backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Aug 20 at 8:28 PM

0-60 in 4 seconds, 250 mile range

CNET is reporting that the initial batch of 100 Tesla Roadsters has been sold out. According to Tesla CEO Martin Eberhard, 100 people each dropped down a $100,000 USD deposit. Some of the lucky future owners include Google co-founder Larry Page and eBay co-founder Jeff Skoll.

The Tesla Roadster is 100% electric, has a top speed of just over 130 MPH and can zip to 60 MPH in just 4 seconds. The 2,500 pound roadster can go 250 miles on a charge and costs about 1c per mile to operate based on current energy costs. The Tesla Roadster is powered by a 3-phase, 4-pole AC induction motor that routes power through a 2-speed semi-automatic transmission.

The roadster makes use of a proprietary lithium-ion battery back (6,381 cells) that has an estimated serviceable life of 100,000 miles. Once the 100,000 mark is reached, performance will gradually fall over time. And when you've reached your 250 mile operational range, you can pull into your garage and plug it in to the Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE), the Tesla Roadster's home-based charging system. The charger will top the battery pack off in just 3.5 hours.

And don't think that the Tesla Roadster is some barebones machine either. It comes standard with dual airbags, ABS, traction control, cruise control, A/C, heated seats, iPod connectivity, power windows, a partial leather interior and LED taillights. Factory options include GPS navigation, satellite radio, a body-colored hardtop and a full leather interior.

If the Tesla Roadster looks somewhat familiar to you, it's because the design and structure is loosely based on the featherweight Lotus Elise that has been wowing the automotive press and owners alike around the globe for the past ten years. It also is built on the same assembly line as the Elise. For a closer look at the Tesla Roadster, you can take a look at Wired’s test drive. You can catch a CNET video of the car in action here.



Comments     Threshold


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

Sexy is right
By lco45 on 8/16/2006 4:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse long comment.

I just had an idea for all those gas stations that will be out of business if electric cars take over.

Why not have cars with pull-out battery packs that could be swapped with charged packs at stations?
Then the stations, instead of waiting for the fuel truck to arrive (burning its own fuel to get there), can just charge and swap to the next guy?

Hydrogen is dead, too inefficient to make it, compress it, store it, trasport it. Better off cabling the power straight to the car.
See efficiency chart of various fuel types at thewatt.com
http://www.thewatt.com/article-901-nested-1-0.html

Super-capacitors look the best, full charge in 3 seconds, basically unlimited charge cycles, light, never need to throw away.
I wish the folks at MIT would hurry up and get those things into production, but in the meantime, cars with their own little burner up front and a dusty tail pipe out back just don't appeal to me any more.




RE: Sexy is right
By bldckstark on 8/16/2006 4:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
The future of hydrogen is not in "making" it, but in retreiving the bountiful supply from the ocean floor. There is enough solid hydrogen ice on the ocean floor to power the world for an extimated 1000 years. It is located within 200 miles of the coast so each country owns it supply. Japan has been trying to bring hydrogen like this up to the surface for over a decade, but it keeps going boom.

WARNING! BORING ECONOMICAL THEORY FOLLOWS!
If the hydrogen is only retrievable by drilling (like oil) then only the oil companies will be able to sell it. If the oil companies make all the money (like oil) then the oil people stay rich. If the oil people stay rich then there is no huge turnover of powerful people (like oil) in the world, and no long drawn out negative economic changes. Hey! HEY YOU, WAKE UP! I'm done now. Thank me for the nap later.


RE: Sexy is right
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 4:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is enough solid hydrogen ice on the ocean floor..."

Since hydrogen freezes at a few degrees above absolute zero, I seriously doubt we're going to find any hydrogen ice anywhere. Are you referring to hydrogen clathrates? That's a different thing altogether.


RE: Sexy is right
By bob661 on 8/16/2006 4:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Besides when you go past 12 miles you're in international waters so any country can make a claim to these pockets of hydrogen ice.


