Tesla Motors: Elon Musk's divorce won't sink us

To be fair to them...

...any sports car that's been driven properly* will be pretty f**ked by 100k miles anyway. Hell I know people that have killed engines by 20k

*that means driven like a sports car, not like a fashion accessory.

Performance bootnote

Noting that it is based on a Lotus Elise chassis I've just had a quick look at the spec for the 2011 Lotus Elise. This new model has a top speed of 124mph, a 0-60 of 6.4 seconds all from a 1.6l 6 speed petrol engine at a cost of £26,550. Is it really worth the extra £40,000 or so grand for the Tesla's 'green' credentials?

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/lotus/2011-lotus-elise-ar85080.html - Lotus article if anyone is interested

Never mind Tesla what about Elon Musk's other startup?

Why no story on the register about Falcon 9 today? SpaceX are planning to launch this afternoon between 1500-1900UTC, and there's a live webcast:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php <- For news

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php <- Webcast

Re comment 1

"Audi/BMW/Merc/etc" don't know how to make electric cars. Tesla does. Instead of competing with a Tesla design, it would be cheaper to buy the whole company.

Need infrastructure.

Until you can walk into a "petrol" station, have your old flat battery swapped out and a new full one inserted like a Soda Stream bottle. Until you can get hydrogen as an option for your fuel cell at nearly every pump in the country, electric cars are going nowhere fast.

Once you've got infrastructure, I'm sure people will rush to buy something that's more powerful, more responsive and quieter than what they've got.

Mr Afghanistan Coward here again

For those who still don't see the connection between Afghanistan and fuel, please go read the draft of the US Silk Road Strategy II Bill. It's there in black and white, Afghanistan (at that time) was a vital part of the route from the USA to relatively reliable (ie non-Arab?) bulk oil and gas. And the belief that Afghanistan has oil and gas of its own is now widespread.

Meanwhile, the 75 mile thing. Yes, a one car household might be a bit restricted if their sole car couldn't do 75 miles. How likely is it that this car (or any near-term EV) is going to be a household's sole car. So, where's the range problem?

It's all largely irrelevant anyway, this Tesla thing is so niche it's beyond belief.

Meanwhile, where's the reporting on what happened to LDV's Electric Maxus? A tried tested and proven commercial vehicle, in lithium-ion powered electric form still ideal for lots of fleet and single-van uses, nearly ready to hit the streets, except there was no cash flow available.

Lord "Two Resignations" Mandelson of Ill Repute was in charge of the relevant department at the time and refused the short term funding. Must be one of the few times he's said no to an Eastern oligarch.

1 tonne payload

100 miles range

Lithium Ion battery

4 hour recharge

60kWs motor

http://www.ldvgb.com/electric_maxus.asp

Ekectric cars

Batteries, of whatever ilk, are highly toxic. They also require a great deal of energy levels to manufacture so:

1) Disposing of them [a car (ATM) has plenty] is a problem indeed

2) The energy required to create electric cars is mostly disproportionate to what they are capable of, as is the price.

Some of the European manufacturers, Audi, BMW, Mercedes amongst them, are doing great things with current technology, principally diesel. Porsche (part of VW nowadays) has just shown a "supercar", and what a one, at Geneva which has better fuel characteristics than that "benchmark", the Toyota Prius which to my mind is nothing short of a marketing exercise.

if all else

it brings it back out into the public that taxpayers that can barely afford to put food on the table are backing companies like this with their money.

we can never begin to see a 'free market' while we have tax dollars seized without a vote of the people to go to these corporations. we also can't have social programs but that's a seperate issue.

perhaps Tesla needs more tax money.

To answer all your concerns:

1) Electric is developing tech. It'll get better, and compared to how long it took to refine the petrol engine, it's doing very well so far.

2) For real world use, you can combine electric engine with a petrol generator for longer journeys, a la the Chevy Volt. Gives you range when you need it and efficiency when you don't.

3) If you lead a wacky lifestyle that means you travel hundreds of miles a day, that just means the car's not for you. It doesn't mean it's not for anyone. Even thinking that that is a useful argument is astonishing.

4) If you drive 30 miles a day all year except for one or two holidays, consider hiring a fossil fuel car when you need it. You don't need the capacity to drive hundreds of miles all the time. Or have one fossil fuel car and one electric. The general public has had access to cars for barely any time historically, and already we can't imagine any way of life other than what we've copied from others?

Alternative, not replacement

The average length of a commute is only relevant if you want everybody to have one. A lot of people seem to be arguing that because an electric vehicle can't do everything that any ic vehicle can it is therefore useless. The relatively long refuel time and short run time is only relevant if you need 99% up time and have no alternative transport. A Tesla fire truck might not be a good idea for instance. However, a large number of people have a relativity small commute and have an alternative vehicle should one be required. They could have small electric vehicle which they use to drive to work, probably in town, and occasionally nip to the shops etc. Any other trips can be made using their other car or truck or whatever. That may be a worthwhile lifestyle choice for those people that fit the demographic and it would indisputably bring some advantages.

Stating that the whole market for electric vehicles is worthless because as an individual you personally do not fit into this group and can therefore demonstrate that it would not suit you is clearly ridiculous. You might as well say there is no market for heavy goods vehicles because you never have to carry 40 tonnes and a Scania is far more expensive to run that your Mini.

Why electrics will eventually fail

The problem with electric cars is what happens when the battery runs flat. Today when your fuel tank gets low you go to a petrol station, stuff in the nozzle and in a very short time you are refulled and ready to rock.

The Public want's whatever replaces fossil fuels to do the same.

The only answer (currently) is hydrogen, drive up to a fill point, connect the pipe and fill up. Hydrogen can be stored, so you would use your renewable power sources (turbines, solar, tidal etc) to create the hydrogen.

Sorted. No heavy expensive batteries to worry about

Limited!?

125 mph. (ca. 200kmph)

Pathetic. I will stick to my infernal combustion motor until they work this type of thing out, and yes I do drive much faster than this on a regular basis (Autobahn.) Looks like we are in the trough of disillusionment folks.

Always?

"such speeds are always illegal "

I think you need to insert some qualification there. They are almost always illegal on public roads - there are a few places still around the world which have no speed limits. Such speeds are neither illegal or irrelevant on a race track and guess what, a significant number of sports car drivers enjoy the occasional track day.

But relevance is subjective. Most (and by that I mean 99%) of performance car buyers would not buy a car which could not keep up with an Astra estate, even if the situation would probably never arise the sort of driver who buys a flash car doesn't want to know that their neighbour's diesel estate can go faster.

And the Tesla fails miserably on the track on three counts, firstly on its woeful top speed. Secondly on it's ridiculous range. And thirdly on its tyres. Firstly what use is supercar acceleration if you get reeled in by the following pack before the end of the straight. Secondly having driven to my favourite track I could probably only manage about ten laps of the circuit. Even on a full charge it wouldn't manage much over twenty.

Thirdly supercar acceleration may be great, but you'd have to rely on it if your car was fitted with tyres that required you to tip toe round the bends. It needs those tyres to achieve the feeble range it struggles to. Fit the wider, stickier tyres you need to make it usable (and indeed fun) on a track and it's range gets even shorter. A track day is just that - a day at the track. In a Tesla unless you have a support truck loaded with batteries you wouldn't get much over a track hour. Even if a sports car owner doesn't actually do any track days they probably like the idea that they could do one if they wanted. What's the point of buying a sports car that, to all intents and purposes, can't?

Its many limitations: range, speed and cornering grip relegate it to the status of an image car. What used to be known as a hairdressers car. But the thing about a good hairdressers car is that it's cheap. Sure it looks like a real sports car, but it can't do everything that a much, much cheaper sports car can and so it isn't a real sports car. Perhaps in a country with an unhealthy obsession with standing start 1/4 mile times it makes sense. On a continent with the Stelvio pass and the Nurburgring it doesn't.

As for developing a four seater, don't make me laugh. They didn't develop a two seater. They took an existing two seater and developed a conversion kit. Sure they could take an existing four seater platform and convert that, but then so could anybody else. The Roadster was developed in a very different economic climate to the one we live in today, as such I think the company need to be thinking very differently. Perhaps about building something that costs a lot less than $100K.

I've often wondered if the business plan was to get bought out. The trouble is they haven't actually got anything unique and patented that anybody would need to build a successful EV. So why would anybody need to buy them? The car industry is not doing well, who would buy such an enormous debt unless it came with a massive order book (it doesn't) or some patented technology that the buyer needed to go forward in a particular market (it doesn't).

Run out of battery? Not a problem

There is a lot of negativity here about how much less suitable electric power is than the internal combustion engine. hey seem to forget that the current systems and infrastructure have been growing organically and naturally over the the last century or so.

Most of the problems of running an electric car are soluble. If you run out of power, for instance, the roadside assistance could bring out a battery pack trailer that you tow home and they take away again. You wouldn't need to wait 8 hours while it charges up. All these problems are soluble given enough of a market.

It's all very well criticising the Tesla but it has certainly moved the argument forward. Can you imagine ten years ago anyone would be saying that a commercially available electric car would not be quite as good as a super car for some track day fun?