Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Motors Is Delivering Cars

jamie found the news that Tesla Motors is delivering roadsters in California. (We've been following developments on the Tesla front for a couple of years now.) According to a letter from the CEO, "9 production Roadsters have arrived in California, another 3 arrive this weekend, and they will keep arriving at the rate of 4 per week... In fact, currently there are 27 Roadsters in various stages of assembly." The early owners must be proud, but there could be complications.

15 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. toys for billionaires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    now sergey and larry and elon have some toys to play with

    1. Re:toys for billionaires by lhorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Expensive toys, now, but this technology will migrate to ordinary cars fast.
      I expect motor/generator combinations in replacement hubs for oilburners in less than 10 years,
      Batteries is the main problem now.

      --
      accept no limits but time
  2. Complications only if you can't plan ahead by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About those alleged "Complications" ... well yes sure, if you run out of stored power then you're in trouble. However, this isn't exclusive to electric cars, but applies similarly to liquid-fueled vehicles. If you set out on a voyage of 500 miles with only 200 miles of gasoline and you can't find anywhere to refuel, then you're in trouble too. Fortunately, most people understand power and refueling constraints and know how to plan ahead.

    Admittedly, electrical recharging infrastructure is almost non-existent at the moment. However, this isn't a total disaster nor an unforseen "Complication". It's thoroughly forseen, so any early adopter who can add and subtract won't be travelling further than the stored energy allows, minus a safety margin since nobody likes getting stuck. In many cases, it'll be a second car anyway, mainly for short hops around the local area and short office commutes.

    But let's look at the worst case scenario as well. When the power runs out in between recharge points, will it be a total disaster? Well, it certainly will be a big annoyance, but that's where the recovery services come in. All it takes is a phone call and some waiting in the comfort of your car while you sulk at your arithmetic incompetence, but soon your vehicle will be sitting snugly on the back of the recovery truck, and remedial transport sorted out. This is normal today in the event of breakdowns, and it will be just as normal when cars go electric, both for breakdowns and for recharging mishaps. (The vehicle recovery industry will certainly boom for a few decades, until vehicle recharging infrastructure is widespread.)

    So while "Complications" will exist in the short term, they're not exceptional ones. We already have similar issues today, and solutions to them as well. It's just a matter of degree. For the next few years, trips in EVs will have to be a fair bit shorter on average. We can cope with that.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Complications only if you can't plan ahead by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AFAIK, breakdown services (in the UK at least) bill you the full cost of delivering fuel to your vehicle / recovering it, since it was your own dumb fault for running out. I imagine that they'll pretty quickly start applying the same principle to electric vehicles, if it's not in their contracts already.

      I'd venture that the big drawback is the slow charging, 3.5 hours on the Roadster. Forgetting to plug in at night means that you're either going nowhere in the morning, or you're going to have to cross your fingers and hope for a following wind.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Re:Now only if... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blame GM, Ford, VW, BMW, PSA, Toyota. I don't find it surprising that, all of a sudden, various car-makers are developping electric cars and fuel-cell cars, ... why couldn't they do that 10 years ago? I am waiting for those a long time now.

    They did occasionally but as long as petrol was cheap, there was not very much demand. Also, the car industry is a very conservative one which rarely tries something dramatically new. Most of them would rather wait for the competition to take the risk, and then copy the idea if it worked.

    The last such attempt was Toyota releasing the Prius, which was a success. Now, various car makes have released hybrids or are working on them (which confirms the wait and copy attitude).

    On the positive side, I think introducing hybrid technology is a breakthrough because it allows the industry to make progress in its traditional way of little steps. The "plug-in hybrid" is one of those:
    Make the batteries larger and add a charger - nothing spectacular and risky here ;-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  4. Greenies don't like nuclear by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In fact they don't like any form of power generation.

    nuclear = [insert glowing green fluffy sheep horror stories]
    fossil = [insert global meltdown story]
    wind power = [insert migrating insert birds killed by blades sob fest] or [blot on lovely landscape rant]
    tidal power = [insert moan about marsh habitat of less spotted wading snot gobler flooded]
    Solar power = [insert some fucking rare tortoise issue]
    hydro = [insert whinge about flooded valleys/woodlands/displace peasents etc etc]

    You just can't win with this brainless hippies.

    1. Re:Greenies don't like nuclear by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow.
      Humans are a parasitic species and like a virus infestation on the Earth.

      That's +5 Insightful (regarding the thinking of greenie wackos, that is).

      And you thought "religious people" were dangerous.

    2. Re:Greenies don't like nuclear by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether you agree with them of not, hippies' (sometimes overzealous) efforts to bring to everyone's attention the effect humans have on the world is not ignorable.

      So what's their solution? Kill off the whole human race?

      Sure, no power generation method is perfect, but we should be selecting the best options rather than rejecting all of them.

    3. Re:Greenies don't like nuclear by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also as unbelievable as it seems people are not going to go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle living in teepies in the woods. They want electricity so the greens can either keep on rejecting every form of power generation and eventually they just end up ignored as a bunch of tedious ranting reactionaries who dish up endless problems but no solutions, or they start using what common sense they have and realise that the best option is sometimes a compromise.

    4. Re:Greenies don't like nuclear by mengel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It doesn't help that our country insists on rebuilding the same old, flawed design for nuclear power plants, rather than any one of a dozen or so better designs that are out there which are far safer. The system we're using was designed with a separate system of breeder reactors in mind, to reprocess waste into fuel, which have never been built, and which (in the initial plan) involved schlepping nuclear waste all over the country.

      Inherently safer designs like pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors are not being used, rather the same old Three Mile Island design is proposed for new plants.

      Now of course, there are people who are against any sort of nuclear power, regardless. But I think that's largely because the past "Nuclear Power is perfectly safe" propaganda has made them untrusting of any statements about nuclear safety and/or dangers.

      I grew up 13 miles downriver from Three Mile Island. So I know a lot of people with an axe to grind about nuclear safety; and most of them are not really "Greenies". Many of them still believe they haven't been told the whole truth about the accident there, much the way folks in the wider US population of a given age don't neccesarily believe they've been told the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination... So I think to win those folks over, you need a demonstrably safer design, and you need to really explain the details.

      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  5. Re:Now only if... by clonan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Patents are public informsation...

    Find 5 patents that would have led to ultra efficient cars and aren't being used.

    If "Big Oil" has been buying up patents for 50 years than we have at least 30 years of inventions no longer under patent protection...where are those inventions?

    The reality is that while Oil companies probably have tried to squash some tech, the basic laws of thermodynamics suggest that internal combustion engines are about as efficient as they are going to get.

    Battery tech is also progressing very quickly (Microsoft, IBM etc are pushing for better batteries and can compete with oil companies) however most of the really efficient and high power batteries are due to nano-type materials, ultra pure processing and extremely fine manufacturing controls. Until very recently these techniques were impossible to test and those that were testable were prohibitively expensive to produce.

    If you want to claim a conspiracy, you must offer some proof.

  6. Re:Now only if... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess what? I knew someone that bought an electric car back in I think 72!
    Don't blame the car makers blame physics and customers.
    The reason that liquid hydrocarbon fuels have been so popular for cars is because they are a great solution for powering cars.
    Build an electric car that can take four people and luggage 300 miles on charge. Oh and the recharge time has to be five minutes, battery life has to be 150,000 miles and the cost? Under $20,000. That is what it would take to be a better car then a Mazda 3.
    The real problem has nothing to do with the auto companies. It has everything to do with us.
    People bought giant SUVs and Pickups just for style and the fact they felt safer. Everybody thought I was nuts because I actually like smaller cars. I don't have kids yet and I think smaller cars are more fun to drive.
    Companies work on the premise that you should give the customer what they want. We wanted big SUVs and trucks and not small cars and minivans.
    Now customers want more fuel efficient vehicles. It takes a while to make the change.
    Now what I find funny is that back in 84 a car that went 0-60 under 10 seconds was quick.
    Now that is considered slow.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. Re:Now only if... by LandDolphin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I do believe that there is some truth to this. I think a lot of it has to do with how inexpensive gasoline has been in the past. Even now, at near $5 a gallon, Hybrids don't really save you money. So a Hybrid, when gasoline was $1 a gallon would have not been economically viable to the consumer.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  8. My horse gets me home even when I'm asleep by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of the comments here resemble the same kind of skeptical remarks that were made when the first automobiles came out. They were outrageously expensive. They got flat tires constantly. You almost needed to keep a team of horses on retainer to drag the thing home after one of the innumerable breakdowns. Et cetera. Et cetera.

    No new technology leaps full-blown into existence without glitches, screw-ups and mistakes (yes, I know about the 100-year-old electrics, but a lot has changed). They're part of the territory, especially where a complete changeover in something as basic as personal transportation is concerned. What's needed is the vision and will to change, and the guts to persevere through inevitable problems to something that works. That's what seems to be missing these days.

    I wonder what the smog situation would look like in a city where most two-car families included an electric for local jaunts and basic running around, and a regular car for longer trips? I recall seeing many parking lots with electrical outlets available at each space for block heaters, back when cold weather presented a starting problem for regular cars. Perhaps they might appear again to serve next-generation electrics. I have no idea what shape the actual solutions will take, but I'm quite confident that solutions would be found, once a decision is made to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles.

    I'm certain of one thing: as long as those with a vested interest in the status quo are allowed to present every mistake as a disaster, every bump in the road as an insurmountable mountain, nothing will be accomplished.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. Re:Now only if... by LandDolphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just did, and I did not find 2-3 months. I found this:

    Honda Civic Hybrid, 4.8 years, $2,803 premium over Civic LX;
    Mercury Mariner Hybrid, 6.4 years, $4,904 premium over standard Mariner;
    Lexus' V-6 powered RX 400h hybrid SUV, 6.4 years, $4,407 premium over conventional V-6
    powered RX350;
    Saturn Vue Greenline, 7.1 years, $4,770 over Vue XE;
    Ford Escape Hybrid, 7.3 years, $4,161 over Escape XLT;
    V-6 Lexus GS450h, 7.7 years, $2,722 over V-8 powered GS460

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/05/soaring-gas-prices-shrink-hybrid-payback-period-boost-small-car-sales-and-sink-big-trucks.html
    ,br> Maybe you could do me a favor and point to a source that says 2 to 3 months?

    Granted, I did not take into account the Tax Credits,

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment