Tesla's Roadster rolls 241 miles on single charge, annoys petrol pumps

If one drives the Roadster "as it was intended to be driven," you'll probably only get around 125 miles out of it before things slowly grind to a halt. If you toss on your economy shoes and take things a bit easier, it's apparently possible to get well over 200 miles on a single charge. As the story goes, Tesla's first all-electric whip managed to cruise 241 miles in a Monte Carlo e-rally, running from the town of Valance in France to the Principality of Monaco. Better still, the vehicle's battery meter showed 36 miles left on the "tank" when it crossed the finish line, giving it a theoretical range of around 280 miles. If all these figures hold up under critical scrutiny, Tesla will set the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production EV on a single charge. Now, if only it could set the world record for most EVs actually produced by an EV company, we'd really feel the need to celebrate.

[Via Slashdot]

[MeII @ Apr 13th 2009 2:32AM]

zoom baby zoom

[Pretol @ Apr 13th 2009 2:56AM]

Mazda would like you know that only Mazda vehicles "with a soul of a sports car"(tm) are legally permitted to "zoom-zoom".

All other vehicles have to use the "vroom-vroom" in a more generic fashion.

[Frankenstein Black @ Apr 13th 2009 1:25PM]

Not "vroom-vroom" but "shush shush" on account of the car not generating any motor noise. Just sayin...

[Light Speed @ Apr 13th 2009 2:33AM]

why does engadget cover a car (that wont sell to more than 100 people this year)? leave it to autobloggreen.

next, who cares about this pos. Have you seen the interior? its a bunch of the worst grade plastic.

the roadster is just a rebadged lotus elise with powerpacks, no innovation and nothing this blog should cover.

[CraigJ @ Apr 13th 2009 2:50AM]

Wrong.

The Tesla is EXACTLY the same as the Elise, except it has:
a totally different drivetrain
totally different body panels
totally different aluminum tub
totally different rear sub-frame
totally different brakes and ABS system
totally different HVAC
totally different rear suspension
and doesn't have the Lotus's gas tank, emissions equipment or exhaust.

So if by "rebadged Lotus" you mean the Tesla has the same windshield, dashboard, front wishbones and soft top as the Elise, and nothing else, you are correct.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tesla+is+not+a+lotus+elise

[Tohe @ Apr 13th 2009 4:46AM]

@CraigJ

I think the only thing that stayed were the side mirrors lol.

[Mobius_1 @ Apr 13th 2009 5:55AM]

@ Tohe

Not completely related, but I'd just like to add that mirror-sharing is rather common and can come up in unexpected places.

The VW Corrado shares its mirrors with...
...
...
The McLaren F1!

[KilgoreTrout @ Apr 13th 2009 6:30AM]

Why do you feel the need to talk about something you obviously don't know jack shit about?
The Tesla (which should have been called the Tezla) is the most exciting and innovative land moving vehicle in existence atm.
The first totally electrical vehicle I ever wished to own; I just hope to see them soon in showrooms and specially silently and cleanly whizzing about on the streets

[Information Central @ Apr 13th 2009 7:31PM]

The guy has a point. This car exists only as a few specimens at astronomical prices, making it only a step above vaporware.

When guys can turn Datsuns into world-record-setting electric drag racers in their garage, a company with engineers and manufacturing resources should damn well be able to make a kick-ass electric car for under $35,000.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing

[Edsel @ Apr 14th 2009 3:56AM]

"PETROL pumps?" What is this? Engadget UK!?!?!?!

Apparently few of you are aware of the sub US$35K Aptera (unfortunately initially only to be available in California). For a commute back-and-forth to/from work conveyance (where most Americans do most of their driving), it is ideal. It probably won't be ideal for those of you who enjoy driving 200+ miles deep into the remotest areas of the planet, as far away as humanly possible from any source of electricity.

http://www.aptera.com

Optimally all EV mfrs. will one day get together on a universal power pack so spent ("flat") batteries can be swapped with fresh ones at "battery" stations in a matter of seconds.

[leitxo @ Apr 13th 2009 2:36AM]

Whoever made that chargeable battery needs to start making them for phones.

A car can go 200+ miles on a single charge yet my darn cellphone can't make it past 3 hours of good use on a single charge.

-LeiTxo

[Lando Calrissian @ Apr 13th 2009 2:47AM]

Your battery situation somehow reminds me of the iPhone...

[CraigJ @ Apr 13th 2009 2:51AM]

My 18 month old iPhone lasts a couple of days on a charge with moderate usage.

[Lando Calrissian @ Apr 13th 2009 3:21AM]

My 15 month old iPod touch doesn't get 3 hours of good use out of it.

[Michael Scrip @ Apr 13th 2009 4:05AM]

>> "My 15 month old iPod touch doesn't get 3 hours of good use out of it."

Turn off WIFI.

You don't need your MP3 player constantly searching for wireless internet access.

[Jamie M @ Apr 13th 2009 5:50AM]

I think you've come close to asking an important question here leitxo. My mobile phone battery, along with most other Li-ion batteries has a quoted lifetime of around 300 cycles. In my experience, you can start to see significant drop off in performance long before this point. When people purchase cars, they usually expect them to last a long time - comfortably 10 years. Although I accept that people buying high end sports vehicles swap them more often than this, they usually hope for at least a fractional resale value.

Will the owner of this car have to spend £x,000 every couple of years to replace the battery kit?

[Mobius_1 @ Apr 13th 2009 5:56AM]

Hey leitxo, good point, and time to get a new phone. :)

[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (BarCODE) @ Apr 13th 2009 5:59AM]

It all depends on how you cycle your battery. I tend to deep cycle all of my rechargeable batteries (Li-On, NiMh, NiCD, Lead Acid) and get many years of trusty service out of them.

[kadajawi @ Apr 13th 2009 6:47AM]

I feel you. Motorola A925 or G1?

Trouble is: These phones and the Tesla consume about as much energy and probably have similar batteries, just that the Tesla has, uh, slightly more batteries.

[LostPhil @ Apr 13th 2009 10:27AM]

If you re-watch the Top Gear episode I think you'll find that they didn't lie about the battery charge at all. He only said if he carried on driving it as it was, it'd do significantly less miles than quoted. That was jumped on by loads of people as him slagging it off when I'm fairly sure quite a few people would take the 200 odd mile range as a given no matter the driving. I don't think it was a bad point at all, even if their estimates were out.

Yes, it's exaggerated but at the same time, you will get screwed if you're expecting to get somewhere 200 miles away (or even a 100 mile 2 way trip which isn't unreaonable even in England) and decide to put your boot down at some point along the way. THAT's why electric cars can't be a decent replacement for petrol/diesel. What are you going to do when it does go and miles away from where you can charge it?

It's still a HUGE drawback of electric cars and there's no point in playing it down, no matter how much of an achievement this car is.

[LostPhil @ Apr 13th 2009 10:35AM]

Errr, directed at the thread below...Oops

[Frankenstein Black @ Apr 13th 2009 1:37PM]

I have swap-ion batteries (2 batteries for the G1 that I simply swap when needed). How's that for cutting edge battery technology ;^)...

[Saad Rabia @ Apr 13th 2009 2:37AM]

Yet, the bag heads at Top Gear made this car seem like a brain cancer on four wheels. What a bunch of chimps, jumping for the money.

[darkmax @ Apr 13th 2009 2:57AM]

when they got the unit that Tesla provided, it was full of glitches. This current model is probably a much improved model, especially after Top Gear gave their comments.

I'm a Top Gear fan! Love the distinctly discriminating jokes and comments. Love it!

[Pretol @ Apr 13th 2009 3:13AM]

Top Gear is a bunch of pansies, talking douche about cars. They'll over-exaggerated everything and make a dramatic video of a driver doing some irrelevant douchbaggary to illustrate some douche point.

"Oh, this car is fast" [movie of car flying by the camera]
"But it handles poorly" [clip of a driver doing dumbass things mid-corner to upset the balance]
"The heater works wonderful" [clip of a douchebag toasting bread in the air vents]
"The front lights are very bright" [overexposed clip of the supposed 'bright' lights]
"The seats aren't comfortable" [clip of a douche visiting a chiropractor]

They did this dumb clip when the reviewed the Ariel Atom (awesome car)
"OMG, the car is so fast", and then the fat douche proceeds to drive the car without a helmet (now wait, the car has NO WINSHIELD). Of course the wind blows into his face in a very "fast" fashion. Well, fuck! Stick your head out the window in your Yugo, and you skin will stretch in the same fashion. What did that demonstrate? Absolutely nothing.

[Mike P. @ Apr 13th 2009 4:09AM]

You guys seem to be mistaking Top Gear for some sort of objective car review show.

Top Gear is a car-themed entertainment show. And it's great at doing that. Sure, they twist facts, rig things, and edit things to get the effect they want, but they do it first and foremost in the name of entertainment. If you watch it expecting objective reviews, realistic comparisons, and genuine facts and specifications, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Top Gear TV isn't automotive journalism.

Just sit back and enjoy the humour--flip to Fifth Gear or any number of other car shows, or crack open a magazine for something more factual.

[Oli D @ Apr 13th 2009 5:23AM]

If you know fuck all about cars, Top Gear is most likely your favourite program.
Also, if you are under 10.

I still love it, but just for entertainment.

Its sad to see that 5th gear have started to slip off the high ground and descend into Top Gear's antics slightly...

[rento @ Apr 13th 2009 5:27AM]

I agree with Mike but at the same time Top Gear did go a step too far with the Tesla. I am a fan and prefer not to remeber that episode.

At the same time I know he is going to re-balance his view on the Tesla, time has proven that the car is solid and does what it says on the tin.

[stephen @ Apr 13th 2009 2:37AM]

cool, but the human race is still fucked

[you @ Apr 13th 2009 2:38AM]

i swear to god i want to club baby seals every time someone calls a car a "whip"

[Oli D @ Apr 13th 2009 5:29AM]

Lets apply this statement to the British party political system.

I swear to Gordon Brown I want to club baby politicians (David Miliband) every time someone calls Nick Brown a "whip"

[Mobius_1 @ Apr 13th 2009 5:57AM]

Are you guys Max Mosley? :)

[EvanS @ Apr 13th 2009 1:19PM]

@you -

You mean a hwip?

[Chris @ Apr 13th 2009 11:33PM]

you mean cool hwip?

[Dave Ellis @ Apr 13th 2009 2:45AM]

The problem isn't how far it goes on a charge. It is how long it takes to recharge it afterwards. The best estimate for a full recharge I have seen is 3.5 hours. 3.5 hours isn't that long in the grand scheme of things but it is 3.5 hours longer than it takes to fill a petrol tank. So if your destination is 300 miles away, you need to stop to charge it? You need an entire other car, just to go on a long distance trip.

I have no doubt the Tesla is a great little car. But the problems with it aren't little niggly things - they are massive issues. Great idea, but needs to be worked on before it is a realistic option.

[Pretol @ Apr 13th 2009 2:51AM]

There's no problem. It's a limitation. Otherwise everything becomes a "problem".

You know what the "problem" is with the petrol cars? It's that they don't fly.
You know what the "problem" is with the oranges? It's the fact that they're not apples.
and so on...

[CraigJ @ Apr 13th 2009 2:59AM]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/battery-material-0311.html

[modified @ Apr 13th 2009 4:14AM]

The sedan they are making is going to have batteries you can swap out.

[Darwin @ Apr 13th 2009 6:16AM]

Agreed, Pretol.

Last I checked, the Tesla was being marketed as a touring car as much as a Dodge Dakota was as a grocery-getter.

Also, last I checked, your basic touring car didn't get magically filled up with petrol when you went to bed every single night, or perhaps people who enjoy flogging their Teslas around town consistently put more than 100 miles on any given day.

[T-Bone @ Apr 13th 2009 9:28AM]

@Pretol and Darwin:

That limitation becomes a problem when someone wants to do what everybody does: use their car for more than some specific purpose. The Dodge Dakota may be a grocery-getter but it will do other things just as well. This orange can be an apple, maybe not the tastiest apple, but an apple nonetheless. When everyone has been buying a oranges that can also be apples, no one really wants an orange that can't also be an apple.

[Pretol @ Apr 13th 2009 2:24PM]

@T-Bone

Problem - an item doesn't perform according to specifications
Limitation - items specifications do not meet user's criteria/expectations

There's nothing wrong with the car. They're saying "this is VERY GOOD apples, but NO oranges", why would customers expect apples?

This is just language symantics at this point. And I agree that it sucks. But realistically, I drive more than 300 miles into the unknown, maybe, once/twice a year, and I don't take my two seater on those trips anyway. I don't see this as a "problem" in 99.9999999% of human lives, so I'm not sure why there's so much attention on this one scenario of a long distance travel. Is everybody going on a cross-america trip all of the sudden, thinking that a 2-door sports car with little trunk space is the way to do it?

[Stu L Tissimus @ Apr 13th 2009 2:45AM]

The Tesla Roadster's been out for quite a while, why is its range news?

[darkmax @ Apr 13th 2009 2:59AM]

Just when are they going to give us a micro-nuclear drive? AKA fuel-cell vehicle.

[br4nd0nh347 @ Apr 13th 2009 3:32AM]

You guys a missing a very important question, what happened after the rally?

(I hope they live in Monaco or pull a Chevy Volt)

[SIavash @ Apr 13th 2009 4:21AM]

Did you watch top gear season 12
they tested the Tesla and it only lasted 45 miles

[Clyzm @ Apr 13th 2009 4:27AM]

On their track, without telling you how the test was performed.

Plus... you know... it's Top Gear.

[Tohe @ Apr 13th 2009 4:44AM]

That was all staged, it was debunked and the BBC + Top Gear ended up removing the video.

[Mobius_1 @ Apr 13th 2009 5:58AM]

Ahem...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/24/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-tesla-electric-car

"Programme-makers instead showed it slowing down to illustrate what would happen when the car did run out of charge."

[kadajawi @ Apr 13th 2009 6:59AM]

Remember the episode where they filled up a few supercars with a gallon of fuel and did a race? How early they stopped? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have reached the manufacturers figures either, if the tank would have been full.

The Tesla does reach quite a distance. It uses power when it accelerates and when you break it regains power. Problem is: Clarkson was accelerating a lot, and he was doing drifts. Which means high power consumption without gaining speed, losing speed by sliding around instead of breaking. That is probably the worst case scenario short of burnouts and doughnuts.

[BBHY @ Apr 13th 2009 7:39AM]

They drove it 45 miles, but it wasn't out of charge. Then the pushed it into the garage to "simulate" what would happen if it did actually run out of charge.

In upcoming episodes I understand they plan to "simulate" what happens when a regular car gets a flat, and what happens when you run out of petrol. (Spoiler: the car stops!)