OT: Motor Trend Car of the Year ... Tesla

[Elefantino]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/09/2012-tesla-model-s-fd.jpg

First time in the 64 years of the award (http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1301_2013_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_tesla_model_ s/?ti=v2) it goes to a car that doesn't have an internal combustion engine.

Would look good with a rack.

[MattTuck]

It looks like a Hyundai to me.

My friend who is very into cars thought it was 'neat', but noted a few major problems with it. One of which is the door handles that retract and rely on an electronic latch, rather than a physical latch... more gimmick, less engineering rationale.

[victoryfactory]

Had a close up view of this car at a local mall. Impressive.
They rented a large space and set up cutaway views, interactive
video displays and all kinds of tech info.
It is very beautiful, very fast and very expensive.
It may be the MeiVici of cars.

VF

[goonster]

It is very beautiful, very fast and very expensive.

They start at $57k, and that really is a lot of money, but there are plenty of cars that we see every day, that are in this price class, and that we would never describe as a "Meivici of cars," e.g. Ford Superduty diesel, Mercedes S-class, etc.

[dgauthier]

The Tesla earned the Motor Trend car of the year award in part because it blew away a BMW M5 in a drag race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTN0Yi1t4

I remember Elon Musk saying, during the launch of the Tesla roadster, that traditional car manufacturers were mired in 20th century thinking, and if you want to find out what an electric car can really do, you need Silicon Valley engineers. The Tesla cars certainly are in a different league than the EV1, Insight, Leaf and Volt.

Next from Tesla is a small sport ute:

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The rack will look better on that.

[slidey]

Food for thought: http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-reviews-tesla-roadster_206233.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Top_Gear_controversy

I've never driven the car, nor intend to, given the prohibitive cost but I think its fair to say even eco-friendly broke people can contribute towards an eco-friendly planet without investing heavily in a gizmo with unproven abilities - drive economically.

On a similar vein, the Fisker Karma came up on TG some time back and that was much more sensible in my opinion...also a stunner, and would be a more deserving winner.

[Jaq]

Would look good with a rack.

Or two.

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2009/04/tesla-nyc-party-05-580b.jpg

[Louis]

I bet Adam is going to run out to buy one tomorrow. :)

[Louis]

One of which is the door handles that retract and rely on an electronic latch, rather than a physical latch...

But it would be really cool if as they extend or retract they make a clearly audible rotary actuator noise then "THUNK" into place. Sort of like Star Trek - type equipment. It would be even better if the doors themselves did that...

[christian]

They start at $57k, and that really is a lot of money, but there are plenty of cars that we see every day, that are in this price class, and that we would never describe as a "Meivici of cars," e.g. Ford Superduty diesel, Mercedes S-class, etc.It's $57k, but it makes a $157k Mercedes S-klasse AMG look like old hat.

[dancinkozmo]

The Tesla earned the Motor Trend car of the year award in part because it blew away a BMW M5 in a drag race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTN0Yi1t4

I remember Elon Musk saying, during the launch of the Tesla roadster, that traditional car manufacturers were mired in 20th century thinking, and if you want to find out what an electric car can really do, you need Silicon Valley engineers. The Tesla cars certainly are in a different league than the EV1, Insight, Leaf and Volt.

Next from Tesla is a small sport ute:

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The rack will look better on that.


Too bad they catch on fire...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/04/tesla-recalls-439-roadster-2-0-and-2-5-electric-cars-due-to-fire/

And theyRe having trouble repaying a 465 million $ loan they got from the govt to keep from going under...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-25/tesla-told-to-speed-repayment-of-u-dot-s-dot-electric-car-loan

[gdw]

Isn't Motor Trend the Bicycling of car mags? That said, how much advertising did they buy in the car of the year issue?

[A1CKot]

Too bad they catch on fire...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/04/tesla-recalls-439-roadster-2-0-and-2-5-electric-cars-due-to-fire/

And theyRe having trouble repaying a 465 million $ loan they got from the govt to keep from going under...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-25/tesla-told-to-speed-repayment-of-u-dot-s-dot-electric-car-loan

Well the article doesn't say that they are all catching fire. Under very specific circumstances "a single one saw "a short, smoke and possible fire behind the right front headlamp." Tesla is taking precautions to prevent others. Seems like good business.

Unlike Fisker who have had many car related fires and denied the blame.

Anyway, the Tesla S is cool. I really like the rear facing jump seats. 5 people plus 2 kids in the back in an all electric car capable of 0-60 in 4.4 second with a ~300 mile range... Sounds like a winning combo to me.

[fogrider]

Well the article doesn't say that they are all catching fire. Under very specific circumstances "a single one saw "a short, smoke and possible fire behind the right front headlamp." Tesla is taking precautions to prevent others. Seems like good business.

Unlike Fisker who have had many car related fires and denied the blame.

Anyway, the Tesla S is cool. I really like the rear facing jump seats. 5 people plus 2 kids in the back in an all electric car capable of 0-60 in 4.4 second with a ~300 mile range... Sounds like a winning combo to me.

additionally, they are not having trouble paying back the money. they were asked to start paying the money back early. while the start up company has gone through a fair amount of cash, the company designed the model s from nothing. they have a wait list of over 21,000 cars and they have delivered over 630 cars. they have also delivered orders (powertrain and batteries) to toyota and mercedes. I've driven the rav 4ev and it was pretty impressive. tesla also introduced supercharger stations up and down california which can charge a car in 30 minutes, good for 150 miles...free to tesla owners. and they will roll them out throughout the us over the next couple of years. http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/24/tesla-supercharger/

[fogrider]

Food for thought: http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-reviews-tesla-roadster_206233.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Top_Gear_controversy

I've never driven the car, nor intend to, given the prohibitive cost but I think its fair to say even eco-friendly broke people can contribute towards an eco-friendly planet without investing heavily in a gizmo with unproven abilities - drive economically.

On a similar vein, the Fisker Karma came up on TG some time back and that was much more sensible in my opinion...also a stunner, and would be a more deserving winner.
the model s battery has been improved over the years, and the fisker karma is a expensive hybrid (think prius or more like the chevy volt). so which of these can beat a bmw m5 to 60mph? and go over 250 miles on a single charge?

[cat6]

The album was originally going to be called "The Invisible Men", but three weeks before the release, according to Roger Taylor, they decided to change the name to The Miracle. The striking cover art utilised the Quantel Paintbox, then state of the art image-manipulation technology, to combine photographs of the familiar faces of the four band members into one morphed Gestalt image, in line with their decision to dispense with individual credits and simply present their music as the product of Queen; the back cover went a step further with a seamless regiment of the bands' eyes. Derek Riggs, best known for illustrating Iron Maiden covers, claims that Queen "stole" the idea for this album cover from his cover for the single The Clairvoyant.

[Elefantino]

A mini sport-ute with gull-wing rear doors? Why be different when different doesn't work?

http://www.hybridcars.com/files/tesla-model-x-rear.jpg

(Sorry, I looked for photos of this one with racks, but none available.)

[bicycletricycle]

i think they almost deserve it just for staying in business this long, they have had a rocky start.

[ultraman6970]

Those back doors are the most stupid things ever, imagine in a regular parking lot that is full and you have 3 adults in the back, how do you get them out of the car?? using the back door?

The way to go is sliding doors in the back and those triky doors that open up...

[dancinkozmo]

additionally, they are not having trouble paying back the money. they were asked to start paying the money back early. while the start up company has gone through a fair amount of cash, the company designed the model s from nothing. they have a wait list of over 21,000 cars and they have delivered over 630 cars. they have also delivered orders (powertrain and batteries) to toyota and mercedes. I've driven the rav 4ev and it was pretty impressive. tesla also introduced supercharger stations up and down california which can charge a car in 30 minutes, good for 150 miles...free to tesla owners. and they will roll them out throughout the us over the next couple of years. http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/24/tesla-supercharger/


I have an engineer friend who is privy to some of their "quality issues"... They run way , way deeper than you think....why do you think they have only built 630 cars to date (and have recalled most of them ) ?
They dont know how to properly design a vehicle that can be mass produced by the thousands ...they need fewer arrogant silicon valley guys in that place and more people from detroit , germany, or japan who know how to make cars...

You should get one and see for yourself ! :0)

[slidey]

Yes, better batteries definitely...but if their prediction was 250miles before battery improvements, and assuming they don't have the ba**s to reduce the number of batteries from ~7000, their prediction is still 250miles on a charge? I smell bull-excrement here. I do know however that Tesla has/is moved/moving on to better Li-ion batteries. But I, like the judgment on Top Gear, believe batteries are not the solution. They are A way forward, only because they need minimal innovation...but in their present iteration they aren't the solution.

And please, comparing an electric car in a drag race with a petroleum car is comparing apples/oranges. I'm sure you realise the difference in the sheer mass of the engines for one.

The Fisker Karma does NOT run on the same tech as the Prius. I believe it's the first car, well the first one I'm aware of anyway, to have an on-board petroleum generator that charges the batteries on the go. It's rather easy to narrowly classify a new technology that is an innovative mix of two stable technologies as a hybrid; but not all hybrids are the same.

the model s battery has been improved over the years, and the fisker karma is a expensive hybrid (think prius or more like the chevy volt). so which of these can beat a bmw m5 to 60mph? and go over 250 miles on a single charge?

[MattTuck]

The Fisker Karma does NOT run on the same tech as the Prius. I believe it's the first car, well the first one I'm aware of anyway, to have an on-board petroleum generator that charges the batteries on the go. It's rather easy to narrowly classify a new technology that is an innovative mix of two stable technologies as a hybrid; but not all hybrids are the same.

Yes, how many energy states can we fit into a car? First gas, that converts to electricity, then store the electric energy in a battery, then discharge the battery and convert that electricity into kinetic motion. :help:

[witcombusa]

Who would want one?

[merlinmurph]

Like someone else also said, there was a stripped down version of the car - no body, just the frame, engine, etc.

After looking for a few minutes, I realized something - no transmission. Yup, just one speed. Pretty slick looking car.

But sorry, an all-electric car is useless, especially at this price. $50K+ for a car that can't go > 300 miles? "Honey, let's go to Acadia this weekend. Oops, that's more than 300 miles. Sorry.'

[slidey]

Well, you raise a fair point. The larger the number of energy conversions, the more the losses! However, as with all technology this specific hybrid mix of tech in the Fisker needs to be encouraged to help make it more mainstream, without the media being bedazzled by the superior technology of Batteries :eek:

To me the whole process of developing a car like Tesla, seems very much like preparing a car for runs on the Bonneville salt flats...you do whatever it takes for that one event, and then the car goes is useless for all practical purposes.

Yes, how many energy states can we fit into a car? First gas, that converts to electricity, then store the electric energy in a battery, then discharge the battery and convert that electricity into kinetic motion. :help:

[boxerboxer]

Yes, how many energy states can we fit into a car? First gas, that converts to electricity, then store the electric energy in a battery, then discharge the battery and convert that electricity into kinetic motion. :help:

This is exactly what is done on a lot of newer farm and construction equipment, because it's actually more efficient to have a generator/inverter setup powering motors than it is to have a traditional engine that uses mechanical means to get power to the wheels. I don't know how things work for a car, but on the Karma the generator is not even used unless you need to go more than 200 miles.

[boxerboxer]

Well, you raise a fair point. The larger the number of energy conversions, the more the losses! However, as with all technology this specific hybrid mix of tech in the Fisker needs to be encouraged to help make it more mainstream, without the media being bedazzled by the superior technology of Batteries :eek:

What do you think a transmission is if not a place where energy goes to die?

[jdhansen63]

The back doors are designed slide up not pivot out thus providing more room for egress than a standard door. There is an interactive picture about half way down their webpage (http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx) that states:
"Falcon Wings open up and out of the way, in even the narrowest of parking spots. You easily step, not climb, into Model X."
Those back doors are the most stupid things ever, imagine in a regular parking lot that is full and you have 3 adults in the back, how do you get them out of the car?? using the back door?

The way to go is sliding doors in the back and those triky doors that open up...

[SamIAm]

The Tesla earned the Motor Trend car of the year award in part because it blew away a BMW M5 in a drag race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTN0Yi1t4

I remember Elon Musk saying, during the launch of the Tesla roadster, that traditional car manufacturers were mired in 20th century thinking, and if you want to find out what an electric car can really do, you need Silicon Valley engineers. The Tesla cars certainly are in a different league than the EV1, Insight, Leaf and Volt.

Next from Tesla is a small sport ute:

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The rack will look better on that.


I would still take the M5, if just for the sound of the engine!

[Elefantino]

The back doors are designed slide up not pivot out thus providing more room for egress than a standard door. There is an interactive picture about half way down their webpage
Don't confuse the issue with facts.

[slidey]

I think, and I think most would or at least should agree that the transmission is the mechanism that moves the vehicle, more efficiently than having a bunch of people push it.

Your point in this context is either unclear/obvious to me. IC-based vehicles are bad mainly because of the inefficiency of the IC...every other contrived downside of the car stems from this basic point. It thus follows logically that the replacement for the IC will be a device which is more efficient. To put figures to it, if I recall my undergrad/high-school stuff reasonably well, the IC's can have efficiency in the range of 35~45%, and motors have efficiency in the range of 65~85% (depending on the design, loading, quality of power supply, etc). Of the latter I believe, the series motor is capable of starting without a starter motor, and can generate high torques whereas these two points aren't the strong points of the shunt motors.

So yes, it is trivial that alternative energy vehicles are more efficient than IC vehicles, the question is that they are all so hard to harness/regenerate that reliability of these methods comes into question.

What do you think a transmission is if not a place where energy goes to die?

[54ny77]

rock bands makin' cars, who knew?

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/82870917/Tesla.jpg

[fogrider]

I have an engineer friend who is privy to some of their "quality issues"... They run way , way deeper than you think....why do you think they have only built 630 cars to date (and have recalled most of them ) ?
They dont know how to properly design a vehicle that can be mass produced by the thousands ...they need fewer arrogant silicon valley guys in that place and more people from detroit , germany, or japan who know how to make cars...

You should get one and see for yourself ! :0)

I would love to get one!!! there is a wait list of more than 21,000 and yes the price is an issue. but I have not seen any recalls for the model s. I believe there has been some issues with the roadster and there were recalls for the roadster. they are building the cars in the old numi (sp?) plant in fremont, ca, which was the joint plant that gm and toyota owned and operated for over 20 years. and motor trend car of the year is kind of a big deal...but then last year it was the chevy volt and before that it was a ford. but this is the big daddy of all electric cars. the other EVs (leaf, coda) have much more limited range and limited power. if there are specific issues with the tesla model s, I would love to hear about them.

[fogrider]

Yes, better batteries definitely...but if their prediction was 250miles before battery improvements, and assuming they don't have the ba**s to reduce the number of batteries from ~7000, their prediction is still 250miles on a charge? I smell bull-excrement here. I do know however that Tesla has/is moved/moving on to better Li-ion batteries. But I, like the judgment on Top Gear, believe batteries are not the solution. They are A way forward, only because they need minimal innovation...but in their present iteration they aren't the solution.

And please, comparing an electric car in a drag race with a petroleum car is comparing apples/oranges. I'm sure you realise the difference in the sheer mass of the engines for one.

The Fisker Karma does NOT run on the same tech as the Prius. I believe it's the first car, well the first one I'm aware of anyway, to have an on-board petroleum generator that charges the batteries on the go. It's rather easy to narrowly classify a new technology that is an innovative mix of two stable technologies as a hybrid; but not all hybrids are the same.

so I wrote "think prius" just because lots of people can relate to it, and I went on to say it's more like the chevy volt...which like the fisker runs on battery until the juice runs low then the gas engine runs to generate electricity to run the electrical engine. The range on only the battery is around 30 to 40 miles, not 200. the issue with range is a real issue and the way tesla has addressed it is with the "supercharger" stations. while it does take about 30 minutes for a charge good for about 150 miles, it's free to tesla model s owners! ok, it's not as fast as gas, but after driving 200 miles, I'm ready to take a bathroom break, walk around and grab a bite to eat...and oh, yeah did I say it was free? and there are plans for a network to be built. google it!

and sure it may not be fair to compare them on the basis of drag racing, but like everything else, it IS one metric that everyone cares about. and yes, the model s does well in many metrics. there are many reasons to say that the models s is not for you, but to say that it is not an amazing piece of technology is short sighted.

[sg8357]

But sorry, an all-electric car is useless, especially at this price. $50K+ for a car that can't go > 300 miles? "Honey, let's go to Acadia this weekend. Oops, that's more than 300 miles. Sorry.'

Get the optional trailer with diesel generator, you can charge the car
while driving.

[dancinkozmo]

How much does the 200 mile extension cord option add to the tesla price ?

Nissan leaf gets 125 miles to a charge, costd half of what a tesla does, and is designed and built by people who know what they are doing.

[slidey]

I see a number of issues with battery powered vehicles, which don't make sense to me.

1. Time to recharge...yes, quick charge option I believe charges your car to a decent value in an hour at most, or say 30 minutes. What is the effect of this quick charge on the battery life? I've heard from my friends that the people from the electric car industries at some electronics conferences have claimed that there is no adverse effect to this whatsoever. But that doesn't make any sense...if there is no adverse effect (to the battery life), then why not have just the quick charge option? Why the tom-foolery of having the car charge on slow-mode for 8 or so hours?

2. From 1 we have - If there is an adverse effect on your batteries depending on the way you take care of it, etc then even if you drive conservatively there is no telling what is the mileage you will get out of your batteries. This is very similar to the cell phones/laptops showing how long it will last for, but those numbers fluctuate depending on your usage. A car in most cities in the US is not an auxiliary item which people can do without. It needs to run at all times, and needs to run for exactly as long as it says it will (+/- 5 mi per charge). This is inherently impossible with batteries.

3. From 2 we have - If the mileage is unpredictable, well then we need a robust infrastructure of charging points in numerous places. This is quite a costly proposition which will have to be a robust enough working proposal which will convince the user to purchase the car and breathe a sigh of relief in terms of issue #2 above. But, how long will this infrastructure take to put in place? How much capital needs to be put in? Is it worth it? What is the actual cost to the user for this built-up network to support battery-operated expensive unpredictable-mileage cars in the long run?

4. Environment - If the Tesla takes off (which I doubt it will), what about the disposal of the batteries?

I know I had a lot of other issues with this technology, since I've discussed this extensively in the past with my friends...but I'm short on time now so will leave it at this.

In summary, I still can't see batteries being the way forward. I can only view the battery tech as reclaimed water in a fancy wine bottle.

In the meanwhile, as we wait for some other sensible technology to make its footing, or for more reliable and efficient batteries the most reasonable thing to do now in my opinion, is to purchase/hold on to the conventional, yet efficient IC engined car and drive it well.

so I wrote "think prius" just because lots of people can relate to it, and I went on to say it's more like the chevy volt...which like the fisker runs on battery until the juice runs low then the gas engine runs to generate electricity to run the electrical engine. The range on only the battery is around 30 to 40 miles, not 200. the issue with range is a real issue and the way tesla has addressed it is with the "supercharger" stations. while it does take about 30 minutes for a charge good for about 150 miles, it's free to tesla model s owners! ok, it's not as fast as gas, but after driving 200 miles, I'm ready to take a bathroom break, walk around and grab a bite to eat...and oh, yeah did I say it was free? and there are plans for a network to be built. google it!

and sure it may not be fair to compare them on the basis of drag racing, but like everything else, it IS one metric that everyone cares about. and yes, the model s does well in many metrics. there are many reasons to say that the models s is not for you, but to say that it is not an amazing piece of technology is short sighted.

[boxerboxer]

I think, and I think most would or at least should agree that the transmission is the mechanism that moves the vehicle, more efficiently than having a bunch of people push it.

Your point in this context is either unclear/obvious to me. IC-based vehicles are bad mainly because of the inefficiency of the IC...every other contrived downside of the car stems from this basic point. It thus follows logically that the replacement for the IC will be a device which is more efficient. To put figures to it, if I recall my undergrad/high-school stuff reasonably well, the IC's can have efficiency in the range of 35~45%, and motors have efficiency in the range of 65~85% (depending on the design, loading, quality of power supply, etc). Of the latter I believe, the series motor is capable of starting without a starter motor, and can generate high torques whereas these two points aren't the strong points of the shunt motors.

So yes, it is trivial that alternative energy vehicles are more efficient than IC vehicles, the question is that they are all so hard to harness/regenerate that reliability of these methods comes into question.

I was responding to someone's implication that the process of generating electricity by burning gas and using the electricity to drive motors was somehow introducing an extra step or two versus the way traditional cars get energy from fuel to movement.

[boxerboxer]

I see a number of issues with battery powered vehicles, which don't make sense to me.

1. Time to recharge...yes, quick charge option I believe charges your car to a decent value in an hour at most, or say 30 minutes. What is the effect of this quick charge on the battery life? I've heard from my friends that the people from the electric car industries at some electronics conferences have claimed that there is no adverse effect to this whatsoever. But that doesn't make any sense...if there is no adverse effect (to the battery life), then why not have just the quick charge option? Why the tom-foolery of having the car charge on slow-mode for 8 or so hours?


If your friends in industry say it doesn't adversely affect battery life I'm sure that's the case. There is likely an issue with inefficient energy transfer. Faster charge means higher charge current, and most likely more power dissipated as heat. That's speculation, as I am not familiar with the charging mechanism, but electronic things tend to work that way.

[slidey]

Naa, what they said was that someone from the industry gave a talk at the conference they were at, and these reps "mentioned" there was no adverse effect to quick charging.

"mentioned" = no proof/statistics to prove this point, just stated in their presentation as-is

If your friends in industry say it doesn't adversely affect battery life I'm sure that's the case.

I really can't comment on this right away, but you could be right. My sticking point is the lack of common sense in having a quicker, and a slower means to charge the same battery pack with no adverse effects. :cool:

There is likely an issue with inefficient energy transfer. Faster charge means higher charge current, and most likely more power dissipated as heat. That's speculation, as I am not familiar with the charging mechanism, but electronic things tend to work that way.

[r_mutt]

i like the idea of an electric car, but don't we all know by now that motor trend's car of the year award is bought?

[Tony T]

Nissan leaf gets 125 miles to a charge, costd half of what a tesla does, and is designed and built by people who know what they are doing.

Yeah, but LA once endorsed the leaf, so 95% of the participants on this board won't want one. ;)

[dancinkozmo]

[QUOTE=Tony T;1241721]Yeah, but LA once endorsed the leaf, so 95% of the participants on this board won't want one. ;)[/

Louisiana once endorsed the leaf ???
Yeah right...
Next thing youll be telling us is TX once endorsed the yugo ....

[fogrider]

i like the idea of an electric car, but don't we all know by now that motor trend's car of the year award is bought?
how about consumer reports? ok, they have yet to do an indept report on it, and since they actually buy a vehicle before they can do a long term report and there is a wait list with over 21,000 orders so it's going to be a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUEULCDkWYk
sure there are those that will never where we will never be able to pry their hands off their gas guzzling v8s. I went to high school with a guy that loved his gto, but he could only afford to drive it a couple of times a week since it got 8 or 9 mpg. some people will stay with their gas guzzling cars as the sea levels rise around them.

sure there are limitations for EVs. but for me, my commute is about 10 miles each way and it looks like there is lots of room to for a bike or two. also there are lots of tesla test drives on youtube.

[dancinkozmo]

....i have a feeling mr. Fogrider bought some Tesla stock and is starting to panic

[victoryfactory]

i like the idea of an electric car, but don't we all know by now that motor trend's car of the year award is bought?

Biased toward the opinions of the editors and their gang of writers
maybe (as all magazine awards are) but not "bought"
It's just their opinion.

Whether the Tesla succeeds or not, I respect the attemt and it can only
add to the rising tide of alternative cleaner energy for the future.
If they do fail you can bet that there will be someone who looks at
that and solves some of the problems and makes another better attempt.
Human nature is to aspire and make progress. It's what we do.
We need to put down the magnifying glass once in a while and step
back for the bigger picture.
No, I wouldn't buy a Tesla for many of the reasons stated here but I
applaud the project and the people involved.

VF

[Mark McM]

I see a number of issues with battery powered vehicles, which don't make sense to me.

1. Time to recharge...yes, quick charge option I believe charges your car to a decent value in an hour at most, or say 30 minutes. What is the effect of this quick charge on the battery life? I've heard from my friends that the people from the electric car industries at some electronics conferences have claimed that there is no adverse effect to this whatsoever. But that doesn't make any sense...if there is no adverse effect (to the battery life), then why not have just the quick charge option? Why the tom-foolery of having the car charge on slow-mode for 8 or so hours?

I don't know all the internal details, but I can tell you that recharge times are largely dependent on available charging voltage. All the 'Quick Charge' systems rely on 480 volt chargers, which is not commonly available. The 'Slow' charge (12 -20 hours) typically use 120 Volt chargers (i.e. plug into the wall), the 'Overnight' charge systems (6 - 10 hours) typically use 240 Volt chargers (this voltage is available at most houses, but requires special circuits and wiring similar to that for 240 Volt clothes dryers or oven).

[Mark McM]

Your point in this context is either unclear/obvious to me. IC-based vehicles are bad mainly because of the inefficiency of the IC...every other contrived downside of the car stems from this basic point. It thus follows logically that the replacement for the IC will be a device which is more efficient. To put figures to it, if I recall my undergrad/high-school stuff reasonably well, the IC's can have efficiency in the range of 35~45%, and motors have efficiency in the range of 65~85% (depending on the design, loading, quality of power supply, etc). Of the latter I believe, the series motor is capable of starting without a starter motor, and can generate high torques whereas these two points aren't the strong points of the shunt motors.

So yes, it is trivial that alternative energy vehicles are more efficient than IC vehicles, the question is that they are all so hard to harness/regenerate that reliability of these methods comes into question.

It is not clear that alternate energy vehicles are more efficient than IC vehicles. You have to consider the efficiency of the entire energy cycle. While electric motors themselves are highly efficient, there are large losses in getting the electricity to the motor. For example, 2/3rds of the electricity used in the U.S. is generated with fossil fuels running steam turbines, and these systems are only about 40% efficient. After the transmission lossses in the electric power grid, and then the energy losses in battery charging, the net efficiency of the electric car isn't much different from an IC car.

Due to economies of scale and infrastructure, electricity is very inexpensive. But inexpensive and efficient are not interchangeable.

[slidey]

Absolutely true, which is why I said in a previous post that as length of the energy cycle increases so do the dissipation losses...only exact calculations will reveal the proper numbers. And you know what, I could've been wrong all this while in giving the benefit of common sense to Tesla and others to replace the IC cycle with a more efficient one...when it quite possibly needn't be the case.

It is not clear that alternate energy vehicles are more efficient than IC vehicles. You have to consider the efficiency of the entire energy cycle. While electric motors themselves are highly efficient, there are large losses in getting the electricity to the motor. For example, 2/3rds of the electricity used in the U.S. is generated with fossil fuels running steam turbines, and these systems are only about 40% efficient. After the transmission lossses in the electric power grid, and then the energy losses in battery charging, the net efficiency of the electric car isn't much different from an IC car.

Due to economies of scale and infrastructure, electricity is very inexpensive. But inexpensive and efficient are not interchangeable.

[slidey]

I'm with you on most of your post except applauding the people involved. I'd applaud the scientists/engineers involved for putting together a working prototype of an electric car which can do say a confirmed 50~60 miles on a charge (as of 2008), etc. So we know that their model works...somewhat, and that in itself is a very powerful proof of concept.

What I can't applaud is Tesla trying to shove this semi-working concept of an electric car down the public's throat, using environmental awareness as a camouflage for their prototype's technical limitations. And then there's media strong-arming by very publicly taking Top Gear UK to the courts and then very privately losing their case (http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/tesla-losing-top-gear-court-challenge-1.1162112#.UKUoROOe_Gc), by operating websites like teslavstopgear (www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear) with a heap of bull-excrement and uncorroborated figures, etc. All in all, it seems like Tesla is run by a bunch of marketing goons who raid the engineering labs at night when the engineers are away, sneak out the first prototype that will pass their rigorous ignition test, put on a dash of red paint, and unveil it at as a new model at a hurried press conference. To me, Tesla is an example of marketing at work...not science.


No, I wouldn't buy a Tesla for many of the reasons stated here but I
applaud the project and the people involved.

[fogrider]

....i have a feeling mr. Fogrider bought some Tesla stock and is starting to panic
lol, the stock I worry about is hp!!! I don't worry about Tesla stock, I'm waiting for it to drop to buy more! I've made the most on Tesla stock this year!!! only second to salesforce. Tesla is the perfect spec stock in my opinion...the stock has lots of movement and they should be profitable by in Q1.

[fogrider]

I'm with you on most of your post except applauding the people involved. I'd applaud the scientists/engineers involved for putting together a working prototype of an electric car which can do say a confirmed 50~60 miles on a charge (as of 2008), etc. So we know that their model works...somewhat, and that in itself is a very powerful proof of concept.

What I can't applaud is Tesla trying to shove this semi-working concept of an electric car down the public's throat, using environmental awareness as a camouflage for their prototype's technical limitations. And then there's media strong-arming by very publicly taking Top Gear UK to the courts and then very privately losing their case (http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/tesla-losing-top-gear-court-challenge-1.1162112#.UKUoROOe_Gc), by operating websites like teslavstopgear (www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear) with a heap of bull-excrement and uncorroborated figures, etc. All in all, it seems like Tesla is run by a bunch of marketing goons who raid the engineering labs at night when the engineers are away, sneak out the first prototype that will pass their rigorous ignition test, put on a dash of red paint, and unveil it at as a new model at a hurried press conference. To me, Tesla is an example of marketing at work...not science.
the top gear vid was from 2008 with the roadster, its 2012 now!!! no one is shoving it down the public's throat, line up only if you have $70K plus. Tesla is employing over 2,000 people in the bay area in a factory that was shut down and building the best cars in the US. BTW, I just saw that toyota is recalling thousands of cars, does that mean they are building bad cars? both technology toyota and mercedes are buy draintrains from tesla...

[dancinkozmo]

lol, the stock I worry about is hp!!! I don't worry about Tesla stock, I'm waiting for it to drop to buy more! I've made the most on Tesla stock this year!!! only second to salesforce. Tesla is the perfect spec stock in my opinion...the stock has lots of movement and they should be profitable by in Q1.

So you and the Tesla company have something in common...you dont give a crap about climate change, you just want to make money off it ....

Mr. Slidey got it right a few posts back imho

[choke]

The Fisker Karma does NOT run on the same tech as the Prius. I believe it's the first car, well the first one I'm aware of anyway, to have an on-board petroleum generator that charges the batteries on the go. It's rather easy to narrowly classify a new technology that is an innovative mix of two stable technologies as a hybrid; but not all hybrids are the same.What's old is new again....

The Lohner-Porsche Mixte Hybrid was the first hybrid vehicle developed in 1901 by Ferdinand Porsche. It was a series hybrid using wheel hub motors mounted in each wheel, and powered by electricity delivered from both batteries and a small generator.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche

[r_mutt]

Biased toward the opinions of the editors and their gang of writers
maybe (as all magazine awards are) but not "bought"
It's just their opinion.



i'm almost certain that that particular award is bought. i've worked in the magazine business for quite some time now and i know better than to believe that any product review or endorsement is anything but an advertisement.

[victoryfactory]

i'm almost certain that that particular award is bought. i've worked in the magazine business for quite some time now and i know better than to believe that any product review or endorsement is anything but an advertisement.

The testing format in Motor Trend is to select a few vehicles for a
particular story like COTY and publish the subjective thoughts of
their gang of experts, add a few stats and then the editors presumably
sit around and place the contenders for the publication.

I am sure that the contenders are selected according to the editor's
and writers basic bias, that's why you need to read several mags to get a better
idea of the real story. I'm also sure that potentially big advertisers
are treated with kid gloves as far as truely negative reviews.
(This is as old as the hills in enthusiast mags)

But as cynical as I am by nature, I just can't believe that Tesla wrote a
check to win that award.
What I do believe is that the editors wanted a good story for their COTY
issue and did everything they could to stack the deck. This is, of
course, also a form of corruption but not exactly pocket stuffing.

If I want a scientific dry opinion ill check out consumer reports as
was mentioned above.

The COTY is subjective and political. Just like the opinions in the audio mags
on 100K speakers. They are just trying to sell magazines and they do
and say things to that end. They can't insult any advertisers. That's why you
need to take everything they say with a grain of salt. Corrupt? sure
but not direct quid pro quo as suggested.

The trouble begins when readers don't get this and start arguing as if the
winners picked are presented unassailable scientific truth. Take
everything in, make your own decisions and don't over react to what
the experts say.

VF

[Ti Designs]

I keep coming back to one question that nobody else asks. Do you really need 4200 pounds of car for personal transportation?

In 1991 Honda sold the CRX Hf, a two door hatch back that tipped the scale at 2100 pounds and got close to 50MPG. In 30 years we've gotten to the same point with the Prius, but we've added a ton - literally. Somehow nobody else seems to notice this...

[William]

I keep coming back to one question that nobody else asks. Do you really need 4200 pounds of car for personal transportation?

In 1991 Honda sold the CRX Hf, a two door hatch back that tipped the scale at 2100 pounds and got close to 50MPG. In 30 years we've gotten to the same point with the Prius, but we've added a ton - literally. Somehow nobody else seems to notice this...

Mrs William had one of those. Great car, and I had no problems driving it. Plenty of leg room.

http://www.autopictu.com/images/honda-hf-03.jpg





William

[victoryfactory]

I keep coming back to one question that nobody else asks. Do you really need 4200 pounds of car for personal transportation?

In 1991 Honda sold the CRX Hf, a two door hatch back that tipped the scale at 2100 pounds and got close to 50MPG. In 30 years we've gotten to the same point with the Prius, but we've added a ton - literally. Somehow nobody else seems to notice this...

Stop making sense. We're trying to have an argument here!
We may run out of the rare earths and other exotic materials needed
for electric cars before we run out of oil.

VF

[Mark McM]

I keep coming back to one question that nobody else asks. Do you really need 4200 pounds of car for personal transportation?

In 1991 Honda sold the CRX Hf, a two door hatch back that tipped the scale at 2100 pounds and got close to 50MPG. In 30 years we've gotten to the same point with the Prius, but we've added a ton - literally. Somehow nobody else seems to notice this...

I agree that Americans drive around in bigger vehicles than they need to, but your comparison is very applies to oranges.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that 1991 to 2012 is closer to 20 years instead of 30. But more importantly, the CRX could not be sold today - it wouldn't meet modern safety regulations (airbags, side impact door beams, etc.). Emissions regulations have also been tightened up since then. Making the CRX meet modern regulations would add a few hundred pounds to the weight. This would narrow the weight difference between the CRX and the Prius (which does not weigh a ton more than the CRX - the Prius's curb weight (http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html)is only 3042 lb. ).

[slidey]

There are recent studies which were shown on Al-Jazeera's Inside Story a week or so back, that the electric car might very well be more harmful to the environment than the conventional car if the electricity its using is from conventional coal power plants, etc. Generation of electricity contributes to 44% of global warming, where as manufacturing process of cars contributes to < 10%.

Stop making sense. We're trying to have an argument here!
We may run out of the rare earths and other exotic materials needed
for electric cars before we run out of oil.

VF

[slidey]

You make a great point, but I have a few probable reasons for the increased weight:
1. More rigorous safety standards
2. Our demand of luxury from everything, unnecessary electrical componentry in the car adds considerable weight. Apparently in the chinese market, which is the single largest hot-bed of useless vehicles is also the fastest growing auto market, and people are reasonably happy because the most important thing to the consumers is the gadgetry/luxury options in the vehicle.
3. Our conservative approach to buying a vehicle, i.e. buy the vehicle which you know will definitely satisfy any of your outrageous needs like choose 4WD for that one day you might go into a slightly rocky area, choosing a big truck for that christmas day when you will bring home a tree, etc. In other words, we plan our needs around pointless scenarios. This almost always leads us to believe we need to buy that fat-ass truck to be rolling in the mud, as in the ads, despite not having been in such terrain all our lives.
4. Cost of carbon-fiber.

I keep coming back to one question that nobody else asks. Do you really need 4200 pounds of car for personal transportation?

In 1991 Honda sold the CRX Hf, a two door hatch back that tipped the scale at 2100 pounds and got close to 50MPG. In 30 years we've gotten to the same point with the Prius, but we've added a ton - literally. Somehow nobody else seems to notice this...