RE: Sexy is right
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 5:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
The EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone) stretches out 200 miles in most cases; any natural resources within that still belong to the nation. But there isn't any frozen hydrogen down there in any case.


RE: Sexy is right
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone) stretches out 200 miles in most cases
Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.


RE: Sexy is right
By Chernobyl68 on 8/16/2006 5:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
its not hydrogen, its methane gas hydrates

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-ss02/e-...

there are many challenges to recovering that as a resource. In addition, global warming has the potential to warm the ocean water to the point where this ice could melt, and release its gas. the massive release of methane creates a further greenhouse effect which could lead to an extinction event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_exti...



RE: Sexy is right
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 6:02:22 PM , Rating: 3
... i think there is enough methane gas in this thread already!


RE: Sexy is right
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the massive release of methane creates a further greenhouse effect which could lead to an extinction event.
Yes we're ALL going to die!!!! And you'll never know when either.


RE: Sexy is right
By phaxmohdem on 8/16/2006 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Then they'd have to worry about people swaping out bum battery packs for good ones.... plus how freaking heavy would these things be?? I don't think the average person could raise if out of their vehicle and swap in a new one.

If they could get those capacitors working though, then you could basically have drive through "gas" stations, where you'd drive over some sort of electric grid that charges your caps, swipe your card and off you go in seconds....


RE: Sexy is right
By ChronoReverse on 8/16/2006 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
While lead-acid batteries are super heavy, lithium technology tends to be considerably lighter.


Besides, even in the case of super-capacitors, it'd still take time to charge until they design a way to safely transfer huge currents as well as keeping it cool during transfer.


RE: Sexy is right
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
If you read their site, they say that when your batteries die out THEY will replace them, not you.


RE: Sexy is right
By Chernobyl68 on 8/16/2006 5:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Popular Mechanics or Popular Science had an article about this kind of concept a long while ago. it would require all vehicle types to have not just electrically but physically identical battery packs and there are liability issues when charging your battery pack out with someone elses.


RE: Sexy is right
By epsilonparadox on 8/16/2006 5:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
Could you imagine standing at the pump for 3.5 hours to top off if you barely make it to a charging area? But it might also bring back the diners attached to gas stations and the "Eat and Get Gas" signs.


SIlly that...
By Chadder007 on 8/16/2006 4:21:23 PM , Rating: 3
Its silly that it took an outside car company to go at it right. Beautiful design, Performance of some supercars, good range. WTF where the big companies thinking with Hybrids and making everything ugly as sin?




RE: SIlly that...
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 4:46:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its silly that it took an outside car company to go at it right. Beautiful design, Performance of some supercars, good range. WTF where the big companies thinking with Hybrids and making everything ugly as sin

Well, did you notice the price, like US$100,000? If consumers were all willing (and able!) to pay $100K for their cars, then we could all have electric cars today. There is no technology in this car that is not available and already known to conventional automotive manufacturers like Toyota, GM, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen, etc.

Hybrids, on the other hand, can be produced at a cost that is just slightly higher than traditional cars. That is why the major manufacturers are focusing on this technology and what makes them commercially viable in high volumes, where pure electric cars are not, at least cars with specifications like the Tesla.


RE: SIlly that...
By bob661 on 8/16/2006 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, did you notice the price, like US$100,000?
AND where are going to charge these cars on that trip with the wife out to Vegas? Oh that's right, you can't. AND where are the kids going to fit? I guess you can put them in the lack of trunk with the gym bag. This is basically an expensive commuter car. It's the tree hunggers Ferrari except even a Ferrari is more practical.


RE: SIlly that...
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
This car isn't meant to replace minivans, it's meant for a specific niche of car customer and hands down, it is winning. Think about it...0-60 in 4 seconds, only 100,000 and you never pay for premium gas? Talk about a great deal.

As for longer trips, there is included accessories to let you charge from any 115V outlet.

Also, look for this company in a few years to sell their low-end consumer line car that WILL fit the needs of the family. It looks to be like a Camry sedan but with an electric engine.


RE: SIlly that...
By WxGuy192 on 8/17/2006 2:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think about it...0-60 in 4 seconds, only 100,000 and you never pay for premium gas?


Folks who buy >$100,00 cars don't usually have a problem spending money on gas. In fact, I haven't seen too many >$100,000 cars that are "daily-drivers", so I'm not sure how much gas people really spend on them anyway.

Your point is taken, but we've entered another realm of consumer. If you get this car for the 'fuel economy', then you're doing so to make a point, IMO. Don't get me wrong -- I'd grab one if I had $100,000 laying around.


RE: SIlly that...
By timmiser on 8/17/2006 3:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
But if they took the exotic performance sports car element out of the equation and got the price down to $50 G's for a more normal car with more normal performanc, then you'd be talking. I'd gladly pay $50 grand on a economy car that would NEVER require gasoline plus it is a pretty rare occasion to drive over 250 miles in a day.

A typical person pays about $2500 per year in gasoline today. 10 years of that and you are already saving $25,000 which would be the price difference to break even. (16,000 miles per year @ 20 MPG @ 3.13/gal = $2500 fuel costs per year)



RE: SIlly that...
By marvdmartian on 8/17/2006 9:17:29 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder.....did they use Sony laptop batteries to run this thing??? ;)


RE: SIlly that...
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It looks to be like a Camry sedan but with an electric engine.
I wonder how much? I guess it doesn't really matter. I won't be buying one.


RE: SIlly that...
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for longer trips, there is included accessories to let you charge from any 115V outlet.
It's good that they have this feature but in reality who's going to let you use their electricity (for free) to charge this car back up? Anyone know of any charging stations between SoCal and Vegas? How about SoCal and Phoenix?


RE: SIlly that...
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 9:54:59 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that a charge should cost ~250 cents or $2.50 for a charge, you'd have to know some cheap people to not let you charge it.


Sexy
By feelingshorter on 8/16/2006 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
The car looks sexy to me. I've love to have one as my camry gets about that much miles on highway if i fill up my tank.




RE: Sexy
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/16/2006 3:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, what's wrong with your Camry...only 250 miles on the highway? :-) I had a '95 Camry LE 4-banger that would regularly get 450-475 miles on the highway. I would sometimes eek out over 500 miles if I was careful.


RE: Sexy
By stromgald on 8/16/2006 6:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Uh yeah, Brandon's right . . . I get about 340-400 miles with a full tank in my SUV. Even with a smaller tank, you should be hitting at least 325 miles/tank.


RE: Sexy
By ogreslayer on 8/16/2006 7:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not many cars out there with a sub 5 sec 0 - 60 gonna punch out more than 300 miles per tank.

My Lincoln LS V8 only gets me around 320 when I'm being economical, usually about 295... A Ferrari 612 Scag with 10 more gallons of fuel space would around the same mile number

If the car is mostly based on an Elise, it should be a fun drive... not sure its worth 100k though


RE: Sexy
By ogreslayer on 8/16/2006 8:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and the Elise with its paltry 9.5 gallon tank would only get you probably 24o miles


RE: Sexy
By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 8:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well you certainly won't get a 250 mile range in the Tesla either...if you driving it like its meant to be driven, probably about 125 miles tops.


RE: Sexy
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
I had a 98 Camry 4 cyl, it got 425 easily on the freeway.


Backup
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 6:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would be much happier if there were some kind of power reserve or backup for this device, even if nothing more than a small emergency generator, producing enough kW to drive 15mph, so you could at least get home in an emergency.




By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 6:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what controller OS it's running? I looked carefully at the dashboard, and I think I can see a CTRL + ALT + DEL key right next to the cigarette lighter. ;-)


RE: Backup
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Almost no need to...on the lower left of the console there is a color display that says exactly how much battery is left, and what range you have at the speed you're going. So, if you're on the freeway going 80 it'll tell you something like "Battery 75%, Range 200 miles" or whatever.


