|
In the beginning of January, Tesla Motors Vice President of Vehicle Integration, Mac Powell, sat down with Dave Leggett of just-auto for a Q&A session which recently appeared in the 24th issue of the Lotus Engineering Newsletter, proActive. We wanted to share with you this excerpt from the Newsletter as well as include some comments on recent updates and additional information.
DL: When will those Tesla customers who have already put money down receive their cars?
MP: We’re still on plan for the first customer to get his car in the first quarter of this year.
[ed: We have since delivered the first car and the rest are on their way soon.]
DL: So when does series production start then?
MP: It depends what you call production. We’re doing a very controlled ramp rate, a prudent and sensible thing to do. We want to make absolutely sure that the production cars are working as anticipated and that the whole process and supply chain is working before we ramp up production further. There is a danger when you ramp that you keep an eye on the big balls, but it needs all the balls to build the car; it’s no good having just 99% of the parts because you can’t build it. So we will control our ramp rate carefully. We will start producing the cars this quarter and we will monitor and ramp as quickly as we can, but under control.
DL: And what sort of volume are we looking at for the first year of production?
MP: It will be some hundreds of cars this calendar year – we should be running at around 600 for the model year.
DL: And building up to what level?
MP: We have always targeted the capacity to be able to build 2,000 cars a year. That’s because we have to have targets to choose appropriate tooling investment for the components. If the demand is absolutely extraordinary then we could choose to make more. It’s very difficult to predict exactly where demand will be on a new product such as this. We had to set a level that was achievable to fix our investment – and that was 2,000 a year.
DL: I understand the Tesla Roadster’s transmission has been a major source of delays to the programme schedule. What has been behind the problems in that area and how are the problems being overcome?
MP: You might think that a transmission is a known technology, particularly when viewed against all the new technology being incorporated into the car, but it’s not that simple.
As a new company it was difficult, initially, to get major manufacturers to even talk to us, never mind commit any resource to actually help design, engineer and build systems. We started off going down a particular route with a transmissions supplier and we got to the point where we realised that the way that particular programme was headed, it wasn’t really going to meet our performance targets for the car.
We chose, pretty late in the programme, to change course and go with an alternative supplier with a different approach.
The transmission sounds simple: two-speed transmission and therefore you depopulate a regular transmission, but if you think about it, our gear shift between first and second is a factor of two and the motor spins up to 13,000rpm, so first gear takes you to over 60mph and second takes you to over 125mph so that is a huge ratio step against which we don’t have a conventional clutch.
There’s a rotor with a very high inertia and we have to change the speed of that rotor very, very quickly to give us a performance shift. There are also issues about electrical isolation because of the way we use the charging system and the motor.
So, it isn’t straightforward. It isn’t ‘just another transmission’ and some issues have been thrown up that weren’t anticipated and have taken longer than we had hoped to resolve. With change of supplier, change of design concept and with some of these unforeseen Tesla aims to deliver supercar acceleration and technical issues to overcome, delays have been the result.
[ed: We have since decided to use a single reduction gear in place of the two-speed transmission. With increased energy flow to the motor we can achieve 4.0 second 0-60 mph acceleration with a single gear ratio. This solution is also more efficient than the two-speed transmission.]
DL: Just following on from that, the first Tesla Roadsters are being fitted with an ‘interim transmission’ that can be upgraded later on. What are the performance implications of that? Will the first cars off the line be capable of doing 0-60mph in under four seconds?
MP: The point about the interim transmissions is that they will effectively be locked in second gear. A lot of the prototypes have been running like that for some time and the vast majority of customer drives have been done like that and the feedback has actually been that the car hits performance expectations in that state – it still does 0-60 in something like six seconds.
So you’ve now got a rather interesting car that you can drive very rapidly from zero up to its top speed in one gear. I don’t think customers will be too disappointed.
The reason for the two-speed set-up was because the torque capacity of the motor and the power system was ‘X’ and to be able to say to the world ‘electric cars aren’t just golf buggies’ we needed the ratio to give us the four seconds and the top speed. In a single gear to begin with it would have done 0-60 in say 5.5 seconds with a top speed of 100mph.
That would have been fine, but we wanted to make it clear that we could deliver this sort of supercar acceleration and an acceptable top speed. That means two-speed shift – which is doable but it’s just a question of time and money.
It’s important to stress that we have had very positive feedback from customers about the second gear and that’s the only reason we’re doing this: many customers have said they would rather have the car now with the single gear and current level of performance than wait any longer. This is about satisfying customer demands to deliver before we get the full performance of the vehicle.
[ed: It is also important that we retain the supercar acceleration of the Tesla Roadster. The new powertrain with a single reduction gear and increased power will achieve 0-60 mph in 4.0 seconds and have a top speed around 125 mph without a gear shift. Cars delivered with the interim transmission will receive a free upgrade as soon as the new powertrain is complete.]
DL: Can Tesla’s lithium-ion battery fully meet acceptable performance parameters and will the battery last 100,000 miles – does it degrade over the lifecycle?
MP: Sure, they do degrade and it’s all about charge cycles. The battery manufacturers do the testing to determine what the battery capacity is. They fully charge, then fully discharge and keep doing that – it’s actually pretty abusive to a lithium-ion battery.
In the case of lithium-ion, keeping it charged up is actually a good thing to do – you don’t need to fully discharge them the way you need to with some other batteries.
The other thing is temperature control. That charge-discharge cycle that the battery manufacturers have to do is pretty abusive to the battery because of the temperature the battery gets to.
We are aware of all these things and we pay very detailed attention to the management of the batteries because that is so critical to what we’re trying to achieve.
How we charge them and what capacity we charge them to, and how we maintain temperature – because they are actively cooled within the car – is all about preserving battery life.
