Slashdot Mirror


See the Tesla S at the Detroit International Auto Show (Video)

The weather in Detroit was frightful and Slashdot editor Timothy Lord was nine hours away. No problem! He loaded his camcorder and a bunch of other stuff in his car and drove to Detroit for the 2012 International Auto Show. In today's video he looks at the Tesla Model S. Next week we'll have more video highlights of the auto show for you, so stay tuned...

143 comments

  1. I just hope by vencs · · Score: 0

    this company survives the bad weather.

  2. TESLA SHO*LD SUE ON TM INFRINGMENT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And take down that car maker !!

  3. what is with that shitty synth voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    don't use that again, thanks in advance

  4. when did this happen by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Slashdot has reporters who do on-site video pieces now?

    Insert quip about how they can do that but can't hire editors to make sure the summary blurb is accurate. ;-)

    1. Re:when did this happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for any money. It's called Blogger editor whores. Probably leftovers from the great Gawker media firing of 2011

      Why do you think Taco left?

    2. Re:when did this happen by guttentag · · Score: 0

      I was wondering how I missed the fact that Timothy was actually Harry Potter all these years. At least we still get to hear Slashdot's own robotic overlord. That was comfortingly familiar.

    3. Re:when did this happen by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Oh the weather in Detroit was frightful,
      Electric cars, so delightful."

      Okay, I'll stop.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:when did this happen by timothy · · Score: 2

      No new people, actually -- the content on the site is put up pretty much by the four guys whose nicks you see on the site ;) (Maybe eventually there *will* be new people to make more video, and better than I know how to, but for now it's an ongoing experiment.)

      And what -- you want everything?!

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  5. Waiting for my favorite reviewer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll wait til Jeremy drives one on Top Gear.

    1. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Best comment up until this point.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by filthpickle · · Score: 2

      Yes, great comment. Let's wait until Clarkson and company do another hatchet job on it because they don't like electric cars...or American cars.....why Tesla even loaned them cars to review is beyond me.

      Top Gear is a great show, very entertaining. A LOT of people (and I am not saying either one of you are one of these people) do not realize that it is pretty much completely staged. Outside of the stig's track times...and the star in a reasonably priced car....you have to take anything on that show with a grain of salt.

    3. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Not saying they do a scientific job of evaluating vehicles. Just that up until this point in the thread this has been the most valuable suggestion in my opinion. I would love to watch one of those Top Gear folks try to endure a road-trip in the back child seat.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    4. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Top Gear is over the top on lots of stuff, and I think that's blatantly obvious (disclaimer: I love the show). But to call it a "hatchet job" is also overly exaggerated.

      Sure, they staged the filming of the Tesla running out of battery, but the point that it would have run out very quickly was absolutely true. Sure, they were driving it like maniacs, and that's part of the point. Driving any car like that will result in far higher fuel consumption than the advertised average mpg (or miles per charge). But that's what they were saying... for a sports car, it sure doesn't last long on its available fuel capacity, and recharges take a LONG time.

      I'm also looking forward to a Top Gear review of this car. Personally, I'm hoping it's one of their challenges and it pits it against a few other electric cars.... that could be fun. Maybe a sort of cannonball run in all electrics across ?somewhere?, so they have to make sure they pitstop at places that can charge them and deal with the charge times, and a Robin Reliant as the emergency car that they are forced to use if their car is stranded (which would probably win the "race").

    5. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by drivin98 · · Score: 1

      Calling it a "hatchet job" is certainly not overly exaggerated....and the point at which they claim they would have ran out was also a load of BS. Tesla Roadster sales in the UK where that episode is repeated have lagged behind those in other European markets. If I was Tesla I certainly wouldn't give them a car to test again.

    6. Re:Waiting for my favorite reviewer by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      If you drive it like you stole it, it will shut down much, much sooner than normal.
      The 'shut down' may be in terms of reduced performance, admittedly, and it may still go at much reduced speeds.
      With pretty much any battery pack, if you discharge it very rapidly, you get potential issues from many areas, from thermal hot-spots on.
      The tesla is not immune to this, and will reduce power, and advise the user to pull over (IIRC) when it risks battery damage.
      Is this 'running out' - if you're on a track day - yes.

  6. See the Telsa S by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I thought it was going to be some large spectacular Telsa coil. That would be far more interesting than some electric car I can't afford.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:See the Telsa S by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Yikes..."Tesla"

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. So jealous by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every day I drive pass my local Tesla dealership and see all those rows of beautiful cars and think of just stopping in and buying one right on the spot. And then I remember that Tesla cars aren't actually real, there are no Tesla dealerships, and the company stays pretty much on the verge of bankruptcy, with models that always seem to be on backorder or are "coming out sometime next year...we hope." Then I notice that Natalie Portman is my girlfriend sitting in the seat next to me, and realize that I'm dreaming.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You're an idiot - there is a Tesla dealership here in Chicago that I pass by each day on the way to work, oh while driving my Tesla. Perhaps you should move to a community that has a higher relevancy score.

    2. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's odd. A Tesla Roadster just passed by me the other day while I was walking across the street. And that was just in a tiny suburb.

    3. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla does have a few stores ... see: http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/stores

    4. Re:So jealous by guttentag · · Score: 1

      You could be dreaming, or you could simply be living or working in Menlo Park, CA. I used to drive past here all the time. All the car dealerships on El Camino Real left that strip of real estate sandwiched between the road and the CalTrain because there simply wasn't enough space for them to store enough inventory to be competitive with dealerships in Redwood City and Palo Alto. Strangely enough, lack of space for on-hand inventory was not a problem for Tesla, so they took over one of the empty lots.

    5. Re:So jealous by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      Don't dream and drive; the live you save might be your own.

