Talk:Tesla Roadster (first generation)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Replacing the battery set

How difficult is it to replace the battery set? Can it be done out of the factory with just, say forklifts or simple cranes? How much time would it take? The article is very informative on the battery, but still misses to describe this detail. I'm asking because IMHO the only technological issue that needs to be adressed, if the concept of an electric car is to make the gasoline a thing of the past worldwide is the range. And the simple solution might be to design a standardised battery for all electric cars (or at least batteries consisting of standardised parts) that could be quickly replaced with a fully charged one at the gas station (or rather a recharging point). You'd pay for the electricity spent to charge the battery + service cost + a cost of a brand new battery/the maximum number of charges during average battery lifetime (for amortisation). Your old battery would be plugged in to recharge by the gas station crew and once charged could be "leased" to other car owners that need a "refill". Gas stations would have to be properly equipped to change the set quickly, supplied with quite a few charged batteries in advance for reserve and - be dense enough to cover the entire road network. That would eliminate the 3+ hours of mandatory car inactivity needed for recharging. Since Tesla Motors plans to, in addition to the Roadster, produce lower cost vehicles based on similar technology for middle class market as well, this might be a thing they might consider incorporating into the design (if they hadn't already, of course).

The question of ease of battery replacement might also be interesing to those who entertain a thought of having a simmilar arrangement at their home garages before the whole aforementioned system becomes operational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.69 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Two blog postings at teslamotors.com might be useful for you:

• Mythbusters Part 3: Recycling our Non-Toxic Battery Packs (March 11th, 2008)
• The Most Coddled Automotive Battery Ever? (August 8th, 2007)

Both of these blog entries contain a huge amount of information about the battery, including how they got the battery into the car in the first place, and presumably how it can be changed out at the end of its life cycle. If you are interested in some details about the batteries of the Roadster, these are some very excellent places to start that also have some outstanding images with them showing the composition of the battery from the inside.

Another blog entry that isn't so heavily focused on the batteries can be found at Smarter Charging. Some of the responses in these blog posts may also be of interest, as they do go into some general details about the batteries as well and fill in some remaining gaps in what may be covered in the article. I hope this helps. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a P.S. to this, you may want to also check out the white paper called The Tesla Roadster Battery System (a pdf file). This is a dated but informative paper about the battery system. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thnx 4 the info. I was pleasently surprised to see that one person on the blog had the same idea as myself :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.164 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Better Place is working to create a commercial network of standardized battery swap stations (but they don't discuss the fact that home garages become extremely economical "fueling" stations for battery electric vehicles and give a "full tank" every morning). Tesla Motors, however, has not discussed making battery swaps by outside technicians an option for the Tesla Roadster and so it's probably a discussion best left to another article. --Mwarren us (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the price of the battery replacement. Someone added an estimated price of 20000 USD. This is misleading, since (if I remember correctly) Tesla gives a warrenty for the battery over the first I-don't-remember-thousand miles. Am I wrong? I thought this was covered in the article but I can't find that piece of informaion now. Could someone add it, maybe? Thanks, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Splette, I added the US cost estimate and another reference for it's source. Tesla Motors does provide a 3 year/36,000 mile warranty on the Roadster with an optional 4 year/50,000 mile extended warranty at an "additional cost" (2008 Roadster Club members receive the 4/50 extension at no cost while later purchasers need to pay). Tesla's article "A Bit About Batteries" discusses why both calendar life and cycle life are important for current li-ion chemistry. The warranty likely specifies more specific conditions under which Tesla will replace the ESS at their cost; however, the publicly stated estimate of 80% 70% capacity after 100,000 50,000 miles of driving seems to place the expected life of the ESS well outside of both the 3/36 and 4/50 warranties. Because the expected life of the ESS exceeds the warranties, discussion of replacement cost seemed appropriate. Perhaps more details are needed to avoid misleading readers? [Edit my comment to match reference in article]

Discussion of replacement costs should also bear in mind that both technology advances and inflation will work to drive down the actual cost of replacing the ESS. In 5 years, the next ESS may cost only $10k, offer five times longer life, have twice the range and deliver double the power (believe in science!). The USD$20,000 estimate reflects only current technology and pricing. --Mwarren us (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Price could go up too, they could switch to NanoSafe batteries or something that is more expensive. 80% after 100,000 miles is not bad and the article should say that. Right now it seems to suggest that the battery is fit for the bin after 100k, while in reality you could probably get close enough to 200k before things really start to suck. Towel401 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Tesla is more likely to market their own batteries before they start purchasing from other minor suppliers like Altair. Tesla makes their own battery cores from major manufacturers of standard Li-ion cells. There are a number of reasons they did this, but a primary reason was due to the fact they didn't have reliable suppliers when Tesla was trying to come up with the design of the Roadster. The reason Tesla is hoping that the price of the batteries is going to go down has to do with substantially expanded economies of scale due to increasing numbers of electric vehicles on the road (including many more Tesla vehicles), and the fact that until now there has been no serious applied science directed toward electric automotive batteries beyond a few minor research projects. A great many of the previous electric automobiles including the EV-1 used lead-acid batteries.... hardly a ground breaking battery technology. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that no one seems to have added the replacement cost of the battery pack into the effective fuel economy of the vehicle. With such a large expected cost, it would seem appropriate to consider it a consumable, just like gasoline in normal cars. If you figure 100,000 miles as the lifespan of the battery back and $20,000 as the cost, you're looking at a pro-rated cost of 5 miles per dollar. If gasoline goes back up to $3 per gallon, that makes the Tesla get an equivalent of 15 mpg not including the cost of the electricity during charging. From a purely economic aspect, it does not seem all that efficient. Of course, for a true cost of ownership figure, one would need to factor in a lot more items -- ICE (life expectancy of engine, cost to overhaul engine, oil changes and costs, etc) vs electric (life expectancy of motors, cost to overhaul motors, other maintenance specific to electrical vehicles). Still, I do not think that it is reasonable that people seem to gloss over this aspect of the equivalent fuel economy with respect to electrically powered vehicles. Grumman581 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the battery pack as a consumable is precisely the rationale behind Better Place's business model; they consider both electricity and the battery pack together as the fuel cost! Better Place will front the initial cost of the battery pack in return for a contract that locks the the customer into paying for miles driven at a rate that's profitable (and more than just the battery+electricity costs).

I have added a sentence in the monetary equivalence section that includes the battery pack replacement cost using Tesla's $12,000 fee for a replacement in 7 years and assuming 100k miles driven over those 7 years. The example is intentionally naive to avoid confusion; it does not include time value of money calculations, technology advances, economies of scale nor any other complicating inputs. —sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Price

Will someone please provide a price within +/- 20% or better? Not providing even the "ballpark" cost of the vehicle is a major oversight! (72.211.222.127 (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

The current price for a 2009 model year vehicle is USD $109,000. Tesla requires $5k to "lock in the price" and an addition $55k to lock in a production/delivery date that can be deferred if you want to wait a little longer, with "cash on delivery" when you actually get the vehicle.

Options including paint color choices and factory installed interior features can be found on this spec sheet.

Keep in mind that this price, plus options, doesn't cover sales taxes, registration fees, or other taxes usually associated with automotive purchases. But is that a good enough "ballpark" range to note how much this vehicle will cost? The 2008 model year vehicles cost something on the order of about $95k each, but all of those vehicles have already been sold some time ago. I'm not exactly sure where it would be appropriate to add this information into the article, however. Reference details about this price can be found at http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/resyourcar.php --Robert Horning (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The price of the Roadster has long been maintained in the Tesla_Roadster#Sales section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarren us (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert/update efficiency units to mpgge

The standardized method for expressing the tank-to-wheels fuel efficiency of an alternative fuel vehicle is in units of miles per gallon gasoline equivalent or mpgge. The use of this abbreviation is used throughout the automotive industry, including government, educational/research, and consumer organizations. The following list provides a brief set of examples of the standardized use of mpgge.

• Argonne National Laboratory
• U.S. DOE office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
• California Energy Commission
• Consumers Union
• Society of Automotive Engineers
• Green Car Congress
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
• EcoCAR: The NeXt Challenge
• Illinois River Energy
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
• University of Wisconsin

I propose that this article follow this standard, and use the mpgge method of reporting efficiency for a non gasoline fueled vehicle.Something Original (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The merge request for the two overlapping articles Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent and Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent should help to decide which abbreviation should be used. My preference is for MPGe because it more clearly shows the affiliation with MPG. mpgge hides the association; MPGge would be a better choice as it retains the association with MPG. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that as mpgge is a relatively young set of units when compared to mpg, there may be members of the general public who do not immediately associate mpgge with mpg. However, the main point that I am advocating is using mpgge as this is the standardized method. I believe that as alternative fuel vehicles move further into the mainstream, the units of mpgge will become more widely used and understood by the general public. However, if it provides more clarity (and because neither mpg or mpgge are SI units), I do not see any problems with using MPGge v. either MPGGE, mpgge, or even mpg_ge. This is more of a style, or preference issue, just as the kilowatt-hour is often reported as kWh, kW h, or kW·h.Something Original (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw another option into the mix, I notice that the DOE's Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Vehicle Testing group uses the abbreviation "mile/gge" in their reports. The mpg_ge abbreviation (that's my preferred format) and alternates also prevent using the very useful {{mpg}} template. Whichever alternate is chosen in the merger, a new template needs to be constructed, probably based on Template:mpg. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Switching to use mpg_ge seems to have reached consensus as this discussion seems to have quiesced. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Lede images are usually resized to around ~300px. In this case, this also helps with the infobox length, in that it prevents the labels from line-wrapping. However, a change I made was reverted. I think the bigger image should be put back - thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote goes for the wider lede image. I liked the shorter infobox with less line wrapping. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous comparisons should better go from this article!

> "profoundly humbling to just about any rumbling Ferrari or Porsche that makes the mistake of pulling up next to a silent, 105-mpg Tesla Roadster at a stoplight." <

Just you know, Ferrari is already building the prototype of Ferrari Florence, a petite, ultralight sportscar with a variable displacement 2,2 liters V6. The thing looks quite like the old model 206 (sexy, sexy, sexy).

Tesla is more or less a fiscal fraud, just like the Moller flying car scam. On the other hand, Ferrari has been producing 5,000+ legendary sportcars per year for six decades now. Not in the same league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have more references regarding Tesla's "fiscal fraud"? Should they be covered in this article? Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A) That was a QUOTE from a REVIEW, and thus has every right to be in the article; B) You oughtn't compare it to the Moller Flying Car, as this, despite durability and cost issues, actually EXISTS IN WORKING FORM; C) You shouldn't be so rude. -guest

B-class rating feedback?

I notice that this article received a B-class rating from the Automobile WikiProject. Where can the feedback and or assessment be found so that improvements suggested can be added to the article? Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere, I am afraid. Some editor from the Automobile WikiProject simply assessed the article and gave it a rating. Only the higher ratings Ga and FA involve a more formal process where uninvolved editors look into the issue and make suggestions for improvement. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tesla Motors gets government loan

link Grundle2600 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

added at Tesla Motors. Also (already) covered at Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. Rd232 ^talk 21:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed audia file under Performance

People laughing. Utterly irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.173.67 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 September 2009

It is the sound of an actual Tesla Roadster accelerating away. You can just about hear the whistle of the motor, but granted it is rather drowned out by people laughing. Edvvc (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New kind of battery could give Tesla Roadster 700 mile range.

gas2.org just reported, "Researchers have found a way to create a battery out of Nickel and Lithium that can store more than 3.5 times the energy of lithium-ion batteries and are much safer to boot.. Imagine if that Tesla Roadster had 1000 pounds of Ni-Li batteries in it—that’s a 700 mile range. Certainly an improvement, no? Now we just need to figure out how to fully charge it in a reasonable time—on a standard household outlet it would take the better part of three days."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lithium-ion battery article has a section on these new nickel-lithium batteries as well as pointers to promising research using silicon nanowire anodes (10x greater capacity) and germanium nanowire anodes (7x greater capacity) . Hopefully one or more of these will reach production and then be adopted into the Tesla Roadster so that they can be added to the article. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The important question is NOT to further increase energy density (as suggested above) if at the same time the rechargeability cannot be maintained or even increased. Cycling stability (or capacity degradation over time) is the main problem of electrochemical energy storage following the physical rules of system entropy. With increasing energy density of a system the number of full deep cycles normally decrease and also the self discharge becomes more pertinent. This can already be seen from the guarantee TESLA provides: it just goes to 3 years. It is in fact the cycling instability (with 25 to 40% capacity loss over 3 years) that limits the expectations from Li-ion batteries of the laptop type as anybody can experience it himself. In the next few years we will see more disappointments on lost driving range, i.e. capacity loss, and also on unavoidable accidents due to uncontrolled overcharge of the battery. Imagine: 6830 cells in the package of which a few ones can degrade and create severe problems. Only the driving experience will put such cars to reality and NOT to Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDB196 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 December 2009

Citation 75

Perhaps this is minor, but what is Wikipedia's policy on citing admitted speculation among quasi-anonymous members of Internet forums? I ask because source 75, for example, cites as a credible source a forum poster going by the name of "tonybelding" -- credited as "Belding, Tony" in the citation, as if there is any guarantee that this is an actual person with relevant credentials and information -- who admits to speculation regarding the ESS battery. Again, this might be minor but perhaps with reviewing this and others gleaned from quasi-anonymous Internet forum speculation.--Chipdouglas (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How fast?

Shouldn't the article give info on the vehicle's max speed?

...btw, this discussion page is way too long, at least 3 times longer than the article itself.

EDIT: never mind, it's under "performance". Still, it should be easier to find.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 December 2009

I've set up automatic archiving for the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Roadster v. 2.5

I jumped to the official Tesla website and it announced the Roadster v. 2.5. I'm thinking for a minute.... WTF? I know that the drive train was updated and called v. 1.5, but I wasn't aware of model versions being labeled like computer software.

I guess it would figure for a company like Tesla to throw out the concept of a model year, but instead do "revision" numbering instead. More to the point.... is there some kind of comparison between the different model versions in terms of specs, and does this "version 2.5" really mean much of anything other than it is just an upgrade to the Roadster? It still is the same car, but I don't see any mention in this article about the different model version numbers, and certainly nothing that would reference a "version 2.0" or anything else like that. I don't even know where to stick this "fact" into this article either. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, after 2012 they are ending their contract with Lotus, and designing an entirely new convertible ("Roadster") based on the Model S which they will manufacture at the NUMMI facility. I wonder what they'll name that version? I would have named it the Roadster 2.0, and this Lotus-built incremental upgrade 1.8 or something, but that's just me. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would find it hard to believe that Tesla would give up a profitable product line without something else to take its spot in the high end, high performance sports car market. I know Tesla has been increasing its in-house manufacturing capabilities, and the basic design and form of the Roadster is something that Tesla has full control over in terms of intellectual property concerns. Lotus derived parts are relatively few, and the final assembly for the Roadster has been happening in California for quite some time now. The real issue for Tesla is to fulfill the contract with Lotus without having to pay a financial penalty for canceling the contract.

Speaking from the perspective of writing this article, it would seem reasonable to mention some production variants and how this vehicle has evolved over the course of its production. This is done for other vehicle articles on Wikipedia, and if there is a distinction of "Version 2.5" it would be nice to know what "Version 2.0" really was or if something like that ever existed in the first place. Is this something stamped on the VIN nameplate or is this something done more internally to Tesla? What kinds of changes have been made between each version and is it something cosmetic or something more involved? Obviously there have been changes to the transmission, and some discussion about the battery pack has been made by Tesla over the years too (particularly by Martin Eberhard). Is there something else that I'm missing here, and where might some good sources of information about these different production models be found? --Robert Horning (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best source of that kind of information I've found is Tesla Motors Club, but that forum is clearly not Wikipedia reference quality. I doubt we'll find a ref to 2.0, and Eberhard took down his blog long ago. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 production versions of the car released 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5, each edition created changes in the power train, PEM and interior/exterior styling components. I will start creating a list here of what was different in the versions to eventually be moved into the article when it is complete.

Version 1.0

• Engineering Prototype 5
• Validation Prototype 17

Version 1.5

• founders series 27
• signature series 100
• Production series 400

Version 2.0 VIN#'s 501-?

• New Motor design
• New PEM design
• Introduction of Sport model
• VDS moved from left to center console
• Push button shifting replaced lever shift knob
• Replaced tach meter with kW power meter.

Version 2.5 Vin#'s ?-2500

• Double DIN dashboard NAV upgrade option

In July 2010, Tesla introduced the "Roadster 2.5", the latest update of the Roadster. New features in Roadster 2.5 include:

• A new look, which includes a new front fascia with diffusing vents, and rear diffuser reflecting the future of Tesla design
• Directional forged wheels available in both silver and black
• New seats with improved comfort, larger more supportive bolsters and a new lumbar support system
• Power control hardware that enables spirited driving in exceptionally hot climates
• An optional 7" touchscreen display with back-up camera
• Improved interior sound reduction including new front fender liner material make the cabin quieter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frequencydip (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Roadsters shipped by Geo Region

• North America 1464
• Europe 799
• Asia 237

Stupidity

"The Roadster does not actually use gasoline"

D'uh! --213.130.254.20 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain.... or explain why you can't re-word this? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the wording. When it is taken out of context it looks bad, but in actuality it is being used to explain why determining a petroleum equivalent efficiency is complex. --Leivick (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, Leivick. Taken in context, this is perhaps the best wording for the basic idea that is being attempted here at least trying to explain the MPG equivalence. I just didn't think I needed to spend a paragraph explaining myself to what looked like it was a troll trying to be a gadfly and failing in the process. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the IP. The sentence as it stands is banal in the extreme. "Automobile efficiency is currently measured in terms of miles travelled per litre of fuel consumed. The Roadster's efficiency in those terms can be calculated by converting the energy contained within one litre of fuel into electrical energy" or such would be a much better way of handling it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)