TESLA ROADSTER

This will be unsafe. They're so quiet that no one knows they're coming down the road. A kid might run into the road going after a ball not hearing a car is there and then, BAM!!! Now if it was an F50 with an MS Racing exhaust, the kids would be afraid to go on the road 5 minutes before the car ever arrived.

 

I don't know why some of you guys are trashing this. I think it's great, if you don't like it don't buy it.

 

I would've thought that the price alone is proof this is not an inexpensive technology (and money = fossil fuel in our civilization), but please go to wikipedia and search on "Lithium Ion" and "Lithium Polymer" and read those for a starter.
Additionally, this is not some simple battery connected by two wires and a switch to an electric motor. It requires a very complicated and expensive power distribution/control module that is prone to catching on fire (as are the batteries themselves) -- and, if you want to get that 100K miles done, you better do it in a hurry . GT Fan said it perfectly -- "It is a huge non-breakthrough".

Aruna --- you only got 2 out of 5 right -- not only do we need coal (or natural gas) burning power plants to convert fossil fuel eventually into the money that sustains you, solar and wind power are both energy-losers that release more pollutants and require more fossil fuel to be burned than necessary. The "dream" is always that "someday" they will be "renewable" (i.e., save more energy than they cost), but this will never occur. Will you go on record as saying WHEN solar and/or wind power will be cheaper (and, therefore, less polluting) than burning the fossil fuell directly? I say "never"...

 

Apparently lotus helped out-I thought it looked alot like a lotus inside and out. Not sure I'd want to pay 95k for it (I'd just buy a lotus!) but I like the fact that it can drive without gas and still be fast and nimble. Apparently the inventor is an electrical engineer and it uses thousands of lithium ion batteries (like laptops) very cool

As for safety concerns those batteries aren't safe or enviro friendly either though

 

Currently coal and natural gas plants give us the electricity to print paper money, but this hasn't always been the case (we've gotten by without paper money before). And they could always go to hydro or cleaner power to make the money, so I don't even think that's an issue. Who's going to walk into a dealership and give 100,000 in cash to get this car? You write a check, it gets tranferred, etc. The money's all in electronic form now anyway. I haven't gotten paid in cash in a long time, and when I spend money, it's almost never in cash, and never in the amount I received from working. You swipe that debit card, you rack up that credit card and so on. Of course, when you withdraw that money it's tangible, but how often do you have a million in cash lying around? But I'll agree with you that printing money is currently a product of burning fossil fuels to get that tangible paper, but it could change if necessary.

Solar and wind power are cheaper when the initial cost is paid off for these technologies. I'll say solar and wind power will be cheaper for the general populace when we get to the point of diminishing returns when it cost more to get fossil fuel out of the earth than it does now, or when we run out of fossil fuels.. As to timeframe, I have no clue, which is, I think, what you want. Will it happen in our lifetimes? Who knows. What about hydro power? Is the Hoover Dam releasing more pollutants than a coal burning plant?

I'm curious as to why you think solar and wind release more pollutants than burning fossil fuel? Are you assuming because of the cost of creating such items such as solar panels and wind turbines that we burn fossil fuels to create these items? I currently agree with that assessment, but you have to get to a point where the survival of such technologies will outlast that of our oil extraction from the Earth, and we'll use solar panels to create the electricity to create more solar panels.. Then, wouldn't that be truly green? Of course you have to mine metals and items, but ultimately if you have a source of electrical power, you could do that. Electrical high torque motors manufactured in a solar powered manufacturing facility, which is used to mine metals to create vehicles or solar panels or alternative energy items.

We don't necessarily need gasoline engines in the future polluting our environment, we just use them now because that's what the majority of our society revolves around for energy. Wouldn't you love to be able to go outside in an urban environment and not see the pollution hanging in the air? I'm sure you would, that's a rhetorical question. All that visible pollution can be offset, from EVs, to cleaner power plants.

And that's why I think the Tesla Roadster is a step in the right direction. Someone has to take than initial leap of faith to provide society with an alternative, whether it be ready right now, or ready in the near future. For those of us that would like a nonpolluting vehicle, I would imagine the vehicles that Telsa hopes to produce in the future will be cheaper for the general population. We gearheads and speed junkies will get our fix whichever way it comes.

Uhm, this is a long reply, so I hope most of it makes sense.

 

Aruna -- You're not understanding my point. It's not the physical making of the money that uses the fossil fuel, it's that X amount of money is equivalent to X amount of fossil fuel -- for example, if you have a gov't job and work at a desk, the money to pay your salary still comes from someone, somewhere burning fossil fuels and consuming other natural resources in activities that give the money value. The fact that the person at the desk is not actually shoveling the coal into the powerplant does not change the fact that they are directly benefitting from the burning of that fuel.

I really can't explain it any more clearly -- both wind and solar are more costly $-wise than just burning the fossil fuel directly; therefore, they consume more fossil fuel (and release more pollutants) than just burning the fossil fuel directly to make electricity. Forgive me, but your statement that "Solar and wind power are cheaper when the initial cost is paid off for these technologies" is just total BS -- nice sentiment, but total BS.

