The Tesla Roadster, powered by more than 6,800 lithium-ion batteries, can go zero to 60 mph in about four seconds. Top speed: 130 mph. Wired News has the full story here.
It has taken [Martin] Eberhard three years to get this prototype ready for mass production, but with the backing of PayPal cofounder Elon Musk, Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and ex-eBay chief Jeff Skoll, he has created Silicon Valley's first real auto company.Question: Is this thing gonna work?
The trick? The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries -- the same cells that run a laptop computer. Range: 250 miles. Fuel efficiency: 1 to 2 cents per mile. Top speed: more than 130 mph. The first cars will be built at a factory in England and are slated to hit the market next summer. And Tesla Motors, Eberhard's company, is already gearing up for a four-door battery-powered sedan.
21 comments:
Why don't you think it'll work?
Cuz it goes for $80k?
It'll come down, and they'll make cheaper models. It goes from 0-60 mph in like THREE seconds. Silently. It's designed by LOTUS. 250 miles on a charge. That's what killed the GM electric car. it only went about 100 miles on a charge.
People will pay for it.
The Li-ion batteries you're worried about?
These guys are in Silicon Valley. They're well aware of the travails of Dell and Apple over their laptop batteries. I'm sure they've tested the heck out of 'em. If anything does go wrong though, it'll be that.
had a toaster that looked just like that car back in ought-73. It worked just fine 'til we put bread in it. The batteries tasted pretty good, though.
Don't trust that 250 mile range. That would be on level ground under ideal conditions. In hilly areas like Portland and many other communisties, going uphill takes more power and significantly reduces range.
Another matter to think of is the recharging of over 6800 batteries. It takes electricity to recharge them and it must come from somewhere. The extra electricty that must be produced to recharge batters would likely result in increased pollution elsewhere, at the point of production.
Rechargeable batteries are only good for so many recharges. They aren't cheap and if they must be replaced together, that's nearly $7,000, provided batteries are only $1 each.
Once replaced, where do they go? More pollution?
It might be a nice toy, but with an $80,000 pricetag, don't expect to see them around town, especially if people realize the true cost of electric cars.
slew, you'd do yourself well to actually read, at least, the Wired article about the car.
Khaldun, you would do well to have 40 years in the automotive trade yourself before lecturing me on cars. I've been listening to claims about all these miracle cars for years and yet, every year we receive the same old internal combustion engined cars.
If you think this car is the answer, by all means, cough up the $80,000 and buy one. I'll laugh at you as I pass you going up hill as your batteries grow weak.
It takes me mere minutes to refil the gas tank on my truck. How long will it take to recharge some 6800 batteries every 250 miles, on flat land?
"It takes me mere minutes to refil the gas tank on my truck. How long will it take to recharge some 6800 batteries every 250 miles, on flat land?"
Read the article, you might find out..
Duh, Khaldun, I don't have to read any articles. I've been a mechanic for well over 40 years now and have seen these miracle cars come and go.
Odd how you will buy anything an electric car manufacturer will tell you, but deny things said by Republicans, even though they stare you in the face.
Manufacturers of new items always glorify their wares to sell them. Next thing you know, they'll be trying to sell us a car that turns intoa boat or can also fly. Wait, they already did that and they weren't exactly what they were claimed to be either.
When you get the green from behind your ears, come talk to me.
Okay, Khaldun, a couple of points from your precious article, just to show you why this is a boondoggle.
Way down towards the end, we read; When connected to a special 220-volt, 70-amp outlet, recharging takes about three and a half hours.
A "SPECIAL 220V 70 amp outlet?" Then, 3 1/2 hours? Any guess how much 3 1/2 hours hooked up to a "SPECIAL 220V 70 amp outlet" will cost?
Another significant point for you, since most won't be able to afford the $80,000 projected cost of the sports car and a family sedan is being worked on; Of course, the sedan won't be as lightweight or aerodynamic as the Roadster, so its range is likely to drop significantly.
Even claiming the battery's will be improved by the time it is ready, there is no guaruntee of that yet.
Technology is fast paced and quickly improving, but sometimes, it even outpaces itself and turns out to just make things worse.
For my money, I'm looking forward to hydrogen cells being perfected, hopefully soon, but only time will tell.
Dang slew, did your dog die this week or something?
You're rather hostile to a simple suggestion you actually read about the car. You're the one asking all the questions that are answered in the article..
Although you claim my opinion on the subject, and that I'm "lecturing you on cars," you might re-read my comments and notice I've done neither. That's the problem with being a "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of guy. You should work on that.
oink oink
Guys
You need to go to this web sight . They will tell you that the range is going to be less , the range is figured the same way that the epa sets it for gas cars.
The biggest draw back that I see is the batteries . Only 500 cycles than its time to replace them. and the cost on other cars is around 35k for li-ion batteries . all that aside I would still like to have one I think it would be kick to drive.
Uh, Khaldun, did you somehow miss the quotes I posted from the article? If I quote from it, there's a reasonable chance I actually read it.
The car will be a nice toy for some to play around town with, but for a family sedan, it won't work well.
As tnr brings out, the cycles for the batteries will be about 500. Batteries haven't gotten very cheap and even the article itself claims the sedan model would have "significantly less range."
Tnr is also correct on EPA mileage estimates for cars and trucks. I see people almost everyday bring their cars and trucks in complaining that it isn't getting the mileage the sticker said it should. They miss where the sticker says actual mileage varies upon person driving and type of driving.
With all the testing they do with this car, I will be interested to see how they actually work out with John Q. Public. All manufacturers learn how their cars work, after all the testing and such, only once the public gets ahold of them.
Like I said, it's going to be a nice toy, but I doubt it will replace the internal combustion engine just yet.
Would I like a car that can go 0-60 in 3 seconds?
YES
Would I like a car that can do that with virtually no NOISE (an oft neglected benefit to purely electric cars)?
YES
Would I pay that much money for it?
NO
If the price could be cut in half, and if they could guarantee 5 years/50K miles before the batteries are too degraded to give a full charge, and if they could guarantee that the cost to replace the batteries would be no more than a few grand (comparable to many other major overhauls that come after the warranty expires on normal cars), then...
Then, I would probably be interested in one as a "second" car for driving around town or short road trips. But I would NOT have one as my only means of transport. For one thing, even with a 250 mile range on a full charge no matter what the driving habits or terrain, I *still* wouldn't be able to make a round trip to Bend or to my in-laws on the Coast. If it takes a special outlet to charge, you are limited to about 100 miles radius with limited driving at your destination.
But for daily driving around town, it would be fun for getting to and from work, running small errands, etc., knowing that you could plug it in at home and charge it over night.
Now, the big question is, can we as a society produce enough electricity, cheaply enough, to get any real "benefit" from a fleet of these cars? Right now, the answer is...
NO.
We can't build nuclear plants. We can't improve (or even some would say sustain) hydroelectic plants because we can't hurt the fish. Burning more fossil fuel to make electricity merely moves the problem from the tailpipe to the smokestack (and makes the problem worse, because you lose efficiency when you add in another step to covert energy to electricity to motion, as opposed to merely converting energy to motion). And electricity costs are rising just like gasoline.
Giving everyone in the state one of these cars, without changing our energy infrastructure, would actually HARM the environment and cost us all more in energy (not even factoring in replacing batteries).
But, being an evil conservative Republican, I obviously want to burn down every tree, eat the resulting charbroiled spotted owls, and wash it all down with arsenic-water, so what do I know?
Here's what I know:
I know that I would like one of these cars when they get the price down and the durability up, because a neat looking car that can quietly get to 60 mph in under 4 seconds is FUN, no matter how you power it. And I know I want to have a big ol' diesel truck for long trips and carrying stuff.
Who says I can't have both?
What's more:
After re-reading the article and focusing not on the car but on the business model, the design process, etc., all I can say is
WOW.
This company is going places. The battery technology is driven by the computer industry which tends to double performance and half the cost every 18 months. I can see these folks marketing a large truck or SUV with a 500+ mile range that plugs into a standard 120 VAC outlet within 5 years, and doing it at prices that beat gasoline engines.
I'd buy stock if I were you. Today's car is a toy. Tomorrow's could change the world.
Party affiliation has nothing to do with this issue (one would think / hope).
It's new technology, and like all new technologies, it's only going to get cheaper and more accessible over time.
You have to start somewhere, right?
This is a VERY cool thing, and I hope the project evolves into something that can benefit all of us sometime soon.
gullyborg hits it on the head. Moore's law will definitely play a large role in the development of this technology. How quickly depends on how much cash there is to throw at it.
In my opinion, any and all alternative fuel solutions should pay attention to their possible pollution contribution, but should focus on ending our dependence on foreign fossil fuel.
(two great posts by gullyborg, btw)
Any guess how much 3 1/2 hours hooked up to a "SPECIAL 220V 70 amp outlet" will cost?
No need to guess. You can calculate it. Based on the national average of $0.085/kW-hr, I get less than $4. Hmmm, $4 for my weeks commuting vs. $40 for a fill-up of regular. Plus, no waiting in line. Hook it up before you go to bed, and it's recharged in the morning.
No wonder lew is in car sales - He certainly sold me on it!
trr, you seem to be a bit confused. First, I am not in sales. I am a technician, been twisting wrenches for over 40 years now. Never even tried to sell.
Just plugging it in at night may be a bit more than you realize. Did you miss that it calls for a "special outlet?"
Like I said before, it's going to be a great toy for puttering around town. Even the manufacturer states the range will be "significantly reduced" in the family sedan model.
If on a trip, do you really wish to stop every 250 miles, or less, and wait around for 3 1/2 hours for a recharge?
While I think this may be a good first step towards a truly reliable electric car, the technology still hasn't been perfected to make it replace the internal combustion engine. Yes, it will be replaced in time.
Just because it is associated with computer technology, don't expect it to decrease much in price either. When it comes to cars, the government has way too many regulations for them, beyond emmissions.
So far, it appears to me to be another Rich Boys Toy. Time will tell.
I'll still put my money on hydrogen cells.
Lew
on most electric cars the special outlet is ths same plug in for your drier
tnr, I realize that. But if you visit Teslas website, they show an entirely new style outlet that must be hard wired into your home by a licensed contractor. When away from home, who knows?
As we have noted, 250 mile range is under optimum conditions. Most all of us never drive under optimum conditions.
On their website, they are telling all to lobby their Representatives for an income tax incentive to buy it. At the price tag slated, that will be a tax break again only to the wealthiest. I doubt even Tom Potter would be willing to buy a fleet of them for Portland's poverty stricken.
Add to that Americans love affair with amenities. We love our air conditioning and with todays systems, even if a cycling system, it must be powered. Even if a minimal draw, it will draw energy away from the motor.
We like power steering and power brakes. Again, a pump needs to be installed for the steering. Tesla says it does not have power steering, but how long before the public demands it? Power brakes are vacuum actuated. Like a diesel, an electric motor doesn't produce vacuum, so, a vacuum pump must be used, drawing away a little more energy.
Internal combustion engines use coolant to produce heat for the passengers during cold seasons. Will the new electrics have an electric heater instead? There are heaters for the batteries, will that be enough for the interior? Will there be an increased draw on the batteries to sufficently heat the interior if the battery heater isn't sufficient?
I read another article on it in Technology Today, giving the same kudos. However, they listed the proposed price as between $85,000 and $120,000.
Naturally, the manufacturer is lauding all the positive points of it, all companies do. People flocked to hybrids a couple years ago for much the same reason and many were sorely disappointed, getting about half the advertised and expected fuel mileage.
What about servicing it? According to Teslas site, there will be servicecenters for them in the 5 key market centers in the country, Northern California, Southern California, Chicago, New York, and Florida. They don't recommend taking it elsewhere, naturally. It calls for little or no maintenance the first 100,000 miles, other than brakes and tires. Others have claimed this also and once it was in the hands of the public, they found out different. While conventional maintenance won't be a problem, what other maintenance may come up? Even electric motors have bearings that require some sort of lubrication. As anything built and designed by humans, it is subject to a breakdown. Tesla says they doubt that will happen. There is no machinery built that doesn't breakdown occassionally.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is a bad idea or a bad car, only John Q. Public using it for some time will decide that. But, as a family car, I think it will fail because if you take a trip in it, can you afford to stop every 250 miles (provided you can get the optimum performance) and sit around for 3 1/2 hours waiting for a recharge? Even with the mobile charger it is equipped with, you need someones electricity to plug into and they will wish to profit from it. Normal business.
Even if the cost is only $4.00 to recharge at home, what will it be on the road? Will recharging stations be plentiful enough to even make a trip? If stuck in frequent traffic jams, such as between Portland and Vacouver every night and morning, how much is this going to decrease actual range? Will it require more frequent recharges? Filling my truck costs me about $40 now and lasts me between two and three weeks. If heavy traffic causes the Tesla to be recharged more frequently, depending on just how often, it could cost as much if not more than filling up my truck.
Computers are not infallible, either. Anyone with Windows should know that, LOL. For all different reasons, they also fail at times.
I mention all this because I see people everyday complaining because they didn't think about their new car purchase first and have unrealistic expectations about the car they bought. I even had one lady complaining because her white car got dirty when she drove it, in the winter here!
I also noted the lack of any expressed warranty for it on their site. Americans love having warranties.
For right now, I think the car is going to be someone's toy, much like the Viper and Prowler were. I hope they do well with it and continue perfecting it. I just don't think the general public is going to warm up to it as much as some think they will.
Sorry Lew, I missed the part about you being a mechanic.
You're still stuck on the idea that the electricity costs will be high.
I came up with about $4. Did you miss that?
I guess I'd have to agree with you that it isn't a practical car for long trips. But what percentage of driving is long trips? For me, it's close to zero, and I suspect for a lot of people that's the case.
You have some valid points against it, particularly as a family car, as you put it. I don't think anyone is claiming it's family car. For now, I'll agree with you. . . it's a rich boy's toy.
I think you're right if your conclusion is that this particular car isn't going to compete with Toyotas or the like, but I still think it's a great development and a precursor of things to come. I also think some people are going to buy them.
trr, I will agree that some will sell. Even when the family version comes out, some will sell.
As for trip taking, most people can only afford one car. I feel they will be sorely disappointed if this one is their only one, for trips and such. Even tooling around town, I think they will have a hard time acheiving optimum peformance.
Still, I give them credit for bringing electrics as this forward. It is a step in the right direction.
A thought I had years ago, but technology still hasn't caught up, would be to attach some sort of generator to the wheels to partially recharge the batteries as they drove. No, it would not perpetually keep the batteries recharged, but it might lengthen the range a bit. Will have to wait for more technology as I'm sure I'm not the only person to think like that.
As for your $4 rate, no argument, if they recharge at home. However, if out on the road, surely there will be a profit margin built in by whoever supplies recharge stations.
Sooner or later, technology will win out and cars as this, or even hydrogen cells, will be good enough to replace the internal combustion engine, or at least, get off our dependence on fossil fuels. What still irritates me, is we had a strong warning 30 years
ago and they did nothing about it.
Better late than never, I guess.
Post a Comment