Slashdot Mirror


Test Driving the Tesla Roadster

stacybro writes "Wired has an article about the Tesla Roadster. It is similar to other electric cars that we have seen in that the electric engine's serious torque will allow it to do 0-60mph in about 3 seconds. Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop-type lithium-ion batteries. They are claiming the range is about 250 miles. As the battery tech for laptops improves, so will the range of these cars. The car will run about $80,000, which is about par for an exotic two-seater. So who is doing the poll on which tech CEO will be seen driving one first? My guess is one of the Google or E-Bay guys, since they are investors. It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency. It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!"

16 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by loose+electron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person.

    Li-Ion batteries have excellent amp-hour ratings for their size, but like all other batteries are still pretty limited.

    Acceleration/Torque for electric cars is not a problem. High performance capabilities are there if you want them. However, you are playing battery energy against performance against distance, and all electrics, or fuel-electric hybrids have been designed to be "green" in their approach. (Any Hummer oweners want an environmentally aware vehicle?)

    Right now the weakest link in many electronic systems is the energy source. A good solution there and you can be a very wealty person.

    --
    www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
  2. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much safer to use something like 15 gallons of liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable at room temperature.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  3. Re:Global "Dependencies" by bman08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes, but it's a centralized problem.

  4. 80K?+batteries once a year by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I would wager that this vehicle is more like a Lotus Elise, or a Corvette, or even a S2000, all of which can be had for under 50K. Any performance benefits over those sports cars can be attributed to the natural advantage of this car, namely that you can go from 0-60 without switching gears, and it is easier to get it perfectly balanced without an engine. Anyway, The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling, which was not mentioned in review. Without proper handling, it becomes a Mustang at 30K.

    Which is to say we are still in the same world, in which low volumes and other issues cause electric cars to be 50%-100$ higher than traditional cars. All that seems to have happened here is that an electric car has been targeted to the high end market and priced accordingly. It is kind of like taking the hummer, putting a cheap truck base on it, calling it an H2, and pretending that it still has the dubious value of the original.

    Oh well, I suppose if they can build a sedan for 35K I would be impressed. We would also have to look at maintenance cost of the vehicle, which would be dominated by the battery replacement. A sports car car easily run 20 cents/mile in maintenance. Knowing that laptop batteries can only handle a couple hundred charge cycles, one can image where the long term maintenance cost could approach three or four time that amount.

    I wish we had electric cars. I think the technology is there, and the pricing could be reasonable. But even companies that could be using the electric car to revive themselves, for instance Mazda and Ford, still seem to be married to the antiquated internal combustion engine.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  5. Re:Global "Dependencies" by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

    The US has vast reserves of coal. We wouldn't have to rely on the Middle East. And it is easier to cut pollution from relatively few centralized sources than it is from hundreds of millions of cars. And if something better than coal comes along, it's easier to switch relatively few power plants than hundreds of millions of cars. Etc, etc.

    I'm going to give you a pass on "nucular" because a dictionary guy I heard on the radio said it's a regionalism, not barbarism that is like nails on a chalkboard to educated people.

  6. Re:Sigh by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe. And, I believe one of the founders of Greenpeace or Sierra Club has come out in favor of nuclear power, as you suggest.

    Yes, he has. And for his trouble, the remaining members of Greenpeace shrilly scream that he's a traitor and shill for the oil industry, etc, blah blah.

    The real problem is that the people who oppose nukes are bound together more by their general political loopiness than they are by actual, real, rational environmental/energy issues. So when they see one of their own taking up a different messages, they excommunicate them idealogically - never mind the practical issues at hand.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:Global "Dependencies" by mandos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I'm concerned supporting "domestic evil" would be better then "foreign evil". We don't import coal like oil, so using coal actually helps our economy. And for any problems that arise with coal, they will all be with bounds of US law and law enforcement. Also it's easier to clean up 100s of large coal power plants then it is to clean up millions of cars.

    Yes there are better solutions then coal, but we have over 50% of our power coming from coal, so improving coal will happen quicker then scrapping the system and replacing it with other systems (solar concentrators, tidal, wind, or other low eviroment impact systems). The is no reason we can't do both and enjoy both short term and long term gains. They're not mutually exclusive.

    --
    Mike Scanlon
  8. The batteries have to be in series/parallel banks by wbean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The motor is going to need a lot higher voltage than a laptop. This means that the batteries have to be organized in series/parallel banks. 6831 is a plausible number since it is 23 x 11 x 3 x 3 x 3. This gives you a lot of flexibility in arranging the banks. You could have 99 banks of 69 batteries in series, presumably giving you something like 345 volts. That sounds about right for a DC motor.

  9. Re:Global "Dependencies" by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

    Today.
    Today.
    Today.
    FUCKING Today.
    You can see past today, can't you?
    I'm so sick of people who can't see past today.
    It does matter, if you can see past today.
  10. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by shawb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year." From the summary, the car runs on 6,831 laptop style lithium ion batteries. A quick froogle search reveals that a replacement lithium ion laptop battery runs around $90 - $150. Let's assume $100/battery. Since you'd be buying in bulk and using batteries designed for this purpose, I'll give you a 90% reduction in cost (overly generous) which puts you at $10/battery. That means your annual battery replacement is almost $70,000 (I.E. most of the price of the car.) And we haven't even charged the batteries yet. Most people I know with anything approaching a reasonable car fill up maybe once a week for under $50.00/tank. That puts you at $2,500 annual fuel cost, add in a quite generous $1,000 for maintenance and repairs, and $1,000 a month for insurance and loan payment brings you to a little over $15,000 annual cost of driving a relatively decent newish car. So, assuming a lithium ion battery pack lasts four years, it would still be cheaper to own and operate, and insure a gasoline powered internal combustion vehicle than to simply change the batteries on this car. And I'd be willing to place a decent size wager that trying to outfit any significant portion of U.S. vehicles (Let's say... 10%) with lithium ion batteries will cause a tremendous surge in demand for lithium, driving prices sky high. In fact, I'll do the math. Lithium has a specific energy density of up to about 200 Wh/Kg. Many major electric vehicles use around 300 Wh/mile, so I'll be generous and say 1 Kg of lithium storage will get a driver 1 mile before recharging. American passenger vehicles drive around 2.5 trillion miles per year, which works out to around 6 billion miles a day driven by americans (An average day's driving being the absolute minimum charge you would want in a car) which means we would need 600 million Kg lithium to make enough batteries to replace 10% of passenger cars. That works out to a bit over half a million tons of lithium. In the year 2005, only 18,000 tons of lithium were mined WORLDWIDE. That means we would need over 25 times the current annual worldwide lithium production just to make enough lithium batteries to give ten percent of U.S. passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, SUVs) enough charge to drive for one average day, with pretty generous rounding in favor of lithium storage at almost every step I took. That's not even touching the semis, construction equipment, mass transit, airlines and ocean liners that actually keep our society running. And then there's the issue REPLACING the batteries, although I assume there would be large scale lithium recycling implemented.

    So I don't foresee lithium being a long-term cost effective material for energy storage in our transportaion system.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  11. Wrong Name for Car by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    This car is not a true Tesla Car.

    If it were, it would have no batteries at all. Instead it would gets it energy from some kind of wireless source like microwave power transmission or even the Earth's magnetic field.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. Re:Exploding Batteries? by agingell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I strongly suggest that NOBODY tries this at home. Gasoline in its liquid state will always have fumes above it at room temperature, and throwing a match into it will definitely result in a very severe fire!

    The match going out comment in more usually attributed to Diesel fuels, Kerosene and paraffin, which have a much higher flash point, and a higher boiling point. This means there is little vapor above the liquid and they are not likely to be ignited by a lighted match. It usually requires a wick to make fuel Oils burn e.g. a rag etc. or alternatively high temp and pressure such as in a diesel engine or gas turbine.

