Tesla Roadster Birth Watch 7: '08's Not Here, All Gone

It's really hard to care about this car at this point - extremely expensive, mostly pointless, not even in production

Twice delayed. By my count, the Roadster's schedule has slipped twice since it was announced, not three times. (I've tried to correct this before, but TTAC never seems to get it straight.) The current schedule calls for "maybe" producing a few cars before Jan 1. But remember, once built it takes a few weeks to put them on a boat from England to the USA and then deliver them. The first roughly 25 or so are the "founders series" which go to the company's top officers, major investors, and a few special individuals such as the Governator. Still waiting for TTAC to correct previous errors and blatant bias in reporting. Let's look at the record, shall we? ". . .it doesn’t have room for a suitcase or a couple of bags of groceries." Not true. It's small, but not that small. "Replacement battery pack price is unknown." Estimated $12,000 according to Tesla -- keeping in mind we're still five years away from any of them needing replacement, so it's subject to the changing price of Li-ion cells. "Safety is unknown." It's been fully crash-tested, and the battery has been designed to survive a cell catching fire without ensuing drama. "The dirty little 'secret' in Tesla’s closet: li-ion batteries start losing capacity from the get-go." It's no secret, this has been told by Tesla since day one. "Would you purchase a sports car that can only drive 90 miles between 12 hour recharges?" EPA range is 245 miles, recharge time is 3.5 hours. ". . .if one of its batteries ignites, it could cause a virtually unstoppable series of fires and/or explosions." Tesla designed it specifically to prevent this, and then set cells on fire to demonstrate that it worked as intended. "But the end result won’t change: a ludicrously expensive (if fast) EV with serious range and safety issues." It's much less expensive than other performance cars that TTAC reports on without resorting to such comments. 245 miles range doesn't seem like a serious problem to me. TTAC hasn't explained why the Roadster is any less safe than gasoline-powered cars in a similar category. The irony here is that TTAC has been working so hard to dream up insinuations and negative conjecture that they've sailed blithely past real problems that Tesla has had to deal with -- like the persistent transmission problems, and their attempts to get an exemption from the advanced airbag requirements for 2008.

tonybelding :

Normally, TTAC doesn’t allow accusations of bias against the website, due to their incendiary effects. I usually delete all such comments and attempt to initiate a private email conversation about our editorial stance and/or style. In this case, I’m going to let it slide. Clearly, you’re not happy with our reporting on the Tesla Roadster, and I don’t want you or anyone else to think TTAC is engaged in an anti-EV vendetta.

Now, to answer (or un-spin) your observations…

1. By my count, the Roadster’s schedule has slipped twice since it was announced, not three times.

Since the Roadster was officially announced, there have been three different delivery dates. Here’s the exact time line:

1) At official unveiling, the company promised to deliver the Roadster in mid-’07
2) In April ‘07, Daryl Siry moved the delivery date to Oct ‘07
3) In September ‘07, CEO Michael Marks set "a production goal of shipping fifty cars in the first quarter of 2008.”

This time line doesn’t include the Roadsters supposedly due before the end of the year. Should Tesla not deliver these cars, that will make it four missed delivery dates. Oh and there’s also this comment from Autobloggreen, which we’re not counting because we’ve been unable to verify it: “Martin also explains Tesla was delayed a year (from the original schedule) because they added safety equipment to the battery to absorb the heat of a burning cell.”

Suffice it to say even if it’s “just” two delays, the Roadster remains considerably overdue and resolutely under-delivered.

2. The current schedule calls for “maybe” producing a few cars before Jan 1. But remember, once built it takes a few weeks to put them on a boat from England to the USA and then deliver them.

The recent email from Tesla to its potential customers didn’t say “maybe” we’ll deliver a few cars by the end of '07. It said “We expect.” And it didn’t say “We’ll have them on the boat by January.” Sure, the email's weasel words created wiggle room (which brings no honor to the company). But if this objection is any guide, both you and Tesla are guilty of splitting hairs, obfuscation and prevarication.

3. “. . .it doesn’t have room for a suitcase or a couple of bags of groceries.” Not true. It’s small, but not that small.”

In your efforts to discredit TTAC, you’re being pedantic. And you're taking the comment out of context. The actual text:

“Hard-core EV freaks and eco-poseurs are going to love the Tesla, despite the fact it doesn’t have room for a suitcase or a couple of bags of groceries. The Elise, on which the Tesla is based, wasn’t exactly designed for practicality (or 6’4” middle-aged guys like me). Never mind the $100k price.”

I can’t think of any reason why you’d want to defend the day-to-day practicality of a Tesla Roadster. As Mr. Neidermeyer’s quote says, the car’s target market couldn’t give a damn. What the problem?

4. “Replacement battery pack price is unknown.” Estimated $12,000 according to Tesla — keeping in mind we’re still five years away from any of them needing replacement, so it’s subject to the changing price of Li-ion cells.

At the time the quoted comment was written (June ‘07), the battery pack price was unknown. Be that as it may, you’ve answered your own objection. If the Roadster’s batteries are subject to the changing price of Li-Ion cells, their price is unknown. Ipso facto.

5. “Safety is unknown.” It’s been fully crash-tested, and the battery has been designed to survive a cell catching fire without ensuing drama.

We don’t accept ANY manufacturer’s crash data unless it has been independently verified. The gold standard in this regard is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Show me an IIHS crash test rating for Roadster and THEN I'll believe it's safe (if it receives a good or better rating). I’d also suggest you step away from the Kool-Aid long enough to realize that just because a battery has been designed to be safe doesn’t make it so.

6. “The dirty little ’secret’ in Tesla’s closet: li-ion batteries start losing capacity from the get-go.” It’s no secret, this has been told by Tesla since day one.

Again, you’re being disingenuous. The article was referring to the breathless media’s lack of reporting on the Roadster’s inherent limitations.

7. “Would you purchase a sports car that can only drive 90 miles between 12 hour recharges?” EPA range is 245 miles, recharge time is 3.5 hours.

Unbelievable. We were not saying that WAS the Roadster’s range and recharge time. We were asking a hypothetical question, as Tesla has yet to prove either mission critical capability. You say the Roadster will go 245 miles (a meaningless claim without consideration of test conditions) between 3.5-hour recharges. Prove it.

And I urge both you and Tesla to stop using the term "EPA" in this unverified range claim. The EPA doesn't even have a standardized mpg test for EVs. And they have not approved any data submitted by Tesla-- as none has been submitted.

8. “. . .if one of its batteries ignites, it could cause a virtually unstoppable series of fires and/or explosions.” Tesla designed it specifically to prevent this, and then set cells on fire to demonstrate that it worked as intended.

We said it “could” cause a dangerous fire because Li-Ion batteries have been known to ignite and burn dangerously (water actually feeds the fire). Again, simply stating that Tesla designed and tested a system to prevent this eventuality doesn’t pass the smell test. Until and unless an independent agency verifies Tesla’s safety claims, the nature of the Li-ion beast makes the Roadster guilty until proven innocent.

9. “But the end result won’t change: a ludicrously expensive (if fast) EV with serious range and safety issues.” It’s much less expensive than other performance cars that TTAC reports on without resorting to such comments.

I’m amused that you’re attacking this quote on the basis of cost. Nowhere did our writer say that Tesla shouldn’t charge whatever it likes for its car.

As you’re well aware, the point being made: the Tesla Roadster doesn't represent any serious step forwards in the pursuit of a practical, mass-produced EV. And before you go all White Star on me, please don’t expect me to believe in the NEXT car when Tesla can’t even deliver THIS one– even if they’ve hoodwinked New Mexico into enormous tax credits.

The irony here is that TTAC has been working so hard to dream up insinuations and negative conjecture that they’ve sailed blithely past real problems that Tesla has had to deal with — like the persistent transmission problems, and their attempts to get an exemption from the advanced airbag requirements for 2008.

Thanks for the compliment; we do work hard. And thanks for the heads-up on the airbag exemption. It kinda backs-up our statement about safety problems, but we appreciate the tip. If you have any more information about this or any other news about “teething troubles,” please let us know.

Meanwhile, we stand by our coverage.

I for one hope they do succeed. I rode in the thing a little over a month and a half ago, and found the torque and handling extremely impressive--i.e. I didn't die of fright going at ridiculous speeds on the winding roads through the Calif hills as I probably would have in a lesser car. But if I were one of the people interested in buying one, I would find TTAC's reporting to be a valuable service.