Autoblog

An electric car, at least in it's current form, is not practical for taking a long distance road trip with 4 people and their luggage. As many people have already pointed out, they have limited range, take a long time to recharge, and have limited space.

However, that kind of trip is not what 99% of Americans are using their cars for every day. What an electric car excels at is taking one or two people to work and back each day and getting some errands done on the way home. The average distance traveled by car per day in the US is just 29 miles (at an average speed of just 32mph). Even if the Tesla is only good for half of it's promised range, the average driver would still only have to plug it in two nights per week.

Reply

↓↑report

Its my opinion that the internal combustion engine is nearing a brick wall when it comes to development and refinement. Engineers have squeezed just about every ounce of efficiency they can out of the design. It either needs to evolve, or it will die.

I'm not saying that EV will completely replace internal combustion, but I believe something will. And batteries have a lot of room for refinement.

"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."

Except that gas/diesel engines are yesterday's technology. At some point, we as a people need to stop relying on what we have, and start focusing on what's possible. That's the only way we can get past this ridiculous dependence.

Reply

↓↑report

Allow me to chime in on a few comments above:

"Basically, it has to be a race car (or golf cart), meaning no amenities, no space, two seats..."

Come back to our website on July 20 and judge for yourself whether the car is a golf cart with no amenities. True, the Tesla Roadster does indeed have two seats - but then again, so does the Boxter, the Miata, most Ferrari's, the Z4 & the Z8, etc. It's a market positioning choice we made - not a limitation of the technology.

"The truth is 1 gallon of gas is about 37KWh of power."

Don't get too hung up on the number of kWh. My guess is that most of us have no idea how many kWh are in a gallon of gas and don't really care. As K pointed out, electric motors are vastly more efficient than gasoline engines; comparing kWh of storage is meaningless.

What really matters is how far you can drive on a "full tank." This was the major shortcoming of previous generations of EVs. It is not such a shortcoming of the Tesla Roadster, which goes something like 250 miles per charge on the EPA highway driving cycle. And remember that like your cell phone, you start out every morning with a full charge - no need to charge up during the day for most driving.

Reply

↓↑report

"Charles S: the new batteries (LIon) charge slower than the old ones (NiMH), not faster"

Yes, *OLD* Lithium designs are slow, and even dangerous for automotive applications. We are talking about the next generation of batteries from A123, Valence, and Altair, and all other breakthroughs that is coming down the pipeline. These new batteries can be recharged 80-90% in 3 minutes.

For now, we cannot be completely wean off of oil, so it is silly to talk about needing an EV that can go on forever, or being able to be refueled at 100% like petrol at a gas station. As long as we can rent ICE cars for long trips, EV has its place as both a commuter and a family car.

The nay-sayers for EVs always assume that battery technology will never improve, and somehow gas engines will always be superior in the near future. As mentioned above, ICE may have room for improvements, but I believe advancements in battery technologies will give EV a big boost in the near future.

Reply

↓↑report

DOH.

"These new batteries can be recharged 80-90% in 3 minutes. "

Just in case: I should have said "some of these new batteries..." and recharge times for an EV does depend greatly on the size of the batteries. The above quote is for a small EV that I read somewhere, but can't remember which one.

To clarify, the reason that in some case batteries can be recharge quickly is because of specialize charger, and not from the 15 amp wall-socket at home. At home, it is not unreasonable for one to leave the vehicle and let it recharge overnight, so a slow charge for six hours to 100% is not unreasonable. It is similiar to getting biodiesel from a gas station, or taking the time to "brew" your own biodiesel in your backyard.

EV of the future will probably have some kind of super-capacitors, or at least batteries that have characteristics of a super-capacitors. The recharging times will most certainly be much faster than current battery technology.

Reply

↓↑report

Charles S, if you insist in quoting info on battery tehcnologies that don't even exist yet, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you.

I will point out however that to charge even a 37KWh battery to 80%, regardless of type, in 3 minutes would require a 37*20*0.8 or 592KW of power. At 440V, that's about 1,500 RMS amps (at 90% efficiency, including transmission losses, conversion losses and heat losses).

Good luck with that.

Batteries have to improve (a lot) and improve a lot in cost. Charging has to improve a lot, and it isn't just a function of battery chemistry, it's also a function of getting the power through the lines and equipment to the car.

