Elon wrote: “…there would be an onboard generator for the occasional long trip.”

Really?

What would Martin do?

…I should add I’m also worried about the maintenance challenges when the range extender goes unused for months at a time…

Elon,

I was glad to hear and read your intention to ship your initial vehicles with the existing transmissions to customers willing to receive a free upgrade later. Judging by the excitement in the room during the teleconference, I was not surprised that there were many customers interested in that possibility - great move.

I love your REEV approach for the future. Initially, until plug in EV’s have years of testing in the real world, I imagine customers, like myself, would be leary of driving anywhere without some sort of RE backup, in the event the battery pack goes dead unexpectedly. Can you makesure there is a RE bypass, so that, if the batteries die unexpectedly, you can run the vehicle off the RE alone?

Thanks for your dedication and conviction - Happy Holidays!

I appreciate this update of the Master Plan.

Too, I realize there are considerable engineering differences between a “range extender” serial hybrid, with its large battery and small assist engine, and a Prius-style parallel hybrid, with its large engine and small assist battery. However, as soon as an internal combustion engine is added, the difference to me becomes more of degree than kind. I have said elsewhere, and I would repeat here, that I would probably not buy a Tesla Motors product that included an ICE. I am a conservative buyer, and I will stick with tried-and-true manufacturers of ICE cars over those built by TM, a new entrant to the field.

I believe that if TM stays true to its original mission, and produces all-battery cars, then it will sell everything it can make. If this means that TM must produce cars at “luxury” price points, then so be it. It is not TM’s mission to replace every car on the road; its mission is to stay in business. If it leaves this niche for seemingly greener pastures, it may well find itself another victim of the world’s automotive powerhouses.

Re: Same song?

I can’t agree that the “Song remains the same”. The original words have been changed somewhat and there’s a different “lead” singer singing a slightly different tune to the one I had been enjoying.

Call it a REEV or whatever you want but it is still an internal combustion engine which needs gasoline, and the use of words such as “likely provide” and “option” don’t exactly inspire confidence that it - the ICE - will be gone any time soon.

But who knows, maybe the newly departed singer will form another group and resume playing the “song” I enjoyed

Not exactly the “Chrstmas music” I was hoping for.

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

I like the long trip generator-a compact ” plug in ” one in a generator bay, that can be removed for daily driving (leaving a storage space) -which takes care of Ryan’s objection. It’s great to want to sell Tesla components to other Ev companies-which Martin agreed to as well. Funny thing about this post is that everything Elon sez is exactly what Martin was saying-so what, perchance, was the problem?-couldn’t have been the “launch/transmission” delay- look at Airbus & Boeing-it’s a new tech., what do people expect? I would have followed the original Golden Rule M.O., not the later cash- based one.That way Tesla could have avoided acting like just another U.S. investor/ investment firm -driven company as (what else is new?) usual. One day the real story will appear via the grapevine perhaps?

Fishead post from prior blog on 10 times better Li-ion batteries- that’s a big Wow ( 10/4, roger that). Now someone has to do the same trick for PV solar-so that it becomes, like 90% efficient. When that happens, the whole package will be there. In the next few years , if this keeps up , we could turn the country around fast (particularly if govt. at all levels pumps in some cash & incentives. Right now “the pumps don’t work ’cause the vandals took the handles” )

Elon’s “Song Remains the Same” fails to explain sum things. Guess the lyrics that apply to me, or M.E., iz: “look out kid, it’s somethin’ you did-God knows when but you’re doin’ it again”.

Congrats to providing more updated news!
Unlike some, I realize that design adaptation is key to survival. Roadster drivers have completly different useage than “regular” drivers. Truth is, there is a very limited market for a pure $50k EV at this point in time. I for one think it is a brilliant move to have a backup for the ESS. Please continue to pursue the ICE concept REEV. The very concept of being able to take a 400+ mile trip at a moments notice makes your design saleable. Folks just don’t like to feel vulnerable - and the REEV concept removes that. I think you got the right direction.

KUDOS!

Jeff

# Steve wrote on December 21st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
## Can someone tell me what the deal is with the range change , last week it was 245 miles per charge , now it’s back to 220 mpc
Reportedly it was a “mistake” by the firm that did the EPA range tests.

# T.J. wrote on December 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
## I like the long trip generator-a compact ” plug in ” one in a generator bay, that can be removed for daily driving (leaving a storage space)
It seems some are assuming it will be removable. My guess is that it won’t be removable.

# Roy wrote on December 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
## I am in the camp of “keep it pure electric” it is reassuring that you stated that pure models will always be available.
That could simply mean that they would continue to sell the “pure electric” Roadster alongside various “REEV” models.
I wouldn’t automatically assume that you would have a choice between BEV and REEV sedans. Elon’s statement would still be true even if they only sold REEV sedans.

I wonder what generator technology Tesla plans to use. Piston ICE? Rotary? Turbine? Sterling? Turbocharged? Supercharged?
I assume this info will remain under wraps until the related sedan model is announced.

Does Tesla have anything to say yet about their intentions for fuel choices? Would you have a “flex fuel” generator that can run on different fuels?
Will the “range extender” be gasoline? E85? Diesel? (other?)

Elon,

I must regard the “REEV” option as flat un-encouraging.

It takes a lot to bolster my confidence to begin with, but what with these production delays, the inability of Tesla to finalise the Roadster’s range, and now Tesla’s seeming vulnerability to the insidiousness of the ICE, I fail to see the furure greatness of Tesla when it is only moving towards the status quo of established 21st century (ICE) auto manufacturers.

My advice. Forget RE-EV. Forget it! Let it die. You’re only going to impede the development of the batteries- in fact you’ll see it as an excuse not to.

You can go a long way on 220 miles. The problem is pyschological with buyers. You tell them 220 miles and they think probably 50, what with the existing stigma of EV’s. Do you really think you’re buying them over to batteries with suggestions of “RE-EV’s”?

As I’ve said. Forget it. Let it die.

And as others have said. Stick to your guns. Have a conscience and be emotional about EV’s. Don’t make Tesla just a business, and a scrambly “please everbody” business proposition at that. Make it a principled proposition- as I think Tesla was designed to be. If you want to build RE-EV’s, I suggest you work for one of the ICE companies- they’do it like nobody else.

Sincerely,

Michael Toft

Vancouver, BC

“Tesla will likely provide both pure electric and range extended electric drive options in the future”

Aww….what an important little quote from Mr. Elon’s blog post. I am VERY happy that they will be providing both options.

ALWAYS keep both options available. ALWAYS. I personally would opt for the pure EV, but if the EV is ever going to go mainstream, especially with the Volt possibly looming, REEV is going to have to be an option for Tesla to be market competitive.

I know that alot of people on this blog don’t like the idea of REEV because you guys don’t like the idea of having an engine laying around that you barely use. Why are you complaining? You don’t have to have it; just choose the pure EV instead. Yes, Tesla may be “tainted” with ICE, and won’t be “pure,” but it’s better for Tesla to be market competitive and exist than not exist at all.

Also….remember that Elon said “generator.” That’s not necessarily an ICE. It could be a fuel cell. Maybe Honda, with their refined fuel cell system, will provide fuel cell technology for Tesla to use as range extenders. Honda, afterall, is the largest maker of engines in the world, maybe they’re setting their sights on largest fuel cell maker too.

However, we all know the problems with hybdrogen, so it might not happen.

Or maybe Tesla, but more likely some aftermarket thing, will provide a genset. www.seattleeva.org/images/thumb/9/9d/Acp_tzero_DSC00467.jpg/300px-Acp_tzero_DSC00467.jpg

The genset’s wheels would be made to be steered. I personally think this is a great option.

Steve said:

“Can someone tell me what the deal is with the range change , last week it was 245 miles per charge , now it’s back to 220 mpc”

Yeah, it sucks. The company that did the range testing for the roadster apparently did it incorrectly. So, they tested the car again, and the correct testing came up with ~220 miles per charge. That is not the official, official range number however because the testing will be redone just right before series production starts. I got this info from the little asterik next to “200 miles per charge.”

1- Get rid of the water cooled ESS by going to high-power phosphate batteries.

2- Get rid of the transmission by going to high-power phosphate batteries.

3- Get rid of the differential by going to 2 (4 preferred) in-hubs.

4- Reduce range to 100 miles to drop the cost of the battery pack

5- Reduce top speed to 162 km/h.

6- Include small displacement RE that can increase range to 250 miles @ 70 mph from full charge.

7- RE should be able to work unattended.

If the fishead battery post pans out, range extending generator wouldn’t be needed-unless traveling almost across country in one trip. Wonder what happened with indium, gallium, nitride solar cells ? - came across info. on web from around 2002 (but nothing recent) that said solar cells made from this could tap into full spectrum of sunlight (”multijunction”) and produce efficiency of possibly up to 70%. U.S. National l Renewable Energy Lab said that within 10 years (I think , with any help, half that time or less) . both PV solar & thermal solar will match or beat fossil fuel power costs. They said that theoretically the whole country could be powered off of an area of PV solar 100 miles x 100 miles sq.- Speed up the Nanosolar printing presses.

Thanx for the update Elon!!!
Hoping to see some of these Roadsters hitting the streets soon. Hmmmm how ironic :The Song Remains the Same”….. That concert DVD was just released again. Just got it & watched it lol
A BIG question for Elon & Tesla motors is the story I posted about the breakthrough on lithium-ion batterys with nano-technology.

news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Increasing the life of the battery 10 fold is a HUUUGE breakthrough!!! I am wondering if Tesla will incorporate this technology into the WhiteStar or future Roadsters???? Lets say a conservative 200 miles for the Tesla… Man increasing that to 2000 would be incredible. All this talk of range extenders & such pretty much go OUT the window lol.
LET THE ELECTRIC REVOLUTION BEGIN!!!!!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO TESLA & EVERYONE!!!

I’d place bets on the Solar Sterling Engine from Infinia Corp for the REEV. At least I hope Tesla takes a good look at it. We reviewed it back in September.

Elon, rather than fund it all yourself, what about getting some help from the FreedomCAR program?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomCAR
There seems to be government assistance available for Plug in Hybrid technology development right now.

Dear Mr Musk

At present Tesla is the only car company capable of pushing BEV technology, but I believe that in rescheduling your break-even point you will have to sacrifice too much of your technological lead.

Big Auto is not interested in pushing the envelope. They like the bare minimum. Indeed, it is in their interest to suck Tesla Motors into developing a marginally innovative PHEV-friendly drivetrain (in return for a large sum). In the present legislative climate, 50 mpg would be far too radical in their books.

Yes, Tesla would become profitable sooner - and given your personal stake in the company, I can understand the attraction. And with 50 mpg (or a similar figure) you could continue to claim a valuable contribution to pioneering automotive work in the US.

But I would urge you to aim higher, through events such as the Automotive X Prize and through deals with cars makers who are prepared to focus on BEVs such as Pininfarina:-

www.pininfarina.com/index/press/cosCorp.html?index.php&p=562

You wrote “The electric vehicle revolution is critically important to the world and is way overdue. Tesla Motors, with the help of its customers and investors, is going to lead the way in making it happen”

Good. But please remember that Big Auto is not interested in your revolution and will do all they can to turn Tesla into one of the great PHEV component suppliers of the 21st century.

If Tesla does not continue to develop cutting edge systems for BEVs, who will?

Malcolm Wilson

Scientists have devised a way to make lithium-ion battery anodes out of silicon instead of carbon, using silicon nano-wires. With this approach, they are able to store 10 times the energy in a typical lithium ion battery than they otherwise would be able to store.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105.htm

When will you be shipping Tesla Roadsters that get 2200 miles per charge?

Have to agree with WarpedOne, vfx and Malcolm Wilson. While Tesla had a chance of being the leading EV manufacturer in the world it has no chance of competing with GM, Toyota et al in producing Range Extended EVs. I’m sure there are very good reasons for taking that route but it just defies logic to think that anyone will remain interested in your company if you’re doing the same as Big Auto. What track record does Tesla have in body design, suspension, noise vibration and harshness etc etc etc, and all that other stuff that car manufacturers have been doing for years? While you were making something that regular manufacturers refused to make we could forgive you your inexperience but now why should we? Anybody with a little money can buy expertise from Lotus and other automotive consultancy companies. Where is your USP when you are building your REEVs? I’d buy a Honda if I wanted one of those…..or a Volvo……or a Volt. Makes me wonder….was this Martin’s sin….he couldn’t agree with your strategy?

Considering that Tesla is at least 2 years ahead of major automakers at fielding a production electric vehicle, I am not worried about Tesla’s ability to compete. Offering an RE option is good business, until those Si wire lithium batteries become an economical option. By that time, all automakers will have access to those batteries, and most all automakers will coalesce around a common configuration.

Once the energy powering these EV’s becomes clean, abundant and cheap, we will see a styling explosion - just look at the vehicle that Fisker is proposing. These cars will meet all emissions standards, and can put less emphasis on aerodynamics, and more on curb appeal.

The inventors says that the 10 times improvement to Lithium batteries using silicon wires will take 5 years to bring to market:

www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough

I find it interesting that Elon failed to thank Martin for his services in this blog. If I am not mistaken, Elon would not be the Chairman of the Board of Tesla without Martin, his ideas, and his drive. I think that Elon’s and the other board member’s lack of acknowledgement of Martin and his abilities lacks class. The entire board and all of the employees should be grateful. However, they do not seem to be.

The Tesla Motor car is the first car that has ever impressed me. Producing automobiles is a very dicey high capital game and making the process simpler by using a chassis from another maker was a good idea. This car is a little bit out of my, and most others range, but the concept of the EV can be carried further. I must admit my taste in cars starts from the inside, whats under the hood, unlike most people who just want to ride something shiny to be replaced every 2-3 years.
My preference would be for something simpler, low-tech is not evil. Properly built, an EV could last a very long time, like DC-3’s and electric subway cars.

Every 3 months we can expect to see some new battery technology that will make the previous one look silly. Safety is very important to me and the Li ion Cobalt technology uses organic solvents with very low boiling and flash-point that make me nervous.

(The whole UN Lithium battery Transport regulation deal is based on a “misunderstanding” of what makes a Lithium battery go BOOM. The regulation for transport of hazardous materials for lithium batteries are currently only applied to the *Lithium* element, the flammable part is ignored. Crush a lithium cell and the heat from the short circuit will likely ignite the solvent, or “electrolyte”, and once this has started everything else with burn too. Lithium Cobalt cells have no free metallic Lithium, the lithium is only contained as a salt, yet the battery falls under Lithium regulations, not Flammables. )

Before long we will see Li iron phosphate technology that will obsolete the Cobalt cells. The elements in LiFePO4-cells should be very cheap and abundant. Cobalt price is a bit high and volatile. www.metalprices.com/metalNews.asp?id=57988&svc=RN&type=1
I saw the movie “who killed the electric car” and it seems obvious the Club of Billionaires who control the oil supply, and most other things, are not interested in people not stopping in at the gas station once a week or becoming energy independent. The $1/W (lasting 25 years) printed solar cells decorating our rooftops could make the Utility and Energy Barons very nervous. Imagine no electric-bill, no gas-stations, cars that last 20+ years and hold their value, meaning a higher standard of living and less or no pollution.
The very efficient, powerful and simple 3-phase electric motor is a very mature technology, batteries are newish, and may be encumbered by patents. Hydrogen fuel cells is another lame idea feeding the tapeworm economy. Too high tech and too many patents, leave this stuff for the Space cadets. 3-phase motor controllers have been around for quite a while, should be hard to get a monopoly here.
Using 3-phase motors changes the paradigm for driving a high performance car, no gear-shifter (please), no arr-arr-arr noise, no minimum rpm. What will the pit-crew in the EV-race chat about? Better switching devices for the controller? Silver-wire for stator? I think I like to see that.

The range extender ICU could be towed, in worst cases, or be small enough to fit in the trunk. Bio-Diesel or Alcohol could be used to keep it green.
This option is just there to explode the myth that every car must be a long range traveler. Families have several cars, cars can be rented for the once a year trip to Uncle Fester, and most miles are burned in urban settings commuting to work. The range of the GM EV-1 was evidently not a problem.

TM needs to get to market ASAP and changes to details in batteries and Auxiliary Power Units can be made on the fly.

Elon-

I would love to discuss a way to conservatively more than triple your miles per charge… with much less weight.

Our technology is simple - use low-grade heat to create energy. All the heat generated from your batteries can be converted back into electricity, which could perpetually keep the batteries charged, as well as power all other systems within the vehicle. In the past, this conversion of heat energy was very inefficient (2-5%), which made it impractical to use a thermoelectric converter. With our proprietary technology, this efficiency has been exponentially increased as most of the heat is converted into electricity. There are still energy loses, but it is minimal compared to all previous technological applications involving thermoelectric couplers. We could increase the miles per charge in your vehicles at least three times with very little modification to your current design. Again, the space required for our technology is minimal… and would add very little weight to the vehicle.

Our technology consists of proprietary materials, proprietary configurations of these materials, proprietary electronic circuits, and the basic proprietary method and process for making the converter work. Best of all, our technology works! It can be manufactured at a fairly low cost for nearly all applications and is based on a design that can be readily understood with accepted physical principals.

From a business perspective, we have an excellent proprietary position that is uncontaminated with prior associations and claims from other entities. Patent applications have already been filed in regards to the concept and implementation of the technology, as well as the proprietary methods (chemical in nature) of the materials used.

We also have ultracapacitor technology that is superior to all on the market today, which patent applications have been filed for as well. In conjunction with our energy technology, we can dramatically improve your vehicles in short order and with very little modification.

Who we are:

Zahara Ventures LLC, a corporation founded by David Carver, Ph.D. and Mike Strom, an investor. David is a world-renowned chemist with a strong background in multiple other scientific fields. David has had many notable accomplishments prior to the Zahara partnership, including consideration as the ‘father of Taxol’, a worldwide leading cancer fighting medication (Google search ‘David Carver Taxol’ to find out more). Additionally, David has developed the single largest selling designs of ultraviolet (UV) detectors currently in use worldwide. These accomplishments (along with many others) have served as a foundation in our revolutionary green energy technology.

If you would like additional details or to set up a meeting, please email me at [Contact details deleted]

We look forward to hearing from you!

Mike Strom
Zahara Ventures, LLC

Mike Strom, even if you could convert all of the heat generated by lithium ion batteries into electricity, it would never be enough to keep the batteries “perpetually charged.” You see, lithium ion batteries store energy, and when they are discharged in a Tesla Roadster, some of that energy is converted into heat while the majority of it (99.9%), is transfered through the electrical system to the motor and eventually to the wheels. There are obviously some losses along the way, in the form of heat, but the majority of the energy goes into the car’s motion, which is then lost to air resistance. There is no way to get that energy back and there is no simple way to capture that energy. Assuming you could capture all of the losses and that 72% of the energy makes it to the drive train, the theoretical maximum that the Tesla Roadster’s range would be increased would be 86 miles.

If you really are a legitimate investor as you claim, I suggest that you try to get your money back ASAP. You are being conned by a scam artist if you are not the scam artist or part of a group of scam artists.

Thanks to Elon Musk for keeping the postings coming from the “top of the food chain.”

As much as I personally want a pure EV, I don’t have a problem with Tesla putting a range-extender — whether powered by gasoline, biodiesel, hydrogen fuel cell, ethanol rotary engine, or anything else — in their cars, on three conditions:

1. The RE is always optional;
2. The space that would be occupied by the RE can be filled by additional batteries in a pure EV edition, or left vacant for after-market enhancements.
3. The RE can be easily removed, to accommodate a battery upgrade, at such time as reliable, higher-capacity batteries become available. (Perhaps it can be designed to be removed and replaced by the user, so that the car can be pure EV most of the time, carrying the weight of the RE only when necessary, on long trips.)

I think fossil fuels will be employed for a long time. But recent developments in the battery industry make me hopeful that a long-range pure EV will be feasible within ten years. In the interim, Tesla should continue to pursue its mission of increasing the total number of electric miles driven. If providing RE assist is the difference between a significant number of customers giving their money to Tesla for real EVs (which will, in turn, help fund the development of better EVs), or giving their money to another company for a hybrid that is more on the ICE side of the fence (with no guarantee that the profits will ever be ploughed into the development and marketing of pure EVs), should we not prefer the former situation?

Elon and the other investors are putting in another $40 million to get the roadster out. Haven’t seen any mention of that above. Just some ignorant experts speculating about what is going on behind the scenes. Elon’s commitment cannot be questioned. Go Tesla - the world is on your shoulders and there is no time to waste.

vfx said: “Since WWll was caused by WWl and WWl was a war of oil and we are currently and continiously fighting a wars for oil …”. I recently saw a History Channel documentary that stated the assasin of Archduke Ferdinand wasn’t merely an anarchist, but a Zionist, who believed European powers were preventing Israelis from forming their own state, so he initiated a European war to allow for the formation of Israel. Your theory about it being all about oil is just a smoke screen for the direct cause.

Good Morning Richard. I appreciate your feedback… and understand your skepticism. Our technolgy is different than anything currently understood (although based on readily accepted physical principals). I did not want to give away too many of the technological details over a blog, but would gladly share with Tesla Motors once a NDA is in place. In response to your last paragraph (referring to David as a scam artist), I disagree. I have worked closely with David for some time now - not only as an investor, but as a business partner and friend. The technology does indeed work and is unlike anything the world has seen. We are reaching out to Tesla Motors first for three reasons - we believe in the concept, the timing, and the people involved. This is not a scam - it is absolutely real. I spoke with David a few minutes ago and he will be sending a (more technical) response shortly as well…

Mike Strom,
take your device to the Nuclear power companies, they’ll love to convert their massive amounts of low-grade waste heat (50% of total energy generated?) into electricity. I also bet getting rid of that ecological impact will make them and the fish down stream the rivers very happy. You’ll be the next super-billionaire and environmental hero too.
Thank you so much.

Sid wrote
Elon’s commitment cannot be questioned.

We’re not questioning his commitment; we’re trying to point out nicely and calmly that a) Big Auto can make PHEVs or REEVs much more cheaply than Tesla and will push Tesla cars out of those markets and that b) in developing and selling drivetrains for these types of vehicle, Tesla will have to neglect / lose the lead in developing battery systems for pure EVs and will have to play catch-up and compete with other PHEV suppliers like A123.

It will be interesting to see how the independence of Tesla Stores is affected by any deals with major US car companies. www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=58 www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=60 . I’m sure Tesla will be “encouraged” to open its doors to more familiar selling practices and maybe a wider selection of hybrids.

Tesla will play a part in a revolution, I’m sure. However, you will understand, if you take a few days to read through many of these blogs, why this particular “ignorant expert”(?) finds Elon’s proposed direction for this company of little interest.

Looking forward to the final chapter of the Roadster launch.

Happy Christmas BTW

The silicon wire battery breakthrough is exciting and I was going to post a link yesterday, but I figured many others would too. But you guys really need to read the articles carefully and the interview with Cui. It is NOT a 10 fold increase in energy, but a “several-fold” increase. The reason is that this 10 fold increase is for the anode only, and the cathode is the limiting factor. Cui says that this will enable decrease in materials used for the anode, and increasing cathode materials - all in all decreasing battery total weight.

Anyway, several fold is plenty as all you really need is a 500 mile range. That’s 7 hours of driving … but after 5 hours (350-400 miles) you need a break, you can eat and recharge in an hour from 1/4 tank to 3/4 tank (ie from 150 miles left to 400 left), then drive another 350 miles or so. That’s 700 miles a day, good enough for anybody (well unless you’re driving across the Sahara and there’s no electric outlets nearby)

milos-
Silicon Nanowires is a laboratory concept, hatched by a professor and his graduate students, I think there’s a leap to think we’ll have all the manufacturing bugs worked out in a few months, and be able to purchase these enhanced batteries anytime soon at a price that make them worthwhile. It looks hopeful, just like the LiFePO4 developed by John Goodenough’s research group at the University of Texas in 1997 and are now becoming commercially available. Then lets hope we don’t have some patent fights et cetera.
How often, and how many people travel 500 miles in their car? I think the long range EV is a smokescreen, the GM EV-1 had a pretty short range, good enough for commuter travel. Adding ~$10,000 to the battery for a long range possibility just to diffuse an argument does not make sense.

David Carver -
Your spelling is improving. Go back to selling used cars. I don’t think Elon needs your math lessons.

If we have to talk about REEVs I believe we need to distinguish between the various different types that are emerging in some way that will make sense to ordinary people. I would suggest that maybe there are two main types of REEV, the UREV (Unlimited Range Electric Vehicle) and the LREV – no prizes for guessing what that one stands for….. the Limited Range Electric Vehicle. An LREV would basically just have a very small generator that could be described as a ‘get you home’ pack. This would only supply sufficient power for emergency top ups and a slow cruise home. A UREV, on the other hand would have a generator of sufficient size and power to provide the full range of performance indefinitely as long as fuel is available. The GM Volt would clearly qualify as a UREV while a Tesla Roadster or Whitestar fitted with a tiny generator, to avoid becoming stranded, would be an LREV.

These are only my suggestions (and I’m really sorry for introducing yet more acronyms!) but I also think it might be an idea to talk about these generators in terms of the cruising speed they would provide, and be able to sustain, in a given car on a continuous basis. So we could talk about an 80mph pack in a Volt and this would be an Unlimited Range EV. The generator only has to sustain something above the maximum legal speed without depleting the charge in order to qualify. The top speed of the vehicle is irrelevant as you can’t legally cruise at this speed anyway and not many of us want to. Of course an 80mph generator for a Tesla Roadster might only be a 40mph generator if fitted to a truck, because of aerodynamic effects, so the classification only applies to a specific vehicle. Obviously even an LREV could still be driven at any speed over the full range of performance of the vehicle but it would not be able to sustain this type of driving indefinitely as the battery would run down even with the generator running.

If Tesla sticks to producing LREVs that only have a ‘get you home’ pack that will enable cruising at say 40 to 50mph the size of generator can be limited to something that won’t be too intrusive if it is carefully packaged. This way Tesla is still producing electric cars but has an interim solution until battery developments make this unnecessary. I’d be interested to see any comments from TEG 2 or Anatoly or anybody who can add some more technical details (even Tesla but that’s unlikely!) The main benefit I can see to an LREV is that the generator can be several orders of magnitude smaller if you halve the cruising speed available. It takes more than double the energy to cruise at 80mph as compared with 40mph.

Count me as anti-RE. As Reverend King once noted - “Now is not the time to take the tranquilizing drug of Gradualism”. And that is exactly what this leaning towards RE is. While it may seem to be the path towards “maximizing electric miles”, in reality it serves to de-legitimize the concept of electric vehicles and delays the infrastructure. There are plenty of electric miles to be driven that do NOT require range extension, and that was (and should continue to be) Tesla’s focus and strength. Sell your technology to other automakers to halibutize if you must (though I think it unwise). But don’t dilute Teslamotors in this way or I fear your dream to shrink before you even get started.

@David Carver:
I agree this is neither the forum nor the time to introduce a product or an idea based on investments. Perhaps your interest would be better served by attempting to contact the company officials directly or another company. Your idea and/or product should be presented in a well-structured formal manner, if you intend to profit.

@milos:
Please include your link on Si wires; I think many of us are interested in accurate truths.

ET AL:
I myself have a goal in mind when I comment on forums and that is to minimize the burning of chemicals in the atmosphere, no matter if those chemicals are made from corn, sugar cane, switch grass, chicken fat, or fossils. I believe that capturing solar heat and light energy from the sun is the only long-term solution to the Earth’s energy problems. All the rest are just gross-polluting, interim, solutions driven by short-sighted economic and political self-interest.

See the following link: www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy/2007-12-01/Solar-is-the-Solution.aspx

Tesla Motors is moving in the correct direction; now if we could just have the power utilities move to solar generation that would complete the loop.

are you people dense? How many times can they said that the extender range is an “Option”. You don’t want it don’t get it!!!!!!!!!!

For some of us who make cross country trips to visit family during holidays and vacations we might like the freedom to drive farther then apx. 220 miles before having to stop to re-charge the car. Tesla motor continue the path that you guys are carving: innovate, improve and best of all lead.

Ladson Isaac :

We intend to profit. But somebody has to respond at some point to have a dialog. How long should you wait for somebody to respond? A day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century? Have not waited a decade or a century, but a year seemed long enough. The time has not be wasted, however.

Regarding hydrogen, I keep seeing countless articles by people trying to kill hydrogen as an alternative fuel. I absolutely don’t understand why anyone would want to hinder the development of any clean fuel source. If you don’t want to use hydrogen, then don’t use it. Jet aircraft require a fuel to burn, and ocean going sea vessels can’t stop and recharge on open sea voyages, so hydrogen is the only viable solution to those two industries.

When it comes to energy, as long as it is clean, abundant and cheap, no one should care as to what solutions consumers gravitate. Relative efficiencies are NOT a factor, only cost and performance.

@Jason Handler
Here’s why:
Hydrogen is good and clean, but the problem with Hydrogen is that
you cannot get it from a socket in your house
extreme pressures
expensive vessels in cars and distribution
somewhat explosive
proprietary fuel cell technology (expensive membranes, short life) = high cost, internal combustion would work but is sadly inefficient (~25%?)
it has to be produced from electricity with expensive machines

Hydrogen is just a energy storage device, just like a battery, except it takes Liberty, money and choice away from you. This concept preserves the power of the Billionaires. (What would the price of a barrel of oil be today if most cars were made electric staring back in 1979? Three bucks? Crude was at a low of $9.86 in Jan 1999, the 2003 oil-war “helped” to fix that problem. Exxon’s CEO got a $686 Billion bonus and Occidental’s got $460B recently. How much of their profits were spent on developing cheap solar-cells you can buy outright and put on your roof? These amounts are not spending money for 70-year olds; this is raw political power and dynasty building. These types control the planet, including the media. Hydrogen is a diversion, or a smokescreen, don’t get sucked in.)

Compared to 3-phase electric motors with batteries and standard utility power you have very little chance of anyone creating a monopoly, which just why it has taken so long to get to EV’s. (co-generation is not something wanted by the utilities, it was rightly shoved down their throats)

Imagine everything that disappears with EV’s: NO gas-stations, No fuel trucks, no gasoline tankers, all heavy IC engines-, transmissions-, catalytics-, emission-controls, mufflers, exhaust pipes, cooling systems, engine oils, et cetera disappearing, and and the attendant resistance from the incumbent profiteers with vast funds to buy politicians. The expense of repairing these new cars with a serious engine or transmission problem may usually lead to a new car purchase. Suppose an EV conversion of the old wreck, brakes and suspension are cheap to fix. Rust is a real problem. Re-using old cars may save a lot of energy used in the manufacturing of a new car. I bet the car dealers and the big auto-makers loves this idea.

Ocean going vessels have been using wind power successfully for a few thousand years. Their slower speed may actually help the balance of trade.

Aircraft can burn bio-diesel. www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul01/jet0701.htm

www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

Another scenario. What happens if there is a cyclone warning and you have evacuate to 300 miles away?

We would like Mr. Drori, the new CEO, to also write a blog soon. He’s a great public speaker, as I could tell from the audio clips.

Happy Holidays to all of Tesla Motors!

CRS,

Distilling your post, you again complain that hydrogen is a less efficient storage device than batteries, but it is NOT the efficiency that matters, it is the cost for the whole approach. How much does it cost to acquire and charge 7,000 batteries for the car, versus a fuel cell (now that it takes 1/6th the platinum due to the nickel-platinum alloy that was developed) and the hydrogen? I suspect they are similar. Your next complaint is that you don’t want there to be a monopoly in providers of hydrogen - the same could be said about providers of electricity. In a sense, hydrogen will be in competition with electricity, preventing a monopoly in transportation energy in general, just as diesel keeps gasoline in check. Fuel cells eliminate all the ICE accessories that you list, so that isn’t an arguement. Bio-diesel is similar in pollution and greenhouse emissions as jet fuel, so other than taking market from oil companies, what have you gained? The latest approach to powering ocean vessals with wind is the use of a parasail off the ship’s bow, which is expected to only cut fuel by 30%, and wind is not a reliable resource for commerce.

In the end, anti-hydrogen advocates are just trying to undermine existing energy companies that already possess the fuel stations and distribution system to handle hydrogen. If the US is ever involved in a war again, it is going to require petroleum or hydrogen to fight that war, so you are once again undermining the military industrial complex.

Re: Who helped kill the electic car?

Just thought this might be of interest. It’s almost certainly in other press reports but the Guardian is as good as any.

www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2231965,00.html

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

I’m sorry Mr. Hendler I’m actually distilling your post here. Hydrogen doesn’t make sense, its that simple. If it did Tesla would be using it in there car now wouldn’t they? And why do you care about undermining existing fuel companies so much? Do you work for them Hendler? Just my two cents.

CRS - never suggested silicon nanowires were going to be ready in a few months - the inventor guesses 5 years. And the long-range EV is NOT a smokescreen .. hardly - or Tesla wouldn’t be considering a range-extender. And there’s a huge difference between 220 and 500 mile range. I couldn’t get from SF to LA in one day on the former, and though not many people drive 500 miles in one day enough do. And in any case, those range figures are at ideal operating conditions - no long uphills, no constant hard accelerating. With a nominal 500 mile range, you know you have, say, 300 hard driving miles.

Ladson Isaac - the link was posted earlier in this blog - I’ll post it again

www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough

interview with the inventor.

I agree with the sentiments expressed, that there should be no gas used in future models. Not even for range extenders. Martin was right on track with BEVs. Good luck.

It makes sense for a high end car like the Tesla to be pure electric, but cost and market considerations presently dictate a need for plug-in hybrids. It might be difficult to sustain an auto company on EV’s alone. While I’m not a big fan of GM, I did alot of work on the power train in the early 80’s for an electric vehicle that GM was going to produce. Yes, the bad GM who killed the elctric vehicle. As bad as they are, GM had plans to produce 200,000 EV’s a year based on a projected vehicle cost and a projected fuel price. The vehicle cost came out 20% higher than target, and fuel prices started to decline. As market conditions changed, the price-quantity curve and the vehicle cost changed until a point was reached where no money could be made, around 75,000 vehicles a year. To be fair, GM can be an environmentally repsonsible company, but like any company their prime responsibility is to shareholders. I’m sure GM also did their marketing homework on the Volt and detemined that a plug-in hybrid product can make money.

It it increases sales, on board range extension can only benefit the pure EV version of the Tesla by reducing cost through increased volume of common parts and by reducing fixed costs per vehicle. And it allows those who can’t live with EV only power to enjoy the benefits of owning a Tesla.

One more in a cacophony of whiners regarding CA getting slapped back down into line by the EPA.

www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=17027&url=http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7809827?nclick_check=1

As I suspected, it is more about using legislation to skew free markets and create business opportunities in CA, than actually trying to make the world a better place. The Bush administration was right to DENY CA’s waiver. The new federal CAFE standards only level the playing field for US auto manufacturers to compete with foreign ones, and any more tinkering might send them into full collapse. The new ferderal CAFE standards will already produce the emission results CA needs for clean air, without creating a special market for local companies to rape.

Just in case you might believe that Tesla Motors is being overly cautious with their release of the coupe. Check out this little recall problem. A problem that will be very expensive for GM but would be possibly financially ruinous for Tesla Motors: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22359333/

Jason M. Hendler,
No, its not just the cost of the whole approach, its also about Power, as is in people-power, which is the issue. Efficiency always matter, but it seems like you are commenting on the use of some 7,000 odd cells (originally designed for lap-tops) and their high cost.
Charging them is going to cost whatever your utility company charges per KWh, ( I currently pay $0.11) so a high charging efficiency obviously is an important factor. An extra 50KWh/week will not be noticeable in my electric bill. Cycle-life is also important as replacing batteries may be very expensive. I do not necessarily agree with the concept of using Li-cobalt-ion cells due to their aging-, price-, and safety characteristics. There are alternatives with less number of cells, much better safety, and price should be better (hopefully) as no inherently expensive elements are used i.e. Lithium Iron Phosphate. Cobalt is expensive (~$30/lb.) and is likely to get much worse. Electricity can be produced by anybody with a place for a solar-panel. Printed solar cells are coming on line at low prices, so the capital investment should be low. Wind is a bit expensive to harness as is small hydro-electric if you are lucky enough to have a good stream on your property. These companies sell large cells suitable for transportation, a ~100 cell-battery would be a nice choice for a std. 3-phase inverter and motor giving an average 320 volts (with a lithium chemistry).
www.siduo.com.tw/product-elifep.php
www.lifebatt.com/
www.valence.com/products/ucharge_overview.html
www.thunder-sky.com/products_en.asp?fid=66&fid2=82&page=2 >>In the end, anti-hydrogen advocates are just trying to undermine existing energy companies that already possess the fuel stations and distribution system to handle hydrogen. …so you are once again undermining the military industrial complex.

Sorry for two posts making the same point, but please, PLEASE forget about putting ICE engines in Tesla cars. Let’s get real. Tesla does not need, nor should they want, to “maximize appeal to the mainstream”. You are talking about selling, how many? roadsters in 2008? 2009? How many cars in 2010, Etc.? There is a market for EVERY ONE of those cars in a 100% BEV form. Let the big automakers worry about the timid consumer who needs the security blanket of a gasoline motor, just as Lincoln took 40 YEARS to wean its buyers away from a fake spare-tire hump. There are already plenty of makers who deal in gasoline motors and for Tesla to integrate one does NOTHING to advance the technology or the cause of electric cars or miles. You will have your hands full producing BEV. By the way, how many to date? Stop diluting the concept before you even execute step 1 of the plan. You can sell tens of thousands of BEV to people who neither want nor care about range extension. By the time those vehicles come due for battery replacements, the problem may well be solved by battery technology. As others have noted, 500 mile range eliminates almost all talk of needing a gasoline motor. Stop trying to fill a “gap” that does NOT exist. Put some roadsters on the ROAD. Then put a few thousand MORE of them on the road. Then put 10,000 Whitestars on the road. Then we can talk about whether or not your market is saturated (It won’t be). Until then, keep it pure. The world has enough half-measures. I’d hate to see a Tesla violated by a gasoline nozzle, ever!

As I read the Stanford silicon nano lithium battery idea… I was struck by the idea that they need room to expand.

This is not great news for gadgets which are small… but for a car … what about honeycombed silicon nano lithium batteries in the entirety of the vehicle? Especailly in parts like the doors, front and rear hoods (easily detachable parts by mechanic) …. spread the weight and overall capacity for storage throughout the vehicle.

Combined with current battey placement, that would give vehicle 5 bateries. On board computer could monitor each.
Another benefit would be even if one battery system fails then others could drive us home/shop.

As for Martin vs Elon.. Who cares besides them. Forward progress in an electric vehicle world is all that matters in this realm and that I am sure they would both agree.

As for roadster, bring it on! Your first clients are obviously “Early Adapters” and will embrace flaws and bugs. Behind these Early Birds are another set of adapters like me who will purchase once the thing is a proven working vehicle in the real world.

Jason,

You say “Maybe there is a price point at which batteries overtake fuel cells, but that is NOT YOUR CALL. It is for consumers to decide.”

But this is not at all consumers deciding in favor of Hydrogen. It’s Hydrogen being pushed by industries for their own reasons, with the help of massive government subsidy. You can’t make your “let the market decide” stand when these guys are out there blatantly manipulating and circumventing the market.

Hunter,

Batteries are already in vehicles, with their own infrastructure for manufacturing and distribution, so they don’t need any help. A123 and Altairnano have both automotive contracts and VC funding driving their development of product and manufacturing, so you needn’t fear for the battery’s role in the automotive industry.

Currently, our federal government needs petroleum for two reasons: 1) security - our military, national and coast guard, police, fire departments and park services depend on petroleum to power their air, water and land equipment, 2) economic - air travel / shipping, ocean / lake / river / canal transport, which are fundamental to our commerce, are only effectively powered by petroleum and 3) last, but not least, TAX revenues from petroleum are enormous at both federal / state levels, from import, refining, distribution and sale. For all those reasons, hydrogen is going to be required, because pure electric won’t meet those current uses or methods of revenue. Alcohols are not efficient, and require too much land conversion and don’t eliminate pollution.

Were I in federal government, I would see too much necessity in the capabilities of hydrogen not to help it succeed in the marketplace, but that doesn’t mean it will dominate. I have no doubt that electricity will be a major component in the auto industry, but it shouldn’t be the only one, especially because entry level car buyers can’t afford battery only vehicles.

I saw today’s piece on NBC News. It was fairly flattering and the various shots of the Roadster were inspiring. But I was confused to see Martin included along with other apparent company spokesman (e.g., JB). Martin was identified as a “founder” of the company, giving the clear impression that he was still a player in the organization and a driving force behind the continuing development of the Roadster.

T.J.: High efficiency solar cells are comming in 2010 www.rosestreetlabs.com/RSL%20Sumitomo%20Final.pdf

My two cents about REEV:
I believe Tesla will be able to sell all the non-REEV vehicles it can make.
Designing two power systems and integrating them into the car will take more time.
I worry about performance and handeling compromises to make REEV and option.
Safety and crash tests will be more complicated, passengers have to be protected from batteries, and engine, and gas tank.
New battery technology will soon make the REEV obsolete anyway.
Tesla will become a “me too” company.
Tesla must do what they thinik is right, and I am not privy to all their information.

It’s amazing to see the whole fuel cell vs. battery technology coming up again.

The bottom line is always $$$$.

1. Honda has just gotten the cost to produce their new fuel cell cars below 1 million ea. These are not one off’s either they are supposed to be coming off of an assembly line. The people driving these cars end up with a highly subsidized lease. The

2. Hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline and electricity is much cheaper.

3. Electricity already has a distribution network, and most people can easily charge at night at very cheap off peak rates using the extra capacity of baseline powerplants that is wasted. In addition a whole fleet of electric vehicles can be used across the US now without waiting for hydrogen infrastructure to be built.

4. In order to be efficient any hydrogen vehicle will end up as a hybrid requiring a battery for regenerative braking, so why not just use a larger battery?

If you use this same extra capacity at night to make hydrogen, you waste energy to create the hydrogen, you waste energy to transport the hydrogen, you waste energy to build an infrastructure, you waste energy to pump the hydrogen, and you waste energy if the car sits with hydrogen which escapes over time. Finally you waste energy converting hydrogen back into electricity.

If you store energy in a battery, the process is dramatically simplified, billions are saved by avoiding creating a whole infrastructure we don’t need. Vehicles are cheaper to produce now and will become much cheaper over time.

In regard to the generator for long trips, it could be removable and then used for things like camping or fishing or in a remote location. Why not find a company that is trying to build ‘green’(ish) generators and build a utility vehicle that utilizes them. I love the company and the ideas, keep up the good work.

Sirs,
As an oner of Corvettes for over 40 years I find it hard to believe that your car will accelerate 0-60 in under 4 seconds in a 2,700 pound car. Your weight, torque and meager horsepower does not put you into this class. Plus, I have not seen an article or television segment where someone has actually proven this type of acceleration. Saying it does not make it so.

I can buy into the top speed of 125. But once again its never been demonstrated, at least in the media, and that is where you will get creditability.
245 miles on a single charge. At what speed? At what average speed.? “Spirited driving” is not a quantifiable number. Its all subjective.

To make this car other than a “Trendy green car” you need to have firm numbers published by a reputable 3rd party. If your business model is to produce a “Trendy green car” for a select few to make them feel good - then you are certainly on the right track.

I have designed Marketing models for the SMART car, and in the 1970’s created programs to set up SUABARU as a viable product with sales and service programs. So I do have some experience with these issues. At the end of the day, no matter who your target is, you will need a creditable product that performs both in technical aspects and promises made.

Elon,

Thanks for the very positive update.

I would be interested in a model 2 [WhiteStar] minus the RE.

Provided an RE is optional, future statistics showing sales of pure EV and those of the same model with an RE should be exciting.

Wishing you and Tesla an outrageously successful 2008!

From Zahara Ventures:

Roy wrote on December 26th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Mr. Fusion may be closer than you think www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html Yea I know, its nuclear, not fusion, but still, scale it down a little more….

Mike Strom and David Carver: I am sure that Tesla follows these blogs, and they have not responded to your preposterorus “invention” because you clearly have ignored the published facts about how efficient the roadster already is and have a blatant disregard for the laws of thermodynamics. This has been amusing reading, but please don’t insult our intelligence any more.

Hi Roy-

Please read David’s previous comments again. We do sincerely appreciate your thoughts, even though it’s obvious you have absolutely no idea how the technology works. Hope you had a wonderful Christmas!

Best Regards,
Mike and David

Ronald, Seriously…. GM did not decide the electric car was not good enough for the general public. It was the OIL companies and profits that GM make on gas cars. Do you think they will just give up a Trillion dollar business with out a fight?

Phil Roder, take a look around and read a few things before you go running off at the mouth. First, the 245 mile range number was on the EPA highway cycle, which is clearly defined and not at all subjective. Second, OK, you’ve driven some corvettes. We’re all duly impressed. This does not make you the big expert on electric vehicle performance. You sound like you’re comparing peak torque and hp numbers, which doesn’t work well at all. Just click on the “performance” tab of the Tesla website for the basic idea. And finally, quit complaining about the lack of 3rd party testing; this car hasn’t even come off the line yet, major auto mags have been allowed to test the prototype and will be publishing in a bit over a month, and Tesla has been remarkably open about the projected specs throughout the development. When’s the last time you saw 3rd-party testing of a new vehicle from Toyota or GM before it ever came off the line? Matter of fact, how are you suggesting these numbers be produced? Other than the prototype, what do you want a 3rd party to test? What on Earth are you griping about?

It’s a pity that the transmission has delayed the project so long. If a lower top speed had been spec’d (say the maximum speed limit in the US), there would have been no need for a transmission.

As far as all of the excitement over the latest battery research, if I may paraphrase: “It’s research stupid!” Quite possibly by 2012, one of the hot new batteries will be available and affordable, more likely not. I’ve seen a dozen battery technologies fall on the rocks of production realities. The 10C charge/discharge capability of A123’s battery is fantastic for a hybrid. It is of no value in a full electric vehicle, where the cells aren’t stressed and energy density is the primary concern.

To Phil Roder,

I agree it’s smart to believe in 3rd party testimony regarding Tesla’s consistant acceleration claims. I’ve ridden in the car and can confirm the feelings of speed if not the exact numbers. (but who am I?)

A few weeks ago, ALL the major Automotive magazines got to test the Roadster for an hour or so.
.
.
Prepare to be blown away.

I find the range extender notion intriguing. With the GM Volt I’m not sure they have chosen the ideal technology for theirs. With a largish battery to act as buffer part throttle efficiency would no longer be an issue. Wouldn’t this make a micro turbine gen set a better match to the requirements. You can buy a turbine engine for a model aircraft that is the size of a can of soda. These are used as a gas generator to drive a power turbine that can power a turboprop or could provide the shaft power for a generator. While these are not at a suitable state of development or sophistication I bring them up to illustrate the small size, power dense, and light weight of turbine technology. With oil-less foil air bearings small turbines can be lubrication free. Turbines unlike piston engines can be perfectly balanced and relatively quiet. Turbines are also not too fussy about what fuel they use. With weight being the enemy of performance/efficiency a small and light range extender would be desirable particularly if it could be left at home when not required.

Please consider carefully how you do REEV. I have been thinking about that for several years. It strikes me that the best way is not to build the engine in, but allow it to be added every so often. I first considered a small trailer, but that will not fly with most drivers. But I saw a monster SUV with a “fanny pack” hanging from the rear bumper. If you build a fanny pack with 6 gallons of fuel, a 40 hp radmax engine (weighing 40 lbs) , and of course the generator, that would enable a 200 lb extender to be created. This same extender would work on the other models. Ideally, you would get together with other electric cars companies such as the pheonix car folks and agree on a size and means of affixing to the rear. By coming up with a standard, you have then created a new add-on marketplace. The nice thing is that this fanny pack could be replaced with a natural gas version or even a fuel cell version. Regardless, you accomplish a number of things; 1) extended range on the electric car (though you might sacrifice some weight), 2) create an add-on market 3) worked with a different vendor that will allow future compability and encourage more competition. To the average VC out there, competition would be regarded as bad, but I am sure that you know that the market must be developed.

BTW, once you go into doing model 2, please consider creating just the frame, and drivetrain and selling it. Allow others to pop a new top on it. I have been thinking that a smart move would be for simple truck frames. It can be customized for a number of uses 1) a simple box truck for in-city hauling 2) buses 3) RV vehicle (combine that a bigger rad max/generator and allow the RV to skip having a seperate system) 4) construction trucks (iagain if you build in the generator, it can be used to provide power on-site) 5) Shwan’s delivery trucks (several thousand trucks through the country; always looking to lower their costs) 6) Fed-Ex trucks as they want to lower costs.
The nice thing about the truck frame is that the add-on market already exists. You simply provide the core system and they will modify the trucks.

The United States’ Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels posted its findings in its evaluation of various replacements for liquid fossil fuels:

www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1333

Above link is general article containing link to full report. I think their stringent requirement of having a high multiple for energy return on energy invested, regardless of economic case, is foolish, and unnecessarily ties the governments hands. If abundant, clean and cheap sources of energy can be used to create the necessary liquid fuels required to operate military aircraft, ships and land vehicles, then they should do so. Again, hydrogen would be suitable in this role, as it is already being used in ships and submarines to keep them silent running, and new jet engines could be designed to run on it. Article offers other alternatives, some carbon neutral, others carbon bad, and possibly pollutant in their extraction.

Jason M. Hendler,
Why are you halibuting hydrogen for personal vehicles and hydrogen for the military transport? Do you want the vast masses to subsidize a high-pressure, explosive, and proprietary and hard-to-distribute energy source? Do you not think people want to excepted from the control of energy? Do you really believe that “the military industrial complex” and the Oil Barons are there to help any but a few multi-billionaires? Can I really give a !@#$ what happens to these nice guys? People ultimately want to have solar-panels, love, and electric battery operated cars and definitely no @#$%^ wars.
Why don’t you scoot over to some mil blog and halibut your ideas.

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU&feature=related

…and find out who coined the phrase “military industrial complex”

CRS,

The storyline that greens want to push is that oil companies are evil, because they pollute and cause global warming. Oil companies replaced whaling as a source of heating and lamp oils, so, like you, they thought they were saving the whales, only to learn a century later that they are now the bad guys. Based on that storyline, if they simply switched to clean sources of hydrogen, then they will be the new good guys again, right? As it turns out, greens are just creating pollution / global warming arguments to undermine the political / economic power these corporations have, because it interferes with the communist / fascist state they wish to create. What you don’t understand, is that when it comes to the important jobs of providing abundant, cheap energy for the whole US, as with any other great need, it is ALWAYS capitalists who do the job for the government - always.

Charles Pluckhahn. Hi Charles. It must be great to be perfect like you and just sit back and criticise people who are actually trying to achieve something worthwhile. Sure they want to make money out of it, but that isn’t their only motivation in life unlike many people, some of whom may actually be securities analysts. If you are so incapable of seeing the difference between this company and the many superhyped, Internet bubble companies that you refer to in your spiteful attack, I’d suggest you get your eyesight checked. If any company has bent over backwards trying to fulfil its early promises I would suggest this one is high up on that list. They made one big mistake in my opinion and that was to go for a two-gear car and to promise zero to sixty in four seconds. Even that they only did because one experienced transmission manufacturer after another promised them that it would be no problem. Without that problem the cars would now be on the road and performing pretty much as promised. The range issue was another area where a genuine attempt to ‘guesstimate’ a final figure was made in the early days and they allowed themselves to be pushed further and further into firming this up as a promise. In ‘on-the-road’ testing the cars are delivering mileage varying between 267 at the top end and 165 at the lower end. If you can’t understand why that is an achievment in line with what was promised in the early days then I’d suggest you put down the Investor’s Chronicle for a while and read some car magazines or some technical journals. Range varies for all road vehicles and for various reasons. This vehicle is no different. People who don’t understand cars just want a single figure that they can understand but unfortunately that figure will always be misleading. This is true of every vehicle on the road and anybody with any knowledge of cars at all knows that the EPA quoted figure really means very little at the end of the day. It’s just an attempt by regulators to provide a level playing field but you can’t rely on it.

Meantime Tesla is now back on track to deliver vehicles with the promised performance as soon as the transmission problem is solved. They’re obviously prepared to spend whatever it takes to get this done, including paying for interim transmissions to keep their impatient customers happy, and I’d be amazed if they didn’t achieve that with one of the two suppliers now involved. We’ll all look forward to reading your ‘humble pie’ apology when it becomes obvious, even to those with little analytical ability, that this is an honest company delivering an honest and exceptional product in one of the most difficult markets in the world.

Needless to say, I have no connection with Tesla Motors other than as an enthusiastic reader of these blogs in the UK. I’ve also been a car enthusiast all my life and thus have some concept of how difficult it must be to come up with the goods in this area. I have every confidence that that is exactly what Tesla is going to do.

Jason M. Hendler,
No the billionaires ARE the government, as you state “undermine the political / economic power these corporations have”. The US constitution is a train wreck. Their “job” is to help themselves, (nominally to increase profit to shareholders, primarily after the management has rifled through the coffers for mega bonuses regardless of merit) not the people at large. Any solution or idea that is “providing abundant, cheap energy for the whole US” which also threatens their position of monopoly and power has continually been suppressed. Big Oil have been funding anti-nuclear groups for a very long time, and google the The Great American Streetcar Scandal. We live in a fascist state that subsidizes and supports the greatest fascist/”communist” state on the planet, China who is in an economic war with the rest of the planet. (float the Yuan and see where it goes) While their communist ideals have shifted the fascist part is just getting better.
Stop being an apologist for the Multi Billionaires, of which you clearly are not a part, and start caring about what is good for the people at large.

Hi Elon, thanks for the words of encouragement that the vision is very much alive and will continue to be so. And I wholeheartedly hope that you sock it to Big Auto right where it hurts: in their wallet.

A couple of responses:

First, let me stipulate that I am incapable of producing an electric car. I am, however, capable of paying for one if it does what the manufacturer says it will do.

Second, Tesla first said their car would get at least 250 miles on a charge. Now they say at least 200 miles on a charge. That’s a 20% cut. By the way, as with so many other things, when it comes to that claim the devil is in the details. I’d want to know what the conditions are for that range claim. When you use lead-acid batteries, for example, there is a maximum range but in real-world use it’s inadvisable to drive to the maximum. Tesla’s vapor-car uses lithium-ion batteries, which I believe have different charge/discharge characteristics. Still, I’d be interested to know whether, in real-world use, drivers are going to be told, for example, that they’ll want to plan to recharge it more often than the rated maximum would imply.

Finally, I’d love to see Tesla disprove my skepticism. I’m quite interested in electric vehicles, and would like to own one. But I’m not real high on corporations that don’t keep their promises. My standards are the same for Tesla as they are for General Motors, which is currently running around announcing a “Volt” plug-in hybrid car that, like Tesla’s roadster, doesn’t exist in marketable form. Make the car, put it on the market, and see what happens. Everything else is a press release, and last time I looked you can’t drive a press release to the grocery store.

Charles Pluckhahn,

Let me be the first to say that yes, you do have a point, but you infer to much about the motives of Silicon Valley start-ups. I have been in a few start-up companies, in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, and the results that EE’s get on the bench and simulation are always reported as what will occur when the product is mass produced. As experienced product developers will tell you, and as you have stated, the final product usually falls short, usually because of cost / time / production design limitations.

That said, to say that Silicon Valley execs, especially the team at Tesla, were intentionally deceptive about what their product would do, to make sales and raise capital that they otherwise wouldn’t, is just flat wrong. If Tesla had offered a vehicle with the performance specs that are now known, I suspect that they would still have made many of their current sales and raised the same capital. Moreover, it is far, far more likely that the engineers were merely naive as to what could be accomplished, not fully understanding drive trains, etc., yet, what they have accomplished is still astounding.

If Tesla has overreached in their expectations of their first product, that pales in comparison to your overreach in expectations from one of the few auto start-ups to emerge since DeLorean.

Jeez Charles, for someone who is so demanding of perfection and accuracy from others you sure as hell don’t hold yourself to the same high standards do you. In your latest message above you can’t even get the Chairman’s name right, or is that supposed to be a joke based on busking and the song remaining the same? If so, it’s a pretty poor joke. Getting back to your claim that they’ve dropped the range by 20%, you’re way behind the times. You keep asking for more information but you obviously haven’t bothered to read the information that is already freely available on this site. If you take the time to look at Ze’ev Drori’s blog you’ll see that the latest EPA calculation shows the current range to be 221 miles, down from 245, which we’re told was a mistake by an independent lab. That’s slightly less than a 10% drop in fact and if you look at the ‘on-the-road’ figures you’ll see that the car can actually travel much further in ideal circumstances. I’m sorry you don’t understand why range has to vary so much but it’s not for us to educate you about this……you have to study up for yourself.

What I find so irritating about your contributions is not the inaccuracy or the sheer uncharitable nature of your comments it’s the veiled, but not very well veiled, implication that these people are out to rip us off. This is a scam….it’s all vapourware. That I find really irritating. I’m a sceptic on most things and I don’t think the rich folks involved in this need any protection from the law or the press if they really step out of line. But, all I’ve seen from Tesla from day one is a genuine attempt to produce a product that will do what it says on the can. Personally, I’m not 100% convinced about anthropogenic global warming but I do think it’s a good idea to get away from oil and to offer the public more efficient methods of getting around. If this is a good step in that direction I’d like to see it succeed. In any new company with a new product in a new market you are going to get some mistakes and some degree of disappointment in the final product. But to attempt to destroy confidence in the honesty of the participants based on minor discrepancies which have been openly discussed and explained is intellectually dishonest. You call the car vapourware. Presumably you’ve taken the trouble to read about the 20 or so prototypes which have been made and tested exhaustively here in England, some of which have been crashed to establish safety standards. They’ve been up to the frozen north to make sure that the car performs in those trying conditions. Unless you have some evidence that all of this is just lies produced to fool gullible souls like me you have a hell of a nerve calling the car vapourware. Tesla themselves are unlikely to argue with you because it wouldn’t be in their interests to be drawn into a pissing match on their own site but I don’t like to see you get away with dissing them all with nobody answering back. If you have any proof of financial irregularity or of any attempt to gull the public in any way just come out with it. Talking of which, none of the investors in this company are little old ladies. I’m not sure that anybody reading this blog is really calling out for advice from a former securities analyst to protect them from the likes of Elon Musk. So, give us a break and please go back to writing to the New York Times, at least until you get your facts straight.

Jason M. Hendler ,
“Other than some multi-millionaire / billionaire Democrats in the Senate, who are the rich controlling our federal government?”
That is a very good question, you should think about that some more. Actually you already answered that:
“… Oil companies … the political / economic power these corporations have..” and “…undermining the military industrial complex…”

Billionaires don’t usually need to involve themselves publicly in politics. Ever heard of “campaign contributions” and “lobbyists” and “PAC’s” ? Why does the press not report on whats being said at the annual meetings at the B o h e m i a n G r o v e and B i l d e r b e r g e r s ? Nothing interesting or important? The private owners of the central bank can effect policy by removing the air you breathe.

“…Fortunately, we live under a system of free market capitalism,…” Fortunately, if they had any more freedom the “free market capitalists” would dump raw sewage down your throat, charge for it, pay you 3 cents an hour for a 12 hour work-day, and command that you act “happy”, or else throw you in a corporate run jail. Freedom is always relative, corporations which are formed to eliminate personal responsibility (gasp!) and are best kept on a very short leash. Oligarchy is not democracy, and most democratic states sports more than two parties. Naming the two parties “Democrats” and “Republican” in a nominally democratic state is just precious. What else should they call themselves? Perhaps “the Corporate do-boys” or “the PAC-lackey’s” ?

The absence of plug-in EV’s is, and has been, a political issue. The technology has existed for a loong time, in some form, and its further development has been suppressed by the oil interests and could very well have been funded by DOE and other government agencies working for publics interest.
Just like the cia-employees get regular polygraph checkups so should the politicians. They got nothing to hide, right?

For all those who were ready to create 3rd party suppliers of RE’s, I will throw you a bone. Were I you, I would be creating a 3rd party approach to converting the Chevy Volt into an all electric vehicle, perhaps with rapid-recharge battery technology.

Hi Charles,
Here’s my quote:

So, give us a break and please go back to writing to the New York Times, at least until you get your facts straight.

And here’s yours:

6. I don’t write for the New York Times. I wrote TO the New York Times. Whose writer told me to use more honey. Vinegar gets in the way of press releases disguised as articles.

I didn’t say you wrote FOR the New York Times, I said you wrote TO the New York Times. You really don’t do detail do you Charles. At least I did you the courtesy of reading your comments carefully and responding to what was written or implied. And by the way, Caps Lock is for teenagers isn’t it? My eyesight is quite good. I can see little letters.

You really can’t have this both ways. If you insist that the car is vapourware then the directors of the company should be locked up as they would clearly be ripping somebody off.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, which bit of the Tesla do you think is preposterous or ridiculous? Is it the 0-60 in 4 seconds or the mileage? Which bit of what they promised should they not have promised given the technical information they had at that time? The 250 miles was a little ambitious but given the final result of a likely EPA validated 220 miles it wasn’t too far out and it is leagues ahead of anything on offer from the major manufacturers or from any other electric vehicle manufacturer. The 0-60 in 4 seconds claim is also bang on target given that the Tzero has been producing those sorts of times for some years and the Tesla is a very similar concept. If they hadn’t had the bad luck with the gearbox suppliers that has been well aired in these blog pages we’d be seeing Teslas on the roads right now, producing the performance that was promised. For a new company with a groundbreaking concept that isn’t too shabby. I just don’t get why you’ve jumped into the fray right now when they are clearly on the cusp of delivering the goods. You must be really confident that they are going to fail as otherwise you’re going to look kinda silly aren’t you?

On one thing I have to concede you’re right. BMW probably couldn’t get away with fitting an interim transmission until the final version was ready. I don’t think any of Tesla’s, so far, loyal buyers are under the impression that they are dealing with a BMW or a GM here. Most of them are realistic enough to know that this is a tiny company alongside those giants. Of course the car won’t have the thoroughness of development made possible by huge budgets and huge guaranteed sales for millions of vehicles. Hands up all those who really thought this was a giant car company with all those resources. In this world Tesla is very much the underdog. I’d always heard that while we British usually root for the underdog in a fight many Americans like to see the established big guys win every fight. Maybe that’s why Charles and I can’t get along.

Anyway, I’m glad to hear you say that you want Tesla to succeed even if I think everything you have written is more likely to lead to them losing sales, if anybody is listening. If I ever think of starting a company in the States I’ll make sure I buy the very best crystal ball first so that any claims I make will be 100% accurate from day one to avoid pissing off analysts.

Andrew, I stand corrected and to to/for. I’ll even go further and write the three rarest words in the English language. “I was wrong.” About that, anyway.

Tesla is not “on the cusp of delivering the goods.” Tesla says it will soon deliver a car that will do some of what Tesla promised it would do. If they were, say, Maserati, they wouldn’t dare try. I mention Maserati because they make a fantastic $100K sportscar. I’ve test-driven it. If it weren’t for Seattle’s congestion and my woeful speeding history in my other too-powerful cars, I probably would have it sitting in my garage right now. The other reason I mention Maserati is because Tesla promised a car that would beat that Maserati, and now they’re not going to deliver it and frankly they don’t know when the hell they will.

I do want Tesla to succeed, but if they don’t succeed I plead loudly and proudly, at the very top of my lungs, “NOT GUILTY.” I’m not the one who made promises I couldn’t keep. We all think we’re sophisticated these days, but how different are we from the Greeks who would kill the messenger who delivered the bad news?

I’ve wanted an electric car for years. If I had $100 for every time I’ve read about the breakthrough that is two years away, I’d have enough to toss $100K at Tesla as an afterthought. Really, I hope they succeed. Even more than that, I hope the other high-tech companies out there who are talking about electric cars that the middle class can afford will succeed. We need electric cars. But to need something is not to have it, and to promote it before you have it is kind of obnoxious. It only fuels hardened, hell-bound cynics like me.

Charles Pluckhahn,

The reason that Tesla can fall short of performance specifications, when an existing auto manufacturer, like Maserati, could not, is that Tesla is ALL ALONE as a provider of high performance / stylish ELECTRIC vehicles. Your attempts to hold Tesla to a Maserati standard are therefore bogus. Once Tesla delivers ANY vehicle at any performance level, it will be THE benchmark for all other manufacturers, which they will have to meet, or yield market share to Tesla.

I suspect you are just trying to scare Tesla into not delivering anything, hoping that NO transmission ever appears that meets the original spec. In the end, Tesla will deliver Roadsters, and they will retrofit to BETTER transmissions, whether those transmissions meet the original spec or not. Tough luck, Tesla is moving forward in spite of you.

Elon - This technical and commercial development gives great hope to millions of people worldwide, concerned by transport’s contribution to global warming.

The Tesla car cannot come soon enough.

Cheers
Dr Howard Scott
Guangzhou - China

Jason, I’m not offering anyone any marketing or branding advice. My advice is much simpler than that: Make the promises you can keep, and keep the promises you make. I realize that “accountability” is a tired concept from the old economy, but then maybe I’m just one of those old economy kind of guys. Well, maybe not. But my wallet is an old-economy kind of wallet. If you want to shell out $100K for an 80% solution, it’s a free market!

I’ve been lurking for quite a while. I, now, surface with two (2) comments:

(they apply to the sedan, more than the roadster or economy car)

(1) The REEV concept … at first, I was not very happy. However, as long as it is an ADJUNCT to the same “powerplant” that one would expect as resultant from the Roadster, well … fine. If I want to plan to drive to Autsin from Dallas, I would just power up and go. If I got into traffic, or sidetracked or whatnot, a third-party ICE source of power would have to be there, for my own piece of mind and, perhaps, for safety. For the drive around the metroplex, it is battery only.

(2) I have (currently) an E350. Loaded, this car is just shy of $60K. I don’t have a bit of problem going $15K up, as long as:
- the car is luxury … not luxury wannabe
- the car is put together well. I expect Benz quality from Benz price. Enviro-friendly does not justify Hyundai quality
- the car is reliable (we can rehash the whole transmission thing …. aww, let’s not)
and
- the car looks nice. I’m sorry, but it has to look as nice as a 5-series or an E-series or Lexus or (__ fill in the blank __)

That’s my two cents worth.

My lease ends in June of 2010. Wonder what the odds are ….

WJ
Dallas, Texas

Are you planning to make the Tesla available in the UK? I read on the website that the assembly of the Tesla is in the UK, so would seem to make sense to make it available here too…would be one way to avoid high fuel costs and congenstion charges.

Dear Tesla,

After listening to your 3 Town Hall recordings about your transmission durability problems, it reminds me of my days at Ford in the mid 90’s. They were changing their coolant to the new environmentally friendly form. The problem was that it was a mild organic acid that ate their engine gaskets resulting in complete engine failure. They tested a few cars and noticed no failures but statistical mathematicians advised them they needed to run the tests with hundreds of cars, preferably with the corporate pool cars through the seasons. They chose not, to save money. They then decided, after much internal debate to test 2 dozen cars with crews driving day and night around the country. No problems for the first 30K miles but once they reached 50K boom. The engines needed redesigning or new gaskets were needed at a significant cost to timing.
Recommendation — Run as many cars as long as you can to test the vehicles. A 5% failure may seem small but the negative Press of it all will eat you alive. That’s why Ford Motor has “motor” in their name !

Best

David, you weren’t actually suggesting that Tesla have its $100,000 sportscar tow a trailer, were you?

I wasn’t really thinking of the Roadster, Charles. Elon mentioned RE versions for future Tesla models and I was assuming this was aimed more to the White Star, etc but… If they make the RE a trailer option then it really wouldn’t be a big deal to incorporate this as an option for the roadster too as long as the trailer weight is resonable. What would it take? Basically a hitch, rear plug, and control software. The owner wouldn’t even have to buy the RE. I think it would make sense for Tesla to make these available as rentals as well as purchases. Do you see harm in a Los Angelos Roadster owner being able to take his roadster on a weekend wine country tour without having to worry about the availability of a plug at the places he would like to stay?

##Charles Pluckhahn wrote on January 5th, 2008 at 1:44 am
p.s.: Speaking of vapor cars, how about the “Mini-CAT”? It runs on compressed air, and allegedly is going to be available in Europe by the end of the year for $7,500. For one Tesla I could buy a 12-pack of those things. Check it out: aircar.com.

I was checking out that air car yesterday Charles. Unless I’m much mistaken, it seems the current car only gets to about 7 miles before it conks out. I’m sure they can improve on that but have you heard the car? It sounds like a fairground ride and it doesn’t look much better. I know you weren’t seriously considering one but really you can’t talk about it in the same breath as a Tesla. Even so I wouldn’t call that car vapourware. They have working prototypes and it looks to me like a genuine attempt at a different solution. I don’t like it but I think it’s honest at least. I’d rather have one Tesla than 12 of them though, even with just one gear in the box!

David, I’m not even going to argue with you about trailers. I’m just going to laugh at you. Andrew, I’m not sure which car I want, because neither of them exist. Prototypes might as well be kept on the moon along with the press releases about them, for all I care. No, I haven’t actually heard the air car. Does it hiss? Now just think of those aftermarket possibilities, especially if the car itself goes for only $7,500. I’d trick mine out to sound like a rattlesnake when I’m mad.

Just remember, the average person drives 28 miles a day. It doesn’t have to be a sportscar to win. If it’s cheap and it’s useful and they actually make the product instead of just talk about it like Tesla and rest of Silicon Valley love to do, they’ll really have something. There’ll be a certain poetic justice if it’s made in India. Maybe someone will eventually hire people in Michigan and even San Jose to do the customer service, and then complain that no one in Banglaore can understand them.

Charles, it sounds like an IC engine but with one or two plugs missing. I think, as usual, that you’re being unecessarily harsh on Tesla. This air car has been in development for even longer as far as I know and is further away from being ready for prime time than the Tesla is. Did you ever get your fingers burned investing in some silicon valley project? I ask that just because you seem to be really obsessive about how unreliable these guys are. Hardly a post goes by without you mentioning it again and it just seems unfair to lump all these people in silicon valley together as if they were an amorphous mass. Like everywhere else you must have good guys and bad guys there. I have no brief for silicon valley and they’re your people more than mine, but it seems to me they deliver on their promises about as often as everybody else. Again you say that Tesla are just talking about it but, if you have read this site carefully, you know that the car has been extensively tested in every way and if it weren’t for one serious, ongoing problem with the transmission it would be on the road by now and performing up to spec. What did you want them to do, launch the car with the problem unsolved? That is more or less what they’ve been forced to do by customer pressure I would think but, as you point out, most manufacturers would never get away with it. They would delay the launch until the car was ready. If Tesla delayed their launch any further you would cite that as evidence that the car was vapourware. So it seems you really do want it both ways. We’re all impatient for this to happen but its failure to happen according to schedule doesn’t mean that the car is vapour or that there is any attempt at deception. It’s just a real engineering problem that has to be solved and takes time.

Beyond Tomorrow video about the air car here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Listen to that sucker roar Charles. The presenter is having to speak up to be heard over it. Actually I have nothing against this technology in principle. If it can be made to work reliably for longer distances and they can somehow silence it, it looks like a good idea. As a project for cars for Europe or the States I think it still has a long way to go. There’s no mention of airbags or crash testing or all that other expensive and time-consuming work that Tesla has already done to get its car approved for sale.
They should find a light, existing car where crash testing etc has all been done already and adapt their technology to that to get a short cut to the market. Either that or they have a low-speed city car, or an NEV as you call them, on their hands but not a proper solution for most drivers.

So everybody is surprised that the Tesla is backing away from an all electric vehicle…. There have been many many many other alternative fuel options to power the automobile in the past and the oil business has just called him up and made him an offer ……he could not refuse. Even a billionaire can’t mess with the fundamental economics of this planet. The financial structure of the planet is based …on oil. Unfortunately I don’t think anything will change that short of a space ship from another planet landing at the Super Bowl. …Then again that would probably just prompt a nuclear explosion and we would be told it was terrorists…. Think about it.

Tracy Lovett

Andrew, you can’t mistake me for anyone’’s p.r. agent, including the air car company. I’m kinda sorta interested in it, just like I’m kinda-sorta interested in that company in Southern California with the electric car that kinda-sorta looks like a Jetsons car with wheels. What unites those two companies and Tesla is that they’ve spent a nice, hefty chunk of the venture money on a p.r. firm to go place half-baked press releases into the media.

I’m not the friendliest guy in the world toward that sort of thing, to put it mildly. The high-tech crowd generally sees the media as something to be manipulated, and the financial system as something to be exploited, and taxes as something to be avoided, the senior-most peoples’ wallets as something to be fattened, and the customers as idiots who’ll always come back for more. Which makes them typical business people, I suppose. I’m just doing everyone the favor of noticing and commenting on it.

As for Silicon Valley, well, let’s just say that I have a love-hate relationship with that neck of the woods. But I come by it honestly and relatively impersonally, which is to say that it’s not as a result of having a speculation go bad. In other words, no, I’m not grinding a personal axe and I don’t live in a rubber room or wear tin-foil on my head. Just call ‘em like I see ‘em, and feel no need to be the cheerleader for Tesla Motors just because they told everyone what everyone wanted to hear and then didn’t deliver the goods.

Good God, no, I wouldn’t ever suggest that Tesla launch their car with a bad transmission. Only General Motors can get away with that kind of thing, or at least they used to be able to. What I want Tesla to do is make a liar out of me and deliver a $100K electric sportscar that will go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds, with a 250-mile range. Anything less counts against ‘em. How much depends on how much less.

See my last name? Andrew, I come from a long line of cheap Germans. If it doesn’t work, it’s never a bargain.

Great read!

Okay Charles, I see where you’re coming from, but I still think you’re demanding an impossibly high standard of predictive ability from the Tesla crowd and specifically Martin…no longer with them of course….who was responsible for most of the early promises I guess. How much did they miss by? We don’t know yet because the car isn’t on the road, but my best guess, based on what I’m reading here and elsewhere, is that they aren’t going to miss by much. The range is a little down (but less than 10% not the 20% that we were threatened with) but apart from that the car looks like producing the goods pretty much as promised. It’s very late being delivered, of course, but we all know the reason for that and I personally don’t expect any hidden skeletons to jump out of the closet. So, to me, they missed on one engineering thing…range ….and not by very much. And on the schedule, by quite a lot, but for well-explained reasons.

David and Jason. Guys, don’t fall out over this. The quote David was referring to was this one by Charles:

Charles Pluckhahn wrote on January 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
David, I’m not even going to argue with you about trailers. I’m just going to laugh at you.

He just got mixed up over who said it……

I wondered how long it would take you to notice!!!

Wow. I saw the next blog and kind of left the comments on this one for dead….looks like a lot has gone on. So…here’s my redux of what just happened (it was funny!) and some commentary:

1)Jason quickly responded to my last post with the usual pattern of a)denying everything he said before, b)restating his complete misconceptions of Hydrogen and biofuels, and c)making up the numbers along the way. My response (I promise I’ll make this one quick): None of your justifications for Hydrogen (that we should “let the market decide” while the few H2 proponents manipulate it, that the government needs it for taxes (!) and security, that it’s actually cheap) make any sense. I would just love to see your source on this outrageous claim that these vehicles’ prices are going to drop from millions to normal-car prices with no changes other than increased volume. And while I’m at it, if you think biofuels produce the same emissions as fossil fuels from any meaningful perspective, you still haven’t pulled your head out. And since you obviously ignored it the first time, biodiesel production using modern methods IS NOT slash-and-burn agriculture, not that you know anything about that either.

2)That discussion was of course quickly overshadowed by the increasingly-shrill yammerings of Jason and CRS (btw, does that handle refer to an inability to remember one’s halibut?) which took a strange turn down political craziness lane. Conspiracy theories abounded. Lets see here…the “greens” (which seemed to me to be more-encompassing than members of the Green party…I could be wrong but I took it to mean all of us on a large swath of the left) are according to Jason involved in a vast conspiracy, using global warming as a ploy to reduce the power of the oil companies who oppose the “communist/fascist” state they desire. So this leads me to several questions: What’s a “communist/fascist” state? (Just to clue you both in, Fascism is not just another word for authoritarianism. That’s your only clue, go look it up.) And isn’t this a bit of an indirect way to establish such a state? Also, did you not get the memo about how it is now far too late to be able to deny climate change as a hoax? This display could just be dismissed as an anomaly if it weren’t for the counterpoints which ensued with CRS. Unfortunately I think you are each about as dangerous as the other. CRS whines about how democracy is a sham and the corporations own the government. Jason thinks they should, and complains that there is any opposition to them at all. Of course it’s someplace in between…yes, obviously corporate/economic interests have always had large influence in American politics…and every other politics in history. Democracy, however, does reduce it greatly, and we work regularly to diminish it further (campaign finance reform, anyone?). This is a Good Thing, as corporations are not designed to care for anyone but shareholders, and governments are designed to care for all constituents…it is a fallacy to say “the capitalists” do everything while government just slothfully wastes our stolen taxes, which is Jason’s (and the classical Libertarian) position. This denies us rural electrification, clean air and water, lead free paint, our incredible land-grant universities, and much else of tremendous value. And it ignores the unbelievable injustices inflicted by corporations when they’re too loosely regulated. I dare you to go work for Shell oil in Camaroon…now there’s a place where the corporations run the government. On the other hand, CRS, you cross the line when you call the U.S. Constitution a “train wreck.” It is no such thing. It is a remarkable living document that forms the bedrock of a very successful government. It shows its age to be sure, but it is actively edited and reinterpreted and works remarkably well, and furthermore it provided and still provides an example for many, many other nations that has benefited billions of people the world over. Nobody gets it right all the time, the U.S. included; focus on the specific things we’re getting wrong, and don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bad-mouthing the Constitution is an affront to the whole of Western political thought and tradition.

(Sorry for the long soap-box there, but that really riled me up.)

3)This wild-eyed fringe-politics showdown was interrupted by the sheer rudeness of Charles Pluckhahn. Many thanks to Andrew Kelsey for mostly putting him in his place. It’s hard to say what Charles really dislikes so much about Tesla. I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew that Charles’ few nitpicks don’t add up at all to his central charge that the company is lying/scamming and won’t deliver the product. (Which, by the way, I see you repeated (”instead of just talk about it like Tesla and rest of Silicon Valley love to do”) shortly after you denied having said it. Did you think we just wouldn’t remember?) I did want to mention the changes to the EPA highway cycle this past year which everyone seems to be ignoring…pretty much all the gas cars out there dropped a few mpg as well, so it’s not like this was that surpising. Want to holler about that? And I wanted to stress that these comparisons with the big motor companies (”GM would never get away with delivering something not to spec” etc.) miss the fact that the big motor companies would never have told us the projected specs in the first place. They would simply not have said anything until it was basically ready to ship, and then given more-or-less final specs. And yeah, then they darn well better get them right. Tesla has said from day 1 (your recent “now you tell me” crack notwithstanding…they told everyone before you just weren’t listening) that they were being open with their best numbers throughout the whole process and that they might change. When they did change, they told us. This is a much more open process than the big motor companies use, and your complaints basically just punish Tesla for that openness. This is wrong; we should be supporting this sort of thing, not complaining about all the ugly details it allowed us to see. So anyway, Charles, to recap, you won’t stick to a position, you pick up any nitpick you can find, you hold Tesla to a standard that the big companies don’t even show up to be held to, and you accuse them of dishonesty out of one side of your face while you deny doing it from the other. The only common thread here is that all your positions are anti-Tesla. You can say you’d like them to succeed all you want (especially right after you say you are laughing at their expense) but we know the score. You’re a troll.

That’s it folks; tip your waitresses.

Hunter.

Andrew is correct. Sorry Jason.

To the editor’s point and “The Song Remains the Same”. I wish I were, but can’t say I’m hearing that. The words do remain mostly the same and I do earnestly hope Tesla can continue on the path that has been laid out, but the sound is different. Martin had an eloquent sensibility to his voice that is very uncommon and is greatly missed. Tesla has come so far so fast. II’s hard to believe that the visionary, founder, and CEO for most of it’s existence did not merit enough credit to have earned a significant role in it’s current plans. Tesla may very well stay their path to becoming a significant automotive manufacturer (and I feel it is very important they do) but I believe it will be in spite of Martin not being there. If Tesla Freely wants the gong to remain as close to the same as possible, then bringing “real” content back to this blog would be a good step in that direction. Nearly all of the posts in the last 6 months or so have been “press releases”, marketing candy, or corporate speak. How about an entry about the reasoning behind the decision to include an RE option and Tesla’s vision for how it may be be implemented or a White Star update? I know Teslans are extremely busy, but I think you generate a lot of good will in this blog that is worth the price.

David,

Again, not sure what you are referring to with respect to Andrew, please include a quote or more info in your post, so that I don’t misunderstand what you say.

In the audio recordings of the open meeting that Tesla held with customers et al, it was my understanding they support a range extender, because it is consistent with their goal of “increasing the number of electric miles driven”, which suggests they are reviewing RE’s which are ultimately powered by an electric source - fuel cell, compressed air, etc.

Andrew, now it is you who warns the cynic’s hat. I don’t think every company fails to keep its promises. In fact, I think that kind of behavior is the exception to the rule.

Jason, this should bring clarity.

Andrew Kelsey wrote on January 8th, 2008 at 10:55 am

David and Jason. Guys, don’t fall out over this. The quote David was referring to was this one by Charles:

Charles Pluckhahn wrote on January 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
David, I’m not even going to argue with you about trailers. I’m just going to laugh at you.

He just got mixed up over who said it……

Hey Charles;

A question for you. You seem to have a beef with the phrase “actual results may very”. The question: all things considered, how can you not reasonably expect results to very in reality even if that phrase hadn’t been stated?

The reason I ask that: I have a friend with a Ford F150, I also have one. My driving style:
a) Obey the speed limit
b) Keep the regular maintenance up
c) Casual driving - in other words, no fast starts, no sudden stops.

His driving style:
a) The speed limit is a suggestion
b) Maintenance is to be done by himself when he feels like it
c) When the light turns green, you floor the gas, if the light is red, you wait until the last possible moment to slam on the brakes

I think we can agree that the driving styles are very different. The end result: My 7 year old F150 has the gas mileage very close to it’s “new” rating. His 5 year old F150 has a gas mileage he likes to rate in “gallons per mile”. Hmm… I think the phrase “actual results may very” is extremely appropriate.

Let’s take another scenario. Let’s say we have the same driving style, but in different geographical locations. So, hypothetical situation, me living in the city where I am - plains geography - vs me living in the Rocky Mountains. I suspect my gas mileage would still be pretty good considering I take care of my vehicle, however the mileage would be below what the EPA certified location rating would show.

Let’s try that concept in relation to the Tesla. Let’s examine the geographic location: well…. the more energy required to move something, the less efficient miles per charge you would have. Basic physics principles indicates it’s easier to roll a tire on a flat surface rather then up an 8% incline, less energy involved. That makes the phrase “actual results may very” appropriate for different geographic locations. So how about driving style? My driving style would indicate a more efficient use of a unit of energy in relation to traction then a driving style with which the individual likes to “burn rubber”. After all, it makes sense that your energy output is most efficiently used when your tires are not slipping on the road.

Based on your other responses, I’ll hypothesis that you’re going to respond to my question with an answer of: “If that’s all the situation were, it would barely be worth noting”. So, with that anticipation of your response, let me touch on something.

Compared with the other “pure electric vehicles” produced by the main automotive industry the Tesla is still a fantastic result. You have compared the Tesla company with others, such as GM, so it’s only reasonable for me to:
“Only General Motors can get away with that kind of thing, or at least they used to be able to.”

The range of the EV1 was about 80 miles if I’m not mistaken, Tesla having reached 200 miles has put the range at almost 2.5 times. I’m not sure why but I believe the EV1 was also fully recalled. Ouch. Will the Tesla be recalled? Only time can tell. How about the recent Chevy Volt? Electric road range: 40 miles. Oops, that one was worse then the EV1. Interesting, the Volt is due to start production in 2010. I guess we’ll find out what the actual range will be. Hmm… Tesla has VIN 1 off the production line and the Volt is due to start in 2010. I think you’re classification of vaporware is more appropriate for the Volt instead of the Tesla.

On that note: just classifying one “mark” for Tesla, 200/250 = 80%. I can’t see how you could classify Tesla Motors at missing 100% when they have a minimum 2.5x the range of other electric vehicles and hit 80% of the actual originally estimated speed.

Just some thoughts. From what I’ve read, it seems you focused on all negative aspects. It would be interesting to see your actual score if you viewed both the pros and cons and then was honest with a rating.

Roger, it’s not a “fantastic result” when they don’t even have the car for sale. Do you understand? The car is unavailable! Only in Silicon Valley would anyone ever even think of calling it a fantastic result. Everywhere else on earth, it would be called a failure. It is flatly bizarre to have someone call me “negative” for noticing that the car doesn’t exist. What planet are you people on?

Even if Tesla does deliver cars for sale — prototypes do NOT count — it won’t be a fantastic result if a world-class 0-60 in under 4 sec turns into a pedestrian (for this class) of 5.7 sec until they can figure out how to make one that will do what they originally promised. Also, I am really wondering about the range. That 220 miles is a maximum number. I wonder what it’ll be in actual use by the kind of people who really drive world class sportscars as they were spec’d to be driven.

Maybe they should produce Model 1 to the specs they promised before they work on Model 2.

Charles, when they get the transmission problem fixed and people are happy with their cars what is your next grouse going to be? I’m guessing it’s going to be mileage, since you’re already setting that up in your recent posts. So, let’s get it out of the way now. Are you going to demand that they still deliver the 250 miles that were originally promised? They have already swallowed that and agreed that it isn’t going to happen and even the 245 miles subsequently calculated has been shown to be a mistake. So we now have an EPA distance of around 220 miles…..it isn’t 100% certain yet as the final testing will have to be done after the gearbox is fixed. Why are you still wondering what the car will do with “the kind of people who really drive world class sportscars as they were spec’d to be driven.”
Tesla have done some road testing and you can read the figures just like anybody else. In case you don’t know where to find them, here they are:

267 miles of conservative urban driving in the suburbs around San Carlos (a best-case scenario)
230 miles from North Lake Tahoe to San Carlos with two occupants plus luggage
227 miles of highway cruising on the I-5 freeway, south of Stockton
222 miles including sporty driving from San Carlos to Santa Cruz via the hilly Skyline Blvd, and highway cruising from Santa Cruz to San Carlos via Hwy 1, San Francisco, and US 101
213, 209 and 203 miles of highway cruising with A/C using I-280, Hwy 85 and US 101
186 miles of aggressive driving on I-280 and the round trip from Woodside to San Gregorio Beach via Hwy 84
165 miles of impatient commuting, aggressive stops and starts, high speeds, and air conditioning on from Saratoga Gap to San Carlos via Hwy 9, Hwy 85 and I-280 (a worst-case scenario)

So does that look reasonable to you Charles? Or is it all just made up by those lying halibuts from Silicon Valley? What it looks like to me is a genuine attempt to give customers information on actual mileage. But I’m sure you’ll see it differently. Of course we all know that if you put the car on a race track and just drive it as hard as you can the mileage will be even worse than the figures shown above. So I don’t think anybody is being fooled here. You just seem to assume that everybody is much stupider than you and will expect to get the EPA certified mileage on all occasions. Trust me, Tesla buyers are really not that stupid.

Did you notice what a rotten copy editing job I did on my preceding comment? It’s a good thing I don’t make cars, because it would be a problem. Unless they were California cars, in which case you’d all be saluting me for my bravery. I promise to learn how to spell when Tesla learns how to make a car.

I am a little disappointed with the Song provided by the Chariman. I beleived this was a start up company formed, controlled and manufactured here in the U.S. fuelling the spark that is already in the pockets of most of us fossil fuel addicts. I understand basic supply and demand, why could the car not be manufactured here in the US versus UK. I can’t see how my pocket would be inpsired to purchase this expensive chunk of metal with wheels and toxic batteries without the MADE IN U.S.A. stamped on it.

Troy Freeland

It’s a non-vaporcar when any dork with $100,000 can walk in off the street, put down the money, and drive it away. Tell me, when does Silicon Valley think it’s real? When someone creates the PowerPoint slide? When the VCs write the check? When the p.r. firm faxes the press release? When some “news” outlet rewrites it as an article?

To Tesla

To make a car company, I suggest that a new concept would be a better way. We know that GM can make a good electric car if they want to. They can not make the Miastrada, at least so it says in patent law.

The appropriate car is one which requires 5 to 10 horsepower or equivalent to travel at 80 mph or less. The Aptera and the Miastrada both offer this, whether they are all electric, all internal combustion engine driven, or hybrid of all degrees. Tesla has the capability to make such a car if they so choose. The Whitestar could become such a vehicle, but I haven’t heard about any serious aerodynamic breakthrough there. If efficiency is a real goal, then you might need my system for eliminating wheel well effects. That might give some barrier to competition by GM et al.

If you want to see what the Miastrada car looks like, (and you are not going to be scarred for life by seeing something different — its amazing how some people react), look at www.miastrada.com You know of course about the Aptera at www.aptera.com , which is a similarly efficient car, thought it looks to be almost 9 feet wide, where the Miastrada is 42 inches wide. Miastrada can be this narrow because of its patented (now “allowed”) articulated system.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Elon,

If VIN 1 has rolled off the production line in the UK, why can’t we buy them here? The options we currently have in the local market for full electric cars are pitiful. I WANT A TESLA!

Elon pleeeeeez explain in ur new blog, what is happening with the promised, more affordable Tesla ‘White Star’ sudan

I’m not sure how many of you heard this, but when discussing our country’s current energy crisis and environmental concerns during one of the recent political debates, Republican party candidate Huckabee suggested that the federal governement create a financial incentive of 1 billion dollars for the first automaker that can put a car on the market that gets over 100 MPG.

I was somewhat amused by the fact he obviously wasn’t aware that a such a car already exists.

Have you gotten the help of Alan Cocconi?

Hey Jeff;

Your pretty excited about that technology but I think you’re over-looking something.

The research indicates the increased storage of 10x the power. First there’s seems to be some confusion on what that is in realtion to. I have read indication it’s related to existing LiIon batteries, but I have also read indication it’s in relation to the standard NiCD batteries. The only reason I mention that is that there is a huge lack of real publicly available information on the research. It would certainly be nice if the researchers could produce the tech specs of their find.

Anyway, on to the point I think you’ve overlooked.

Let’s say the research is 10x current LiIon batteries. The current storage the Tesla’s battery holds is 56 KwH of energy - if my memory serves correct. That would put the energy storage at 560 KwH - again, considering the lack of tech specs this is assuming same storage space/weight, just more energy.

That generator in the Volt is a given size utilizing a given amount of liquid fuel. That fuel produces x amount of energy through that process. That available energy is not going to increase in size just because the battery can hold more.

Summary: If that new research pays out with the promise it appears to have, having a generator on board will not be required.

The Tesla 56 KwH battery is currently rated at 220 Miles. 10x that would put it at 2,200 miles (560 KwH). I don’t think there’s a vehicle on the road today that can go that distance between fueling.

Of course, the reality is that, if that tech pays out, the battery will likely get smaller and still have longer range. How much of the total weight of the Tesla Roadster consists of the battery? If the battery weight is cut in half, say 280 KwH (1,100 miles), how much further then 1,110 Miles could the vehicle actually go?

The gerator and gas would only add extra weight including variable weight (with the increase/decrease of liquid fuel) which would only harm the milage with little increase in range - relative to the total of course.

Roger, when I looked into an electric vehicle a while back, it was a converted Ford Ranger pickup truck that stored 16 kWh in lead-acid batteries and had a usable range of about 30 miles. Maximum of maybe 50 miles, but as anyone who’s casually studied lead-acid batteries knows, only a fool would try to use all of the range. Now, I’ll freely admit that there are plenty of people who know far more than me about lithium-ion batteries, but I am nevertheless skeptical that anything worthy of being called a sports car will get 220 miles on a 56 kWh charge. When vapor becomes something else, my bet is that they’ll be storing more than 56 kWh or they’ll be going a lot less than 220 miles on a charge.

CM, say what you will. The fact is that Tesla has delivered absolutely nothing but press releases and a few rides in a prototype. In Silicon Valley, this counts as a job well done, but everywhere else it counts as a bunch of promises broken.

Hi to Elon and to bloggers on this site,

A more complete look at the Miastrada concept is now possible at www.miastrada.com.

My suggestion is that Tesla win the X Prize competition using this configuration.

I am considering this as a good way to get momentum for a realistic way to make significant progress in the War on Waste - of Energy.

Aerodynamic drag is about a fourth that of the Tesla, so very little energy is needed for high speed travel. This makes the drive train and energy source problems much more manageable.

What do people here think about this?

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Oh, the miastrada. What did they do, copy something out of a Batman comic book? You know, right next to those lines about defeating the evildoers everywhere — the same lines that Bush used right after Sept. 11th? Look, folks, there is talking about it and there is doing it. Americans used to be better at doing it than at talking about it. That was the America that won its wars, was a creditor nation, had the best technology on the planet, and had a rising standard of living from top to bottom. But now we’ve progressed.

I’ll wait for the reviews. Production is “scheduled to start slowly.” When will customers be able to walk into a showroom and buy one?

I knew I would enjoy your comments as always Charles! Thanks for that - I needed a laugh.

BTW Charles, Motor Trend have a review out that you can find easily online. You have mentioned several times that you are waiting to see some independent reviews by motoring magazines. Enjoy.

By the way, I’m hearing that Tesla cut the top speed of this new sled from 135 mph to 125 mph. Four and a half years ago, I rented a Volvo DIESEL turbo STATION WAGON and drove at on the Autobahn at 220 km/h. Please don’t tell me that the Tesla is going to be slower than a common mommy car.

I read that Motor Trend report, along with a bunch of recycled press releases masquerading as articles about the Tesla Vaporcar. They kinda-sorta liked the prototype. Big deal. As for South Cambridgeshire, is that near Cambridge itself? All brickbats aside, that’s a nice spot. I was in Cambridge a few years ago, and it was truly lovely. The kind of place where, for a moment, one could imagine not caring about whether anything works.

Anyway, Silicon Valley is a place, but it’s also a state of mind. As soon as Tesla makes it available for customers to buy, then we’ll have a look. Last year and the year before, the hype was forgiveable. Now, the hype is approaching self-parody. If you think I’m merciless, just wait until Jeremy Clarkson gets hold of a Tesla.

I have to give a semi-tip of the hat to whoever runs this blog. Martin What’s-His-Name, the guy who was ousted from Tesla, has wiped all my comments from his blog. It would appear that, once out of the kitchen, he couldn’t stand the heat. Tesla, on the other hand, can. It speaks well of them. Of course, it will speak really well of them if they can deliver a car. As for Clarkson, once you strip out the hoo-hah, he’s obviously someone who knows cars and loves cars. I don’t think the guy cares what it runs on, as long as it runs. Make a car that works the way you said it would work, and we’ll both be happy.

For a dose of realism:

Please look at www.miastrada.com/references to see the Battelle presentation charts at November conference at Stanford. Then revisit discussions about equivalents of electric energy. These charts show that electricity demand, created by night time charging when rates are favorable, will be mostly filled from coal fired capacity.

This defines the efficiency of the conversion process from heat energy to electric energy as that of coal fired plants. (This being 32.5% from separate analysis, available on request.)

Further, the CO2 implications are significantly worse than otherwise might be assumed.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Dear Folks:

Can anyone tell me what the charge / discharge system efficiency is of the battery including steering diodes (forgetting about the inverter and the motor) in the Tesla? Somewhere I read LI-ion batteries are 99.5% efficient which is hard to believe… Other posts above say they can do something with ‘heat from the batteries’. if they’re 99.5% eff then there will be no heat.

Things I like about the Tesla Roadster:

1). Spiffy 2 seat roadster that will be a babe magnet.

2). Simple design: One induction motor, and I assume only one differential, no transmission.

3). Long Advertised driving range.

Things I worry about with the Tesla Roadster:

1). Management Shakeup

2). Unconvincing battery real-world life expectancy testing.

3). High cost per mile of battery replacement, especially for low-mileage drivers.

4). Tesla personnel pursuit of ‘Wild Goose Chases’ : Fast Chargers (Electric Utilities would never allow them without paying $17/Kw fine per month), REEV or whatever silly accronym is being used this week; if i wanted that I’d get a VOLT; excessive worrying about customer’s electrical systems while not even understanding that there are no 40 amp dryers in the usa/canada.

5). Town Hall meeting where Tesla Personnel seemed squeemish about comitting to anything.

6). Lack of a specification sheet, or even a detailed design goals sheet.

7). Extremely high speed motor (last figure I think I’ve heard is 14,000 RPM, on an induction motor no less).

8). Previous commitments as to production dates have been badly missed,

That being said, I wish you guys luck. But I fear a serious lack of focus… Please prove me wrong.

- Bill.

Jim Bullis:
“These charts show that electricity demand, created by night time charging when rates are favorable, will be mostly filled from coal fired capacity.”

Currently-wasted coal-fired capacity, which is burning ANYWAY, generating the CO2 but not doing anything useful. They can’t afford to take the coal plants offline at night and bring them back on during the day, so they just waste it at night. I’m not sure why you left out that little detail, which is the important point actually. This is actually true, amazing though it may seem: they really do just keep burning coal even when nobody needs the electricity. Power companies prefer to have coal and other systems which can’t be turned on and off easily (like hydro) for “base load” only, with something else which can be switched on and off faster for “peak load”, but good “peak load” plants (ideally solar, then wind, then gas, then oil) are fairly rare. So currently coal and other “base load” plants are providing a significant part of the “peak load” as well as the “base load”.

That’s why your reading of page 7 (”plug-in operations will degrade rather than improve greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.”) of the EPRI report is entirely wrong. They only degrade emissions if they’re fueled from NEW capacity rather than wasted capacity.

That’s for the short term. Obviously once plug-in usage exceeds that genuine wasted (already-burned) capacity, there is a problem. I seriously doubt we’ll get that level of uptake by 2010.

In the longer run, we have to build green power generation. Hydro, wind, and solar are all better than currently existing biofuels in Co2 terms, and all three of them generate electricity. Geothermal can be used to generate electricity, but not to generate burnable fuel. And that’s it for low-carbon energy sources. So, electric seems to be the way to go.

Now, if commercial algae-farm biofuels start really working, that will change the equation in favor of fuel-burning, but that’s still *extremely* iffy technology.

The thing for Tesla to do is produce a production car that does what they said it would do. All this talk about diesel generators and carbon nanotubes is completely beside the point.

Oops, my bad, above. Emissions are He4 (the usual kind of helium), not He3, the rare stuff. :-O(

Charles you need a bit less cynical in life. halibut happens.

Looks like they did lie. They started production in the Winter not fall.

Congrats Tesla!

You guys really are on the cutting edge if this technology and I wouldn’t be surprised if your company completely blindsides the big automakers. Before they know it they will have a serious competitor. Keep up the good work and I can’t wait to see your other upcoming models!

eEectricity should be generated onboard, but only in a clean way, Presence of any kind of ICE overshadows the real message of any authetic electric vehicle. I think that it must be avoided, otherwise it is a certian way of singing the song so muched favoured big Automotive players.

I really hope that Tesla can get it together. They were smart about making a sports car first, since people who buy expensive sports cars are more forgiving about mechanical problems and bugs in new models. I have to say, I’m waiting for the Chevy Volt or Quantum Karma. They are both awesome cars and don’t need a matrix of 12,000 batteries. I think had Tesla initially partnered with a company like Toyota they would be in much better shape. It’s really hard to be a manufacturing company right off the bat. These guys are designers not producers.