Glad to hear that things are progressing nicely. I know that a lot of us are very excited to see that you are still progressing on the Roadster. I’m still in college, so it’ll be a bit before I can afford one, but I’m hoping that I might drive a Whitestar or Bluestar someday. Good luck and thanks for the update! You certainly make me excited that I’m pursuing battery research in grad school.

I love your new approach to solving the transmission problem, as well as continuing to life test all parts of the vehicles, and make improvements as you go. I also like your background as an entrepreneur and a sports car enthusiast, so you will be a good fit at the helm of Tesla Motors.

You say that full production starts in spring.

Will you be delivering some earlier than that so that the world can see that the Roadster is not “vapourware”. I know that Elan’s is due soon. I am interested to know if there will be a slow ramp up starting before Spring and if so when that will start?

In section 3, “Commitment”, it would be good to link to Elon’s blog entry somewhere. That way people who haven’t been keeping up can find it easily.

Overall, I’m pleased that Tesla remains intensely focused on finishing the Roadster. I know lots of people are whining and begging for WhiteStar (model 2) info, but I think it’s more important that Tesla establish its credibility and reputation as the “real deal” before embarking upon that new adventure

I agree with Ryan, I think that Tesla’s doing the right thing by focusing on the challenges of bringing it’s first product to market instead of leaking out details of a future project. Even though communication with customers is important (as acknowledged in the blog), what separates Tesla from other electric vehicle companies in my eyes is that Tesla does more than simply show a pretty picture or show off an impressive prototype but actually goes down to business when it comes to mass producing it: even through all the complications. People may complain about an initial less-than-expected acceleration, but it’s better to have an available car that does it in 5.7 seconds than a bunch of not-for-sale vehicles that do it in 4. Plus, as Ryan said, right now I think it’s better to bring your first product into reality rather than building excitement for a car that’s a few years away. It seems to be a common theme among the blog comments thus far to support what’s happening at Tesla; and I, too, think that Ze’ev is taking Tesla in the right direction.

Great news! Glad to see the transmission challenge resolved, and that production will start soon.

Good to hear from you Ze’ev! With this post, Tesla Motors demonstrates several attributes that set you far and away above any other EV company - or any auto company at all.
* A history of openness and honesty that goes all the way up and down corporate food chain.
* A history of experienced, intelligent management that firmly believe in the product. Even interim CEO Micheal Marks brought experience with a global supply chain when Tesla needed it.
* You are actually producing an electric car that people actually want. It’s great to hear your commitment to get the Roadster on the road. Even if that means I may have to wait a little longer for my Whitestar (or model 2, or whatever).

I firmly believe that he early 21st Century will be as heady of a time for the electric car as the early 20th Century was for the gasoline engine. We’re seeing history unfold, and it’s exciting to be a part of it.

Mark Campbell: I looked for the “Da Vinci CVT” you mentioned, found instead the “Nu Vinci CVT” at fallbrooktech.com

Interesting design, but as a friction drive it would have more drag than a standard geared transmission, reducing range, and it might not hold up to the extreme torque produced by the Tesla motor.

I suspect that many at Tesla Motors are now strongly considering designing an alternative to the Roadster as a two seat hard top commuter with a reliable single speed transmission, a lower drag coefficient, and perhaps a slightly smaller less expensive battery pack. It would not be as “sporty”, but would still have respectable performance and range, and being more affordable might eventually outsell the Roadster.

Of course, the priority “Job One” is getting the Roadsters on the road, and “Job Two” is the sedan. Could the Commuter be Job Three?

All,

Well first glad to see the Tesla roadster finally getting close to production.

These AC motors are perfect with a single speed transmission (ie an overall gear ratio around 7 to 8:1…..mutiply the 1 speed transmission ratio with the differential rato), which will get you 0-60 LESS then 4 second, but only have a top speed of about 100mph given a max motor speed of 13K rpm. Alan Cocconi (AC Propulsion) showed this capability with the T-Zero almost 7 years ago ( www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/performance.htm ). He created the AC-150KW power plant back in 1994, so for those of us who think this is the “lastest-greatest”……then think again. We are standing in the shadows of giants…

The only reason I believe to have a two speed transmission it to have a top speed over 100mph. Sometimes I forget how many states have a speed limit above 100mph…….but I think Texas (some place between Junction & El Paso) has the highest posted speed limit at 80mph. So other than bragging rights, there is no other legal reason to go faster then 80mph, and is a dangerous to all of use sharing the road, reduces battery life and range, which is counterproductive to what the main goal is, which is to make us independent from the middle eastern oil.

I don’t think that any of use who love EV cars, want to see any of these Tesla cars crash (and hopefully note burn) due to excesses speeds, which may scare away future prospective buyers away. I know that with Li-Ion batteries, such as from A123, this risk (battery explosion) is greatly minimized, but people don’t realize the danger (electrocution) to people such as police & firemen who may have to deal with a crash scene with EV vehicles. I have personally had 336V DC across my body (working on the construction of a hybrid EV in the mid 90’s) and it was something I would not want happen to anyone who is trying to pull some out of a crashed car.

Respectfully,
Ernie

Re. Nu Vinci transmission-website said it offers “greater powertrain system effciency” ? CM sez : more friction, so no (?). Maybe with spheres not more friction than in gears (?). I mentioned this transmission on blog a few weeks ago- it won Popular Science Mag. award, was developed by two bicycle maker guys. MIT group has powered a 60 watt bulb wirelessly from 6′ away with “magnetic resonance” in first test of the idea. Supposedly efficient and doesn’t “interact” with other elect. systems (or humans)-since only “resonates” with “resonator” at other end. Said to be like what Tesla was doing with a huge tower device, but he never got it finshed. This could maybe be used to power a high speed “trainbus” wheeled vehicle on a “HOV” lane addition to existing freeways (?)-wonder if this would be cheaper & easier to implement than regular or maglev trains ?

T.J. wrote on December 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm said

MIT group has powered a 60 watt bulb wirelessly from 6′ away with “magnetic resonance” in first test of the idea. Supposedly efficient and doesn’t “interact” with other elect. systems (or humans)-since only “resonates” with “resonator” at other end. Said to be like what Tesla was doing with a huge tower device, but he never got it finshed.

This technology is nothing new , The reasson this tech. never got off the ground was because Tesla’s financial backer JP Morgan cut the plug on it and sold off the land because tesla told him that there would be no way he could slap a meter on it and charge a fee . The electricity would have been accessable to anyone around the world for free . But like w/ any busines mans way of thinking, if you can’t make a profit , it’s not worth it. .. which is certainly why Tesla is ommitted from the American educational system . If the american people learned the origins of the things we take for granted on an everyday basis , people like thomas edison and Marconi wouldn’t have been given all of the credit . If it werent for tesla we’d have power sub stations every 3 blocks from each other, and we’d still be hand crank starting our vehicles, also we’d have to get up off our butts to change the tv station. So actually our electric bill statements instead if saying” make check payable to Commonwealth Edison “, it should really say Commonwealth Tesla… He Died a poor man in a New York , Manhattan Hotel. Yeah he did have his mental issues (OCD ), but wouldn’t you after most of your lifes work had burned down to the ground. Sorry for the history lesson. Tesla was one of many gifts to the world and he was swept under a rug becuase he cared for something more than his back pocket.

Andrew Kelsey,

LOL - Teslans, from the planet Tesla ….

Point taken CTF. Are you a lawyer by any chance?

Jason. That is where they’re from isn’t it? Have you noticed how Ze’ev Drori and Martin are both wearing the same beard? Spooky huh! And Elon is definitely from another planet…he says so himself.

I just read about Stanford’s nanowire battery (Stanford Report, 12-18-07). Will this be able to effect the range of the Roadster?

##1 wrote on December 31st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I just read about Stanford’s nanowire battery (Stanford Report, 12-18-07). Will this be able to effect the range of the Roadster?

This subject has already been aired in some detail in these pages. The general consensus seems to be that it might affect the Roadster and any other electric vehicles but not for many years and only if the technology can really be turned into a reliable final product. There’s a very long lead time for this sort of thing to get from the lab to the road.

# andrew kelsey wrote on December 30th, 2007 at 5:55 am

## Because the transmission issue is not yet finally resolved nobody can possibly know
## exactly what zero to sixty time will eventually emerge. I’m sure it will be around 4 seconds
## and that’s good enough for me for the moment.

I’m pretty sure it is very easy to get it under four seconds with any transmission they choose. After all you start from zero and there is no gear switching before you reach 60mph so strain for transmission is not a problem at that point. Problem, as I see it, is switching from first gear to second after that. You go from 10000 or so RPM to 5000 or so RPM, and getting that to happen fast without durability problems is a challenge.

They could get that 0-60 under 4 secs with that interim transmission. It only requires some gear ratio tweaking. You lose top speed but gain faster acceleration. Interim can go from 0-60 in 5.7 secs and has top speed of 125mph. If you drop top speed to 100 (max RPM at 100) you gain better acceleration, but 100mph is not satisfying as top speed for sports car.

I love the idea. BUt the reason these wont catch on is because of the PRICE !!!!! I would love one to not be dependent of oil but I could go buy a Scion TV get ok performace (not like this vehcile) and 31 to 34 mpg on the high way and spend 16500 to 17000.

When the price comes down to that kind price im sold but were not all millionares who can affors such things and thats how the OIL COMPANIES want it. So bottom line NEVER GONNA HAPPEN UNLESS COST COMES DOWN. Beside what does it cost to REALLY make one of these anyways 3-4 k ?? Please e-mail me back your response I would love to hear from you

It is a beautiful car

This article is exactly why Tesla Motors needed a NEW CEO:

sfist.com/2007/12/31/dis_of_the_year.php

I am glad about Tesla’s new delivery plan, and the one of a kind product it intends to offer.

Just general comments about recent blogs:

1) I’m glad that Elon Musk and Ze’ev Drori both wrote blogs to clear things up.

2) I’m also glad that in Elons blog mentions range extender. Even that it feels wrong to have RE in EV the current fact is that for longer trips you still need gasoline engine because there is no charging stations for EV:s (yet). RE is natural solution for that, and Elons writing suggests that it will be quite similar to what I imagined RE to be.

3) Whitestar seems to be closer than I expected. I somehow felt that it was abadoned for time being and all resources were in getting Roadster ready, but now that I think of it it seems natural that raw design work is no longer needed for Roadster (just some engineering) and all designers are free to develop Whitestar. Please put some info about preliminary frame of what it will be in here.

4) I hope that Whitestar will be available in Europe. US dollar is currently quite weak currency which results that average person in Europe has more buying power in Europe than US citizens have. (I hate to say this, but it seems that your country is degenerating quite badly). $50k is only approx 36k€ and that is cheapish car in European standards. It definitely is not expensive for luxury sedan.

Thanks for your reply ~
At the first beginning , I doubt if it would turn out to be a perpetual motion issue also,
Now I learn it takes more energy to charge the second battery , and shorten the range.
“This additional energy will be more than the generators produce” Mr. Martin Eberhard addressed
If I take it this way
“ At least the second battery is somehow recharged with energy which is enough power to supply the car to move any further ? ”
I don`t know , maybe I am lack of understanding of basic law of physics. I have to go back to school . Haha
Sorry for my interruption ~
Have a good day !

John, please read the ‘master plan’ blog. It discusses your issue in fair detail.
In short, the way I see it, Tesla can’t manufacture millions of cars to start with. As they make money selling some of the higher end cars, they can expand their production so that when they make the sports sedan model (White Star) they will be able to produce the larger numbers for the demand. And then, when they build the economy sedan model, they will have greater production capibilities yet.
As for cost, go buy 6000 lithium ion batteries, then build the rest of the ESS and car and see what cost you get:)

Seems as though a company called Boston-Power has come out with a new lithium-ion computer battery with twice the power density and the ability to charge to 80% in half an hour. Production is slated to start next month. This could be a boon for Tesla. I hope they look into it.

OOPS I MEAN 1.825 MW generator not 1.825 KW

www.alturdyne.com/pdf/125-2000_kw_diesel_gensets-cat.pdf
www.howard-ind.com/HowardTransformers/literature/SubstationBrochure.pdf

Range Extender Configuration

If there are no fast charge battery packs then this configuration is probably needed since again people forget to charge, need to go far, don’t have a garage etc.
I think it should be an option however.

What is needed at most is that in the time it takes to travel the 165 mile worst case range we need to generate 53 KWatts
We do not know the average speed but lets guess a little

60 mph average speed means 165 miles/60 mph = 2.75 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.75 hrs = 19.27 KWatt RE generator
70 mph average speed means 165 miles/70 mph = 2.36 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.36 hrs = 22.48 KWatt RE generator
80 mph average speed means 165 miles/80 mph = 2.06 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.06 hrs = 25.70 KWatt RE generator

This would allow unlimited range and if the generator had the same efficiency as the Caterpillar one in my last post of 1825KW/134gal = 13.619 KW/gal = 3.89 gallons for 53 KW. This would be great if it was small say less than 1-1.5 cubic feet and less than 100 lbs it would be even better.

I don’t know if this is really the right forum but I’d be interested to know what others think about the possibility of a Range Extender in future Teslas. Personally I think it may be a mistake. Not because it isn’t the best technological solution but simply because it will bring Tesla into direct competition with all the major car manufacturers. As long as they were producing pure BEVs they could be the biggest fish in a pretty small pond and their low-volume, high-cost solution would always attract a loyal following. As soon as you put an engine of any kind into the car it will be up against high-volume manufacturers with all the economies of scale that implies. Everything Tesla buys, from suspension parts to windscreens, will cost it much more than it would cost Ford or GM or Toyota. At the lower end of the REEV or hybrid market there will be Chinese competitors, while at the top end you will have Lexus and Honda. In the middle of the market Volvo and GM’s Volt will be carving out a niche. I can’t see where Tesla could naturally fit in to this. For the reasons explained above it’ll be hard to make the car cost less than a Honda or a Lexus but equally hard to reach those companies’ levels of quality and reliability. For the same money and a similar technological solution most buyers will go for the established manufacturers’ products.

Maybe Tesla has looked in its crystal ball and doesn’t like the look of the future BEV market. At the bottom end there will be Mitsubishi’s MiEV and Subaru’s R1e. Mid size sedans are being designed in China that would superficially look like competitors for the Whitestar. The one advantage I see in this market is that I am not aware of any serious, quality car manufacturer that has any plans for a pure BEV. That’s where I would see a market for Tesla. Even using their current technology a larger heavier four-seat car should still achieve high performance and a reasonable range of say 150 to 180 miles per charge. As battery performance improves range should go up and cost should come down. Of course most mid-size sedan drivers will demand greater range and buy an REEV but there should be a small market for pure BEVs for low mileage, green consumers. That’s where I could see Tesla thriving and growing steadily as improving battery technology gradually makes REEVs redundant.

::$50k is only approx 36k€ and that is cheapish car in European standards.

What you are ignoring in this picture is that while weak dollar makes US goods, including cars, a bit more attractive for us in Europe, it makes putting the car together for that price harder for Tesla, especially considering where the pricey parts, i.e. batteries and motors for example are likely made.
I would expect either performance or price targets for Whitestar to be revised, if these trends continue.

I wouldnt be surprised if the very first fully electric car from OEM i purchase would be Chinese brand. Currently Japanese sounds more likely, but we’ll see, its still a few years out.

# charlie wrote on January 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm

## The station can be powered from the grid from a 2000 KW or so (essentially a
## distribution sub station) allowing 3 cars to charge at the same time. This allows
## three 53 KW pack to charge in about 5 minutes each.

No need for that kind of grid connection if you have energy storage. For three 53kWh ESS you need three 53kWh storages. Those storages can be much cheaper tech than lithium ion batteries (flywheels, cheap batteries etc.).

You need to calculate average amount of cars / day and how much get charged / car to calculate how big grid connection is really needed and how much storage you need to cover peak usage. The number is in any case much lower than 2000kW.

But in any case 5 minute charge of 53kWh ESS is not problem for storagewise, it is problem because that requires enormous current and/or voltage. That kind of power is not easy to make safe for mundane idiot to use. And you would need to make it literally foolproof.

Timo

My point was I thought might be the fastest easiest possibly cheapest way to get fast charging to alot of the people quickly IF we had a fast charge low cost battery pack.
Once the first gen fast charge is set up and enough vehicles makes it so people can make money, the solutions will present themselves.
It is hard to get going when the oil competition already has over 170000 fuel stations.
Legislation could force them to give up a small spot for the first gen fast charge space, wouldn’t this be a cool use of eminent domain, the diesel is already there hehe.
Obviously your point on peak/average requirements should be taken into account, I was keeping it simple.

If a power substation was used to get the power, the power company would worry about peak/average.

If you generate it onsite then it is probably cheaper the way I suggested since there is little to invent.
By the way I chose 3 cars at the same time since the biggest genset CAT had on the page would support it.

As for the high power,
AeroViroment already makes a 250 KW system, 53 KW in 5 minutes is 636 KW not a huge jump.
As for the safety issue, these are manageable since we have managed to make it so all of us mundane idiots can fill our cars with very flammable and explosive gasoline every day.
It is actually easier since electricity that is not going where it should can be measured (like a GFI) does.

www.aerovironment.com/PowerProcessing_products.asp

ELECTRIC AUTOS (Quote from Nikola Tesla December 29, 1904)

“ There is no doubt that a highly-successful machine can be produced on these lines. The field is inexhaustible, and this new type of automobile, introducing electricity between the prime mover and the wheels, has, in my opinion, a great future.”
by Nikola Tesla (ref: www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1904-12-29.htm)

I Have had the privilege to work directly with the Tesla team.
This is the highly advanced team which is bringing the Electric automobile to the world.
I look forward to the day when I purchase mine.
Thank You

charlie wrote on January 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

## As for the high power,

## AeroViroment already makes a 250 KW system, 53 KW in 5 minutes is 636 KW not a huge jump.
## As for the safety issue, these are manageable since we have managed to make it so all of us
## mundane idiots can fill our cars with very flammable and explosive gasoline every day.

Gasoline isn’t actually that flammable, it is the gas-state of gasoline that is explosive.

Problem with 53kWh or bigger future ESS, lets say 100kWh, charging in 5 minutes requires way worse transferring equipment than gasoline which is just a hose with valve at the other end. 100kW is 100000W and for five minutes you need to multiply that with 12 so you need to have 1200000W or 1.2MW connection. No matter which way you divide that to current and voltage, you end up having too big voltage or very thick and heavy wires. You would probably end up having several “tubes” for single charge. Or some mechanized charging robot.

Or you just could settle with 15 minute charge for 50kWh battery and have that 100kWh charge at 30 minutes. It is slow, but not too slow IMO. If you can go 200+ miles with 50kWh ESS it would almost never be empty before you reach charging station (assuming there is similar network of those than there is gasoline stations), so actual charging time would be less. And if you have driven 200+ miles straight then a fast coffee break would be in order anyway.

## It is actually easier since electricity that is not going where it should can be measured (like a GFI) does.

For that kind of powers a teeny weeny fraction of the current is enough to kill a human. It would need fuses that react in milliseconds and to very small variation in current to prevent death. I bet there is more variation in batteries themselves than there would be for accidental human getting toasted. Only way to make this safe is to not to allow human to touch any of the connective surfaces when wires are alive. And if you then still manage to touch connective surface while wires are alive you get a Darwin Award.

Daniel Ademu-John , I do not work for Tesla, but as a regular reader I have seen several people suggest that shifting gears is the root of the transmission problems. I have not seen anything that supports that assumption. On the contrary the details given out by Tesla describe the transmission as being similar to an automatic with no torque converter. It has two clutches one is engaged for first gear and the other for 2nd gear. There is a short time about 1/5 second when both clutches are disengaged during shifting and the motor is slowed down during this time so it is close to the required speed when the 2nd gear clutch is engaged. The described problems are mostly about bearings and high load stresses produced at maximum acceleration throughout 1st gear use.

Timo

So far the only problem you have presented is a mechanical one.

The high voltage and currents required for any fast charge station are way way beyond lethal levels in the case in an accident.
The voltages and currents for 192 KW are not going to kill you a whole lot slower than your 1.2 MW. (Either is way way above a 220V 30 A home circuit)

The fuses you speak of are much faster than milliseconds at these power levels, they are done electronically not mechanically.

The mechanical aspects also not that big a deal, the cable just happens to be heavy and can be overcome with a counterweight cable like alot of stations today.

Here are a few articles you might find interesting and to show alot of people are working on this so I do not think it will be a problem.
The bigger problem is an economical suitable fast charge battery pack.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_Dec_3/ai_53344463
www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20
www.acpropulsion.com/reports/Level_2_plus_EVS17.pdf
www.okonite.com/Product%5FCatalog/section3/sheet1.html#(2)

# kert wrote on January 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

## ::No matter which way you divide that to current and voltage, you end up having too big
## voltage or very thick and heavy wires.

## Inductive charging. No need for direct wire connection, just connect the magnetic path
## between the coils. It doesnt of course lessen the power requirements on the system,
## megawatt is a megawatt, but you could possibly go for quite high voltage with relatively
## little current, meaning not so bulky cables, and avoid the connector issues almost entirely
## ( designing secure cable connectors for quick release for kiloamps … *shudder* )

This is interesting idea. How would you do that in practice? What kind of equipment would that require? (size of the coil etc.) This could allow that 5min charging while still being safe and easy to use but my knowledge about this kind of equipment is close to zero so I can’t say anything about validity of it.

It could be nice to hear something about that from Tesla group. This fast charging will be future of the automobile, so this (safe transfer of huge energy) has to be one of the goals of the Tesla group too. Any thoughts?

Andrew:

from Feel: Battery Rumors Untrue

Loren Carpenter wrote on October 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I was fortunate to get a brief tour of the San Carlos plant a month or so ago. Toward the end of the tour Zak showed me one of the new transmissions on a workstand. It was smaller than I expected, especially as it includes the transaxle/differential. The very intricate castings told me that someone really good spent a lot of effort to design it for minimum weight. That was the transmission they recently installed in VP10 which some early customers have driven. Anyway, it’s clear that Tesla has to put a lot of miles on this transmission before they turn it loose on customers. If they run a car around the clock drive/charge/drive/charge, etc. I expect one car could rack up about 5000 miles a week. How many miles of testing would you be comfortable with?

As I understand it, they got the clutchless transmission to work; but it’s response time was, in the end, not acceptable. Oh, and 0-60 in second gear is under 6 seconds.

Loren Carpenter wrote on November 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
The transmission has 2 clutches that mechanically isolate the transmission during shifting. They are electro-hydraulically operated by the computer in response to the shift lever setting. When the car starts (powers up) you can hear the hydraulic system pressurizing pump whine a bit.
The new transmission shifts right quick. Way under a second. Zak told me that they are still refining the millisecond choreography of the process.

These comments from Loren seem to me to be accurate, straight from Tesla, and not speculation. The most detailed descriptions of the transmission problems I know of are in the Town Hall Meeting recording and there are several, all related to things becoming unglued under high loads. The fact that Tesla is allowing everyone to drive in 2nd gear suggests to me that the problem is in 1st gear, which makes a lot of sense when you think of the increased loads applied by first gear. I make reference to an automatic transmission because that is the way they work and most people can relate to that. The 1/5 second is just my guess at “way under a second”.

The observation made by Loren, that the transmission is very small, is I think the major point. Tesla wanted a small lightweight transmission and maybe they were a little too agressive and should have made it a little larger and stronger. However, Tesla remains confident that they do not have to make it larger, just make some parts stronger and provide better oil flow to some of the 17 bearings. I can’t remember just where I picked up on the 17 bearings, but it struck me as an awful lot for just 2 speeds. Three shafts, input, output, and transfer at 2 bearings each. Two clutches, one (possibly 2) bearing each… then I remembered that this was a transaxle with a built in differential and that part takes a bunch of bearings, so 17 is reasonable. Way back last spring there was a problem with spinning bearings in the transmission. At that time Tesla said that they were changing from a magnesium casing to an aluminum casing and they expected that to solve the problem. An engineer wrote in and stated that changing the casing would not solve the problem, and the best solution was glue. I think he even specified the glue to use. I haven’t heard any mention of spinning bearings since, just trouble with bearings.

I hope Tesla takes all this talk of transmission problems in the right light. Everyone is making suggestions (some way off mark) because they want to see Tesla succeed, and almost everyone is sympathetic to the problems of bringing a new product to the market. In my view Tesla has taken the most reasonable and low risk approach to the transmission design, and certainly don’t think a whole different approach is required. Tesla has done a fabulous job and I fully expect that these transmission problems will be solved by this summer.

# Roy wrote on January 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

## The fact that Tesla is allowing everyone to drive in 2nd gear suggests to me that the
## problem is in 1st gear, which makes a lot of sense when you think of the increased
## loads applied by first gear.

I don’t see how first gear creates greater loads than second gear. For both gears engine torque is the same and RPM is the same. If I don’t have any basic error in my logic only place where first gear makes greater load is to tires. They burn more easily

In fact if you think of it second gear should create greater strain to the transmission than first because there is more powers fighting back at high speeds.

Roy, thanks for that. I hope you’re right and they get it fixed soon.

I think the Tesla Roadster need a new kind of Transmision.

The Company Weismann have made Transmision for Formula F1 car and drag racer. They have a new Concept of transmision technic.
www.weismann.net

“Zeroshift technology is a seamless instantaneous means of changing gear ratios without interrupting the engine torque to the wheels.” And the Zeroshift transmision is cheap to produce.
www.zeroshift.com/transmissions.html

Anyone see the price / stats of Zap’s X electric SUV crossover? This is a vehicle for $60,000, has an electric motor in each / all 4 wheels, goes 155 mph and has a range of 350 miles on a charge. Most significantly, the vehicle was engineered by Lotus Engineering.

www.zapworld.com/files/zap-docs/zap-apx.pdf

www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-x

I just looked at the Zap-X brochure. It’s computer runs Windows. At 155 mph, this gives a new meaning to a “Blue Screen of Death”. No thanks.

Keith

Re: He’s baaaaack!!!!!

Here’s Martin’s link . . . just in case anyone is interested (heavy sarcasm and large grin as I don’t know how to put the smiley faces in)

www.teslafounders.com/

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

Keep Up the Great Work!!

# Peter J Hedge wrote on January 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

## (heavy sarcasm and large grin as I don’t know how to put the smiley faces in)

Basic smiley is just these symbols : - ) without spaces. If you don’t know those then you are probably younger than they are

Looks like Zap’s crossover vehicle has a fuel cell competitor from Cadillac:

www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=17125&url=

Do we have a date for the first delivery?

Hunter,

You are crazy to dismiss fuel cell vehicles. I suspect people will maintain their habits of “gassing up” at a fuel station, as opposed to plugging in at home.

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked before…

Has Tesla ever considered selling two versions of the Roadster? One would have a nice single gear transmission (perhaps the current temporary one) and the other would have the Transmission being developed and/or debugged. I realize that all sales prior to the announcement would have to be the two gear transmission or the owners and Tesla would have to agree to a change in price due to the change in specs (I’m no lawyer, but I assume that would be a potentially nasty can of worms to open).

The reason I ask is that the practice is very common among the other automakers. They sell the same car with two different engines and you can also select automatic or manual transmission. At most they change the letters on the car’s name plate to show you got the V8 instead of the V6. Couldn’t Tesla do the same? Is Tesla too small to cover the long term support costs for two different transmissions?

Please make sure to add the Tesla Roadster to the upcoming Gran Turismo 5.

This is very important, Gran Turismo is one of the most important games out there, and a great publicity opportunity for Tesla. Not to mention, it will introduce lots of potential buyers to the car.

–
I don’t think you should offer 2 versions of the Roadster. At least for now. Better bring some roadsters to market. We’re all waiting patiently for them..

Oh, it would also be great if you could make a new blog. Any news for the new year?

Happy 2008 for all of Tesla’s employees!!!

May it be a happy and successful one.

-M

P.s.: Love that your company has a sense of humor Replaced with “halibut” hehe

Jason, we had this discussion on the last blog topic and none of your arguments holds water at all. You live in some alternate universe where fuel cells are cheap to make, fuel cell vehicles are practical, and Hydrogen is clean and renewable. You think “greens” (by which you apparently mean just about everyone left of the Bushies) are making up global warming to reduce the influence of oil companies, which you seem to think are benevolent fighters for our personal liberties. You spew libertarian rhetoric about how “the capitalists” do everything worthwhile and government does nothing, you demand that the consumers be allowed to choose between fuel cells and other tech without us “greens” telling them what to do, and then you turn around and justify the government and oil/car companies manipulating the market with massive subsidies. Oh, and meanwhile you play the national security card by claiming we have to have Hydrogen for military applications, shipping, and aviation (ignoring or unfairly libeling other much more suitable fuels), applications for which Hydrogen is even worse suited than personal transportation. Finally, to top it all off you just make up whatever off-the-wall statistics you want and never ever ever cite anything resembling a source. You are grasping at straws. You sound like an oilman astroturfer doing whatever he can to keep people believing in the one “alternative fuel” technology that can’t possibly displace his hegemony. For heaven’s sake, give it a rest.

To everyone else here: I’m not kidding. Take a look at the discussion on Elon’s topic from last month and see if he doesn’t honestly try every one of these harebrained arguments. Seriously, claiming that global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy stopped being at all plausible years ago, and at the very least it doesn’t make any sense in the same breath as Hydrogen advocacy. Combine that with the fawning praise of the noble capitalists in the oil industry who have done everything for us, and I think you’ve got a shill here.

—-

Editor’s Request: How about a renewed effort to stay on topic? 

Jean Pierre
I would like to hope you were not burned in that (Bre-X) scam. I very much doubt that sort of thing is going on at Tesla Motors. Tesla represents not so much a pile of wealth as a pile of opportunity to steer our economy onto a wiser path. This opportunity is more in the nature of an immense pile of work to be done rather than a pile of gold to be reaped. Hopefully, profits will come sooner rather than later. Hopefully, production and revenue will mimic more of a technology enterprise than a mature, very mature car making model. The people doing this are now in a private company and all seem to be the types that would know what they are doing and what they are in for-a lot of risk, work and possibility. This is the kind of work we should all be interested in. It will be challenging and with a significant chance of failure , but for all that, a chance for one’s efforts to bear fruit through a meaningful, helpful and healthy outcome. Energy independance, environmental improvement, economic rationality, political common sense- all brought about through a reasonably open process of identifying and applying a rational model that will require, again, a lot of hard work. There is no guarantee of success for Tesla, but no kool-aid either. Healthy skepticism is appropriate. Please don’t be paranoid though.

—-

Editor’s Comment: Comment edited at CTF’s request. 

Regarding the transmission problems, which seem to be one of the main topics, is the actual problem more related to the High RPM of the first gear heating up and cracking/breaking internal parts more than the 0-60 torque stress issue breaking parts? It seems to me that everyone thinks the transmission breaks because it’s so powerful and has huge torque at 0 RPMS and normal ICE cars have less torque. Well to me that makes no since, because in a sports car you would rev the engine to a high RPM so you have all the torque you need and then you let our the clutch really fast to transfer that power to the transmission and then wheels. My logical thought would be that its thermal dynamics and parts that just get week over long term usage of a high RPM electric motor and not the raw sheer power. This means a single gear transmission would probably solve the issue because the gear ratio would allow for slower moving internal parts however it would not allow for as fast of acceleration. Tesla seems to be driven to prove they will be a true car company and wants to give the buyers the best, most efficient car for their money. Think about it like software. It has bugs, and once each bug is found, programmers will change the code to correct the problems. Same goes with this transmission, so please have faith and give them a little time for modifications and changes. It’s cheaper and faster to fix what they have now then to change out to another design.

Milomir, solar cells aren’t very well suited to on-vehicle applications because 1)there isn’t enough surface area, 2)part of the vehicle is always in shade, and 3) the angles are varied and not ideal. I don’t have the numbers on hand, but if you look around on the blogs here (and presumably elsewhere) you’ll find it well established that the surface area of a car, even if it collected 100% of the sun’s energy (which would mean it would produce 16x the energy of the cells you link) over its whole area, would take a long time (multiple days of full sun) to charge a battery pack of roadster size. It’s true that such cells could “top up” a pack, adding tiny bit of charge while you are at work or whatever, but the difference would be unpredictable (and at 6% efficiency, probably too small to even notice), so you wouldn’t rely on it for extra range. That leaves the only benefit that it would save power from the grid, and if that’s your goal it’s a lot cheaper/easier/more efficient to just attach them to your house.

That said, these new panels are a great development for fixed applications, and hopefully with futher improvements we’ll see these plastic panels drastically reduce the cost of solar power.

Please may we introduce ourselves? My name is Dr Ray Heath and I am the global business development manager for Zeroshift. We have designed and implemented many seamless transmissions to date. Our transmission technology is the most efficient in the world which is important for electric vehicles. We can shift seamlessly between gears with no torque interrupt. This gives not only comfortable safe shifts but also performance and fuel economy benefits. We are able to package into the smallest of spaces as confirmed by motorcycle transmissions we have developed. We are able to manage large quantities of torque as confirmed by truck transmissions we have developed.

We confirm that Zeroshift could design and implement a two speed transmission for Tesla Motors.

# Roy wrote on January 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

## Timo: One last try. The motor has a certain maximum torque. The maximum torque at the
## wheels is if function of the gear ratios between the motor and the wheels. Imagine a heavily
## loaded truck going up a grade. He needs to apply more torque on the wheels to continue up
## the grade. Does he shift to a higher or lower gear?

Lower. This is actually quite good example. Lets make this a bit further: With eMotor you go in same grade and with second gear you go standstill because eMotor can’t turn the wheels. Now entire torque load is between tires and eMotor. Then you shift to lower gear and can continue. What happened? eMotor doesn’t need to deliver full torque anymore to keep on going. If you still have accelerator in full power-position then engine still delivers full torque and torque load is still full in entire transmission, but it isn’t more than engine can deliver. It never is more than engine can deliver. It can’t be more than that.

Actually the question is is the weak point before the transmission or after the transmission. With second gear transmission tries to slow down engine with double power (snap point before the gears). With first gear transmission is trying to slow down engine with half the power, but behind the transmission shaft gets double power (snap point after the gears). In both cases engine delivers the same torque, and whole drivetrain has that combined strain.

Timo, I don’t know if this helps or not but it’s how I understand things from an ic engine and manual gearbox perspective. If you imagine a car with its back wheels set into concrete so they can’t move. Put that car into first gear and rev the engine to say 6,000 rpm and bang home the clutch. I’m pretty sure something will break in the drivetrain because you have a lot of leverage with first gear and you can do a lot of damage. Do the exact same procedure with an identical car but with the car in fifth gear. Probably nothing will break because the engine will just stop dead when you lift the clutch (unless it’s some massive V8 or V10 or something!) Presumably something similar would apply with the Tesla. You don’t have a clutch but the strain on the gearbox and drivetrain will be greater in first gear than in second gear won’t it? That’s why the car accelerates more quickly in first gear than in second gear, because you’re able to apply more of the torque through the drivetrain to the back wheels than you can in any other gear because of the lower gearing.

Timo, surely this is all about torque. A car will accelerate from rest faster in first gear than in second gear because the lower gearing enables you to apply more torque to the back wheels. If there is more torque at the back wheels there is also more torque acting on all the transmission parts in between the engine (or motor) and the back wheels. Where exactly that torque is likely to do damage depends on the particular design of the transmission but whichever way you slice it, accelerating from rest you are more likely to do damage in first gear than second, because of the extra torque being applied to most parts of the drivetrain. On the Tesla it all depends on where the damage is being done and what kind of damage it is. If it’s just wearing something out very quickly it may have more to do with the high revs of the motor than with the torque, so that might even be irrelevant.
You said: ##With second gear half of that power stops at gearbox. With first it gets thru.
If the power gets through the gearbox then all of the components in the gearbox (after the reduction takes place) are experiencing that power.

I don’t claim any expertise in this and I’m not an engineer. I’m just using my own simple logic to try and understand the situation. To be honest I’m kind of bored talking about it as neither of us actually has any real details of the problem Tesla are experiencing, and we can’t get those details, so it’s all rather theoretical and pointless, don’t you think?

Roy Penuela,
So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that TM real problem is the batteries and everything else is a cover up? This is the real reason for TM’s delay?

The WSJ article does not mention Tesla - which as Penuela says, is rather peculiar. Is Tesla having the same problems, or is Tesla above these problems?

online.wsj.com/article/SB120001331482082629.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

There is no question that stringing together 6,800 Lithium-Cobalt 18650 (LiCoO2) batteries together in an ESS pack with heating and cooling, given the safety record of LiCo (same batteries as in Laptops) is not an easy task. But how come Tesla has little to say about this?

Could it be that what Drori says “transmission is a primary source of our problem” simply means that the ESS is another source of problems, and the DOT bureaucracy may be related to that?

And how come nobody from Tesla has anything to say about Lithium-Phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries (A123, Valence, lots of chinese manufacturers, etc.). LiPhos batteries do not have a safety issue catching on fire, do not overheat, they operate at 80% capacity as cold as -20 celsius (and probably will quickly heat up to operating temperature). Nano LiPhos also charge in a matter of minutes - unlike LiCo which will require half a day of charging to fill up.

LiPhos batteries can be recharged 3,000 to 5,000 times, and A123 LiPhos batteries have tens of times more power than LiCo, making the whole transmission issue moot, as you can do away with the transmission altogether (actually in order to cut on noise and wear and tear, a 2 speed transmission WITH CLUTCH is still desirable - Any bean counter, paper pusher lawyer, literature/arts majors or other freeloaders who does not know how to enjoy a CLUTCH should be prohibited from owning a Tesla by law. Teslas are meant for Engineers and Scientists who enjoy the clutch and who are the real producers of wealth in society).

The only known issue with Nano-LiPhos is 1- cost may be higher for the nano version, but will certainly drop due to volume, and 2- energy density is about 55% of LiCo. But 95% of drives are less than 100 miles. So why not offer a 25 KWh LiPhos pack at the same weight as a LiCo. Especially that LiPhos can be fully recharged in 15 minutes (with high-amp circuits)?

On the other hand I read that GM Volt’s contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM. So there is a problem here. But then Tesla could use A123 32113 low-density batteries or their older 26650 batteries.

It would be nice to get a heads up on this issue. The WSJ article has raised the stakes and silence reduces confidence.

I don’t think Engineers, Scientists, and Entrepreneurs, who are the real producers of wealth in society, and who carry a brain on their shoulders, are interested in talking about fuzzy conceptual, reified, ephemeral, and overrationalized stuff such as “culture”.

The universe is not about us or our culture. Nobody out there gives a halibut about our predilections. If naval gazing is your cup of tea, then don’t drive a Tesla. We should get over ourselves and we should not take us humans so seriously. The universe is not about us - never was.

Culture is for the sissies and the whoosies who couldn’t understand Physics 101 and never had the privilege to see the beauty in Schroedinger’s wavefunction, and ended up in Cultural Studies as an easy ride into the mega-corp-monopole corporate hierarchy or government/NGO social jobs. We, on the other hand, like to talk about stuff that comes with equations and real costs and real benefits - not simply perceptual and unempirical “values”.

Just kidding - NOT

Its about the drive, the technology, the science behind it including the mechanics of motion. The tinkerer that you talk about will find a way to hack into Tesla’s microprocessors and enjoy real time software tuning, with one hand on the steering wheel and another hand on the wireless joystick. Tesla is not about carburetion or body flares or hood scoops - Tesla is about a state of a higher mind (oops, I meant “a higher state of mind”).

##Roy Penuela wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
##If TESLA’s batteries are special, why was that fact not reported in the article?

There seems to be some assumption here that journalists (financial journalists at that!) are perfect paragons of virtue who would never miss some detail out of an article through lack of research or lack of space or lack of understanding or lack of relevance or whatever. The answer to your question is that the guy knows much less about the subject than you think….he’s just a journalist. The batteries in the Tesla are not so special but the way they have incorporated them into the ESS is different and special and hopefully will prevent any major disasters even if a cell heats up and burns. The pack is designed to cope with this and has been tested and found to work. See the White Paper mentioned in my post above.

TM really really need to bring at least 5 cars early and GIVE it to the first five or so owners that have paid AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (with in weeks hopefully). This will be the only way to calm down the TM car owners. The idea of holding these cars for another 3 to 6 months (or even longer) due to transmission problems is just not going to fly anymore. I am a huge electric car fan for over 20 yrs before it was even cool but TM has to understand that this is a PR issue and have to get some cars out as fast as possible. The 100 + people who have already paid for this car understand that new cars comming out of the line will have bugs. Lastly, if you do not feed your fans they will get hungry. You get hungry you start to get upset!! … Food for thought

Well I guess iIasked for that EETIM. I respect engineering/mathematical types, perhaps even more for lacking many of the abilities they enjoy. I would argue though that the Universe IS about us. It is about how we can learn and understand and apply the phenomena of existence. This does get to a fuzzy and perhaps spiritual area and one of these is sales. The only reason any for-profit firm ever fails is lack of sales. One of the failures of the first feeble efforts in EV’s in this country was an extremely lackluster marketing effort. The mind set required to get a prospect to become a customer has an immense amount to do with culture and the easiest pool to sell these cars to will be your culture. These are cutting edge machines and will have an allure for engineer types and then down the continuum through your joystick manipulator to the bimbo that thinks it’s cute and wants to save the butterflies. These consumers, all these consumers create wealth.

Timo, just imagine if you really wanted to break the transmission on somebody’s car…..a cheating wife for example! Would you put the car in first gear and bang the clutch out really hard or would you put it in fifth gear? Depending on the strength of the car you might have to do this quite a few times before something breaks in first gear but with fifth gear you’ll just stall the engine every time.
Anyway, I’ll stop now as the editor will be stopping us soon anyway!

Ze’ev,

Encouraging words; thanks for the update.

Would you please care to comment on Martin Eberhard’s comments over at his blog? In his words, it sounds like since taking over you’ve fired nearly everyone critical to the success of the company. I hope this isn’t the case, but such strong accusations surely deserve a clear and decisive response?

Regards,
–Jered

thanks for the link Jered, i guess that answers my question. I hadn’t realized so much had changed at Tesla

Ze’ev,
Rumors have started up that the White Star project has been permantly suspended. This and many other questions have begun circulating. I hate rumors and I try not to fall victim to listening to them. But in a vacum of any information from an official source… well… it is difficult not to get depressed.
You mentioned an announcement regarding the White Star in 2008. Could I plead for that to be sooner rather than later;) Last fall I was ready to put down the full estimated purchase price of a White Star. Now doubts are creeping in. Please help squash those doubts;-)

At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Fisker Automotive of Irvine CA is making a big splash with its announcement of their forthcoming Fisker Karma Sport Sedan. They predict deliveries in the fourth quarter 2009.
At the same time there is not one word from Tesla Motors about the Whitestar, nor did Tesla even bother to show up in Detroit.
One begins to wonder whether the Whitestar isn’t really vaporware as has been suggested by some of the automotive media.
I agree with Mark: “Please help squash those doubts”.
Should we potential Whitestar purchasers start looking elsewhere for a high end environmentally friendly sport sedan?
Tod G. Collins, Orcas Island

Can we get an official response to this?

www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9849410-54.html

Thanks!

for the first time since i first heard of Tesla Motors, i have a bad feeling things are about to crumble….Might have to settle for whatever EV Honda or Nissan can come up with.

I agree with Max, do not copy the Volt. Bring us a simple, nice looking, affordable sedan which is capable of highway speeds and is SAFE. You’ll have even more success than with the Roadster.

www.news.com/A-tenfold-improvement-in-battery-life/2100-1041_3-6226196.html

This might help you for you next model (whitestar) or for mid model year update to the roadster 2010 model maybe?

Tod G. Collins wrote on January 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Fisker Automotive of Irvine CA is making a big splash with its announcement of their forthcoming Fisker Karma Sport Sedan. They predict deliveries in the fourth quarter 2009.
At the same time there is not one word from Tesla Motors about the Whitestar, nor did Tesla even bother to show up in Detroit.
One begins to wonder whether the Whitestar isn’t really vaporware as has been suggested by some of the automotive media.
I agree with Mark: “Please help squash those doubts”.
Should we potential Whitestar purchasers start looking elsewhere for a high end environmentally friendly sport sedan?
Tod G. Collins, Orcas Island

I too saw this and am intrigued. Whitestar competition. My mind has been sold on a Whitestar for quite some time now but i would seriously consider this even though it is not pure EV if it comes out first. I would note that they said SALES would begin in fourth 1/4 of 2009 not delivery. Hopefully you will give us something on the Whitestar soon Glad to see that things are progressing - even if it is slow - on the Roadster. Any delivery dates for them yet? Not counting #1 LOL and any dates on the unveiling of the looks of the Whitestar. These would be well sought after posts !!!! and big confidence builders

Uh oh. Was it a real bloodbath at Tesla? ( teslafounders.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/stealth-bloodbath/ ) Can they design, build and deliver WhiteStar? And then fully support it?

As a potential WhiteStar cutomer, I’d say “Prove it to me first.” I was going to wait for it, but now I’m not so sure.

When you get the vehicle in the showroom, then let us know. (It’s not like you’re giving us status updates on WhiteStar, or anything, so I won’t miss much.)

But don’t be surprised if I buy something else in the meantime.

Tim,
Where did you read that “GM Volt’s contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM”?

EETIM wrote on January 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
On the other hand I read that GM Volt’s contract with A123 prohibits A123 selling high density 32157 batteries to anybody but GM. So there is a problem here. But then Tesla could use A123 32113 low-density batteries or their older 26650 batteries.

##doug wrote on January 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Lotus in England ? … nothing happens fast in England, nothing. 5-8 weeks holidays…etc … and they’re the king’s of excuses… which i shouldn’t complain about since its the reason I got posted there years ago ..Good Luck…

Hey Doug, thanks for dropping by to insult the English. I lived in the States for a while and I’ve gotta tell you I didn’t notice a great difference in efficiency. With regard to the Tesla delays they’re related mainly to problems with the gearbox which wasn’t supplied or specified by Lotus as far as I know. Lotus are without doubt one of the most experienced sub contractors and consultants in the automotive game. There aren’t many large manufacturers who haven’t used them at some time or another, which I’m guessing is partly why Tesla chose them and it sort of implies that they’re not too inefficient.

##Pete wrote on January 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
First, kudos to TM for not censoring this blog! Second, giving the community some information on whitestar would be a great way to get some positive buzz. Any chance on a whitestar blog post?

Pete, don’t forget the previous Silicon Valley faux-pax that destroyed a company when they announced a product 4 months before it was ready: The Osborne computer (circa 1984) sold like hotcakes, then they announced a “new” model. Trouble was it wasn’t in prodution yet. So everyone stopped buying the old model and waited for the new. Then the cash flow dried up, so they couldn’t get the new model off the production line because there was no money to buy the tooling and hire the people to make it. Then the company totally died.

Oops.

Right now TM is in a world of hurt with the delayed deliveries of the Roadster with a single-speed tranny and the negative press circulating about the staff layoffs. I’ve gone from excited to a very skeptical “show me the goods” mentality. So no matter how much they talk about WhiteStar, if there’s no hardware to show me I’m not going to believe anything they tell me on a blog.

If they can deliver a sedan, great. If not, that’s OK too as I’m no longer going to plan on WhiteStar to be delivered anywhere close to on time in 2010, or even 2012. And as I only buy a new car every 10 to 12 years, I might miss out on the WhiteStar altogether if it slips much longer than that. Oh well. . . .

Yes… I have seen the Fisker it is cool . I think TM should just be lean and stick to the roadster and be good at it! Once they start to make a profit may be start expanding. Again TM stick to the roadster do not be like the GM’s EV1 and loose your market

The first double A NiMh batteries were rated at 1500 milliamps per hour. Now they’re nearly double that. Most likely, small lithium-ion batteries will soon have greater storage capacity. So, let’s get the Tesla Roadster on the road with that cooled battery assembly, as is. The vehicle can only get better. It’s the best in the world right now –it doesn’t use gasoline!!! The same should apply to all future Tesla autos.

Are we going to get a new blog post sometime soon? Even about test drives.. anything.

It’s been so quiet at Tesla lately…

I hope that you Tesla peeps are looking into this: tech.yahoo.com/news/nf/57832 . It looks like it has some serious potential for future vehicles if true.

I found this bit about the Volt

“”Among G.M.’s commitments to the union was a promise to build the Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid-electric car, in its Hamtramck, Mich., plant, beginning in 2010. G.M. has said production of the car could start a year later,”

They are not even starting the changeover until 2010. large scale won’t be until 2011.

I would guess that the demand for the Tesla coupe could be as high as 500,000 to 1,000,00 units in the first 4 years or so. Even after that point there is only one product that might be in the same class. Sales will be vary good for some time.

The race is if Tesla can make a profit and then get some major financing to make White Star and get to large scale production before GM has two or three volt type models out. With only one model That leaves many slots to be filled by a number of different designs, choose well and Tesla can sell all the cars it can make to at least 2015 or so.

GM does not have a price advantage in all areas of production. They have huge finance cost and a giant health care and union labor cost. They may get that fender for $80.00 but before they get it on the car they got $400.00 in it.

Sales of big SUV’s will be no better in two years and GM will have huge wright downs if they have to close plants, which they will.

The volt will be popular , I’m sure GM would like to under cut the White Star and try to kill Tesla before they can get to large scale but they will need money really bad by then.

I would guess in a down market the smaller , cheaper GM cars will be the big sellers for GM but they don’t make any money with them.

So they will have raise their price of the Volt. They say $30,000 now but I bet you will have to pay $40,000 for the first few years, leaving lots of room for a Tesla to enter the market.

So the White Star need to be around $40k or less to be competitive.

Jim Bullis, the negative tone of your comment is not going to win you a lot of friends.

Tesla had a white paper explaining exactly how they calculated their number, but it is not available now and that webpage says it’s being revised. It included the enitire end-to-end path of both electricity and gasoline. While ranting about how electricty is generated, keep in mind that gasoline does not just spring up magically from the ground, fully refined, right at the gas station. There is a great deal of energy required to extract, refine, and transport oil. You may also want to consider the $10 million per hour that the US spends in Iraq on a war that, according to Alan Greenspan, is “largely about oil”.

I disagree completely with your assertion about non-fossil fuel generated electricty, “there is not much chance of electricity from these sources getting into the car batteries”.

More people are installing solar and wind power everyday, and in my state, a significant portion of the electricty is generated by nuclear power, which does not produce CO2. A local utility has started the process of adding the first new nuclear power plant in the US in decades.

I personally intend to power my Tesla Roadster with solar power, as do many other buyers. That’s what makes electric autos so much better, There are many ways to generate electrical power, there are very few ways to create gasoline.

This argument, that electricity is inherently “dirty” and therefore should not be used, has come up over and over and over..
Please read this fine report produced by the Argonne National Laboratory and GM: www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/339.pdf

Jim, count me as one of the people that will be charging my Tesla with solar power.
True, not everyone will. But your comments are undeserved, Tesla has done a wonderful job showing every step of the calculations.
As I recall, the equivalent gas mileage is a required number from the EPA.
The white paper should be back soon:)

I am desappointed that we can not find any articles concerning the Tesla manufacturing on the Lotus website? I am hoping that they will repair this strategic error.

Giorgis,
The concern with gearbox efficiency that they mentioned at the Town Hall meeting pertained to industrial electrical gearboxes as are found in factory machinery. These are designed for electric motor loads but not efficiency. Automobile gearboxes and transmissions are efficient but can’t handle the electric motor environment.

# k2 wrote on January 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#
# Max, haven’t you heard, the writers are on strike….

Thanks.. That was a great comment.. Really cheered me up.

The blogs are slowing down big time. Whats happing at Tesla?? Bad or good, we just want to know. We love this company!

Yes, why not more partnering? Get that ESS out there for the conversion community, my 911 waits - it has a strong transmission

Thanks for the responses.

Charlie,
I agree that the well to wheel calculation page is well done. Although a little hard to follow, it seems to be an authentic accounting. So take their optimistic, but honest, 51% efficiency as a realistic basis, and note that this mostly is due to the average thermal efficiency of the power plant generating process, then the claim of 135 mpg equivalent should be about 70 mpg equivalent. Still good. I would accept this as an honest claim.
Thomas J,
Sorry about the negative tone, but I am not one to cheer when it seems that serious problems are coming our way as a nation. I admit that when I get involved in something like this, the outcome does not include a lot of friends.
As to the electricity that gets into an electric car battery: My thinking is that we should look at the result of adding many electric cars to the existing electric load and how the additional power needed would be generated. Coal fired plants produce electricity at 2-3 cents per kwhr. There is a lot of coal and a lot of generating equipment in place and more coming. Hydro, geo, solar, nuclear, and wind power are fully used now. Natural gas fired plants are getting more efficient than coal, but natural gas is not so plentiful in this country, though getting it here by shipping as LNG is helping. But it can be expected to go up in price to align more closely with oil prices, such that the cost of thermal equivalent amounts is about the same. As it is, electricity from natural gas costs about 10 cents per kwhr. I believe these costs are without including amortization of equipment. We in California have laws in place that block construction of new coal plants and contracting for electricity from out of state coal plants. Given these realities, I think it is reasonable to expect that the cost of electricity here to be ultimately dependent on the spot market for electricity. This is not a contract arrangement and electricity is not earmarked. So one of these summers coming soon, the demand for electricity will be high and natural gas prices will be increasing, so the electricity traders will make a lot of money selling us electric energy from their cheap sources, namely coal. They can claim it comes from something else, but the reality will be that more coal will be stoked into furnaces somewhere. We will have a big crisis without brownouts and such, and then we will change the laws. The crisis will not soon end because it will take a while to get the coal plants in operation.
My tone gets really negative about government bungling, though it is well intentioned.
I am old enough to remember the crisis of the 70’s where big subsidies created phony corporations to places such as Altamont Pass with wind generators. I have driven through there many times; rarely are these turning in significant numbers. Maybe it is different at hours when I am not there. But get a grip; what does this suggest about average output versus peak output. Oops, there goes negative tone. We all paid for these through subsidies, both PGE rebates and tax breaks.
Mark,
I am all for solar when it gets in a price range that it justifies like a capital investment in a business. If we are talking about the relative merit of systems, we should not include rebates and tax breaks that we all pay for. We should also remember that when everybody installs $60,000 solar systems, we will all be paying for each others rebates and tax breaks.
However, if power delivered to the Tesla comes from your own installation, it would only cost your amortization and maintenance costs.
As far as the EPA goes, I will have to go after them if they are talking about MPG equivalent for electric cars. This nonsense has to stop. The G stands for gallon which has to suggest some kind of fuel to be burned. Burned fuel has to go through a heat engine if it is to become energy in the electric form. This results, not in a little advertising exaggeration, but an extreme lie of large magnitude. It is comparable with telling a home buyer they will only have to pay half the mortgage on their house. Well, I guess maybe that is the national standard of behaviour. Oops, there I go negative again.

Actually I think a little sarcasm is a help in not getting too depressed.

Best regards, Jim Bullis

Wow! Am I relieved; just read where TMC is still up and running and has the solution to the xmission problem…eliminate it and mod the drive-line with liquid cooling…based on knowledge learned from the Whitestar project.

@Jim Bullis and all others:
I believe the energy future of our earth lies with direct solar cell and solar thermal power plants, with the energy stored using batteries, flywheels, chemical heat, etc. The other forms of power generation found today are but interim experiments helping to discover technical answers to these solutions.

Additionally, our future in personal ground transportation lies in Battery Electric Vehicles. Fossil fuels, emission controls and the internal combustion engine are nothing more than health risk experiments along the way. Albeit, a set of long 100 plus years of experiments that continue today to hasten people to their graves.

The energy from the Sun hitting our planet every day is too great a natural resource to continue to be ignored. Of course the question is how long will it take to overcome the self-interest and politics of the many stake-holders to get on with the implementations? See: www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedFiles/articles/issues/2007-12-01/RenewableEnergy.pdf

***Hey, guys! Am I the only one who’s a little let down that there hasn’t been a new blog thread in a month?***

Raymond,

read TM press release on home page regarding this issue…

www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=803

Jim Bullis, regarding your response to Charlie, it looks like you’re forgetting that there’s a well-to-pump component to ICE cars as well. The 135mpg number (which apparently Motor Trend is giving as 105mpg, which may be the result of the new testing) is not a well-to-wheels number, but rather a gas-equivalence number which is designed for comparison to the sticker mpg of ICE cars. When you read that a gas vehicle gets 30mpg, that’s a pump-to-wheels number. So it makes sense to give the charger-to-wheels number for the Tesla for an apples-apples comparison. We could go the other way and start requiring the ICE manufacturers to quote well-to-wheels instead, which would drop everyone’s numbers by a lot; but that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

It should be noted that well-to-wheels is clearly the better comparison by virtue of being more inclusive. Which is why the page you are talking about exists. But when you want to describe to a lay person how efficient the vehicle is, the only realistic option you have is using the same type of metric as the rest of the industry. And that metric is pump-to-wheels gas mileage, which for the Roadster appears to be either 105 or 135 mpg.

This is the Motor Trend link at youtube. Very very nice!
video.google.com/videosearch?q=tesla+car&num=10&hl=en&so=1&start=0

In the Motor Trend piece, which I otherwise enjoyed, I thought the writer wasted a lot of space talking about the Tesla/Edison rivalry, and wondering aloud why the car was named “Tesla” and not “Tom” or “Edison,” given that it runs on batteries. If he had asked this question of Tesla people, they would have told him that the motor in the car — the heart that makes it RUN — was the descendant of a Tesla design, and that the battery’s Edisonian DC must be converted to Tesla’s favorite AC in order for that motor to work. I think I just explained the matter in far fewer words than the writer took to express (but not resolve) the “mystery.” So did the writer just fail to find the answer? Or fail to talk about it because the Tesla/Edison thing seemed more of a hook (and a way to tie up the story at the end)?

Regardless, it is good to see the mainstream automotive press validating the reality of the Roadster and heaping compliments upon the car. To all the current and former Teslans, whose inspiration and perspiration (to borrow from Edison) made the Motor Trend article possible, thank you very much.

Wow!!

I am impressed. You are forgiven for the silence (well almost ) Glad that there is more action than talk now.
I was worried for quite a while that Tesla imploded (that was the word in my management course at my University. Letting go of key figures is usually not a good sign. Maybe we were all wrong?

Could I ask for a favor: While I’m saddened that we don’t get blog updates as often as we used to, I would still like to get information about Tesla. Could you please link all Press releases, Newspaper articles, Car Magazine reviews, etc. from your website? It’s very hard to keep track of all the information about Tesla when it is all over the place. An updated “link list” would help immensely.

Can’t wait to read about all the new information. Hopefully the new transmission will survive the occasional track day (Laguna Seca, Thunder hill, etc.)

Please also add the roadster to the upcoming Gran Turismo 5, every major/important car maker is included in that game/simulator. (other simulators such as www.rfactor.net, Richard Burns, racer, etc. would be great too…) It helps create publicity, as well as allow people to “test” the car before they consider a purchase.

Richard

I thought that was odd as well seeing the break lights light up a bit as it took off. Is that a design feature or a software issue that was being worked on still at the time?

Editor, would it be too much to ask for a comment on the above? It doesn’t seem like there’s any real reason to be secretive about this is there? If it’s a problem you’ve already fixed, great. If it hasn’t been fixed yet but you’re working on it, that’s fine too. Is there any reason you couldn’t at least acknowledge the query and say you’ll get back to us. We’re all Tesla enthusiasts here, hoping for a successful launch.

Editor’s Note: It has nothing to do with secrecy, just bandwidth. We can’t respond to every inquiry right away. I think it was just a bug. I shot those videos and noticed the flashing. I assure you the flashing serves no real purpose and was likely a bug. I can’t imagine it is related to TC because the lights flash even in the videos with TC off.

Thank you so much for replying. If this is a bug, has it been corrected yet and how are the break lights really susposed to work? Also, if tiny software bugs like appear after customers have position of their cars, how will the software patches be applied to the car?

base price: $98,000!!! halibut!? and they’re already touting the bright future of this one … who the eff is gonna buy one? I’d rather wait for an aptera!

Hi everybody,
in short - after highly appreciating your great results with this amazing Pure electric Car - I’ve an idea to achieve a the following progress as extra to yours :
1. Your Battery Compartment become less heavy and much cheaper
2. the car will go for very long trips, and may not need any recharge from Home’s Outlets for weeks, or may be for months
3. It will require some modifications in it’s Body ( this may need the cooperation with the car Manufacturers to do the needful )

Ofcourse, My new idea to do this, is something will be added to your car … If you are really interested, You may contact me ASAP >>> as you know it’s considered a top secret …. Pls accept My Best Wishes

Another Organic Solar Energy technique U may find on the following Link :
www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1766936.html?page=6

As regards Solar Energy … U may try the following link … it’s amazing, I hope U enjoy :
www.gizmag.com/researchers-developing-solar-technology-that-works-at-night/8574/

So much bad publicity! Hope you guys turn things around and make Tesla a success it should have been. For now - I love the roadster - hate the company - so, don’t screw it up!

this car is very expensive

- this car is very expensive -

Reply]
Yes, because it is a Super car, and is priced in the same bracket as every other Super car. You don’t see Ferrari’s being sold for 13,500.00 do you? No, they are $100,000.00+

When Tesla perfects everything and decides to make everyday cars too, THEN they will have cars selling for 13,500.00 in addition to the model they have now.

In the mean time, I want to see applications of the new Spray on Solar technology to produce a Tesla powered by it’s own paint.

My thought is that if you painted the entire car with the Spray on Solar collector, then I could drive a Tesla to work, park it outside and it will be fully recharged by the time I am done working. In addition, since this new Solar technology can produce electricity from the infrared spectrum, it can charge at nite too. Even if it’s only available in a dark color like today’s solar panels, spray the Tesla with it, Urethane clear over it and I’m buying.

This idea could produce a Tesla with an unlimited driving range. One could drive the batteries dead, recline the seat, nap for a few hours and upon waking, have enough power to go a few more miles to find a motel or some place to camp for the nite while the Vehicle fully recharges itself.

I know portable solar collectors the size of the hood alone can produce 55w today with standard technology. Based on that, I am betting that the entire painted surface area of the Tesla is enough to make a Solar collector big enough to charge it at an acceptable rate, especially with the improved technology.

Think about how cool it would be to have a car that is ALL electric with No need to plug in at nite, or use the grid in any way. No need for Coal produced electricity to draw on and harm the environment, and NO cost to power after the purchase price of the vehicle itself. Hybreds will go the way of the Dinosaurs before they even get started

It amasses me how so many of you read a tech article that says someone has done something in the lab and you immediately turn that into a “paint the car with nanopaint” or “build the battery pack out of nanowires”, as if this stuff goes from the lab to production as soon as the article is written. If we waited for all the new technology, most of which will probably fail or be replaced by something better before it can be produced, we’d never build anything. Let’s build this roadster and get it out there with the technology we have now and that in itself will spur all those lab ideas into the next iterations that lead to improvements for future generation of the cars. Elon said in this latest town hall meeting that those buying this roadster are not just getting a great car, but are advancing the interest and ideas that will drive this technology to bigger and better heights. So, patients gang, love what we’ve got and hope this drives us to a better future.

Couldn’t there be some way to partition this blog into “engineering”, “EV concepts”, “Problems and Solutions”, etc… It has a lot of very interesting information, but it’s almost impossible to read due to the subjects jumping all over the place … Also, comments from Tesla staff should be highlighted…

Thanks!

I think the limited range is a big issue. However, an on-board diesel generator may damage the clean image of the electric car. Besides, a “series hybrid” may not be as efficient as Toyota’s hybrid design.

1. It is still a good trade off to add an on-board generator, but make sure a clean and quiet one is chosen for the job.
2. It is important that the generator can be run anytime especially when you stop for the night on a long trip. i.e. the generator needs to keep on running after you pull the key and lock the doors.

How about a Tesla Motors and other Aleternaive cars racing from say California to maine? To show the benifits of Eletric Vehicles over other alterve powered vehicles?

Humm… 98000$ = +- 67000€, It competes with a BMW 3 series. For example, here in Portugal a 335d w/options sells for 84000€.
When does Tesla come to Europe? I have already sold my bimmer and I’m looking for a new ride!!!

I guess I don’t understand all the worry about fast charging. Most power companies charge a demand charge (aka FINE) for any draw above 10,000 watts ( 42.5 amps @ 240) . So, I wonder if its possible to ‘tone down’ the home charger to a 30 amp draw instead of the supposed 70 amp draw, and tolerate a 9 hour recharge time. I would like to hear some specs regarding battery charger efficiency ( I assume 95%), battery charge-discharge efficiency ( I’m assuming 99.5 % , even though that seems unreasonably high), but on a new product, it would be nice if there were some detailed specs on your web sight. There’s obviously interest here, since question from the audience dwelled on this. I worry that the reason a spec sheet isn’t developed is that they haven’t really thought about it. The tesla spokesman who said (40 amp 240 volt dryer plug is woefully uninformed. 40 amp is a RANGE / STOVE / WELDER OUTLET PLUG). A dryer outlet could only produce 6000 watts. The fact that the designers are not aware of this possibly is due to their European Breeding, but, to an intelligent audience, it sounds like a math PhD saying that 2 + 2 = 5.
Adding to the confusion is they initially called it a ‘charging station’, and now they call it an ‘extension cord’. So you guys are to blame for the confusion. We need some more detailed specs guys. So, if you haven’t done it already, firm up the specs to the point where you can produce a spec sheet.

I couldn’t agree more with what Byron Lovelace says above. I, of course, love the roadster and want one (I mean, who wouldn’t?) - but I also have a wife and three young kids ages 4 and under. If Tesla even built a sedan that fit more people - I’d immediately run out and buy one. A minivan (or equivalent) would be the grail. I love all the technology about this company - except the price and the limited options of vehicle at the moment. Tesla - if you build a sedan or Minivan type vehicle and price it between 30 - 45 k; you will have more business than what you ever dreamed of! The big auto makers would be spinning like a top!

I was wondering if your engineering department has considered a CVT transmission. This type of transmission would be a little larger and heavier than a 2-speed gearbox but would likely solve a lot of your self-destructive problems and quite possibly help the cars performance and efficiency while reducing strain and shock to the rest of the drive train.

Hunter and Timo: Hi.

Well, I have to admit you guys solved the power company demand pricing issue: carry around your own 3000 horsepower diesel and park it near freeway entrances! I think Diesel price will settle at $28 per 100 kwh, so if it takes 75 kwh to charge up a tesla (Per Simpson), thats $21. Not bad. Now we need a not-for-profit foundation to buy, run, and maintain the diesel.

Just a few issues to throw a monkey wrench in: is the 667 Kw going to be 800 amps @ 480 volts 3 phase? HOW HEAVY is the required rectifier/controller in the car going to be, and are we going to be required to tow around a unit the size of a refrigerator when we do the 0-60 test in 4 seconds?

dear: Ze’ev Drori
i herd in the future that you would like to open a plant well michigan econmy is herting this state has lost som factorys but im not a fatory worker but you could open a car plant here we have a huge car photography in this state. you could also give jobs to unemployed here we have a crisis in this state and our govener is doing nothing this state could be part of your manufacturing of frames among other things. i do not want credit fo any of this you have a growing company and we have a state in troble could you help the unemployed here. im not anyone promnet but i care about this state with its awsome lakes. we need jobs here. and you need a plant, micigan may be a good fit
sincerly,

Neil E. Wilson III

Regarding the limited range of your great looking car, let me start with I’M NOT AN ENGINEER!!! However, I would like to suggest using multiple high output alternators to charge the batteries while driving. Perhaps using as many as 3 or more alternators. The alternators can get thei power from the drive axle. Make an axle with a spline. Attach a matching gear from the axle to the alternators. I know that the magnetic field created by the rotation of an alternator has some resistance and takes power from the batteries but I don’t think that it uses more than it makes. I know that this idea needs a lot of work but I think that this idea will work and add many miles to your cars range. I hope that you can use this idea and that you would like to park a new roadster in my driveway as a way of saying thanks for such a great idea. -  James