Print 99 comment(s) - last by callmeroy.. on Mar 30 at 9:58 AM

The Model S' huge LCD mounted in the dash.  (Source: Gizmodo)

  (Source: Gizmodo)
Not available for delivery until 2011

Pioneering electric car company Tesla Motors has unveiled its new Model S electric sports sedan. It will have a range of up to 300 miles (482 km), and be able to go from 0-60 MPH in 5.5 seconds according to Jalopnik. It will also be able to seat seven passengers, through the use of flip-up seats stored in the trunk. The rear-facing seats, however, are only suitable for small children.
A regular charge will take four hours to complete, but there is a 45 minute fast charge option to provide enough power for a quick jaunt. Tesla expects the batteries to last between seven and ten years based on regular usage models.

According to Autoblog Green, the battery pack for the Model S weighs in at a whopping 1,200 pounds. Total vehicle weight, however, is just over 4,000 pounds.

One of the more interesting features of the Model S is its gigantic touch screen display which takes up most of the center dash/console area. According to Gizmodo, the Model S has an “always on” 3G connection which delivers streaming content to the LCD screen.

The Model S will enter production in the third quarter of 2011, with a targeted ramp up to a production rate of 20,000 sedans per year in the middle of 2012. It will carry a base price of $57,400, but that will drop down to $49,900 after a federal tax credit of $7,500.

The launch event showed a prototype using a single speed transmission to reduce complexity, but an all-wheel drive variant is planned. The drivetrain will be produced at its new San Jose facility.

Maintenance costs will be much less than other cars in the same price category, as there are no oil changes required, and the regenerative braking system means much less wear and tear. The biggest savings will be in fuel costs, regardless of its current price at the pump.

Tesla plans to use profits and experience generated from the Model S to develop a second, more affordable family sedan for the mass market. It will complement its Roadster sports car and provide more options to its potential customers.

The firm recently delivered its 250th Tesla Roadster to a customer in California. Production of the Roadster is currently at 20 cars per week, but will steadily increase to 30 per week this summer. There is currently a backlog of over 1,000 customers awaiting delivery of a Roadster.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Volt who?
By Brandon Hill on 3/26/2009 7:02:20 PM , Rating: 5
Screw the Volt. I'd just pay the extra $10,000 for this. This car is so damn sexy it makes the Volt look like Dennis Rodman in drag.

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/26/2009 7:22:29 PM , Rating: 3
It's more like $17k and that's for the base car.

RE: Volt who?
By Brandon Hill on 3/26/2009 7:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
Ahh, you're right. I was looking at the after tax credit price of the Model S.

That being said, I'd still find a way to get the Tesla :-)

RE: Volt who?
By Keeir on 3/26/2009 7:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
Just to point out to people

the base car is the 160 mile maximum car..

And they say replacement packs from 5,000?!?! Shouldn't that mean for cars like the Volt replacements costs under 2,000?

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 12:10:50 AM , Rating: 1
the base car is the 160 mile maximum car..
Really? Care to post a link?

RE: Volt who?
By Doormat on 3/27/2009 11:36:35 AM , Rating: 3
The LA Times also has stated that...

Elon Musk, chairman and chief executive of the San Carlos, Calif., start-up, made the announcement as he unveiled the prototype of its new vehicle. The $57,400 Model S gets up to 160 miles on a single charge. Another version of the sleek four-door will get up to 300 miles.

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 11:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks much for the link. I wonder how it will take Tesla to release the 300 mile version and how much will that car cost?

RE: Volt who?
By Keeir on 3/27/2009 1:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think alot depends on the cost of the batteries in the future. In the original release, Telsa estimates ~$5,000 for a replacement pack for 160 miles would translate into no more than a 5-10,000 premium for the 300 mile version I image.

But I seem to remember that when evaluating E-REV/Plug-In Hybrids, most analysts projected battery costs into the 5-10,000 for 40-80 mile packs...

RE: Volt who?
By Jedi2155 on 3/28/2009 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think its going to be a bit more than that, I heard the current costs of deliverable energy storage to be in the range of $500-800/KWhr for Li-Ion. For a 160 mile range you'll need around 40-50 KWhr which means the battery pack is closer to $20,000 on the low end, and $40,000 on the high end.

A 300 mile range version would easily reach $80,000 for the vehicle.

And to those were arguing about it being a great use of tax dollars to give discounts into these vehicles, they need to realize the primary costs is STILL the battery packs. Large format packs are extraordinarily expensive still....and we won't ever reach reasonable pricing without proving a market exists to buy them in the first place.

RE: Volt who?
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 8:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Volt can drive several hundred miles in one day. This thing can't.

But yes it is a good looking car.

RE: Volt who?
By Clauzii on 3/26/2009 9:06:32 PM , Rating: 1
"It will have a range of up to 300 miles (482 km)..."

RE: Volt who?
By 9nails on 3/26/2009 9:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
If your 300 miles away from an AC outlet, you need a dog sled team, not an electric vehicle!

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 12:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
According to one of the other posters, the base car only gets 160 mile range. I hope he posts where he got that info.

RE: Volt who?
By acase on 3/27/2009 8:32:15 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Volt who?
By FITCamaro on 3/27/2009 9:33:13 AM , Rating: 2

But once that 300 miles (that's assuming it can actually go that far) is up, you can't go any farther. With the Volt, you put more gas in it and keep going.

The word "several" typically equates to around the number 7. Just like "few" typically equates to the number 3. So thats 700 hundred miles.

RE: Volt who?
By Doormat on 3/27/2009 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 3
For once I agree with FIT.

I think pure EVs are going to have a hard time, they say it can recharge in 45 minutes, but you need a 480V source. If you figure that 45 minutes is for the 160mi version, at 275Wh/mi, thats 125A at 480V.

Good luck finding a place that can supply that. The electrical service at your typical US house is 240V/100A. The Tesla roadster comes with a 240V/70A recharger. Using that same recharger, it would take about 3 hours to recharge the 160mi battery.

Its why I'm a big proponent of PHEVs like the Volt. I think for the next 15 years at least until some sort of electrical recharging infrastructure is standardized and built out, you wont want to be tethered to an electrical outlet.

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
What I find interesting is that the article never mentions that the base car has a 160 mile range. Although he said up to 300 miles that implies that the base has the 300 mile range. Could the article be updated to reflect the actual range of the car in question?

RE: Volt who?
By Clauzii on 3/27/2009 10:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have the impression that they actually either have more or better batteries in the new one. That's why the '300 miles' in the third line of the article grabbed my attention.


Also I don't understand at all why some people still think a recharging is necessary? If the mind would be put into it, there's nothing stopping EV-makers from developing some sort of battery installation frame/box standard that easily (<5min would be ok, I think) is exchanged with a fresh set, at a power-station.

RE: Volt who?
By HammerZ on 3/29/2009 2:03:37 AM , Rating: 2
the battery pack for the Model S weighs in at a whopping 1,200 pounds.

How are you going to replace 1,200lbs in 5min?

RE: Volt who?
By ipay on 3/27/2009 12:55:50 PM , Rating: 5
You agree with him since, apparently, none of you understand what's going on in the real world.

Not all of us need a car that can go 400 mile with full deposit.
160 miles will, for a lot of people, be a week's worth travelling (for work) and that is more than enough.
For recharging, even 6 hours is ok since it can do it by night.

I will charge you nothing for bringing you to reality, but that kind of narrowed vision brought some car companies you might now to the brink of collapse.

RE: Volt who?
By Keeir on 3/27/2009 1:30:04 PM , Rating: 1
Here, let me return the favour

160 mile -BEST- range will cause alot of anxiety. With a 160 mile -BEST- range, you really can't count on more than 100 miles (Driving varience, Heating, Airconditing, Radio, Rain, Using Headlamps etc all play a role in reducing a -best- range). If your stuck with 50 miles to get to work and back, that leaves 50 mile maximum for the rest of the day. I know I personally have driven up to 200 miles on a day when I expected at the start to drive 40, and I would have been pissed as all hell that my car wasn't capable of doing the 200 miles.

The Telsa people understand range anxiety is the number one reason why electric cars have failed, even though 90%+ of American drive less than 75 miles 95%+ of the time.

RE: Volt who?
By kmmatney on 3/27/2009 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree - the volt can use Gas as a "battery" when needed, you can actually use it to go places if you don't have an outlet to plug into. This car is relegated to driving back and forth to work and running errands. That's a steep price to pay for that. Until like get electric "refill" stations around, just car is not going to be practical to a lot of people. As you sy, 95% of the time, I only drive 20-30 miles a day, but I still have that 5% where I drive more, and I need a car I can depend on for real life situations.

RE: Volt who?
By Doormat on 3/27/2009 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
And if I want to drive 5 hours to LA tonight, what the hell am I going to do then with a model S?

160 miles, then recharge for however long, if I can find a high enough voltage plug. Another 160 miles and I'm at my destination.

Range anxiety and long trips will keep pure EVs out of the mainstream for a long while. Until they can come up with and build out a mechanism for fast recharge. Recharging a model S in 5 minutes would require 480V and 528A. Have fun handling huge conductors with that much current....

RE: Volt who?
By clovell on 3/27/2009 5:33:02 PM , Rating: 1
I think you strawmanned the arguement in favor of PHEV's. The reality is that people who own cars prefer would prefer not to have to wait four hours to recharge when they take a long trip (which they inevitably will - I don't think that's even a point worth arguing).

Our current infrastructure currently does not support these charging methods. Such an infrastructure will take time, and will induce a significant amount of flux into politics, the economy, the environment, and the basic way of life for many people. It will take a steady approach over time. A practical approach in that direction, in bringing electric technology to mainstream consumers, is the production of series hybrids.

This is not a narrow vision. It is a long-term, practical plan for bringing personal transportation into the 21st century. Had the companies you referenced taken this approach a decade ago, we'd both have nothing to bitch about now.

RE: Volt who?
By ipay on 3/28/2009 8:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
I understand the need for a car which can travel a long time without refueling (or a fast one, like everyday car).
Clearly, it will be a long road till the pure EV can fill your needs in that department.

And i will gladly welcome a car like Volt, that can smooth the transition between this different technologies.
Gas will still be with us for some time, and having a car that can work with 2 power sources have some advantages.
For example, if the electrical power is cut one night, precisly when the car was supposed to recharged... well, start thinking in good way to explaine your boss how come your 57,400 dollar car would not start in the morning.

Still, for a person that works 5 days a week, and have less than a month of vacation in a year, and work in a relative near location, this "model S", besides behing, in paper, a beautiful car, it will provide enough autonomy.
And there are no law that prohibits you from buying another car (which can, perfectly be, a big SUV, providing you have enough money for all this extravaganza).

If you think this car is not good for you, than it probably isn't.
For me, and i imagine i'm not alone, although the price is still prohibitive, it's just what i need.

RE: Volt who?
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/27/2009 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
The word "several" typically equates to around the number 7.

No it doesn't. The word several denotes any quantity greater than 2 but less than 'many'.

RE: Volt who?
By Chernobyl68 on 3/27/2009 12:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
I thought "a few" generally meant 'three or four'. I always though of several as being more than that.

RE: Volt who?
By adiposity on 3/27/2009 3:31:22 PM , Rating: 2

2 a: more than one <several pleas> b: more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches>

RE: Volt who?
By Clauzii on 3/27/2009 11:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
I live in a country where EVs with 300 miles will be great. I know You have longer distances in the US. So of course some battery-pack system is needed.

If they can make easily exchangeable batteries for mobiles, I don't see it not being possible for EVs.

I would really prefer all electric, since the emission would be a big zero. Or rather, the emission would be centralized, which is easier to control.
No big trucks needed to drive around, and once in a while even go up in fire in some accident.

Gas stations are not non-pollutive either. I worked at one here in DK, and know how the whole vicinity get's affected by spilled gas, vapors etc. so seen from were I stand it really can't happen fast enough. I want the smoke off the streets.

Imagine that: A big city with fresh air. And even though I am too far away, I know LA would be vissible from 5 miles again.

RE: Volt who?
By dever on 3/28/2009 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
The word "several" typically equates to around the number 7. Just like "few" typically equates to the number 3.
Both refer to an undefined number greater than two. I think it typically reflects the desired context of the topic. For example... three wives would be "several" where three dollars would be "few."

RE: Volt who?
By Modeverything on 3/28/2009 12:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
BBC America just aired an episode of Top Gear where they reviewed this car. While is did okay as a sports car, it had several problems. They actually brought in a second one that also experienced issues.

Some of the issues were the engine overheating, the brakes failing, and the charge running out after only 55 miles of aggressive driving. Also, the convertible that he drove was very loud from road noise.

Some of the responses from Tesla can be read here, but I would recommend watching that episode if you get a chance and like this car:

RE: Volt who?
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 4:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
They reviewed the roadster. This article is about the Model S. Did you even read this article?

Great use of tax dollars
By KeithP on 3/26/2009 7:45:47 PM , Rating: 3
Its great to see tax dollars going towards a vehicle with a price high enough that the people that buy it don't need the tax credit. Heck for most of the buyers, this will be a second or third car.

"But this helps develop the technology that is needed for cheaper cars!" You say. BS. The only thing unique about this car is the packaging. They aren't really doing anything ground breaking to the basics that run the thing,

I am not anti-green. I think it is very important that we drastically cut our dependence on oil. But giving tax breaks for $60,000, or even $40,000 vehicles is not the way to do it.

I guess the bright side is that the way things are going for this company, there is a reasonably good chance that they won't be in business long enough to bring this thing to market.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By swhibble on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Great use of tax dollars
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 8:56:57 PM , Rating: 5
Not hardly. In South Carolina the maximum tax is $300 for cars (course they more than make up for it every year with property taxes). A tax credit is applied to your income. Not to the purchase. You still pay the full cost of the car when you buy it.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By BansheeX on 3/26/2009 11:48:15 PM , Rating: 5
Try learning what a tax CREDIT is. It doesn't come out of anyones pocket, it is simply that the government doesn't collect some of the tax due on the vehicle.

Given equal use of government services provided by taxation, taxing party A more than party B is effectively subsidizing party B with party A's money. Gays and singles subsidize the married, people with no children subsidize children with many, people who rent subsidize people who own, people who work subsidize people who don't, companies without lobbying funds subsidize larger companies with them, companies selling cheap electric cars (Aptera) subsidize those selling expensive concepts (Chevy, Tesla). It's all part of social engineering concepts rooted in socialist academia, the idea that a politician trying to win votes and campaign financing should incentivize one legal activity over another and can better direct market capital than earners of the capital themselves.

But thanks for proving how utterly dumb the average person is to basic principles behind the tax system, how it changes human behavior, how it allows politicians to convince you that the market was purely to blame when it fails, and subsequently, how hopeless it is to ever repudiate it on a national level.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Chernobyl68 on 3/27/2009 1:53:11 AM , Rating: 4
Looking at the Aptera, it appears to be a trike, not a car - and so would fall under motorcycle classification rather than automobile. So, it doesn't meet the same crash safety standards as Tesla's CARS would.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By shin0bi272 on 3/27/2009 8:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
it also depends on how they apply the credit. If they are applying it before you buy the vehicle then thats a backhanded tax on those who dont buy the car. If they apply it at tax time then you still have to pay for the car's full price, and the sales taxes on that price first... then its a backhanded tax on those who didnt buy that car on april 15th... either way not the way we should be purchasing vehicles.

If these vehicles are better than gasoline cars then the government wouldnt have to add subsidies or tax credits to get people to buy them. This car Id buy if this is the production model... well assuming I didnt live in an apartment and had the ability to charge the thing.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By h0kiez on 3/27/2009 9:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
It really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it's still $7,500 less that the gov't has in its pocket that it will have to get from somewhere else (other taxpayers).

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 1:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thats exactly my problem with it. They will use any excuse to spend money since they have no self control or concept of a 0 base budget. It wont be long before this tax credit goes away and in its place is a tax on those who buy gasoline vehicles.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By h0kiez on 3/27/2009 9:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
Fucking cheers to that. Well said.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By kkwst2 on 3/26/2009 10:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
Few things are groundbreaking by your definition. It's evolutionary. The transition to electric cars is as much about providing incentives for people to try them as it is developing groundbreaking technology.

Tesla is making the electric car sexy and encouraging early adopters. If they can really pull this off, they've already gone from a $100k+ car to a $60k car in a few years. That sounds like "developing technology that is needed for cheaper cars." The people buying this car already pay a ton in taxes. The tax break isn't a ton more than the sales tax on the car. It's not always about who NEEDS a tax break, but getting people who have money to spend it where you need/want them to spend it. Your kind of thinking is pretty short-sighted in my book.

I agree that it may not be the most efficient way of encouraging adoption. The most efficient way would be to tax the hell out of gas until it hurts enough that people start to adopt cars like this. But I'll bet you won't like that idea either.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 12:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
The most efficient way would be to tax the hell out of gas until it hurts enough that people start to adopt cars like this. But I'll bet you won't like that idea either.
The only problem with that method is that only the middle class and poor would be affected. Everyone else would continue business as usual. Maybe the upper middle class and lower rich would buy cheaper cars but that's about it. Sales tax revenues and registration fees would decrease so you would need that initial tax to be REALLY high to make up for the loss of revenue from a huge chunk of people not buying new cars or buying used cheaper cars. As much money as some state governments spend, that just won't work.

Look at the present economy. Car sales are in the crapper because some people can't get loans, some people have lost their jobs, and the rest are just plain scared.

Before the economy took a crap, CA was considering raising sales and gas taxes to make up for the loss of revenue from people not buying new cars because of the high gas prices. They ended up raising the sales tax anyways for different reasons (grrrr).

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By shin0bi272 on 3/27/2009 8:29:26 AM , Rating: 4
No theres another problem with that method... it unduly taxes the american public (rich and poor) for the purposes of furthering a political agenda and is unconstitutional.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 11:44:11 AM , Rating: 3
t unduly taxes the american public (rich and poor) for the purposes of furthering a political agenda and is unconstitutional.
Sure enough and I didn't know that was unconstitutional. Might explain why it's never been done.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 1:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
unconstitutional just means that its not in the constitution. Article 1 Section 8 defines what the federal government is allowed to spend its money on... theres nothing in it about giving tax subsidies to people to purchase one car over another.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 4:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
The thing about the Constitution is that if something is not specified then it's unconstitutional. Meaning you're not allowed to do it. Hence, unconstitutional.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By callmeroy on 3/30/2009 9:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's one of the most rediculous statements I've read in a week....but whatever.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Chernobyl68 on 3/27/2009 12:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, they've been considering raising it for a while - the gax tax has not kept up with the maintenantce needs of the state highways, with the rising cost of labor and materials.

RE: Great use of tax dollars
By Wierdo on 3/27/2009 11:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
Well, lets consider the bigger picture here... if we can reduce our dependence on oil then it may be worth it. Gas prices are pretty cheap here because of heavy subsidies. I did a quick google to see if there's some estimate of how much these are:

If the figures presented above are accurate, then we're basically spending around 1.7 trillion dollars per year on subsidies that artificially make oil so cheap compared to other nations. Realistically the price of oil should be closer to $15 per gallon without subsidies according to that link.

If true, then it sorta makes it difficult for new technology to replace them since they don't get subsidies that high to make them competitive enough.

Steady growth
By chmilz on 3/26/2009 6:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
Tesla is slowly building a worthy car empire, using high-priced luxury models to steadily fine-tune their tech and bring costs down, until they can launch affordable cars to the masses. Apparently the economic downturn hurts the bloated incumbent car manufacturers more than the new generation.

Kudos, Tesla!

RE: Steady growth
By Spuke on 3/26/2009 7:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, are you planning on buying one of their cheaper models once they're released?

RE: Steady growth
By MrPoletski on 3/27/2009 5:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
this car comes out in 2011, by that time I'd probably be in the market for one. This one looks nice, might go for it.

RE: Steady growth
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Cool but the OP never stated he would buy one. I love how some people "support" a product they never intend on buying. That's the reason sub compacts aren't popular in the US even though, if you read DT, there's a "huge" demand for them. No one here would buy it even if it was for sale. Car companies can only make money off of a sale. If one truly wants to support Tesla, buy their product. Cheerleading doesn't do sh!t.

RE: Steady growth
By Pirks on 3/26/2009 9:13:24 PM , Rating: 1
Tesla is slowly building a worthy car empire, using high-priced luxury models to steadily fine-tune their tech and bring costs down, until they can launch affordable cars to the masses.
Reminds me of a well known Californian company that designs and sells computers, smartphones and pocket media players. Same strategy - start with luxury items and use profits to introduce cheaper mainstream versions later. Elon Musk is a smart @ss I see. I start to really respect the guy.

RE: Steady growth
By TMV192 on 3/26/2009 9:30:43 PM , Rating: 4
He's the kind of entrepreneur this country needs; SpaceX, Tesla Motors, and SolarCity, are all relatively small companies trying to outdo their large and powerful competitors with new innovation, and he is very wise to invest in them

RE: Steady growth
By Pirks on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Steady growth
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/27/2009 11:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Steady growth
By kkwst2 on 3/26/2009 10:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
The praise seems a little premature. Their track record has not been incredible for releasing cars as promised. I thought they were still way behind schedule on the roadster and raised the price on some who had pre-ordered.

It's certainly not close to an empire. Do they show some promise? Probably. If they can release this car close to the specs and price claimed, they should sell pretty well. I would consider getting one, especially with the tax credit.

RE: Steady growth
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 12:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how a 2 year old car company with ONE product that's trickling product out to its customers is anywhere near an empire. LOL!

RE: Steady growth
By CommodoreVic20 on 3/27/2009 12:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
I Agree.

This car is INCREDIBLE! Come on people, 300 miles on a single charge for a 7 passenger car, full recharge in 45 minutes, 0-60 in less than 6 seconds! HELLO!? That is incredible, the big three have been unable to do that. The huge dash LCD with the 3G connection is light years ahead of anyone else. The design is beautiful. I think the overall value beats the crap out of mid luxury cars its competing against, heck even most high luxury cars. Finally AMERICAN design and built cars that begin to compete and beat European ones on ALL FRONTS!


RE: Steady growth
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 4:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Come on people, 300 miles on a single charge for a 7 passenger car, full recharge in 45 minutes
HELLO!! You need a 480V outlet to get a full charge in 45 minutes AND the base cars range is 160 miles, the 300 mile car supposedly comes later at who knows how much.

RE: Steady growth
By akosixiv on 3/28/2009 7:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
by the time they fully implement this in the future, there would be charging stations inside parking garages.

Its not really a total solution, rather just a release in hopes they can sell and move the market more in favor of EV's.

RE: Steady growth
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 11:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
by the time they fully implement this in the future, there would be charging stations inside parking garages.
So there's going to be charging stations in parking garages by next year?

this is all well and good but...
By shin0bi272 on 3/27/2009 8:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you have a 480volt source laying around it will take hours still to recharge it. a 480volt source though will recharge it in 48min... nice but still not great for long distance driving... around town sure but they are touting it as being able to drive across the country in the same time as a normal sedan (I know because I get their newsletter and I got this news in an email this morning already). I suppose you could make it across the country in the same time as a normal sedan if you can find a place with 480volt plugs all along your route. That will take massive infrastructure placement (and possibly certification to handle the plug) and Im not sure if Tesla can pay for that kind of roll out. So for a while these will be relegated to in town driving. Very cool otherwise though.

RE: this is all well and good but...
By Hulk on 3/27/2009 10:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
Okay so it has a 300 mile range. That is more than enough for most people for a day of driving.

But if you plug this thing in every night to top it off how long will the battery last?

If you plug it into a normal 15Amp outlet will it fully charge overnight? In say 10 hours? If so then I don't think the electrical thing to be a big problem.

The problem is that if you have let the battery run down to say 25% so you don't have to recharge every night, to prolong battery life, then on that 3rd or 4th day of driving without a charge when the battery is at say 30% charge and you get stuck in traffic on a hot day you could be in trouble!

I like the Volt model of a 40 mile range with a small "limp home" IC engine just in case.

Or if we had a massive infrastructure change I could see these batteries being of standard design so that when you pull into a recharging station there is an automated battery swap. Your discharged one for a charged one. Of course the battery replacement costs would have to be shared by all drivers somehow but this would get around the recharging problem. Yeah I know it's a crazy idea.

RE: this is all well and good but...
By Spuke on 3/27/2009 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Okay so it has a 300 mile range.
The base car has 160 mile range. The 300 mile car comes later.

RE: this is all well and good but...
By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 1:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Aww crap man I deleted the email they sent me that had that info in it. I think they said that a standard 120v 15A would charge it in 8 hrs. And that would be fine ... 160miles round trip is plenty for me on a daily basis. 35 miles to work and 35 back then maybe 10 out and back to the store or an additional 70mi round trip to my friends house. Plug it in when i get home and when I get up in the morning my power bill (pre-smart grid) goes up 5 bucks but I can drive for at least another day on that 5 bucks. The volt would kill me lol I'd get started home for the day and poof run out of charge and have to use the gas engine.

But the original Email said that because of its 300mi range and 48min charge time it could drive across the country in the same time it took a gas car to drive it... and my first reaction is uhh not bloody loikly!

If these types of cars had quick change batteries we could essentially use the same concept they use for propane tanks for gas grills. You go to the store, exchange your empty one for a full one and pay for the service of them to charge it and swap yours out via forklift or something. But yeah that would be a massive infrastructure change and that will take decades to put in place.

Then theres the other issue about battery lifespan. the current Lithium ion batteries with carbon coated anodes wear out in a few years and cost like $10,000 to replace. So an exchange system could cause them to wear out faster... or slower depending on how long they would sit there waiting to be exchanged after being recharged. So I guess it would depend on the size of the operation which would also most likely increase the cost of the exchange since they would have to recoup the cost of their purchases when they had to purchase 500,000 worth of batteries.

RE: this is all well and good but...
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 4:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
The 160 mile range is a maximum range which depends on weather, driving style, accessory use, and etc. You won't get that range all of the time.

RE: this is all well and good but...
By Suntan on 3/27/2009 11:22:47 AM , Rating: 3
I’m guessing you don’t drive cross country the way I do. If I had to sit and wait 48 min everytime I covered a distance that is equal to “a quick jaunt” (whatever that is) I’d go mad. And I don’t remember seeing too many places that do offer 480v hookups between the Twin Cities and Yellowstone the last time we vacationed out there.

Fair enough the company is doing good things to try new technologies, and they have developed significant advancements in the area of battery management and the electronic handling of high currents, but these kinds of silliness irritate me. However, I’m guessing the marketing guy would get fired if he just came out with the truth and stated flatly,

“The thing costs twice as much and only offers half the usability as a comparable IC based car, but it’s a work in progress and if you’re a bleeding edge kinda tech junky who is willing to grossly overpay for what you get, you can help us try and develop these things into a viable alternative at some point down the road.”


By clovell on 3/27/2009 5:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

But I kind of think it'd be cool to floor it on one of these things, and have it silently throw me back in my seat.

By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 1:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
no thats exactly what I was saying... I drove from FL to upstate Ny in 1 shot in my car back in college... 20+ hours ... if I had to stop even for 48min to recharge my car every 5 hours that drive would have taken me an additional 3.2 hrs... (then there was that 4 day bus ride from cali to NC) thats also assuming I could get a 480volt plug every time I needed a recharge which would be damned near impossible right now.

Plus where are they planning on putting these high voltage power plugs anywho? At gas stations next to the pumps full of explosive liquids? Thats why I was saying that these going to most likely be used for in town driving for a few decades... taxis maybe. Cause they can bring the car back in for a recharge on their lunch break and the taxi hub can be hooked up with several lines for recharging en masse.

Let's see...
By Anonymous Freak on 3/26/2009 7:07:00 PM , Rating: 5
By the time it's released:

Glass cockpit gone, conventional speedometer.

Base price up $20,000.

Range down 100 miles.

That's what they've done with the roadster, why does anyone think this will be any different?

RE: Let's see...
By Clauzii on 3/26/2009 9:10:54 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Let's see...
By Pirks on 3/26/2009 9:39:19 PM , Rating: 1

RE: Let's see...
By Farfignewton on 3/26/2009 9:46:04 PM , Rating: 3

It's non-biological. Intelligent Design gets it's only win! ;)

Seats 7?
By chmilz on 3/26/2009 6:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, a car designed for midgets.

RE: Seats 7?
By acase on 3/27/2009 8:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yah, I'm thinking there is no way that putting two small kids, in fold up seats, facing backwards, IN YOUR TRUNK, is going to pass safety regulations. Or for that matter, is even a good idea at all.

RE: Seats 7?
By Doormat on 3/27/2009 11:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Huh? I can remember as a kid, in my friends parents Volvo there were two rear facing seats in the trunk for kids. That passed safety back in the mid/late 80s. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch now.

RE: Seats 7?
By Suntan on 3/27/2009 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
I can remember it being perfectly legal for kids to ride in the front seat with no seatbelt on in the mid 80s. Don’t be silly and compare safety standards from then and now. Insurance companies have made it much more restrictive over the last 25 years.

In any case, feel free to strap your kids in the main crumple zone (or on the roof for that matter.) I don’t give a hoot if they die. I wouldn’t ever trap my son in the space they are talking about though.


RE: Seats 7?
By Doormat on 3/27/2009 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, because they aren't going to do anything to adjust the crumple zone so that the rear facing passengers don't get hurt? They'll just let whatever bodily injury happen. Riiiiiight.

You're raising kids? Ugh, idiocracy here we come.

Looks like...
By Jimspar on 3/26/2009 10:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
It looks to me like they stole the designer from either Aston Martin, or Maserati.

RE: Looks like...
By eldakka on 3/26/2009 10:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing myself. It is a sexy car.

RE: Looks like...
By borismkv on 3/27/2009 1:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised they didn't just throw a battery and electric motor in another model of extremely light exotic like they did with the Roadster. Tesla Roadster. Built in a Lotus Elise frame, cause everyone wants to drive a car that puts your knees into your chest.

RE: Looks like...
By Fireshade on 3/27/2009 9:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking Aston Martin myself as well, haha...
It's almost a complete deadringer.

Also quite funny: people still need to see an "air intake / radiator cooling inlet" on the frontside of the car, although this fully electric car hardly needs one.

RE: Looks like...
By Raidin on 3/27/2009 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The front shot is a bit reminiscent of the new Mazda6, but overall it seems to copy the Jaguar XF. Just look at the rear end, with the silver bar running through the slim tail lights.

By GaryJohnson on 3/26/2009 7:29:12 PM , Rating: 5
This is not your blog.

By PresidentThomasJefferson on 3/26/2009 8:44:36 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, the BYD news was actually from DAILYTECH ITSELF (that's how I found out about it) & the link about BYD's car/auto was made by DailyTech (I just reposted it).. duh!

By borismkv on 3/27/2009 1:41:25 AM , Rating: 1
There's an awful lot you can do when you take away all those pesky personal freedoms and stuff.

In case nobody noticed
By corduroygt on 3/27/2009 3:06:29 AM , Rating: 1
This is just a reskinned jaguar s-type (hence the model S nomenclature)
Oh, and while I think electric cars are nice, they'll never be mainstream until someone invites a battery that can be charged in 5 minutes and last at least 200 miles.

RE: In case nobody noticed
By strikeback03 on 3/27/2009 8:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Was gonna say that it looks a lot like a Jag. Guess that makes sense, as the Jags are relatively light and Tesla seems to have a thing for basing their designs on British cars.

RE: In case nobody noticed
By Davelo on 3/27/2009 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking Aston Martin. Looks sexy.

RE: In case nobody noticed
By shin0bi272 on 3/28/2009 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Whats wrong with the Jag? It looks cool to me and so does the Jag. But yeah the major issues with electric cars now are battery longevity, recharge time at 120v 15A, and travel distance on one charge. At least they have the acceleration problem solved.

The car looks great
By ZachDontScare on 3/27/2009 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
The car looks really great. I love the dashboard.

But they do have to, at some point, start selling them. Anyone can brag about their new electric car coming 'real soon now'. But until we actually start seeing them on the road, its just words.

I wonder if they can be charged while driving? If so, you can mount an external gas powered generator on the thing, and run that for longer trips.

RE: The car looks great
By matt0401 on 3/27/2009 11:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is actually a neat idea! I've known for a while about solar cells on cars that could trickle charge the main battery and/or contribute to the electric motor (while driving) but I never thought of how it might be possible to make this power circuit more open and allow other power sources to be added my a modder. A simple generator in the trunk would be quite useful! You'd just need some way of venting the exhaust.

Uh Guys.
By Smilin on 3/27/2009 4:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
The way Volt is going they'll have Duke Nukem driving around as their spokesman.

So far all they've "produced" is a bunch of pretty concept cars and no real rolling production line.

RE: Uh Guys.
By Spuke on 3/28/2009 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the Volt is not scheduled to be produced yet.

looks good
By Falloutboy on 3/26/2009 6:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
car looks good and specs seem to be good enough that as long as the interior quality is up to what the outside looks like it should compete well with BMW 3 series and the CTS. the 2 extra flip up seats seemed weird and pointless though for this type of vehicle.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki