Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Motors Opens Retail Store
Tesla Motors has opened their first retail store front to allow the masses access to their new cars. Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,000 price tag. "The company told the Associated Press that it is impressed with demand: it has taken 600 orders for the Roadster and has a waiting list of another 400. CEO Elon Musk owns the first one produced. The fancy showroom near Beverly Hills takes its inspiration from Apple stores, Musk said. [...] The company plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar that will come in two versions: an all-electric model that will run entirely on its lithium ion battery pack, and a range-extended vehicle that will also use liquid fuel to extend its range. The Roadster will have a range of 220 miles per charge and the mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon."
I can't wait for these types of cars to hit mass production and come down in price so that us normal people can afford them.
That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."
It said in the article that the car got a special exemption for Air Bags. Was that only in the prototype, or also in the final version? I can see a nice lawsuit coming right after the first fatality in one of these.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Maybe it's just me, but I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling with the new electrics under development (or in production).
Having grown up around adults who worshipped at the altar of limited-run classic cars (59 1/2 Shelby Cobra, anyone?) I feel like we're witnessing (or in some cases, participating in -- lucky bastards) the dawn of a new era of classic cars.
I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to.
Anyway, my point is that I feel that we're finally witnessing the green car revolution, and I'm glad to be here for it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I have friends in St Louis, 100 miles from here, and often make the hour and a half trip down there to visit.
I wouldn't call that "short range". Seldom do I travel any farther.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What is the conversion factor when going from "batteries charged off the grid" to "miles per gallon internal combustion gasoline engine?"
I already have a sensible commuter car. It's a 1995 Ford Ranger that gets 16-17 "MPG"... did I forget to mention that it runs on Compressed Natural Gas that I fill up for $0.638 per gas gallon equivalent?
Go ahead and pay for dirty coal power from your local power company, I'll continue driving my much greener truck for less money thank you very much.
Second, the roadster is expected to last about 100K miles before needing to have the batteries replaced.
Perhaps... assuming you drive it 200 miles a day. Laptop cells suffer serious time degradation. They *also* have cycle life limit problems, but that's the smaller of the two issues.
Third, while the current generations of LiIon have a limited set of charges, the research is extending this out all the time. A number of the other types which Tesla will no doubt buy patents rights for, will charge many more times than a 1000.
Yes -- phosphates, titanates, spinels, etc -- which I've been mentioning. And no, they won't buy the rights; there's no way they could afford them (except perhaps on titanates, since AltairNano is struggling... not sure it'd be a wise buy). And in some cases , such as the phosphates, who owns the rights is confusing enough. Almost everyone making reasonable-priced EVs right now is using phosphates, titanates, or spinels. Tesla is *behind* on this. I don't fault them; they need the better energy density, their customers can afford it, and when they started, these techs were less mature. But that doesn't change the fact that they're using something that's inferior tech for automotive applications.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
I haven't yet run into a person who is neutral about the Aptera's styling
I can believe that, but while I'm not neutral, I'm also not diametrically opposed. I don't think it looks good at all, but I don't really care that much about looks.
As with all cars, if you damage a part of the car, you pay to get it repaired. No different with an Aptera.
I'd love to live in the universe where some damaged body panels is "no different" than a bent axle.
Comparisons to a more expensive car with aspirations towards being a hot-rod, with the expected higher repair costs to go with, is not an argument in favor of the Aptera's design.
As for three wheelers, there's a big difference between delta and tadpole configurations.
Yes, if it was a delta design, I'd be calling this the stupidest design ever, a disaster waiting to happen, and a sign that its designers were inebriated chimps. Instead, I refer merely to my "inherent dislike" of 3-wheeled designs.
Still I wish them much luck selling their car. Mass-market consumer EVs have to start somewhere, and if this design lets them pull it off, more power to them. I may even give one a test drive.
The enemies of Democracy are
The problem is that even if they last 100,000 miles, the cost of the batteries is half the price of the car. It uses 6800 of the 18650 LiIon cells. These things are on the order of $7 apiece at the cheapest retail price. Even if they could get them for half that, you're still talking about almost $25,000 ever 100,000 miles (plus whatever profit they tack on). That means you're paying $0.25 per mile just for the batteries---seven cents per mile more than my gasoline cost for a Ford Windstar, and you haven't even factored in the cost of charging them.