RE: Backup
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:18:10 PM , Rating: 3
Besides that city driving is very efficient at low speeds due to regenerative braking, and that when you are stopped the engine doenst run at all!


RE: Backup
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 6:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think this will guarantee your wife/girlfriend will get home before emptying the battery?

"Range" is pretty useless you ALSO know the shortest route home and what that entails in power-requirements. (Start, stop, hills, etc).

Hence the system requires a GPS also.

"Range" in petrol cars is very useful, because it indicates whether you might want to stop at the next gas station... or whether you can keep going and wait for the next. No such options with this charge-at-home car.


RE: Backup
By kkwst2 on 8/16/2006 11:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
So, get the navigation option. Or date/marry a brunette who has a clue next time.


Nice
By ksherman on 8/16/2006 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now theres an ecofriendly car... sweet beans. wonder how that two-speed transworks, asp at high speeds (ie 60+)




RE: Nice
By LeftSide on 8/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nice
By Chernobyl68 on 8/16/2006 5:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
AC induction motors also have very good torque characteristics.



RE: Nice
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 5:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Electric motors can spin at high speeds with no noticable loss in efficiency. That is why they are so much better than Gas engines.

Not in this case - the motor in the Tesla only goes up to 12,000RPM. The benefits of a motor like this are efficiency (i.e., energy input is converted to rotational energy and not heat) as well as good torque.


RE: Nice
By Dfere on 8/18/2006 7:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, this motor is efficient, but what about the motor that converted the fossil fule into energy that was then entered into the batteries? Energy does not come from nowhere. In the case of electric cars, someone did the converting earlier so you could put a more efficient motor at the end of the consumption cycle.

Sorry- not trolling, but there is an extra step of costs to consider when comparing the efficiency of electric versus gas engines. I think the real issue with electric vehicles is does the market allow for a consumer win with respect to replacing gas cars with electric, when ALL costs are factored in. I shudder to think that electric cars force the consumers to buy more from a utility, not less.


RE: Nice
By TomZ on 8/18/2006 9:25:37 AM , Rating: 2
I understand where you're coming from, but the principle is that power generation stations will be more efficient and produce fewer emissions than millions of internal combustion engines in individual cars.


RE: Nice
By aguilpa1 on 8/18/2006 2:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
blah, blah, blah, GREEN is not your color, I wish I had one to, any excuse to deny it will make you feel only a little better.


Ordered Mine Last Month
By Tedtalker1 on 8/16/2006 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 3
Can't wait.If it will last about 80 years it will pay for itself in gasoline savings.




RE: Ordered Mine Last Month
By bob661 on 8/16/2006 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can't wait.If it will last about 80 years it will pay for itself in gasoline savings.
LOL! No one thinks about this. I guess it's really not about the money.


RE: Ordered Mine Last Month
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding? You can't compare your $12,000 honda with this car...it's in a league quite beyond. Try comparing this car with the spyder360. The spyder needs not only premium gas, but get's about 10-20 MPG anyways, and the two handle and perform quite similar, although the spyder has a higher top speed but how often do americans need to go above 120 anyways?

This is a very cheap car for its bracket and the type of cars it competes with, and the fact you don't need to pay premium gas to go 15 miles per gallon is just the icing.


RE: Ordered Mine Last Month
By timmiser on 8/17/2006 3:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, if you drive 100 miles a day, it would pay for itself in only about 20 years! See if driving cost nothing, you would drive more!


RE: Ordered Mine Last Month
By bob661 on 8/17/2006 9:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nah, if you drive 100 miles a day, it would pay for itself in only about 20 years! See if driving cost nothing, you would drive more!
I don't change my driving habits because of gas costs. I go where I need and want to go regardless. If I ever get that concerned about gas I'll buy a diesel VW.


Terrorism
By sandorski on 8/17/2006 1:59:34 AM , Rating: 5
This is a Terrorists dream car! Just replace the batteries with Dell batteries and voila, Car Bomb!




RE: Terrorism
By therealnickdanger on 8/17/2006 9:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, nice one. I should probably get around to replacing my Dell battery one of these days.

I like the car, but I'll take my Magnum over it anyday. She can make 60MPH in about 5 seconds - sometimes less if the weather is just right - and still get 26MPG at freeway cruising speeds. Did I mention I can carry some 2x4s, a surf board, and an amp? I can also fill it in about 2-4 minutes. LOL

The 100K price tag is proof enough of who killed the electric car... the market. They need to make more super-expensive electric cars to sell to the wealthier people, especially the ones that never shut their traps about saving the ecosystem.

Any ideas as to how many amps/volts/watts it takes to charge this thing?

One last thing, the 2-speed semi-auto tranny sounds exactly like what I had in my 1977 Honda Accord CVCC. It was called a Honda-Matic. That car was a POS. You would accellerate to 25-30MPH, then shift once and ride gear #2 until you reached your top speed. The manual explained that exceeding 65MPH was not recommended. I think I went through three head gaskets before retiring it.


RE: Terrorism
By TomZ on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Terrorism
By mindless1 on 8/20/2006 8:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
100K price isn't really significant, this is a one-off, limited production. You'd expect to pay this figure for such a gas powered car too.

I'd expect the R&D, manufacturing line changes to be significant cost born by the customer, as well as that of the battery and charging, but when, not if, electric cars become the majority, we should expect them to be more reasonably priced based on the adjusted dollar at that point in time. I dont' see it happening in the next 15 year at least though.


Emergency Power
By kmmatney on 8/16/2006 9:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
They need to make the "charging station" built into the car, so you can plug in anywhere.

I wonder if it would be possible to have an emergency generator that you could pedal, or some other way to generate electricity if needed.




RE: Emergency Power
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
The charging system is built into the car.

Finally, recharge time is impressively quick, enabled by an onboard, high-power charging system.

http://www.teslamotors.com/engineering/how_it_work...


RE: Emergency Power
By WxGuy192 on 8/17/2006 2:34:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wonder if it would be possible to have an emergency generator that you could pedal, or some other way to generate electricity if needed.


Imagine Flintstoning your way home in a $100,000 car... LOL


RE: Emergency Power
By lemonadesoda on 8/17/2006 6:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest pedals for the passenger seat; to keep her slim ;-)


nice
By One43637 on 8/16/2006 5:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
nice looking electric car, but i'm not a big fan of the interior or the transmission. semi-automatic?




RE: nice
By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
fussy fussy.

For transmission questions, go to their website and it will explain why you don't need to change gear at all... basically full torque from 0RPM to 15000RPM. Thats the nature of efficient electric motors.


RE: nice
By jack2031 on 8/16/2006 6:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not just that, but the reason for the "semi" automatic is that there isn't a clutch. The gear shift you hold only goes from 1-2 speeds. The #2 speed is to take the car beyond 80 mph.


By lemonadesoda on 8/16/2006 8:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
0-60mph in 4 secs. An electric engine? Nearly silent! Very dangerous to paedestrians, esp. kids. If they don't hear the motor, expecially a loud, straining, accelerating engine, then they may not see the thing coming and get hit.

People tend to look first when they hear something. If they don't hear something, they tend to step into the road before looking. Unfortunate human nature... danger usually comes with a sound.

Perhaps to make these "street legal" they should play a candy-tune or something to get the kids attention... to make it safe. LOL </jk>




RE: This car is so dangerous... it should be banned
By kkwst2 on 8/16/2006 10:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually a damn good point. Maybe they should simulate engine vrooms over an integrated loudspeaker.

Having a silent sports car isn't very cool either.

This could be the future though. What makes it so expensive? The electric motor? Batteries? Both?

If you could make a 4 seater for $50k, you might be in business. There are a LOT more people who could stomach that for a commuter car that will probably recoup $50 a week on saved gas. If you figure it saves you $.09/mile then that's $9k over the life of the battery. If you could replace the battery for less than the $9k ...assuming you can cut the cost of the machine in half and add some rear seats at the expense of acceleration times.

The higher gas prices go, the more attractive this looks. At $6 per gallon, you're saving around $20k over the life of the battery.



By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 11:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "What makes it so expensive? The electric motor? Batteries? Both? "

The low production volume is the largest factor in the high cost.


Li ion batteries = bomb?
By xlmussel on 8/16/2006 4:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone remember the cartoon "Exosquad"? Those e-frames were powered by portable fusion reactors that could be made to overload and explode as an improvised bomb. You think the same could happen to the Li-ion batteries on these cars in an accident? Could happen considering how rich people love to drive fast and the whole dell/sony battery recall.




RE: Li ion batteries = bomb?
By bldckstark on 8/16/2006 4:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is an excellent rumor. Sony made the batteries and they are going to explode!


What if there's an accident
By JAGedlion on 8/16/2006 4:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to remember reading recently abotu the fires on airplaens due to lithium batteries because not only could a ruptured/overcharged/just faulty cell explode with flames, but water doesn't put it out. I guess it poses less of a threat that hydrogen but is this more dangerous than gasoline?




RE: What if there's an accident
By stromgald on 8/16/2006 6:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Water doesn't put out a Li-Ion fire. Lithium burns on contact with oxygen and it burns HOT (like the magnesium burning that they show in chemistry classes).

Hydrogen tends to explode though, so its actually a quicker death. Either way, I trust Li-Ion more than hydrogen because only the Li molecules making contact with air would catch fire, and since an actual Li-Ion battery is composed of many cells with their own containment, it shouln't be too bad.

Gasoline is somewhat safer since it requires both oxygen and a spark. Hydrogen just needs a spark and Li-ion just needs oxygen.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/16/2006 7:16:48 PM , Rating: 1
> "Lithium burns on contact with oxygen and it burns HOT "

Lithium ion batteries contain lithium salts, not metallic lithium. Some can form if the battery is overcharged or charged too quickly, but otherwise its not a problem. Lithium-ion batteries can explode if overheated, not from coming into contact with oxygen from the atmosphere.

> " Hydrogen just needs a spark..."

Hydrogen needs oxygen as well to combust. A certain percentage, in fact-- a mix of less than 4% or more than 75% hydrogen will not burn.



Two Speed Automatic? Yeesh...
By feraltoad on 8/16/2006 7:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
I guess they figure when the ultra rich buy a sport car, then by god, they want to shift. The real question is if it will have a "rabbit" for fast and "tortoise" for slow like my lawnmower does.




RE: Two Speed Automatic? Yeesh...
By TomZ on 8/16/2006 8:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Due to the torque that can be produced across a wide range of engine RPM's, there's really no need to "shift" like with an internal combustion engine. This just takes a little getting used to.


Too small for us manly folks
By jmunjr on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Too small for us manly folks
By Xenoterranos on 8/17/2006 1:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
The guy at TopGear is 6'4 easy (I know he's either 6'2 or 6'6) and he fit in a lotus just fine. I've been wanting a lotus since I saw some spyshots of the new design some years ago.


By lemonadesoda on 8/17/2006 6:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sqeezing in, and being comfortable, are 2 different things. You should test drive one. They are basically "kit cars" and not something you would want to drive and material distance in.


We can only hope...
By RyanM on 8/16/2006 4:36:56 PM , Rating: 3
That Sony isn't manufacturing the batteries for this puppy.




not Murray...
By Mumrik on 8/16/2006 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
"eBay co-founder Jeff Skull"

I believe that's Skoll ?




Electric still cost too much
By rpierce on 8/16/2006 7:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Looks cool, but I could buy a lot of gas for 100K.




pricey
By interl0per on 8/16/06, Rating: -1
RE: pricey
By rrsurfer1 on 8/17/2006 9:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
1 cent a mile! Spurious? Right. Keep burning your oil.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki