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?
posted July 12th 2008 5:29PM
@John Christian
@chris fredette
1) This point is fair enough, there's still problems, but overall you feel that it is better than ICE cars. That's a postive for EVs, b/c problems with our grid energy will NEED to be solved sooner or later even if we DON'T drive any EVs.
2) The driving cycle uses about 70-80% of the energy life cycle of a typical car according to research by Argonne Labs. If you measure the materials by weight with the Tesla being ~2700lbs you will find the amount of materials isn't that much more, the car actually isn't that heavy. If you look up li-ions you will find they are landfill safe, so the environmental impact is greatly decreased compared to the lead acids we still use today. Sure the battery manufacturing has more impact than manufacturing a typical car but balance it over the lifecycle of the car and it's not going to be any worst than an equivalent gasoline car. Even the hybrid battery impact on the environment has been greatly exaggerated by hybrid-haters. Look at the Sudbury example, they use a situation from the thirty years ago (the lunar landscape example). Don't forget all these batteries are recyclable.
3)http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/11/altairnano-2mw-battery-passes-tests-could-help-green-the-grid/
4)$100k is for a sports car that goes 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, other models will be cheaper, the next one is $60k, next-next is likely $30k. Again I draw attention to lead acid batteries charging for 100 miles in 10 minutes: http://www.greencar.com/features/features39/
So quick charging is definitely possible. There are batteries today that charge even faster given you have a powerful enough source.
5) As opposed to a gasoline tank? I've seen plenty of those catch on fire (and explode too) on police chase videos. Just b/c they are solar racers don't mean they use the best batteries. Look up the a123 and altairnano cells, they are virtually impossible to destroy. And Tesla's various safety measures can prevent those kind of fires, you can look it up at their site. There still isn't a automotive li-ion battery fire today (don't point to the aftermarket Prius PHEV fire, the fire wasn't caused by the battery if people bothered to read into it).
Your point about public transportation, I like; it is cleaner than EVs or any of the alternative technologies today, but that's only if it works well and currently it's not working well outside of a few select places. Most of the US will still be using automobiles. The ideal would be if America can change it's whole system and really embrace public transportation and decrease urban sprawl, but again that has very little chance of happening.
John, it seems you are more against Tesla's business model of starting from the top and driving down market than against EVs. But you have to admit that it did bring the company a lot more hype (and most of it was caused by the media being attracted to the company, the company didn't even have to do that much PR until recently w/ the transmission problems) compared to other companies, thus helping them find lots of capital and preorders quickly. Even with all the delays they are moving at a rapid pace for such a small company, already readying for their next model (and I mean not just doing CG drawings of the next model as a lot of companies do, they are actually raising money and finalizing factory construction plans). Look at the other EV companies and they are moving a lot slower. It's apparent even with the inevitable problems that cropped up for this startup, starting from the top really helped them, both in terms of getting people to know their company and it raising money.
@chris fredette
Maybe it's just your definition of "practical" is different than others. EVs will make a practical shorter range vehicle at least until rapid chargers become more prevalent. The typical range now is ~100miles on EVs, most people's roundtrips won't exceed that in a day and all it takes is overnight charging even without rapid chargers (in case you bring it up it's not that hard to implement off the street charging for those without garages). On semis, they are using them already for shorter ranges: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1774/
If you look at the jetta fuel economy you can already see that it loses to the prius. Everyone expected the Jetta to "murder" the Prius but the fuel economy wasn't any better even with VW's own tests. Add the higher energy content of diesel and the results become worst. Balance this out with real world highway mileage with the jetta getting only 1mpg better, and at most the Jetta will only be on par with the Prius in terms of environmental impact. That's not to say that proves diesels lose to hybrids, but that here in the US we just haven't seen hybrid-killing diesels yet.
Perhaps you guys won't agree on this, but I view the Roadster as a "spark". Tesla itself might not be the company that will introduce the affordable EVs in the end, but there is no doubt to me the Roadster was a big driving force for the revival of EVs today, even if on "hype" alone as some people claim. Even the Venturi Fetish didn't really do anything, but the Roadster really brought back some interest in EVs. If you look at cars like the iMIEV, R1e, Th!nk, and with even Nissan, along with MBenz & BMW, announcing they want to go into the market for EVs; the EVs are coming, with no forced government mandate. All we have to do is sit back and wait a few years and we'll see if it really pans out. Again, 2010 is really the year, there are lots of promised vehicles from all kinds of alternative technologies coming that year. We'll then see which ones actually come out and if they really work.
Everyone is talking down electric cars due to battery cost and recycling issues. The point is that we need to advance the electric car in baby steps - the perfect gas car was invented right off the bat either (if it ever was). The future of the electric car is either in fuel cells, new battery tech, or (my personal favorite) Ultra capacitors -- check out EEStor, they're putting out capacitors this year for Zenn.
Does anyone else think that this car looks exactly like the Lotus Exige with a battery instead of an engine?