Further, it takes 75 kilowatt hours of power to charge it, and a charge only lasts 220 miles. At my current PG&E rate of 33 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes out to $24.75 for that 220 miles, or an additional $0.11 per mile, for a grand total of a whopping $0.36 per mile---seven cents per gallon more than the average cost of driving a Lamborghini roadster....
The fundamental flaw with all current electric cars is the LiIon battery cost/lifespan ratio. It needs to be increased by at least an order of magnitude for it to make sense compared with conventional cars. Whether that means the batteries come down to $2500 or last a million miles doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Honestly, though, I'm holding out for ultracapacitors. Chemical cells just aren't nearly robust enough for this sort of application.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You aren't. The Tesla has a battery heating/cooling system. They actually bring the batteries rapidly up to temperature, then try to hold them there.
People always criticize the internal combustion engine for being inefficient, but the fact is that all that "waste heat" isn't wasted at all. You need it to keep the passengers warm. I live in New England, and I'd like to not freeze on my way to work.Cars are 25% efficient or less before the drivetrain losses, drag, et cetera. Just the ICE is that bad. Charging a battery can be over 80% efficient, the electric motor is probably around 95% efficient... Anyway, most of that heat IS wasted. You think that a lot of engine heat is entering your car because it feels hot to you. But the radiator transfers several times as much heat as your heater core, and that doesn't even count the direct radiative losses from the block, heads, pan, and especially exhaust manifolds.
It'll be pretty hard to sell people around here on a "family car" that you can't use between October and May.You mean, It'd - since your objection is based on an already-solved issue. Are you getting paid to badmouth the Tesla, or is sharing your ignorance just a hobby?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
- * $2500/yr / $3.50/gal gas = ~700 gal gas
- * 700 gal/yr * 22 mpg = ~15,500 miles/year
- * 15,500 miles/yr * 0.35kWh/mile = ~5,500 kWh/yr
- * 5,500 kWh/yr * $0.10/kWh = $550/year
That's assuming (a) you're in the US, (b) you're driving a car that gets US-fleet-average mileage, and (c) you're paying US-average electricity rates. If you're getting different-from-average mileage, that'll likely change your mpg and mpkWh at roughly the same rate, so you'll still see the same ~80% savings (plus lower maintenance costs due to the vastly simpler mechanism; shouldn't need oil, for example). FWIW, there are two main reasons for the massive operational savings:In addition to the other points people bring up, just moving from an ICE to an electric motor also creates a large increase in efficiency. EVs will force the development of better motor and battery technology which will be able to directly power a car, at a reasonable cost and with a reasonable lifespan. Current hybrids have small batteries and weak motors and generally power the wheels directly from the ICE, but using only electric torque with an ICE generator could greatly increase the mileage, even without the benefits of grid power. Diesel locomotives have been built this way for decades.
Lithium ion phosphate technology is almost as good as Li-ion technology, and considerably safer.
Personally, I'd have not much more concern about driving a plain old Li-ion powered car than I have using a Li-ion laptop. Granted, the worst case scenario in a car is much more destructive of the battery, but it doesn't seem to be beyond the capabilities of engineering to render the risk of Li-ion to be on the same order of danger as gasoline or ethanol. If safety is so important, then we should be talking about Li-ion phosphate or NiMH.
What's holding things back in electric cars and plug-in hybrids are all the patents covering the kinds of things you'd need to do to produce large batteries. It's not so much a question of physical practicality than legal practicality, That's why we haven't seen the next logical step on hybrids: the plug-in hybrid. It's not possible to license the technology to scale the NiMH hydride batteries used in current generation vehicles to a size large enough to make the plug-in idea really work.
We're pretty close to being able to make reasonably versatile electric cars economically, and given the popularity of hybrids the plug-in hybrid is a no-brainer. If we don't see those technologies become practical for widespread use in the next decade, it won't be because the world lacks the engineering talent to do it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.