of its energy from coal and 37.7% from natural gas. Another 18.9% is hydroelectric, 14% is nuclear and the rest is solar, wind and geothermal. Similarly, up here in washington, hydroelectric makes up around 3/4 of our power source. Unlike gasoline cars, the environmental footprint of electric cars varies with its power source, meaning that its footprint can lower as an area implements more clean energy. Here in Washington, and probably in Cali, you can specify a desire for green energy, making the relative carbon emissions of a full electric car close to zero.

Second to lastly...

Where in your whole conversation do you say anything about basic physics except at the end? How does a lack of knowledge of basic physics have anything to do with knowledge of energy production statistics (especially when you yourself say that power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines), the chemistry of batteries and their mining process, the cost of batteries, the logic of using manual power and public transport rather than driving, and the susceptibility of li-ion batteries to chemical-based fires? Maybe you meant to say chemistry, economics, logic and mining techniques? I sure didn't learn about any of that in basic or intermediate physics.

Lastly...

It's a 100,000$ Roaster that goes 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. It's in the league of Porsches, Ferraris, Audis and top-price Corvettes, not 3 wheeled Volkswagens and 90 horsepower hybrid cars. This is a toy car, not a daily driver. A toy car meant to rake in lots of money from rich people who can afford toy cars in order to put R&D into making pure electric cars affordable. Its a gimmick... and even Tesla will admit that to an extent with their supposed business plan (backed up by the Whitestar/Type-S) of gradually releasing cheaper and cheaper cars using money from their high-priced sales. It's brilliant and were you to attempt your futures market idea, you and your parents would be in a homeless shelter before 2011.

[chris fredette @ Jul 13th 2008 12:38AM]

FYI this reply system sucks.
Will, I think you are confused. There is nothing wrong with electric cars per sea, but with current tech it is not feasible to be practical.
The problem is the best tech right now is LI-ION. Disregarding the whole strip mining problem(tree huggers can't see it so it must not be happening) you need over $30k in batteries to make a Prius sized car get the same distance/charging performance as the Tesla. It would be a slower car but get the minimum 200 mile distance with the $10,000/3.5 hour charge time.
Then in the end you have this tiny car that cost $40,000(see chevy volt) is far less practical then the majority of cars people need today. You can argue people don't need minivans or trucks but a bunch of people do.
Why not start with semi's? They drive many miles between fixed point and could schedule charges. If there was a business reason and a payback they could easily amortized the added cost. The reason is current tech is no good. We should be investing money in better storage devices and stop expecting this crap to save the world. New batteries will have all different charging problems so the Tesla will not really help this. That said the batteries on the drawing board are still not good enough.
Personally a hybred with a small li-ion battery, say enough to go 20 miles that can be home charged is a better first step. I think this vehicle would not put as good MPG numbers on the window sticker so that is probably why Toyota hasn't gone that way with the Prius.
I believe the diesel Jetta(or the old 4 door gulf) is probably the least environmentally damaging car in America and you would be driving that if you really care. If you drive a Prius you are most likely a ill informer tree hugger driving around smelling your own farts.