Tesla Motors - 100% Electric Vehicle

[Nycteus]

Tesla Motors is a new company that currently has 1 model electric vehicle (Sportster) with their 2nd model (S) coming in 2012. I really hope they have success in their product line so we can begin to see the automotive market lean in this direction.

Model S (2012)

• 300 miles/charge
• 0-60mph in 5.6s
• 130mph top speed
• seating for 5+2(children)
• $50,000

Their website is http://www.teslamotors.com and may be a little bogged down today. They are getting some attention today because of their amazing stock debut yesterday.

[DGthe3]

What they don't tell you is that the model with the 300 mi battery isn't going to cost $50k. Thats only for the base model with 160 mi range. And for $50k there are plenty of other sedans that offer more luxury, better styling, more performance, and greater range. Electric drive is alright for off the line acceleration, but the faster they go the more gutless they become.

[Nycteus]

You're correct concerning the fact that magnetic motors have a huge benefit at 0 RPM and deteriorated benefit at higher RPM's. Here's a power and torque chart comparing a standard high output 6 cylinder vs. a magnetic motor:




This was taken from: http://www.teslamotors.com/performan...and_torque.php

[storm79]

problem i have with all electric vehicles is that you can't just go fill up with gas once u run out, you have to wait for the vehicle to charge....that is why the only electric vehicle i would choose is the Volt

[DGthe3]

And the lack of gearing means that when you punch it at 50 mph you're going make steadily less power as you accelerate. With a gasoline engine, you downshift to move back to near your peak torque and as you accelerate, power will continue to build as the revs climb causing the car to accelerate faster towards the desired speed not slower.

Electrics have their place, but Tesla only seems interested in using them in ways they're poorly suited. Small urban cars? Great. Never go too fast or too far so a small battery and low power (yet high torque) motor are fine. The low speed acceleration would shine going from stop light to stop light in traffic. And when stopped for those lights, it uses practically no energy. Its nearly ideal for use as an urban commuter vehicles. But sports cars? Not so much.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I'm still waiting for someone to invent a Robust CVT to mate with high-performance electric motors. They can stay in their lower revs and maintain better power/torque-delivery.

Oh...and btw -- the Roadster will never reach the advertised range if you put A/C on, or lights, or radio, or even accelerate faster than their conservative tests.

The Industry IS moving this direction...the fact Tesla exists supports that idea. But pure-electrics have a looooong way to go before they're viable.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'm still waiting for someone to invent a Robust CVT to mate with high-performance electric motors. They can stay in their lower revs and maintain better power/torque-delivery.

Oh...and btw -- the Roadster will never reach the advertised range if you put A/C on, or lights, or radio, or even accelerate faster than their conservative tests.

The Industry IS moving this direction...the fact Tesla exists supports that idea. But pure-electrics have a looooong way to go before they're viable.

The technology has clearly moved forward, and Tesla is a great example of that. Unfortunately, their company has not had a profitable quarter since 2003, and that might be a small demonstration that these cars, even as bragging exotics, aren't viable enough for the market.

[Nycteus]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Unfortunately, their company has not had a profitable quarter since 2003, and that might be a small demonstration that these cars, even as bragging exotics, aren't viable enough for the market.

This is why I am hoping they have success in their "S" model vehicle due out in 2012. So far the only vehicle or option they have is the ridiculously expensive $100k+ sportster model.

With a $50,000 pricetag for the S model it will hopefully attract a lot more customers.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Nycteus

This is why I am hoping they have success in their "S" model vehicle due out in 2012. So far the only vehicle or option they have is the ridiculously expensive $100k+ sportster model.

With a $50,000 pricetag for the S model it will hopefully attract a lot more customers.

Hopefully...but really think about it. 160 miles MAX range for $50,000....or 300+ and no 5-hour charge time for $35-40 (Volt)? Obviously one will look better than the other...but in terms of practicality, Tesla isn't quite there...

[Captain Awesome]

I love how people still don't realize how inefficient these "100% electric" vehicles are...

I guess some people won't realize this until after they own one how foolish the idea is.

Hint: Generating, transmittingm and storing electricity wastes a whole lot more energy and pollutes the environment much more than burning a bunch of dead dinosaurs.

There's probably some technological brerakthrough in batteries or solar cells that may remove a portion of this inefficient process, but with businesses flat on their backs and being stripped of their motivation and incentive it looks like that future is a looooong way off.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Hint: Generating, transmittingm and storing electricity wastes a whole lot more energy and pollutes the environment much more than burning a bunch of dead dinosaurs.

Not necessarily....it's almost appalling at how much energy is wasted when you burn a gallon of gasoline in a 4-stroke engine that's designed to radiate heat.

[Mindz]

it's the nuclear and coal plants that power the stations that provide the energy to charge the car going up that makes electric car buyers just as bad as fossil fuel burners. Had we all solar and wind power stations, it'd be fine, but everyone uses coal plants to power their plugs at home.

Plus, only 55 miles per charge? for over 100,000 per car???




I'm only half joking...

[alrox]

Mere toys for the rich. They will never replace gas burning engines in our lifetimes. Gasoline is a far superior energy source compared to electricity. The "$50,000" Tesla is a blatant lie as well.

[Nycteus]

Originally Posted by alrox

Mere toys for the rich. They will never replace gas burning engines in our lifetimes. Gasoline is a far superior energy source compared to electricity. The "$50,000" Tesla is a blatant lie as well.

Tesla's quote on their website is $49,900.

Had we all solar and wind power stations, it'd be fine, but everyone uses coal plants to power their plugs at home.

As an Electrical Engineer... this will never happen. Wind is not even close to being reliable or sufficient enough of a power source. Solar panels are not efficient enough. If I can recall some old calculations, we can only capture 80 Watts per square meter of energy from the sun (trying to recall... I think the sun outputs close to 800 Watts per square meter) so we'd need something like the entire northeastern section of the US to be covered in solar panels to supply the power being produced by coal/gas power plants.

Also, coal power is suprisingly clean.

However, Nuclear Power is what we want/need for clean power generation but it is too tied up in danger/politics.


Also, for the guy saying about efficiency: