|
I’m taking a break from answering questions to tell you things about Nikola Tesla that piled on me this week. But before I start, here are a few quick answers:
- Cost-effectiveness of owning a Tesla Roadster: No doubt about it, a Tesla Roadster never will pay for itself in dollars compared to (for example) a Ford Focus. But then again, when you drive a Focus, are you paying for your share of global warming? How about your share of our adventure in the Middle East? How much is “the earth” worth? How much is our national security worth? When will you pay for it? People who buy Tesla Roadsters or even hybrids (or solar panel arrays, which have a longer return on investment) know perfectly well that their “investment” will not always pay for itself in cash. The payoff is on a different plane. (And you will have a hell of a lot more fun in a Tesla Roadster than in any Ford.
) - Electric grid efficiency: Somehow people get the idea that the electric grid is massively inefficient, but this just ain’t so. Check my references in the whitepaper, The 21st Century Electric Car. The average efficiency of the U.S. grid is 92 percent.
- White Star test drives: It will be a while before we can talk about test drives for White Star, our four-door family car slated for the 2009 time frame. We still are in the very beginning of the design phase! Patience…
- Lotus Europa: The Europa does not share components with the Tesla Roadster except in that it also uses common parts from the Elise (e.g., the windshield surround, wiper system, and many safety systems including airbags, aspects of the brakes, front suspension, and the steering gear). The Europa was not known to us at Tesla Motors when we developed the Tesla Roadster. Any similarities (especially in styling) are only coincidental and superficial.
- Motor frequency: The motor makes one revolution for every two cycles of its three-phase AC input. So when the motor is turning at 13,500 RPM (which is 225 revolutions per second) the AC frequency is 450 cycles per second.
- Copper rotor: Anatoly Moskalev, in a recent post to my Motor City blog, astutely points out that “…copper in its pure annealed form (most conductive) is very soft metal mechanically. But most highly conductive part of a rotor has to hold biggest mechanical stress because forces from electromagnetic field are applied mostly to areas in rotor with highest current. So making mechanically robust rotor from soft metal trying to minimize its mass is a real challenge.” Exactly. But we do use pure copper; making it mechanically robust is part of our secret sauce.
- Motor efficiency in general: Yes, I have seen believable claims of AC induction motor efficiencies greater than ours, but as far as I can tell, these are ideal efficiencies – at the particular motor’s ideal speed and load. Our motor was optimized to provide decent efficiency over very wide RPM and load conditions – its efficiency map is very flat. The numbers we quote are not the peak efficiency of our motor, but the average efficiency expected over the course of driving through the EPA’s highway driving schedule.
- Hub motors: What’s with the obsession about hub motors? Or to put it more succinctly: What problem - what actual, real problem - would hub motors solve? They won’t improve performance. They won’t improve efficiency. They won’t improve reliability. They won’t improve safety. They won’t reduce program risk.
Consider this: A differential is a very simple, reliable, and efficient device - particularly when the motor is transverse-mounted (since the motor rotation axis is parallel to the wheel rotation axis). Note that the internal (”differential”) gears in a differential do not turn except when cornering - and then only slowly. The differential simply acts as a ring gear to match the speed of the motor to that of the wheels. Similarly, half-shafts with CV joints are also simple, reliable, and efficient – especially when driving rear wheels, since they don’t have to bend with steering.
The penalties for using hub motors include: 1) More unsprung mass. (Note that there is no way that you can eliminate brakes and still have a safe car! The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards won’t allow it anyway.) 2) More total motor mass for the same total power. Two (or four) smaller motors are of necessity heavier than one larger motor of equivalent total power. 3) Replication of motor inverter electronics. Each motor will require its own expensive, complex inverter. In the end, a differential plus a pair of shafts is more reliable and more efficient than a second inverter and a second motor - especially when the two inverters must act in coordination. 4) We would be forced into a motor type that has less than ideal torque characteristics. The AC Induction motor provides the best overall torque characteristics for a car. Unfortunately, this type of motor does not work well in the pancake format needed for a hub motor. Bottom line: Tesla Motors chooses its technologies based on actual performance and actual feasibility. We shy away from technologies that are merely trendy or only look good on paper. That’s why we use AC Induction motors instead of hub motors. That’s why we use Li-ion batteries instead of ultracapacitors. That’s why we use aluminum instead of unobtainium. - Friesen motor: When someone claims they can improve our efficiency by 40 percent, you have to wonder how, when our motor is already running in the neighborhood of 90 percent efficiency. It seems to me that there is a theoretical upper limit for improving our motor of about 10 percent… A claim of 40 percent improvement should set off all our bullhalibut detectors.
- Jobst: Yes indeed, our technology is not that different from what’s used in trains. The big differences are mass and storage. The kind of mass optimization that we have done would make no sense on a train. (I’m not an expert on trains, but I suspect that up to a point, mass actually helps trains get traction.) Since electric trains have infinite “storage” on the third rail, there also is not quite the need for motor efficiency.
My answers weren’t so quick after all. But I still want to tell you about an award we won and, as promised, some things about Nikola Tesla.
Tesla Motors had the distinct honor to receive a Product/Industrial Design Award from Global Green, Mikhail Gorbachev’s organization focused on solving the big environmental issues. Elon and I accepted the award behalf of Tesla Motors at the Global Green awards ceremony in New York last Monday (October 16, 2006).
My wife, Carolyn, and I, together with Elon and his wife, got to sit at the head table with Gorbachev. His daughter, his translator, three other award recipients, and the president of Global Green also sat with us. It was incredibly interesting, and the audience of about 450 people was very enthusiastic about Tesla Motors. (Several became customers that evening, breaking through 200 Tesla Roadster customers!)
During the intro, a video was shown highlighting some of Global Green’s projects. It turns out that in her previous job, Carolyn managed a portion of the design of a facility in Russia that destroys chemical weapons. This facility was shown in the video, and Carolyn got a big handshake from Gorbachev when his translator pointed this out. Needless to say, this made her evening. (She says that seeing me receive the award made her evening, but I know better. )
Unpaid advertisement: Global Green introduced us to Ozocar. These guys provide limo service in New York using hybrids instead of big ol’ Lincolns. Not only do they get vastly better gas mileage than the black limos, they also have decent wireless access in the cars, as well as a laptop computer that that you can use to get online during the ride. And our driver was awesome.
Hotel New Yorker
But that’s not what this blog is about… We had all day Sunday to hang out in New York City; the first time for my wife and me together. We did some of the usual tourist stuff, including the 102nd-floor observation deck of the Empire State Building. (A cliché, but awesome none the less.) We went to Times Square to buy t-shirts for the kids and to check out the electronic billboard where the RIM guys allegedly paid for a billboard of me holding my Blackberry Pearl in front of a Tesla Roadster. We also checked out the Main Branch of the New York Public Library. If you’ve never been, go see this place! Next door in Bryant Park, there was a cool “meet the author” signing event that reminded me of the fun I had doing the Rocket eBook thing.
But the focus of our tourism was to check out some of Nikola Tesla’s haunts. We spent some time at the Hotel New Yorker where Tesla spent his later years and ultimately died. It was kind of depressing.
Nikola Tesla Memorial Plaque
There was a decent plaque on the wall, but some truck had run into the marquee of the hotel and it looked even more run down than it normally would. Around the corner on the hotel wall was a window display of the various famous folks who’ve stayed at the New Yorker. Among the many was a photo of Tesla very late in his life shaking hands with the King Peter II of Yugoslavia in his dingy room at the New Yorker. Very surreal.
Nikola Tesla Greets
King Peter II of Yugoslovia
We found our way right back to Bryant Park (much to our surprise) to discover that the corner of 6th Avenue and 40th Street is officially Nikola Tesla Corner. Seems that back in the day, Tesla liked to stop and feed the pigeons at Bryant Park.
One-hundred-and-fifty years after he was born, there are still quite a few traces of Tesla’s time here in America, if we look. We tried to find the Radio Wave Building, where I am told there is also a plaque commemorating his work but we somehow got lost. Next time…
To round out our spooky tourism, we visited Strawberry Fields in Central Park then across the street to The Dakota, walking on the sidewalk where John Lennon was murdered. Strange that there’s a movie with David Bowie playing Nikola Tesla and a movie about Lennon in the theaters at the same time. Note that Bowie and Lennon were good friends, and collaborated on several songs, including Fame.
Nikola Tesla Street Sign
When I got home, my friend, Laura, emailed to say that NPR ran a fascinating discussion about the new multimedia opera called Violet Fire about the life of Nikola Tesla that is receiving rave reviews in New York. (Anybody seen this opera yet?)
The same morning, Laura also heard Senator Barbara Boxer on the radio on the World Affairs Council extolling the virtues of the Tesla Roadster – its speed, panache, and beauty, and especially its solar payback potential. Win-win-win, she said. (Senator Boxer visited us a little while ago and definitely enjoyed herself.) Laura says she’s surrounded by things Tesla. Too bad Senator Boxer’s extemporaneous endorsement didn’t make the “official transcript” on her website. Have any of you found a transcript of what she actually said?
To complete our Tesla weekend, Carolyn and I saw The Prestige. How could we resist? David Bowie playing Nikola Tesla. How cool is that? I think the movie was excellent, though I was annoyed by some of the details. For example, Tesla is shown lighting up light bulbs without any wires – a trick he was known to do. But the bulbs he was using in the movie were incandescent filament bulbs – the bulbs invented by his nemesis, Edison. Tesla actually did this trick with the florescent bulbs that he invented. Worse was the portrayal of Tesla as having invented teleportation (actually not quite teleportation, but I don’t want to give away the movie for those of you who still need to see it ). This will only feed the mysticism surrounding Tesla, rather than restoring Tesla’s place as a true scientific genius.
But Bowie makes a mighty fine Nikola Tesla – all he needs now is his own Tesla Roadster. David – are you reading this blog?
Posted in the categories: Company, Environment, Energy Efficiency, On the road, Motor
Martin, thanks for another great blog entry. As a native New Yorker I am proud to live in a city that Nikola Tesla once called home.
Congratulations on selling number 200.
> Yes indeed, our technology is not that different from what’s used in trains. The big
> differences are mass and storage. The kind of mass optimization that we have done
> would make no sense on a train. (I’m not an expert on trains, but I suspect that up to a
> point, mass actually helps trains get traction.) Since electric trains have infinite “storage”
> on the third rail, there also is not quite the need for motor efficiency.
I suppose the point I wanted to make was that this technology was developed in France for rail power and that we should be thankful that we don’t need to wait for such an advance here on home turf. Efficiency is important when power is used in such large amounts both for economy and thermal considerations in the RR locomotive. Typically new Euro-locomotives are three phase and laid out for maximum “tractive effort” on dry rails. When it rains, ABS tries to stabilize wheelspin but does not always succeed as I discovered on the Austrian Arlberg 4% grade in the rain this year.
I already posted this, but I guess it’s more relevant for this thread:
autobloggreen.com
Looks like Mitsubishi has given up on the in-wheel motors for EV…
And instead they are going for single motor in the back powering the rear wheels.
Speaks for itself really.
Martin, here is a RealPlayer url to Senator Boxer’s October 13 speech plus Q&A at the World Affairs Council:
http://wacsf.vportal.net/?fileid=4612
I don’t know if the Tesla comments are in there, it’s over an hour long. Most of it is opining about the situation in Iraq.
Editor’s comment: Thanks for the link.
Another great Blog entry. Have you guys told us the marginal cost of producing each Tesla Roadster unit? the Profit margin? Is that information you can release? It’d be great if you could as we’re all interested in Tesla being a big a business success as it is an automotive and environmental one. Keep up the good work, thanks again.
Asking for a profit margin is nebulous. The Roadster is a test ballon and no doubt the one time engineering costs, overhead and costs of starting this whole company will not be amortized by the Roadster alone. Purely speculatively speaking, I would assume that Tesla will not see any profit until the White Star has been in production in higher numbers than the Roadster will ever see. This is a long term venture. Remember that there was a lot of time and money spent on getting the motor that both cars will share ready for production and it is hard to actually make a profit on a low production model. This is especially the case when you have another company doing most of the construction. For their first car it helps them to get a viable car to market quicker but cuts into the profit margin.
This car looks amazing. I am a family man and can’t wait for the four seater to be in production. My main concern however is does this car have HEAT. I live in Canada and although I live only an hour from the U.S. border, it gets mighty cold here.
Thanks for the interesting tid bits and congratulations on 200 sold!
Congratulations on hitting 200!
I could see the main motor driving one axle and small hub motors to give a car 4×4 capability at low speeds. They wouldn’t need to be more than a few KW. Great on ice.
Ultra capacitors are welcome to prove themselves in hybrids. The low total power requirements and heavy duty-cycle would be the perfect place for them.
Thats why I said MARGINAL cost of producing each one, which eliminates all those extraneous factors you mentioned….read carefully next time
Congratulations on breaking the 200 sales level!
I wish you could talk more about batteries. What did you evaluate before you selected your current approach? Did it occur to anybody that battery life is only important if batteries are expensive? It seems like everybody is going for the super-expensive super-long-life battery. It seems like super-cheap, short-life should also be an option, if that is possible from a chemistry/manufacturing standpoint. It would not be so bad if the battery pack lasted only 12 months if it only cost $1000 to replace–you’d still easily beat many in the cents-per-mile category.
Editor’s note: If you haven’t seen these yet, take a look at the battery section on our FAQ page and our whitepaper on the Tesla Roadster’s battery system.
1. It is not possible that motor ALWAYS have two cycles of AC current per each revolution. For not revolving rotor at the beginning of driving it would make a DC current. Also in regenerative braking mode field rotation should be slower than revolutions. So actual relationship between AC frequencies and revolutions stays obscure.
2. I like technical challenges in general so I thought for a while about how to make copper rotor for high torque motor. I do not expect real answer for this from Tesla Motors. My idea is that mass production of such a rotor could be achieved by using a cylinder from nonconductive lightweight material (say themperature resistive carbon fiber composite or some ceramics) with parallel to cylinder axis cavities on the inner side of this cylinder. Side walls of cavities should be deep enough to exceed copper rods diameter Copper rods should go inside these cavities. In that case all mechanical stresses from copper wires would come to the rotor material without having any bending stresses or stretching stresses inside copper. Key aspect is to use dielectric material to support copper wires in every point.
So…………when will we see the Tesla Roadster in Europe?
Will we ever see it in Europe? It would be great to see a blog explaining a bit the laws in the EU about getting a new vehicle approved. I imagine for instance if Ferrari makes a new model, they don’t have to crash test it in every EU country they want to sell it in, do they? I hope at least some common regulation exists, that testing done in one EU country will be valid in more countries.
As you probably know, Germany is far ahead in solar panel installations than any other EU country, because of strong incentives, but in July -06, France also passed new laws, deemed by veterans in the solar business in France as “historical”. The government now gives a tax credit of 50% on the cost of the materials, and has also significantly raised the price at which you can sell your electricity back to the grid (0.3€c - 0.55€c / kWh).
I think the solar industry is about to boom at least in France, and hopefully soon other EU countries. So when it’s time for the Whitestar, it would be a good idea to concentrate on Germany and France first for selling an electric vehicle, because of these new solar incentives. Plus Germany and south of France (=great for solar) are very densely populated areas so a Tesla service center would have a large customer base.
www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/pop/3d_1_L.jpg
Martin wrote:
# you will have a hell of a lot more fun in a Tesla Roadster than in any Ford.
So does that take Ford off the list of potential suitors to help you build cars in the USA?
Next to BMW, I was thinking of them since they seem to be in desparate “reinvent themselves” mode right now.
With news of a Tesla office coming in Detroit it makes me assume that you have some relationship brewing with one of the big US auto companies.
Speaking of Ford, I was hoping you might have some comment on that Ford/Siemens AC motor I mentioned in the last blog page…
Great to see that the highly enlightened District Council of Kingston upon Thames UK are just about to introduce Free Parking Permits for Tesla Motors (and other electric cars) Also a sliding charge for poluting monsters. Anyone wise enough to buy a Tesla Roadster now, will probably discover that after the battery need replacement, just as any notebook computer or mobile bone does, will be pleasantly surprised at the increased mileage, I have no doubt.
Battery technology is making ever increasing strides forward. This car is just the boost, this technology needs. Thank you Tesla for leading the charge! (pun intended)
Martin wrote:
# Hub motors: What’s with the obsession about hub motors?
# Or to put it more succinctly: What problem - what actual, real problem - would hub motors solve?
I think you called it when you said people think they look good on paper, … but you are designing for the real world here and now.
You have built a car that is another step towards the idealist’s dream vehicle, so it is going to attract those with ideas of something even more “ultimate”.
To some, all wheel drive will be better than two weel drive. To some CV joints and differentials are perceived as a source of reliability issues.
Another theoretical benefit to in-wheel motors is packaging efficiency. Differentials, half shalfs, transmission tunnels and all that cut into cabin space.
Someday someone may perfect a way to have the output gear from an electric motor mate directly to a large gear on the inside of the wheel. If the gear meets in the middle (not the top or bottom) then perhaps the wheel could rotate up and down around the electric motor gear to allow suspension travel without defelcting the motor (or carrying the unsprung weight of said motor). Someday perhaps the wheel will have permanent magnets embedded within and the motor will simply provide a rotating magnetic field to spin the wheel.
Concept vehicles continue to whet the appetite even if they aren’t fully real.
Examples:
www.burningart.com/meico/moto/sbarro/
jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/technical_innovation_3.jpg
One reason NOT to try to perfect any of these radical technologies is that many are protected by patents…
You guys know what works… Some of the bloggers want to see you test some theories, but I don’t think you have the resources to spend the time and money on things that aren’t guaranteed to pan out.
Glad you had such a fruitful and enjoyable trip to NYC.
For all the “chit-chat” going on in the blog here, I have to imagine that the staff working at Tesla must have many meetings and discussions about technology. Is there any thing you can talk about there? Do you guys have an internal “sugestion box”? Do you have all hands meetings where everyone gets a chance to talk about ideas they would like for you to investigate? I also imagine that you employe others (besides JB) who have had an active extracurricular life working on their own pet projects. Is there anyone else there who has done something amazing you can mention and point us to a web site of their stuff? I think it would be fun to have “featured Tesla employee of the month” on the blog as you grow and absorb a lot of hot shot engineers who believe in alternative “green” technologies.
White Star? Is it the only ship of its size to have a jump engine?
I would definately look at buying one of those (even without the Vorlon technology).
Martin, we all greatly appreciate the insight that you provide in your posts. Every post so far Tesla has received suggestions (as if you haven’t already done research of your own), been criticized (sometimes rudely I might add), etc.
However, I hope that that you and everyone at Tesla understand that we’re all just passionate about efficiency, the environement, etc. Most of the posters on this blog visit every week and we all appreciate your willingness to share ideas and help us understand the technologies involved — even if we sometimes seem overly critical.
I agree with your conclusion that hub motors aren’t appropriate at this time. However, I still believe that hub motors have a tremendous future. After reading material on PML’s motors (www.pmlflightlink.com/motors/EW_details.html), I think that they have a future.
You are correct, differentials are proven and effective. You ask, “what problems do hub motors solve?” I suppose the answer is none. You can still power a vehicle with a traditional powertrain for the next 1,000 years. However, hub motors aren’t about solving problems; the technology is about improving vehicle design and efficiency. It’s about minimizing moving parts and heavy components. To me that is exciting.
1. You are correct, hub motors do not make vehicles safer implicitly. However, hub motors do eliminate centrally mounted engines, transmissions, differentials, etc. With current mass-produced vehicles, one of the biggest safety concerns is where these heavy components go during frontal crashes. Engineers have to design crumple zones to protect occupants from getting smashed by these components. (I remember some videos a few years back about several engines smashing test dummies’ legs in multiple places.) With hub motors, vehicles don’t need have any of these centrally-mounted components. Everything important is in the wheels (except for the fuel or battery of coarse). Engineers can then design larger crumple zones at multiple places and create safer vehicles. The indirect benefits that hub motors deliver make them even more exciting.
2. Clearly, you are correct about Federal Vehicle Safety requiring brakes. Traditionally, brakes are the only way to slow a vehicle down! Of course current safety standards require brakes. That is all that we’ve ever had! Hub motor technology is simply too new and unfamiliar to be regulated at this point. This doesn’t change the fact that hub motors do not require brakes!
3. As an engineer, I’m confused about how other engineers can’t see the value of having fewer moving parts. To me this is incredibly exciting! This is a goal worth investing time and resources in. Unfortunately, before hub motors truly catch on, we need to reduce the weight of the wheel assembly a little more to improve unsprung weight. However, the benefits of hub motors are still 100% real. PML has reduced the motor weight to remarkable levels (18 kilograms for even their largest motor).
4. I realize that hub motors wouldn’t be appropriate for the Telsa Roadster or White Star. However, as an engineer, you must admit that vehicle weight is critical to efficiency. Considering the consistent weight improvements being made with hub motors, unless you can get your entire powertrain and braking system down to less than 80 kilos, hub motors have you beat! Good luck with that one.
I respect Tesla greatly but I also respect the companies investing in hub motors. Just because hub motors aren’t ready for prime time now doesn’t mean that the technology is worthless. Innovative new technologies take time to refine, receive mass-market acceptance, regulation approval, etc. Hub motors are at this stage. I’ll be happy as can be when the technology is ready for the mass market.
The Tesla looks great !!! You say the Tesla gose 250 miles before needing to be recharged. Would it not run as long at 80mph vs 25mph? This would also depend on ambient temperature too. What is the run time at say 65 mph on a clear sunny day in the 70’s? Is there a formula to figure this out?
Only 200 roadsters sold? To quote that well- known movie star ,whose initials are D.D.: “This is despicable!” It probably has something to do with the lack of enthusiasm in this country-which would be helped if we had some people at the top like Teddy Roosevelt or JFK ( I’m looking forward to Nov. 7 with guarded enthusiasm). I have told a number of people about the Tesla/solar combo- I get “Yes, nice” or ‘yes, very nice” but I’m the only one raving about the possibilities. People are wrapped up in their own lives. I’m interested in the bigger picture-the bigger the better, the sooner the better, as in: let’s get the halibut on with it-which is exactly what JFK was saying with the moonshot program.Wasn’t that a breath of fresh air, the likes of which we haven’t seen since?What a concept: billions spent on a fantastic, mutli-year peaceful govt. endeavor, as opposed to another worthless con of a war as usual (based on pre-fabricated lies). The motto “what if they gave a war and nobody came” has never been more apt . As Mr. Rogers would say: “Can you say ‘con game'’ ?-I bet ya can!”. But, I digress (don’t get me started): the number of people that could afford a Tesla with their pocket change in the states you are selling them in is, obviously, huge.But, at that income bracket, your $8000 out-of-state charge doesn’t mean much-so the number is beyond huge. Dock them all a week’s pay for nappin’ on the job!
Observation - If you take the 6800 batteries, and multiply that by 4.65 grams - the weight of a normal form 18650 battery - you get 316,200 grams (316.2 Kg) . So 50,000 watt hours divided by 316.2 gives you 158 Wh/Kg
1) This does not seem to be the most state-of-the-art battery as there are currently batteries that offer better than 200 Wh/Kg (30% better!) - My guess is that they used older technology for the sake of economics…
2) The entire battery pack is listed as weighing over 450 Kg - that leaves 135 Kg (~45%) for safety measures such as steel cups and the like… Martin already identified that the reason that they chose a standard battery over the a123 is because energy density was the most important factor - but when you include all the safety factors into the battery it seems that the current version will weigh in at 111 Wh/Kg (50KWH / 450Kg) - not much better than the 108 Wh/Kg that a123 gets since a battery that can’t thermally run away wouldn’t need all of the safety precautions. The benefits of going with the a123 would be multi-fold:
1) It can last for many thousands of cycles (note: for those that are checking the a123 website and those who prevously mentioned the 1000 cycle limit - the Tesla roadster will not be discharging the batteries in 6 minutes as that would likely break the sound barrier - a longer discharge would allow for 1000s of cycles).
2) Not necessary to build a coolant system as the batteries have low impedence, and can run hot without problems
3) 5 minute recharge - this would be difficult for a battery the roadster’s size and would not be advisable for home use, but commercial chargers quickly become a viable option.
4) This is mostly speculaion, but since the M1 is a123’s first battery, it may have a better technology curve to follow than the standard Li-Ion battery which many consider “almost mature”
5) The Power Density is likely 2.5 times a normal Li-Ion battery - not really necessary, but if you ever wanted to run a 10 second quater mile…
The downside to a123 is, of course, the price - but I wonder how much volume would have to be purchased to bring that down - considering that the first 200 cars for a battery manufacturer would be the equivalent purchase to 250,000 laptops… not a small order.
Hub motors ? They have two theorethical advantages :
all electric 4×4 drive, full control over all bits of torque at each wheel, which theorethically means insanely good stability, ABS etc. , plus you can entirely do away with mechanical brakes if and when safety regs will allow
another point is, you save room in the body, which opens up a whole new world for sylists and designers. One could imagine a small city car with fully automatic drive, four-wheel drive, four wheel steering, with thin batteries spread around into the bodywork ( not in one pack but distributed all around ) , You’d have an ideal city car, a next-generation cab for example.
Something along the lines of Bollore Bluecar : www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/bollor_brings_r.html
But of course, all this would be cutting edge high tech at the moment, probably not worth the cost and would have no place in a sporty roadster.
>> What is the run time at say 65 mph on a clear sunny day in the 70’s? Is there a formula to figure this out?
Take a look here: teslamotorsclub.com/forum/index.php/topic,90.0.html
> No doubt about it, a Tesla Roadster never will pay for itself in dollars compared to (for example) a Ford Focus
From what I can see, the Tesla ain’t a Focus. It’s not exactly an economy sedan. It’s a high performance sports car that also happens to be great for the environment.
So what about its cost efficiency compared to, say, a 2006 Porsche 911 (Carrera S), which while having a more powerful motor and a higher top speed, gets about the same accelleration (0-60 in 4.6 seconds) and runs $88,000?
Hey - great work and congrats on 200th sale (when will this be delivered I wonder)
I have 1 question:
I heard recently that a 5th of all the energy used in a cars lifetime (obviously this will be different in the roadster due to the high efficiency of electric motors). However my understanding is that batteries use huge an amount of energy to produce, and you are taking parts from all around the world (I hope on ships). I would imagine that by the time the Roadster gets to the customer it will have used a huge amount of energy compared to a regular car, although I hope and guess this will be well over offset over its lifetime.
However I want to know if Tesla Motors has done anything to minimise the energy used in the manufacture of the car (e.g. using green electricity or efficient technologies). Also, do you have any plans to put solar panels on the roof of the plant you want to build and use energy from green sources?
Keep up the good work!!
PS Telsa is a great name for your company not only because of Nikola Tesla’s incredible work with electricity but also due to the similarity of inventing the future.
Tesla invented the 20th century; perhaps Tesla Motors will invent the 21st.
Editor’s comment: You might find this recent blog of interest.
For a true all-wheel-drive (AWD) vehicle, perhaps the benefits of hub motors become more compelling. In this case, they also replace a transfer case and yet offer truly independent control over each wheel — something most 4×4 vehicles don’t even have. Having separate wheel motors would also seem to offer the engineer the ultimate flexibility for traction and stability control.
About the Lotus Europa, while I’m sure that Tesla didn’t take any ques from this car I wouldn’t be surprised if maybe Lotus borrowed a couple of design points from tesla, and can you blame them! You guys make a good lookin car.
Boy was I pleased to find your Blog.I was involved with the introduction of 5 axis electric robots to the industry in the late 70,s early 80,s and have been interested in electric cars ever since. I see your point in the advantage of one motor over four. However computer controls being what they are today would lead me to think that turning on and off as required 4 wheel motors would make for a more efficent car. Am I missing something? I base my feeling on the use of high HP pancake motors used in the intustrial robot industry.
Wait!-Sheriff Martin is right! (give him and his posse a Laurel-and Hardy handshake !): hub motors provide all-wheel drive & get the engine out of the chassis for more space, but that doesn’t outweigh the cons.I love this company-this is one of the first great companies of the 21st century. It’s a whole new century out there on planet earth, time to wipe the slate clean -no, wait!-Time to get a whole new slate-a bigger, shiner, better one!
Tesla Sales:
200 isn’t bad for a sports car. I looked it up and Ferrari builds 4500 cars a year, probably half of which come to America. So in comparison, Tesla has sold a little less than 10% of the cars that Ferrari sells a year. All that for a car that has no history and a completely unique drivetrain. I think the American public is catching on quite well. Once the cars are delivered and people (who aren’t early adopters) see them as a viable sports car option, sales will pick up even more.
Martin, here is a transcript of what Boxer said about Tesla at the World Affairs Council. She got a couple facts wrong (like having the impression that solar panels would be placed on the car itself NASA style), but she was indeed impressed with her visit to your office.
Question: With respect to global warming, whether you support providing greater funding and subsidies for clean technologies?
Senator Boxer: Of course, but there’s a lot more we have to do. We need a major, major initiative on global warming. And I did mention this to you, if Democrats take back the Senate, I would become the chair of the environment committee. And it’s a very exciting thought, because it’s been one of my signature issues for all the time that I’ve been in office. And the current Chair um says global warming is a hoax, and when he had a hearing on it his star witness was Michael Crichton [laughter]. Now Michael Crichton writes really good books, but believe me he’s not a scientist. And you know the fact of the matter is, even even the President has said very quietly, um yeah there is climate change. So, we have to do a lot, and of course um clean technology is so key.
I’ll just close with this. Yesterday, I went to a place called Tesla Motors, which is an incredible startup car company in the Silicon Valley. The most beautiful, electric car that you ever did see. And to the men in the audience who want to ask me, how was the pickup? It was just like, it was just like any sports car. It was just “voom” like that. You can quote me. It was “voom” just like that. And um, the thing can go 265 um miles without getting charged, and you can buy it so it has like a solar energy pack on the back of the car, it is unbelievable. But save your money, it is $100,000 [laughter]. So, you can live in it as well as drive in it [laughter], because it’s more than some houses, but they are also going to work on a second um edition of the car which will be a lot less. But it’s, so much so much excitement here, you know if we do the right thing. And and we can really talk about leading the world, we can really lead the world on these green technologies. And uh it’s good for our economy, it’s great for the environment, it will relieve our dependence on foreign oil. We don’t have to be asked anymore if we’ll go to war for oil, and it’s just one of those win-win-win deals.
After some discussions with friends I realized one point clearly. Gasoline price in Europe (and Japan) is much higher than in U.S. Apparently this implies that market conditions in Europe and Japan would enable mass market electric vehicles much sooner than in U.S. After that eventually U.S. would be importing electric vehicles for mass market from Japan and Europe as is already somewhat happening with regular cars.
So from pure business point of view it appears that best strategy for Tesla Motors would be to gain some capital on roadster in U.S. and target emerging White Star sedan mostly for Europe. So Lotus or some other high end manufacturer of cars in Europe would likely absorb Tesla Motors technology or even Tesla Motors itself. Resisting that fate would be extremely difficult - I guess if it happen it would kill the company. Time will tell.
I think Tesla Motors found a profitable niche for very small scale car production (1000 to 10000 cars a year) relative to size of the market (17 millions cars a year). This would make them a start up success. Sound exit strategy in a few years from today most likely would be aquisition by a big car company targeting car market in Europe. I would be really amazed if U.S. political and business circles would really act and create sirvivable conditions for electric vehicles inside U.S. allowing companies like Tesla Motors grow large in a long run (impossible miracle). Right now unless some very unlikely radical electrical storage improvements happen electric vehicles in U.S. cannot sirvive on any mass scale.
I really dislike such result of my analysis but see no escape for electric vehicles in U.S. any time soon. But I believe that thin-film and similar in cost solar panels would explosively take off at least in California, Nevada, Arisona and New Mexico in next few years and would soon penetrate around the globe. And this would be significant improvement against global warming and air pollution in general. This gives some solace.
Somewaht more believable to me industrial scale idea how to deal with CO2 and other air pollution in large after solar power comes to mass scale would be to build factories with large propellers like wind turbines of today electricity generator filtering air through and powered by solar panels. Such a turbine with ~10 m diameter pushing air at ~200 m / sec would pump ~2.1 cubic mile of air per a week. Couple hundreds of such turbines (roughly today windmill generator field) would pump all the air above say L.A. through themselves. So all the CO2 and other pollutants could be in principle removed from the air and CO2 together with water could be used to synthesize gasoline or methanol or similar fuels. This might sidestep untreatable infrastructure problem of all the cars in U.S. (it would take 20 years to replace most of the cars in U.S. even if practical mass scale zero emission vehicles are already mass produced). Such factories in effect would work like plants and algae work today in ecosystem.
Sure it is just my fantasy and it implies large technology and business effort but I do not see it prohibited by laws of Nature or economical factors for sure. It also could be developed in faster time because it involves not too many infrastructure plants instead of milli0ons of cars in personal ownership. I would love to see oil addiction and air pollution solved without reducing energy and comfort available for people.
Great job on developing a REAL electrical car!
From a performance perspective; is there a way to get more information regarding the efficiencies of the regenerative braking, how the normal braking system is used to complement it, and what the braking distances are? Also, is there any skidpad data? (can it break the 1g?)
Also, have you considered a racing series with these cars (eg something between the Ferrari Challenge/Porsche Cup and Spec Miata racing)?
Regards,
Alex
Anatoly, maybe this is a bad analogy, but look back at the history of personal computers. The Apple Lisa project was started in 1978 and debuted in ‘83 for about $10,000. That’s at least $20,000 in today’s money. The Lisa had some very revolutionary ideas like a graphical user interface, virtual memory and multitasking. The 96 kb of RAM were considered absurdly opulent.
It was bought by enthusiasts, but ultimately was a spectacular failure by large company standards. IBM for example did not pursue such a market let alone with any passion. But Apple did something that was then just barely possible. The cost was out of sync for the market at that time, but the ideas behind it were not. They still learned from it and eventually reached a larger market that wanted the type of technologies that they were pulling together. While it could have turned out better for them if it weren’t for Microsoft, they certainly became a successfull company. Today 1GHz processors and 500MB of ram are considered almost standard. If Tesla strikes a nerve in the market, although initially limited, and succeeds they will have to deal with something quite annoying to them, but nice to us. Competitors. If people are buying this stuff, companies WILL find a way to reduce the price.
People are motivated by pleasure and pain. Period. If Tesla keeps the attitude focused on appealing to what people want, rather than what they should be denied for their own good (environmental self-flaggelation), then I think they’ll succeed. With that, I must say that I’ve never successfully started a car company and may be foolishly optimistic, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
Infinia up in WA got some press for its parabolic concentrator stirling-based solar power system, said to be much more efficient and cost-effective than PV. Maybe Tesla might want to look into an arrangement with them or a similar firm, to provide that approach to solar energy for those who have the yard space.
www.news.com
One thing the wheel motor advocates don’t mention is the abysmal reliability of cables and connectors, especially when subjected to vibration. As a designer, I’d choose one power cable and connector for one reasonably isolated motor, over four cables and power connectors to four “vibrating” hub motors anyday, unless there was absolutely no choice. Don’t believe me? Ask your favorite band roady. Tesla has made the better choice, in my opinion.
# busybee64 wrote on October 26th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
# The Lisa had some very revolutionary ideas like a graphical user interface, virtual
# memory and multitasking. The 96 kb of RAM were considered absurdly opulent.
The Lisa was aimed at business, well before IBM got into the game. Apple found that it could not dominate business microcomputing in the presence of IBM, not just because of Big Blue’s reuptation and reach in that marketspace, but also because the IBM PC was engineered to be “just enough,” using off-the-shelf parts, allowing for huge initial profit margins and quick break-even points (which the Lisa did not enjoy). More than anything else, the follow-on, Macintosh, was a crash effort to recoup the Lisa investment expense by optimizing (radically cost-reducing) the hardware and system software, and repurposing the resulting machine to serve the wider personal-computer market (hobbyists, schools, small businesses, artists, etc.), which Apple was more comfortable with serving.
IBM legitimized the business market for personal computers, and the IBM PC enlarged it by a huge factor, allowing Apple and others to make a lot of money. If BusyBee’s Lisa/Roadster analogy holds, we should expect a big company, perhaps GM, to announce their own family-sedan electric soon after the Roadster hits the street. Tesla will run a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal: “Welcome (back), GM. Seriously.” Then, panicked Tesla execs will refocus the company on massive cost-reduction of Roadster technology and lessons-learned into a re-defined WhiteStar: “The EV for the rest of us.” A lower price point, solid engineering, elegant design, and rebel attitude will endear the Tesla WhiteStar to hundreds of thousands of drivers, maybe millions. WhiteStar’s “cool factor” will inspire much zealotry. But in the meantime, the vast dealer/service network and relatively deep financial pockets of the big competitor will allow it to both expand and dominate the EV market. Niche players such as Tesla and Zap will continue to have a following and make good money, but as long as they stay independent, and without expansion into other areas (e.g., as Apple expanded into entertainment with iPod), their futures will be limited.
It is my earnest hope that Martin, Elon, and company will be able to write a different story, with an even better ending…
truley the bet caar ever
Moskalev: Tesla can succeed in the U.S., particularly coastal U.S.-like Calif., and that’s all they need. Busybee64 is right to mention Apple-but also for the reason that Apple has “design cachet” associated with it. If you come out with a great product that also has this, you’re in like Flynn (Apple, Starbucks, Whole Foods Markets, Greenday, Oprah). Look at Green Day,, they came out with a new product that had a great theme and great design to it and went from being a very good, niche band to the biggest band on the planet (O.K., Mick & Keith , Bono & Macca: “the co-biggest”). Everyone who leased the GM EV-1 cars (and other EV’s) loved them, and their range wasn’t great-there’s the proof of the pudding right there.Build it and they will come. Even if the fat cat car companies come out with pure EV’s in 2009, if Tesla does a “Green Day like” product, they could beat the likes of Toyota-even if their car costs more. I like everything they did with the roadster. Combined with the fact that they started from scratch and are a private, happening company, it gives them a lot of street cred. right now. I don’t know what they’ve got planned in terms of dealerships/ outlets, but they should make them unique & happening as well-wouldn’t be hard at all to beat the fat cats in that area. A great design might cost more per sq. foot, but with two models to sell, the building could be smaller than usual:” pavillion style”-so great design could cost no more overall. Also, they might start their own rental car division. A few years ago no one ever heard of Enterpise Rental Car, for example. What if Tesla did rental car facilities with solar roofs/carports. Then they could offer rental customers the great deal of not having to “fill up their tank” before returning the car-and Tesla would have their own free power source. Of course the Tesla rental cars would be best for use around cities, but that must be the bulk of rental car use already-people flying into a city and basically just driving around there, for often less than a week.When the car would get low on chrage, they bring it in and pick up another (if need be) -or, better yet, “Enterprise style” a Tesla rep. comes to where they are with a fresh car.I would rent an EV car over an ICE car in a N.Y. minute-just to see what they were like. Of course then the customers are going to HAVE to own one! Yeah, as Bogie would say, it’s gonna be swell, alright-if Tesla plays their cards right & keeps their nose(s) clean they can’t lose.So when the fat-cat car companies wise up and come knockin’ on Tesla’s door lookin’ ta get back what was once theirs, remember: When they ask for the Falcon, give ‘em the bird!
Yeah-like he said, it’s gonna be swell! an’ that “Joe” Cyrus knows what he’s talkin’ ’bout too, even though he ain’t from around here. How do I know?- let’s jus’ say it’s a lucky guess!
Mike wrote : Ferrari builds 4500 cars a year,… Tesla has sold a little less than 10% of the cars that Ferrari sells a year. All that for a car that has no history and a completely unique drivetrain.
Mike was that for all models or just one?
I also love to point out that many buyers have not driven the Roadster. Some have been given rides , and some have seen it. and some have only seen pictures of it. I think it would be cool if someday Tesla would release percentages on this data.
It’s also 100 percent up-front monies on a car that’s a year away!
Something to keep in mind when designing the White Star and your other future products: Weight Distribution.
Sure the Tesla roadster is quick in a straight line, but that is just one aspect of a car’s performance. Just as important (to anyone except a drag racer) is how well a car handles tight corners and abrupt course corrections.
Weight distribution has a huge effect on a car’s handling characteristics. Ideally, a car’s weight should be concentrated in the center of the chassis as close to the ground as possible, and be evenly balanced from front to rear and side to side.
With a battery pack made from many small cells as your cars’ heaviest component, you have an unprecedented level of control over weight distribution.
The battery pack in the roadster isn’t ideally located, but I guess it’s the best you could do with the Lotus Elise -based chassis. I wonder whether the rear-heaviness of the roadster makes it more prone to oversteer and spins than other sports cars in its price class. I await the first road or track test by an automotive journalist with bated breath…
On to the White star…
Obviously pricing of $50K+ makes the cost savings of electricity vs. gas is too insignificant to be a selling point (at least in the USA). To sell more than a handful White Stars, you’ll need to compete mainly on performance, and to a lesser extent on luxury and styling. You already have a great motor to cover acceleration, but you’ll need great handling as well to compete with cars like the BMW M3. That’s where weight distribution comes into play.
Here are my suggestions:
You could put a flat battery pack under the passenger compartment, but the extra height would hurt aerodynamics and could make for one ugly looking “sport” sedan. This positioning would be perfect for a future SUV or minivan, but not so good for a sedan.
Sticking with a traditional sedan shape and floor height, the best areas to utilize for batteries are:
underneath the rear seat
underneath the front seats (make sure you leave some “toe room” for rear passengers)
between driver and front passenger, where a transmission normally goes.
Any batteries that won’t fit in these spots can go in the front “engine compartment”, as low and close to the firewall as possible.
This configuration would mean multiple battery packs. It could be as few as 2, but the front pack would be a relatively complex “lopsided H” shape. This would add cost, but I think the performance benefits would be more than worthwhile.
If the White Star can both out-accelerate and out-handle an M3, I will do whatever it takes to come up with $50K or so to buy one : )
Just my $.02 worth as an insomniac who loves driving and would hate to see this country of ours destroyed when the world runs out of cheap oil (which could be much sooner than OPEC would have us believe). Keep up the good work, and good luck!
I
The Lotus sells about 2,400 Elise cars per year in US. Tesla has sold 200 preproduction cars costing $100K in it’s first year. That is just plain amazing.
David wrote on October 25th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
In response of this post I would like to show my own calculations, I come up with quite different numbers. First of all, it’s thougt that the battery pack can deliver 50 kW/h to the motor, I think not: In the white paper it’s stated that the car uses 110 wh/km that’s 0.11 kw/h per km. Multiply that with the 400 km range and you get 44 kw/h of energy. It’s also a known fact that the efficiency of the battery’s + charger is 86% By dividing 44 by 0.86 you get about 51 kW/h of energy. This means that for fully charging the batterypack 51 kW/h of energy is put in, and eventually 44 kW/h is deliverd to the motor. Wich is in turn 90% efficient on average.
When calculating energy density for the 18650 form factor batteries you first need to calculate the contents of the battery in cm³ Wich you can do like this: pi x 0.9² x 6,5 = 16.54 cm³ Than after looking up the average weight per liter for Li-ion batteries (about 1.9 kg/liter) you multiply: 16.54 by 1.9 = 31.4 grams per 18650 battery. There are 6831 batteries in the pack, so 31.4 x 6831 / 1000 = about 215 kg of pure battery weight. Then: 44 kw/h divided by 215 kg multiplied by 1000 = 204.65 Wh/kg. The highest energy density for current Li-ion technology is 200 wh/kg. Factoring in some guesstimations used in my calculations I would say that the batteries used in the Tesla pack do get very close to 200 Wh/kg!
In my previous post in the motor city blog (Robin wrote on October 23rd, 2006 at 5:37 am) I suggested a few things. In this blog Martin comes up with a few points explaining why wheel motors aren’t used in the Tesla roadster, very compelling arguments I think, but still wheel motors keep interesting me. But I do understand now why wheel motors aren’t used today. I would like to know what people here think about the idea of building a standard skateboard layout for EV’s (see my previous post and this link:
www.autointell.com/nao_companies/general_motors/gm-autonomy/gm-autonomy-02.htm )
I think it’s a great idea and a perfect solution for small companies like Tesla, since you could build one platform and produce multiple car models with it.
Also, could someone confirm my calculations?
Greetings from a Dutch EV enthousiast
Finaly sombody has made an electric car that I would actualy WANT to own.
I was introduced to this site by a friend of mine and have spent all day mooching around it taking in all the details.
To quote your site
“Most electric vehicles operate under the assumption that driving is merely a necessary evil if you need to get someplace you can’t reach on foot or bike. The result has been cars that are designed, built, and marketed in ways that refuse to glorify driving.
We respectfully disagree. We believe driving is exhilarating.”
I agree completly! I must admit that I am performance car nut. But I have always said that if somthing came along that could give me the performance of a proper sports car but with less enviromental repercussions I would happily give up my “suck, squeeze, bang, blow” powered adrenaline pump and root for the greener option…
Well as far as I can see.. You guys are doing it.. And what a brilliant looking car!? It seems most car designers nowadays have gone completely nuts and can’t design somthing that looks “right” BMW …. but you have! It realy is very pretty!.
While unfortunatly I cant afford the £50,000 price tag at the moment.. Or easily overcome the slight practical problem that you guys are several thousand miles away.. It gives me massive hope for the future of this type of vehicle.. As has been said before. Once a few others jump on the bandwagon the price will fall, and when it does I will certainly look at buying my way into a greener way of getting my 0-60 fix.
P.S: BRING IT TO THE UK!… You would have to erect seval large walls and maybe an electric fence to stop me getting in the thing!:P
Best of luck for the future..
Ben
Anatoly wrote: “Gasoline price in Europe (and Japan) is much higher than in U.S.”
For your information I just checked at my local station here in Austria (Europe not Australia):
Regular unleaded: €/l 1.032
Diesel: €/l 1.022
At current exchange rate of US$/€ 1.27336 and 3.7854 l/gal this is equivalent to
Regular unleaded: US$/gal 4.974
Diesel: US$/gal 4.926
ec.europa.eu
Undoubtedly gasoline prices have skyrocked in the States during the past years, but here in Europe we’re still much worse off. One of the reasons is quite heavy taxation, no less than 57% of sales price for regular fuel and 46% for Diesel. There’s a special “gas tax” on the fuel itself, then on top of the total there’s a whopping 20% value added tax (sales tax).
Interestingly, so called heating oil is sold at the very same gas stations for “only” €/l 0.76 or US$/gal 3.663. It’s the very same product as Diesel, but without “gas” tax, and of course heating fuel is color tinted and strictly prohibited for use in cars.
The philosophy/justification/political agenda behind this kind of taxation boils down to approximately: Heating in Austria is a bare necessity during winter, even for the poor. On the other hand, car ownership and use are regarded as luxurious folly. Before Austria joined the European Union there was a literal “luxury tax” on automobile purchases, created to stabilize our currency for lack of domestic car production. This tax still exists today but has been renamed and modified to make it compliant with European regulation. On top of fuel taxes there are of course yearly highway toll, extra highway toll for Alpine passes and tunnels, insurance tax, parking tax for city centers. Not to forget, here in Europe “indirect taxes” are never indicated on consumer invoices and are therefore deemed by our politicians much less visible than direct income tax.
As a contrast I was astonished to learn that for example in Thailand, gas sales are rather subsidized to support small businesses, than heavily taxed in order to finance our inflated state/Brussels bureaucracy.
I agree that electric car technology is a very compelling and economically viable alternative here in Europe, at least as long as electricity for battery loading is not subjected to the same “gas tax”. This might still be some years off, as small-scale hydropower stations, wind turbines, and private PV installations are currently subsidized.
Personally I feel the time is more than ripe for a massive break-through of electric cars (just think about this: The Toyota Prius III is sold here but not in the US with an “EV only” mode). The ICE is as doomed as was the mechanical typewriter at the onset of desktop publishing. It is grotesque that BMW have announced to offer conversions of their series 7 sedans for hydrogen use, not even by fuel cell/electric motor, but by burning hydrogen in their amazing twelve cylinder ICEs. All the technical marvel of these engines will not save them from being swept away by far superior induction motors.
Considering economic stagnation in Europe vs growth rate in the US or even South East asia, Tesla Motor’s best chances here will be their third generation affordable EV.
Keep up your excellent technical work and Internet marketing campaign!
I was wondering how you two came up wiuth the idea of starting tesla motors. Did it just pop in your head half way through dinner one day, or was it something planned for years without taking the actions until the creation of tesla motors. Also I heard that tesla motors uses controllers from ACPropulsion, I was wondering what you think of them, and how important was their product in relation to tesla motors. Lastly, I must say I admire not only the idea of having an electric car future but of Nikola Tesla himself. I am a yugoslav-canadian living in California and am proud to hear he has made such an impact here.
Best Regards,
Daniel
Editor’s comment: Our FAQ page and Martin’s Motor City blog might answer some of your questions.
I think one of the things that is missed by this company is a comparision of emmissions. I think it would grab alot of peoples attention to know just how much, in terms of emmissions this car doesnt attribute. The folks who are buying this care are either smart, or are trust fund kiddies. Most likely they are in the smart category and realize that the national power grid (Coal(50%), Nuclear(20%), Natural Gas (18%), Hydro (7%), Petroleum (3%) and Others (2%) constitutes a more rounded view of emmissions that the roadster “produces”.
MPG CO2Lbs/1000K BTU CO2 lbs/Mile Lifetime Miles CO2 lbs /Lifetime
06 911 Porsche Turbo 21.300 156.425 0.845 150,000 126682.218
Tesla Roadster 118.294 136.137 0.185 150,000 27761.184
Off topic
The bbc radio 4 In Business programme about the Tesla from September is no longer listed on your Media Coverage page. However, the programme is still available online at:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/inbusiness/rams/inbusiness_20060921.ram
I’ve read every blog post and followed many of the comments. I really appreciate the trouble Tesla Motors takes to educate, listen to, and engage their fans - thank you!
In what rallies, races, and shows are you planning on entering the Roadster?
If the Roadster beats Ferraris and Porches in popular official races you might start a free advertising phenomenon from the media.
I have two comments regarding the posts about ultracaps and plug-in hybrids:1. I believe a tiny gasoline (or preferably diesel) generator and ~4 gallon tank would be an excellent addition to the sedan. It would eliminate the range problem for road trips. Would a little ~15kw generator less than ~20″ long be enough to MAINTAIN 70mph as written at teslamotorsclub.com? I would expect abysmal acceleration from such a small generator that’s not even attached to the drivetrain (maybe 0-60 in 40 sec?). The acceleration would be provided by leaving the generator on while you park (to eat lunch, bathroom break, etc.) to recharge the battery. As we know, the battery will have no problem providing plenty of initial acceleration when you continue on your road trip.
Actually, if I was designing the system, I would use replaceable metal filters, a heated tank and fuel lines to make the diesel generator compatible with vegetable oil. Several of my friends have converted their diesels (jetta TDI, Golf TDI, and old diesel volvo) to vegetable oil by adding a heated tank and fuel lines. Now they just pull up to the oil dumpsters of fancy restaurants (even on road-trips!) and almost never have to pay for gas!
I will gladly pay $10k more for such a feature when I buy the sedan model in 2010.
2. A small bank of currently available mass-produced Maxwell ultracapacitors could complement a small external generator. They could reduce the initial charge time and long-term cycle wear for the li-ions, especially from regenerative braking. I know their energy density is low, but (if the variable voltage problem could be addressed) a small bank could quickly charge up enough to provide the 5 seconds of acceleration that the tiny gas generator could not. Still, I don’t believe ultracaps are necessary for the much more important gasoline/diesel option. Also, with Elon Musk’s interest, I’m sure they’ll be implemented when the time is right.
Please, any technical thoughts from fellow commentators on these ideas. How many kilowatts are needed to maintain 70 mph? How small is a currently mass-produced generator at that wattage?
As a side note, I would prefer Tesla Motors focus on designing an SUV after the sedan. I would love to own a guilt-free SUV, and it would keep the profit margin higher than an economy sedan.
To Tesla Motors: Thank you for producing such an amazing car and listening to our suggestions with patience. I gladly advertise your product to all my friends.
In response to the Dutch Enthusiast,
I don’t know where you got your estimations for the Kg/Liter of Li-Ion batteries, but a quick google search of 18650 Li-Ion will send you to dozens of wholesalers and retailer that sell the actual battery. Many of them have dimension and weight specs listed - I looked throuhg a couple of dozen of them and they all range from 44.5-46.5 Grams. Taking even the low end and multiplying that by 6831 gives you 303 KG of batteries. 50 KwH divided by 303 KG gives you 165 Wh/KG - marginally better than my original calculation, but still 20% less than the top of the market.
BTW - that extra 20% would push the range to 300 miles - enough to make it possible to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas… a very important metric for some.
Bentley sold 250 cars in Sept., Maserati 110-at more than twice the price of the Tesla. I would think there are enough rich environmentalists out there that should be more enthusiastic about getting a Tesla-you know, not just George Clooney but Redford, DiCaprio, Pitt, Ford, Leno (particularly-being Mr. car nut numero uno), Newman & Letterman (being Mr. racing nuts numeros uno & dos), Lucas, Spielberg, Cruise ,Bruckheimer,Streisand, Schwarzenegger, Gore-the usual crowd, which comprises many other names none of us have heard of- together being a whole lot of potential customers.Then there’s a whole pack of really well-paid silicon valley/internet types working for the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Google-and many , many more companies. Then there’s the sports figures crowd, who should like fast cars. Then there’s all the rest-the business group- Wall St. types on down. Put together this makes a lot of smart, rich people who should be jumping to order a Tesla. If I had such pocket change, I sure would-no doubt about it. In light of this, 200 Tesla sales so far are too low for me-the above slackers need to DO the right thing and BE part of the future solution, to whit: “To be is to do”-Nietzche, “To do is to be”-Camus, “Do be do be do”- Sinatra
185000 / 745.69987158227022 = 248.089087
According to my calculations, the Tesla Roadster’s engine can generate a peak of approximately 248 horsepower at 8,000 RPM. When are you guys going to have a blog post highlighting this in comparsion to gasoline guzzling muscle cars that have 400 to 500 horsepower? The difference in horsepower given the Tesla Roadster’s performance is really impressive. You guys should advertise that.
Hey, would you guys make a luxury version of the White Star model to compete with cars like the Lexus LS 430? You could call it the Tesla Whitestar LE. With a luxurious wood interior, I am sure that you would start siphoning marketshare from Toyota and Honda’s Lexus and Acura brands very quickly, which would mean that for the first time in a long time, there will be an American automobile that is superior to its foreign competition.
At least consider it. If you do decide to make a luxury model, be sure to use the Acura RL, Lexus LS 430 and Toyota Avalon Limited Edition for inspiration as to what places should have wood and how much wood should there be.
www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17653&ch=energy&sc=&pg=1
fyi, 3M better LIon materials 30% better then today, main stream battery companies expected to be incorporating next year.
saving in MN
Martin,
There’s a pic on the PBS website about Tesla that shows (at least according to the caption) three incandescent light bulbs being lit from the ground.
It’s the 2nd picture from the bottom on the right side.
www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html
What is the decrease in range from 400km/250miles in a cold Canadian winter climate - average temp 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F)?
RE. kslays comment on aux. generator, maybe could use a small fuel cell and Ovonic metal hydride solid hydrogen storage system (company of Stanford Ovshinsky from the movie “Who Killed the Elect. Car” ). You’re supposed to be able to power a car off of a small suitcase- sized fuel cell, so one to just make aux. power could be even smaller (?). Guess you can recharge the metal hydride pack thru running fuel cell in reverse by putting elect. into it (?). Don’t know-but would be way to have an aux. generator in car that makes no CO2-so when you take a long trip, put metal hydride pack in car, “refuel” pack later when you get back. When EV’s catch on, ultimately cities will have charging stations, like parking meters, here and there-like L.A. already has. Also, larger hotel chains would have them, like they have other services-why not, they could make some extra money.
Just read where GE has a material called “Noryl” that greatly lowers the cost of making hydrogen from water thru electrolysis. On “freepatentsonline” website there is info. on latest “Ovonic ” (the company of Stanford Ovshinsky-the guy in the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car)” metal hydride hydrogen storage pack” that says it has a life cycle of over 1000 charges-better than li-ion battery life of 500 cycles. Says on “Ovonics Hydrogen Storage System” website that the system can power a Prius for almost 200 miles, while taking up no more space than the Prius gas tank. So looks like hydride system could power Tesla about 250 miles, taking up about the size of the li-ion battery pack- while having a lifespan of twice as long as li-ion pack (?). So with GE Noryl system, could use PV solar power to make hydrogen from water, for free- at home. Then charge the metal hydride pack in the Tesla with this hydrogen: no “pressurized hydrogen storage” problem & no need to buy the hydrogen from anyone- It’s all free, from the sun (”no batteries required”)-!? Could power the GE system off the grid also .So, if / when GE Noryl electrolysis system becomes available for home use , have an option to replace li-ion with Ovonic pack plus a small fuel cell to generate elect. power (supposed to be able to power a car off of a fuel cell the size of a small suitcase). As a bonus, those who get a GE system can now power their home at night from the sun too,as well as during the day: You get a 24/7 zero CO2 emissions house and a 24/7 zero emissions car (bingo!?)-and it’s all free-until Ovonic system replacement after 1000 cycles. Use “Nanosolar” system for the solar and you’ve paid that off in only months (1/10 cost of current solar cells). Ovonics used hydride system to power a converted ICE engine, guess it works just as well to power a fuel cell -or do you need more/faster input of hydrogen (as in pressurized?) into a fuel cell to create req’d electricity? Anyway-a lot happening out there-anyone know more on the ins and outs of this?
Yeah- the killer for the above scenario has got to be needing a LOT of hydrogen (as in pressurized) to put into a fuel cell to get the req’d Tesla power. Meaning also a lot of elect. power to make hydrogen, even with “Noryl”-which would not be good via solar. Noryl might be good for a commercial hydrogen generating plant using a lot of electriciity, may make hydrogen better in terms of energy/cost req’d to make it.
Yeah-Ovonics website says fuel cell technology/costs still years away-better to put hydrogen into ICE engines-no good, I don’t want to buy hydrogen from Exxon, et al. -plus takes a lot of energy to make it, at least until big solar “farms’ come out (?).Looks like future battery advances could cancel out future fuel/cell hydrogen advances.But using electrolysis/fuel cell via solar to make night home power looks good someday (soon?).
Looks like the only thing coming to the UK in the immediate future is this
www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/18-07-06_9
Only 200 available for corporate leasing of course. I wonder if Mercedes will do the same thing that Ford did with the Think City and refuse to allow the cars to be sold after the lease periods end?
Energy efficiency is the challenge facing engineering for the next 30 to 50 years. Attempts to improve the brake thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine are starting to look desperate.
www.gizmag.co.uk/go/4936/
From NY Times Car Reviews:
‘Market analysts’ projections that within three years crossovers will be the single biggest part of the American auto market, a distinction now held by full-size pickups.
Ward’s AutoForecasts, which provides industry analysis, predicts that by 2009, crossovers will account for about one of every five light vehicles produced, and that the number of models will jump to 63, from 43.’
Too bad that the White Star isn’t based on a Crossover vehicle to increase market penetration earlier. This would also allow the flexible solar material to have a larger area on the roof to make it somewhat more useful.
Congrats on 200!
Nikola Tesla most famous lab Wardenclyffe is becoming the “Tesla Museum and Science Center at Wardenclyffe”. It’s in it’s preliminary state and needs contributions to make it happen. The website has a wealth of info on Nikola Tesla, his labs and his inventions. The website is www.teslascience.org/
I’d like to see the original equipment and tower rebuilt. It was such a shame that Westinghouse was so blind to Tesla’s genious that he pulled the financing and gutted the place for the scrap metal . If he only understood the potential of Tesla’s research. What was lost in knowledge was priceless!
In response of David,
For example on this site:
www.omnicel.com/range.shtml
You can see that the weight for the 26500 “C” battery is 52 g. The volume of this battery is: Pi x 1.3 x 5 = 26.54 cm3. 52 g divided by 26.54 = 1.96 kg per liter
So 16.54 cm3 for the tesla battery multiplied by 1.96 = 32.4 g
32.4 x 6831 / 1000 = 221.45 kg for the batteries.
44 kW (you’re using 50, which I think is incorrect) / 221.45 x 1000 = 198.7 wh/kg
It may be that the manufacturer of these battery gives their weight in a pure “naked” fashion
so that could cause the difference
Thanks Matrin for answers to some of the blog questions, makes for a great forum. Would love to hear any news you have on the engineering/manufacturing efforts to get these cars rolling out the door.
Philip
Roatan
Rise of the boutique carmaker
www.csmonitor.com/2006/1027/p12s02-stct.html
boa noite
excelente design e performace, gostaria que viesse ao brasil, esse car future E O MELHOR CARRO QUE JA VI ELECTRIC!!!
PARABENS AO FABRICANTE , ENGENHEIROS E TODOS ENVOLVIDOS NESSE GRANDE PROJETO.
VIVA O CARRO ELETRICO.
Mitsubishi Motors (MMC) has unveiled a new, single-motor research electric car based on its i minicar. The new Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle (i MiEV) will be used for joint research programs with Japanese power companies beginning this year, and in fleet tests in 2007.
Mitsubishi decided to concentrate on single-motor configuration because it can be developed more quickly and at a lower cost than its in-wheel-motor configurations—and therefore accelerate market introduction.
The new i-MiEV is powered by a compact 47 KW (63 hp) motor that develops 180 Nm (133 lb-ft) of torque and a 330V, 16 kWh or 20 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. Top speed is 130 kph (81 mph), with a range of up to 130 km (81 miles) for the 16 kWh pack or 160 km (99 miles) for the 20 kWh pack. The motor is coupled to a reduction gear and differential to drive both rear wheels.
Charge time (80% capacity) with a 15-amp/200-volt on-board charger is 5 hours and 7 hours for each of the packs. Use of a 15-amp/100-volt charger increases the time to 11 hours and 13 hours respectively. A 3-phase, 50kW/200V quick charger drops that to 20 minutes and 25 minutes respectively.
MMC will display i MiEV at the 22nd International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exposition (EVS-22) at Pacifico Yokohama in Yokohama on Oct 23-28, 2006.
www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/mitsubishi_acce.html
# Robin wrote on October 28th, 2006 at 7:30 am
# In response of David,
# …44 kW (you’re using 50, which I think is incorrect) …
I think David got 50kW from TeslaRoadsterBatterySystem.pdf from this site.
It includes this:
“The pack operates at a nominal 375 volts, stores about 50kwh of electric energy and delivers up to 200 kilowatts of electric power.”
I love the blog, and while I’ve learned a great deal from the comments, there’s definitely an element of preaching to the choir that goes on. Maybe we should try to spread the word to those who aren’t aware of what Tesla Motors has accomplished so far.
My idea: a bumper sticker for all of us that reads: “My next car is a Tesla”
Martin - re: your post about cost effectiveness - As Rocky S. would say, “Not so fast, Count”. I for one am not so sure I’d be willing to pay any amount to solve the issues you mentioned.; nor, I suspect, would the majority of citizens. Economics still matter. Of course, if Tesla wants to ignore marketplace dynamics and is satisfied to be a niche player, so be it. I’m not saying that an EV has to pay for itself, but my SWAG would be that the INCREMENTAL cost effectiveness over a ICE-only vehicle would first have to be “tolerable” (whatever that is) for an EV to be considered for purchase, including maintenance (but that is another issue), all else being equal. Witness the fact that the extra purchase cost of a hybrid vehicle, over basic transportation, puts it beyond affordablilty for a lot of people . (Here I am neglecting people who would pay anything to “save” the environment, a smaller group.) Every dollar still counts for us in the Midwest - I have to eat and have a place to sleep, first. Period. In that vein, Anatoly’s previous post about “a car for the masses” is perceptive, in my opinion.
All that being said, I recognize that the target price of $25,000 for the third generation Tesla vehicle should go a long way toward capturing many drivers - but of course, you knew that. So we really are looking at two classes of people: those who can afford to buy an EV and save the environment, etc, and those who can’t afford to save the environment, etc. and drive an ICE vehicle instead. I wonder which is the larger group.
Oops! I just realized that Martin was referring to the cost effectiveness of the Roadster. But in general, I stand my my previous post.
This is a great first generation prototype. For the next generation Tesla, this is what the company needs to do:
-Change the batteries to the A123 Systems lithium ion batteries. These batteries can provide 4 hp per kilogram!. The internal resistance of these batteries is so low, that very little energy is converted into heat (therefore you can scrap the whole liquid cooling system for the batteries).
-Add another 70 lb, 248 hp motor to make a 4 wheel drive, 496 hp super roadster
-Get rid of the two speed gear box. With the second electric motor, there is no need for a transmission (no matter how small and light it may be). A transmission is just extra weight you don’t need.
-You can further reduce the weight of the car by reducing the amount of batteries. You currently use 1000 lbs of batteries (454Kg). 454Kg would have a theoretical maximum output of 454 Kg * (4 hp / Kg) = 1816 hp. But you only need enough batteries to put out 496 hp of electrical power or 124 Kg. This would save 330 Kg or 726 lbs. This car can weight 1773 lbs. Your range will plummet from 250 miles to 68 miles (actually is more like 68 miles * 2500lbs/1773 lbs = 96 miles) with the weight reduction
- And now you have it, a 496 hp, 1773 lb car with a 96 mile range with a power to weight ratio of : 0.28 hp/lb.
Just for comparison: A regular 2007 Corvette (400 hp) has a power to weight ratio of 0.122 hp / lb. Therefore, this second generation Tesla would have a 2.3 times higher power to weigh ratio than a Corvette.
- A 124 Kg battery bank of this batteries would have a capacity of about 50 KW*hr *(124 Kg/454Kg) = 13.66 KW*hr. This car can easily be charged in 1 hr at 1 C. With a source of 220 VAC, you need a current of 62 Amps.
If the short range bothers you, don’t add more batteries. Add a tiny high compression ratio diesel (say 20 KW) coupled to a 3 phase ac generator(say 30 KW), a 5 gallon tank and you can drive for over 350 miles. (expect the power to weight ration to drop).
Range and ownership cost of driving both could be in principle improved for electric vehicles (as for other passenger car types) by reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance of a car. For the Tesla Motors roadster taken as example I guess for its ~1200 kg weight it has average resistance at ~250 N for aerodynamic drag for ~50 mph speed and ~150 N of rolling resistance. In case of much less iconic car targeting mass market (sort of “Ford Focus” on electricity) is it possible to reduce overall drag for same conditions down to say ~100 N. Would it be possible battery pack could be reduced 4 times dropping its cost to ~$5000 and making it economically comparable to mass market cars of today. In such a way ecology would be improved dramatically because it would be car with ~440 miles per gallon driving range equivalent with cost of mass market car.
By myself i can say that aerodynamic shapes with Cd = ~0.01 exist versus Cd = ~0.4 of Tesla roadster. Taking at face value this would make aerodynamic drag for a car with same cross section
Hey Malcom, I just wanted to point out that Maxwell Technologies most power dense ultracapacitor (BCAP0650 P270) has a power density of 15,100 W/kg and an energy density of 3.29 W*hr/kg. A123 Systems battery has an power density of 3000 W/kg (for power output) and about 120 W*hr/kg of energy density. While the ultra capacitor is a little over 5 times more power dense than this awesome battery, this battery is over 36 times more energy dense. This battery can be charged 80% in 5 minutes which places the input power density to about 120 W*hr/kg * 80% / (5 minutes) = 1152 W/kg. There is no question about the superiority of the ultra cap in power density but the energy density of the A123 Systems batteries more than make up for it. This means that a 124 Kg battery bank can absorb about 142,848 W of maximum power. The second generation car I mentioned above would weight 1773 lbs (804 Kg). This car travelling at 60 mph would have a kinetic energy of 289128 Joules (E = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5* 804 Kg * (26.82 m)^2 = 289128 J). That means that the car can be stopped in 289128 Joules / 142,848 W = 2.024 seconds by using regenerative braking only. In practice, slowing down so fast will create massive amounts of heat in the tires (this releives the battery or slows the car even faster (not likely). In short, the ultra cap does not make a significant contribution in this design. The more batteries you use to extend range the least you need these awesome ultracaps. By the way, in my blog above I forgot to mention that using 124 kg battery will probably make this car go down in price $20 to $30 K
Cd of Prius is .26, Cd of Porsche Cayman is .29- I say (as I have said) that taking design cues from Cayman would be one good way to go for sports sedan “whitestar”. Turns out Cayman has as high a Cd as it looks.Tesla needs to do a design with personality that people will love. Chrysler did that when PT cruiser came out (and price was right) Mini-Cooper and Mustang are other cars with user-friendliness -as is Tesla roadster, & Elise.Ford did a great job on Mustang, but could have better interior, They took cues from ‘67 Mustang- which was exactly where to take them from .The ‘67 Mustang fastback (in yellow ochre color) was a really beautiful car -best Mustang design, along with new one now.As for a new car company making it, a number of great car companies came out of nowhere in the face of established companies: Porsche (in some old barns in Gmund, Austria)-1948, Honda-1948, Ferrari-1946, Lamborghini (they made tractors first)-1963. Then, of course, there’s the newer companies, like Hyundai-1967. Tesla has advantage of being completely different (”…and now for something completely different”) and well-funded,from a number of happening sources. If they stay lean & mean, anti-establishment/corporate, and user-friendly that would let them stand out as a company a lot of people could identify with-and what car company can you say that about now?-none, for me,at least among cars I can afford. Otherwise, I always liked Lotus’ philosophy, and Porsche was kind of interesting , except designs too uniform. Even though Cayman uses a lot of Boxster parts, it’s a friendly little car (more so than Boxster) in its way, as is Tesla Roadster in its way. The 911 line is boring.Yeah Tesla can make it, there’s a pent-up demand for more than “car companies as usual” in the new Green Century.
Hey-I just thought of something: Seinfeld -how come he hasn’t bought a Tesla!? (he owns something like 50 Porsches)-Kramer’s gonna have to slap him around!
Slap me around too- I meant to say above “Cayman has as LOW a Cd as it looks (but of course)
Freddy,
Interesting stats on the A123 batteries, but previous blog entries indicate they are quite expensive. Can you look at altair nano batteries and compile similar stats? They have recently powered 2 electric cars, an SUV and a SU truck. Range of about 130 miles and top speed of 95mph. These batteries can be recharged in 6 minutes, have been shown to survive 15,000 + cycles (about 40 years worth), have no thermal runaway as there is no phosphorus in the cathode (use lithium titinate instead). They can apparently also be made quite cheaply. I have not seen any discussion on them here, but they are being used now in electric vehicles. I would be interested to see an analysis of their capabilites (not smart enough to do it myself !). www.altairnano.com
Electric grid efficiency: Somehow people get the idea that the electric grid is massively inefficient, but this just ain’t so. Check my references in the whitepaper, The 21st Century Electric Car. The average efficiency of the U.S. grid is 92 percent.
Think this may have been me in reference to your Solar Option. No, I appreciate that once energy is in an electrical form, conversion and transmission efficiencies are good. My question (which I didn’t ask clearly enough) was about the whole combustion/turbine/generator part.
As I understand it, there are four coal-fired generating options:-
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) which is 50% efficient and may even get to be 56% (Er….Gasp?)
Supercritical & Ultrasupercritical - the latter is 50%
Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC) 38 to 40% and
Pressurised Pulverised Coal Combustion, currently being developed in Germany
(Source: worldcoal.org)
Even if we take the best 56% and combine it with 92% for the grid, we get left with 52%. Factor in the 85% for the inverter/battery gives 44%. So if your domestic electricity comes from one of these super coal-fired stations, you still need the Solar Option to put back roughly 2.25kWh into the grid for every 1kWh you put into the Tesla’s batteries - if you desire to offset the coal source energy.
It can be done, but it’s kind of annoying. Do we really want to offset and thereby continue to prop up an inefficient power generation system which relies on the combustion of carbon-based fuels?
If U.S. coal is still cheap and so plentiful and setting fire to the stuff is easy, why do Americans talk about brown-outs with such regularity? Would large or small scale renewables make that much difference to the stability of a typical domestic supply?
It seems to me that an America that is used to brown-outs is ready for renewable power right now.
To the Dutch Enthusiast,
TEG got it right, the figure for the battery capacity are actually listed on the sight - sans charger.
As to Omnicell, I can’t quite figure them out - They claim to have a 3.8Ah capacity at 3.6V - or 13.68 Watts for a 28 gram battery. That’s 489 W/Kg. So they either screwed up on something (i.e. weight, capacity, etc.) or they have the densest Li-Ion battery in world… by a factor 0f 250%! My bet is that it is some kind of typo…
If you are interested in finding actual 18650 cells with full detail, you can follow any one of these links…
www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=174
www.megabatteries.com/item_details.asp?id=13935&cat_id=51
www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=739
www.onlybatteries.com/cat_featured_items.asp?cat1=27&cat=2&id=163&uid=1107
and click on almost any 18650 battery (or group of batteries) to see the full specs - including weight.
For those interested in following new battery technology, this is a breakthrough from 3M, a reputable fortune 500 company. The person interviewed at the end of the article who claims that “it’s a logical direction” was a familiar name - he founded a123 systems.
www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17653&ch=energy&sc=&pg=1
Omnicell make primary cells, they are not rechargeable.
The brownouts haven’t been caused by a shortage of coal or gas. Rather they’ve been running into the limitations of our electrical grid and its carrying capacity. It’s especially bad in the summer because heat also limits the carrying capacity of power lines right when air conditioning is in highest demand. Rooftop solar panels would be a big help. Although I appreciate Tesla offering a solar option with the Roadster, I’ve got to say bundling those solar panels with home A/C units would seem to be more logical.
Another thing to remember about coal. . . I’ve heard repeated many times that the USA has about 240 or 250 years supply of coal. It sounds like a lot, but remember that is at today’s consumption rate. If we tried to power all our cars from coal-fired electricity, it could be depleted in as little as 50 years. Even if we set aside pollution and the issue of global warming completely, coal still wouldn’t be a good long-term solution to our energy problems. It has also been suggested that natural gas may begin running out soon, so it’s a tough problem.
I have to look toward solar and nuclear energy as the most promising options for the long haul in our future. Hydro power, wind and geothermal are all excellent power sources in local areas where those resources are abundant, but only solar and nuclear can really span the globe.
Oh, incidentally. . . I have read a magazine article Nikola Tesla wrote about the subject of renewable energy — in 1911, if I recall right. Even then he considered the burning of fossil fuels a terrible waste, virtually a crime against future generations. He advocated renewable energy. After a quick survey of the options available, he came down on the side of geothermal power as the most promising.
He was right to the extent that geothermal power has proven an excellent power source in regions where it’s easily tapped, such as Iceland. Of course there was nothing like today’s photovoltaic cell technology in 1911, so I can forgive him for dismissing the potential of solar energy!
Altair nano batteries are, like so many products people talk about here, are at the laboratory stage. The two battery packs in the SUV & truck were both hand-made. This is not a technology you buy in usable quantities. Maybe in three or four years, maybe never. Altair does not strike me as a very focused company. Reading their stockholder reports, it looks like they have a technology looking for a market. They are burning money rather rapidly (6M/2003, 8M/2004, 11M/2005) and with a single exception, the insiders are selling their stock. Not very good. As is the case for other batteries, when (if) they are building them by the millions (200 Roadsters = 1.4 million cells) I’m certain Tesla will give them due consideration.
# busybee64 wrote on October 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
# Senator Boxer: …the current Chair um says global warming is a hoax, and when
# he had a hearing on it his star witness was Michael Crichton [laughter]. Now
# Michael Crichton writes really good books, but believe me he’s not a scientist.
Michael Crichton graduated Harvard Medical School, has been a visiting lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, as well as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences. (source: www.michaelcrichton.com/aboutmc/biography.html)
Barbara Boxer graduated in Economics from Brooklyn College and worked for three years as a stockbroker and two as a newspaper editor before going into politics. (source: bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000711)
# daavid_42 wrote on October 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
# As is the case for other batteries, when (if) they are building them by the millions
# (200 Roadsters = 1.4 million cells)
I had never stopped to think of that before. How long and how much manual effort does it take to assemble and test a Tesla power unit out of 6800 individual cells? If it took 1 second to insert each mini-cell, then it would take 1.89 hours, just to put the cells in place for one power unit! Multiply that by 200 and you get almost 9.5 weeks of production at that rate, just to insert the cells. How much additional time per unit for adjustment, conditioning, and testing? I wonder how much of this they have automated, or can perform in parallel?
# James Anderson Merritt wrote on October 30th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
## Senator Boxer: …the current Chair says global warming is a hoax, and when
## he had a hearing on it his star witness was Michael Crichton
# Michael Crichton graduated Harvard Medical School
# Barbara Boxer graduated in Economics
So… What are you saying? That global warming is a hoax?
A Medical degree trumps an economics degree in being an expert on global climate change ?
I hope Tesla succeed in the marketplace and go on to produce sedan style cars.
I’m VERY excited about this car, even though it’s about $90,000 more than I can afford, but one day I hope to own a Tesla, perhaps a Sedan?
I just hope you guys don’t get pressured by GM or any other oil company colluding car manufacturing company. Don’t IPO, or somebody will try to buy you out and kill you off!
No,Crichton isn’t a scientist-Roger Revelle , now there was a scientist. The thickness of the earth’s atmosphere is relatively about the same as the skin on an apple.Soon Richard Branson will allow us to fly up to the start of space-like 62 miles up-you could drive that on the freeway is less than an hour. With deforestation and burning of fossil fuels all over the planet-24/7 , more each year, for about 200 years now, what does Michael Crichton THINK is happening (Jeeezz!: turkey!)
Thank you TomE for pointing that out - I didn’t see that on their website, but that would definitely explain it.
Kudos to James on the Boxer-Chrichton comparison - for those who have not seen what Chrichton has said on the issue of climate change, the gist of it is this.
1) Climate change may or may not be real, the evidence to prove it is not currently available
2) Whether or not it is real, to believe that any prediction at all can be accurate over a 50 or 100 year period would be folly as there are so many unknown variables that can change the whole picture before then… (my note - think about the Tesla)
—
Editor’s surprise: We think every possible side of the Michael Crichton issue has now been explored in the past several posts. We will be silently (or not so silently, as the case may be) moderating future comments.
Hi, Just wanted to tell you that my boyfriend and I were in Cold Spring Harbor, Huntington and there’s a little Musuem that highlighted some of the work of Tesla… Apparently he was here on Long Island, trying to do some creative stuff…
Well, my goodness.
www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/gm_hybrids.html
“General Motors Corp. plans to invest a portion of the $9 billion in savings from cost cuts this year to make vehicles that challenge the Toyota Motor Corp. in technology and fuel efficiency, according to published reports in Detroit. GM’s plans include a hybrid-electric vehicle with a battery that recharges at any outlet…”
“GM has assigned a team of engineers to develop plug-in hybrids. Known in Detroit as the I-car or Icon car, the project is to be designed as the centerpiece of a new GM strategy for plug-in hybrids. Plug-in hybrids recharge when the vehicle isn’t in use and switch to the gasoline engine when the batteries are drained. “
Ron, there are other promising batteries out there. Actually, my theoretical favorite was the Toshiba fast charging Lithium-ion battery. If I remember well, you could charge 80% of the cell in 1 minute. This means that this battery can beat the energy capture capability of the best ultracap assuming that the energy density of this batteries is above 110 W*hr/Kg. Unfortunately, this batteries have not come to the market (even though the great news came out around May of 2005 and they anounced they would put them in the market sometime in 2006). This batteries reportedly lost only 1% capacity after 1000 cycles. No specs were put on the actual energy density or power density. I was hoping that Toyota would jump at the opportunity of striking a deal with Toshiba so that an electric dominant hybrid would come to the market but, I think Toshiba battery technology was never really ready for showtime.
There are so many promising technologies but none of the big car companies want to take a big chance. I am just waiting until the Rad Cam rotary engine matures so that car companies can use it in a series configuration electric dominant hybrid. This engine is supposed to be extremely small (a cylinder of 6 inches of diameter by 6 inches in length), and develop 42 hp with a compression ratio of 20:1. This engine would have an incredible power to weight ratio as well as a superb thermal efficiency (it would be a match made in heaven between the electric drivetrain of the tesla roadster and the rand-cam engine). Let’s just see what happens.
Just checked AC propulsion website-they have changed website design and announced sale of Scion XB based “e-box” elect. car, however news is not good. They said originally that they ” expect car to cost about as much as the Toyota RAV4- EV” . Their listed price is now $55,000 (NOT including the Scion XB itself-which you have to bring in for conversion). So, if Tesla can come out with “whitestar” sedan for “around $50,000″-that’s the ticket. Hope they can pull it off, otherwise there will be affordability “trouble in River/EV City” -and that ain’t good! $50,000 is definately the top limit for the avg. Joe, if that.
If the Tesla Roadster base model eventually comes out at “$89,000″ then the AC Propulsion e-Box doesn’t look good unless maybe someone has owned a Scion XB for awhile already-since the total price of the e-Box would be about $70,000.If Toyota /other car companies come out with plug-in EV’s, looks like they would be the only alternative until “whitestar”-unless “Feel Good Cars” and “EEstor do something drastic.
Regarding the hub motors discussion, I’m with you in that, at least today, they are a solution in search for a problem (and with a load of problems on their own). But I would like to separate that discussion from the one vs. two (or four) motors discussion. There ARE several advantages to the two/four engine design. Maybe they compensate for the disadvantages (mainly weight and complexity) or maybe not. But I wouldn’t discard multiple motors as an option.
First, two/four engines allow you to get rid of the differential, giving some weight savings (or at least partially compensating the additional weight of using two smaller motors instead of a single large one). A differential has some cost, weight and maintenance requirements, even if they are relatively small.
Second, separate engines give you free traction control, and of a kind that is way better than any current traction control system in the market or even in the racetrack. With two/four engines you can apply to each wheel the exact amount of power you want in every instant. You can apply maximum torque to each wheel and if it starts to spin faster than what math would say it should under current conditions, reduce power a just enough to keep it from slipping. You can do the math dynamically considering trajectory, speed, lateral acceleration, etc., and you can even account use the dynamic wheel speeds to help break inertia when when entering a turn (more power to the external wheels right at the beginning of the turn) and under other circumstances. And on slippery sufraces with separate power running to each wheel you can control the car way better than with a single engine, you can even steer by wheel speed. And though I understand mud is not the surface a Roadster is designed to drive on, you never know. Precisely controlling the speed/torque on each wheel at every moment cannot be a bad thing. You can play such games with brakes, but such systems are slower (for a brake to start acting it can take a few precious milliseconds) and less precise. And power application to electric motors is something that can be done precisely and mathematically, with the ability to calculate the real power output with some relative precision. Using brakes for power adjustment is something that can only be done in a binary way due to the lack of ability to mathematically model power application via braking. Also, the on/off nature of power application through brakes means there’s some departure from maximum traction (even if switching is done very rapidly) both due to the on state imposing an upper traction limit and due to the power application done via an approximation (wait for the wheel to start slipping, start decreasing the brake pulse width, wait for it to stop slipping, start increasing pulse width, etc.). It is just not the best way of adjusting power.
Third, you get some fault tolerance. A car with one motor on each wheel will still be driveable if a motor (or controller/inverter/whatever) fails. Yes, it will drive like hell, but it will not leave you stranded on the highway. One of the reasons I think electric cars will trup IC cars is the ability to get fault tolerant (along with intrinsic robustness of the parts).
Fourth: no slip. Differentials suck when one wheel loses traction (on ice, mud, etc.). Limited Slip Differentials do better, but they still suck (I have two trucks and even one Miata with LSDs. They work, but just barely). And again, I know a roadster is designed mainly to drive on paved roads. But a car should be designed to take you from point A to point B in a safe way. And sometimes mud and ice are in the way. So if we can have a car that does well in those roads without damaging pavement performance, so be it.
Fifth: clearance. A differential is most of the time positioned right between the center of the wheels, and it is the lowest suspended part of the car. While clearance is not an issue most of the time, it can help under many circumstances on a car that’s driven outside of the track. Yes, a differential can be tucked upper in the car via some coupling gears, but that implies some added weight and complexity.
I understand some of these advantages are lost if you have a motor with a power curve that needs a complex gearbox. But with a one or two gear system, I’d rather go with two motors and no differential and get precise wheel control.
Off topic:
I think most of you (both at Tesla and on the other side of the screen reading this blog) agree electric cars are the future. And the future is coming way faster than most expected. In a few years, electric cars will be common, and if the Tesla Roadster has something to say about it, they will start at the high end of the performance scale.
So, in a few years, will we be still watching Formula One and Indy races? Will dinosaur burning, exploding masses be still powering the cars we’ll watch racing on the weekends?
I doubt it will be so for long. At some point, someone will start what could be called “Formula Zero”, a 100% electric car racing category. At first, maybe only geeks will watch it, as it will probably lack the spectacularity and big names we see on other categories. But as electric racers start obtaining better times than their IC counterparts, attention will start to shift towards the better technology. With time, it will just become accepted that real speed does not equate noise, and electric car racing will become mainstream. And that will not only help advance the state of the art, but it will also help raise awareness about electric cars and their possibilities.
>> Well, my goodness.
>>www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/gm_hybrids.html
Busybee64 it is rather “Oh MY GREATNESSSSS!”
I can’t believe after GM killed off their EV1 they suddenly interested in a PLUG -IN YES a PLUG-IN GM. These folks are pretty confused about what they want. The biggest, fatest SUV (HUMMER) or is it the best Hydrogen Car (Hywire) oh wait no that can’t work, lets beat Toyota and make an all encompasing, all new technology PLUG-IN Hybrid. Mmmmmm have we not done this before???? Funny folks these GM people. Wonder where they gonna get the money to do this?
Hey Ron, I went to the altair nano site (www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf), and I found out that the altair nano batteries and A123 Systems batteries are virtually identical with the exception of energy density. Altair nano batteries are less energy dense (90 W*hr/kg) vice about 110 W*hr for A123 Systems. I also read that Altair nano batteries can put out up to 4000 W/kg so these batteries are actually superior to A123 Systems. A report came out on 28 Oct 06 stating that Altair nano completed a torture test and got 15000 complete charge/discharge cycles out of their batteries. This is what this means:
- Keeping the battery bank at 124 Kg, you can get a theoretical maximum power output of 496 KW or 661 hp
- The range of the 1773 lb roadster, will go down from 96 to 72 miles
- At 15000 cycles, the battery pack can power this car for 1.08 million miles. This is way beyond the expected life of any car.
Altair must implement their technology to the prismatic battery design to reduce battery volume. They also need to increase the size of the battery to about 0.25 Kg per cell (0.55 lbs). This will increase the energy/power density slightly and reduce the number of batteries.
A correction I wanted to make was that the Tesla motor is 80% efficient at max power and so the actual mechanical output would drom from 496 to 396.8 hp. Therefore the power to weight ratio also drops to 0.224 hp/lb.
If the stats of these Altair nano are true, the 9.9 sec/ quarter mile/electric car is around the corner. A car like this can be put in competition against the VW Beyron and still beat it due to the higher power to mass ratio. I will patiently wait in front of the TV to see this roadster in a quarter mile race (How about in PINKS?).
Is petroleum used in the production of any portion of a PVC?
That would explain why for decades the immense “cost inefficiency” has been associated with the
production of PVC’s.
If PVC’s had been introduced decades ago Big Coal and Big Oil would be dead by now and global warming would be a non issue.
This car is out of my price range but I am very excited about the future. I can see the end of the tunnel where an everyday person can afford such a wonderful platform for a car. With this type of vehicle going into mass production it will pave the way for real development for vehicles that are evironmentally friendly. I don’t think everyday people fully realize just how much a combustion engine is poisoning the air we breath and the food we eat from the million tons of toxins like oil, transmission fluids, and anti-freeze being washed in to the very environment we live. Even our roads will become safer to drive in rain due to less fluids and oils. On a more trivial note, I look for to the day I will not have to yell at my wife for walking through oil left in parking lots and tracking it through the car and house.
TLS
I am very excited about the Tesla Motors Roadster and would like to know how long the batteries last before needing to be replaced…..I know one of the draw backs to lithium type batteries is that they loose about 20% percent efficiency each year. Has this problem been solved? Also what are the cost to replace such batteries?
Thank you,
David Luckett a. k. a. Polymer Chemist looking for work.
Thanks for introducing such a great product into the automotive industry. I was wondering if there was any way to integrate into Tesla motors rejuvination through Regenerative Braking and use of a Power-Generating Shock Absorber (PGSA) by use of a Linear Motion Electromagnetic system (LMES). see here [ peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Power-Generating_Shock_Absorber ] . This way the battery cell can receive a little extra charge just thorugh driving/braking and riding on a bumpy road
I don’t know how efficient these technologies are or if their R&D cost would justify the increased range - but it sounds good to me, anyway.
Thanks,
Ryan J. Kee
Aerospace Engineer
Army Civilian
—
Editor’s comment:
Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. The Tesla Roadster has regenerative braking. See our Charging & Batteries page.
Wow!
How about honoring Tesla’s genius and obsession: How does the wireless transmission of energy tie-in (no pun intended) to your car?
What if I could just park my car in certain places (like my garage) and it charged without wires.
Better yet, what if my car could recieve energy from a remote transmitter site (no batteries, no range limits)?
Tesla was after this kind of stuff. Was it genius or madness? You guys figure it out (and let me know).
Anyway, I want one (in a few years) Actually, I want the the all-wheel-drive family-sized version that does one or both of the things above utilizing energy generated from solar power. Please build me one and I will buy it (if I can afford it).
Keep it up.
Nick
I am an Electric Motor Repair Engineer and I have built an Electric vehical of my own but it’s a bit more practical in that it’s based on a Toyota pickup chasis. I can actualy haul things around in it like gravel and lumber. When will tesla Motors come out with a truck?
I am also wondering if you plan on coming out with an affordable vehical for the average consumer in the $10K - $20K range. I understand starting out highend, but I would be willing to bet that most people would be willing to sacrifice good looks and maybe less range and speed for something affordable to people who only make maybe $30K Per year.
The world needs electric cars not just the super elite who can afford a $50-100K Toy
P.S. awesome car, If I had that kind of money I would buy one!
Theres an upcoming July 10th Global Energy Indpendence Day/Nikola Tesla Memorial Alternative Car Race. see www.PESWIki.com Nikola Tesla/Global Energy Indpendence Day/Nikola Tesla memorial Alternative Car RACE, Also, the Tesla memorial website www.teslasociety.com Global Energy Independence Day Thanks! Dr.Edson ASndre’ Johnson D.D. Founder Global Energy Independence Day/Nikola Tesla memorial Alternmative Car Race, Sunland, Calif.USA [telephone number removed] July 1oth The nBirth anniversary of Nikola Tesla!
Very exciting car, I can’t wait for you guys to go NASCAR,
I am looking to the day that you come out with a van, I am talking the size of the tall extended length Dodge Sprinter size beast. Long enough to haul a 13′-6″ roll of carpet.
FedEx and all the other delivery companies could sure use them too.
My only EV was a 1970 GE Electrack, that old thing was a workhorse and always ready to go.
Keep up the great work!
I find it interesting that the efficiency of the electric power grid is due to Nicola Tesla’s pioneering work with high voltage AC power distribution for Westinghouse.
Another interesting note is your use of the AC motor in the the Tesla Roadster, another one of Tesla’ inventions I believe.
What about a heater I could not find an anything out about if it is suitable for colder climates and does it have A.C.?
åƹϤ̵Ͽ
What is, in your opinion, the best book to learn about Nikola Tesla?
Thank you for honoring Nikola Tesla as the greatest Serbian-American discoverer!
Nice post. Looks like wind power is really starting to get some serious consideration in Australia now.