(1) look at the GM EV1, their published range was like 50 miles, but a lot of users got 100 miles out of it. Its range was so short because it used lead acid batteries. I think the skeptics are stuck in that era, not believing the Tesla’s range because they are thinking of lead acid batteries. Those are from three generations ago guys. Current technology is lithium ion. It’s $20,000 for a battery pack, but it gives you a lot more range. Now if you go to an electric conversion service, and tell them you want your gasoline powered car converted to electric, they will probably tell you it will have a 50 mile range. That’s because they are using car batteries (lead acid). You can request lithium batteries, to get a 150+ mile range, but like I said, it will be $20,000 just for the batteries. This will eventually change as more electric cars come on the market and lithium ion batteries are produced in much greater quantities.

(2) more importantly…as of today, 20 July 2008, Tesla has already delivered cars to the customers, and the transmission problems are solved. So all of the haters are proven WRONG!!!!!!!!!

GM et al are still using gasoline not because electric can’t work, but because they are doing just fine with gasoline (well, until gasoline got to $4.50+/gallon), and it takes years to develop and deploy a new car when you’re a big company. It’s like phrase famously applied to IBM, “elephants can’t dance”.

Gasoline engines might be more “manly” and electric might be more “nerdy” but electric is still more efficient and ultimately cheaper. Fewer moving parts and more automation makes it easier to make the cars and easier to employ Americans to make them. The Tesla Roadster is made in England, but their next car is going to be made here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Our Governator, Arnold S., made a good tax deal with Tesla to get their assembly plant here (the alternative site was New Mexico).

If Detroit can’t adapt to a superior technology, it is time for them to step out of the way lest they get run over by SILICON VALLEY.

Step off, gearheads and jocks. Computer nerds have proven that we are BETTER!!! revenge of the nerds! lol :-)

The Tesla makes me a proud Silicon Valley resident and a proud AMERICAN!!!!!!!

LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!!!!

Agree with the Leno stuff, good point about films.

You are also correct about the brashness thing. Here is the problem though. It is unethical and foolish. If you have to maximize the performance claims in order to get people to give you deposits and investment so that you can then build the car and test your theory that it will work, then YOU SHOULD NOT DO IT. First, if you fail, you can be rightly called a con artist. Also, if you succeed to a lesser degree, you may still fail because your market forecast depended on the exagerated claims. You now have a working product that no one wants for whatever reasons. No matter what, should anyone be called prejudiced for pointing out the emperor’s lack of clothes. If they are entitled to optimism, then TTAC is entitled to skepticism.

Back to flying cars. It would not be illegal for you to buy one. I can build one, and then sell it to you, unless they find I am building it for the express purpose of selling it to you. It’s a loophole that they constantly police. At any rate, building many of these kits can be done by most people willing to try. If you can fix your car, you can build an aircraft.

We know we can build a roadable aircraft, just like we know we can build electric cars. So, in this perspective you are correct, they are similar attempts. The difference is that you can tell the roadable aircraft scammers right off because they will claim that they can sell a lot more than they likely can if only they can solve a couple of engineering problems. Tesla’s problems will surely be solved, as will one day Moller’s. That will not make them into men of integrity. Had they worked harder, and asked for funding based on solving the problem and THEN using the application, it would be different. Instead they use the smoke and mirrors of the application to keep everyone from analyzing the investment they are really making.

They deserve the drubbing and skepticism.

People should remember that film is inherently a deceptive medium. Once you have created the raw footage, someone sits in an editing suite trying to paste it together in the most convincing way possible, without any particular respect to what actually happened. Time is routinely stretched and shifted in an effort to create an entertaining package.

So you get the impression that Jay spent a lot of time with the car and that impression may well have been wrong. If you watch the video again, look at how uncomfortable Elon Musk was about anyone touching his precious vehicle!

However …. Landcrusher, as you have previously said with considerable frustration on your part, it’s the company that makes the brash claims that gets all the publicity and orders. I think they probably felt that they wouldn’t get anywhere without being brash, and I suspect they are right.

I believe they did some tests that were similar to EPA mileage tests and got the stated range of something like 225 miles, down from 250. If those tests were not conducted in at least a pseudo-honest way, they would not have reduced the range claim. This probably means, then, that 225 miles is a realistic claim for “normal” driving.

You are probably going to say that hey, these cars are designed to be driven aggressively so the 100 mile range auto magazines got is more realistic. But we are trying to get comparable figures here. The Porsche 911 does not get its EPA mileage figures by aggressive driving; it goes through the same automated testing cycle as a Toyota Camry does.

If you put me in a Tesla Roadster, I would start enjoying its performance on one of our bendy roads here and then I’d be stuck in back of a trash truck for 30 miles. My combined economy and range would not be that bad under that real world scenerio! Furthermore, I would most likely have a balance of city, curvy road and highway driving.

On the other hand, if I’m an auto reviewer testing the Tesla, I’m going to be very aggressive in my driving, weight my driving heavily towards totally unused twisty roads and generally behave in the way that would get the worst mileage possible. And I would avoid trash truck routes like the plague.

So in the real world I expect the range to be greater than the buff books gave their drivers, and worse than the official specifications. EPA fuel economy figures, after all, are comparable from car to car, but they are somewhat optimistic in the real world. Tesla’s just doing the same thing.

What I believe is that the Tesla figures have been optimistic, but not outlandish.

It’s not impossible to say that Elon blew $40m plus of his own money, plus his investors’ unknown amount, to make the electric car look like a more viable option than previously thought. If so, it seems to me he’s done a genuine service. Now Chevy has the Volt, and I doubt that they would have without the pressure from Tesla.

I think there’s a difference between being optimistic and being wrong, and out and out lying. As far as I can tell, Tesla is guilty of the former but not the latter, at least concerning the performance of the car.

Finally, that was interesting about flying cars. However, you have basically admitted that those flying cars were kits that were not authorized for retail sale. (The LSA you mention is not legal yet.) It would have been illegal for me to buy an assembled flying car. It’s legal for me to buy an assembled Tesla. So there’s a big difference in terms of the regulatory hurdles.

D

Given all the hurdles you mention, should not have a responsible company been more humble and more cautious with their claims? That is really what this is about. Had the guys at Tesla made less overwhelmingly confident, but took a more cautious marketing approach, then the criticisms might show a prejudice. However, I believe, had Tesla behaved better, the criticism would not have been offered. When a man says he will try to climb everest, he will get less criticism for failure than a man who says he will climb everest, on the first try, and he is looking for a book deal in advance.

I also believe your Jay Leno argument misses the mark. Did he come out in support of the company, or did he just like the car? Did he live with it for a few days, or just go for a spin? Did he believe the hype, or get to test it?

There is one that is a gyrocopter that they will be putting into certification as an LSA you can buy prebuilt. I will have to hunt for the web site, but I have read reviews from credible sources that they operate just fine, and can be licensed as a motorcycle for road use, and an LSA gyro for flight. They look silly though. You basically land, change a gear fitting to disable the pusher prop, and engage the road wheels. You also tie the rotor blades so that they are straight forward and back, and off you go on what looks like a big funny flying wheelchair thingy.

LSA allows a LOT cheaper certification than traditional certification standards, but also strong restrictions. After LSA came out, there have been many new companies going down this road. Most will not make it, but the LSA standards make it much more economically possible. The technology is not new, as there were working prototypes forty or fifty years ago. They just were not very sellable.

The big difference with aircraft certification is that most of the performance figures are also safety figures, and must be demonstrated (just about everything must be shown to be at least close to the claimed stats in the book).

Yes, crash safety for cars is objective, but acceleration and range aren’t usually issues. The mpg is, but I am not sure what they do about that with electric vehicles.

The fact that they are using already trained factory workers to build the cars, and that the portion of the Tesla assembled in Hethel is very similar to their existing Elise does make it puzzling that it’s so difficult for them to assemble cars.

Okay, you’ve piqued my curiosity. I had never heard of a functioning roadable aircraft before reading your message. Can you fill us in?

I thought the crash testing you had to go through to build a car is pretty objective, although as you say you can make whatever acceleration and range claims you want.

(Actually you can’t if you make a gas vehicle since the EPA tests fuel economy pretty strictly. But there seems to be considerable wiggle room with the Tesla.)

D

I believe that Tesla is planning for the assembly lines to be at someone elses factory. They will be built by contract when full production begins.

I am not sure if you want me to compare Tesla to the guys honestly trying to build a roadable aircraft (it has been done), or to guys like Moller claiming to build flying cars.

My point is that Tesla has acted to this point, just like Moller. (Yes, moller built a “working” prototype which he has tried to sell.)

It is good that Tesla passed certification, but unlike car certification, aircraft certification requires that you meet many of the specs in the owners manual or POH. A car can pass without actually being able to reach 60, ever.

If you actually read my earlier posts, you will note that I pointed out how hard it is to tell the scams from the real mccoy because even good companies have these problems. Thanks for coming up with an example, proves nothing. It’s usually apparent who the scammers are by the way they act rather than the challenges they must overcome. It’s not a small point.

You are incorrect about roadable aircraft. They have flown and operated just fine. And, in greater numbers than customer registered Teslas. The hurdles to make a roadable aircraft are in someways tougher, and in others less challenging than meeting Tesla’s claims. However, and here is the point you have to understand:

Wait for it…

…In aviation objective testing is not optional. Anyone who refuses it, will not ever get even a prototype to legally fly. No one here believes Tesla cannot build a car. What is at dispute is how close they will make it to their ever shrinking claims.

Tesla has an actual assembly line and although they don’t seem to be great at building cars on it yet, it does verifiably exist, and the cars have passed all tests required for them to legally run on the road.

That’s a substantial achievement and I don’t think Moeller got anywhere near that far.

