Tesla Motors has placed a count-down clock on its website to help while away the days, hours, minutes and seconds until it unveils the Tesla Roadster on July 20th. Behind the timer is the Tesla Roadster itself draped with a shape, allowing us at least an indication of the car's profile. We've mentioned Tesla and its hyperbolic electric vehicle before, but the claims are too amazing to ignore. Imagine an all-electric roadster capable of reaching 60 mph in four seconds, returning the equivalent of 135 mpg, and going 250 miles per charge. It sounds impossible considering the SMART EV we posted on earlier reaches 30 mph in 6.5 seconds, top out at 70 mph and get you 70 miles per charge.
We don't know what black magic, voodoo technology is under that sheet, but AutoblogGreen has already booked plane tickets to the unveiling in Santa Monica and we'll have every detail on the Tesla Roadster (including video) available early on the 20th. All of our questions will be answered in less than a week.
[Source: Tesla Motors]
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mike K. @ Jul 13th 2006 1:23PM
If I had to guess, I'd say the shape represents a Lotus Elise.
Robert Brodrecht @ Jul 13th 2006 1:33PM
The Tzero does all that at 100 miles per charge (traveling 60 MPH). It's not impossible that Tesla got 250 miles (more batter capacity?). But the Tzero also would cost "between a Porsche and a Ferrari." I somehow doubt this Tesla car will be affordable for all but the wealthiest individuals, where the Smart FourTwo EV could probably be afforded by middle class families. But I could be / hope I am wrong about Tesla.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm
ruggels @ Jul 13th 2006 2:02PM
Ever driven the Tzero? Or sat in it? I've managed the later, and hung around it while it was executing the former. Compared to the likes of the Fetish and what I would assume of the Tesla, there's no contest. Plus, last i checked, the Tzero's been stagnant for the last half decade or so. The Tesla will be expensive, it's competing with the Venturi, not smart. The up side is, the technology which lends the Tesla with such impressive numbers will hopefully trickle down. But we'll see, I don't know of very many small limited production run companies who's technology has permeated to the wider general automotive field.
AES @ Jul 13th 2006 2:03PM
News articles in the past have hinted that the car would cost less than $100,000 (US).
http://business.bostonherald.com/technologyNews/view.bg?articleid=145984&format=&page=2
shawn @ Jul 13th 2006 2:10PM
So we move pollution from tailpipes to tall stacks, power-line magnetic fields, and toxic dumps of used batteries...at the cost of $85K-$100K each.
Spytap @ Jul 13th 2006 2:11PM
The problem with a $100,000 price tag, is that the people who can afford it, don't care about the MPG or cost per mile. If you're dropping 100k for a car, those considerations go out the window. The people those numbers mean the most to, are those who are paying a third or a quarter of that amount for a car.
it's doable @ Jul 13th 2006 2:11PM
It is doable.
All you have to do is take everything out of the inside and put in $80K worth of batteries.
Please ignore these electric car companies. They all are making claims that can only be met with a race-car type structure (very little interior, 2 seats, no amenities) and a bunch of batteries that costs more than most cars.
This is just nothing new. It wasn't even new when the AC Propulsion (T-Zero) guys did it.
chance @ Jul 13th 2006 2:16PM
If you sign up for updates, you also get a teaser pic of the column.
http://www.teslamotors.com/images/car_shifter.jpg
PJ @ Jul 13th 2006 2:37PM
Oil refineries don't run on fairy dust, either, shawn. And while electric cars' batteries are of the NiCad/NiMH variety, rather than the lead-acid batteries in every other car, the technology to recycle them is already in place. If those batteries were unable to be recycled, we'd already have massive toxic stockpiles from your laptop, cordless power tools, electric razor, et cetera.
It'll be interesting to see if this vehicle delivers on its performance and mileage claims. You'd think that by now, upstart automakers would know better than to get too outrageous with their promises, so I'm hopeful. While I'm sure this particular vehicle will only be a plaything for the (very) wealthy, projects like this can be valuable for their trickle-down-technology effect.
Charles S @ Jul 13th 2006 3:33PM
"very little interior, 2 seats, no amenities"
That's a new angle of attack; since the issue of EV's range has been beaten down to death, let's start a new campaign on trashing EVs, make up a fake issue with interior space!
First of all, batteries aside, EV components are simpler, and take up LESS space than typical gasoline powered cars. Besides the engine, gasoline cars need cooling systems, exhaust systems, gearbox, etc. It has more parts to break, and it is actually MORE complicated in terms of design. The guts of EVs, like fuel-cell vehicles, actually can be very compact, light, and its placement is very versatile.
Second, the size and weight of batteries can be a good thing for automobiles. For sports cars, distribution of weight can improve handling. For tall crossovers or SUVs, batteries can be placed under the floor. For larger cars, and vans, spaces under driver and passenger seats are the typical spots where batteries are located. Such design may interfere with flexibility in the use of the cargo space, but more weight at the bottom of the vehicle gives it more stability.
Personally, I can give a rat’s behind about high-priced performance EV, but sadly, the world is quite willing to justify $50K+ for a fast sports car, but have to count every pennies when a car uses alternative energy source. To reignite interests for EV in this messed up world of automotive values, what better way to compete but to beat them at their own game?
shawn @ Jul 13th 2006 3:35PM
PJ, I'm not saying gas burners are better. I'm saying it is not better and worse. Battery recycling is a good theory, in practice, it doesn't work. You can recycle car batteries right now. Look at how little of it is being recycled and how much of it is ending up in dumps & shores overseas. There is NO financial incentive to recycle batteries. If 10% of the cars in the US becomes electric, that would mean millions of batteries.
In order for this Tesla EV to achieve the milage claims, it must be running on lithium batteries. It is toxic and so is NiCad. I also have some serious doubts on the recyclablity of NiMH in large scale.
With today's technology, it is far more efficient & cleaner to run a small car on an efficient gas/diesel engine with sufficient power (rather than sports car performance) than it would be for electric cars. Electric cars is just a fashionable myth.
I don't think anyone that's looked at this seriously willa argue with that.
PJ @ Jul 13th 2006 3:48PM
"With today's technology, it is far more efficient & cleaner to run a small car on an efficient gas/diesel engine with sufficient power (rather than sports car performance) than it would be for electric cars."
I'll believe that. As reluctant as I am personally to give up the feel of a gasoline engine, though, its days are inevitably numbered. As the technology improves in coming decades, the above scenario will likely become less accurate. That's not necessarily to say that EV technology is where we'll end up, though.
The other issue is that, in America, the average, non-enthusiast buyer isn't happy with a small, efficient vehicle. But if market pressures get the majority of us into thriftier gasoline-powered compacts, I agree that the environmental benefit would be similar to EVs starting to go mainstream.
woo hoo @ Jul 13th 2006 3:54PM
"Battery recycling is a good theory, in practice, it doesn't work. You can recycle car batteries right now. Look at how little of it is being recycled and how much of it is ending up in dumps & shores overseas. There is NO financial incentive to recycle batteries. If 10% of the cars in the US becomes electric, that would mean millions of batteries."
According to the EPA site, over 99 million car lead-acid batteries are produced each year. Nearly 90% of them are recycled. The EPA site claims that new batteries contain 60%-80% recycled lead/plastic. Some other sites claim up to 98% of the lead in a battery you buy new today is from recycled lead. Whatever the exact recycle numbers are, they are pretty high (probably somewhere in the 90% range) and definitely far from a little.
Charles S @ Jul 13th 2006 4:14PM
"Electric cars is just a fashionable myth."
Ok, let's put recycling aside. If the cost of a car has nothing to do with research and developments, and we are only going to talk about cost of the parts and cost of fuel, EV is the ONLY way to go.
First, as I have mentioned already, there are less parts for EV than petrol cars. If any EVs are made in the same scale and efficiency as typical best-sellers like a Civic, the cost for EV parts will probably be very competitive, and the labor cost will certainly be LESS!
Second, while cost of oil is uncertain, electricity is relatively steady in comparison. Some of you already know that electric companies would love to sell MORE electricity during night time, because it is more cost effective to sell a constant supply, than to rev up and down the generators daily.
Third, if we want to talk about efficiency, there is no dispute that electric motors are more efficient than gasoline or diesel.
I have already said it many times like a broken record; if only EV had the same amount of investment as our society have put into petrol vehicles, EVs would easily outperform in all categories. As the latest development in batteries are trickling down into the automotive industry, range will be longer, batteries size will be smaller, and charging times will be shorter. As with any new technology, cost will be high in the beginning.
Remember, the first horseless carriage was probably considered a "fashionable myth" too.
Keef @ Jul 13th 2006 4:41PM
Is anyone else confused about the inveiling being in Santa Monica, when the company is headquartered in San Carlos?
Peter @ Jul 13th 2006 6:09PM
They're probably unveiling in Santa Monica because it's in Los Angeles county, closer to the movie star crowd which will presumably be one of the larger markets for this car. L.A. is also just a much bigger city than San Francisco.
I think it's a great concept and I wish them the best of luck. A performance electric car could really turn public perception around, after cars like the EV1 and RAV4 EV. Once people get used to electric cars being fun and sporty, they can move the technology down market into affordable cars.
Car Pictures @ Jul 13th 2006 6:30PM
Does anyone know where this will be unveiled. I am dying to know, live in Santa Monica and need to be at this. If you have any info, please post it here!
doglet @ Jul 13th 2006 6:33PM
someone should have a electric vehicle enduro, you get to lap for 1 hour and then refuel for 2!
it's doable @ Jul 13th 2006 9:56PM
It's not an attack, it's the truth. I used to live in Sunnyvale and would see the T-Zero running around.
The truth is 1 gallon of gas is about 37KWh of power.
A pack like the EV1 had had 27KWh of energy in it. That's 2/3rds of a gallon of gas. That's just not enough energy. So you have to make the car tiny and very light and very efficient to make it get any range at all.
Basically, it has to be a race car (or golf cart), meaning no amenities, no space, two seats, etc. It's not difficult to make a race car, racers have been doing it for years.
What is difficult (impossible) is to make an electric car that doesn't have huge limitations. Even if you spend $50K on batteries (to get LIons) you still can't hold much more power than 3 gallons worth.
These companies are taking advantage of people's misconceptions about cars. They see a car that can do 0-60 in 5 secs and they think of a race car. Really, you're talking about a car that can expend a lot of energy fast, but can't carry much.
An electric enduro? A joke. There's no way you could lap for 1 hour. A race car will use 12 gallons of fuel in hot laps in a a 40 minute race. An electric car is going to blow through its batteries in under 15.
I like electric power. My RC car and plane are rechargeable electric. My mower and weed whacker are rechargeable electric. I do not own a gas can, I am comitted to using electricity wherever practical. I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car."
But I know what it does well, and I can tell these people are misleading you by only telling you the good stuff. Each electric car company does it, and then fades away because their limitations become obvious on closer inspection. Don't be fooled this time.
Charles S: the new batteries (LIon) charge slower than the old ones (NiMH), not faster.
K @ Jul 14th 2006 2:53AM
RE: it's doable.
You are pointing out the KWH, etc. That is a good thing to do. But it is not the total story.
How much of gasolines power gets to the wheels? How much is recovered during braking? What is the weight of internal combustion engines and drivelines and muffler systems and radiators? What is the weight of drive features in an electric?
The EV1 was a decent little car. What many people need and are very happy with. It was not a decent SUV or limosine or Hummer. But it certainly wasn't a golf cart. It got the job done for 40 miles, (sometimes more,) even though publicity nonsense was talking about 80 and 120. Today they could go a solid 80 with newer batteries and motors, etc.
Electrics have definite flaws. They won't do everything. And what does except the Swiss Army Knife? They are expensive. Yet what is the trend of buying electricity vs. motor fuel? What is the trend of battery costs?
And recharge times are not increasing. It is true that some chemistries take longer than others. But for a given type recharge techniques are improving and times are decreasing.