AutoblogGreen

Some good points were made in your post. One thing you did not mention is that battery technology is improving almost daily with an all out effort being made around the world by numerous companies intent on the holy grail, light weight long life re-chargable batteries that cost even less than the ones they replace. Several companies seem to be close or even there in some cases (www.fireflyenergy.com for example). So in this sense many of the brightest minds on the planet are working to improve the technology that will help make Tesla more successful. That thought may help the investors at Tesla sleep more soundly and does actually help reduce the high risk of the venture.

Reply

↓↑report

Quote: "Alright, put a fork in this post, it's done. I am not an expert on much that I have written about here".

Respectfully, thew space was wasted for nothing. Questions? its normal that everyone who is interested in Tesla's futur would ask themselves...do you really think we are that lost?

Will Tesla survive? Many factors will effect if they will or wont survive, but in general, if Tesla builds a quality product that consumer desire and need at affordable prices, then Tesla will have gathered "some" of the basic ingredients to be on the road of success and may actually survive for a time.

But lets go back to the above post.

I am not against a good post to make us think and ask ourselves good legitimate questions in a forum similar to this. I dont want to insult anyone, but the post above did make me think that it was not serious and phrased like a 5th grader would have.

The Editor/s AutoBloggreen choose to post it when they could of built an interesting serious alternative.

"Is it a real cause for concern?
You betcha."

;)

Reply

↓↑report

Jeremy - You bring up great points. For my senior honors project (college) I am doing a research project along these lines, investigating the long term potential of electric cars, specifically Tesla.

One thing I appreciate about the Tesla plan, as Elon Musk has described it, is that is it pretty grounded in simple business life cycle logic. GM and other large auto manufacturers have come out and said they want to build electric/"green" cars of some kind which can be affordable for a majority of consumers. That concept somewhat defies business logic. New technologies must go through phases like early adopters in order to get refined enough for the market. When new products come out they are suppose to be expensive and accessible to only a few because they aren't always read for prime time. Eventually the adoption and success of the product allows the technology to trickle down into the mass market.

It's simple, and Tesla understands it. While that doesn't answer any of your great questions, I think it is one of the overall reasons Tesla has a good shot.

Reply

↓↑report

I think Tesla was hoping to become a 'reseller' of their expertise in electrical systems. The HEV world is now moving to large format cells and Tesla will have to switch from their hand wired labor intensive laptop batteries. It will also be hard to set up the dealer service network across the US. Tesla is at least showing what is possible and is making HEV's sexy. I guess we are over the WOW factor now and seeing how hard it really is. I am sure that Toyota, Honda and even GM's Volt will be our only realistic choice in the near furture. They have the conventional cars to help fund them during the gradual electrification of the automobile.

Reply

↓↑report

The best thing Tesla can do right now is get some cars in customer hands. It's pivotal to everything.

Tesla's future success is highly dependent on the success (or failure) of their Roadster. They've got plenty of orders--especially considering that none of those people actually test drove the car--so it's just a matter of engineering a great automobile, at this point.

Reply

↓↑report

Tesla is small and flexible.
Tesla could beat the big boys - Microsoft wasn't built in a year.
Tesla has a very good name - its got star power.
Gas and hydrogen prices will go much higher once we go to Iran.
No green guy would trust GM.

Reply

↓↑report

The problem is that you are asking a lot of questions which have either already been addressed fairly well by Tesla (such as most of the battery issues) or questions that nobody can answer at this point in time (such the chances of a new car company succeeding).

You know. . . It's obvious that they are doing some things that haven't been done before, and that always entails risk. Creating a new car company is a huge undertaking, and it's like walking through a minefield -- there are a lot of potential missteps that could blow up in your face. Still, everything sure looks good so far.

I do have one particular concern about Lotus, and that is whether Tesla can get the build quality they want from Lotus's assembly plant, where the Elise is made. Lotus owners love their cars, but also are accepting of quirks such as paint defects, warning lights that go on and off without reason, windows that don't quite roll all the way down, pieces coming loose from the car as it goes down the highway, etc. It will be interesting to see if Tesla can do better.

One final comment. . . . Tucker and DeLorean both had short ventures into the car business, with unhappy endings. However, owners of Tucker and DMC cars today aren't exactly crying about their losses. The few Tuckers surviving are highly valuable to collectors. The DeLoreans obviously are less so, but their value is increasing and there is plenty of activity in collecting and restoring them. I wouldn't let worries about Tesla's future business prospects deter me from buying one of their cars.

Reply

↓↑report

DeLorean and Tucker were conventional cars, Tesla differs! Electric driving is revolutionary. That's because Tesla will and has to survive.

Reply

↓↑report

"Did you notice that I asked alot of questions?"

Yeah. And I also noticed that you spelled "a lot" as "alot". "Alot" is not a word, and it doesn't really have a place in a publication.

Reply

↓↑report

The Battery has a capacity of 56,000 watts and weighs 1,000 pounds. The motor peaks at 180,000 watts; at 100% efficiency that's 240 hp. The batteries have a maximum output of 130,000 watts, producing 175 hp at 100% efficiency. The Tesla is supposed to go from 0-60 in around 4 seconds. A gasoline powered sports car requires aout 450 hp to go from 0-60 in 4 seconds.

At 175 hp, the tesla battery will be dead in 30 minutes, maximum. The Tesla is supposed to have a range of 200 miles per battery charge. Even at 100% effeciency, that would reuire 175 hp averaging 400 mph, or 88 hp averaging 200 mph, or, 44 hp averaging 100 mph.

Why doesn't anyone question these numbers? My calculations say 0-60 in 7 seconds, with a range of 60 miles.

Reply

↓↑report

Re: "Batteries get hot"

Um, so do engine blocks, exhaust manifolds, exhaust pipes, and catalytic converters. And they're in close proximity to 10 gallons of highly volatile gasoline. Yet somehow we don't mind that...

Like any new technology, it just needs time to be accepted.

Reply

↓↑report

> "There are alot (sic) of question that need to be answered."

So what is the best way to answer the questions? Perhaps by doing what Tesla is doing, and trying to build a successful car. It's called engineering -- something the USA is really good at. Maybe you are just impatient.

Just like NASA going to the moon in the 1960s -- do you say, "wow, it's really hard and we may fail; so many things could go wrong! What if somebody dies? Let's not do it."

There are those who *DO*, and those who sit and watch and blog about it. :-)

Reply

↓↑report

This project is really exciting! Perpetual motion, as explained by the geniuses at Tesla Motors!

Reply

↓↑report

Per NPR's Science Friday: gasoline has the equivalent of 14 sticks of dynamite per gallon.

Also, computer batteries are designed to become obsolescent within the lifecycle of the computer.
There is no point in having the battery last longer than the product.

One of the main things that motivated Teslas CEO was to find a way (and he patented them) to make lithium batteries that would give you a 12-15 year lifecycle SO THAT they would be relevant in cars.

Reply

↓↑report

Yes, Riverrock, I'd question your figures, especially since you've confused watts with watthours, and the car doesn't go 400 mph - no production road car does.

Total battery storage is 56 Kwh with 50 Kwh available - it doesn't use all of it, as avoiding overcharge and excessive discharge dramatically increases battery life.

The 70 lb 248 hp induction motor can drive the car 0-60 in 4 sec. because the car is light weight, the torque is immediate, and acceleration doesn't need to pause for shifting. That "gasoline powered sports car" (which one?) with the 450 hp engine is likely to be much heavier, therefore the comparison is not valid.

The batteries can provide the 185 Kw needed for full power, because full power isn't used for very long - after just a few seconds it has reached cruising speed and can throttle way back. Energy consumption while cruising is 250 wh to 200 wh per mile, depending on speed and driving conditions. With 50,000 wh available, that translates to a range of 200 to 250 miles.

Oh, and according to Riverrocks own dubious figures, 44 hp at 100 mph? The battery pack would provide power for just over 1.5 hours, giving a range of over 150 mile. He needs a new calculator.

Reply

↓↑report

Concerting the use of laptop batteries. Go watch the documentory "Who killed the electric car". You learn that patents for the large size batteries required to propulse a car are held by the big oil companies.

They do allow some manufacturers to licence their technology for fork lifts and buses, but not for cars.

Quite an eye opener. If I were the oil industry, I would do the same: buy the inventions for cheap, then burry them.

Reply

↓↑report

Jared, my calculations show you're somewhere between a troll and a tool. A trool maybe. Gen up on some proper power vs top speed, power-to-weight vs acceleration, and all round power use in motive systems information sometime, please.

First up, anecdotal evidence; my last car had a 45hp powerplant, and the only time it ever made 100mph was down a damn big hill. Official specs said 90.5mph (145kmh), general flat-out 'cruise', howling near the top of the powerband in 4th, was generally 85-90. Sure, it was almost certainly less aerodynamically efficient than the Tesla (still managing mpg in the 30s at that speed even so, oh and a (just) sub-20s acceleration with similar weight and 1/4 the power... put that in your calculator), but if an Elise-shaped car can go that fast with 44hp, then get me a rolling shell that I can drop the VW Lupo 3L's super efficient 50hp diesel into and I'll be happy - given the weight it'll easily out accelerate my current 70hp 5-door. I've had a couple rides in a normal engined Elise thanks to my step brother owning one, and it's intense - I wouldn't need the full whack to have fun in :) btw he uses it as his daily driver... 50mpg with not especially careful use. That may be another reason Tesla chose it, besides needing to start the product line off with something prestigious (which almost every traditional car maker did, 80-100 years ago..)

I have actually gone over the numbers myself, with a little bit of applied physics and car-anorak knowledge, and whilst they seem a touch optimistic, in the style of someone with an eye towards doable improvements in the spec bringing reality up to match the vision before it's shipped, they do seem fairly close. Inasmuch as the range might be 150-180 miles instead of 200-250, and the performance on the order of 5-6 seconds 0-60 (both still damn good from where i'm sitting; fast enough to give an inexperienced driver difficulty, and far enough that i can tell you each and every one of the few trips i've taken this year that involved driving further than that in a day) --- which is similar to normal gasoline fuelled cars not quite living up to manufacturers claims in either area once you test them with a normal sized human being as the driver, more than half a tank of fuel, and a few extra accoutrements such as a spare wheel and basic toolkit, maps, radio, bottle of water, etc, and don't drive either a/ like you stole it (for performance testing), b/ as if there's no-one else on the road and wind resistance doesn't exist (for mileage).

Two particular things you seem to have failed to notice....
a/ range goes up massively as speed goes down, mostly because of wind and rolling resistance and mechanical friction in the moving parts (wind resistance particularly goes up in an exponential fashion). If it wasn't for minimum engine running speeds and the way specific thermal efficiency (wh per g of fuel) peaks sharply roughly in the middle of the safe rpm range, gas cars would get startling efficiency at 15mph; as it is they tend to peak around 35-70mph instead (dependent on engine size and gearing), and is why electric cars are so much more frugal around town - and why you can't get the estimated range to match tesla's projection when you don't bother to come down below 100mph (where wind resistance REALLY starts to bite - note the Bugatti Veyron needs 1000hp to hit 250mph..). Government/EPA testing both in the states and europe still seems to assume about 55mph as a standard highway cruising speed... which leads us onto
b/ CARS DONT RUN AT FULL THROTTLE ALL THE TIME. Duh. Why do you think the pedal is an analogue control? It varies the amount of air-fuel mixture passing into the cylinder on each cycle (or, the averaged amount of charge on each electron going through the wires from the battery and into the motor), and therefore the power developed and passed to the wheels. Therefore, unless you want to figure out the Tesla's range at ~137mph (what it's actual top speed calculates out to, as a best guess), this assumption is useless, and you need to work out how much power is needed to sustain a certain steady speed instead*.
In a simplified model, which I've relied on for a while as a (far more accurate than it really should be) ready-reckoner, a moderately aerodynamic car needs (n^2)/180 hp to sustain a speed of n. Or in other words, 45hp for 90mph (and 11.25 for 45), ~27.5hp for 70mph, and ~14hp for 50mph... and in this case, about 17hp (13kW) for the highway cruise portion of government mandated economy tests. Yes, less than 20hp. Think on that next time you buy a large engined car, justifying it on the basis of needing it for interstate performance!
It's not a perfect tool, its only backed up by fairly random bits of data out of car magazine data pages etc, and has to have allowance made for poorer or better Cd factors and gearing (something tells me the roadster will come out on the 'better' side, here - perhaps 15hp/11.5kW or less - much like, say, an oldskool Fiat 500 or 126 does), but does the job for sanity checking people's claims on what their car can do and whether they've really stuffed something up (case in point: Peugeot 1007... 75hp engine, drastically slow in terms of acceleration and top speed.. WHAT DID YOU DO, GUYS?!)

Ahem. Anyhow. Quick rationalisation using said figures.
50KWh usable energy in battery pack.
Car runs at an assumed 55mph constant using 13KW.
50/13 = 3.84 hours... call it 3.8 with a little run-down time (3h 50m 46, or 3h 48m 00)
3.8 hours * 55mph = 209 miles = hmm, better than expected, maybe i remembered this wrong, forgot to convert to KW last time?

So actually using a little bit of simple mental modelling, a little bit of real-world data culled from other cars, and the time taken to get it right, it can be simply demonstrated that 1000 high-end laptop battery packs (better than the 48Wh one in THIS computer!) will happily push a suitably lightweight, svelte vehicle (no - scratch that.. a 1991 VW Polo) for more than 200 miles under the same range testing conditions as any other car. And it'll considerably outperform it's fuel burning companions on that front around town or on slower back roads...
(that selfsame Polo got ~56mpg at ~56mph... and nearly 70mpg on a personally conducted 45mph test run, more closely matching the typical cruise speed on a congested country route)

Just thought you might like to know :)
Anyway, didn't you ever see the videos for the by-now much more primitive T-Zero? Driving from LA to Vegas on one charge? Again at conservative speeds, but hey.. if you want to go fast over long distances.. take the train, or fly! (Apparently a brand new Airbus A319 is more efficient per-head than a single-occupant Prius, and a damn sight faster.. now they just need to work on making it as efficient as one with 3 or 4 people on board)

I for one think their claims are entirely believeable, and also grok quite well both the reasons for them incorporating a gearshift and roughly how they would have chosen the ratios... one thing i'm concerned about with lower power, single speed electric cars is that they might have poorer starting acceleration and low speed hill climbing than a similar hp gas powered one - as there's less torque multiplication, the peak hp can't come in until a much higher speed, and there's no analogue for clutch slipping. The roadster uses gears to address this without limiting the top speed to something laughable; it probably needs 3 or maaaaaaybe even 4 speeds for maximum utilisation of available power, but the lowest gear is rendered unneccessary by it being quite beefy in the first place - even the 'reduced' torque/power is enough to shred tyres - and the highest by it being fast enough to be illegal to max out in most countries and all of the USA, even though in gasoline terms it's badly wanting for an overdrive.

Roll on Christmas, I can't wait to see the news stories covering the first customer deliveries, public highway drives and motoring magazine (in print, internet and on TV) "world exclusive reviews" :)

-Mark

* ok, even this isn't actually real full throttle - it's electronically limited to protect the motor and drivetrain bearings from overspeed damage (not to mention the tyres, i'm betting... ones rated for continual speeds of over 210-220kmh are pricey). Even though it's a few krpm past peak power, and you may have your foot buried, the drive controller will be modulating the output to the motor to keep it at or below 13500rpm, just as a normal car's ECU or centrifugal device in the distributor keeps it below a certain rpm. A better test of range (and reliability) under maximum stress would be to find a combination of gradient and load that it can just sustain at max power rpms, in either gear, and measure that, maybe vs equivalent gas and electric rivals.

Reply

↓↑report