IAP Political Forum

(http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/07/electric_carx.jpg)


Zero to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds with a top speed of 125 mph. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch pedal and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go. No matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous.

Actual range depends on driving style and conditions. During testing of prototypes cars, Tesla Motors has seen between 170 miles per charge for very spirited driving to 267 miles per charge for city driving  that makes use of the Roadster's regenerative braking. Our most recent EPA driving cycle tests, conducted in December 2007 at an EPA-certified facility, resulted in the following numbers:

    * 230 mi EPA city
    * 211 mi EPA highway
    * 221 mi EPA combined (city/highway)

Keep in mind that Tesla Motors is in the midst of final development and testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident in our most recent numbers, the final results will be dependent on the car's specifications at series production. We will update our EPA range numbers once we have fully tested a production Roadster, expected in early 2008.

When you take into account the efficiency of producing the electricity it uses, the Tesla Roadster is more than twice as efficient as the most efficient hybrid car on the road. However, unlike a hybrid, the Tesla Roadster produces zero emissions and uses no gasoline. For more information, see the Energy Efficiency page on our website.

May not be good for long distances unless you have a couple hours to burn every couple hundred miles, but for every day use..........sign me up!

How long does it take to recharge?

That depends on how far the battery has been discharged and what source is being used to charge the batteries. A full charge using the Home Charging Station (included in the price of the Tesla Roadster) can be achieved in as little as 3.5 hours.

However, an electric car is a bit like a cell phone: it does not matter how long it takes to charge as long as a charge lasts all day. You plug it in when you get home, and unplug it when you leave in the morning.


Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/)

Yes I have seen these before. VERY nice but extremely cost prohibitive at the moment. Each one is assembled by hand at the moment which is VERY labor intensive.

I would love to see someone like Bill gates get behind this project but it would take someone with his financial clout who is unencumbered with Big Oil to do it.

Wicked cool car.  But with a base price of $98,000, a bit out of my range right now.

Thinking "outside the box" is what is necessary to end dependence on oil......we see the technology is possible...what happens if you are OK with 0-60 in 8 seconds instead of 4?

Half the cost?

Oh it's possible.  I can live with even slower.  They need more dealerships also, to avoid that 8K cost for not living in one of 4 or 5 cities...

The thing is though, that ALL of the technology in this auto is "off the shelf". NOTHING is proprietery, nothing is patented, they just build the car.....simple.

So why the FUCK can't a major auto maker do so?

Hell if I was a major auto maker I would think about it just for the advantage it would give me when they average out the MPG 0f all my other makes.

The ONLY resonable reason that this is not something that could have been mass market long ago is the auto makers colusion.

Its great and I'm all for it but 2 things:

1. Your grandma is 300 miles away... You have to sit for three hours in order for it to charge enough to get there?  Kinda makes the 125mph irrelevent, even if you could go that fast.

2. how much does it cost to charge it?  Are we talking $20 or $100?  After all that electricity comes from somewhere... *cough* coal, probably *cough*.



Now, we get Nuclear electricity and these cars (and get trucks and buses too) and then we are talkng about a substantially cleaner environment.  Make them mandatory in big cities by 2015. (or start charging a oil burning toll tax).


Either way, the gov't has to get behind this.

I think the idea is that it's harder to make car fuel "green" than it is to provide "green" domestic electricity.

Whatever happens I just want a car that doesn't go bust all of a sudden.

In general “high performance” and to a lesser extent “first model year” are both known for “going bust all the sudden.”

I don't think its a feasible product...but its nice to the design and innovation.

We have a winner. From what source is the electricity created? Unless you've got a solar panel on top of your home or a windmill off the grid, I seriously doubt it came from an eco-friendly source. And hydro is not necessarily nice to the environment, either. Research the Columbia River and hydro power.

This car is destined to only be driven by smug blowhards with money. IE, Hollyweird types. Well, it makes sense since because they're famous they automatically know what's best for the rest of us!

There are some concessions we should be willing to make.  I find my moral fiber is fine with nuclear power as well.

Electric car engine are much more efficient, reliable and live much longer than explosion engines.
A few years ago the japanese designed an electric car which did 400 mph!

The problem is battery weight and size and recharge time.
Especialy recharge time because that would mean a change in our driving habits.

A few years ago, the French tried to commercialize a small electric car for urban use: It took 12 hours to recharge and cost twice more than a gasoline car of same dimension.
No one bought them.

Electric cars are the car of tommorow but we still need huge improvements before we could use tham like gasoline cars.

Yep. I have no issue with Noo-culler power.

Fredledingue-

No, electric isn't the wave of the future. What happens with the disposal of the extremely toxic batteries? They only have a fixed life within the vehicle, and like all batteries will eventually lose their charge. Just wait until the hybrid backlash starts when all those smug Prius owners have to start replacing 'em in a couple years. That's the dirty little secret of 'em.

If an appropriate hybrid car that uses a similar setup to the Diesel/Electric traction motors they use on trains, then we're talking business here. Those are remarkably efficient and well designed. But they don't (IIRC) use a typical battery setup, just a diesel motor to charge an electric turbine to run the traction motors on each carriage.

Turd Ferguson
Good point.
There is no ideal solution and the toxicity and the lifetime of the batteries is one of the problem to solve before starting large scale production.
Huge battery wastes could be offset, partly, by longer lasting engines. IMO an electric engine can run like a new one over 30 years and almost unlimited mileage, while a gas engine starts having problem after 10 years and/or 150,000 miles, slightly more for a diesel engine. With electric car you could keep your car for much longer with much less repair costs.

While we can't imagine driving on batteries as we know them today, I cannot imagine that in 50 years we will still use motors which concept date from the end of the 19th century.

Fred-

FWIW, the lifespan of Diesel engines is drastically longer than gas internal combustion. Rudolph Diesel himself originally designed the engines to run on vegetable oil, peanut IIRC. Power to weight, they offer the most. Short of getting into the mechanical breakdowns, trust me on this- Diesels are built FAR heavier than gas motors. It isn't uncommon for VW TDI motors to get 100's of thousands of miles before overhaul, light trucks are the same. Ask anyone that pushes an 18-wheeler or long-distance bus how often they get an "in truck" rebuild (IIRC 200k miles or so intervals.) Hell, my uncle has a shop truck that's got over 450K miles on it. Its on its 4th or so transmission, and is nearly 25yrs old

Point is that Diesel is a reliable and effective technology compared to IC. Unfortunately, in the US, Kalifornia attempted to regulate the emissions output the same as IC, which is impossible, and every auto maker that offered a diesel in a passenger car yanked out of the US market ahead of 2008. This legislation was on the books for many years, so any legitimate research into Diesel-Electric hybrids was stillborn. You have to understand that CA is the 4th or so largest car market IN THE WORLD. If a maker can't sell it there, they won't sell it in the rest of the US.

This leads me to the point about D/E traction motors, IE like what the big GE trains use. Unfortunately, CA had its hands in the pot and screwed the pooch for everyone with their emissions issues. Assuming that politicians actually used sense when drafting the legislation, they wouldn't have forced us all to be doomed with a slew of IC based hybrids that are relatively worthless, aside from making people smug.

Give me diesel in a mid-size pickup, and I'll be buying one tomorrow.

Indeed, you can fairly expect the rest of your vehicle to fall apart around your motor.  Your motor which is still running.  Diesel fuel contains less energy that gasoline, but the motor makes better use of what it has.  The whole CA emissions thing is a something I despise.  And now it would seem that other states maybe adopting similar standards? 

One thing that plays against increased purchasing of diesel's is the added cost.  In general a truck will cost around an extra 5K to add the diesel.  It gets better mileage, but around here diesel fuel costs more, so on a miles per dollar basis, it is a wash there.  Throw in the added purchase price and they are slower sellers.

Edited to correct my atrocious spelling...

BD-

Diesel costs less to refine, but the market share is also smaller, so it is as expensive as premium round here. Market economics.

I considered buying a VW TDI a couple years back but the thing was a, well, turd. I went with the gas-sucking 1.8T motor and hated the gas bills. $4+/gallon during the Katrina phase was brutal, especially with a 35 mile one way commute!

I'm now looking for a new truck, as mine's going to the scrap heap. I'm hoping someone brings a diesel small truck (think Tacoma) soon, but I can't wait, so I'll probably go Superduty Ford.

I hear you.  If I had a diesel I would be thinking about the veggie oil conversion.  Seen some very nice kits.  My answer is to travel via two wheels when the weather co-operates. 

Yes diesel engines are incredibly robust, they definetly last enough.
In europe on third of individual car are diesel and almost all trucks, pick ups and vans.
We don't have anti-diesel laws here and diesel is even cheaper than gasoline by a few cents in many places.
Turbo-Diesel are the must: powerful and economical.

But the electric engine is infinetly simplier to build and operate, beside its ecological advantage.
Less parts, less mechanical frictions, less heat and less vibrations.
IMO, we should be able to drive 20 years on an good electric engine without having to open the hood.

There is no question, Fredlingue, that the simple coil-based electrical engine is the best (in terms of longevity) power-to-weight out there, with instant "throttle" response. However, exactly what method will generate the electricity that isn't harmful to the environment? Consider the current major electrical generation methods:

Hydro- dams rivers causing all sorts of havoc to the ecosystems. Google "Fish ladder" for more info.
Wind- In theory the cleanest, except birds fly into them and some granola cruncher gets upset. Not to mention they're a bit of an eyesore.
Tidal- same situation as wind, and hydro- they can disrupt fauna and flora
Solar- way too expensive for panels still, (thinking back 20 years, cheap ones were right around the corner then, too.) and the amount generated per panel size is too small
Coal/Gas- obvious detriments are gaseous emissions, they are finite sources, and the harvesting of the resources is detrimental. especially coal
Nuclear- the cleanest and arguably the safest, but the byproducts must be appropriately disposed of. Exactly where is always a bone of contention.

So, yes, in theory, electric cars are a great idea, but the missing link is the source of the electrical power to make 'em run.

There are various ways of generating electricity cheaply and in large quantity but it requires some imqgination and adequate fundings.
Solar energy is not only exploitable through photovolaic cells, there are other technologies mor appropriate for industrial production.
But solar panels for motor-homes sell better than daring experimental projects.

Wind energy is the least exploited and the cleanest at the same time.
Denmark produce 25% of its electricity from wind (the highest percentage in the world). Danish birds are fine and the danish landscape has still have plenty of empty space to fill with windmills.

The advantage of electricity is its multiple sources. It gives us the possibility to manage for the less ecological damage, given the situation and distribute the production among different kinds of polutions.

Perhaps you Europeans are truly that much more enlightened than us 'Muricans. Every time they talk about setting up a wind farm, some asshole granola eater complains about birds being minced as they migrate through, the EPA doesn't allow it, and then BOOM. Foreign dependance doesn't change. Stupid special interests once again do more to harm than to help.

It's true that some birds get caught in the windmill wings but most of them fly higher.

One would hope. I'm all in favor of survival of the fittest, to the utmost degree. This includes 4 and two-footed animals. But you use logic, and frankly, the only thought process that exists in politics is hyperbole.

Let me illustrate a point:

I hunt on approximately 500 acres of swamp/marsh land (quite literally) on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with no ability to farm a crop because of the high water table. This is, BTW, not a federally protected wetland. Of this, nearly 300 acres was slotted for logging by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. My uncle, who owns the property, uses the logging income to finance the purchase cost and operating expenses of the cabin there. He receives (after paying the logger) around $3,000 per acre logged. All of the 300 is cleared, save about 65 acres because of 2 Delmarva fox squirrels that live there. So as to not disturb them, we can hunt there, but we can't clear the land, and certainly can't shoot the damned things. Here's the rub: The fox squirrel is federally protected because it is a rediculously stupid animal. How stupid?

When you cut down a tree a squirrel lives in, it will migrate across fields/roads/ditches/marshes to another tree, re-establish a nest, and that's that. Not the fox squirrel. It makes its home permanently, and once its cut down it will die because it can't possibly go up another tree to nest. It becomes food for foxes, coyotes, etc. It will not migrate anywhere. Because of the logging of the Eastern Shore over the past, oh, 400 years, the fox squirrel is protected. Protected for its stupidity. It is too damned stupid to move to another tree. Cost to my uncle: approximately $195,000. That's no chump change for an animal that should otherwise be dead because it is dumb.

This is the same thought process that permeates all environmental policy here in the States. The examples are numerous. ANWR drilling is verboten because it could theoretically (not factually) disrupt the mating and migrational patterns of certain animals. Nevermind that that Alaskan Pipeline has never had an incident and didn't in one iota disrupt the migration of the local fauna. In fact, it was designed to be elevated above the tallest caribou for just such a reason.

Or for that matter, the wind farms will churn up migratory birds, etc. as I've previously mentioned.

My personal favorite is the nuclear power issue, and the disposal of waste from nuclear power stations. Vessels have been designed to hold them safely for 1,000's of years, but where to put them? Nobody wants it in their back yard, so when a suitable location is found its immediately under fire from the environmentalists, regardless of the safeguards in place. Same goes for a nuke station- ever since Three Mile Island, not a single one has been built in the US. And Three Mile Island was an isolated incident, the liklihood of being repeated are billions to one. The China Syndrome did a fair job of convincing everyone in this country that nuke power is inherently evil.

So, while we all sit here and bemoan the cost of oil, the dependance on foreign energy sources, and best yet, the "lack" of localized sources of energy to satisfy our insatiable thirst for oil/gas/power, the real answers are right in front of us, clear as day. For that matter, the hullaballoo over electric cars and hybrids is merely symbolism over substance, a bandaid on a problem that isn't going to get any better, in spite of the Tesla cars, Prius, or any other panacea.

What we need right now is someone with a good reputation to drive and advertise these,but that's not within our range to do and not that many celebrities would be willing to undertake that. :'(

Unfortunately it looks like Tesla may be DOA and not necessarily for technology reasons.  :'(

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

Unfortunately it looks like Tesla may be DOA and not necessarily for technological reasons.   :'(

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

I'm extremely late to this thread, but this cra is indeed awesome. I don't see why they don't make more cool cars like this instaed of all the stupid box japanese cars. It'd really push the movement for differently fueled cars alot more.

T, I will go back and re-read your article in more depth, but I didn't see anything about it's demise.  Last I heard they are improving the drivetrain...