Much has been made of the issues that Tesla Motors encountered with its original two-speed transmission. The fledgling EV automaker was unable to find a supplier that could engineer a two-speed gearbox capable of allowing the Tesla Roadster to hit 0-60 in four seconds and meet specified targets for its range. The two-speed box was eventually dropped in favor of what has been called "powertrain 1.5", which uses a single-speed gearbox and other improvements to the electric motor and inverter to achieve Tesla's seemingly incongruous goals of performance and efficiency.
JB Straubel, Chief Technical Officer Tesla Motors, recently posted an update on the progress of powertrain 1.5 on the company's blog, and be warned, if you're not up to date on how highly complex electric motors and transmissions work (like us), you'll probably get lost. The basic nuts and bolts of it amount to a Tesla Roadster that will have both a 33% higher peak torque output and an additional 10 miles of range versus the 1.0 car. According to our own Sam Abuelsamid who has followed the Tesla Roadster's development from gestation, these two seemingly irreconcilable accomplishments were achieved mainly through lowering resistance at every point along the powertrain. This was done by redesigning some components, using low resistance materials and switching to a new, shorter gear ratio of 8.27:1. You can read Sam's nitty gritty explanation of the changes over at AutoblogGreen, but it seems the little EV company that could is finally getting back on track after some major set backs.
[Source: Tesla Motors via AutoblogGreen]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
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
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
geo.stewart @ May 28th 2008 3:21PM
are they going to sue themselves for holding back on the design for the original, as Fisker supposedly did for the Whitestar?
Andrew @ May 28th 2008 3:46PM
What's the point of this car? Electrical energy is primarily produced from coal burning plants which turn steam turbines to generate electricity, so it's not as though the car isn't powered by fossil fuels. Until the generation of electrical energy is revolutionized, I'd rather drive a regular gas engine car that sounds way better. And yes, I do know the advantages of the torque of an electric motor, but that's not the only part of an athletic automotive experience, sound is a huge factor for many enthusiasts.
Marc-O @ May 28th 2008 3:51PM
One of the goals is to end up helping people generate their own energy at home for their Teslas, thus making it 100% clean and with no more running costs. See the other companies which board of directors Elon Musk sits on, like SolarCity.
Mwmorph @ May 28th 2008 4:16PM
Because producing 200 miles of electric power on the grid is more economical and less polluting than producing 200 miles of mechanical energy through an internal combustion engine.
Driving 200 miles in a Tesla accounts just a small fraction of the CO2 output from an internal combustion engine that just drove 200 miles if it's from coal, our dirtiest form of power, if that power is from natural gas, nuclear or whatever else, it's even less.
jake @ May 28th 2008 4:56PM
You completely forgot about the efficiency of an electric motor; 80-90% by most counts. A typical internal combustion engine is less than 20% efficient, the rest all goes to heat. That is where an EV can make up the difference in CO2 output even using a dirty source like coal; an EV is still slightly better than a typical ice car even using 100% coal, factoring in the whole life cycle, including battery production and disposal. As you can see here, an EV also eliminates the need of a multispeed transmission due to it's high torque avaliable at low rpms, meaning much less complexity in the drivetrain which helps aid efficiency and reliability.
Mwmorph also mentions a lot of good points, how electricity is cheaper than gasoline and how coal is basically the worst source of electricity we can offer in terms of pollution. I don't see why they should wait around until the whole US is switched off coal. Some areas actually already use very little coal, so these areas can immediately benefit from an EV. Overall in the US, coal is roughly 50% so it's close to not being majority anymore. Anyways if you see all the reports recently about gas prices, pollution isn't even the biggest concern in ICE vehicles, it's the rising cost of fuel, and electricity is dirty cheap compared to gasoline. If pollution is a major concern you can always go solar or join the "green energy" program from your local power company if they have it avaliable (my power company has it). That's the beauty of EVs, that you have so many options for power, while in an ICE you have basically no choice.
The sooner they develop and gain a market for these expensive EVs, the sooner they can drive downmarket and make more affordable ones. Their next car is in the $50k-70k range. The third one is rumored to be in the $30k range.
BlackbirdHighway @ May 28th 2008 4:58PM
We own the coal, not the Arabs.
Andrew @ May 28th 2008 5:03PM
@Mwmorph
do you mean more economical like you've stated or more efficient? Efficiency should be the key to the energy issues of the world, not economics. When fossil fuels run out, economics will be thrown out the window. I don't know stats so I won't quote any, but I would like to see some that quote the efficiency of electric power generated from a coal plant verses a gasoline engine that both produce the same work. I think it's more of a case of taking getting the energy from somewhere more politically acceptable. If you see smoke coming out of your tailpipe it's bad, but if the coal plant producing your electricity is spewing a bunch of smoke into the air in a remote location it is much better simply because it is not seen. I'm sure there are innefficiencies in coal plants that are comparable to that of the mechanical and thermodyncamic inefficiencies of combustion engines.
Herkimer @ May 28th 2008 5:31PM
Are you really that stupid? Or are you just trolling?
I can't tell.
pmiddle5 @ May 28th 2008 7:06PM
Coal is starting to become rather clean and is cheaper then and less strainful on the earth then importing oil from all over. Those ships produce tons of emissions and blah blah blah. Coal is bad in the 1970's scheme of things but Americans are to terrfied of Nuclear and are being lazy on natural sources of energy(solar, hydro, wind, etc..)
Coal could be worse...We just need to make the gov.t get strict on them bitches and their emissions
james F @ May 28th 2008 10:55PM
Why is it that every time an electric car is mention, some idiot has to point out that some of our power comes out of coal power plants? Despite the fact that a power plant is more than 10 times as efficient as car engine.
Mwmorph @ May 29th 2008 12:36AM
@ Andrew
You have to be kidding if you think a small 2-8L gasoline engine is more efficient at extracting power while producing less pollutants.
Yes Coal is out dirtiest energy producer but creating 1KW of power from coal both costs less and creates less pollution than 1KW of power from an internal combustion engine in your car. It's all about economies of scale. As numbers increase and size decreases, efficiency decreases. That's why power plants are centralized and use the largest generators possible without breaking the sound barrier while spinning. Otherwise, we'd all use mini generators in every home to produce our power. It would certainly simplify laying and repairing power lines and distribution.
Try doing some research next time before posting. Keep uneducated comments to Youtube videos
Andrew @ May 29th 2008 8:19AM
I appreciate your comments for those that honestly replied without being asses to me. I like cars. I'm not an expert in power generation and thermodynamic efficiency. I'm always willing to learn. There is no prerequisite of being an engineer on this site and all I wanted was to learn. I was always under the impression that coal power generation accounted for roughly 70% of all electricity produced in North America which makes coal usage significant. I believe that extracting electrical energy from solar energy will be the future benefit of electrical vehicles as the supply of crude diminishes. Currently the advantage is small in my opinion over ICE.
Mwmorph @ May 29th 2008 8:31AM
@Andrew,
I'll have to say, that is my bad, i read those comments as much more hostile than i think you intended being extremely tired and all at 12:30am. All I'd like to add is Wikipedia does wonders and can answer the basics of almost any question as long as you know how to search for it.
vwboyaf1 @ May 28th 2008 6:07PM
We need to build more nuke plants.
Even though it is more economical right now to use electricity from coal, as demand increases due to everyone charging their Volts, Teslas, and plug-in hybrids, the cost of electricity will increase, and we will be right back where we started. We will be paying 4 dollars for every 25-30 miles.
We need to figure out how each house can produce its own electricity through hydrogen, solar, exercise bikes, and Mr. Fusions. Otherwise, nuclear power is the only alternative.
Joce03 @ May 28th 2008 8:30PM
The problem with that is: where do we put the radioactive waste that is produced by those nuclear power plants? Have you heard of Yucca Mountain?
(Its an amazing work of engineering. Look into it if your interested) We can only stash that stuff for so long. Then we are in trouble.
In the long run, wind, solar and tidal are the better solutions (in my humble opinion).
vwboyaf1 @ May 28th 2008 10:28PM
Yeah, I live in New Mexico and I say put all the radioactive material you want out here. There is nothing here but dirt and radioactivity anyway.
simianspeedster @ May 28th 2008 7:53PM
You have to wonder if Tesla is cutting corners to rush this powertrain to market now that they're badly missing their delivery dates. Here's a related Tesla article that compares the Tesla to a software release -- very insightful.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9953564-54.html?tag=nefd.top
The delivery date for buyer #215 has been changed from February, 2008 to December, 2008. Nice work, Tesla!
This car still smells of vaporware until these things hit the road and start accumulating miles without big problems. I wouldn't want to rush into installing a v1.5 powertrain any more than I would a new service pack on my computer.
-SimianSpeedster
Arctic Cowboy @ May 29th 2008 2:38PM
Only two things I don't like about the Tesla.
1. Why not incorporate some solar panels on the roof and rear deck. Photovoltaic doesn't produce a lot of electricity, but in an electric car every little bit helps.
2. Why won't Tesla sell these in Canada? Would love to have one.
ac