    6. Re:So jealous by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, wow. I certainly impressed that you live in or near Chicago! May I have your autograph?

    7. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of their top performing sales office is in Park Meadows mall in Colorado. They are so overwhelmed that they are going to move to that model for future showrooms. Cheap way to show case the car, with LOADS of traffic. You should grab the LRT to there.

      Now, if it would be possible to get them to manufacture their own extras to buy, such as the water bottle. At the least, make it in the west, such as SIGG so that I do not have to be concerned about lead or other pollutants being in it.

    8. Re:So jealous by skine · · Score: 1

      If you're keen on visiting a dealership, here's a list:

      http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/stores

    9. Re:So jealous by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      Wow. I am about 9-10 hours from the closest dealership. I'm so there!

    10. Re:So jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldnt there be "hot gritz" in there somewhere?

    11. Re:So jealous by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      And when GM started it didn't have a million franchises either. You're an idiot.

    12. Re:So jealous by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      GM never had a million franchises. You're a math idiot.

  8. Useless review / video by LoudMusic · · Score: 2

    Other than the hot chick in the boot, that was a worthless video.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Useless review / video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not able to view the video. Has slashdot slashdotted itself?

    2. Re:Useless review / video by 16384 · · Score: 1

      It would have been nice if they had shown the car in the video...

  9. Very cool car by ClayDowling · · Score: 5, Informative

    I saw it there, and it's one of the few cars on the floor that shows you all of the mechanicals (Ford did it with their trucks, which was also really cool). The mechanics of this car are incredibly simple. This should significantly reduce ongoing maintenance costs and make car ownership easier for the majority of people.

    1. Re:Very cool car by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Of course the most difficult repairs in a car are electrical ones, and guess what a Tesla has in spades? Diagnosing electrical problems can be a real nightmare in regular cars, I hope Tesla has engineered in better diagnostics for their cars.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Very cool car by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but electro-mechanically and electronically it is quite complex. I wonder how rugged and durable it will prove to be in everyday use. And I don't mean the battery, but all the ancillary systems like the adjustable suspension, the glass roof, the touch screen and the various powered gizmos. Perhaps they will be just as good as any other car, but they are a potential point of failure.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    3. Re:Very cool car by Fned · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Diagnosing electrical problems can be a real nightmare in regular cars

      Regular cars have a whole bunch of solenoids and sensors all over, to run systems that electric cars don't have.

      No matter what, an electric car with X features will be dramatically less complex than an IC-engine car with X features.

    4. Re:Very cool car by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      For components that matter and are in areas that need to be protected, I'm pretty sure Tesla uses milspec components, and Elon Musk publicly announced that for most of the interior components they use stuff found in more ordinary consumer electronics.

      The really complex part electrically is the battery monitoring system, where Tesla has a dedicated system monitoring the voltage levels and maintaining consistent heat levels in an attempt to keep the Li-ion battery pack from overheating or "melting down"... as sometimes happens with the technology. The cells are isolated with the system in a way that if one cell burns up, it won't take the whole battery pack out with it. That is mechanical engineering, but it doesn't have moving parts.

      As for the moving parts themselves are concerned, the Tesla vehicles have a simple electric motor (AC variable frequency induction motors) with a transmission to match wheel speed.... and the transmission is rather simple compared to internal combustion engine transmissions. The hard part there is simply getting a transmission built that would handle the torque put out by the electric motor. Going from 0-60 in under 4 seconds (the Model S appears to match this same performance spec that the Roadster also had) is a whole lot of torque to put onto the drive shaft. An auto mechanic would have no problem recognizing or repairing the transmission. Electric motors are quite famous for being rugged, and would likely outlast the chassis of the vehicle it is mounted in.

      The other miscellaneous gizmos you are talking about are what you would find on any luxury automobile. Yes, they are potential points of failure, but it won't stop the vehicle from operation and they are also repaired quite easily. Replacing those components is no different than trying to change a bulb inside the dash of a more ordinary automobile. None of those components should take more than an hour to replaced even if your were a novice mechanic.

      Seriously, I fail to see where the complexity is at, other than simply putting together the whole thing. Compared to modern ICE automobiles, it is significantly less complexity. Compared to a hammer or a crowbar, yes it is more complex. What is your standard here?

    5. Re:Very cool car by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      The battery will be significantly more expensive to replace. It's an easy job though.

    6. Re:Very cool car by Rebelgecko · · Score: 2

      I think the point of that might be some day you could just go to a gas station (or gas station equivalent) and swap out your dead battery for a full one, which would let you drive significant distances without needing to stop and charge overnight.

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    7. Re:Very cool car by ClayDowling · · Score: 1

      Supposedly if you can charge from 440v mains, charge time is on the order of 20 minutes. Time enough for a cup of coffee and a toilet break after 120 miles.

    8. Re:Very cool car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no. I drive until I think my bladder is about to explode, and peal into the nearest Denny's at 100mph, waddle painfully to the restroom, and make it to the urinal with moments to spare. Usually that's at least 300 miles

    9. Re:Very cool car by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there's an 8-year/100,000 mile warranty on that battery. After 8 years, it may be time for a whole new car anyway. If you drive a lot, and get 100,000 miles out of it in 3 years, then in 3 years, the batteries will likely be cheaper than they are now, or you'll be able to get a battery that will get you 500 mile range.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Very cool car by drivin98 · · Score: 1

      Perfect. The Model S comes in both regular and sport (0-to-60 in 4.4 seconds) with an 300 mile (85 kWh) pack.

  10. Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by RobinEggs · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I know I'm dying to see a government funded vehicle that only the wealthiest 10% of Americans can afford!

    Yes, I know that the government gave out $25 billion in loans under that program and Tesla got just $465 million, but still. I can't imagine a dumber way of promoting green transportation for the masses than building a $60,000 sedan.

    So ten thousand or so greenwashing celebrities, financiers, and Ivy League professors will buy one and then...what? They claim they'll make a cheap model when they work out the kinks and get enough funding from selling the rich-people version, and I know trickle-down economics sorta works in cutting-edge technology, but Nissan already has an electric sedan for $20,000 less.

    I just don't see why Tesla deserves our adulation.

    1. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >>I just don't see why Tesla deserves our adulation.

      Do you really think the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt would exist if Tesla did not?

      And clearly someone thinks Tesla has value as Toyota has inked a deal with them to build battery packs and power electronics for EV versions of the RAV4 mini-SUV. Daimler Benz also has agreements with Tesla to build battery packs.

    2. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who can afford 60k are not wealthy, but rather people who *can't* are poor.

    3. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It depends on "afford", I suppose. Many middle-class people could shell out $60k if it were absolutely necessary, but most financially prudent people making mid to high five figures wouldn't spend that much on a car.

    4. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a Tesla nut-swinger, however Tesla deserves credit for one very solid reason: they are the ONLY company making electric cars that are actually oriented towards people who enjoy driving. The aforementioned Nissan isn't a car, it's a transportation appliance. There's no passion in it.

      The closest other car along those lines is the Fisker Karma, which quite frankly is a joke. It has a 32 mile range on electric, after which it has a horribly underperforming 4-cylinder that gets an abysmal 20mpg.

      So, that's why Tesla deserves some credit: making an electric car that actual car people might be excited about.

    5. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know trickle-down economics sorta works in cutting-edge technology, but Nissan already has an electric sedan for $20,000 less.

      One third the price, one third the range.

      The market for luxury sedans is pretty significant, and it's possible that the existence of the Model S will drive the costs of battery packs with ranges large enough for the masses to feel comfortable down enough that maybe the next generation of $20,000 electric sedan will be something everyone will want.

      I just don't see why Tesla deserves our adulation.

      Hey, I get your point and it's a fair one. There are other reasons to adulate the company other than them being a champion of the masses. For some of us, just making cool tech is enough. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a Tesla project for a $30,000 sedan. It will go into production several years after Model S production starts. There is also another project to make a crossover in the same price range as the Model S.

      Since Tesla has neither the huge amount of engineering manpower nor the massive amounts of capital of a Detroit or Tokyo Big 3 automaker, starting in the high end and working their way downwards is their best option.

      A Nissan Leaf will go about 100 miles on a charge. A Volt, while not a true EV, will do around 40 miles. The Model S can be optioned out to a 300 mile range. No other manufacturer offers anything remotely like this.

    7. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Because the Tesla car is what electric cars SHOULD be to be competitive. The leaf's range is too short for 60% of American commutes (including mine) while the Tesla S is capable of all but the longest commutes. The leaf's battery pack cannot be swapped while the Tesla S can swap batteries to make longer trips possible given a battery swap station along the way.

      I think the government grant money was grossly mishandled overall (much of it went to companies that only had ideas that sounded good on paper). But in Tesla's case I think it's working out very well.

    8. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Median household income in the US -- one of the, if not the richest nation on earth -- is about $50k. If you make $50k, buying a $60k car makes you a fucking idiot, not un-poor.

    9. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Agreed, unless $60K is a rounding error for you, if you are going to spend that much on a car you would rather get a practical SUV made by a reputable manufacturer, not some science project that has no road experience.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    10. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, oh, if you are dying for a 60,000 dollar car, wouldn't you die 50% more if you had to pay a 50% more for a government sponsored car?

      You can get this Al Gore mobile (Fisker Karma) for just 95,000 USD.

      Well, you can get one, once they are shipped back to USA from Finland, where Fisker is outsourcing the manufacturing to. I wonder how the Finnish are taking this, after all, it's only 529,000,000 USD that the Obama administration (well, US gov't), has 'invested' into this deal.

    11. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The leaf's battery pack cannot be swapped while the Tesla S can swap batteries to make longer trips possible given a battery swap station along the way.

      Or you can hitch up a team of Unicorns to pull you the rest of the way.

    12. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      "Do you really think the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt would exist if Tesla did not?"

      Of course they would. No one looked at a struggling boutique electric car manufacturer with a single car priced over $100k and said "let's be like them". If you want the inspiration for other manufacturers stepping up their efforts just look at the Toyota Prius. Yes, it's a hybrid, but full electric is just the obvious evolution of what was done there and a way to avoid being just "another Prius". The success of that car showed the big makers that there was a market. These big automakers don't want to sell 2000 cars a year, they want to sell millions .

      Now as for the battery packs, Toyota and Daimler probably want to remain flexible and avoid the expensive tooling that producing in house would entail. Better to just have someone else supply as needed like any other component. If someone else comes up with a better battery pack, you just have to get one made to fit your cars, not overhaul your battery making factory.

    13. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Electricity is cheaper than gas where I live. Good luck affording the ongoing costs of that SUV.

      That is, unless your SUV is just a status symbol you want parked in your driveway to impress your neighbors.

    14. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...practical SUV...

      Bzzt! Sorry, death barges are many things, but practical isn't one of them. Unsafe, gas guzzling, underperforming, overweight and overpriced, yes, certainly. But practical? No.

    15. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I live right by a Fiskar dealership, yet i never see any on the road, EVER. I live in So-cal, so its not unusual to see very high end cars all the time. You would think i would see at least one by now. Ive seen multiple Teslas, A Reventon, R8s, Murcilagos etc etc.

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The planes you fly are modified bombers funded by decades of investment by the US government. The computer you use is based on technology that progressed under enormous investment by the US government. The internet, which is probably the source of all of your entertainment and possibly your income was invented, funded, and developed by the US government.

