Your comments are right on the mark. Also, think of all the dirty ol’ fossil fuel cars that will be put on the road as CARB debates the issue. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

ps: When will you have a public display in Chi-town? There are many interested Tesla fans in the middle of the county.

-Jon

Great speech, and I hope your sarcasm wasn’t lost on the stuffy crowd you were speaking to. Battery technology is good enough to power electric cars today, and it’s in a state of constant year-over-year improvement with both incremental advances to each battery chemistry and the development of new chemistries / storage mechanisms altogether. By the time hydrogen cars are generally available and a nationwide fueling infrastructure is deployed to support them, battery technology will have advanced by leaps and bounds.

By the way, as I recall, I made the first sarcastic Mister Fusion joke on the Tesla blog last month…

Sorry I “just” had to comment on this excellent blog. Nice job Martin! Your speech was right on. It captured alot of what I’d of said if ever given the opportunity. Your company deserves great success. Im in constant shock at how you continue on with such heart. I believe so much in what is going on at Tesla Motors. Now I just wish there was some way to help. YOU are my hero Mr. Eberhard! Go Martin!

Nice one!

At the same time, Martin, I would like to know what your company’s position is (or failing that, your personal position) regarding urban sprawl / urbanism.

Electric roadsters are a great attention-getter, but I worry that they feed an unsustainable fantasy, namely that we can keep the “easy motoring utopia” — 30-mile commutes, shopping malls, Wal-Mart, the interstate highway system — going as easily as flicking a switch.

I know that you know that we can’t just ’substitute’ Li-Ion batteries for internal combustion engines as if they were interrchangeable; you’ve said so yourself. But in a sense, the publicity you get from the Roadster may be feeding a public sense that we don’t have to worry about climate change or Peak Oil, because “new technology will fix everything.” In a sense it puts the public to sleep and doesn’t provoke them to think about important things to do now, such as try to live sustainably, locally, in a low-energy, low-carbon economy. I.e. picking conservation over more consumption.

I’m not saying don’t continue your great work, but I’d love to see the president of a car company come out and say, “Hey, on top of it, maybe if our cities were designed properly we wouldn’t need to drive so much, anyway.” It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it would get even more people thinking about how we use vehicles, and why. Good urbanism will just make building the future renewable-electricity grid much easier, because it lowers the demand side of the energy equation.

I would love to see your company branch out into providing power systems for public transit - buses for instance, or even streetcars and light rail that can run independently of ‘third rail’ power, between cities let’s say. And city maintenance vehicles, emergency vehicles and farm equipment, because we need to be able to transition those off fossil fuels more urgently than we’ll need to be zipping down the Autobahn.

looking forward to your thoughts –

AJ Kandy
Creative Director, King Marketing & Advertising,
Toronto | Montreal

# Richard C wrote on May 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
## By the way, as I recall, I made the first sarcastic Mister Fusion joke on the Tesla blog last month…

Well, the dream of such a thing has been toyed with on the blog many times…

www.teslamotors.com/blog5/index.php?p=37
# TEG wrote on November 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
## I bet if a “Back to the Future” style Mr. Fusion style device were to be invented it could find its’ way onto a Tesla!

www.teslamotors.com/blog3/index.php?p=53
# Robert Horning wrote on March 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am
## … something like the “Mr. Fusion” reactor on the movie “Back to the Future II”.

Perhaps more wishful thinking than sarcasm, but some humor was implied just by mentioning it…

I bet Martin was the first to mention it at a CARB hearing!

Maybe ‘ol Doc Brown could be resurrected as a Tesla spokesperson… (After he is done with his DirecTV gig)

Ha! The funny part is that the big auto makers are depending on Government hand-outs to deliver a ZEV, but your little start-up is doing it without.

Oh, and I’m not sure I would call fuel cell technology zero-emissions (although I know that’s how they’re classified) because they do trap oxygen in water vapor – which lowers the breathable oxygen levels where they are concentrated and actually contributes to the green house effect.

My question is, between blogging and testifying to the state and federal government, when do you get to run the company?

Martin,

how does one say this with requisite respect and admiration? You are a very bad boy.

Fun aside, what an interesting tight rope - finding your competition is critical if the EV is going to take off - it is going to take at least 2 viable EV brands/manufacturers to develop a market category - but it just would not be fun if one of the automotive elephants filled that competitive void at this stage.

TEG sounds like a smart move both in terms of category fellowship and investment bet. [switching to Guiness commercial voice] Brilliant!

Wishing continued success

EP

I hate to be - yet again - the Altair troll - but from what I read, Altair and Phoenix had a significant presence at the meeting, complete with independent verification of their battery technology’s advantages and compromises (fast recharge, safety and durability, in return for 70% lower energy density): evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1258

“Sarcasm aside, wouldn’t it be nice for our environment if we had a few competitors?”

Seems like you DO have competition, in all honesty. But given how forceful - and unified of purpose- the BEV industry’s testimony was, I can’t help observe that you’re all in it together.

What you said about the testimony of the big car companies sounds like they recommend only what is good for their current business climate, and are therefore not credible. This is what others might think of your testimony also.

In my opinion, you should stress the different direction you are coming from.

“You may think I say I believe battery electric cars are the best solution because I own / run an battery electric car company, when the opposite is true:
I started a battery electric car company because I believe battery electric cars are the best solution.”

:-D

What a wonderful testimony. I think your sarcasm made better point than any other way could ahve done. Especially effective was the fact that you have _already sold_ 400 and will produce easily over 1000 next year.

But, as AES said, you will have competition. Technologigal point of view you already have. I REALLY would like to see some confirmation that your TEG-team is examining possibility to use Altairnano (or similar less dangerous fast charging battery tech) battery system in your ESS. Even the announcement that you are doing that would ease my mind, even that would not be moving to use it yet because, for example, it is too expensive and/or too weak for energy density.

—-

Editor’s Answer: Take a look at this blog article.

An article in todays Wall Street Journal shows the unintended consequenses of government and the green movement, Gone Green Wild in Vegas. It shows why governments fear change.

Hehehe…
I love this company. The culture is right on target. Vive la revolution!!

Response to the editor’s posting of the battery blog article: that article only addressed one alternate lithium tech, which was A123’s, and not altair’s. The others - ultracaps, Zebras etc - martin’s comments on those are spot on.

Even if the energy density of the alternate lithiums isn’t up to snuff with what Tesla wants for it’s particular products, the point is that the technology is real and addresses key hurdles - recharge time, thermal runaway - that get in the way of people buying even into the IDEA of an electric car. So my advice is - YES, be skeptical and ask the hard questions, but that shouldn’t prevent you from being bullish about battery development, which NEEDS to happen. Maybe even buy stock in the more legitimate battery developers - because they are the ones in the driver’s seat when it comes to technological progress, not the car makers. We can’t be using 18650 cells forever…

—-

Editor’s Answer: The last paragraph in that blog article says it all: “Our strategy here at Tesla Motors is to use the very best technology that is actually available. We innovate where we can and where it matters, but we avoid frivolous innovation and getting mired in unsolvable problems. I think we’ve done a pretty good job with the Tesla Roadster. We will continue to evaluate new technologies, innovate where sensible, and make the best choices for every future Tesla Motors model.”

Can I just say that I LOVE how frankly and clearly you and other members of the tesla voice present information.

I just pulled this off of an interview with Elon Musk:

“Historically, battery performance has improved by about eight per cent per year. I think it’s reasonable to extrapolate that sort of improvement for some more years to come, driven primarily by the laptop and cell phone industry.”

While Elon’s great for slamming fuel cells and advocating batteries, I’m disappointed that he’s letting another industry take the driver’s seat, and control the EV future. Call me under-skeptical or naive, but I’m just worried that Tesla isn’t being proactive enough. Especially considering that the more “mature” 18650’s being released by the laptop industry are favoring stability over capacity. With the Roadster already looking like a smashing success, will Tesla invest in more than just car factories to secure a promising future? That’s a question I have yet to see answered to my satisfaction.

BTW - the interview I pulled that quote from has a GREAT image of the roadster in its gallery:

www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2007/05/stories/11/3.html

Thank you, editor. I don’t know how I missed that point.

And after I read Altarinano testimony I fear that their fantastic technology is nowhere near ready for cars. Price is too high and their ability to produce is way too low. But maybe in future…

BTW.

There is another tech which isn’t quite as good as lithium-ion, but much much cheaper. At least if what they are saying is true. Carbon foam lead acid batteries by firefly. www.fireflyenergy.com/

How about making a much cheaper low-end short range city car model using that, and high-end models using more expensive but potent lithium-ion? Low-end doesn’t mean that it should look like a dork toy. Think Smart ForTwo. It’s small and funny, but not dork.

Or is that just another vapourware?

I echo other blogger’s comments. Spot on!, Martin.
Those of us that enthusiastically follow Tesla’s adventures are grateful for your candor, wit, intelligence, and passion. Those of us that eagerly await launch of the Whitestar are ever more anxious as you define your company’s objectives and progress.
As to the matter of batteries, I trust you and your engineers to make the correct decision on what is the right ESS design for the product you are selling, which after all, is a FPBEV. Or in the case of Th!nk, is someone elses BEV.
i trust that you bear in mind that if I buy a Whitestar in 2009/2010 with the ESS then available, I will be able in, say, 5 years come back to you for a replacement ESS of then advanced design (increased energy density, reduced weight, improved charge rate).
That is to say, key component replaceability with technical improvements, should be a consideration in your design philosophy.
Good luck!
Tod Collins, Orcas Island

It’s refreshing to hear someone cut through the usual **halibut** being passed around such hearings. It would be interesting to begin to talk about these technologies in terms of “Technology Readiness Levels” (TRLs), a technology categorization that NASA and others use. While your ZEV is probably TRL 9, fuel cells are most likely down around TRL 3 or 4…Such vocabulary quickly separates the sheep from the goats:

System Test, Launch & Operations TRL 8-9
Systems/Subsystem Development TRL 6-8
Technology Demonstration TRL 5-6
Technology Development TRL 3-5
Research to Prove Feasibility TRL 2-3
Basic Technology Research TRL 1-2

I have done a blog search and I was unable to find any previous post on the Electrum Spyder so I thought I create one but I swear I have seen a link to the spyder video on the Tesla site before.

I was leafing the 30th May 2007 edition of UK Auto Express and read a piece on the Electrum Spyder made by US Universal Electric Vehicle. Unfortunately you can only see the front cover on the following link www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208892/this_weeks_auto_express.html .

The quick specs are:

0 - 60mph 7 seconds
Range 70 to 150 miles
nickel zinc batteries
price $69995.00

Full details here www.universalelectricvehicle.com/spyder.html.

Apart from the performance difference I don’t really think the vehicle poses any serious competition to Tesla as they make no mention of DOT crash testing and it seems to be just another kit car level project. Comments?

After reading Mr. Eberhard’s testimony I was reminded of the movie about the Tucker Automobile. Be careful about pissing off the Big Auto Companies. I would hate to see you be the 21st century version of the Tucker.

I have a couple of questions:

1. How will the battery life be effected if the car is used on long commutes (70+ miles each way?). Will this deep cycle the battery and cause premature aging? Or will the battery be ‘protected’ with a 30-70% cycle?

2. The Lotus Elise is ~800kg, with the extra weight of the batteries more rearwards how will this effect the on the limit handling of the Tesla. The car needs to compare to the lotus and the 911 on the curves as well as the straight line speed. Maybe not in America but it will in Europe…

If the Tesla battery / motor can be retro fitted to older cars I have two worthy cars… Either my Porsche 914 or my Honda Insight… or both

Keep up the good work…

John

# Mark Tebbutt wrote on May 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
## I have done a blog search and I was unable to find any previous post on the Electrum Spyder
## so I thought I create one but I swear I have seen a link to the spyder video on the Tesla site before.

www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=38
# Pete A. wrote on November 28th, 2006 at 9:46 am
## Here is another sporty EV that I hadn’t heard about, its the Electrum Spyder from U.E.V. (www.universalelectricvehicle.com).

If Phoenix is selling their CARB credits as part of their business model and Tesla is making a profit before the credits, then what happens to those credits?
Does Tesla sell them to pay for the next car ,or company venture, or do they just add the cash to their bottom line? How about not selling them to force the buyers (big automakers) to comply with making fuel-efficient non-polluting vehicles sooner. That would make the world better (sooner).

AES wrote:

“While Elon’s great for slamming fuel cells and advocating batteries, I’m disappointed that he’s letting another industry take the driver’s seat, and control the EV future. ”

If Tesla sells as many cars as they are projecting then very soon they will be buying more batteries per year than even Dell. That should give them some clout.

Martin, I just finished watching Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Canada Am, here in Ontario Canada on one of his trade missions. He mentioned your company in a press conference and how you will be powering the next generation of automobiles. I have followed your company for a while now, is there any chance your vehicles will be offered in Canada. Ontario is looking for investment and market leadership in environmental technology. It would be in your companies best interest to follow up opportunities currently present in our province. Looking forward to someday (hopefully very soon) purchasing one of your electric powered vehicles.

#John from the UK asked on May 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
#1. (paraphrase) Will long drives ruin the battery?
#2. (paraphrase) How does the battery weight affect the car’s handling?

To enhance its lifespan, the Roadster’s battery is arguably the most coddled automotive battery in history. It has its own climate control system, several monitoring computers, and perhaps some other mojo “they” are not telling us. “They” do say, however, that it can be cycled 500 times, which gives it 100,000 miles to replacement, enough time (I suppose) to save up your pennies for its replacement. Long drives may well hasten the battery’s demise, but it should last long enough no matter how you drive it.

The car handles well, according to the few who’ve driven it. These entries give a sense of the Roadster experience TM hopes to provide:

www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=56
“Combining the ‘area under the curve’ power with a mid-engine platform nets a car with few, if any, peers.”

www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=48
“The Tesla Roadster is still the quickest and most fun car I have ever driven. The way it hugs the corners, the way it pulls out of a corner is simply without compare.”

#Rinaldo Stradiotto asks whether there’s any chance your vehicles will be offered in Canada…

Currently, TM is selling its car within the U.S. only, but one might speculate that there is a good chance, someday, that they’ll be sold in Canada and elsewhere, worldwide.

To Jeffrey

I’m not starting a war here, but you really need to learn a bit about greenhouse-effect and how carbon dioxide affects it before saying that carbon emissions don’t have anything to do with climate change. Even if the main reason would be non-human we certainly are not helping things by burning fossil fuels. All, and I really mean all, scientific studies show direct connection between atmospheric carbon and climate temperature.

Fact is that climate is changing, and fact is that carbon dioxide is potent greenhouse gas and fact is that humans are releasing out of natural carbon circulation carbon into atmosphere at the rate that is much faster than anything earth has seen before. Draw your conclusions from that.

All of those aside, gasoline burning cars are also emitting micro-particles and those cause all kinds of health problems. And they smell bad. And are noisy. And obsolete, it seems

To Jefferey.

To add my previous comment:

www.chase-it.com/climate/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle-A_Rebuttal.pdf

There are many many more. In fact it says it in that text.

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

It hurts to me to see people say that this is not a problem. It is. It is potentially biggest problem humans have ever seen, and probably will ever see.

I would just like to thank you and your team for your perseverance and your patience with all of us. I feel like I’m a member of a pack of ravening wolves waiting for the hen house to open.

How soon will we be able to place our deposits for the White Star? I can’t think of any better way to show support at this time.

halibutit! Phoenix Motorcars has stolen my idea! I was just talking with someone a few months ago about how Tesla or some other company could make a lot of money on contractor/utility truck fleets. I swear someone has a wire on me because this isn’t the first time

Martin,

You shoot from the hip with the best of them! Your quagmire analogy is great, and true! But alas, Tesla is the grandest of all virtual car companies. As tightly as my fingers are crossed that you guys pull this off, you still have not released vehicles into the public domain. I am much more than an EV enthusiast. I drive one ever single day. So I know their value ecologically as well as economically. My best hopes are with manufacturers such as yourselves. Show me the hardware baby!!

Mike

A mix of different batteries and capacitors that could have a mix that is adjusted on the fly using a modern power control system could help solve many cost and performance problems over a single system solution. These could also be set up as blades for changing systems for particular uses, much like a server rack or a control systems rack. This could also lower the cost for people that don’t need extreme range or performance but need the flexibility to upgrade or taylor the vehicle to special needs. This would also make the vehicle upgradable as new technologies come out. This is how many control system racks are set up today.

green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/315

Wow. lets see that hold up in the US when a 18 wheller runs it over. KAABOOOM! At least its just air.

NiMH EV wrote two things:

1. but having more power could be useful for freeway passing (e.g.: 60-90mph)
and
2. Doing some research into all of this, I realized that driving fast is a real waste of energy

Those two are related to questions which I throw in the air some time ago and didn’t get any answer.

1. You can’t use first gear to do that (freeway passing), so you need to use second. Wouldn’t it be practival to have third gear for highway speeds?
and
2. Which gear is more efficient if you consider range?

IOW it looks like it could be useful to have gear for cruising that is not first, which is build for fast 0-60 acceleration, and not second, which is build for top speed, but in between to maximise range in highway speeds.

If you look at the torque curve it looks that optimal power to cruise at highway doesn’t match either of the existing gears.

But I’m not an car engineer so this is only guessing. Could anybody confirm that I’m right or wrong?

Then to another thing you said:

# If Martin went around pitching electric buses, I don’t think he would have attracted
# the attention (from VCs, celebrities or customers) that we see today.

This is very true. Unfortunately most people who I have been talking about EV:s have an assumption that they are slow, clumsy city-vehicles that fit to handicapped people. They have *ALL* been suprised when I have told them what Tesla Roadster can do and what it looks like. So it isn’t enough that Tesla Roadster has serious sexappeal.

For that reason I would really like to see some serious marketing beyond this blog. Tesla Roadster showing up in car-shows isn’t enough. Get it visibility in car races. Make Porche eat dust in race-track. Make pace-car for F1, DTM and Indy. Make sure that people realize that this d*mn cool vehicle is ELECTRIC.

People aren’t actually stupid, just lazy and ignorant. If you can get them notice the change and how obsolete gasoline cars are you will get _everybodys_ attention.

” Timo wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 12:29 am

250kW power is only about 600Vx3×140A. That is within limits of basic three-phase connector, so it can quite well be one plug and socket.”

A 600 V, 140 A three-phase circuit is capable of 600 * 140 * (3^0.5) = 145.5 kW.

Have a read though www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=101617&seqNum=9&rl=1 to see how it all works.

about the “hybrid” battery pack idea:
i have had the same idea. For example, put a set of A123 fast charge/discharge batts as a “front buffer” to do accelerationg and braking, and a set of carefully conditioned lithium polymers with best possible energy density as a range-giving pack.
in case of full battery-electric, it does not make much sense, because you have so many cells in parallel that even at the hardest accel/decel the individual cells dont see much amps, or charge/discharge rates ( full amps divided by count of parallel cell strings )
The larger the pack ( i.e. more KwH, more range and more parallel strings ) the less are individual cells exercised.

However, in case of PHEV-40 ( like chevy volt for example ) it probably would make some sense, as there are far less parallel strings of cells in a pack and individual cells see high charge/discharge rates. However, there might not be much of advantage over simply using a full high-C capable pack. Its going to weigh more, but in return you get long cycle life and crazy amount of maximum available power.

however, a combination of ultracaps with traditional lipos might still make sense in some performance-oriented PHEV.

anyway, i think the future of battery electrics is with LiFePO4-chemistry batts, just due to much simpler engineering for safety issue.

Timo
>> >> 2. Which gear is more efficient if you consider range?
>> IOW it looks like it could be useful to have gear for cruising that is not first, which is build for fast 0-60 acceleration, and not second, which is build for top speed, but in between to maximise range in highway speeds.

No, second gear is NOT built for TOP speed but for agility at highway speeds.
With LONGER third gear, same motor and same ESS Tesla Roadster would go over 160mph.
Take a look at my calculations here: teslamotorsclub.com/forum/index.php/topic,90.0.html
(yes, it is I, WarpedOne:)

There is an interesting research publication (url below) which details some very interesting research which may lead to in situ hydrogen production in mobile devices (like cars). Depending on how this pans out over the next few years, and especially depending on fuel cell weight / cost/ reliability research, it might just change the whole ball game. As a summary, the article details H2 and CO2 production from starch and water (starch is the energy source) using a chain of 13 enzymes which don’t occur in nature. About 27Kg of starch and water are supposed to produce the energy equivalent of about 10 gallons of gasoline. Interesting.

www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000456

This was also report briefly in last weeks Science News.

Eddie O

Martin: A great post! Spot on as usual.

Timo: Power to charge an electric car has to be done at a voltage compatible with the requirements of the batteries, in this case about 420 volts not 600. This is because it is not practical to have a heavy transformer in the car to change the incoming voltage to the required voltage. Second, the formula for calculating 3 phase current is root of 3 not divide by 3 so 250kw at 420 volts 3 phase = about 350 amps. They might have chosen to use DC instead so it would require about 600 amps. In a previous blog I gave a link to cables that are rated for 1kv and 600A was about 1inch diameter. I still maintain that this doesn’t matter as people will prefer to charge overnight at cheapest rates. Phoenix/Altairnano do not have to provide public fast charge stations, just prove that it is possible to charge in 10 minutes, and that they have done.

vfx Since the Tesla ESS cannot be charged in 10 minutes, they only get 1/10 the CARB credits/vehicle that Phoenix does. Also it remains to be proven that the major car companies will buy these credits. Personally I don’t think they will as they are committed to their fuel cell programs and despite the obvious incongruity will continue to push this technology. The major stock holders of GM have about 10 x investment in oil companies. GM’s board of directors will be more concerned about selling fuel than building cars. It they can’t sell gas then they want to sell something else they can control and they can’t control electricity because there are so many ways to produce it. When fuel cell cars do hit the road you can bet that H2 will be cheap only until the fuel cell cars are well established, then hydrogen will become pricey. Despite the preceding statement, I hope I am wrong because I would like to see Altairnano succeed.

Arthur W. Hanson: Tesla has addressed this issue. When they researched batteries, they realized that if you had enough of the lower power / higher energy batteries that you could get the required power out of them anyway. This makes a dual system with its extra complexity, weight, and cost unnecessary.

Tesla has made the best compromise on transmissions. Transmissions soak up a lot of power, and their simple 2-speed is very efficient and light weight. A third gear would allow a higher top speed, but would provide no gain in efficiency at legal speeds (electric motors don’t work like IECs). In fact the effeciency would be slightly lower.

Tesla will market world wide as soon as they can. They want to concentrate on the home market first. I think you will have to wait several years before you can buy a Tesla Roadster outside the US. Don’t forget that they are a small car company that has yet to ship a single production vehicle.

Thanks, ThomasE and Roy.

So it would require approx 600* 240A /wire to get 250kW. That is pretty high amps. You would need to increase voltage to get amps down. With 700V it would be approx 200A. That is manageable by standard plugs. But high, nevertheless.

But if what Roy said that they used only 420V connection then it is pretty big tube to connect to car, and not practical by any means. I’m not sure how much a transformer to drop voltage from 700V to 420V inside car would increase weight, so I can’t say how practical it would be.

And that 250kW isn’t enough to charge Tesla battery in 10 minutes. It would take 15 to charge it full from empty.

In that demo they charged 35kWh Altairnano battery for two hours of driving in 60mph. 6*35 is 210kW so they didn’t run it for full power.

Fast charge problem is amps. Those require big wires or high voltages, there is no way around that problem. Three-phase solves some problems by lessening amps / wire needed without increasing voltages to skyhigh, but it still isn’t enough.

I would like to see that AeroVironment battery charger and how they solved the voltage/amp problem. Maybe several 420V/100A connectors inside single tube.

Roy, The additional controls for a blade type system would add minimal costs just a backplane and simple and cheap triacs. The other option of a single all or nothing system makes service and repair of even a minor fault prohibitive to repair and a result of a total system shut down. The incremental added cost could also be offset by not having to use expensive batteries exclusively. It would also allow the factory to lower cost without redesign or rework just a blade change with a software or firmware change. As the battery sizes available increase and cost go down as they are this would actually give the factory the ability to adapt almost instantaniously to the technologies where changes will be measured in months not years. I feel the learning curve for batteries is accelerating and the cost of a fixed system will be prohibitive. Just imagine building the early pcs with a sealed case. Once battery technology becomes mature, a fixed system makes sense. I appreciate the lively discusion.

Edward Oates: Very impressive article on Hydrogen production. Is rate of H2 production reasonable? Can we grow biomass at the same rate as we consume the energy? What will high demand do to the price of starch? But still it looks most prommising for fuel cell cars. They do admit that plants are much less efficient than solar cells at changing sunlight into useable energy as shown by Martin’s presentation at the CARB symposium www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/eberhard.pdf Look at page 26 for map of area required to support various technologies.

Repsonding to Roy re H2 production from starch:

The rate of H2 Production is apparently quick enough according to the article.

The price of starch: depends upon where the starch is sourced. If it is from Corn or other food stuffs, the answer is probably “not as badly as producing ethanol because the enzyme process is more efficient.” Either that article or a related one indicated that the government goal of replacing about 30% of gasoline with ethanol could replace 100% of gasoline with this process.

This particular researcher is look for enzyme pathways which will be able to act on cellulose which would mean the ability to act on agricultural waste (corn plants minus the corn, for example) or new crops such as switch grass. And since this is early in the research phase, though patents have been applied for, efficiency will likely increase.

But the rub is still making fuel cells cost effective and reliable regardless of the source of H2 to run them. But it is certainly true that with the Tesla 800 pound battery pack, there is a lot of weight to play with. The article was not clear as to whether that 27kg of starch (fuel) equivalence to 10 gallons of gas included the water and enzymes needed to produce the H2. I’ll email the author and see what he says…

Ed

# NiMH EV wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
## Also, with regards to a 3rd gear for 160mph: The wind drag might also put a harmful load on the ESS.

# Anatoly Moskalev wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
## About 160 mph speed possibility for Tesla roadster: top sustained ESS power ( 112 kW ) corresponds to 130 mph speed.

We basically said the same thing… Although I understand that the ESS cells can handle brief bursts up to 4C, so you could theoretically go over 130mph, but (as I said) it could be harmful to the ESS if prolonged, so it makes sense that they limit it.

# Anatoly Moskalev wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
## I suppose at 185 kW electric motor would overheat so it also would be able to sustain it for not too long time

Yes, I heard some confirmation of that fact. The eMotor has a “full load” duty cycle, and the PEM can limit how long it can get full power. If it were water cooled they could have considered running it longer, but they were concerned that water could provide a conduit for high voltage to get back to the passenger compartment. You wouldn’t want a pinhole leak in a cooling line to squirt a 400v charge on you! My Ford RangerEV does have a water cooled motor, so not everyone thinks air cooling is a necessity.

# Roy wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
## Power to charge an electric car has to be done at a voltage compatible with the requirements of the batteries, in this case about 420 volts not 600.
## This is because it is not practical to have a heavy transformer in the car to change the incoming voltage to the required voltage.

I am not so sure about that. My RangerEV charges its’ 300VDC pack from 240VAC. It has a small on-board charger that does whatever voltage/current conversion is necessary. Toyota Hybrids run their eMotors at a voltage much higher than the pack. I think solid state DC/DC converters can make voltage differences solvable. A big heavy “transformer” is really a thing of the past.

# Roy wrote on May 31st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
## Since the Tesla ESS cannot be charged in 10 minutes, they only get 1/10 the CARB credits/vehicle that Phoenix does.

Yes, that point has been made in the blog repeatedly but people seem to be missing the point.

I keep wondering if Tesla will consider 10 minute recharge for the “Whitestar” just in case these credits do have a substantial market value.

There was a bunch more written about this on the “Inside the Beltway” posting on the “feel” blog back on May 21st:
www.teslamotors.com/blog3/?p=59
(search for “zapworld” and read down through the next few postings)

About top speed, acceleration and third gear.

I don’t need third gear to get higher top speed, but I think third gear is reasonable to get Tesla better acceleration at highway passing over. First gear is extraordinary fast, but unfortunately it tops out just before the real world reason to have high acceleration is needed. That is passing other slower cars at high speeds. High acceleration from 0-60 is good for drag racing. High acceleration from 50-90 is what you really need.

I believe it would be more energy-efficient too. It just makes sense to me that second gear that is build for top speed would be less effective than first gear with flat torque curve.

I was once driving in long queue as third car going 50 miles/h and three cars behind me there was a Saab 900 Turbo that started to pass the queue. I saw that into mirror and thought “fool, there is no room for you to get back in the queue, and there is car coming at the opposite direction so you are causing trouble.”

But that Saab surprised me. It had acceleration that I had never seen before and it passed entire queue in matter of few seconds. By the time it was next to me it must have been doing 100-110 miles/h and was still accelerating. I said it in loud (in finninsh) “Wow, that thing really accelerates!” (everybody else in car: “what thing”? Zzoommm. “Oh. *That* thing”.).

It made that pass with high safety margin. Later at home I did some research and found out that this particular Saab model had better acceleration than Ferrari Testarossa in those speeds. It was truly impressive.

0-60 isn’t what really impress me even that four seconds is remarkable. After all you could do 0-50 in less than 10 seconds with Fiat 127. 50-60 in about 20s and 60-110 you spend a week or so and you must be going downhill. Steep downhill. In a storm that blows from behind.

So it is either third gear for highway speeds in between current first and second, or longer first to make changing gears at highway speed unnecessary. Or, if second gear is really fast too, give me some figures.

Just another voice (Brucey) from just another state (West Virginia)..

I would just like to say I have high hopes in this project, I have a small wind mill that powers a hunting cabin and it works great for what I use it for, I don’t understand why I don’t see them more often. I guess paying a few bucks a month for more electricty than you would ever need isn’t that big of a deal when it’s right at your doorstep. Keep up the good work, and give a 4wd Pick up a thought sometime down the line for the rural folk.

Tesla has my full support, here is to the future.

About Tesla roadtser acceleration:

In the “touch” blogs in “Never a dull moment” blog article you could find most accurately presented and most recent torque versus RPM curve. It could be approximated as:

1. 275 Nm flat torque between 0 to 6000 RPM
2. Linear reducing torque from 275 Nm to 118 Nm from 6000 RPM to 12000 RPM

First gear maximum acceleration I assumed 0.68 g => 6.67 m/s^2. This corresponds to 275 Nm torque and gear ratio 14.3 (”home=>Engineering=>technical specs” on the site). Second gear has 7.4 ratio.

Taking into account sustained energy losses by rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag I managed top accelerations table for 1st and 2nd gears as follows :

1st gear 2nd gear

0 mph 6.73 m/s^2 3.46 m/s^2
20 mph 6.71 m/s^2 3.44 m/s^2
40 mph 5.36 m/s^2 3.36 m/s^2
55 mph 3.33 m/s^2 3.27 m/s^2 2nd gear
60 mph 3.16 m/s^2 5.00 s 180 kW 2nd gear
80 mph 2.33 m/s^2 8.20 s 189 kW 2nd gear
100 mph 1.42 m/s^2 13.40 s 176 kW 2nd gear
120 mph 0.47 m/s^2 26.40 s 138 kW 2nd gear

Somehow I got 5.0 s instead of 4.0 s for 0 to 60 mph acceleration. I guess this mismatch happens because 0.68 G peak acceleration I assumed is too small. Alternative explanation is that torque curve ends at 12000 RPM but I assumed 13500 RPM for maximum speed with corresponding extrapolation of torque to lower values. I also used grossly simplified torque versus RPM curve. These mismatches likely explains drop of power I have between 50 mph and 60 mph in my model. I guess real car do not have this. I also got 190 kW of maximum power which is 5 kW above 185 kW of claimed maximum power.

Anyway I think this model demonstrates relative variation of acceleration versus speed of the car for Tesla roadster. It is clear that below 30 mph acceleration is traction limited. Between 30 mph and 100 mph power is between 175 kW and 190 kW so it is very close to maximum power. So in this speed range acceleration is power limited. But acceleration from 50 mph to 80 mph could still happen in about 4.2 sec in my model ( less than 4 sec in reality I guess ). Only above 80 mph acceleration reduces rapidly ( it takes about 2 seconds to accelerate to 90 mph from 80 mps for example ). I guess it is not so critical because it would be above most of typical U.S. speeds possible on roads. For Europe this might be more serious limitation but the roadster is not marketed in Europe.

I am sorry I did not manage better match of published data for Tesla roadster by my model. Surely as a “random blogger” I do not have access to really accurate technical data about car dynamics.
It will be interesting if somebody from Tesla Motors could publish real car simulation acceleration versus speed data matched against prototype performance measurements. From this we could see how much off track are my numbers and what real car is supposed to deliver.

# Timo wrote on June 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
## About top speed, acceleration and third gear.
## High acceleration from 0-60 is good for drag racing.
## High acceleration from 50-90 is what you really need.

It is a little hard to find 50-90 specs for many cars. Along with 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times are the next most common. As far as I know, Tesla has never shown a 1/4 mile time for the Roadster.

Specs here show 0-60 and top speed, but no 1/4 mile times:
www.teslamotors.com/performance/specs.php

A true supercar can get to 130mph in a 1/4 mile, but I wonder how close the Roadster would get. Its’ off the line torque advantage would help at first, but the 248hp engine might not be quite up to snuff going against Porsches, Ferraris and such in the 1/4 mile.

www.supercars.net/Comp?CompList=2387-1934-1177
www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_exotic_coupe_comparison/specs_price.html

Porsche GT: 0-60=3.9s, 1/4 mile=11.4s (@132mph)
Ferrari Enzo: 0-60=3.4s, 1/4 mile=11.3s (@133mph)
McLaren F1: 0-60=3.2s, 1/4 mile=11.1s (@138mph)

(The above cars cost way more than a Roadster and all get hideous gas mileage…)

As it turns out, 1st gear in the Roadster is the 0-60 gear, and 2nd gear takes you to terminal velocity just around the 1/4 mile mark. Makes me wonder if those gears were specifically selected to optimize 0-60 & 1/4 mile times.

I would make a wild guess that the Roadster is more like 1/4=12.5 (@115mph)

I’m a few miles away in Menlo Park but I’m hoping you can hear the 5 minute standing ovation I’m giving you. (My girlfriend thinks I’m nuts) Thank you for speaking for all of us.

Other than the showing up to public hearings is there a way for everyday people to express their concerns and put pressure on CARB?

Dave

Any chance of a Blog Entry on the development of the Tesla Charge Station?

I’m assuming it will be 240V and 67 Amps, but what about the lead/connector? Is there any uniformity on the socket designs in EV vehicles or will the charging station offer a range of plugs or assume/allow the EV owner to use their own compatible lead?

The obvious disadvantage of that idea is cable theft. (A replacement Mobile Charging System for a Roadster will set owners back $350 + the fee for a tow home if the battery is still too flat) Then again, if the Charge Station has its own cable, it mustn’t be left uncoiled across the parking bay. Is it possible to design a retractable reel for a thick charging cable which is electrically safe, mechanically durable and easy for all to operate?

How do you keep the rain out? There is/was a UK startup; Park and Power:- www.parkandpower.co.uk (Link NOT working) Maybe they don’t exist anymore. Anyway, they said they were using marine/harbour technology as the basis of their charge station designs. Presumably that technology’s waterproof.

I know that the current Tesla design cuts power if the charging cable is moved - a good safety feature. But what happens then? Does the system try to recommence charging after a wait of two minutes? What about malicious tampering of the unattended cable? Simple disconnection is the obvious one. Will connector designs lock into the car until the owner returns and unlocks the car? Or can the Charge Station feature a simple loud alarm if the cable is disconnected? (Irritating if it malfunctions).

Obviously Tesla cars could have the feature of remote charge monitoring via the owners cellular phone. Could that facility be offered as an option to other EV owners via the Tesla Charging Station? Park the car, connect the lead, pay for your charge + parking fee up front and optionally, type in your cell phone number so that in the event of a problem, the Charging Station can send you a Text message?

Would competitors complain that you were collecting cell phone numbers for marketing purposes? Presumably if you are up front about this with customers, it’s ok. Then again, a text message system could be even more irritating if kids find out about it - wait ten minutes before disconnecting the cable again and again and again.

I suppose my main issue about commercial re-charge stations is that they have to be low power in order to stay financially competitive with home re-charging. Quite apart from the safety issues, higher power units will need their own dedicated feeds and more specialist maintenance, forcing up installation and running costs. (Three-phase on a safe, retractable reel? That won’t be cheap)

Imagine all those hypothetical future altairnano users who would have the facility to charge up in fifteen minutes but wouldn’t, because the high power charge stations would have to charge them such high prices for the privilege. Building a battery which can withstand rapid recharge is a great technical achievement, but what’s the point? If it ever gets implemented into large scale EV production it will represent the single most useless feature ever put into EVs. Period. Here’s why…

“Well that’s nothing, my EV can be recharged in fifteen minutes!”

“Wow, where can you go to charge it that quickly?”

“Well….. nowhere. The fast charging stations wanted to charge me five times the price for the same electricity I can get at home overnight, so I stopped going. They’ve all closed down now. I guess they couldn’t get the business”

Even people like Park and Power seem to be finding it tough. And think about gas prices. People will drive out of their way for a few cents saved per gallon. The cheapest electricity will always be at home.

To be honest, I was surprised to see even the 16kW figure mentioned in your announcement. I assumed that any low cost, widespread, easy to rollout system would be based around the level of the Tesla Mobile System rather than your dedicated high-current charger.

After all, at the moment only you (and in a year, maybe TH!NK) can take advantage of 67 Amps. Then again, is that another part of your master plan for EV domination?

Editor, Its been awhile since we got an updated count of Roadster orders, what is the current count?

Top Gear seems to have taken peek of the Tesla. There is a link to that in main page in news-section.

As a regular TG watcher and fan of the show I have to say that Tesla got _excellent_ “review” from them. They are very straigth when it comes to tell car failures, and Telsa didn’t get any bad words from them.

Two questions: Did they test-drive Tesla, or was this just talking with Elon Musk? If it was only talking will they test-drive finished product once it cames out of factory doors?

If they do test-drive it I definitely want to see that show. Video from winter-testing looked like Tesla Roadster would be fun to drive. I wonder what Stig gets from it…

Very nice. Discovered Tesla Motors recently in Fortune Mag. Like the direction your headed, but would like to see the 4-door sedan production pushed up a bit as well as some agressive tax-saving benefit legislation in place to encourage more people to buy ZEV’s! Would assume Martin is in the position, if not now, next year for sure, to see it through.

Hypothetically, the Tesla Roadster would do 100mph in 13 seconds. (Anatoly Moskalev above made the calculation) This wouldn’t seem to make sense though.

The 260hp White Zombie does a 1/4 mile in about 12.5 seconds at about 103 mph. This puts the car’s performence specs around the same as the Tesla Roadster. However the car weighs 2350 pounds, several hundred less than the Tesla Roadster.

On the contrary, the Zombie has a one-speed 4:11 ratio transmission compared to Tesla’s two-speed, transmission which allows for better performence.

My question is, can an optimized transmission allow for SUCH better performence that it negates the ~ 300 extra pounds on the Tesla Roadster?

If not, is Tesla bluffinga little on their roadster, or are Anatoly Moskalev calculations just too rough for this rather precise comparison?

Thanks Anatoly and others.

If your calculation is correct and Tesla Roadster can get from 50 to 90 in about five seconds then it is fast enough to beat some of the supercars at those speeds. And I’m more than satisfied. That would also make it *very* fast in Top Gear track. Maybe even top twenty-fast (somewhere close to that Kooeeeenigseeeeggggg crazy no-backside-downforce-800bhp car, I guess) .

D*mn, I’m falling in love to a car that I can’t get. Help me.

# Fshhead wrote on June 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 am
# Just curious is there a definitive date that the 1st Tesla will leave the factory that we can salivate over?

That’s one date I’m waiting for … the other is when they start taking orders for the White Star, I anticipate a long waiting list and want to make my reservation on day 1.

Even further Off Topic

More efforts to push Ethanol. Apparently US citizens need to be educated about how good it is.

www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/03/new-bill-calls-for-ethanol-expansion-and-education/

I ran across an older podcast (from 6 months ago) of Martin talking to a group of business students in San Francisco. I don’t remember seeing it discussed here. (If it was, then ignore this comment!) It really shed some light on TM’s business practices, the ESS, and the like. You can find the podcast here:

usfmbapodcast.com/2007/01/28/13-ceo-of-tesla-motors-the-fastest-electric-car-on-earth/

Executive summary:

1) TM pays 2-3 times more for car parts than Ford or Honda, mainly due to smaller orders.

2) TM plans to continue selling its cars largely over the Internet (”for a long time”), and maintain the entire distribution chain, unlike almost all other car manufacturers. It hopes to maximize profits in this way.

3) The battery pack, which is warranteed for 5 years, will “probably last” 6-9 years, after which it will fade.

4) The battery pack is about “one-third” the *cost* of the car (presumably not one-third the price). Of that cost, only 55-60 percent comes from the cells; the remainder comes from the systems, wiring, etc. that go into the pack.

5) Recharge time on a 220v dryer circuit is around 8-9 hours, and about 35 hours on a normal 110v household circuit. The point of the mobile charging unit is to supply you just enough juice to get you to a better (16kw?) supply. “Curbside charging” for individuals without a means of installing a better supply (e.g., renters) would be relatively easy to construct given enough demand.

6) The company has relied on the Eclipse Aviation model of “Managed Transparency” in dealing with customers. (This blog is part of that policy.) This high level of customer engagement has resulted in TM’s ability to take 100% (now 30% or 50%) deposits without a firm delivery date. (Dottie Hall, who came from Eclipse, evidently helped engineer this policy. Ostensibly, the policy has also helped them retain orders after failing to meet initial range projections.)

7) TM would be profitable selling 500-600 Roadsters annually, and “wildly profitable” selling 2,000. However, it is “investing heavily” in the next car for idealistic and business reasons alike.

8) As a thought experiment, Martin said he believed competition from the likes of Toyota would validate the electric car idea. If Tesla’s business suffered as a result, some other major manufacture would likely buy the company to accelerate its own EV program. As such, the technology would survive, although the company would not continue as an independent entity.

# Timo wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 3:15 am
# D*mn, I’m falling in love to a car that I can’t get. Help me.

lol, I find myself in the same predicament.
Problem is I CAN afford it, but BARELY.

I’m 26 and considered putting all my savings into the refundable reservation payment and seeing if I could come up with the additional $70k by the end of next year (or a car loan for the remainder). Entirely doable, but I know I’m better off leaving the $30k in the stock market and waiting 1 more year for Whitestar.

To everyone at Tesla & especially Martin Eberhard Thank you for the great thing you are doing for this country right now! You all are TRUE PATRIOTS & will start a revolution to finally get us away from the risks of our oil addiction!!!
GO TESLA GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The idea of fast charging has merits. Back when I had an EV1, living in LA, it would have been useful to have fast chargers in Temecula (for the San Diego run), Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo (for the Bay Area run), and Baker (for the Las Vegas run). While in the Bay Area, it would have been useful in Sacramento for the Tahoe run. This is a small market to be used only occasionally by most people.
3-6 hour charging is more than sufficient for home, office, airport, hotel, shopping mall, Theater, or pretty much any urban use.
I see the chargers being put up, not by dedicated roadside businesses, but rather by existing businesses such as outlet malls and restaurants that want to draw people into their establishments for a stop (beats the “wigwam trading post” or “Rattle Snake Ranch” gimmicks of old). Because the goal is to get the EV driver to spend money, I’m not convinced of the value of charging in less than 30 minutes.
One huge thing in favor of fast chargers is that they can be bought and installed for under $10K. This makes their cost quite affordable for any business, unlike gasoline pumps/tanks.
This technology will be a good future technology but is not essential for EV’s to still have huge practical value.
I don’t want Tesla to allow the concept of fast charging to slow their delivery of the Roadster or the Whitestar.

##Mike wrote on June 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
##Stan already mentioned larger lithium batteries being used in a bike.
##www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/lightning_lithi.php
##Some more info on them:
##“Unlike the Tesla electric sport car, which is powered by thousands of tiny batteries, the R1 conversion uses just 28. Each of ##them is 90 amp-hours at 3.2 volts and 6.6 pounds.”
##The guy in the video also says that they are ’safe’

I found out today that this company is only 5 minutes away from where I work, so at lunch I went and checked them out. The gentleman who I spoke to told me that their main current business is converting ICE motorcycles into electric motorcycles. But, he also said that they plan on having a production electric motorcycle ready to sell in about year.

##to those talking about using 3-phase 600v XXX amp systems for charging,
##please realize that (at least in the SF Bay Area, CA) the most robust electrical
##setup going to residential homes (that I know of) is single phase 240V 150 amp.

Once again : Please realise that the available power from grid is largely irrelevant to the fast charging concept in general, because you can use stationary energy storage system like flywheels.
At home, you wouldnt want a fast charger anyway, but like outlined above, there are cases where you would want it in other places, and it can be supplied from stationary energy storage system ( that in turn is slow-charged from grid )

Prediction : the faster the charge, the more its going to cost.

# The Other Martin wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
## Martin Eberhard is one of my heroes, and not just because we share the same first name.
## Like many here, I can’t afford a Roadster, but with two elementary school kids at home, I don’t need one, either.

I am in the same boat, but we can still lust after the roadster, can’t we?
Heck, Martin#1 is getting one even though his whole family won’t fit in it all at once.
I guess with the wife getting the Whitestar it all works out.

It is funny all the name associations that happen to the bloggers here.
Personally I found out the following:
#1: My initials clash with a Tesla division so I decided to stop using them here.
#2: My daughter has the same name as Martin’s daughter
#3: My last name is the same as one of Martin’s heroes
#4: Martin is one of my heroes as well
Go figure… Random coincidence can be strange sometimes.

=================================================================

# Earl wrote on June 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
## The idea of fast charging has merits.
## Back when I had an EV1, living in LA, it would have been useful to have fast chargers in …

Yes, fast chargers on the road when in transit would be useful.
( Costco and Fry’s probably keep their slow chargers because they know you are probably doing prolonged shopping inside while you wait for your charge. If they had quick chargers then they would probably need to charge for them since you wouldn’t stick around to buy anything! )

## 3-6 hour charging is more than sufficient for home, office, airport, hotel, shopping mall, Theater, or pretty much any urban use.

Yes, I would see very little value in a quick charger at home. When I drive back home I am always there for a while.
A two hour charge would be nice at a shopping mall or theater.

# Anatoly Moskalev wrote on June 5th, 2007 at 1:41 am
## 110 mph__1.35 m/s^2___14.15 s__159 kW___2nd gear____ 1 / 4 mile mark comes about here

14.15s 1/4 mile is somewhat disappointing if true.

That puts it in company with Acura NSX / Audi S4 / BMW 330 / Corvette / Mustang GT / Mitsubishi 30000GT / Nissan 300ZX / Porsche Boxster / Benz CL600 / Lexus GS400 / Honda S2000 / Subaru WRX
Not too shabby, but not in line with supercars like BMW Z8 / Viper / AMG Mercedes / WRX STI / Porsche Turbo / & Most Ferrari’s… Those are all closer to 13 sec for 1/4 mile time.
If you go with the ultra exotics like McLaren F1, Ferrari Enzo & Porsche Carrera GT then you get under 12 seconds.

www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

The roadster is already plenty quick enough for my tastes, but when you spend $100K you may want to know what “bragging rights” come with the car.

#Kert says: Prediction : the faster the charge, the more its going to cost.

Is there some truth to this? I often wondered that myself. Since charging time is proportional to the input power during a charge it would require more and more power to decrease times. But with this large amount of power being used very briefly do the costs actually equal out to be the same as slow recharges? The only difference I see here between fast and slow charge is that hasty recharges would place more stress on the grid. Can anyone at Tesla explain this more for me?

NiMH EV wrote..

“when you spend $100K you may want to know what “bragging rights” come with the car.”

What are you talking about? This car has bragging rights written all over it! 1st electric mass-produced sports car. 1st mass produced lithium-ion OEM car. (The Altra EV wasn’t quite mass produced I think. If I’m wrong, please notify me.) 1st mass produced electric car to have acceleration comparable to the likes of Ferrari and Porsche.

Also, the Tesla roadster is a category all it’s own. How many 100k cars do 0-60 in four seconds? I don’t know of any; I’ve heard of 5 seconds, but never four. The Tesla Roadster, b/c of its wonderful torque can out-accelerate almost any car at any speed under 130 mph. On top of that, it does ~ 130mpg.

“14.15s 1/4 mile is somewhat disappointing if true.”

Like Timo said above, the Tesla Roadster isn’t built for top-speed. But how many cars can reach their top speed in around 16 seconds? This is a testimony to the acceleration performence of the Tesla.

# Timo wrote on June 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
## BTW. Why does Telsa have such degeneration in torque at high RPM:s?

Some guesses:
#1: Since it is an induction AC motor, the control electronics have to change the frequency of the magnetic field oscillations as motor speed increases. They may have some trouble controlling the timing/shape/power of these fields as the frequency gets very high. (I am just guessing here)
#2: There are bearings in the motor that add drag. I suspect that this drag increases as RPMs rise.
#3: It is an air cooled motor with air inside. The actual rotor in the motor probably runs into some kind of wind resistance at very high RPMs. (It would be pretty tough to make it run inside a vacuum)

I wrote: NiMH EV wrote.. “when you spend $100K you may want to know what “bragging rights” come with the car.”
# Joseph wrote on June 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
## This car has bragging rights written all over it!

Yes, in many ways, but some people do want to know and care about the 1/4 mile times as well.

## How many 100k cars do 0-60 in four seconds? I don’t know of any;

Here are a couple for less $:
$85K 0-60=4.0s, 1/4 mile=12.5s Dodge Viper
$70K 0-60=3.7s, 1/4 mile=12.8s Chevy Corvette Z06

If you can live with 0-60 in 4.5 you could get a Subaru WRX STI, Lancer EVO or Mustang GT500 for even less money.

As you know the Roadster changed the range claims from 250 miles to “over 200″.
I think there has also been a change from “0-60 in under 4 seconds” to “0-60 in ABOUT 4 seconds”.

You have gotten a 500K grant for a 16 Kw charger that you already have (220V*70A=15.4 Kwatts) but thats fine with me.
I am assuming the 70A limit on the home charger is for practical house capacity reasons.

In your battery blog you said that C/2 should be the max charging rate (and this is the same as toshiba says for nominal rate) for long life. This would actually mean the road charger could safely charge the battery pack in 2 hours not 3.5 hours and still meet the C/2 requirement. So why did you choose 3.5 hours, wouldn’t a 28 Kwatt charger have made more sense?

Also the max charge rate for toshiba is C for a 1 hour charge on rare long trips. If the max rate were used say 5% of the time how much does that degrade the batteries life since we all agree that greater than 200 miles/day is a few time a year thing at best. Could the battery pack still be warranted if the higher charge rate was only used a few times as specified by the Tesla warranty and controlled/monitored by the computer? One hour is alot better than 3.5 hours and faster than 20-30 minutes would probably never be needed since the road charger is only used on the long trips after 2 hours of driving. I think most of us would go to the bathroom and get a bite to eat.

Charlie

Heres a link to a taiwanese lifepo4 manufacturer site:
www.phet.com.tw/Products/Products_Intro.aspx
good comparison page between different lithium chemistries. of course, thats company marketing, so take big grains of salt to go with it, but overall, LiFepo4 advantages&disadvantages are pretty thoroughly verified and tested.

About torque degeneration at high RPM:

1. In a first approximation torque is determined by a product of stator magnetic field by a ’slip’ frequency. Magnetic field is determined by a stator current. “Slip” frequency has its limits. It has to be comparable with RPM. Reason is that rotor current is proportional to “slip” frequency so torque too. But rotor heat losses are proportional to square of rotor current so higher “slip” frequency introduces disproportionally higher heat losses. So we can assume that at low RPM we have constant “slip” frequency.

2. Top stator current is set by stator wiring. So torque at low RPM could be maintained independent of actual motor RPM by using top current and having “slip” frequency at top limit determined by how much degeneration of energy efficiensy it is decided to allow.

3. For fixed torque set by top stator current and top “slip” frequency voltage on stator coils would grow proportional to RPM. At some point top available voltage would come at certain RPM = R0. From that point motor control have to give up “slip” frequency or top current limit. If you give up current the top power coming into the motor would be reducing. So “slip” starts reducing so torque starts reducing but overall power of the motor keeps approximately constant.

4. So in first approximation at low RPM induction motor has fixed torque and at higher RPM it has fixed power and reducing torque. But significant additional factors come into play. One of them is that it exist optimal ratio between RPM and “slip” frequency. By reducing “slip” at increasing RPM energy efficiensy sharply decreases. As a result waste heat ratio to useful power increases. But real motor is limited by cooling system capacity. So at highest RPM you have to give up power. So you have to reduce top current and “slip” frequency in some combination experiencing even faster torque degradation at highest RPM and also significant power degradation.

5. Anyway all these effects of electric motor at highest RPM could be easily cured by avoiding pushing too high RPM and adding third gear into gearbox. But it also exist effect of temporary power burst both for battery system and for electric motor that it is possible for couple dozen seconds or so to bump total power about twice above sustained power top limit. This is limited by heat capacity of motor and battery materials because they would sharply heat up. At top safe temperature system have to give up power and this would happen after dozens of seconds. As a result it is not critical for a EV to deal with torque and power degeneration effect at top RPM. You just have to accelerate at power burst mode and let it naturally degrade to sustained power at highsest RPM. Hence the balance of second gear we observe in Tesla roadster with sharp power and torque decline at top RPM and speed.

6. Basically sustained power of Tesla roadster is about 110 kW = 150 hp. Imagine someone complaining that his 150 hp car cannot do 1/4 mile in 12 sec. It would not make sense. But on the other hand imagine someone advertising Tesla roadster supercar having just 150 hp sustained power. Based on experience with gasoline cars it would do extremely bad marketing publicity. Point is that EV have extremely different behavior than gasoline car. It could do much faster acceleration for a given amount of power. So 0 to 60 mph acceleration time would make EV advantages most prominent. So it was selected for car promotion. But 1/4 mile parameter enhances significance of top sustained power available. In such a case gasoline car with higher power per weight ratio that EV would win. It is possible to use 10 C batteries (Altairnano, A123 etc flavors) and catch up with 1/4 mile factor in EV. But range would suffer or price would skyrocket. So Tesla Motors made their choices the way you see it.

7. In terms of practical use of a car on busy roads or curly mountain roads 1/4 mile parameter is useless but 0 to 60 mph acceleration and 50 mph to 90 pmh dynamics is the key. So from that point of view Tesla roadster is nicely balanced. By if someone is attracted by numbers developed for gasoline supercars another EV is needed. I believe Writespeed company spawned from early Tesla Motors exactly to address conserns with 1/4 mile etc superiority by EV in addition to 0-60 mph superiority. It just makes less practical but likely more sex appealing car if you totally do not care that it could cost several times higher than Tesla roadster.

Presented picture of motors behavior is surely gross oversimplification. I just believe I explained in a first approximation factors of most significance driving choices of EV behavior.

How is the final stages of crash/cert testing coming along? Im waiting to see the first Tesla delivered and driving.

# Anatoly Moskalev wrote on June 6th, 2007 at 9:27 am
## About torque degeneration at high RPM…

Thanks Anatoly! I attempted to explain those same factors in ‘laymans terms’ from someone who only vaguely understands the physics principles. You did a nice job adding detail that I could not describe. Also in terms of representing the marketing angles I think you probably explained that correctly (in terms of 0-60 vs 1/4 mile promotion, and engineering around the benefits rather than limitations of using an electric drivetrain). Now we could ‘nitpick’ the new slogan “no compromises” because obviously the engineering had to make some compromises, but they seem to have done the most intelligent thing as far as I can tell.

## Any electric drive declines in torque beyond nominal speed due to insulation limit of its windings and/or maximum
## supply voltage. Other effects such as IGBT switching losses, rotor aerodynamic drag, bearing lubricant viscosity,
## play a minor role.

Oh! OK - so Anatoly and I didn’t consider a major factor and only listed off a few incidentals.
So when the insulation limit is exceeded what happens? Do you have actual current arcs within the motor wasting current that you had hoped to turn into a magnetic field? Have you turned your eMotor into a “Tesla coil” at that point?
Does the PEM intentionally reduce the current and/or voltage at higher RPMs because it knows that the insulation can’t handle it?

I think just like with internal combustion drag racing (where the compression ratios and RPMs are so high that the engines don’t last long), electric drag racing also pushes the limits of the motors with frequent rebuilds necessary.

Hmm … is it better for “quick charge” stations to invest in infrastructure (whether in the form of power-substation-type facilities and special quick-charge bays, or massive flywheels, and/or large banks of batteries that can be trickle-charged and quickly discharged to fill a customer’s “tank,” etc.) or for battery packs to be provided in standard, modular form, so that the modules can be inserted and removed, recharged, traded and circulated easily, almost as a form of renewable “currency” (pardon the pun)?

In the belief that EV energy systems will at some point (soon after the EV market acquires “critical mass”) reach a peak capacity that will eliminate nearly all of the demand for “quick charging,” I think it is worthwhile to try to understand which approach would lead to the most short term benefit and the least ultimate expense and waste (for both the network of “quick charge” suppliers and EV customers alike). Expecting quick-charge suppliers to invest heavily in unique infrastructure that will only help them participate in a “boom-to-bust” cycle seems unrealistic.

If energy packs were modularized, and a refill-recycle regimen similar to those used for soda bottles and propane tanks were put into place, the financial risk that each “quick charge” purveyor would assume would be minimized, as would the practical barriers to entry into the business, thus helping to encourage more purveyors to get into the game early, when they would be needed most. Later, as demand flattened out and even began to decline, purveyors could gradually back out of the business and move on to other things with minimal economic disruption to themselves or the industry. The modular energy packs would still continue to be valuable to vehicle manufacturers, dealers, repair centers, parts distributors and retailers, and of course customers, for the extra reliability through redundancy and severability that they would allow, even if their value as expediters of “quick charge” would eventually evaporate as common EV range-per-charge expanded to 400-500 miles, and pack lifetimes increased to match the lifetimes of the vehicles.

Perhaps TEG has an opportunity to design and establish the battery module standard? This would be, in essence, a packaging standard, a form-factor, as well as a standard for interconnection and balancing between the modules.

Another approach might be to design an ESS that included automatic means for loading and ejecting the individual battery cells, automatically testing cells for (and, if necessary, rejecting them according to) quality, estimated remaining lifetime, and current charge. Extra points if the ESS could recognize and adapt to different types of cells that used the same form factor (e.g., automatically balancing mature-technology, lower-capacity cells with newer, higher-capacity ones, as well as being able to disgorge and replace all the cells that matched certain parameters). Upgrading/changing the ESS might then amount to upgrading the firmware, running the self-diagnostic and selecting upgrade parameters, collecting the ejected cells that need to be replaced, pouring replacement cells in an input hopper, and, once those cells were installed, waiting however long would be necessary to bring the entire ESS to full charge (which could be no time, if all the cells were replaced with fully-charged ones, for instance).

In either scenario, TEG might be able to recoup their costs to develop the “replaceable module” ESS or the “smart jukebox” ESS (dare I call the latter the Rock-ola?) by selling them as stationary energy buffers for homes and other buildings, as enterprise-scale “uninterruptible power supplies,” etc.

Anyway, I’m just noodling here, excited by the possibilities that the separate TEG brings to the table. Tesla may have a chance to “set the standard” here, as they are already maneuvering to do with recharging technology. I hope they go for it. Nevermind the Roadster and the WhiteStar: smart ESS design will be where it’s at in terms of helping EVs to attain “critical mass,” in my opinion.

# Wolfgang wrote on June 6th, 2007 at 10:04 am
## Any electric drive declines in torque beyond nominal speed due to insulation limit of its windings and/or maximum supply voltage.

# I replied:
## So when the insulation limit is exceeded what happens?
## Do you have actual current arcs within the motor wasting current that you had hoped to turn into a magnetic field?
## Have you turned your eMotor into a “Tesla coil” at that point?
## Does the PEM intentionally reduce the current and/or voltage at higher RPMs because it knows that the insulation can’t handle it?
##
## I think just like with internal combustion drag racing (where the compression ratios and RPMs are so high that the engines don’t last long),
## electric drag racing also pushes the limits of the motors with frequent rebuilds necessary.

I found this set of pictures of an eMotor rebuild from “KillaCycle” drag bike interesting:
hitorqueelectric.com/2007/03/
hitorqueelectric.com/gallery/v/custom_motors/KillaCycle/
The motor needed a lot of rework after a “plasma” event.

With gasoline vehicles they used to set the timing with worst case (poor gas, up a hill, on a hot day) in mind, but now days gasoline vehicles have “knock sensors” that will retard the timing to avoid engine damaging “knocking / pinging” so they don’t have to default them to such a conservative setting. You tend to get best power if you can “push the envelope” and run right up against the limit where damage starts. Perhaps this is analogous to what is happening with the windings at high RPMs? I wonder if Tesla has to program the PEM to lower current based on a preset program or if there is any way to detect that the motor winding insulation is about to become inadequate. Is there some kind of feedback or sensor that triggers the power reduction, or is it just pre-programmed?

With algae based biodiesel technology advancing at an accellerating rate along with diesel technology the series hybrid looks to hold the best promise for an all around vehicle. The battery pack and ultra compact diesel will probably weigh in at under seven hundred pounds. In the Netherlands they are running thirty two passenger series hybrid busses that get fifteen miles per gallon in city traffic using current technology. Given how diesel, battery, electric motor and control technologies are advancing we should see midsize cars getting about a hundred miles per gallon within just a few years. For reference look at Advanced Propulsion Technologies and Crower(diesel technologies) are among the hundreds of companies advancing diesel technologies. As far as biodiesel, batteries, electric motors there are over a hundred companies working in each area. The status quoe we have been living with for about seventy five years is coming to an end.

An interesting read, go the Compact Power web site. A division on LG Chemical, this is a major company with heavy research and manufacturing capablilites with a proven track record of delivering results. They also have a well developed battery management system.

There is real danger that congress will scuttle the California emissions standards.
The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from granting the states waivers to put their climate change rules into effect:

Pelosi had BETTER kill this bill
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/3910/56746

Boucher: halibut Pelosi’s Torpedo, Full Speed Ahead
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/6/213721/4886

….and even a provision to literally make windpower illegal:

WTF Dems, now you’re going to submarine wind power?
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/31/165927/088

…and in favour of a $60 billion dollar coal to liquid Synfuel program to supply the US for 25 years a fuel that is 119% worse than gasoline in CO2 production which is already taking the human race to the brink of extinction:

Obama On Coal To Gas Synfuel - WRONG!
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/30/122446/528

As a Democratic activist it has been dismaying this week to realise that it is not just a battle to get Democrats in to power to save us from coal and oil lobbyists (who give vastly more to Republicans) but to realise they can sway some Democrats too.

It is not just Blue v Red states . This is a battle between Green v Brown states.

It is essential that innovative green energy businesses (like Tesla) find some way to locate Green manufacturing in heavily coal and oil states like Michigan (auto industry married to oil), Illinois, West Virginia and so on to bring Green economic investment to counteract the influence of dirty lobbies. We need a Marshall Plan for these states.

When you green innovators at Tesla meet with other green innovation CEOs like at Future in Review conferences, please give this idea some thought. We will have no future if we don’t stop the influence of (literally) dirty money in congress.

You, and people like you can turn the Brown states Green. Please.

Everyone, not just us Californians, can email Speaker Pelosi to tell her not to cave on the EPA state waiver:
www.speaker.gov/contact

I was wondering if it would help to have a hood scoop that collected the air that’s passing by. The wind could be converted to electrical energy and then be used to help further the distance that the car travels. Love what you guys are doing here; I know this will be a big hit. Can’t wait until the lower price cars start to hit the market.

kert, first, I’m aware of how many times the idea of modular batteries or module swapouts has been raised here. I’ve participated in nearly ALL of those discussions: early on, I was on the side of “swapping is impractical,” but I’ve changed my position after thinking about the issue for the last year. I think you’re missing something important. Strictly speaking, we already HAVE modular batteries: the very cells and form factor that Tesla uses by the thousands in its ESS. The key problem is that the ESS was not designed to allow easy, automatic replacement of individual cells. A new-design ESS could address that issue, allowing not only ejection of depleted or dead cells, but injection of fully-charged and/or higher-capacity cells, provided that the same 16850 form factor were used in all cases.

Millions of pop bottles and propane tanks, for example, are routinely returned for deposit and/or exchanged for filled containers. Rechargeable batteries — especially standard 16850s — could be handled similarly, for at least as long as it takes for battery pack capacity and longevity to rise to the “sweet spot.” The basic problems involved in an “exchange-refill” scenario have been solved, many times, in many different contexts, and are now a lot more tractable than the problems of handling high-voltage/high-current electricity.

If TEG decided that a “jukebox-style” ESS were too impractical to create, then they very well COULD design a “standard power module.” The modules would be used by and useful in thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Tesla vehicles, at very least. If the design were good and the economics right, the MARKET would additionally pick TEG as a “winner,” just as a way of expediting the production and delivery of practical EVs sooner. If someone came up with a better module, Tesla could switch to IT. The old modules would still continue to work and be useful for the vehicles that needed them.

Electricity at high voltages or currents is dangerous and hard to handle. That’s a fact of physics. Also, maintaining on-premises banks of “energy accumulators,” flywheels, etc., will be expensive for fast-charge stations. It is still to be demonstrated that “fast charge” batteries will prove practical in the marketplace anytime soon, in terms of price, reliability, and various other factors. It is also still to be demonstrated that batteries of sufficient capacity and longevity will arrive, even in keeping with the “8% improvement per year” rate that Tesla has mentioned before. Yet for EVs to be practical for the masses, in competition with ICE vehicles and other alternatives, the power units must be both quickly rechrgeable — at least on long road-trips — and quickly and easily replaceable or refurbishable. The reason that Tesla can get away with its current battery/ESS decisions is because it wisely chose to sell a $100K, limited edition collector’s item first. To move into high volume production, however, all of the aforementioned issues will need to be addressed (and inherent risks intelligently mitigated).

As I see it, investing in a new infrastructure for quick-charge stations takes care of only ONE of these big issues. Coming up with a convenient, modular power system, which would be amenable to a return-recharge-exchange regimen, would neatly address ALL of the issues I’ve mentioned here. I couldn’t expect Tesla Motors to take on that challenge. But TEG might, and TM would benefit from any success.

I’ve come to this point, kert, because I quit saying, “it’ll never work,” and allowed myself the luxury of entertaining the idea, trying to see how it MIGHT work, as a way of getting around the problems I could readily see with a straightforward “quick charge” approach (which itself “will work,” but with economics and risk that I expect will prove unttractive and ultimately stifling). The result of this exploration isn’t as impractical or undesirable as I once believed it would be. You’re still in the “it’ll never work” stage, it appears, so I don’t expect you to say anything nice about the idea, but if you want to jump into the pool and give it fair consideration, I’d appreciate your honest assessment of pros AND cons. Or, failing that, a deeper examination of how you think “fast charging” might be practical — no fair handwaving or depending on speculative future developments that are out of your (TEG’s) control.

# kert wrote on June 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
## “modular quick swap batteries” have been tossed around several times, but this will simply not work.

I tend to disagree. The analogy of the cellphone has been used to justify how the Tesla simply charges overnight while you sleep.

Well with a cellphone, laptop & camcorder (for instance) you can replace the batteries yourself and even upgrade them if you need more capacity. The same thing happens with the starter batteries in cars. You can upgrade to a “deep cycle” if you leave your car parked for long periods in the cold.

Here are a few random examples:
news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-MacBook-Pro-Battery-Upgrade-39037.shtml
www.applelinks.com/index.php/more/whopping_48_capacity_battery_upgrade_forpowerbook_g4_15_titanium/
www.bestbatt.com/Canon_BP_970G_Camcorder_Battery_Pack_p/bbbp970g.htm

Now the Tesla pack has so many safety measures as well as environmental controls to keep the batteries happy that it would be hard work to change individual cells or make changes to the ESS. So, yes, for the Roadster as it is now there doesn’t seem to be much opportunity. But someday in the future with more stable battery chemistry it seems to me that you could make the batteries into a user serviceable part. Sure there are some design and engineering challenges, but they don’t seem insurmountable to me. Someone would need to design a flexible battery management system, not one designed to expect a fixed configuration and type of cells.

Susan K. touched on a few seemingly ridiculous but very real strategies of the status quo to beat back the threat of any serious development of alternatives to fossil fuels and some form of the internal cumbustion engine (including so called hybreds). Even in the UK where the cry for the EV is exponentialy louder than here ,officials seem to be doing their best to hold back progress. They recently put a hold on the sale of the Reva electriic vehicle (the g-whiz) pending development of safety regulations for that class of car (because of its low weight they classified it as a quad motorcycle). Then as It became popular they failed it saying that it could not pass automobile crash tests. All along I have been expecting simular tactics here with Tesla Motors and am still holding my breath because (well you know). There was more than one reason why Tesla Motors did not consider the Euopean market and wisely so.

I understand why Tesla would not want to use the Zebra (Sodium Nickel
Chloride) battery in the Tesla Roadster, because its power density
(as opposed to energy density) is rather mediocre. As best I can see
a 50 KWH Zebra battery which offers 200-250 mile range would only
produce 100 HP.

But if you were to combine a large Zebra battery with a very small
high power density LiON battery you could produce a highly affordable
family car with plenty of power and range.

Other than its mediocre power density, the Zebra seems to have
everything else going for it:

o Cheap, abundant, non-toxic materials
o An estimated manufacturing cost of 30 mph. Even though it contains
a number of cells near 600 degrees F with liquid sodium around
a nickel chloride core, if cells are penetrated they quickly
congeal largely to a solid mixture of aluminum and table salt.
o Almost totally unaffected by the most extreme environments
found on earth.
o Very high energy density, well north of 100 w-h/kg
o > a million miles of road testing, and Zebra powered 3-9 ton
delivery vans with 130-160 mile range are now rolling off the
production line in Europe (See Modec and Smith Electric)

— Larry

Susan K. wrote some unbelieveable stuff.

Considering that USA is already the worst polluter in the world by a big margin it feels very disturbing to me to read that some ultramorons are actually trying to make it worse. I really really hope that you get a better goverment than this one you now have.

kert, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I read your critique of the battery-swap idea, the biggest objection seems to be that a swappable pack will not help the structural integrity or weight distribution in the car. Perhaps, but if that is a big issue, why make a convertible, which isn’t as “structurally sound” as an integrated hard top (not to mention more dangerous for passengers and driver)? Car companies make convertibles because people like convertibles, so manufacturers respond to the engineering challenge to bring the people what they want. I never expected that solving the problem would be easy, only easiER and more economical all around than putting an external quick-charge infrastructure in place.

Can we agree that, if big, ESS-class packs were ultra-reliable, could last the life of the vehicle, could hold a charge indefinitely, and could power the vehicle for 500-600 miles after a full charge, there would be little or no need for either quick-charging or modularity? If so, then the rate at which the industry approaches this sweet spot, and the rate at which the older EVs go out of service, will in large part determine the maximum lifetime for a quick-charging or battery-replacement business. The economic question is, will quick-charge purveyors find it profitable to invest in the infrastructure: will they get adequate payback over the years in which EV quick-charging is a viable business for them? That is what you need to be able to show, because you will have to convince that army of “helpers” to make your vision of a “quick charge” EV work. When nearly everyone has a “sweet spot” battery pack, what will those purveyors of quick-charging do then?

As long as battery packs will have limited capacities and lifetimes, they will occasionally need to be replaced or refurbished, and they will occasionally need to be charged up in minutes, rather than hours — at least if they are going to enable EVs to be competitive in the marketplace with ICE vehicles. It is also possible that quick-charge capable battery chemistries (or alternatives such as ultracaps) won’t be practical in the EV marketplace for a while — longer than you or I would like. Already, for example, Tesla has stepped back from more leading edge, higher-capacity Lithium Ion products and taken the hit for pruning back their estimated vehicle range-per-charge.

So, for a mass-market automobile, for the foreseeable future, the real problems of occasional “quick charge” requirement and convenient, inexpensive battery replacement need to be solved in a way that doesn’t depend upon all of the future developments we love to dwell on here, but which also won’t be incompatible with those developments later on, if any of them pan out as practical alternatives in the marketplace: a tall order, to be sure.

As Arthur Hanson said, above, the accommodation of differing chemistries and electrical characteristics is something that can be done (within reason, anyway) through intelligent power-management circuitry — something that TEG will control. At very least, the module packaging standard could specify standard electrical characteristics on the inputs and outputs, leaving to the module manufacturer the choice of the storage type they wish to use internally, and the mechanisms necessary to properly interface storage of that type with the overall system.

# But you do realize the levels of maintenance that a mechanical system
# at a station to change hundreds of pounds batteries quickly would require, yes ?

I guess that depends on the design, and therein lies the rub and the challenge. Suppose that modules were restricted in size to the general dimensions of a larger automotive lead-acid battery, and in weight to between 50-100 pounds. In that case, it might not be necessary to use sophisticated machines to change them at all. A “pit crew” could conceivably handle a quick swap in minutes, each person being responsible for two or three modules during the procedure, much as one might get one’s car oil changed today at a “jiffy lube” shop.

If batteries were placed all around the vehicle, and assumed odd shapes to better mate with the chassis and body, of course, this would defeat both the idea of quick-charging by swapping AND inexpensive battery replacement whenever a battery died. I don’t think the idea of it being “better to swap the vehicle instead of the battery” would be conducive to the sales of tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles. The form factor and arrangement of the batteries will, I think, be constrained at least by the legitimate need to replace them every now and then, so there will have to be some balance struck between optimum weight distribution and advantageous location/form-factor for replacement.

# I absolutely positively dont want my brand new set of well cared batteries
# to be swapped out for something that has tens of thousands of miles on it.
# That’d be stealing.

I’ve mentioned in previous posts that one important thing that would be necessary for a swapping system to work, would be the availability of gear — both in the car as part of the ESS and at the service station, which would determine and report the quality and charge state of incoming and outgoing batteries, so as to ensure fair trade of value. If this can’t be done, then your objection will definitely come to the fore. But on the other hand, the average customer won’t look upon the car as a battery with wheels, with an eye toward coddling the battery pack. If he does, of course, he has the option to keep the original pack and trickle-charging it. Why would you want to fast-charge your expensive battery, if coddling it is so important to you, anyway?

When you think about it, the gasoline is by far the most expensive “single component” in the mass-market ICE vehicle. In five years, at current or greater prices, I will spend more on gasoline for my car than I paid for it originally. But we view gasoline as a consumable commodity. As long as people aren’t getting ripped off in their exchange of depleted modules for pre-charged ones, they can come to view the modules themselves as the consumable commodity. And, as batteries improve over the years, the need to trade in their current packs will diminish, just as it has become rarer and rarer to buy soda pop in returnable glass bottles.

The big objection I have to the focus on true quick-charging is that implementing it seems to require an expensive, long-term solution to a relatively short-term problem. Telling customers simply that “future batteries will recharge in minutes” is not telling them that they will need to have many power substations with high-performance charging bays in and around their neighborhoods, or that service stations will have to install and work with fly-wheels, huge banks of storage, etc., to get the job done. When these concessions and huge investments have been made, what happens when the demand for quick-charging falls with improvements in batteries?

#Trying to standardize on something at this point of time would actually
# stifle innovation.

I disagree. Yes, some options would be foreclosed by a particular form-factor, interconnection, and electrical performance specification. But others would be enabled. Those who wanted to go in a different direction, still could. Those who wanted to build on the “platform” provided by a standardized pack, could do their thing, too. It’s not as if the government would be annointing and requiring the “one right pack,” to the exclusion of all other approaches, after all.

# Yes, one company could try to standardize on some or other battery
# and physical size and interfaces, but the investment in infrastructure for
# just one model is absolutely not practical.

Clearly demonstrated, in the case of the Roadster — a most wildly impractical vehicle, which has, nevertheless, enjoyed phenomenal sales by its own standards.

The plain fact is that Tesla WILL have to standardize its Whitestar-era ESS, or it won’t be able to produce reliable units economically in the necessary quantities. Also, it will need to repair, refurbish, and replace those packs without cleaning out the savings accounts of Whitestar owners. Maybe the designers will decide that “modularity,” as I speak of it here, won’t be right for the Whitestar; maybe they will come up with something that is even more achievable and affordable. But if the next generation ESS does involve discrete modules, then I submit that Tesla/TEG will be very close to having an approach that will serve for charging-by-module-swapping too, and that they should consider not preventing that option in their design decisions. If they make the right choices, the result will be attractive to other EV firms (or Big Auto, trying to get into the EV field), from whom they will be able to derive additional sales or licensing revenue, towards at least recoup their R&D costs.

10 minute recharge, I don’t think so. Recharging a 50 kWh battery pack in 10 minutes requires, obviously, 300 kW. At any plausible battery voltage that’s many hundred amps. (If you believe in the 3 kV supercaps that were mentioned in the trade press recently, it’s still 100 amps).

More importantly, you can’t do it at home, not by a factor of 10 or more. In theory you could do it at a service station.

But wait. Does a service station service just one car at a time? No, it doesn’t. A decent size gas station has at least 4 and perhaps one or two dozen pumps, and each is occupied for a few minutes. A 10 minute recharge time would require at least that many positions, probably 2x or 3x as many. Ok, so your interstate service station might have 20 cars “filling up” at a time, which means it is taking 6 megawatts from the grid (not counting losses in the station’s electrical system). That’s one heck of a load.

Also, what about heat? The charging process is not 100% efficient. I don’t know how efficient it is. Suppose it’s 90% efficient (in other words, 90% of the incoming power is stored in the battery, the remaining 10% becomes heat) — that means you’re generating 30 kW of heat in the battery pack.

Yes, disposing of 30 kW is doable. A large internal combustion engine does this, though its operating temperature is over 200 degrees F. A battery pack has to be kept much cooler than that - say, under 120 degrees or so. Still, this is doable with large enough radiators and enough coolant flow. But it would require a massively larger battery cooling system than you’d find in a Tesla.

In other words, I’ll believe it when I see it.

Old announcement from February 2007 on the US Fuel Efficient Car Gap.

There are only two 40mpg+ vehicles on sale in the US, but more than 100 available to car buyers in other countries.

www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

Another daft state of affairs for Martin to sarcastically and enthusiastically encourage them to maintain.

Solar panels, battery systems and electric transportation that are economically viable scare the electric utilities, the oil companies, the government and their supporting businesses to death. Roof top solar panels would supply distributed secure power for local and transportation needs independent of utilities, power generaters, oil companies, coal companies, government taxing authorities and all their supporting companies. Imagine no utility bill, no gas bill except out on the road(even this could be limited by high efficiency solar cells on al horizontal surfaces) and a situation very hard for the government to tax. Much of this would also apply to commercial applications. Even if this displaces just twenty percent of the market, the implications will be huge. The social changes will even dwarf the engineering challenges.

This has the ability to change the world social order and that scares a lot of people. We’ve all seen what fear can do and it can get ugly. Tesla, Applied Materials are among the companies that will have to deal with these issues in the very near future.

# kert wrote on June 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
## Basically to get good handling characteristics, my pack isnt in one piece,
## the cells are distributed around on the frame.
## To make them all quick-swappable would be practically impossible.

Did you ever hear of Bob Schneevies’ “Snow-white” vehicle?
cafeelectric.com/Snowhite1.jpg
The door sills on either side are hinged. When you open them, the (spring loaded) metal bars on the lid that join the batteries in series just lift of the batteries and are out of the way. You are left with rows of 12v batteries not connected to anything and completely safe. The high voltage is gone the moment you open the access door. I just don’t see why this is such a conceptual problem. As far as I can tell, the biggest problem would be a flexible BMS (to recharge the batteries) that can adjust to different voltages, capacities, & heat characteristics. You could still have a warming/cooling system, and still have a physical protective barrier even if there were access doors to get at the cells. You also could make them into modules that chain together. It doesn’t seem impossible.

# kert wrote:
## What i could perhaps think of is quick swapping an auxiliary range-extending battery,
## that would be some standard size and connect to some “extender” plug in your trunk,
## this you could swap. But you wouldn’t swap the battery at the heart of the car.

That brings us back to the trailer concept. So maybe the main battery isn’t changed, or even recharged on a long trip, but you could have a small trailer with a set of extra batteries to join for the long haul trips. Perhaps the service stations along the way allow you to drop off the “dead trailer” and pick up another that has been charged up.
My biggest problem with a trailer is the parking hassle. But if I wanted to drive my EV down “Highway 5″ (in California) it wouldn’t be so bad to have to stop every 150 miles to do a 10 minute trailer swap.

# But quick drop-in fuel cell or generator range extender would be much more practical
## so i don’t think such batteries would make much sense either.

Well, Tesla doesn’t seem to want to have anything to do with liquid fuel powered anything.
So, a set of aux batteries on a trailer is the only idea that seems worth mentioning here.

# Timo wrote:
## When you mess with EV battery system you mess with very high-voltage enormous amp system
## that is very dangerous to handle by anybody that isn’t specially trained to deal with it.

See what I wrote above about “Snow-white”. A simple mechanical linkage on the access door that disconnects the batteries seems like a relatively easy solution to this “problem”.

## Also ESS of EV will always be quite expensive, … risk for whoever is storaging them.

Thats what locks and alarms are for. Lots of businesses with more “portable wealth” deal with it. Like Jewelry stores for instance. ESS can have traceable serial numbers and could even hack “LoJack” style phone-police with GPS coordinates if it was a real problem.

## With fast charging or long enough range swapping battery will be completely unnecessary.

As far as I know, Tesla has stayed away from the whole “10 minute recharge” technology.
I see some value in having swappable battery modules for these reasons:
#1: Reconfigurability for efficiency. (”I only need the small pack for my short commute today”)
#2: Reconfigurability for performance. (”Going racing today. I need the high current pack.”)
#3: Long road trips where you don’t want to wait for a recharge. (” I will swap out the rental range extender module in Barstow”)
#4: Service. (”Dashboard says module 2 needs cell replacement”)
#5: Upgrades. (”The new 3200ah cells are here. I will pay to upgrade my packs and get 350mile range now.”)

# Wolfgang wrote on June 6th, 2007 at 10:04 am
## Any electric drive declines in torque beyond nominal speed due to insulation limit of its windings and/or maximum supply voltage.
## Other effects such as IGBT switching losses… play a minor role.

After rambling on about about winding insulation, voltage and IGBT switching limits, I thought it might be easier to summarize this way:
It is a lot easier to add more insulation to windings than it is to find faster IGBTs, right?
Doesn’t that indicate where the real limits are?

Yet another related link:
www.reliance.com/prodserv/standriv/d7172/d7172.htm
…”IGBTs can be optimized for either switching speed or on-state voltage.
…These two parameters oppose each other.
… Most IGBT manufacturers make 2 or 3 classes of devices, some optimized for speed and others optimized for on-state voltage.
… For a particular PWM motor drive, the switching frequency must be considered when selecting which IGBT to use.”

So, the above makes me think you could use lower voltage, but faster IGBTs and move the torque dropoff to a higher RPM, but the lower voltage would negate the possible power gains. There must have been careful consideration relating to IGBT switching speed, voltage and resultant motor power curve.

How about providing an easy-to-find hyperlink to the Telsa heating and air conditioning systems….

Was watching CNN and saw a fictionalized future-set documentary called “We were warned: Out of gas” … they talk about what would happen to global economy and such should we have a massive disruption in oil. Sadly, Ethanol, hybrids, and hydrogen were the only car related things talked about. Pure electrics didn’t even get a mention, and the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid was the only one mentioned by name (linked with ‘thermal events’, and blaming battery technology not being ready). Was Tesla contacted at all regarding this production?

I find it amazing that a documentary could be made these days talking about fuel and the need to break free from oil, without even giving Tesla a nod.

Paul Koning wrote

# 10 minute recharge, I don’t think so. Recharging a 50 kWh battery pack
# in 10 minutes requires, obviously, 300 kW. At any plausible battery voltage
# that’s many hundred amps. (If you believe in the 3 kV supercaps that were
# mentioned in the trade press recently, it’s still 100 amps).

You can have converter inside car that converts higher voltage suitable to battery pack.

With three-phase connection 300kW with, lets say, 1kV would require approx 58 Amps / wire. No problem there.

# More importantly, you can’t do it at home, not by a factor of 10 or more.

That is not important, because at home you just charge slower.

# In theory you could do it at a service station.

Pretty much in practice too.

# But wait. Does a service station service just one car at a time? No, it doesn’t.
# A decent size gas station has at least 4 and perhaps one or two dozen
# pumps, and each is occupied for a few minutes. A 10 minute recharge time
# would require at least that many positions, probably 2x or 3x as many

You are thinking about gasoline stations there. EV charging stations would not be quite so full just because EV:s will mostly be charged at homes. You would need a very big road that connects two very long distance points to have same amount of people charging their cars as gasolline-cars are filled. IF that is the case then you need big connection to grid and many on-site storage units for charging. Still very much doable.

Within one day there is rush hour and quiet time. You need to charge your on-site storage units in quiet time and then use energy from those in rush hour time. That makes needed peak energy from grid much lower. Main problem in that would be to estimate right amount of needed energy.

# In other words, I’ll believe it when I see it.

35kWh Altairnano battery has been charged in less than 10 minutes without any problems. So charging itself isn’t problem. Problem could be current distribution infrasturcture which seems to be quite outdated in US. But that infrastructure needs rework with or without fast charging stations.

To NiMH EV:

1. Most restraining limit is overall power of ESS versus energy capacity. It surely exist strong desire to increase range so to go with highest energy capacity. As a result for a reasonable mass of ESS you would end up with power limitation similar to Tesla roadster. Increasing ESS mass alone would not help because it proportionally increase power requirement for the same acceleration. Increasing ESS mass fraction out of total car mass is not possible - Tesla roadster is at the limit of safe structural integrity for this. Having limited power it is not needed to increase voltage, winding isolation, IGBT etc because what exist is already nicely balanced to deliver whatever power available from ESS to the driving. Power could be increased but only at expence of range suffering considerably. Tesla Motors seems make their choices to keep 200+ range versus to have outrageous 1/4 mile timing and other racing capabilities.

2. IBGT switching frequency surely is a limitation more important than winding isolation voltage limit. But if someone set several IGBT in parallel, add small inductances for temporal energy buffering and allow IGBT swith one after another with some phase shift it would reduce IGBT swithicng limit impact considerably. I believe hard IGBT switching related limit comes at higher frequency than needed for EV so it is hardly a show stopper limitation to get much higher eMotor power than what exist in Tesla roadster.

3. Choice of voltage versus current for eMotor and ESS most likely was driven by trade off to avoid too much electrical isolation complexity on one side and too heavy wiring on another. IGBT switching limitations were surely also included in the choice. But isolation limits to voltage alone could not be driven factor of power limitation. Would it be just winding isolation as key limit to increase power EV could be designed to handle several kilovolts inside ESS and come to power range 1000 kW to 10000 kW. Just the safety issues for mass market will be severely difficult but for some racing it could be done.

LIQUID COAL IT’S ON THE TABLE. The Senate votes this week please ask them to vote against this proposal to use millions of our tax dollars to make “Liquid Coal “America’s next fuel. Liquid Coal produces twice as many green house gases as conventional gasoline. This money should go to the building of electric cars. Do not let them get away with this.

Ron Greene

# Roy wrote on June 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
## All this discussion about limit of motor power.
## Simple fact: If too much power is fed to an electric motor it overheats and burns up.

Thanks Roy! I like a simple explanation.
I wasn’t sure if the torque was suddenly dropping due to:
#1: IGBT switching limits
#2: Back EMFs from the eMotor
#3: Battery power delivery limits

eMotor overheat is as good an answer as any I guess.
So they have to start dropping the torque (intentionally) at about 6000 RPMs because if they kept the same torque and revved higher the eMotor would be making too much power and would overheat.

Given that max horsepower constraint (due to heat) then they could size the IGBTs and ESS batteries accordingly.

…Now if they water cooled the eMotor the IGBTs might be the limiting factor… Oh nevermind

Hi,

Has anyone seen the new electric sports car vehicle from the Lightning Car Company in Britain? They just released news today on their high performance electric sports car.
www.lightningcarcompany.com/

They are using Altairnano’s Nanosafe 35 Kwh battery to get this vehicle from 0-60 in less than 4 seconds with a range of 250 miles.

I always wondered why Tesla never used Altairnano’s Nanosafe battery.

Great looking car!

Here’s the press release from EVWORLD.com

www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=15408&url=

-David G.

—

Editor’s response: Hi David, We’ve addressed this question in past blogs. I recommend taking a look at Balance.

I Started tearing apart my Toyota Celica this last weekend. Poor thing had two holes in the engine block just below the exhaust manifold (left me stranded on a stretch of I-40). I am considering a DC motor conversion (for budget reasons). Has anyone in this blog gone through the process? Can you recommend some sites and/or books that you found useful? I have the “Convert It” book on order. Thanks in advance. Go Tesla!

Why the concern about fuel cells? The beauty of the Tesla architecture is its modularity. The ESS is a case in point. A fuel cell is, by definition, just a battery—converts chemical energy to electrical potential. If it can compete with lithium-based batteries in the future, so be it. The impact to the ESS would be the charging protocol. I personally believe that fuel cells may go the way of Bubble Memories (anyone else on this blog old enough to remember them?). Because of their architecture, Tesla is positioned to ride the battery technology curve. Is there a Moore’s Law for batteries?

Thanks for continuing to make a difference!

Doing what is right, instead of what is popular, always seems AT FIRST, to create a bit of havoc. As you continue on, these same people that didn’t support you at first, will all of a sudden become your best friend. As long as you stay true to who and what you are, instead of other people’s perception of who they think you should be, everything will continue to grow. Just make sure you keep watering the soil!
-jared matthew kessler

When you look along your nearest high street it’s clear to see what they’re defending; mile after mile of gas stations, oil change and service centres.

Hydrogen is just a means to replace that with something new, but the same.

I suspect the ground swell that is mounting will catch out the motor industry and I do hope that Tesla can be at the forefront of that.

Thank you for standing up.

To NiMH EV :

1. Toyota hybrids are all using DC brushless eMotors. These are eMotors with rotors made as very strong permanent magnets. Such eMotors degrade energy efficiensy at high RPM because of eddy losses induced by rotating magnetic field of a rotor into stator conductive materials. But such a eMotor typically have higher torque than induction eMotor.

2. Tesla Motors used inductive eMotor for the roadster. Energy efficiensy of such eMotor improves with increasing RPM. Such eMotor have usually smaller torque per motor volume. But inductive eMotor at high RPM could have fairly light rotor so it could be made overall power per weight winner versus DC brushless eMotor.

3. So to match torque between induction and DC brushless motor by keeping similar energy efficiensy, power and other parameters induction eMotor should use higher RPM and larger reduction gear versus DC brushless eMotor. This also adds extra reluctance I think for Tesla Motors to consider eMotors in wheels because they by usage will have low RPM.

I think this explains why Toyota uses much lower RPM in eMotors versus Tesla Motors.

NiMHEV: The point of water cooling is very relavent. The only two motors on the market that have similar power to weight of Tesla’s motor are water cooled. It is another testment to Tesla engineers that they were able to accomplish this without the additional weight and complexity of water cooling.

David G: Great to see more electric cars comming to the market. The only advertized price I found for a Ronart Lightning was $98k with a Ford Mustang V8 power train. I am sure that the electric version will be more than twice as expensive.

Brandon: All the best on your conversion! Look on my web site for some options www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVmotors.htm You will find that Advanced DC Motors is much cheaper than Net Gain. Do look into AC it is much better.

I enjoyed reading about your work and the response,…or better said….lacking of response….during the CARB debates. Here in europe, especially germany, a hot spot for leading car manufactures, the same ironic debates are taking place. With the costs of fossil fuels further on the rise (We pay about 300% of US gas prices), I see a great market here! Please keep up the good work so I eventually may be driving a Tesla here in germany, soon!

This is the first time I have seen this technology (EV) and thought, this can actually be a truly viable solution to a variety of problems. I am not your ptototypical visitor to this scene. I am a right-of-center republican who fully supports this technology and all that it can become. Even if that means big oil and big auto (plus all of its’ ancillary support like gas stations and repair shops) go away. The key is creating the demand through perfromance and price. Having truly viable options that would enable more socially responsible purchasing is a big deal to me. I have tried to get more people excited about this great car and Tesla’s technology over the last couple of weeks. The momentum is increasing and I know with more CARB visibility, they will come around. If we think that the global warming issue can even remotely cause the havoc presented by Mr. Gore, why would CARB want to wait for hydrogen to gain popularity, technology and infrastructure? The answer is likely for the same reasons they backed off of the ZEV mandate several years ago. Big politics. To Tesla I say, be cautious in your desire to grow too fast. Try to keep your company and your technology close to the vest and get your materials pre-ordered and in your possession because it would not surprise me to see politic influence and big oil influence your raw materials acquisitions. What do you folks think this technology will do to the rolling blackout issues and electricity demands in the long run? Are you in support of Nuclear Power plants? There seems to be a swining of the pendulum on the thinking on nuclear power…? Go Tesla!

# Roy wrote on June 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
## Look on my web site for some options www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVmotors.htm

Roy - whenever I go to your site I get all sorts of popup messages saying
“Authentication Required for ftp.plasticlabels.ca”
I think you must be using inline images that are coming from a password protected server.
You may want to find a way to fix that if you want people to visit your site.
Viewing HTML source on your site shows things like this:
img width=64 height=2576 src=”ftp://ftp.plasticlabels.ca/httpdocs/index_files/image466.gif”

Brandon
Check out Rich Rudman’s stuff
www.manzanitamicro.com/
It does exactly what you just said.

I know that the heat produced by cities and highways creates “heat polution.” Has anyone compared or contrasted an electric against a hybrid and against an inetrnal cobustian engine for heat injected into the environment?

Yeah that “Hummer more eco than a Prius” farce is making all the Internet rounds this past week. I heard it talked about on Progressive radio today.

The first thing I want to know is why a Prius’ life is cut off at 100,000 miles while a Hummer’s is triple that at 300K. It’s just a metal box on wheels like every other car. It has an engine and running gear, bushings, wires, glass, upholstery, and paint. —All the things that wear out like any other car.

What parts are made from 3X-unobtanium?

Has Telsa considered the future use of two current research projects by MIT professors? These two concepts could be used in conjuction to allow Tesla drivers to eventually pull up to a Tesla charge station, stay in their car, recharge, and be on their way again. This would put gasoline to bed. Perhaps, later ancestors of the technology could drive across “fueling strips” on the roadway at full speed after pressing a button in the car attached to a credit card to indicate that fueling is necessary. People would only have to stop to use the bathroom, satisfy their stomachs, or rest for the night.

www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/06/26/mit_research_may_spell_end_for_the_battery/
www.engadget.com/2007/06/07/mits-wireless-electricity-demoed-dubbed-witricity/

(Moderator: I am reposting… replacing less than signs to avoid truncated posting)

# vfx wrote on June 13th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
## The first thing I want to know is why a Prius’ life is cut off at 100,000 miles while a Hummer’s is triple that at 300K

My guess is that the whole point of that article and so called research is just to get us high MPG-E fanatics to spin our wheels in a frenzy over the aspersions.

One of the “points” they were trying to make is that battery and hybrid technology is improving so fast that today’s hybrids are tomorrow’s “junk”.
In other words, the stance was that a Prius buyer of today really wanted a 100+ MPG PHEV, so when those are available in less than 7 years people will throw away their 2007 Prius and replace it with something new. If you believe that then you could possibly think that some Prius’ will be retired early. Personally, I don’t think that is fair at all. The argument only applies to the current owner. Worst case, the resale value of a 2007 Prius drops, and those who can’t afford a new PHEV will still appreciate (and drive) a used Prius. The study said clearly that they expect a Prius to be able to last longer than 100K miles, they just used some absurd logic to claim that the owner will only get less than 100K miles out of it before they want to get rid of it. If so, there should still be a healthy used market for them.

Now what about their claims of the 300K Hummer? Does anyone believe that Hummer owners are more inclined to keep driving their vehicles past 100K or even 200K miles?
Hummers are expensive vehicles for the wealthy. They too want new cars on a regular basis. I would argue that it is just as likely that the Hummer owner will want to get rid of their Hummer after something new comes along.

Now we are back to why I bothered to start this topic here in the Tesla forum… The Tesla vehicles are likely to experience great improvements in coming years as batteries (or ultracaps) get better. What will the market be like for a 2007 Roadster in 2014? Will the “Signature 100s” be classic collector’s items or historical footnotes considered early prototypes of the 1000mile range Roadster? Perhaps there ~will~ be an ESS retrofit in a few years to freshen up the Roadster with new energy storage technology… It is hard to say what will happen, but this is something to think about when buying a new car that uses very modern technology.

Speaking of which, that brings up another recent phenomenon… The impact of yesterday’s GPS technology on your resale value.
In-dash GPS systems have been improving rapidly year by year. More and more people want them as a standard feature on new cars. A 4 year old car with an inferior GPS is considered lacking. This is something that used car dealers (and “factory reconditioned / certified” dealers) have been running into lately.
See this:
www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/in-dash-nav-systems-do-damage-to-resale-value/

Hummer VS Prius

White papers are produced to sell a view but are taken as fact by 1000s instantly:

www.unsoughtinput.com/index.php/2007/03/31/how-can-a-hummer-be-better-for-the-environment-than-a-prius/

Toyota responds:
www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

Oh, in the UK it’s a Jeep VS Prius

It’s obvious by looking around that automotive industry is not only changing in technology but also business structure at a fast clip. The fact that parts supplies have gone external to the auto companies with much of the r & d for these parts and assemblies is setting the stage for new companies and a vastly speeded up rate of change for the industry. Tesla is but one of the new generation of auto companies that are coming to market. This is not only true of the consumer market, but also in the commercial market. Next year promises to see more change to the industry than we have seen in years. It’s going be be politics that are the limiting factor, just look at the big three telling congress efficiency is to expensive to impliment. They may as well have told congress that they are dinasoars that are going to soon be extinct, which if you look at there finances they may soon be. Hopefully the Tesla style business structure will win out and the consumer will win too. Exciting times are coming with great job, investment and product choices getting better everyday.

Various news items:-

36 mpg for passenger cars by 2025 and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2022……no demand for greater fuel economy any sooner?
www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/15-06-07_16

Tough wage negotiations on the way…
www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/15-06-07_12

Toyota sticking with NiMH for “safety” reasons…
www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/15-06-07_6

# Malcolm Wilson wrote on June 15th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
## Toyota sticking with NiMH for “safety” reasons…
## www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/15-06-07_6

Thanks for that link, Malcolm

I suppose that means that the next gen prius will still NOT be a plug-in PHEV.
As far as I know, the Cobasys “agreement” prevents them from having large NiMH capacity.
With only ~2KW in a small pack there wouldn’t be much range on full electric to get from plugging in.
Looks like the aftermarket may still be the way to go for now if you want a 100MPGE Prius.

# Mark Tebbutt wrote on June 12th, 2007 at 8:15 am
## In wheel motors, time for a Tesla rethink … ?
## … Thoughts, comments anyone?

Tesla has obviously spent a considerable amount of time considering the optimal architecture (partitioning of functionality) for their Roadster. And for reasons they state, have decided on a single motor with a driveshaft. At implementation time they had to choose specific technologies within each subsystem, which led to LI batteries and a motor of their own design. They then had to write a considerable amount of software, and I suspect the development cost of the software (in staff-hours) equals or exceeds the development cost of the hardware and will be one of their largest ongoing costs. The choice of a single motor vs in-wheel motors has probably simplified software that is already inherently complex. The beauty of their architecture is that it’s reusable. The Whitestar will certainly look different and probably perform differently, but the architecture (partitioning of functionality) will remain essentially the same, which means all the software they’ve written will get reused as well. A common software base across all models will be important for their economic future.

The Lightening is certainly an interesting car. Some would say it is less complex without the driveshaft, while others would say it is more complex from a system perspective. It will be interesting to watch these two cars from different companies with different architectures compete with the same goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

# NiMH EV wrote on June 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
## One case in point was the GM Impact Prototype (two motors) then the GM EV1 (one motor).

I hope I got that right. Looking around some more, the info about the exact layout of the Santana/Impact prototype is a bit lacking.

I did see this
www.acpropulsion.com/car_that_could.htm
which suggests strongly it had two motors:
“…Cocconi, meanwhile, worked obsessively at home, month after month, designing and building the car’s inverter–its electronic heart. Technically, he was building two inverters, one for each 50-kilowatt motor…”

The Zytek Elise was another EV that used a motor for each rear wheel:
www.econogics.com/ev/eliseins.jpg

LooK! Google wants to give Tesla Motors millions! money.cnn.com/2007/06/19/news/economy/google_plugin/index.htm?cnn=yes

# Malcolm Wilson wrote on June 19th, 2007 at 1:08 am
## The FREEDOM Act
## www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/15/three-senators-unveil-pro-plug-in-hybrid-freedom-act/

…Not to be confused with the PATRIOT act!…

That bill sounds rather significant to Tesla and other upcoming EV makers!

Tesla is to be congratulated for choosing a conventional chassis design and battery architecture that optimized the proven technology available at the start of the project. The result is an eye-catching proof-of-concept vehicle that provides great PR benefits.

However, it leads the company in a direction divergent from the form the auto of the next two decades will likely take, and relegates it to be a minor player or footnote unless it is able to make a mid-course adjustment.

The reasons for this conclusion are as follows:

1- The demand for a vehicle capable of taking trips longer than 200 miles will always be a deciding factor for most buyers.
2- Even if battery technology for 5 minute recharges becomes widespread, the profit margin for a nationwide network of charging stations capable of supporting multiple high demand charging outlets will not be suffficient to make them commonplace.
3- Therefore the auto of the next two decades will almost certainly be a plug-in PEV, while pure electric vehicles will be limited to commuter cars and perhaps a few Tesla Roadster clones.
4- Tesla’s water cooled battery design is technically inelegant— an amalgamation of the best small format production batteries available at the time it was developed. It will almost certainly become a museum piece as large format Li nano-enhanced batteries are perfected.
5- The automobile of the future will use a relatively small constant speed generator powered by a common rail diesel or advanced gasoline engine that serves as a back up for the electric drive train and primary battery power source. It’s electric range will be from 40 to 100 miles, depending upon the development of battery technology and cost factors. If 100 mile batteries end up costing less than $2,000 and last 100,000+ miles, then an opportunity for a plug-in generator design will emerge. This would enable owners to operate in pure electric mode except when they need to travel away from home, then go to a rental station and plug in a motor on the occasions it is needed.

#RDE wrote on June 20th, 2007 at 8:45 am
# [TM’s battery design] leads the company in a direction divergent from the form the auto of the next two decades will likely take…

You’re right that range is a deciding factor for some buyers, but not for many, and perhaps not for most. We really don’t know. The number of electric cars actually sold can fit in a fairly small parking lot, so there’s not much marketing experience. I expect there is some minimum range that each buyer finds “enough” — for me, it’s probably around 250 miles — and where the benefits of electric begin to vastly outweigh the internal combustion engine. What the broad inflection point is, and how fast we can get there, will determine the ultimate success of the EV. However, I think your (cogent) arguments for the PHEV miss the reasons that many people will finally decide on an EV. These reasons are subtle, but powerful, and they hit two key points in every consumer’s purchasing decision matrix: cost of ownership, and headache of ownership.

Consider this tidbit (thanks to Aaron at TM): The City of Santa Monica’s fleet of nine or ten RAV-4 EVs have a TOTAL annual operating cost of $200 each. (This number evidently comes from a multi-year survey.) To be sure, these cars aren’t driven very far on a daily basis, but you might multiply it by some higher use factor — let’s triple it, say, to $600 — and it would still be less than many people spend on gasoline alone. Electrics are inherently less complex mechanically, and inherently less expensive to run. It doesn’t take a too-sophisticated consumer to grasp this point. In fact, all it takes is a consumer who’s tired of seeing “Check Engine” lights accompanied by four-figure auto repair bills, or a consumer who stares down one too many $100 fillups. I envision a day when I might lump my car operating bills in with my refrigerator operating bills.

I also believe the EV will someday change (dare I say improve?) the way we relate to our cars. If past EV ownership experiences are any guide, scheduled maintenance will be reduced to as little as every two years. Breakdowns should be rare, which means you won’t have to deal with the whole servicing hassle. Plus, because the EV starts each morning’s drive with a full tank, courtesy your local power company, it will allow you to skip your once-or-twice-a-week filling station errand.

For me, these benefits alone are worth the smaller range early EVs have. Eventually, however, battery technology may progress to the point where range drops out as a factor. If the car can go 600 miles to a charge, I see little room for internal combustion engines. You may prefer them, much as some people still prefer vinyl to CDs, but I believe most consumers will not. At that point, perhaps the ICE will be the niche product, not the electric.

Heeeeyyy!! I want a ride also. (lol) Rats I was out of town when the Tesla was in Pasadena so I missed my chance to see the car this weekend. I hope you enjoyed the ride sounds like fun to me.

Have to confess I did not know about Martin Eberhard until recently. Martin, I am very impressed with the kind of person you are, your dedication to this great work and the what you are doing for humanity. No words can express the real gratitude for the great work you’re doing for all of us. Your blog is great, BTW. I love your humor and sarcasm. It makes people want to read more and more of what you have to say.

I have written many things about Tesla in my blog about electric vehicles at www.evdestination.com. I’m a big EV enthusiast and have decided to focus on Tesla because you guys represent so well what I’m all about. If Idon’t have permission to write what I have and use the images I have, please let me know and I’ll fix that.

BTW, I have applied for a job at Tesla Motors before (and not heard from you). I’d so love to be a part of this movement. I take it you’re all too busy trying to get the Roadster out the door with the highest possible level of quality. If it is the case that you need more manpower to achieve the results you want, please let me know!

Some day, decades from now, our kids will read history books that say “and around 2010 the United States made the transition to EVs from ICEs, for America understood the need to stop using fossil fuels which were already in decline”. That is if we win this battle, of couse. But the books won’t say anything about battles or oil addiction, or how hard it was to make the switch. It may not even give you guys credit for being the pioneers in the industry, and the risk you took to leading the world to an era when automobiles are clean, quiet, require low maintenance and can be run on renewable energy (that is, until the sun is depleted). And more importantly, an era when people are free and don’t have to give money to oil tycoons and Saudi Royal familes so they can drive. I am in complete awe of Tesla.

Lastly, I have a message to those who have written and continue to write in this blog to tell Mr. Eberhard that he should be thinking not about cars but about mass transportation systems or something else. My question for you is “what is it that you’re doing?” I mean, if you see cars as a problem and mass transportation as the solution, then what are you doing to make that happen? Writing a message to the CEO of Tesla does not count. With all respect, go do something. Put your butt on the line.

I agree that cars are the problem and not the solution. Yet we all know that given our dependence and addiction to cars, we will not switch to mass transportation systems very easily. Heck, if we had bullet trains going from Seattle to San Diego, from San Diego to Florida, from Florida to NYC and from NYC to Seattle, most people would still use choose to drive their cars as usual when traveling those long distances. Do you know why? Because they have been doing that all their lives! Cars are a necessary band-aid before a bigger solution such as subways and bullet trains can be implemented. Perhaps Tesla understands this and they’re doing the transitional work. But what matters is that they are doing something. You, who do no want cars, I ask again, what is it that you’re doing? Don’t just tell others who are already doing something, that they should do something different. Instead, put your butt on the line and manifest what you consider to be the solution for our society and the world.

Personally, I LOVE cars. I love performance and speed. That’s another reason I love Tesla.

Performace + sustainable development = you can’t go wrong.

Keep up the great work!

- Ricardo Parker

##TEG2 wrote on June 20th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
##Also, apparently many in Tesla do read the blog carefully. Someone commented that they missed having me post as “TEG”, so I have decided to stop posting as “NiMH EV”, and go back to “TEG”, but now as “TEG2″ to help avoid confusion with “Tesla Energy Group”.

It’s about time. I was not a fan of the the TEG replacement (NIMH EV). By the way, weren’t you the one who began (coined) the use of the “##”? How’s that for getting off topic:)

Congratulations TEG2! Your mini tour was well deserved. You input here on these blogs has been appreciated and a great help to many of us.

Hey Telsa people have you seen the new Plastic No Paint films for the automotive industry made by GE

ge.ecomagination.com/html/advm/pair/index.html

I want one! Why do you not plan to sell it in Europe? Check the gas prices and the short commute distances in Europe and you’ll see the market is huge here…

#
##Arthur W. Hanson wrote on June 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 am

##…. I curious if any body knows if bike use went up in London? …
—
I was just in London the end of May and first week in June. As far as I could tell you were taking you life into you own hands by riding a bicycle on London streets. We saw very few bicyclists.

On a side note: I did get to see a Lotus Elise, nice looking car but I still prefer the Roadsters style.

The word filtering out in the corporate world about GM’s Volt is that they intend to use that platform to leepfrog the competition. It looks like a highly refined motor in wheel series hybrid in many variations is going to be their bet on the future. It’s obvious from their talks with numerous suppliers that they are pursuing an intense path of parallel development in almost all areas to speed development. They have been working on multiple technologies from multiple suppliers for each part of the platform, which should have the benefit of a basic platform that will have multiple technologies and configurations that allows for optimizing each platform for a particular function. This is a real departure for GM and should yield some great results if handled properly.

I just finished reading the great article on Tesla in” Top Gear”. While this is type of coverage it should have been getting all along
the general public is probably seeing it for the first time. This nation faces some very important decisions and we need to start making
the right choices. It we are going to develope a successful electric car we as a nation are going to have to fund its development
and this goes for batteries, fuel cells and what ever else will allow it to perform at the same level as our ICE’s which we should be
getting ready to phase out. People who buy electric cars should be rewarded as they are doing the nation a great service. Why not
tax credits for those who do.

Question: as the article pointed out “Just how is this transition from internal combustion to electric power actually going to work, As the people in England pointed out we do not have anywhere to park but on the street and running a cord to the EV is not really practicle. This is why I believe the Volt by GM will work because the car can charge it’s own battery which is the most sensible way to go. Further, “fuel cells” are simply generators of electricity and certainly all cars including the one you drive now must have one or they are incomplete. I also saw an article where a man built an electric motor scooter and he drives it to work and when he arrives
he open up to panels of solar cells which recharge the battery while he is working. What we need are working solutions and
they are out there. We need to start doing what works and what makes sense to do. Who really cars what the range of an EV is?
Even if EV’s had a 500 mile range I live in California and that goes by so fast I do not even want to think about it. What I care about
is not how far an EV can go on a single charge but that the electric is replaced as I use it and that I never really have to worry about
it just like my ICE.

The reason why it must be this way should be clear to you if you have ever diriven your car without the generator.
Yes, you can drive your car for a few days with the generator disconnected as long as you do not drive at night with the lights on.
Well should we do this until the battery run down. The answer is of course not because deep dischange of the battery shortens it
lifespand and what works is to immediately recharge it to get the best performance possible out of it. The second your generator
quits the performance of the battery drops from high to low . Your lights immediately go dim. Therefore it should be clear that the
top performance from a battery can only be attained is if the battery is continuously recharged. This is why GM came out with the serial hybrid because it is the only way the battery can power an EV up and down hills all day long and never slow down. It does not matter if you have the lights on, the air conditioning on or even the heater the car will keep right on coming. The point is you are never going
to have a battery that is good enough to go as fast and as far as we drive. The solution is a fuel cell the size of a battery that will continously recharge the battery pack as we drive for a 1,000 miles whereupon we get it serviced and it will again be good for another
1,000 miles. We can do this, we have the technology right now we do no have to wait for anyone to tell us what needs to be done.

Thank you,
Ronald Greene

Tesla roadster at Stanford Concours car show:
teg.net/TESLA/PATesla1s.jpg
The crowds were much bigger to see the Tesla compared to those old-fashioned gas guzzling dinosaurs in the background.

Dear Martin, Has Tesla considered selling vehicles with smaller battery options or lowere cost options that could be replaced or upgraded at a later date when technologies improve and cost go down? Have differinet business models been considered for the power pack, such as the ability to upgrade, replace, lease, core charges and purchase options? Has teaming up with companies to handle aftermarket options been considered? It seems there is as much room for business creativity as there is technology creativity.

##Arthur W. Hanson wrote on June 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 am
##Just a note to readers, The British are making huge advances in electric vehicles of all sizes and delivering them to market because of the congestion tax in London which is sixteen dollars a day and even applies to a single trip.

What advances are these Arthur? I live in England but avoid London because of the congestion charge and the congestion but as far as I know the English are not coming up with the answers. Unless of course you count Lotus and the work it is doing for Tesla, Zap and others as a consultant. Aside from vapourware like the Lightning, we have the execrable Indian G-Wiz on the roads at the moment but it’s a bad joke and a perfect example of the punishment cars that Tesla is trying to eliminate. It is also incapable of passing proper safety tests and will probably be taken off the roads soon for that reason. It is technically legal as a “quadricycle”…whatever that is in the twenty-first century! Basically it’s just taking advantage of a legal loophole. As to actually getting practical electric cars onto the road I’d say Tesla and TH!NK are way ahead of us. Unfortunately I doubt there will be much serious EV activity here until Mitsubishi gets their MiEV here in 2011.

Answer to Andrew Kelsey

The advances the British and Europeans are making in electric vehicles have been primarily in commerical vehicles in fleets where range isn’t the problem and in stop and go traffic where electrics excell. The commericial fleets also have the advantage of their own charging stations many of which have been in use for years to charge electric forklifts. It’s much easier to use an electric vehicle when you already have the infastructure in place and the vehicles are on a generally fixed route of known legnth. The same is true here to a lesser extent with fleet vehicles here because of the much greater distances of trips here. UPS, FEDEX and many government agencies have had programs underway for years.

I noticed that Jay Leno has re branded his hobby as “Jay’s Green Garage”
www.popularmechanics.com/greengarage
As I look at the site now there is a picture in the upper right of the Tesla Roadster charging, next to a “subscribe now” (for Popular Mechanics)
[ Does Tesla get $ from Popular Mechanics for that tie-in? ]

The headline story is:
“Jay Leno Builds a Wind Turbine on His Green Garage”

Down below is:
“Alternate fuel cars are yesterday’s news to Jay Leno. He owns several that date back nearly the dawn of the automobile era.”

Then there are expansive displays of gas guzzlers… It seems more a shrine to gasoline with a coat of green paint being applied… But lots of fun anyways.

I love this company’s lofty and philanthropic ambitions but will it ever plan to realistically market a vehicle to unshackle the other 99% of America? From my perspective this fabled car, that only rivals the Holy Grail in its elusiveness, is solely intended for the gods that live in the silver lined clouds hovering over Beverly Hills. Are there any plans or commitments to make a Tesla available for under $30,000 in the near future? If so, why not detail this in a website that allows common folk to dream?

Martin - I think you will enjoy this:

kww.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/25/reader-essay-the-origins-of-power-cellulosic-ethanol-vs-sola/

As other posters probably feel: Love the Tesla Roadster, it’s got amazing potential.

Recently I was curious with regards fuel costs in the local market: Edmonton, AB, Canada. Using the information following:
Tesla Battery Storage: 56 KwH (it was found on one of the other BLogs, very useful info that would be handy in the FAQ)
Local pump price: $0.99 per Litre
Local electrical costs: $0.11 per KwH (includes all admin costs which is fair as the gas has all costs included at the pump)

The end result:
My F150, calculated at 20 MPG costs $0.20 per mile to operate.
Tesla costs $0.03 per mile to operate.

The difference in fuel costs over the “standard” life of the vehicle of 124,000 Miles (200,000 KM) is $20,600.

All I can say is: I’m seriously looking forward to my first real electric vehicle. None planned at the moment as I currently can’t afford a Roadster but that doesn’t stop me from looking into the future.

A couple Questions:
a) You’ve got some great photos that cycle on the front page of the web site. Is it possible to get some of those photos set up in high-res in the download section?
b) Is it possible to get some photos of different colored Teslas done up? I especially like the metallic Blue color and would love a high-res image of the car in Blue.

Thanks for your consideration.

—

Editor’s response: We put one of the high-res photos up on the blog a while back. Find it here: http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/teslatour_timesquare.jpg. You will see some additional downloadable images in the future.

I have come up with a simple but ingenious way of recharging the power supply in an electric car without having to use a mains power supply.
The technology already exists but just a simple way of puting it together will suffice.

The idea is that simple that I can’t say too much about it without giving the whole concept away.

With just a little bit of R & D it could be applied to any electric vehicle supplying endless power to it.

I just need someone to listen to my idea.

If you are interested please contact me [Contact details deleted].

Yours Sincerely

Tony Nikolovski

Tony Nikolovski: Nobody will believe you. Read www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=24

hello from Italy!

U are great…ho..GREATGREATGREATGREAT we support U as we are involved as engineer group in many environmental projects, as soon as i’ll can afford i’ll buy a battery pack to put in my old car!!!

thank a lot

I s it possible to support U?

Federico

I am pleased to see that someone mentioned the ZEBRA battery in all of these comments. With a few months of testing a ZEBRA battery could be made with iron instead of nickel , but since the price of the nickel is not a substantial part of the price of the battery it is not now worth the effort. The new TH!NK will be using the ZEBRA for a while. Lithium batteries seem to have a need to be kept cool, but ZEBRA must be kept hot, and can be easily cooled when needed becaus it is always much hotter than the ambiant temperature. The main problem with any new battery is that they are not in high quantity mass production and cost too much. Advanced flywheels may be cheaper than ultracaps, but one or the other should be used for peak power as flywheels have been used in cars for more than a century. Low power high capacity batteries are good for distance, but the series-hybrid with a small engine generator is the solution to fast battery recharging on long trips.

Just say NO to fast charges and run the less than 20 kg engine generator at full power (20KW) between “gas” (gasoline or diesel not H2) stations if going cross country, and you will get more than 50 miles per gallon. A much smaller engine would allow “limp home” or desert roadside or parking lot recharging. Any company that can figure how to get thousands of cells working together can find corners in their car for 10 gallons of biodiesel and a lightweight diesel generator (OPOC or RCV). With a 30% efficient engine generator, the car has about 105 kWh electric available for an average distance of about 500 miles and a weight of 40 pounds for the generator and seventy pounds for the diesel. No rechargeable battery will ever be made that can have that energy density. And no fuel cell with hydrogen storage either. The generator could have an efficiency as high as 50% with carefull design, but since it should be seldom used, the extra investment may not be worth it because the car is mostly grid charged at night.

Firefly, EFFPOWER, Atraverda and others are making cheap lead batteries for hybrid cars, and because of price may be less costly per amount of energy stored during the life of the battery. CALCARS did make a successful demonstration of lead batteries in a Plug-in-Prius as its only operating battery. Later methods of energy transfer developed and tested by Ron Gremban would allow the original Prius battery to handle the peak loads and the lead battery to charge the Prius battery more slowly. These companies are making lead batteries much lighter and they use less lead for unit energy and are cheaper.

High pressure air tanks are a much cheaper and lighter way of generating peak power than batteries or ultracapacitors. The hydraulic hybrid system may be cheaper than a full electric system. The hydraulic UPS truck is an effort in that direction…

Martin was not harsh in his comments about the major auto makers. He is on his best behavior considering the point he was making. Some have not understood his comments about them as competitors — he knows he can do it better than they can, but he welcomes them as competitors because it helps acceptance of the EV and it will drive prices down as more technologu becomes available. And in the end, he will still do it better in an expanded market.

As to the mass transportation comments — one of the points of Tesla Motoirs is to create “green” technologies that people really want to use. No punishment cars, and certainly don’t punish us with mass transportation. It is well and good to say to use mass transportation, but, would you rather show up on a bus or in a Tesle Roadster for anything (say a date, a social event, classl reuinion, work, anywhere). People don’t like mass transportation. Even if they do, they certainly don’t like it all the time — meaning there is still a need for personal transportation. Martin cannot solve all the world’s problems, but he sure is kicking some tail in the sports car market, and the Whitestar is going to change history.

flash-spyder

salmon … just wanted to know if that word ” s a l m o n” would get changed to halibut for being too fishy

Jay Leno writes about Tesla:

driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/new_car_reviews/article2036260.ece

While I wholeheartedly support the all electric car there are several problems transitioning to mass market. The foremost being infrastructure for long distance driving. I have heard a lot about charging stations but this is the chicken or egg dilema. Few charging stations will be built until there is a critical mass of electric cars to support them and vice versa. GM has answered this problem with an onboard generator in the concept Volt. Granted this is not a true all electric car but a hybrid. I think we must walk before we run, we need a transition to all electric. Of course GM will drag it’s feet as long as possible so they can continue their business model of production, sales and repair. Tesla could add an onboard generator for very little added expense and go from 100+ mpg to 600+mpg.
By the way I think the current belief that all Americans want to drive SUV’s is bunk. Like it or not we are going to have follow the Europeans and Asians into smaller vehicles.

To Larry Gales who wrote on July 8th 2007 12:05 AM - Zebra Battery. I also thought it was a good idea because a battery based on salt is safe, cheap and available and the price would not go threw the ceiling when demand for electric cars gets high. If you then combined the “Zebra battery” with the new light weight “Foam Lead batteries” which have a lot of current to deal with high power demands you could build a cheap power pack that people could actually afford to buy. The third element that you need is a small turbo powered generator to recharge both batteries as you drive and you can then forget about range and recharging as a problem.

Further, If you are then willing to run the generator on ethanol it will act as 150 octane fuel and you will be able to raise the compression of the small generator engine to 12: 1 or even 13: 1. This addition power produced by this new method of high compression surpercharging will then allow you to reduce the size of the engine by another 50%. If brief, the turbo generator can now be a very small package that could be made to fit most EV’s. You would also have the option of using Zinc fuel cells to recharge the Zebra-Foam Lead battery pack which would require service every 1,000 miles or so. Now all of this technolgy is available now and is just requires testing to get the bugs out and could be ready to go in a year or two. Further, I do not see why it could not be made to sell for less than $10,000 and would be run by computer. Where Tesla will run into problems will be in cold weather states and the zebra battery is not affect because it has it own temperature which is always the same no matter where it is used. I think Tesla needs to have parrallel research going on and this would be a way to do it.

Ronald Greene

This is in response to what Ronald Greene wrote on July 9th, 2007
at 11:02 am:

Thanks for the feedback. As far as I know the data that I gave
for the Zebra battery is accurate. If there are any errors in my
assumptions or facts I would like to know, as it is quite
possible I have overlooked something. But if that is not the
case, I see a huge opportunity being missed, and enormous amounts
of money being misdirected. I know that the Tesla folks have
decided against the Zebra battery because of its mediocre power
density, and for a super high performance vehicle like the Tesla
roadster it might make sense, but a large Zebra plus small high
power LiON appears to be ideal for a family car with plenty of
zip.

To: Ekuwa S. Amegor who wrote on july 10th, 2007 at 10:06.
Well Ford seems to think plug in hybrids are 5 to 10 years away?

The GM Volt could come out in the next couple of years and will succeed were all others have fallen short like the EV 1. Most people do not understand that the EV 1 could only be used in California and Arizona because as the temperature drops, so does the power
of the battery. At 0 degrees your range would decrease so that the car would become impractical unless the battery was heated.
Well heating the battery in cold weather is again going to drain what little juice is left and you had better have a heated garage.

The Zebra battery gives off some of it ’s energy as heat and I think you can see that it will work very well in cold cilmiates because its output will always stay the same as long as the battery is being used. The Volt is a series hybrid and is really a much better car
than the EV 1 from which it was derived. The idea of a pure electric is a little silly because a series hybred is pure electric as only the
batteries power the rear wheels. The internal combustion engine is only used to recharge the batteries. The idea that an electric
car committs some kind of sin by recharging itself does make sense to me. There is nothing sacred about running out of gas or electric especially if it is zero degrees outside. Having lived in a cold climate I would not trust an electric car that did not recharge its
own battery. My bet is on the Volt as the first practicle electric car to be sold nation wide and I think a Zebra-LION or Zebra-foam lead
batterypack might just do the trick.

Ronald Greene

Based on previous post it seems that the Zebra batteries have come up multiple times. A few questions / comments providing the majority of the above comments to be atleast somewhat accurate:

1 Why the pressure for Tesla to use Zebra batteries when they are not even in mass production yet?

2 Waiting for Zebra batteries to come into mass production would kick back the true release date of the Tesla and Whitestar even further which I don’t think anybody wants. (I will however make a point here to compare Battery Electric Vehicles with the computer industry. This point has also been well debated and I feel that if a car manufacturer were able to engineer a vehicle which could, as easily as a computer, be upgraded and retrofitted to fit different needs ((maybe easier than a computer as apparently many people are actually slightly illiterate when it comes to this)) in terms of initial cost of ownership, total cost of ownership, range, acceleration, total environmental friendliness……

3 Back to Zebra, atleast one of the posts or linked articles above mentioned an operating temperature of around 600 F. Does anyone have any good information about heat pollution research? How does heat pollution compare to CO2 and other types of pollution in terms of total effect on the environment as well as increases in the average world temperature? What is the heat pollution of a typical ICE vehicle as well as other hybrid and fuel cell types. In a side by side comparison If we theoretically eliminated the pollution of half the automotive pollution but replaced those vehicles with the above mentioned vehicles what would the bottom line effect be on the environment?

4 Any comments as to the possibility of using similarly structured batteries in the home or for the home to store electricity produced from hydro, wind, solar….. during the day? What is ideal charge rate or discharge rate to maintain highest energy levels and maintain ideal operating temperature? How much heat is actually “leaked” from the unit? Would it be possible to use this excess heat to advantage to be used for A. water heater B. in floor board tubing furnace and heating C. extra energy in form of steam and turbine? Somewhat linked is it efficiently possible to use steam energy twice, first while it is rising and second after it condenses and falls as water?

5 What are current known methods of alternative automotive propulsion (electric via battery chemistry, electric via air pressure(nitrogen), electric via solar array, gasoline ICE, diesel, biodiesel, ethanol, Hydrogen fuel cell, human powered) I know I must be leaving many other alternatives out? Lets hear them?

pheraps for Teslas Whitestar or after model if they are not already planning to do so they should strongly consider having different performance option models. Similarly to how Ford has a Mustang, Mustang GT, Mustang Cobra. Or how Chevy has Camaro, Camaro Z28, Camaro SS or Corvette and Corvette Z06. You get the idea.

I’m glad to see electric cars are finally making a come back. I truely believe if we,meaning people in the USA,really want to make a difference with global warming, electirc cars WILL be the future. I know I want one ASAP. The Tesla Rodster is COOL

Ron Greene: I have spent over 25 years living in the Rocky Mountain region of Idaho, and I think you’ll agree that qualifies as a cold winter climate area. Yes, I do know the difference between power and energy, which is why I realized that for batteries it was Power (rate of energy flow) that decreased in cold weather, and not Energy (total work that can be done).

Energy in a battery is stored in chemical form, and those chemicals do not disappear or break down with cold, they are still there and ready to work when the battery warms up. However, to get the energy out, the chemicals must react, that rate of reaction is slowed with cold temperatures, therefore the power is reduced.

Could the EV driving range be reduced in cold weather? Yes, a bit, in 3 ways:
1) Use of electric cabin heaters takes some energy. The GM EV1 used an electric heat pump for cabin heating, which uses less power than simple resistance heaters. The Tesla Roadster is using resistance heaters, but with substantial energy reserves the range isn’t reduced very much.
2) The battery internal resistance may increase, causing a drop in voltage. Part of the energy ends up warming the battery. (Similarly, The Tesla ESS may use some energy to heat or cool its batteries to keep the temperature within the preferred limits. )
3) Minor factors like increased viscosity of lubricants and slipping of tires on icy surfaces. These are very minor factors!

As for GM refusing to sell the EV1 nationwide, well, they flat out refused to sell it at all! As bizzare as it sounds, some at GM went to great lengths to discourage the leasing of EV1s and did all they could to “kill” the car. Spreading rumours that it wouldn’t work in cold weather was part of that effort.

I made a simple model of heating ESS from -20 C to + 20 C at which Li-ion cells should be discharging in optimal way. I assumed heat capacity of steel as a heat capacity of ESS as a whole. In such a case each slice need 0.72 MJ of energy for described heating.

Assuming C/10 discharge if cold and 2C sustained discharge if heated I assumed that ESS sheets are heated one by one by overall full power of ESS. After 1 sheet is heated I assumed that only heated sheets do discharge. So it exist a runaway acceleration in heating as more sheets switch to heated state. Results are:

After 2.4 min 1 sheet is heated by 5 kW total power
After 3.7 min 2 sheets are heated by 9 kW total power
After 4.4 min 3 sheets are heated by 18 kW total power
After 4.8 min 4 sheets are heated by 27 kW total power
After 5.2 min 5 sheets are heated by 36 kW total power
After 5.4 min 6 sheets are heated by 45.5 kW total power
After 5.6 min 7 sheets are heated by 54.5 kW total power
After 5.8 min 8 sheets are heated by 63.5 kW total power
After 6.0 min 9 sheets are heated by 72.5 kW total power
After 6.1 min 10 sheets are heated by 82 kW total power
After 6.3 min 11 sheets are heated by 91 kW total power

After 3.7 min car could start moving by using 1 sheet dedicated to heating and another to driving. At this point acceleration is very modest and total time to full capabilities would be longer. Alternative is that after 6.3 min car is totally ready to move at full power. Heating time for -20 C starting point is very reasonable I think. Also cold discharge only at C/10 rate for only 2.4 min is needed.

I know that the ESS can download its discharge / re-charge history to service enginneers. Can it do the same with ESS temperature records? Is temperature data even stored?

Are the outer walls of the ESS thermally insulated to reduce the rate of heat loss to the environment while the car is parked in sub-zero conditions?

On the other hand, are all of Tesla’s thermal performance models for the ESS constructed on the assumption that the car will always be housed overnight in a domestic garage (reducing minimum temperature extremes) and that when the car is in use, the thermal management system can rely on the ESS’s metal outer shell to provide some additional heat conduction? (is there any significance to the matt-black finish on the ESS or am I correct in assuming that radiation heat losses are negligible?)

Does Tesla advise owners to keep the car plugged in on cold nights so that a trickle current may be drawn if required to maintain pack temperature?

Alternatively, can the on-board computer be programmed to start “ESS-pre heat” at, say 6 am so that the car is ready to roll at 7:30 am (or whenever the owner requires). A better method might be that the car knows when it is likely to be driven away in the morning and can vary the start time for ESS pre-heat depending on the overnight temperature of the ESS.

By the way, as a follow-up to my previous zebra note, there is a review of
the Modec vehicle as of April 2007 by a company that thinks global warming is
a myth. Nevertheless they were quite impressed with the Zebra powered Modec van.
Check it out at: www.whatvan.co.uk/newvans_s.asp?id=5032

# Ronald Greene wrote

# Your EV will now have to be placed on a truck and shipped to a Tesla Service Cente