I wish it were possible to rent ICE cars affordably for long trips. It would make an EV workable for more people. But it doesn't work. If you do the math, renting an ICE a few days a year costs hundreds of dollars. This makes it difficult to sell a "rent a few days" idea to people.

Mr. Eberhard, you can say your car positioning was a marketing choice, but it doesn't make sense. If by that you mean that you chose to only put $50K worth of batteries in a two-seater it when a 4-seater would take $120K (I'm sorry if both of these numbers are too high, it's difficult for me to know how good a price your company gets on batteries, as they vary greatly depending on how many you buy and how well you negotiate) worth of batteries and require a (small) SUV-sized vehicle, then yeah, it's a marketing decision.

You say comparing KWh is meaningless, but it isn't. Yes, electric cars are more efficient. This is clear because these electric cars could go almost 100 miles on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas. A gas car made for efficiency, even in that stupid trapezoidal shape would not be able to reach 100mpg. But when the comparison is of 450KWh (12 gallons of gas) versus 30KWh (an EV1), it is easy for even the layman to see that the battery-powered electric car has a difficult road ahead of it. It doesn't have the requisite increase in efficency needed to make it work like people might expect.

Also, Mr. Eberhard, I did not say your car was a golf cart. I said EVs had to be either race cars or golf carts. The lack of energy necessitates a level of efficency that necessitates these two ultra lightweight forms. The golf cart comment comes from the Ford Th!nks and the comments from one of the gentlement who developed them (seen in "Who Killed the Electric Car?") that people want to pay a reduced price for reduced capabilities. This emphasis on cost drove Ford to make golf-cart Th!nks (which I see every day as my company bought a bunch).

I like electric power, a lot. I do not say the electric vehicle is not ever going to be workable. But right now, it doesn't make sense. I think that we will need to see another form of energy storage alongside batteries. Hydrogen doesn't make sense (as the movie underscores very well), but we'll need something. The energy density of batteries is so low that it will need to rise leaps and bounds to make the battery-powered electric car a big player in the market.

Again, remember, these companies are playing on the impressions you will get from seeing a car move fast. But these are false impressions. Judge the vehicle on what it truly can do, don't jump to conclusions based upon the flash you see.

Reply

↓↑report

An odd choice of moniker, "doable," for a naysayer :-)

"But when the comparison is of 450KWh (12 gallons of gas) versus 30KWh (an EV1), it is easy for even the layman to see that the battery-powered electric car has a difficult road ahead of it."

Hmm. 12 gallons of gas X 21 mpg = 252 miles
50 kWh of batteries / 200 wH/mile = 250 miles

What's the problem? The math works fine.

Here's some more math - the cost of this 250 mile drive:

12 gallons of gas X $3.20/gallon = $38.40
50 kWh of electricity X $0.13/kWh = $6.50
...with PG&E incentive rate, we get:
50 kWh of electricity X $0.05/kWh = $2.50

The math is similar for well-to-wheels CO2 production.

Regarding vehicle size: The primary driver for energy consumption at highway speeds is not mass, but is aerodynamic drag. (Aero drag goes up as the sqaure of speed, so once a car is going faster than about 45 mph, aero drag dominates.)

Aero drag is equal to the product of frontal area and Cd - the coefficient of drag.

Here is the non-obvious part: although the frontal area goes up with car size, it is much easier to reduce aero drag for a mid-sized car than it is for a small sportscar. (Part of the reason is that the aero drag of the tires remains constant, but is a larger percentage of the frontal area for a small car. This is especially true for Tesla, who cares about the looks of the car as well as the drag, and is unwilling for this reason to include rear tire farings, etc.)

Thus, the total aero drag for a mid-sized 4-seater car is not double that of a small two-seater. Not even close. So such a car would not require double the batteries - again, not even close.

This only becomes obvious when you spend many hours doing computer simulations of various car configurations.

(Fair enough for your comment on SUVs - it would indeed be difficult today to make an affordable electric SUV with decent range.)

Reply

↓↑report

"Charles S, if you insist in quoting info on battery tehcnologies that don't even exist yet, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you."

I tried to find the source for the quote about "90% charge in 3 minutes". While I believe I got the quote right, it's not worth the effort right now, and rather I would quote the statements that I've found from other manufacturers, that have prototypes to back up the claim:

First, The Tango, from their website:

"The Tango can charge to 80% in just 10 minutes from a 200 amp charging station."

Second, Phoenix Motorcars:

"Altairnano’s technology allows for 10 - 15 minute recharge—with the use of an off-board charger."

So it seems that "existing" technology can get you charged in about ten minutes, instead of three. Now, can you do that at home? No, of course not. That is why I added the follow-up post about the difference in time to charge an EV during the night at home, versus charging an EV at a remote station.

Another point I would like to make is the bias toward cost when it comes to comparing EV to a typical car. I own a two-seater for five years now, and I can tell you that it does 99% of my daily needs. If I need to rent a van for trips or moving furnature, yes, it will cost me a pretty penny. But for the few times that I may need extra space, should I have gone to the other extreme and buy an SUV?

The cost of WASTED energy for hauling empty cargo spaces never seem enter the equation for the nay-sayers.

Which is cheaper, EV+rental or owning a typical petrol vehicle? For $100,000 EV, of course the answer is obvious. But the point is, as we all agreed, that EV is not supposed to be a replacement for ALL cars, not right NOW. This is pretty much the core of your argument: that NOW is not the time for an EV. It seems to also imply that development of an EV is a waste of effort.

EV is going to be a niche market. Yes, partly because of the limitation in technology. But why should a 2-seater EV be any less worthy than a gas-guzzling SUV? A two-seater Corvette serve very little purpose in utility, yet it certainly sell well enough at $40K-$60K. If fast acceleration is worth the extra cost, then I can easily justify the ability to drive without using petroleum.

For most of us, especially me, it is the cost that is the biggest factor in purchasing an EV. Small companies do not have the resources to make an EV that is competitive against the mass-producers. What if battery makers have the same budget as the oil companies? The process in extraction of oil is NOT cheap. Yet, the cost of gasoline in US has not kept up with inflation. This is the case because new technologies has greatly reduce the cost. What if EV companies have the same budget as GM or Toyota? You get the point.

Of course, at some point in time, EVs would be be competitively priced. Yet, how can we get there if all companies think like doable? I am certainly ready for a 2-seater EV, because for my situation, it will suit me just fine. Unlike doable, I am ready for an EV, would certainly buy an EV if it's in my budget.

Reply

↓↑report

All right, I already see it coming...

Someone will say: It is exactly the high cost of EVs that makes EV a poor choice in vehicles.

Well, Feel Good Cars will come out with ZENN for about $10K. The specs and performance suck, and it would not meet my needs in a car. But for a retirement village or gated community, the ZENN would not only surpass gas-powered cars, it would be cost effective. Believe it or not, there are people who drive less than a few thousand miles a year. Gasoline engines are especially inefficient for short distances.

WORSE CASE SCENARIO: Start up the car, drive about 3 miles, and turn off the engine about five minutes later. Imagine the average gas mileage for that. It would be terrible even for small engine cars. Emissions would be horrible, especially if the catalytic converters do not get the chance to get hot enough.

ZENN would do well in residential areas, and regardless of the distance travel, the use of electricity is mostly consistent. If the central office of the retirement community provides a rental for longer trips to town, and folks trade in their old wasteful car for a small EV, then that just about cover all the personal transportation needs for some people.

Yes, the example above seems boring to many who read Autoblog, but the fact is that current EV already can supplement the needs of some communities. EVs can help us address issue such as pollution, high fuel prices, the high cost of owning and maintenance of a low-use gasoline car, etc. All this, with a $10K price tag, is not outrageous. Throw in a wind farm and some solar arrays, it is even more reasons for local gov't to subsidize the effort, *if* it is serious about promoting reduction of air pollution.

I applaud the effort of Tesla to make EV "sexy" for the public. Truth is, if the public is willing to integrate EVs into our transportaion structure, there are enough benefits with EVs that make it worth the initial investment.

Reply

↓↑report

I had a big reponse post that got eaten. Too bad, I can't find it now. Oh well.

Anyway, the Tango uses NiMHs or lead-acid (from their site). Also, their site says "200amp charger under development". I can't find the Phoenix info, but a little searching implied they use lead-acid too.

This is what I refer to when I say the newer technologies charge slower.

NiMHs charge slower than Ni-CDs did. LIons charge slower than NiMHs do. This is what I referred to in my post, and your quotations of older technologies charge rates do not refute it.

Although Tesla hasn't said, with a 50KWh pack and a $50K+ price tag, it's almost certain they use LIons.

As to all your other stuff, you list a bunch of non-responsive things. I never said I don't want electric cars. You act like I'm Exxon. I want to save the environment too. But we aren't going to save the environment with $80K two seaters. The electric car has to replace the ICE car, and that means more than just in niche markets. None of these companies are doing us any favors showing us vehicles the average person cannot use. It just turns people off to be told "the electric car is coming" and find it isn't suitable for many people at all.

Reply

↓↑report

Depending on how close they are to making this real you quite possibly could be looking at the first Chinese (or maybe Tawainese) made car to be sold in America.

"Bernie Tse brings volume manufacturing experience with an emphasis on purchasing and manufacturing in Asia to the Tesla Motors board." (source http://www.teslamotors.com/company_board.html)



If this vehicle is as good as most think, Toyota will buy the company. The guys who started this company are all Silicon Valley guys that have started business and sold them or moved on by looking at their bios. A perfect target for Toyota with all the cash to purchase.


For all you Terrell Owens types that want to tell me about how you are BEing the best by buying foreign vehicles, this is a good snippet:

"now it’s prevalent for auto makers to buy subcomponents and assemblies from third-party suppliers. So those parts are also available to me, and that means we don’t need to design every single component of the car—shock absorbers, carpeting, and so on. Another reason is that Silicon Valley has created a culture of entrepreneurs and of investment that didn’t exist in his day, so we don’t have to go to the British government looking for handouts." (source http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=17178&hed=Q%26amp%3BA%3A+Tesla%E2%80%99s+Martin+Eberhard§or=Industries&subsector=VentureCapital)


Which guy was trying to state that almost all parts are proprietary in a car unlike a computer? Hmm. The above statement blows that out of the water (suppliers can sell you most anything you need). Also, as I mentioned before about the open cource car project. It isn't as hard as you Terrell Owens types think. It is a little work and that is too much for 99.9% of all import fanboy Terrell Owens types.

Another reason that snippet is interesting is it shows how DeLorean ran to a gov't for money and he still failed. Yet, everyone ignores his failure and gov't handout taking to hang on his every word about what was wrong with GM in his book. The guy had connections, experience, (British) gov't handouts and no union and still failed.


Anyway, the Tesla car may be good I don't know yet but several things *should* (but won't) stop people from asking why GM and Ford couldn't do this (if the car turns out to be great):

1. No union

2. It will probably made with cheap Asian labor once things are in full swing. I actually saw a Uniden telecom product made in the U.S. in prototype stages and by full production time it was made where all Uniden stuff is made in Asia. Same thing will happen here (actually it will probably be made in a cheap Asia area from the start).

3. These guys have the short term on their minds. Less pressure on them. If Tesla isn't around in 5 years it is hardly a big deal. Hardly any jobs created to be lost, new ventures will be found (another .com like most of these guys are used to doing) and just high fives for trying. A much different situation than GM or Ford has to deal with. I'd be surprised if a 2.0 (definitely not a 3.0) version would ever come out of this company (without Toyota or another car company purchasing them).

But if an American group of Terrell Owens types are to put their money where their mouths are this is a start. Maybe their second model (do you think a second model will happen?) will actually be usable by families.

We'll see what happens.

Reply

↓↑report

I love these blogs :-) You guys dig up *everything*.

A few comments to Lithous's entry:

Without giving away the store, the Tesla Roadster's final assembly is *not* in Asia - it's assembled in a country with relatively high labor costs. Components and subassemblies come from around the world, including (in no particular order): Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Norway, South Africa, England, Italy, USA, Mexico, France, and more. Go nuts, guys: figure out which bits come from what countries :-)

Regarding the short term/long term comment: Make no mistake about it. We are in it for the long haul. The Roadster is our first car; others will follow. Others are already on the drawing board. As I am sure I will be reminded, there is no way for me to prove this to you; you'll just have to wait around for the long haul. Maybe eventually become customers along the way.

But take a look at the motivation of our investors. Do you really think Elon Musk invested to make a quick buck? Do you suppose his own company, SpaceX is another quick buck company? Man that's got to be the hardest way to get rich! How about Larry Page or Sergey Brin? (or Nick Pritzker or Jeff Skoll or any of the others) Do you suppose they need to flip a few bucks at Tesla? Look over the VC's who invested. Again, you will see a strong interest in clean tech investment. Yes, they expect to make a good return on their investment, but they also are investing to make a positive change in the world.

One model at a time.

Reply

↓↑report

"it's assembled in a country with relatively high labor costs."

Even the Chinese company selling MGs already declared where their products will be made and they are close to the same stages (if not more behind). So mentioning where won't give away the farm.


"Make no mistake about it. We are in it for the long haul."

I don't think you understand my comment there. It is mostly about why GM and Ford can't do something a small company like Tesla can do. And it is because Most of the Tesla execs (and investors) would have no problem closing up shop in 5 years or so (Corbin Motors had to do it as an example) if things aren't selling. Tesla people (execs and investors) can do this without worry of 300K employees (plus more with suppliers) being jobless. Telsa can take more of a risk because the attitude *can* be about the long term: Let Toyota figure that out once they buy us. Most of you would be on the next joint venture together months after Tesla folded (if it had to) or sold out.



"Do you really think Elon Musk invested to make a quick buck? Do you suppose his own company, SpaceX is another quick buck company? Man that's got to be the hardest way to get rich!"

But he is already rich. Now it is all about fame and/or (more) accomplishment. He's rich and potentially (if he didn't do these things) bored so he delvs in SpaceX and this and a .com here and there (latter was a guess) but no one hones a company like Levi Strauss or Sam Walton anymore. Sounds funny but this is why America became so great. Now, Toyota will just buy Tesla in 5 years and have a slightly better technology than GM and Ford and more "reason" for people to not like GM and Ford. But GM and Ford could do the buying, right? I'm sure all the Silicon Valley types will want their technology to be used in the great Lexus automobiles (so they can high five each other - we help power the latest Lexus!!!!).

Anyway, America is totally relying on being a service economy but to this day I still see all great or greatly emerging economies to be doing it through manufacturing but no one cares to preserve this in America. Sure it looks like services have done well for America and they have but it isn't why America is as great (economically) as it is, at one point the U.S. manufactured over 85% of the world's products. You know how the ocean water is still cold on the East Coast beaches well into May and June even though the temperature has been warm for a while? That is going to be the effect of losing all U.S. manufacturing, we'll still have a good economy for a short time after losing most manufacturing jobs but eventually it will catch up. Then will people realize the importance of those jobs? I don't know. Don't get me wrong, it I don't want get rid of the service companies I want America to have both service and manufacturing.

All you Silicon Valley guys seem to understand the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket but when it comes to jobs putting them all into services seems to be just fine (i.e. in your purchases you don't look for American made is my guess and now with getting into a traditionally manufacturing based thing such as automobiles where it is made doesn't have to be America). Tesla isn't really a manufacturing company it is a service company. Tesla is really selling design (and for now, management). Contracting to buy parts from Asia and everywhere else and to contract to a factory to assemble the vehicle (especially *if* the factory is outside of the states then Tesla probably won't own the factory just contracting out) means the only thing Tesla is doing to add value is the design work (and for now, management). Whereas GM and Ford (and other auto companies) own most all their assembly factories and have financial stake in their suppliers for the most part.

I'm not trying hate on Tesla by any means. I am just putting some perspective to the situation. If a Tesla vehicle ever gets in my price range and there are no other American made cars (cause I like to support American manufacturing as much as American service companies and this assumes the Tesla won't be assembled here only because you won't mention where) then I'd buy one.

But in all honesty I am not wishing Tesla failure just wishing it was a more American vehicle. I know all about the global economy and all but this may put things into perspective: no matter how great Tesla becomes, Toyota will not let any of your execs be an exec *in* Japan. Yes, Toyota and most Japanese companies see borders, do not mistake that fact. When Toyota can get loans for 1% interest from the Bank of Japan (even though GM and Ford are paying 12 times or more), do you think GM and Ford could get a 1% loan from the Bank of Japan? Hmm. Maybe Tesla should get loans from the Bank of Japan, I hear their loans rates are great (for those who can get them).

Reply

↓↑report

"Tesla Motors was founded in June 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive. The company currently employs 70 people, including teams in California, the UK and Taiwan. The background and experience of Tesla's employees mirrors the vehicle itself, drawing from diverse expertise in the electronics, automotive and Internet industries." (source http://www.teslamotors.com/press_releases.html)

Looking like final assembly will be in the UK.

Reply

↓↑report

You can read the article on Phoenix Motorcar and Altair batteries here.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/07/altair_batterie.html

doable, I'm sure you love EV, but I only disagree with your attitude about the role of EV in the automotive industry. I would love it if we all understand that we should drive sensible cars, and that all efforts in EV advancement should be directed toward an all-purpose, versatile design. But while that could be possible, or currently impossible, that doesn't mean that the development of a two-seater EV is a waste of effort.

Phoenix Motorcar will convert a truck into an EV with 120 miles per charge, highway ready, 15 minutes charging time, and cost about $40k. Is this "better" than what Tesla has to offer? To some, yes, but to others, no. The point is that there won't be a perfect EV TODAY, but offerings from Tesla or Phoenix is going to meet or even exceed what some may want in a car.

Corvette owners could certainly trade in for a used Honda CRX and there will be little change in commuting needs. But we all know that people who buy a Corvette won't be buying a ZENN any time soon.

I certainly wish that Tesla could come out with a moderate performance, affordable EV, but in today's world, the best way to turn people's heads is to come out with vehicles that can do outrageous things. Since people love acceleration so much, Tesla will probably be able to sell more high-performance vehicles than a sensible commuter car.

Reply

↓↑report

Man, I hate responding to Lithous comments, but I have to point out a few flaws to his logic.

Yes, I get the whole "made in America" thing, I won't bother getting into that. However, since our nation has dropped the ball on Solar and EV race, it's no surprise that parts have to be imported.

Say if you get your wish and that Tesla is REQUIRED to make an EV with parts only from the US; If the issue is that imports has better technology, then the Tesla design would be greatly limited.

Other factors include market trends. Let's jump into an alternate universe: If Tesla announced an EV 5 years ago in the US, few would be interested. Yet, parts of Europe would probably be more interested in the project. Say if an American company, Tesla, ended up being successful in Europe and decided to set up shop there, then finally decided to offer EV in US today because the market is ready... do you fault this fictitious Tesla for selling out to Europeans, or do you thank the Europeans for keeping Tesla alive for having a market for EVs?

As powerful as we are as a nation, US should have been the dominant player in EV market. But sadly, it has to be a global effort that makes it possible for advancements in EV.

As for Corbin closing shop, you have to mix in internal political issues as a factor in the breakup. It happens, and I'm sure for some who were involved, it was not PLANNED to be a fly-by-night (5-years) operation.

Reply

↓↑report

About batteries: technology is improving, and we haven't reached the limit yet about what can be done in that field - something which cannot be said for ICE's.

As a matter of facts, this could be the solution to all problems of EV's:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MIT_Nanotube_Super_Capacitor

Reply

↓↑report

> The Roadster is our first car; others will follow.
> Others are already on the drawing board.

I'd like to ask: is there any plan to build cars in the price range of standard utility cars based on Tesla's technology? Is it possible at all?

Reply

↓↑report

"Man, I hate responding to Lithous comments, but I have to point out a few flaws to his logic."

LMAO. Thanks for the compliment.



"Say if you get your wish and that Tesla is REQUIRED to make an EV with parts only from the US; If the issue is that imports has better technology, then the Tesla design would be greatly limited."

My wish isn't for all U.S. parts. And I never required anything. I am just stating that U.S. assembly of whatever parts from where ever isn't such a bad thing so I wonder why not? Is that so bad? Even Toyota and Honda assemble parts here. But yes, if it was a majority U.S. parts here that would be a bonus to me. If these guys are the future like they believe then it would be nice to see the auto industry still have some core pieces here other than services.

When/if the Tesla becomes a hit in Europe they assemble the parts for the European market in Europe.

If Tesla takes off like their investors would like (basically competing head to head with Toyota someday - read their vision) then it would be nice if they actually thought about U.S. assembly. I know they could care less but I can put it out there.

I don't know that you pointed out any flaws like you think you did Charles S.

Reply

↓↑report

Looks like a Lotus Elise under that wrap. One of your people has a long history with Lotus. Interesting, no?

Norway might be the aluminum frame, South Africa might be the seats, France might be the composite body panels, Japan might be the batteries.

Glad you used the name Tesla, The man deserves more recognition than what the world gives him. Edison was a thief.

24 hours to go. Good luck. Hope you do well, Martin.

Reply

↓↑report