      It's one of the few things we do well, and it does our society a tremendous amount of good to invest in new technologies, even if they don't immediately produce profitable outcomes. That's why we were the world's number one economy, and it's shortsighted nonsense like demanding that everything be developed by private industry -- most of which can't see past their next quarterly report -- which is going to continue our slide to last place in the western world.

    17. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by afidel · · Score: 1

      You're missing the fact that it was a LOAN, not a grant. Remember that the government actually made money on the loans in TARP which brought the total cost down to $34B, a small fraction of the $700B initial outlay.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    18. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Teancum · · Score: 3, Informative

      So the reason why Toyota decided to make a major cash investment into Tesla Motors and had the CEO come to California to meet with Elon Musk was because they already were the world leader in electric vehicle transportation and didn't need to copy or learn anything from Tesla?

      Seriously, please explain that one.

      BTW, it was the CEO of General Motors who met with Martin Eberhardt when Tesla was in Detroit (doing a sales demo in that city) that was the clinching case to build the Chevy Volt. The Roadster really was the inspiration for getting the Volt built. The Volt was also the only new vehicle project that survived the GM bankruptcy as well. I think that says Tesla was a bit more than a "boutique electric car manufacturer".

      I could get into more details, and certainly the inspiration to use standard Li-ion cells was something that neither Toyota nor Daimler ever got the gumption to try out. Keep in mind the EV-1 used ordinary Lead-acid batteries, and until Tesla came out with their battery packs it was not even considered something possible to try Lithium technology for automobiles.

    19. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Remember that the government actually made money on the loans in TARP which brought the total cost down to $34B, a small fraction of the $700B initial outlay.

      I would still call that a waste of taxpayer money to prop up failing businesses.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    20. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There were EV-1s with NiMH batteries but due to licensing issues (Texaco bought the required patents) they stopped being manufactured.

    21. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Unsafe

      Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110 Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    22. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by dak664 · · Score: 1

      TARP looks like a success on paper, but a big chunk of another $3 trillion was involved to prop up the assets of those companies so they could repay the TARP loans with subsidized valuations. Fannie May and Freddie Mac took the heat for a lot of those losses. http://pra-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/true-costs-of-tarp.html

      Free market could handle this were it not for the lobbies and regulations that favor big business. Why *must* automobiles have airbags and be built to survive impacts of 100 km/hr? So drivers don't have to worry about messing their hair with helmets? A $10000 car with 1000 km range could easily be fielded, and let the courts decide who is to pay when the occupants are smeared by an SUV.

        A $3K electric bicycle can easily carry 200 kg with 100 km range at a top speed of 50 km/hr. It would be illegal in most civilized countries :)

    23. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you taxpayers helped develop the car I drive - the Volt, which was shepherded through by Bob Lutz, the original "car guy" - read his book or drive any of the other cars he made great (stupid things like Vettes and such). Saw a great Charile Rose interview with him and Elon Musk - and I admire them both. But don't count out the Volt as not fun to drive without driving one. I also have a 2010 Camaro SS - and on the twisty roads around here - the Volt is more agile and more fun if not as quick. The Camaro shines on straights and sweepers where it pretty much eats any other car around (all of them so far) - but you have to drive as though you were strapped into a fighter plane because that is what it is. The Volt is more like a euro sporty car, much more comfortable with quick switchbacks, it's just more agile and plenty fast when its the curves that limit your speeds anyway. The Camaro would beat it - but at the end of the road the Camaro driver is going to be really tired, and the Volt driver is going to have a mile wide grin - and not be very far behind anyway.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    24. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by dmbasso · · Score: 0

      Please, please, please watch "Who killed the electric car?"!

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    25. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The Volt was also the only new vehicle project that survived the GM bankruptcy as well.

      It should, perhaps, be noted that GM didn't manage to sell even 10,000 Volts last year. Not an especially inspiring start....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      Unsafe

      Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110

      Turns out it's better to avoid a crash than to get in one. Try this: http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

      Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

      Already brought the Ikea dining room set home in my compact sedan, thanks. 8 person table with 6 chairs. Need more room? Buy a minivan.

    27. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you don't know anything about trickle-down economics. Every worthwhile technological advancement you use today is a direct result of it.

      In 5-6 years Tesla has not only proven it can make a far superior vehicle to that of combustion, but it has cut it's price point in 1/2 at the same time. Why do you think Nissan HAS an EV available on the market? The entire EV revolution that exists today is a direct result of Tesla, who had a production vehicle on the market FIVE years ago. The Roadster was a proof-of-concept vehicle that not only proves superior engine capability but battery technology as well. This is just the beginning. Without Tesla pioneering this market there wouldn't be ANY EV vehicles in mass production today. Someone had to step to the plate and take the big risk... you think ANY of the major manufacturer's would have bothered which such an experiment? Hell no! They have SHAREHOLDERS to think of.

      Tesla received an extremely small fraction of government funding compared to the big 3 US automakers. And they are making good use of it. Clearly you can't afford a $50k automobile, but there are quite a few of use of us who can. Your idea of who buy's such a car is either clearly warped or you're just being an asshole about it... by the tone of your post I'm going to go with the latter.

      I dare you to share with the world ANY technological product in the last 100 years that started from the bottom up. NOBODY wants what poor people can afford. Television set's, radio's CD/DVD/BLU-RAY players, automobile's, computer's, smart-phones, tablet PC's, ELECTRICITY, PLUMBING... all things things that were owned by the rich first. That's the way things work. The rich get it first. If it's desirable, then less affluent people want it... supply and demand is what brings down cost for the rest of us.

      This isn't rocket science... it's basic economics. If you can understand how to use words like "adulation" then you have no business posting such ignorant nonsense.

      Fact is I've had the opportunity to sit in the drivers seat of the Model-S and it's an AMAZING machine. It's NOT overly priced, quite the opposite, and if they are able to succeed bringing it to market it will be the best available EV on the road for the price, performance, luxury, etc. I will be purchasing one myself as soon as they are in mass production.

    28. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I think most of you have misinterpreted my post as libertarian blustering, and it's not. I'm entirely in favor of government funding for interesting projects, and even in favor of outright nationalizing things like healthcare; I'm much more socialist than libertarian.

      I'm not opposed to a car maker getting government money, I just think Tesla is a boutique manufacturer for rich people masquerading as a technical visionary. They seem to me a place with more hype than substance, sucking up government loans and free publicity that will never translate into a car cheap and practical enough that the bottom 70% could even consider buying one.

    29. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Model X Crossover SUV will be announced on Feb 9th. It will come out late 2012, or mid 2013. What is publicly known about it is that it will have all-wheel drive, seats 7 (3rd row seating), falcon doors (recessed handles), and still do 160-300 mpc (miles per charge). In addition, the roof will be .... Interesting. Wait till you see it. hehehe.

    30. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      You're missing the fact that it was a LOAN, not a grant.

      No, I'm not missing anything. From my original statement:

      Yes, I know that the government gave out $25 billion in loans under that program and Tesla got just $465 million

      Tesla may be required to pay back the loan, but they could also completely fail to produce sufficient sales to pay it back, in which case the government will much more likely see fit to forgive the principal, make ridiculous concessions on repayments, etc. than sue Tesla into oblivion and seize their assets like any competent private lender would do. The government has a hideously bad track record of getting money back out of the things they've bailed out or invested in. TARP was very much an outlier in that regard. Look at the state of federal housing subsidies, disaster relief funds, and military procurement. Trillions upon trillions in unpunished cost overruns, mismanagement, and outright fraud.

      The bottom line: there's not a big difference, functionally, between a loan and a grant when it comes to government money. If a business fails or mismanages that cash they almost always get away with it. I don't think Tesla will mismanage or steal their loan cash, but I also don't believe they'll do well enough to justify the loan in the long run, and they may indeed discharge or renegotiate their loan to the detriment of the taxpayer.

      I also disagree with and find suspicious, as I said before, their general pattern of development: I understand going after the enthusiast market to fund further development of the consumer editions, and I understand government funding for an ambitious and scientifically important project, but I really don't like seeing a company doing both at the same time.

      When a government responsibly invests in scientific, military, or consumer technology they typically act as a major, or even the only, initial customer as well; either that or they at least invest in something specifically targeted for universal adoption at all levels of society. Why the government should invest in a consumer product which will be sold almost exclusively to the wealthy on the mere hope that the company does well enough that their third or fourth product would finally be something for the commoners is beyond me; I simply don't find that a credible or responsible way of influencing technological advance with taxpayer funds. Why should I buy a toy for the rich while merely hoping it becomes a car I can eventually attain? Why shouldn't the new product Tesla develops on federal money be a product that we would all benefit from even if the company fails to repay the loan or produce mass-marketable technology? They could, and should, have been required to use that loan on producing fleet vehicles, for example, rather than luxury sedans. Fleet vehicles have very consistent use cases, from mileage to driving style to environments driven. If Tesla built electric military jeeps for base police, or patrol cars for urban police forces, or new postal vans, then even if they didn't do well enough to make a consumer model everything they built would be useful to the citizens who funded them in the form of new public infrastructure.

      Instead we funded a car for rich people, and if the company doesn't do well or can't develop a cheaper version with mass-market sales we'll end up with fuck all to show for it.

    31. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      I've seen exactly one on the road (with manufacturer plates) and I work near a major automotive testing facility where they test just about everything. I've seen more Lancias than Fiskars, and they don't even sell Lancias in the US.

      I saw it at night, and at first I thought it was some weird Peugeot, as it was hideous-looking from the back (the week before I had seen a new Peugeot wagon on a flatbed - I thought it was a Golf with some awful body kit bolted-on)

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    32. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      +1. There were cars in the 90's that got 40-50MPG using the new EPA formulae. They would be considered death traps these days. Gotta load in 400lbs of airbags, crumple zones and double-folded steel pillars to keep people safe.

      Using today's engine and transmission technology, the same cars would probably be pushing 80MPG, without all the extra safety equipment weighing them down.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    33. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Teancum · · Score: 1

      GM didn't bother to even make more than about 10,000 of their Volt model either. I put that more something that is a problem with their marketing team than anything that is a problem with the engineering.

      If you want me to nitpick about problems with the Volt, I could go on, and there are numerous issues that I see which GM didn't need to get into, but none the less the Volt is a sign that General Motors wants to stay relevant and continue to be involved with the electric automobile "just in case" it starts to take off in terms of public acceptance.

    34. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try an (e38) 7 series BMW. you get a v8 or v12 with the handling characteristics of the Volt. I picked one up for sub-4k. However the mpg is probably even worse than your SS. But again, I didn't even come close to breaking 4 digits on it. Ponies to spare, and the iL version gives you 100 cubic ft of cabin space. More than a number of SUV's. It should be noted that I don't drive more than about 20 miles a week so a 20 gallon tank lasts me over a month though.

    35. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by drivin98 · · Score: 1
      So much anger, dude. They got a loan at a time when banks weren't loaning money to each other, let alone innovative start-ups. A drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money the government spends, which, in case you need reminding, will be paid back.
      Does your rage extend to not buying the gasoline we subsidize the crap out of?

      And yes, Nissan has the Leaf for half the price...with half the range and half the driving dynamics. Knock yerself out.

    36. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, spot on man....apart from Airbus, and Messerschmidt and BAC and Hawker Siddely and SAAB and Mikoyan and Concorde and CERN and Colossus and CSIRAC..and... the list goes on and on.........I can't even be bothered writing out the scores of names.

      But Yoo Ess Ayy Numba Wun !!, right ?

    37. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by afidel · · Score: 1

      You make a bunch of assertions in your post without any backing data, show me a government loan program where it's lost more than 10% of the principal.

      As to you other point about what Tesla should do with the loan money, they've had a very public strategy since the company was formed and have hit all their marks along the way so far AND as a bonus sold their technology to other auto manufacturers.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    38. Re:Yay! Government funded luxury wanker mobiles! by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      The owner / visionary behind Tesla is Elon Musk, he same man behind SpaceX. He's definitely what I would consider a visionary. He's bound and determined to drag us into the future, despite much of the entrenched efforts to prevent it. He fully has my support in this.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  11. Not interested... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Not interested, until they bring back the roadster...now THAT was a car.

    Not interested in any family cars....more than 2 seats.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not interested, until they bring back the terrible handling over priced lotus...now THAT was a car.

    2. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you haven't sat in the Model S then you're opinion is pointless. Its an AMAZING machine and a beautiful piece of engineering.

    3. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't driven a F1 car then you're opinion is pointless. Its an AMAZING machine and a beautiful piece of engineering.

    4. Re:Not interested... by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Roadster was not an Elise with a different nameplate. Yes, the chassis was made at the same factory for both vehicles, but that is pretty much where the similarity ended.

    5. Re:Not interested... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      It may be amazing...for a sedan. It is not a sports car.

      Anything with more than two seats...is not a sports car, it is a family car.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They all the best parts of the Elise and threw them out. What you are left with is a massive pile of shit.

    7. Re:Not interested... by Ossifer · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is also a HORRIBLE airplane!

    8. Re:Not interested... by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Um, 3000 GT VR4 twin turbo? (okay, okay, the rear seats are only useful for children and beer... But it has over 400 HP, and has been on the track.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    9. Re:Not interested... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      Yes, sporty... 0-60 5.4s.

      See also Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR (4.8s) and Subaru WRX-STI (4.4s). The WRX-STI comes in a station wagon and is a 4.x second car factory standard. For anyone needing a practical family race car.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    10. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My old 1976 Porsche 911 had two back seats, that's four seats altogether. It was definitely not a family car.

    11. Re:Not interested... by adolf · · Score: 1

      M3? M5?

      While BMW might make (mostly) "family cars" by your definition, my definition differs: They were the first to offer a regular production car that could achieve greater than 1 lateral G on a skidpad, and happened to do it in a vehicle that can seat five people.

    12. Re:Not interested... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The only BMW's I'd be interested in are the two seaters.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Not interested... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Fair enough -- I'm certainly not here to tell you what you might be interested in, but I'll gladly take your comment to mean that you concede to my point.

    14. Re:Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
        Albert Einstein

    15. Re:Not interested... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

      oh wait, that dude doesn't post here anymore...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  12. Just in time by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Timed to calm the equity markets jittery over the news of two key Model S engineers leaving

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  13. Please fix the story title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the Tesla "Model S", not "Tesla S".

    Humbly yours,

    A Tesla employee

  14. This is just the way new technology is created by Smeagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Often times the first generations of new technology are so extremely expensive, that only the rich can afford them. Then slowly, with iterations and perfections, the prices come down to normal consumer prices. Almost every breakthrough technology has been that way, car's, computers, tv's, home entertainment. The thing is, unless there's the initial generation of very expensive technology, there's usually no starting point for engineers to slowly develop improved and cheaper ways to build. It's rare a technology goes from non-existent to every consumer can afford it. Also keep in mind Tesla isn't trying to compete with Toyota sedans, it's trying to compete with high-end BMW, Audi, Infiniti sedans. As in other automobile technologies, the cheaper sedans benefit from all the R&D that goes into the more expensive sedans, as their features slowly trickle into the cheaper sedans.

    1. Re:This is just the way new technology is created by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon Teslas will be as cheap as superfluous apostrophes.

  15. Boring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric vehicles are just toys for idiots and public figures who want to show the world how 'green' they are.

    If it's not powered by an ICE, it's not a real car.

    1. Re:Boring. by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      There was a time when electric, steam and gasoline competed against each other with no clear winner. That was until gasoline engines got better. If something changes in the equation, another mode of generating motive power may be more competitive.

    2. Re:Boring. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That was until gasoline engines got better.

      Actually, there was a lot of fashion as well, and steam was deeply unfashionable. There were innovations (see e.g. Doble) which kept steam technically competitive.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  16. Hardly a Sedan by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Optional rear facing mini-seats? This isn't a family car, this is just a roadster that can transport a family in a pinch.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Hardly a Sedan by b0bby · · Score: 2

      Judging by the pictures (can't see the video) it is a pretty standard 4-door sedan. I assume the optional rear facing seat are to allow kids to sit in the trunk area or something. In fact, on their website it says seating up to 7 - that would be 5 normal seats plus two kids in the trunk I guess.

    2. Re:Hardly a Sedan by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Optional rear facing mini-seats? This isn't a family car, this is just a roadster that can transport a family in a pinch.

      Right, just like most other luxury sports sedans. It's for well-off folks who like fast cars but need something practical enough to justify owning when you have a family.

      Guessing by the number of these kinds of cars by BMW, Lexus, etc I see as I drive around, this is not a tiny market.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Hardly a Sedan by ickpoo · · Score: 1

      It is a family car, has four normal seats (the expected ones), and has optional additional 2 seats. The rear facing seats are in the trunk. (it is a hatch back).

      --
      I am not a script! .Sig?
    4. Re:Hardly a Sedan by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Ah, I misunderstood then. I thought it was a "4 seater" with the rear seats being hilariously useless.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  17. Video features comment by MBCook · · Score: 3

    I kinda like these video features, but *wow* is that 1960s era robotic voice obnoxious. It's incredibly grating to listen to.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  18. The Tesla is great but... by ItsIllak · · Score: 0

    It's a pity, this is a great example and great use of technology but deep down, it's just not able to deliver any real benefits over any other sedan.

    The energy costs of the car in an entire lifespan are probably equal or worse than petrol. This technology requires more energy to make and involves expensive mid-term disposable battery packs. Energy used for it has probably had 50% of it's already non-optimal conversion efficiency wasted in down-the-wire transmission.

    When that's taken into account, what's the point really? Lets just get over to being a renewable power produced hydrogen economy already. There are no other options that really help.

    I still want one though. Shove an apple logo on it and it'd sell by the shipload.

    1. Re:The Tesla is great but... by DanDD · · Score: 1

      A hydrogen economy is so far off that it's even more fiction than a Tesla. There are at least two Tesla dealerships in the Denver, Colorado area, and these cars are in fact driving around (at least the Roadsters).

      First, hydrogen is just an energy carrier. How are you going to produce this hydrogen?

      Second, once you produce hydrogen, how are you going to distribute it around? Replace natural gas? Not for hundreds of years....

      If you have the energy to produce hydrogen, why not just use the existing grid? Sure, the US electrical grid needs some TLC, but it is quite functional and is capable of serving a significant number of electric vehicles, especially when charged during off-peak hours. We have no infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen on any usable scale.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    2. Re:The Tesla is great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The batteries are recyleable and your ICE loses more than 50% of the energy from its fuel.

      Hydrogen is a scam. It brittles everything and there is no good source for it. Most of it comes from Natural Gas reformation.

    3. Re:The Tesla is great but... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This technology requires more energy to make and involves expensive mid-term disposable battery packs.

      They aren't going to just dispose of a component that comprises a third of the price of the vehicle. Already all the electric vehicle makers are finding buyers for used battery packs when they don't have enough charge left to be useful in the car. And once that's gone they'll be recycled for the lithium.

      Energy used for it has probably had 50% of it's already non-optimal conversion efficiency wasted in down-the-wire transmission.

      That seems highly pessimistic. Transmission losses are less than 10% on the grid, and will be much less within the car.

      Lets just get over to being a renewable power produced hydrogen economy already.

      Hydrogen fuel cells also require high-tech manufacturing.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:The Tesla is great but... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen can be produced at the point of delivery or even in your home, so the distribution system doesn't need to be nearly so extensive as natural gas or other fuel distribution systems. It can also be shipped in bulk as ordinary water for those few places that may need to have it shipped in from a distance. A tanker truck full of water is not really a significant danger on a highway other than the sheer mass of the vehicle.

      Getting fueling stations set up is a bit harder for hydrogen, and by far and away the hardest part is simply getting the chicken or egg problem going where you need a sizable enough fleet of hydrogen vehicles to justify building the fueling stations in the first place. There is a fleet of natural gas vehicles, and even then it is hard to come by fueling stations for that fuel source.

      A similar problem is happening with electric vehicles, but recharging stations are beginning to appear now that you can find electric vehicles that would be able to use them in the first place. Home charging stations are the key here that makes it work. I'm just suggesting that a similar kind of set-up could be used for hydrogen cars as well.

      What would make hydrogen become a viable fuel source in my own opinion would be the development of nuclear fusion as a viable energy source. Discounting cold fusion completely, if something like the Polywell or even the Tokamak fusion reactors ever got to a production power situation, they could make hydrogen gas cheap enough as a fuel source to make it practical. Since neither of those fusion reactor types can ever be scaled down to the size of a consumer automobile, something like hydrogen would be the next best thing.

    5. Re:The Tesla is great but... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That would be assuming power lines are cheaper to build than natural gas pipelines and have less losses. Which they don't. Otherwise you wouldn't ever see a natural gas electric power plant at all.

    6. Re:The Tesla is great but... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not to mention platinum, until someone gets the SOFC ceramics working in a vibration prone environment.

    7. Re:The Tesla is great but... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If electricity was made incredibly cheap due to fusion power, losses would be trivial and irrelevant. I have no idea what that does to the overall environment, but that is a completely separate issue. Besides, who says you need to have power lines that extend for thousands of miles? On top of that, the grid with power lines is already built and designed to handle Gigawatts of energy, while something like a Hydrogen gas pipeline would require a whole new infrastructure.

      Natural Gas pipelines are interesting, but they couldn't easily be used to mix Methane and Hydrogen at the same time. Perhaps a method could be created to do that, but it isn't easy or cheap.

      I also think you missed the point I was making that Hydrogen generation being made at a very local level, and note also that Hydrogen can also be produced through methods that don't require electrolysis or even electricity at all. Fusion plants could also simply heat up water to the point of disassociation, allowing simple separation of Oxygen and Hydrogen as separate gasses. You just have to think outside of the box.

  19. You can get there in a Prius... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get there in a Prius with a plug-in recharge retrofit. Why would you want to drive there in your Prius? To smirk at the chumps paying $80k for this shit or course. Because you're a Prius driver, so not only is your car one of the most efficient on the road, you're also an asshole about it.

  20. Relevancy of the weather in Detroit? by sdguero · · Score: 1

    The first 1/3 of the video is this dude with whack glasses complaining about the drive to D-town. Counting the lame intro/outro, a full 1/2 of this video is complete fluff. Thanks for wasting my time /.

    1. Re:Relevancy of the weather in Detroit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that the Slashdot video system buffers and pops every 30 seconds or so. Dislike old man Harry Potter.

  21. Nice but....Volt! by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Picked up my new Volt in Oct. Loving it. If I had to charge it off power company power, it would cost me about $1/40 miles. But I have plenty of solar panels. And yes, it has a nice engine too. Having a sense of humor, I just bought some nice flame decal stickons for it. It's actually a right sporty car, particularly off the line in traffic, and an utter blast to drive on the twisty mountain roads where I live.

    You can hate on "government motors" all ya want - They did a great job on this one, and unlike the haters, I'm getting that bailout money back in the form of something pretty darn cool. Could it just be sour grapes? Or is it all astroturfing by people with errrm, illiquid investments in the oil patch who are desperate?

    More here: http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=48

    Don't get me wrong - I admire Elon and his projects quite a bit. They're just behind. A big company might take longer to get the word, but once they get in motion, look out - I couldn't get a Tesla, or afford one, but this is in my driveway now. And I promise to exit the car within the three weeks it takes to catch on fire after being total lossed sideways into a pole. I'd rather not starve to death before burning.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Nice but....Volt! by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can hate on "government motors" all ya want - They did a great job on this one, and unlike the haters, I'm getting that bailout money back in the form of something pretty darn cool.

      Also it should be noted that GM is once again the world's largest seller of automobiles. So it would appear the bailout had its intended effect -- instead of a gaping hole where GM used to be, we now have a successful domestic auto company.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Nice but....Volt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't GM mostly run by the Koreans now though?

    3. Re:Nice but....Volt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Chinese. And GM is giving the Chinese loads of American tech, in exchange for the right to sell in China. I wish that companies like MS, IBM, GE, GM, Wallmart, K-Mart, Target, etc would simply have the decency to move their HQs to China. It would be a great deal more honest.

    4. Re:Nice but....Volt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong. The volt has a 16KWh battery. 1KWh, in California at least, costs me $0.29, since this car will certainly be charged with "above baseline priced" electricity, so 16x$0.29=$4.64, and I can then go 35 miles on that charge. I can also go 35 miles in a Honda Civic on 1 gallon of gas. Where's the saving? Seems more expensive to me, and this is without considering that I probably payed many $1000's as a premium for the car.

    5. Re:Nice but....Volt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bondholders got screwed. The big lie from Obama that GM buyers didn't have to worry about their warranties has been exposed. The unions got paid off for their ballot box loyalty. The taxpayers took hundreds of millions in losses in Chrysler and are looking to repeat that success with GM. Yeah, it was a big win. /s

      "GM shares have fallen to less than half the price that the government needs to break even. They closed Friday at $20.50 a share. Taxpayers need at least $53 a share to recover their investment." USA Today, Dec 26, 2011.

      Dealers don't even want the Volt. It's selling far below expectations. I'm sure even the Edsel had defenders.

  22. Convertibles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So doing a quick search, I can pay $120,000 for a new convertible that saves ~$50 a month on gas (I have a very short commute) and costs an unknown amount of additional electricity over whatever charge duration.

    Ignoring the power costs, and assuming my Sebring requires less than $20,000 maintenance during the following math: A car named after an absolute pioneer in the field of electromagnetics will pay for itself in ... .... a little under 200 years. Ok, in that time scale I'm sure my Sebring will take more than $20,000 in maintenance costs, and I'll probably either be dead, or otherwise lose interest in having a convertible long before that time. If I was prepping to spend around $120,000 for a car, I'd probably buy something else and bank the difference to cover some of the fuel.

    1. Re:Convertibles... by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Clearly you didn't read the summary or watch the video (or read the title for that matter?)

      The Tesla Model S is around $60K, and is a sedan.
      The Tesla Roadster is around $120K, and is a two seater sport car.

      Please read before posting.

  23. Video feature? Hmm, alright, but... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    Love the idea of video features, however this is all I took away from that piece:
    * the trunk has rear-facing child seats
    * the battery has 4 bolts for quick exchange
    * someone with functioning ears could help improve the "robot seizure" intro and outro clips

  24. Detroit "International" Auto show? by hairyfish · · Score: 0

    Is this where International Auto makers come and show Detroit how to make a proper automobile? I can't believe anyone would come from overseas looking for something to buy. How does an auto industry the size and strength of the US can fail so miserably with the quality of their products?

  25. Built with your Communist Tax Dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in Finland. Eat it you lemmings.

  26. Tesla is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd give any practical electric car 150 km range with careful driving, and far less under spirited driving.
    Once you run out of juice you're SOL for 3-4 hours while your green ride recharges.
    If the thought of spending $60k for a neighborhood grocery getter appeals to your sense of responsibility, then Tesla might actually have a chance of turning a profit.

  27. Who Killed the Electric Car? by dmbasso · · Score: 1
    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  28. That's Fisker, Dumb-ass by cmholm · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of the Fisker Karma, dumb-ass, which is being built in Finland. The mass market car Fisker is developing - the target of the vast majority of the Federal investment - will be built in the US.

    You probably think Newt is a respected philosopher, too.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  29. Awww man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish my name was Tim Lord

  30. Advertising by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

    I clicked the disable all adds button. How come I can still see this thread?

  31. Content unavailiable? by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

    Really?

  32. Sports cars have 2 seats = bad definition by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Just some examples I can think of 4 seater sports cars - which few people will argue are not sports cars:
    Porsche 911 (all models except for the GT3 which has no back seats)
    BMW M3 and M5
    Nissan GT-R
    Aston Martin Rapide and DB9

    Yes there are more, but you get the point. Some will argue that a true sports car must be a 2 seater, and be a convertable, but.... so what.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.