    So please be careful!

  13. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i think it's obvious, that they can't be talking about 6341 laptop batterypacks, but about 6341 laptop battery cells. at which point you can get these bulk for about 50 eurocents each.

    howie

  14. Re:20% of US oil imports from mideast by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the US more or less uses 100% of the total oil it gets, if the Middle East oil went away, you'd immediately have a huge shortfall. This would make fuel prices in the US rocket - until the price causes a reduction in demand by 20%.

    I suspect that a loss of 20% of the oil and the consequent increase in fuel prices would cause a very severe economic impact - so yes, the US *is* reliant on that oil. Unless the US can do without 20% of its oil tomorrow with no consequences, then it's reliant on it.

  15. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by AGMW · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Facts are facts, mister. If it can't yet be done, you're out of luck

    I'm not sure that's right. Let's look at the Wright Brothers first flight shall we. Well, that's obviously such a useless machine. Range measured in hundreds of yards? Only carry one person. Likely to die.

    The 250 mile range is perhaps too short for many people, but I bet the majority of car journeys are well within this range. If people started purchasing such vehicles as second/third cars then the technology would improve. As the number of units sold increased, the unit price would come down. Competition would be encouraged, inovation would be rewarded and some of the bigger players would start looking into it. It's already happening because Toyota/Honda have decided it will happen and want to be first with the hybrids. They are expensive, but some people are buying them. It happens in all new technology. Mobile phones, digital cameras, everything new - they start off really pricey and the early adopters buy 'em. Soon though, economies of scale bring the prices down, and the technology improves as the market expands.

    I don't think anyone expects everyone to immediatly chop in their beloved gas-guzzlers for some electric golf cart and start hugging trees, but this vehicle probably does have a market. If the Gov could give tax breaks - such as allowing tax free re-charging whilst at work, it could further encourage the take-up of the technology by reducing the cost of ownership.

    ... and finally, in TFA itself, they talk about a "sedan" in a few years, and they are saying they reckon that battery tech will have progressed sufficently by then to make it feasible. They realise the batteries are the (only!) weak link, and that's why they are riding the wave of laptop battery style technology because there's already a lot of people with a vested interest in making them smaller, lighter, quicker to charge, and able to hold a bigger charge for longer.

    This might even mean that in a few years when you have to get new batteries for your Tesla, the new ones will be cheaper, lighter, and provide a greater range because the tech has moved on.

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  16. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by rsclient · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK -- here's some basic terminology:

    a "cell" is the fundimental unit of a battery. A "D" battery contains one cell -- and indeed, in old books was just called a "D cell" and never a "D battery". The "cell" is the fundimental battery unit because of chemistry.

    A "battery" contains a bunch of cells. The actual word "battery" means "a bunch of identical things" -- so that a bunch of cannon all grouped together (for example) is a "battery" -- hence the existance of "Battery Park" in New York.

    Thanks to the average person's inability to keep these concepts seperate (and the lack of a reason why they should be seperate), "battery" is now used to mean either a battery in the old-fashioned sense OR a cell in the old fashioned sense (but only if the cell is, as it were, individually wrapped). Once again crystal clear tech language is subverted. (Note to self: don't go on a wild tangent about dumb terminals)

    The "battery" in your laptop contains a bunch of cells -- I see from Google that at least some laptops use batteries of 12 cells. The "batteries" in the Tesla contains exactly one cell and would be better termed "cells", except that (per above) language is changing.

    A big chunk of the cost of buying batteries for your laptop are:
    1. You aren't buying in bulk. Bulk is lots cheaper.
    2. You are also buying specialized circuitry that inside of the
    3. Expensive plastic

    I would expect that your 90%-off-in-bulk isn't high enough. Add in another by-twelve factor, and the price-per-year drops even more.

    --
    Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!