Probably because they started with the blueprints of the lotus elise. it in fact shares the wind shield and dash with Lotus Elise/Exige
The car charges in 8 hours if you use a 220 V outlet. You know the kind that I (and many others) have in their garage to run a freezer. The kind that was a $50 option when I had my house built. I'm pretty sure that anyone that can afford a car can afford a 220 V outlet.
And it would be great for my commute! I drive only 25 miles each way to work, but that's only if you take the highway (so no bikes). If you took bike-able roads, it would be about 40 miles. 80 miles a day would be a bit much for me to bike.
I hardly ever travel more than 30 miles on a day to day basis. However, everything is like 15-30 miles away, so no walking. And did I mention there's no mass transit in the Norfolk-VA beach area?
Now if they could just get the car down to around $40k. Even a $60k sedan is a bit much.
Check your current draw on your 220V. You will need the special charger anyway. The Tesla set up is 75amps! You will probably need to up your service too. Most new houses are only rated for 200 amp so I assume most houses only have a 100 amp service.
Also, I know many people and only one has a 220V in his garage for welding. It cost him over $600 to get it installed recently and it can't supply enough juice for the Tesla.
@chris fredette
The 80amp one is for the 3-3.5hr charge. Engadget just did some bad reporting with the confusing wording ("we'd imagine that making sure the car gets its 8 (or fewer) hour charge from a 220v / 80A circuit "), that's why I tend to visit its brother/sister? site "autobloggreen" for the automotive related news. 40A will get you the 6-7 hr charge, so legios is correct.
"Tesla quotes a charge time of 3-3.5, but that is based on charging from a 220V 80A circuit...At the very least you'll want a 220V/40A circuit for overnight charging in 6-7 hours."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/06/charging-a-tesla-roadster-from-household-outlet-could-take-30-ho/
@jake You are right but I don't get you point. The standard 220V outlet is 15 or 20 amps not the 40 required for the bare minimum charging. And this is nowhere near the desired 80amps. I was being conservative with 75amps.
With the average new house having a 200 amp service you are talking about needing almost half the entire power the house is rated for. You will need to add another 100 amps to your service or 50 if you go the slow charge route. Otherwise you will be no where near code.
Trust me I don't believe the data from this site or any blog site. I go to the source. I'm speaking from a engineering background and basic physics and economy. If you understand this you will see the basic Tesla technology can never be anywhere near mainstream.
@chris fredette
Really bad examples, welding? come on, duty cycles play a major role in what amperages are required for each particular type of welding machinery. Still, really bad example.
An 80 amp circuit is not a big deal, please don't make it sound horrendously expensive to install, I spend over $4000 in gas every year just for one of my vehicles.
The cost of installing a dedicated circuit for a 220V / 80A rapid charger will pay for itself, just like an all electric vehicle pays for itself on gas savings over it's life cycle.
The car charges in 8 hours if you use a 220 V outlet. You know the kind that I (and many others) have in their garage to run a freezer. The kind that was a $50 option when I had my house built. I'm pretty sure that anyone that can afford a car can afford a 220 V outlet.
And it would be great for my commute! I drive only 25 miles each way to work, but that's only if you take the highway (so no bikes). If you took bike-able roads, it would be about 40 miles. 80 miles a day would be a bit much for me to bike.
I hardly ever travel more than 30 miles on a day to day basis. However, everything is like 15-30 miles away, so no walking. And did I mention there's no mass transit in the Norfolk-VA beach area?
Now if they could just get the car down to around $40k. Even a $60k sedan is a bit much.
Interesting. I'd buy one now if it's available here. Btw, have anyone heard of the Fisker Karma? Which one is better?
Elon Musk is a dick. Try posting some real news.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/10/technology/copeland_tesla.fortune/index.htm
as oil price increases, the electricity per unit price increase, too.
Moreover, the curve of the e-bill is not linear while the the gas price per gallon is linear.
Unless I have some solar panels on the roof, I won't consider such an e-car
Damn, I just spent 100,000 on clothes...oh well, next year.
NO one has mentioned the electrical hazard....at a party with emergency personel ( fireman and medics ) they voiced a concern that in a crash, the car could become charged and therefore hazardous to rescue personal and the occupants ........IT'S THE AMPERAGE NOT THE VOLTS THAT KILL....the ultimate is a car that runs on water ......separating the oxygen from the hydrogen for fuel .....you are thinking stone age still
Do you have any idea how much energy is involved in doing that?
Hmm. Let me think. The amount of energy used to seperate the hydrogen and the oxygen from the water COULD BE BETTER USED TO JUST POWER THE CAR.
Question: Did you go to school? You know that burning hydrogen (either directly or in a fuel cell) makes water, right? Maybe you were out the day where they explained that energy doesn't come from nowhere.
Thats a Lotus Elise right ?!?!?!?!
Rick
http://FriendSite.com
No - it's a Tesla Roadster. You read the article, right?
I love this car because it is a viable choice to reduce energy dependence.
http://ashendorf.com/jacob/chives.html
I hope they did not recruit a Chrysler exec to help with the transmittion issue.
the guy who started this company is an idiot. got lucky 2x in the .com boom. i expect nothing from it.