No need to argue -- have a nice life...

 

nice car too bad its electric

 

My opinion fwiw, this particular car will not do well. Estimated price on this car is said to be around $95-$100K and you're getting 250 miles per charge. That means in California, if you wanted to go to Vegas, you're screwed! Also, where the hell do you "fill her up" err..umm, charge her up within those 250 miles? Great idea but, I feel this venture will not be successful. It's a roadster and you can't make plans on the weekends like you'd normally will on a roadster? Nope, won't work.

 

Ah, well that clears it up a bit for me.

Well, I wouldn't call it arguing, because you make some good points, and I think both sides in a discussion can be productive..

But is it BS? Let's thing small. You buy some rechargeable batteries and a solar power battery charger. Initial cost, what, something like 50 bucks? Maybe less now. A pack of AAs, $10. So to actually break even, you'd have to go through 5 packs of AAs. After that, your solar powered batteries are in essence, free. You're gaining free energy from the sun, and you won't have to replace your batteries for a much longer period. Can you point to someplace that says that solar and wind are not cheaper? I'm interested to see that side of this discussion.

I think, for a comparable price difference, solar and wind can have advantages, but like you said, only if the price is significantly less than what it is now. Oil is much cheaper, even when you factor in the amount of gas you'd use over the life of the vehicle (Elise vs Tesla, for example).

 

I think one of the issues is that "fuel consumption" is not so much being eliminated, as it is simply being "moved" elsewhere. At some point you must recharge all those batteries, so you plug into a 'charger'. The charger is connected to an electric utility, which gets its power from some fossil source such as coal or oil (or in a few cases a nuke). So fossil fuels are still being consumed, somewhere in the "power chain"......

It does seem to be an interesting step in the right direction (conservation of resources), but initially at a high cost (in so many ways, both visible and subtle)...

James

PS you could power a nice MP3 system with recordings of your favorite Ferrari, to overcome the electric motor hum/whine......

 

You guys are trying to make this way to practical... the people buying this are not getting it as their only car. It will be a fashion/political statement, and they will pay $100,000 for the same reason they pay $1000 for a pair of shoes.

 

Well said.

I think it's funny that the man responsible for making the Hummer publicly available is now seen riding around in one of these. Now that's a statement!

 

And by fashion/political you mean Hollywood and just like a pair of $1000 shoes, Hollywood will grow weary and buy the next best thing i.e. Ferrari, Lambo or even the YES! Roadster(if it comes here). However, let me rephrase what I said on my first post. I think the concept of making the Tesla Roadster is great. They want to "overly price" the roadster in order to pay for the developments and make way for a more main stream/mass produced EV's i.e. mini vans, sedans, suv etc.etc. but, the problem, IMO, is that after Tim Robbins, a few members of the gay/lesbian communities (this is not an insult) and a few democrats in California, buy these cars, who else would be left to pay $80K-$120K for a weekend toy that in reality, is less convenient than the Lotus Elise which is about half the price of the Tesla?

Although Lotus is a great car, the honeymoon is over and it's not like they're flying off the shelves. Again, my opinion, fwiw is that it's a great idea but, if you listen to the chairman, their main goal is to fund the projects of making a more affordable mainstream vehicle for the masses and I don't see them being able to generate "ENOUGH" cash flow in order to accomplish what they really want.

 

Some of the people in this thread seem to think that electricity magically comes out of the wall.

In fact, every method of generating electricity has some sort of environmental drawback. Take hydropower, for instance. Opponents complain that it's bad for fish, and destroys the scenic beauty of wild rivers. Only a few years ago, the federal government was talking about destroying several hydro facilities in the northwest because they were ugly and "we don't need the power."

Windmills-- hazardous to birds, eyesore. Solar panels-- eyesore, probably hazardous to some life forms that I don't know about. Nuclear-- that pesky waste issue. And on and on...

Is an electric motor/battery combination inherently more efficient than an internal combustion engine, holding all the other factors constant? A good comparison might be the Tesla versus an Elise. I don't know the answer-- the electric motor might actually be more efficient, although I doubt if it could beat a smart hybrid setup.

 

I enjoy the electric "whine"

 

What I found intriguing was the solar panel option to make it a net producer of energy. That fixes your LA-Vegas problem. However, solar panels are ugly, but maybe if they made them easily removable. Then you could use them for long trips, or leave them on when you aren't driving to charge the car up. That would make it much more green.

Anyway, I think I might get one. That way I can offset my Hummer but not feel like a dweeb like if I was driving a butt-ugly Prius...

 

No, it doesn't. It would need a solar panel many, many, many, many times bigger than the car to provide enough power to propel the car.

 

Folks, no matter what your current disposition to this car, you should tip your hat to the free market system. There is NO government mandate forcing this car on the market. View it as a MK-1 MOD-0 iteration and expect enhancement in the MOD-1-n iterations.