Don't even bother with that
BRABUS overhaul, as you can now get a
Roadster with 15 percent more peak power and a 0 to 60 time of 3.7 seconds right from the factory. Out of seemingly nowhere, Tesla Motors has just announced the lovingly refined Roadster Sport, which arrives with a hand-wound stator and increased winding density for lower resistance and higher peak torque. You'll also notice Yokohama Ultra High Performance tires, improved suspension with adjustable dampers and anti-roll bars that will be tuned to the driver's preference. The automaker is taking orders now in the US ($128,500 and up) and Europe (starts at €112,000), with deliveries slated to begin in late June -- oh, and if you're currently on the waiting list for a
standard Roadster, you most certainly can scratch the upgrade itch.
posted Jan 11th 2009 12:10PM
Yes you are the first SuperHomo, and by the way grow up.
As about the car.. I 'll let some other to buy it..
probably to someone that will add a big sticker like "I got lot of cash" on the frond of the car.
On the other hand India (which is not surprise) is making electric cars years now, that are in a good price (around $2000) small in size and eco friendly.
But a BRABUS version of this car would be even more awesome :)
In reply to the first comment, NO electric (battery powered) cars are eco-friendly. Coal has to be burnt in power stations to produce the electricity to charge them... Only the new Honda Clarity is truly eco-friendly, and that isn't battery powered. Also, do you know if the car you are referring to is built in an eco-friendly factory? Are their workers paid fairly too?
Just to say, before a torrent of abuse, I recycle, and care about the earth, but i'm not an eco-freak. Heck, my Dad drives a 5.5L twin supercharged V8.
I'm tired of this electric is "coal" shit. sure in America where you still use massive amounts of coal, get your country to use hydro electric like in Canada or nuclear(ultimately the least damaging to the environment, even when compared to solar)
also dont forget while I also support hydrogen fuels, it takes ELECTRICITY to convert water to hydrogen, and only at 30% efficiency compared to near 100% when used straight to battery reserves.
Baines93 said: "Only the new Honda Clarity is truly eco-friendly, and that isn't battery powered."
The Honda Clarity is powered by hydrogen, which is made by putting water through electrolysis which requires a fairly large amount of electricity. How is it any better?
@Baines93
Oh my god, do we really have to keep beating this dead horse??? An electric vehicle is a better alternative even if you live in Wyoming which produces ungodly amounts of C02 and pollution from their many coal plants.
1) Even if we are talking about non-green power plants burning coal or hydrocarbons for power, Industrial scale power plants can use specialized materials, techniques, and infrastructure that enhances electricity production efficiency. As many are aware, internal combustion engines in vehicles are unbelievably inefficient; most of the energy stored in the chemical bonds of petroleum is lost to the environment as heat. Similarly, large facilities can use advanced modern technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
2) Just the centralization of power production also has many environmental benefits. Similar to the benefits of production, large facilities can also use specialized emissions and pollution control technology that is too expensive, too large, or just impractical to use in individual vehicles. Also, having all the carbon emissions centralized into a relatively small number of facilities makes regulation and oversight much simpler than managing individual vehicle emissions standards. And when new environmental and pollution control technology becomes available, it is much simpler to retrofit a few dozen power plants than 30 million vehicles.
3) The environmental (and geo-political/national security) impact of hybrid-electric vehicles is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, tidal energy, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the plugin hybrid vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
4) Over the next two decades, analysts expect an explosion in the distributed energy market through
future small-scale renewable energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, this power cannot be harnessed for use with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
Okay, all fair points. Thanks for the insight.
Also, in France electric cars are pretty eco, shame more of the world don't use Nuclear power.
(also, im from the UK, which is probably just as bad as the US when it comes to burning coal? Am i right?)
A Brabus version would make the world turn instead of the car. I think Brabus are petrol/diesel only.
Where did the Superhobos Comment go ?? I see only my reply... ????
Is it deleted ? Does Engadget deletes comments ? Could this be true ?
Gee, you can't take a stupid joke.
Anyway, I have no idea. Another guy replied to me too, his comment is also gone.
This is a reply to your first comment, since engadget doesn't allow continuos threading:
If you're talking about the G-Wiz, that's not even classified as a car, it's a quadricycle. As such it doesn't have to stick to normal safety standards. It is also horribly inefficient with it's lead-acid batteries, getting MAYBE 30 miles per charge. It can barely fit one person, much less two. If you want to take up less space on the road and save money get a scooter, moped or small motorbike. Not only are they cheaper, smaller and will get you farther they are probably more comfortable as well.
I totally agree with you Charlie Taylor. I just don't think that the electric cars would be something that only rich people can afford. I wish the industries would decide to massive produce electric cars like the oil based ones and not just think about making them.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/19/a-note-on-comments/
Yes, Engadget can do whatever Engadget pleases.
Thank you Charlie Calhoun. I was not aware of the existence of this article.
Now I know (according to the article that you showed me) that posting is a privilege and not a right.
You 've been very helpful.
Why did they delete my comment? WHY???
;_;
They felt like it.
because they are big brother and we are nobody
Top Gear reviewed this. They seemed to like it until it's battery ran out (Which didn't take long at all).
I was under the impression that they reviewed the standard Tesla.
Actually the battery never ran out on the shoot. They said the battery COULD run out after 50 miles of track time (which is basically the worst thing possible for testing economy) but the real world figure for use is about 200 miles. Their 16 hour charging time was also based on a standard socket, but when you buy a tesla roadster they supply a high voltage charger that can do it in about 4 hours.
Also, top gear didn't review this particular model, they reviewed the original roadster.
No, the battery didn't run out. But it would have after 54 miles.
The 16 hour charging was not based upon a "standard socket" (if you mean US socket). A US socket takes more like 26 hours. The 16 hours is a standard UK circuits, which is high voltage like the special circuits in the US, but not high current. Yes, Tesla provides a charger which can charge faster, if given a 240V, 70A circuit to connect it to. The problem is in the UK and Europe, getting that 240V, 70A circuit is very problematic (opinions vary, but everyone says it's more difficult than getting one in the US). So UK customers are probably looking at 16 hour charge times. Of course, if you don't run it all the way down, your charge times will go down. So if you only use 2/3rds of the charge, the car should charge in 12 hours.
Well gentlemen, in that case I offer to you my sincerest apologies.
What are you guys talking about? I just saw that episode the other week and toxicpiano is right, the battery did run out. They still liked the car though.
In any case, personally I'd rather they stop trying to "pimp out" the original roadster and instead concentrate on getting those more "mundane" and more "reasonably priced" models out on the streets.
Tesla never ran out in Top Gears test.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/top-gear-fudged.html
Oh man! I didn't know that.
It kinda sucks. I mean I know Clarkson isn't a fan of "green" cars but to just outright lie like that, that's not cool. I've lost a bit of respect for the man :(
Man or woman (not sure) your post was stupid but what they did was evil !!
and you know what? They did it to me too.
That was a reply to Superhobo.. sorry for missplacing.
I know it was stupid.
It's not that I don't care about freedom of speech and stuff, but the truth is they own this site, and I for one welcome our Engadget overlords.
You replied with a First style comment. It's not overlord-ish to delete your useless drivel. You should've had your entire internet privileges revoked for like 3 hours for that.
Because if you're making First! comments on Engadget, you need a break.
Thats what SHE said!
Sorry, I feel annoying today.
I am sorry Ryan Trevisol but I think that this is AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
SuperHobo's comment as far as I can recall it was something like..
"It's so cheap and I ll order five of these.
FIRST!!"
Of course a "FIRST"-type comment deserves a low rank or some replies but since it had no offensive content there is no reason nor its right to delete it but they have all the rights.
"This is a part of the rules included also to this site"
13. NO DUTY TO MONITOR.
"You agree that we are not liable for Content that is provided by others. We have no duty to pre-screen Content, but we have the right to refuse to post or to edit submitted Content. We reserve the right to remove Content for any reason, but we are not responsible for any failure or delay in removing such material. "
I think this talk is finished. :-(
Sheesh. It was spam.
man, these cars are absolutely beautiful, electric or not. if i had 130 grand just sittin around it wouldnt take me long to get on a plane to LA and take this baby for a test drive...
"...anti-roll bars that will be tuned to the driver's preference"
What, do we crash, wipe out and roll across the road a few times until we get the "feel" we are looking for?
anti-roll bars are structural supports that counteracts the "leaning" that a car does in cornering, this is called "body roll".
You're thinking of plain 'ol roll bars or a roll cage. Entirely different thing.
It comes with a free copy of the "I am Rich" iPhone app. iPhone not included.
where's iEye saying his shitty muscle car can beat this? How fast is that thing's top speed, 100?
He was trying to brag, but then ended up looking like a poor person saying he only got a subpar muscle car because that was all he could afford.
The all black wheels makes the car look ugly. That would be the first thing that would need to be changed.
IMO, the black wheels are fine; the only thing better would be time attacks which would flow great with the current red & black scheme. Chrome or silver coloured wheels however, would be terrible.
This is kinda ho-hum for me. I'm sure it's now quicker than the Tango, which is nice. But I'm not sure that was really what this car needed to become a better car. It's already fast, what it needs to do is appeal to a lot more people.
A $128,000 3.7 sec 0-60 2-seater roadster is not going to bring about the EV car revolution (the decline of the ICE) any more than a $105,000 4.7 sec 0-60 2-seater roadster will.
The thing is that SOMEONE has to make it. Without the halo products and testing platforms we would never advance in technology. Once you make an electric car that can go really really fast that means you can make an electric car that really really efficient as well because speed needs efficiency.
Tesla has already stated that they've got a major manufacturer as a business partner to license to, and if they'd never made the Roadster that technology would have taken a lot longer to get to mass market.
This car probably also has a higher profit margin, which means Tesla will make more money, which is a good thing cause they need it.
I have to agree in principle with LS2LS7. Tesla makes a lot of noise, but they are unable to deliver an actual product to the masses. What the world needs (I'm talking to you Elon) is...wait for it...an AFFORDABLE car that is all electric. Only your VC friends can buy them, which makes your cars gadgets - more like tchotchkes - rather than a true automotive brand/platform. Deliver a 4-door sedan with V6-comparable performance for under 40K and the world will take notice. Note: "deliver" means actual production and offering of vehicles.
I agree that someone has to do this kind of technology & performance, but why put a price tag on the vehicle? You're never going to manufacture it in mass. Just put it out as a concept car, and work on delivering something that everyone can buy, and do it before Fuel Cell tech passes you by. (You'll have to turn your head because they are driving in your blind spot now.)
I still don't get the attraction of electric cars. As a supercar I can understand someone buying it, but just plain electric cars? I don't understand the attraction.
uhhh...maybe it's because an electric car like the Tesla can provide 200+ miles on a single charge at a price o about8 cents/kwh here in Ontario which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than paying for fuel. No matter how low that gas prices are right now theres no comparison here, electricity is cheaper.Period. Tesla predicts it would cost 1 cent in electricity costs to drive one mile in the original Tesla, so you can see that 200 miles = 400 cents = 4 dollars. even if they are off by a huge amount like 10 cents a mile its only 20 dollars to fill up for 200 mile worth of driving.
Also, an electric car has all of its available power there from the start, not like engines where you might produce 400hp but only at 4500 rpm when the engine is running optimally. So, acceleration is QUICK and you get 100% of the torque all the time. Basically, makes for a pleasurable driving experience, only down side is that the Tesla is a little bit hefty for a sports car
oh hot damn.
i wake up in the morning and i look at this car and i JIZZED IN MY PANTS
I woke up, read your comment and threw up in my mouth a little.
Does anyone know how much it costs (kWh are fine; I can convert to local rates) to charge this thing? I'd like to get some idea of the "MPG" equivalent cost. What's the "fuel" cost to drive this thing, say, 50 miles at normal highway speeds? (No, I'm not thinking of buying one. I'm just curious.)