Most people don’t drive many miles on average each day – and we know this is not a road trip car – meaning they won’t be using a huge percentage of the battery pack each day. So, we say, when you get home just put the battery on charge and that will keep it in good condition.
If we take the standard fairly abusive battery charge cycles the battery manufacturers carry out, that implies driving say 200 miles in one stretch before recharging each time and that works out at 100,000 miles of life. And that’s with that rather unrealistic implied usage pattern. In reality, the battery should be good for more than 100,000 miles.
Also, the battery makers say that the battery life is over when it only achieves 80% of its original performance capacity.
So, there will be some degradation of range over the life of the battery. When new you will get over 200 miles range on a full charge but over time you will notice some degradation on that. But it will be a slow process and even under the extreme battery testing regime of full charge-discharge, that yields 100,000 miles with end of life deemed at 80% of original capability. Performance will also tail off slightly but when you start with 0-60 mph in 4 seconds, you’ll still have a pretty amazing car.
[ed: It is important to note here that the battery cell chemistry that is used in the Roadster also has a calendar life. The expected calendar life is five years.]
DL: In terms of readying the Tesla Roadster for production, what has been your experience in meeting US federal regulations in areas such as safety?
MP: It’s frightening and scary in terms of all the things you have to do, but it is also fairly straightforward. I’ve been in the industry a long time now and it’s a case of knowing what needs to be done and getting on with it. From the outset we knew we were designing for the federal market so things like headlamp design, crash testing and so on, were known factors. We just had to go through the process.
We have had to run certain rig tests on certain parts of the car because it does carry more weight than the Lotus Elise – the Tesla is significantly heavier. The uninitiated look at the car and say it’s the same as the Elise, where is all that additional weight?
Actually it’s not the same car. For example, the crash structure at the front has new components in it that add load bearing paths and we have changed the aluminium chassis as well. Although the chassis is based on Elise technology it had to be changed in many respects, such as the fundamental siderails – these are a unique extrusion for the Tesla. The chassis is different. We have had to build significant reinforcement and strength in to those parts to control the mass of the battery pack as it is restrained during impact.
The pack weighs over 900lbs – it’s a significant lump of mass.
The motor and transmission are relatively light and we don’t have to carry a fuel system, but fundamentally the car is a lot heavier than an Elise.
The important thing is: we know all that and we have designed accordingly and have recently completed all the required safety and crash tests. We’re just getting all the final certificates in place that enable us to ship production cars.
[ed: All DOT, NHTSA, and EPA certificates are now in place and cars can be delivered to customers. Mac Powell wrote a blog about this milestone recently.]
DL: How does the supply chain work on the Tesla Roaster?
MP: Having chosen to work with Lotus as the contract manufacturer, we decided that there was no point in reinventing the wheel. We’re using the Elise structural concept, so anything we can carry over from the Elise makes a lot of sense. We at Tesla have enough to worry about with the new technology, without having to also worry about a lot of the other stuff that goes into making a car.
We have three categories of parts:
• Some parts are 100% Lotus carryover, things like the windscreen wiper. So we simply tap into the Lotus supply chain for them.
[ed: It is worth noting that this category constitutes less than 10% of the entire car.]
• Then there is a second category, which comprises new design or modified parts where it still makes sense for us to use the Lotus suppliers. So Tesla has design responsibility but we use the Lotus supply chain to procure those parts and deliver directly to the plant
in Hethel.
• And thirdly, there are the totally unique Tesla designed and Tesla procured parts. This category includes some simple parts that the supplier can ship to Hethel for final assembly, but also includes more complex elements such as the motor, which we make at our dedicated plant in Taiwan where we do all the manufacturing, testing and then put it in box to ship to Hethel.
DL: How difficult is coordinating the manufacturing and assembly process?
MP: The fundamental logistics is fairly straightforward in terms of things like shipping. But as a new company it’s been a hurdle to get our own systems in place so that we know exactly where we are. We’ve had to develop systems from scratch. Not only have we been designing a fantastic vehicle that uses new technology but at the same time we have been building a company, developing new systems, training people for those systems and making sure that the systems are working correctly – all from a clean sheet of paper. It has been a big challenge.
In terms of what we have done in the time available it has been a very rapid programme.
There’s still engineering change going on now to resolve some final issues and improve the product. Unfortunately it’s engineering change that actually interferes with the supply process. Yes, it’s a challenge.
DL: What’s the current thinking on successor models?
MP: Tesla’s intent has never been just to make the Roadster, but the Roadster acts as a technology pioneer. It has already provoked the industry to take more note of electric cars. Great.
But the Roadster is not our only game. Our game is to get as many electric cars on the road in the world and cut our dependency on oil.
So for us it’s also about making more vehicles – such as a sports sedan so that we can appeal to a broader market. We have got to get the volume up so that we can start getting the price down. We have learnt a lot and we know we can improve still further with future product.
The next car has to appeal to a wider market, as does the car beyond that.
[ed: Our next car will be a sport sedan. We will have more to say publicly in the next few months.]
We are also up to talk to OEMs to see where we can help anybody else to do this because we do not intend to be the only people in the world making electric cars because that doesn’t provide a sufficient solution.
DL: For you personally, how has the experience working for Tesla been?
MP: I’d been at Lotus a long time and achieved a lot – and I enjoyed it - but I’d got to a time in my life when I was needing a different sort of challenge.
I never perceived myself as being particularly green. I think, like most people, I cared but wasn’t doing anything proactively about it.
When I got involved in Tesla and the philosophies behind it, I was attracted. So many firms produce electric cars that you just don’t want to drive – but Tesla is about turning that on its head and producing a car that delivers performance, that you want to drive and doesn’t burn oil, so it is also good for the environment. And the idea is to force real change.
Technically, it was interesting to me and morally I thought ‘yes, I could help to do something and why shouldn’t I get off my backside and actually make a difference?’
I was very lucky to be in a position where this opportunity came up. And I was in a position to help both Lotus and Tesla and act as a bridge between the two companies. Tesla needed somebody from the automotive industry – it was an ideal opportunity for me and a good fit for both companies.
For me it’s been a mixed bag. It’s been incredibly exciting and challenging and has meant working with a totally different group of people – so many of them not automotive, so they would challenge everything. Sometimes I would have to explain how the industry
works the way it does, but sometimes the challenges would make me think ‘why do we do it that way?’
Sometimes you need that different set of people with different thought processes to just challenge what you’re doing and look for better ways of doing things. That has been immensely rewarding. The other thing I would say is that the nature of my role is to find
problems, help teams resolve issues, keep the project on schedule as best we can. That’s my role and you don’t do that by looking at all the things that are going right – you look at the things that aren’t going as well as you’d hoped.
Continually looking at problems can be de-motivating at times and some days are worse than others. But if I sit in a prototype and go for a drive I think ‘this is why I am going through this pain’. It really is such an awesome car to drive and you realise the scale of the opportunity ahead for Tesla and everyone who wants to start thinking about electric drive.
We’ve just got to get there and we will get there – it just hasn’t been an easy road.
Posted in the categories: Vehicle Engineering
I just want to see two things.. Videos of the first 100 customers driving around town, talking about how they love the car….. And Pictures/Specs on the new Whitestar! I think that WhiteStar will be such a hit and at a good price with financing it will sell like crazy. Please make sure it has class, style, and luxury like you would find in a Lexus or BMW. Thanks Tesla Team! You guys are doing such a great job for a new company while setting the automotive bar of the future.
Let me be the first on this post to congratulate the company on their recent success. We all look forward to the production roadsters and the future automobiles Tesla motors will produce. Just say no to foreign oil! HYDROPOWER RULES!
Electric overdrive instead of traditional gear box?
Hi,
Such a cool car, hope you will ramp up soon.
Saw the issues with the transmission in your Blog. Being an Engineer my self and vintage car entusiast I was wondering if you have ever considered to use the electric overdrive approach that was fitted to many sports cars in the 50-ties to 70 ties.
The idea is that at low rews the overdrive is in direct drive, when engaged a planet gear changes the ratio between input and output shafts. A popular overdrive was the Laycock type fitted to many sports cars. Including Jaguars, Bentlies and Ferraris.
An internal hydraulic pump provides the engagement of overdrive controlled by a solonoid. By tailoring the speed of pressure increase/decrease it is possible to provide a slow or a fast transition between overdrive and non overdrive. In my own 1969 Triumph TR6 with type A overdrive the transition is fast I would say below 0,5 seconds causing the car to jump a tittle forward because of the inertia in the engine when the “pedal is to the metal”.
The most important feature about the electric overdrive is that there is torque at all times, the input shaft is never allowed to rotate freely because of a inter-locking mechanism meaning that the engine can not overrun as would be the case changing gears on a normal gear box. The clutch is NOT used when changing to overdrive and back.
The technology is relatively simple, well proven and maybe still available.
Hope to hear from you.
Best regards and good luck Lars
“It is important to note here that the battery cell chemistry that is used in the Roadster also has a calendar life. The expected calendar life is five years”
In the FAQ section Tesla Motors says that after 5 years and 50,000 miles they expect there to be about 70% of initial performance. As said in this blog post, that’s 70% of the range and the power/acceleration will be nearly the same. Pretty good deal I think!
Thanks for this post.
Previous info on batteries: www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=39
Hopefully the Roadster owners manual (any chance of an online PDF version?) will give more details on correct battery care.
I’m looking forward to seeing the spec on the Whitestar.
Please be radical and make sure that ALL cars that WEAR THE TESLA BADGE. Are space-frame -”mid-engine” type cars.*
* Space frame, because it’s safer and a better design than Unibody, or Framerails. “mid-engine” - is defined as the heaviest part of the car (the battery) is ahead of the rear axle behind the driver. That allows for the best handling, and cornering “as if it were on rails”.
Other than that, I’m happy. I’m also happy that the Whitestar will be $20,000 CHEAPER than the Fisker Karma. (the nearest competitor).
I don’t think Tesla has to worry about the electric car by Dodge anytime soon. (Same goes for Chevy Volt aka.: smoke-screen)
Also if possible: DO NOT EVER BUILD ANY TESLA ROADSTERS IN A UNION CONTROLLED MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
I will never buy another car that was built by a union shop. The built quality is awful. Workers are not happy and the work reflects that.
Compare the built quality of a NUMMI build Pontiac Vibe (non-union), to any other (union built) GM car and you’ll know what I mean.
If possible please continue to SELL DIRECT. This way the prices are competitive and fair, no dealer markups. I want to buy the Tesla cars from someone knowledgeable, not some dealer, that knows nothing about the car and the intricacies involved with it being PURE ELECTRIC.
Thanks
congrats on your success, but when we can get it in London?
www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/28/abg-first-drive-hitting-the-road-in-the-tesla-roadster/
For those who haven’t read it yet. Great article!
Max,
The UAW builds the Vibe and Matrix at NUMMI.
Tesla is on Twitter: twitter.com/TeslaMotors
Nice way to keep up to date with the goings on at Tesla. I hadn’t any mention of Twitter on the Tesla website. Maybe I missed it.
I am in Australia. Everytime I fill up with petrol(gas) I grit my teeth. Can’t wait for my first electric car.
Tesla is doing an amazing Job. Don’t give up. You have us to back you up….Have in mind, that you have something that other car companies dont have…people that will back you up, and fight with you against anything, Because we have a common goal….GO TESLA
Thanks for another excellent blog and [ed:] notes. The entry confirms Tesla is on the right track with a clear vision. Because of Roadster, the cages of big-auto have been rattled in a positive manner.
In addition to the first comment made by Robert, safety and range on WhiteStar are important. Perhaps more so than recharge time and acceleration, if one factors in that the vehicle will more often than not carry 2 or more passengers, including children.
Max, the NUMMI plant is a joint venture of GM and Toyota. While it may bear a Pontiac label, the Vibe is Toyota technology from stem to stern, and thus a better machine than your typical GM piece of halibut. Honestly, you may as well blame the unions for morning breath.
Is anyone able to explain to me how the batteries of this vehicle are able to be fully charged within such a short time span?
According to the output capabilties of the average household power point it should take at least take a day or two?
# Sadie wrote on February 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
## Is anyone able to explain to me how the batteries of this vehicle are able to be fully charged within such a short time span?
Recheck your figures.
240v * 70 amps = 16.8 kW
16.8 * 3.5 hours = 58,800 kWh… Full pack from empty.
Sadie,
You will need to have a 240v 70A circuit added to your garage to recharge the roadster in the minimum time.
Thanks for your response that makes sense now, I was confused because the average household outlet puts out roughly about 1.5KW on a 110V supply. Would it be costly for me to have special wiring done to my garage? And does this mean that I cannot recharge this vehicle from any ordinary household outlet? eg If I went on a road trip and wanted to recharge my vehicle at a motel
Sadie if you look through all of the info on this site many of your questions will be answered.
Hi,
This is the perfect place to utilize the air flow they have actually put in the hood of the tesla…
www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php
It would seem that this would be better used if you are going to have DRAG shoots, which increase DRAG, why not insert a rotating squirrel cage that generates electricity back to the battery…duh.
Check out the above link, and read the words below the picture of the car…
“How cool. As you drive, air passes through the car’s front intake and exits through these louvers to aid cooling.” (Their own words).
By inserting such a device to turn a squirrel, they may eventually be able to eliminate the need for the plugin, or at least extend the driving time of the vehicle. There’s the sourse, a constant flow of air you created yourselves to feed the cooling. By inserting a small rotor mounted off the shelf wind alternator, designed to deliver back the same volt/amperage characteristics that they use for charging, they will be charging all the time, the batteries may run down eventually, but during the initial drive, they possibly could double the range of that car before requiring a charge, and who knows, with two of them, they may have excessive power available to run your on board air conditioner.
I proposed this idea, some time ago, but no one takes it seriously. By utilizing the drag you have already built into the car for the air flow to the interior, use it as both a cooling vent, as well as use it’s energy to turn a rotor that will extend the range of the vehicle itself.
rw
unfortunately the physics of such a setup don’t work out. -ed.
First, I want to congratulate Tesla for such a fine job they have done on the production of this near wonder of a vehicle. I plan on buying a White Star, by the way, at your earliest convenience.
Like Henry Ford, however, your car too will get better, as time goes along, as your engineers create efficiency into your drive, batteries, and electrical system on board. This has to be exciting times for all of you and your infant company. We as the public are following your genious, and hope to participate by driving the flow of vehicles from your soon to follow production lines. One of the success tools you are utilizing, is engineering components that can be used in any of your cars. This in time may change as your progess further into your production stages.
I am looking forward to the White Star that has my name on it!
rw
# Sadie wrote on February 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
## does this mean that I cannot recharge this vehicle from any ordinary household outlet? eg If I went on a road trip and wanted to recharge my vehicle at a motel
They have different charging connectors.
The 240v 70amp requires a custom home installation and may not be possible for all locations.
Many houses already have 240V 30, 40 or 50amp drier or range outlets that can be used for a ~8 hour charge.
If you are on the road they offer a mobile charging adapter than can use 120v 15amp circuits but it will take a long time to charge from one of those.
Thanks TEG for answering my questions
Australia has 240V in every house. We also have heaps of sunlight and a reasonable number of houses with back to base solar panels on the roof. What we need is the Tesla. I expect once Tesla starts selling in other countries like Australia, the UK and most (or probably all) of Asia that run on 240V it will be a great success and not need a custom home installation. Why don’t Tesla move here, it is a nice place to live.
Hi everybody. Thanks for another nice post.
Max, I’m unsure as to the real reason you don’t like unions, but I’m quite confident that it has nothing to do with the build quality of any vehicles…it’s obvious that you went looking for something bad to say about organized labor and that’s the best you could do. For what it’s worth, the unions in this country fought one of the longest, hardest battles for the common American in history, and up until the rightward public policy swing of the last 30 years they were directly responsible for the U.S.’s impressive non-stratified wealth growth. It is sad to watch them slowly made impotent by unfriendly political policy, persistent corporate opposition, and the economic shift to non-unionized service industries. It is sadder to watch American wealth concentrate in fewer hands because of it. In any case, I for one hope the Albuquerque plant is a union shop. Tesla, your thoughts?
Johan and Chris, my guess is that the major obstacle to international sales of the roadster is regulatory. There is a major sunk cost involved in testing and certification of a vehicle, as shown in the various blog postings detailing the U.S. process. Presumably this cost is similar for each market, so the U.S. (by far the largest sales market) is the logical place to start. Unfortunately other markets don’t seem (to me, not at all an expert in the subject) likely to be investigated until the company is profitable or at least much better established.
Chris, basically all U.S. homes have 240v as well, as TEG mentions for dryers and ranges mostly. But few have 70A going to any one place, and I would hazard a guess that the same is true in 240-native locales. Also, presumably your standard outlet amperages are lower? Anyway the short issue here is that this hookup requires more power than anything that’s currently found in many homes today. 16.8kw is a lot of juice, no matter how you divide it between current and potential.
Ronald Wose, hopefully you jest. See www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=24#more-24 under the “Something for Nothing” section.
While I agree, that unions had their purpose in the past and were good for people. Now they mostly benefit the union leaders, and not the workers.
Ever been to a Union run shop, where the Union reps whisper in your ear all day long, how you should support them in their fight against management? It sucks. It’s totally demoralizing, and part of the reason those workers want to get home as fast as they can, rather than build the product right.
Besides, the “union-tax” doesn’t make any worker happy. I worked a union job before, and I couldn’t justify spending $400 out of my paycheck for “union-fees”, yet they didn’t do anything in return. Except make it harder to work overtime, or have shifts shorter than 8 hours. *grr*.
I’m aware that the Pontiac Vibe is a badge engineered Toyota Matrix. But it is Pontiac workers there as well. They’re happier than their Detroit neighbours.
/end Union rant
Hunter,
Thanks I didn’t realise that US have 240V stuff, I thought it was all 110V. However I did realise that 70A was more than could be handled in one house without modifications to the meter and a specific circuit etc but didn’t want to complicate my post with that detail.
You are right that getting a car certified is a hugely painful and very expensive exercise. It is time we had one huge worldwide motoring regulatory body that did testing and set world wide rules. It would mean once a car is passed it can be sold in every country, and if not passed can not be sold in any. Why is the life of a person in one country worth more than that of another country. It is not - I think different rules for each country is just an indirect way of protecting the local industry by making it harder for models from one country to be offered in another and the loser is us the consumer due to lack of choice.
One thing I wonder about US compared to here with electric cars is that the only cars I know here that have succeeded in getting registered for road use have been made by individuals and use an alternator connected to the electric motor via a fanbelt type arrangement. That way all the stuff in the dash like stereo, lights etc have no direct electrical connection to a voltage higher than the 12V one used by the standard car. In the US it seems most people use a convertor to step down whatever voltage the car is running at to 12V for the ancillary stuff. I expect that is a case of Australian regulatory bodies being more paranoid than US ones.
I doubt the Tesla will make it down here for a very long time. However what excits me is the possibility of Tesla selling motors and batteries etc worldwide for people to make their own EV that will have good performance and range. I know I will have to use an alternator setup for ancillary stuff to get it classified as roadworthy here and a homemade car will never be as great as the Tesla with the heaps of R&D it has had. However it is the best chance I think we have of obtaining a quality EV in the short term. My plan would be to make a MGB EV so I don’t have to worry about power brakes, steering, air cond or heater and just worry mainly about the motor and battery.
Any comments or thoughts about FiberForge - seems to be a great improvement in manufacturing process of Carbon Fiber bodies
Chris, unfortunately it doesn’t really look like Tesla is interested in parts sales. The ESS (battery) was the real fancy tech they developed (not that digital motor control isn’t pretty slick) and though there was at one time a deal to sell it (to other manufacturers, not individuals), that plan was quickly abandoned to focus on the vehicles. But if you are interested in a similar drivetrain, you might look to AC Propulsion, who licensed the basic (and subsequently modified) motor tech to Tesla, and who sells kits that might work for you. The overall feeling I’ve gotten in EV circles is that their stuff is really nice, but super expensive. Most of us end up with brushed DC jobs (like my Chevy S-10, run by an ADC 9″) with a few folks going for cheaper AC units; obviously these don’t offer nearly the same level of performance. And just by the way, are you sure about the regulations there requiring an alternator? I’m just scratching my head here trying to figure out why that would be any safer than a DC/DC converter. As for a world automobile regulatory body, I think you would find political opposition the world over on the grounds that it infringes on national sovereignty; in the U.S. even the constitutionality of such a move would be debatable. Perhaps the better approach is simple treaties between countries promising to honor one another’s certifications provided the processes meet agreed upon standards.
Max, I’m sorry to hear how misinformed you are concerning unions. If you really did work in a union shop and it really was the way you describe, either they weren’t doing their job or they weren’t explaining it well enough to you. I do hope that $400 was from a monthly check…if it was biweekly or shorter (well, unless you were making a ton), that’s pretty high. But please don’t extrapolate your isolated anecdote all the way to a proclamation about how today’s unions as a group don’t “do anything in return.” Union workers in America currently make about a third more in wages than their nonunion counterparts (which is not offset by dues), they get far better health and retirement benefits, their workplaces are safer, the disparities in wages based on sex and race are smaller, and survey data shows that they are happier with their employment status. Furthermore, even nonunion workers make better wages in states that promote strong unions. And finally, a large body of academic research suggests that union labor forces are more productive, provide better products/services, have lower turnover, communicate better with management, and are better trained. In short, unions are (today!) great for workers and good for business. I dare say that if you had worked in a nonunion shop in the same industry you would have been worse off…but if not, you were the very rare exception to the rule. As for your specific example (the Pontiac Vibe workers at NUMMI), I’m not sure you could have picked a worse one for your argument if you had tried. From www.nummi.com/co_info.php : “NUMMI’s collaborative partnership with the United Auto Workers has been the topic of numerous labor relations studies. The company’s core values are based on five cornerstones: teamwork, equity, involvement, mutual trust and respect, and safety.” Sounds like maybe these folks are “happier than their Detroit neighbors” precisely because the company and the union are working together well. Or maybe it’s just because these guys get to live in sunny California. But whatever it is, it’s definitely NOT because they aren’t union.
Hunter, thanks for the info. Yes I agree it seems weird that a DC to DC convertor would be regarded as unsafe but I am basing that on what I have read from other people who have EV cars in Australia and what they had to do to get them registered for use on the road. I also think you are right that simple treaties betwen countries is an appraoch that has more chance of working.
Hunter, in your union halibuting you forgot to mention how well they have worked out for GM, Ford, and Chrysler, all heading either for bankruptcy or moving all manufacturing out of country. Yea, yea, it’s got nothing to do with union or non-union. Funny, how well non-union works for Toyota.
# Chris wrote on February 26th, 2008 at 4:15 am
# …getting a car certified is a hugely painful and very expensive exercise.
# It is time we had one huge worldwide motoring regulatory body that did testing
# and set world wide rules. It would mean once a car is passed it can be sold in
# every country, and if not passed can not be sold in any.
I disagree with the worldwide authority idea. That would be just one more avenue for countries to lose national sovereignty, which, as mentioned by someone else above, would be strongly resisted by a lot of locals.
What I think might do the job without stepping on national toes, would be if a private testing/certification agency were to compile all the vehicle safety rules and regulations for at least the most significant markets, then provide testing, or test-auditing that would satisfy the safety authorities in those markets. You could go to someplace like “GVTC” (Global Vehicle Testing and Certification) and say, “I want to build x class of vehicle and sell it in countries a, b, c. Which specification hurdles do I need to clear?” For an appropriate fee, GVTC would then provide a checklist of applicable standards and either inspect your own testing and test procedures to certify that they met the requirements of the authorities in a, b, and c, or perform the tests in their own labs and certify the results, which a, b, and c would then accept.
It all sounds so simple, of course, and most definitely would NOT be, but that is how and why GVTC would earn their fees. The best part about it is that there would be no need for some kind of transnational government agency. Every country would continue to be free to set their standards however they deemed fit (or have none at all - caveat emptor!). Once the vehicle passed the custom-determined GVTC regimen, it would be guaranteed to satisfy the separate requirements of all the indicated countries or market authorities, with the less-strict countries covered automatically by the requirements of the stricter countries.
Sadie: We’re now being told by Andrew Simpson (Tesla’s engineer), that it takes 75 kilowatt hours to fully charge their 53 Kilowatt-hour ESS battery.
Nobody has gotten back to me yet on my ten’s of posts, but here’s what I surmise:
1). If they have to refrigerate the ESS compartment during charging, ‘70% net efficiency’ … that’s their high-tech-term for 30% loss of the electricity you buy from your power company, is the figure I’ll believe, and a 3 1/2 hour full recharge is impossible at anything under 90 amps and 240 volts.
2). If you want to recharge your car from a standard 15 amp garage outlet, figure 2 full days (48-50 hours) to recharge a completely dead battery. If you only drive 50 miles a day, then 12 hours should be enough to top it off (6pm - 6 am).
Tesla seems to give plenty of contradictory information, but the best info so far has been from Andrew Simpson’s Blog.
Sadie hope this helps.
Bill Howland
This question is for TM or anybody else out there does this car have air bags? I think it does and uses the package of the Lotus?
Yes - the Tesla Roadster has driver and passenger airbags. -ed.
I have no worries that Tesla will manage to get their cars certified globally. There are tons of companies that sell “global” cars. Tesla has been doing an awesome job so far.
Too bad more Roadsters will have to get smashed, just to meet more collision requirements in other countries…
Howland: the “75 Kwh” figure was for a worst case scenario, with very hot weather requiring some power to cool the battery pack, and the battery completely depleted. Even then, the standard 240 volt 70 amp charger would complete the charge in under 5 hours. Since most charging would be done at night, with little or no cooling required, and most of the time the battery would not be completely drained, average charging times would be greatly reduced. The average power use would be 58 to 60 Kwh per 220 miles driven, with some variation due to varying average speeds and climate conditions.
The onboard charging system can adapt to a range of voltages and current levels, including the common 110 volt 15 amp standard outlets. Charging that way is slow, figure just over 4 miles of “go juice” per hour. Think of it more as an “emergency” solution.
BTW, both my current house and my previous residence had 110 volt 20 amp outlets in the garage, and enough spare capacity for a 240 volt 70 amp charger circuit.
NOTE: The Tesla Roadster does indeed come with driver and passenger airbags…the commenter is incorrect -ed.
Daniel the Tesla Roadster doesn’t come equip with airbags. There are serious questions that need to be addressed anyway. I wonder whether airbags cause more havoc than good sometimes. I know I don’t want to be struck by one, especially when the deployment was unnecessary in the first place. Some people are saved, while others are injured when airbags deploy. I still cannot come to a specific conclusion.
Does anyone know whether Air cars can live up to the claims of high mileage and low cost? If their claims are real then Electric cars are a waste of time and Tesla is going down the wrong route.
Well from my point of view it’s only a matter of time. Any forward thinking organization that invests in green technologies is set to succeed. It wasn’t that long ago that people laughed at the suggestion that you could run a golf buggy on battery power. I only wish I had the foresight to invest in them back then! I am certain their a plenty of people out there just waiting for the opportunity.
Bill: Thanks for your help, do you know of any websites or other sources of information regarding battery life/charging that woulld be of any help to me?
Jeffrey, the statistics on airbags are pretty unambiguous. Yes, a very few people have been hurt or killed by them. The same is true for seat belts. But in both cases many times that number of people are saved by them. I myself got some nice chemical burns from an airbag once. I would hate to think what would have happened to me had it not deployed. That said, there have definitely been cases of poor design or engineering that have led to unnecessary deployment as you mention, and this is indeed highly dangerous. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater; fix these isolated problems, don’t just can the airbags.
Sid, the air cars that have been demonstrated so far are indeed very low cost (up front), even compared to gassers. Mostly this seems to be simply because they are small, no-frills, cheaply-made vehicles; if they tried to make one to the quality standards that U.S. buyers expect from a real car, they would be much more expensive. However, it is certainly true that the energy-storage technology they use (a compressed-air tank) is inherently much cheaper than batteries, so it is probably true that the selling price of an aircar would be lower than that of a comparable battery-electric vehicle. But this is not the whole story by any stretch. First, I don’t know what you mean by claims of “high mileage” but the range I’ve seen for the MDI aircar is about 90 miles, under unspecified conditions. Second, the top speed is about 65mph, and there is some question as to whether this drivetrain is easily/cheaply scalable to higher power. Even if it were, going faster would drastically reduce range. So basically, these have little potential beyond very low-cost, low-performance vehicles. And before anybody starts telling me that disruptive technologies start at the low-end and move up, let’s note that this technology is neither new nor progressing. Then there’s the efficiency; you get the compressed air by running a compressor on electricity, which IIRC is only about 50% efficient. Among other things, this means that for a given electrical circuit and energy-storage unit capacity, it will cost nearly twice as much and take nearly twice as long to “charge” an aircar vs. a BEV. Then there are friction and heat losses in the drivetrain, and when it’s all said and done we’re looking at efficiencies similar to ICE vehicles. Sure, it doesn’t burn oil and there are no local emissions, but it’s still using an awful lot more energy (and burning more coal) than a BEV. And finally, consider the future; batteries are getting cheaper and better every year, while compressor and airtank technology have not progressed noticeably in quite some time. So the fact that these are cheaper now is not to say that it will stay that way indefinitely.
I do think that these air-powered vehicles are worthwhile in some applications. A small vehicle to drive around inside a huge factory, for instance, would be a great fit, particularly if there were already big compressors (preferably with big tanks to facilitate faster charging) around the place. But you aren’t going to see anybody building a fancy supercar based on this. In fact, you’re not even likely to see anybody building an aircar that could compete with a midrange (by U.S. standards) ICE-powered grocery-getter. In short, BEVs have much more real possibility of displacing the ICE. They are not a “waste of time.”
AL, the reasons for the big three’s decline are numerous and the subject of much study. It is absurd to simply blame it all on unions. And it’s similarly absurd to act like Toyota’s success is due to such a simple factor…among other things it doesn’t give them much credit for their constant innovation. Furthermore, they seem very pleased with the performance of the NUMMI plant, where they employ UAW labor. So, aside from an oversimplified cheap shot, where are you going with this?
Hunter, thank you for your response about the air car.
As you say I think their will be a place for various technologies.
I think that 65 mph for the air car is probably good enough for a lot of people. But a range of 90 miles is probably not enough especially there being no potential for improvement.
I think for a car that requires a few hours to fill up that a minimum acceptable range for an electric vehicle only would need to be say 700 miles with a reasonably sized battery pack. So I agree with you that pure electric cars have the potential to reach that goal within a few years. The silicon nano wire breakthrough with 10x improvements on the anode and the recent announcement by Hybrid Technologies of the 50% improvement on the cathode should help achieve this goal within a few years. Apparently the claim is the silicon nanowire technology will be available within 5 years - hopefully it will be a lot sooner.
Hunter,
As usual, you present an incomplete reality to fit your wish for the world. Below is a link to an American company that is licensing the MDI vehicle for sale in the US, with the intent to improve upon the technology, using a heating fuel to greatly increase performance and mileage, with minimal emissions:
zeropollutionmotors.us/
Below is a link to a company that is converting vehicles to run on hydrogen ICE engines:
www.etecevs.com/
Both these simpler tech approaches will probably gain marketshare faster than electric vehicles, due to their low price, should the government suddenly mandate greenhouse gas emissions standards on automakers.
Gasoline costs in the US has lagged behind the rest of the world for decades. You want to see the future, go to Europe or Asia. Folks there pay the equivalent of $8+/gallon. Only thing the US needs to figure out is how to recycle the millions of SUV dinosaurs and the industry producing them. Anyone want to buy shares in a lithuim mine?
Is there any information on the asynchronous, magnetless motor in the Tesla vehicle? Dyson has a 100,000 rpm digital motor in their latest appliance, which sounds similar, or perhaps different, but there isn’t enough information out there.
Reading through Raser Technologies webpage, it sounds like they have similar tech to the Tesla Motors asynchronous, magnetless motor design:
www.rasertech.com/index.html
CM: Just wondering where you got your information. On the ‘Rubber meets the Road’ blog, Andrew Simpson says it takes 75 Kwh for a 4 hour charge, ‘we’re acheiving 70% net efficiency’. He also made the somewhat confusing statement that ‘decreasing the charge rate doesn’t necessarily increase the efficiency.’..
The fact that he says ‘achieving’ connotes best - case efficiency, not worst - case.
Since the refrigeration / glycol is needed, it stands to reason that the batteries are giving off considerable heat during charging. They don’t mention, but assume 95% charger efficiency, and 10% refrigeration requirement. That leaves 15% of the 75 kwh going to ‘heat’ the batteries (11 1/4 kwh). Over the 4 hour rate (the number Andrew gave), would be 2,812.5 watts on average, or 9600 British Thermal Units/ HOur of charge. The ESS is deep inside the vehicle and, apparently, can ONLY be cooled by chilled water generated by the refrigeration system in the front of the car. Of course, this analysis is only guestimates of what I think the relative efficiencies are: I’m assuming the total refrigeration wattage usage on average is 1875 watts, running 3 items,
1). An intermittently - running compressor.
2). An intermittently - running Air-Cooled condenser Fan motor.
3). A continuously running chilled glycol pump to continuously remove the heat from the batteries during the charge.
The above musing assumes an 85% battery charge efficiency, but that number in itself may be a little high, and the refrigeration system may actually be a little more efficient than I’ve guessed, but Andrew said, in effect, 30% losses overall, and, changing the charging rate will not necessarily improve it. That’s what he’s said. Maybe if there’s enough interest he’ll provide an elaboration.
- Bill.
Hi Sadie: You’re welcome. Its difficult to come up with concrete information. Apparently, everyone lies about battery charging efficiency, even Tesla. Any hard numbers I’m using I took from engineer Andrew Simpson’s blog: “Where the Rubber Meets the Road.”. In the postings, in 2 different places he says ‘We’re acheiving 70% Net efficiency’ (in english, I take that to mean that under ideal condtions, you only lose 30% of your electricity to heat when charging. (Better leave the garage door open or else its going to get mighty hot in there). This is confirmed by him also saying it takes 75 kwh to fully charge a dead battery over a 4 hour time period (thats a total amount of energy - like gallons of gas => 750, 100 watt bulbs on for an hour, or in this case 18,750 watts drawn for 4 hours).
Using those numbers, a tesla will heat your garage like a 5625 watt heater (like a heater with 19,200 btu/hour OUTPUT), so its rather like having a 25,000 - 30,000 btu (input) heater in your garage, if you charge at the 4 hour rate (which incidentally is 78 amps at 240 volts). Apparently, no one has told Tesla’s marketing people that a 3 1/2 hour charge at 70 amps wont fully charge you up from a dead battery. But in view of all the heat generated by fast charge, i think your idea of a slow charge at 120 volts would make the open garage door unnecessary. Hope this helps Sadie.
- Bill.
Bill - your posts are increasingly factually incorrect and misleading. Just because we don’t directly engage in an extensive dialogue with you on this blog does not mean your calculations and conclusions are correct. They aren’t. Perhaps we will address the specific things you bring up in a future blog. For starters, however, I might point out that when we talk about a full charge we are not talking about taking the battery pack from a 0% state of charge to a 100% state of charge. The usable range of state of charge never drops that low and rarely gets that high, and depends in part in what mode you select for your charging. There is a standard mode and an extended range mode, among others. -ed.
Hi Sadie:
Again, the previous posts apparently are using Tesla’s Marketing Information. If you read Andrew Simpson’s blog: “Rubber meets the Road”, he says “takes about 75 killowatt-hours consumption” with a full charge in 4 hours. So that’s 18 3/4 kw average power consumption from your house.. And since volts times amps * power factor = watts, and you can’t have a pf >1, this means its at least 78 1/8 amps @ 240 volts. I’m just using his statements, and his responses to postings there. He says he’s “achieving 70 % net efficiency “, so in english this means 30% loss to heat your garage. The reason I’m putting so much emphasis on his statements alone, is that they are consistent. If the battery holds 53 killowatt hours of energy storage, (by the way, thats 191 million joules for you Physics types), and it takes 75 kwh to get the 53 kwh in there, that works out to around 70% efficiency, so his numbers have the ring of truth.
The advertised 70 amperes for 3 1/2 hours from a totally dead ESS to a full charge that Tesla had been stating just doesn’t make any sense once you read Mr. Simpson’s Blog.
- Hope this helps… Bill.
Dear Ed: (whomever this is), here’s the opportunity to clear some stuff up. The EPA testing that was done in my view was a very good thing, forcing some hard numbers.
As a reader, when you say the battery holds 53 kwh, I assume that to mean that this is the ‘effective battery capacity’ (say 90% to 20%). Since the Tesla’s numbers were not as good as an EV-1, (still fine, but just not as good, 31 compared to 24.8), I can only reasonably conclude that the EPA testing numbers have the ring of truth to them.
Its very difficult to respond to a claim “Bill - your posts are increasingly factually incorrect and misleading”, when you don’t mention a single instance of an inaccuracy, nor mention a single instance of being misleading.
I don’t think ‘inconvenient truths’ constitute being misleading, and its certainly not my intention. Just trying to pry some hard info out of you guys. That’s why I enjoyed Mr. Simpson’s Blog the best.
- Bill.
Dear ed: (whomever this is), your statement : “Bill - your posts are increasingly factually incorrect and misleading.” is quite difficult to respond to since you dont mention a single case of ‘factual inaccuracy’ nor misleading information. I’m just comparing the Tesla marketing information (full charge from a from Tesla which has just been driven 220 miles).
Here’s the chance to clear something up then for all of us: How many killowatt hours of battery power are used to drive 220 miles? I , and most readers assume its 53.
I’d be very curious to see what
1). You consider misleading, and
2). Factual inaccuracies.
Thank You. - Bill.
Ed,
What’s the standard mode?
In regards to your transmission issues, I’m sure with the amount of gearheads you have, that some of them would have mentioned using a Lenco transmission. I’m curious as to why it isn’t viable? Thier smallest 2 speed is light, very strong (1,200 hp and 900 lb/ft) and made right in Lemon Grove, California. I know their standard ratios won’t do the 2 to 1 your looking for in a 2 speed, but a 3 speed would give you a 2.19 to 1, 1.48 to 1, 1.00 to 1. The 2 speed would be 1.48 to 1, 1.00 to 1.
Dear Sir:
Do you have a printer friendly format for printing the info. on your website?
I am not a car person, but I became very interested in your company for a
variety of reasons. As a lay person I believe that electric powered transportation
can be a great benefit to our country’s dependence on oil, especially foreign oil,
reduce polution. and advance new and exciting technologies. I also am very
interested in seeing “American” technology and manufacturing advance. We are
running a $700 billion dollar annual trade defict that is (has) destroying American
manufacturing, etc. We have gone from being the world’s biggest creditor nation
to being the world’s biggest debtor nation. The significance of this to our
country is lost on most Americans. They will wonder what happened? I guess
I will head for the freeway and watch the trade deficit drive by. Why should I
care? America is just about cheaper and better(?) foreign products. Liberty,
sovereignty, independence, what’s that?
Best wishes to you for an American designed and produced product.
Sincerely,
Fred Porter, CPA
Seattle, WA
(An individual wthout a spare country to go to.)