From my viewpoint, this saga has passed through most of the steps of another real, ground-breaking project, the RED Digital Cinema Camera. I think I have mentioned this parallel before and it seems to be holding true.

RED was also set up to do the impossible – to create a digital cinema camera that would be superior to anything else out there at 1/3 the price.

If my memory serves at about this stage in production RED had built their first 100 cameras, and their lens mount (perhaps comparable in importance to Tesla’s transmission) was seen not to work right. They designed a new lens mount and retrofitted all the old cameras. Sound familiar?

The only radical difference is that RED was dreamed of and financed by one person: Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley. He even has a similar amount of money to Elon Musk, about $2 billion. Elon Musk fired his visionary, Martin Eberhard. Jim was quoted as saying that at times, he wanted to fire himself when things weren’t going well, but of course he could not!

RED is highly successful. The overwhelming majority of customers love Jim and would follow him to the end of the earth. They have just introduced two new products and there is no question both will face huge demand, not only because of their raw advantages over the competition, but because people believe in Jim’s integrity and vision.

I think a lot of people believe in the vision Martin founded and Elon is attempting to carry on. Problem is Elon’s integrity seems a bit in doubt, and that’s not good if you’re selling a $120,000 product. If you don’t trust someone who sells you a $2 toothbrush, you still might buy the brush, try it out and if it doesn’t work try another brand. That doesn’t really work with cars, even when you’re super-rich and have a garage of five other vehicles.

I do think that when the story of Tesla is written, for good or ill, that Martin’s firing is not going to look good. But I still have high hopes that Tesla will survive. Prices are high, demand is there and the cars perform wonderfully. That’s way further than any flying car has ever gone.

If Elon’s people can make cars, that might just be good enough.

D

I recently read a book about behavioral economics, which I think is just another name for what you said. It was really fascinating stuff, and I couldn’t stop saying “ahhh!” and “aha!” the whole time I was reading it.

I think you are correct though, it’s a basic thing that we all fall for some of the time because of the way the brain is wired.

Yes. It is. TTAC is a editors and commentators know and use the word hoon. About themselves. This is a community of drivers. What is being jealously guarded is not the ICE, but the driving experience.

TTAC is about as concerned with new and exciting technology for the sake of new technology as autobloggreen is concerned with the handling difference between the BMW x-drive system and Honda’s SH-AWD.

The bias is not against the technology per se. More a different set of values. Reference, the discussion about the GT-R or IS-F, the auto vs manual tranny discussion, the SUV/CUV vs wagons issue, even the dislike of Detroit compacts.In each case there is some experiential issue. Some driving experience has been sacrificed for some other benefit feature. Do these features a better car make? Depends on your values. Is something being given up, yes. That’s the truth about cars.

It is up to each of us to decide what these facts mean as far as our decisions go.

I’ve ridden in the thing, and it is VERY impressive. I suspect that their acceleration claims are not exaggerated. But Landcrusher’s comments comparing the Tesla PR with taht of the Moller flying car give me the strongest sense of anything I’ve read that this thing is unlikely to be mass produced. Before I read that I was hopeful. Now, I’m really not.

People are very good at deceiving themselves about stuff. There’s a whole field, economic psychology, that studies this kind of thing.

The other day I commented about the attitude of TTAC toward Tesla being less than tactful. Robert (rightly so) reminded me quickly that’s not TTAC policy. Thus the reason I come to this site regularly like others here. But I felt that way at the time because I have a strong desire for trusted information about this car, and there’s no other site I’d trust more than TTAC.
From reading comments, I know Daryl Siry reads the comments and contributes sometimes.

Daryl, I have no doubt whomever on TTAC would review your car would give you a fair shake, even if some attitudes are what you might consider less than positive. Even if your car only delivered 80% of what is promised, I think everyone would give you and the car a lot of respect for putting any differences aside with TTAC and putting the car out there.
Some of us are well-off, some in the middle, and some of us don’t have two dimes to rub together. So yes, we might only account for a few future sales, but think of the publicity for “car people in the know” if TTAC had positive attitudes toward the Tesla, a litimus test for the well-informed if there ever was one. So I implore you to give Robert, or somebody associated with TTAC, a shake at the car. If your car is close to everything claimed, only good can come from it.

The criticisms of Tesla on it’s inability to deliver the product I support; I have no love for vaporware.

The question is more whether it’s an UNFAIRLY negative view. I’m a bit divided. Part of this negativity is the enthusiast slant – I’ve driven a Prius (and gotten 50 mpg, city AND highway, in flat Florida). It’s boring, beyond boring, distinctly unfun to drive. But so is a Camry. Hybrids are still fairly new and some aren’t as refined they could be. So that’s another place where there is a justified criticism.

The Tesla here just doesn’t really exist – with no car to review, it’s no good. TTAC is right on that one.

It’s just that sometimes I get the feeling that TTAC is a bit over-protective of the the ICE. Don’t get me wrong, I love a nice engine, and so far I haven’t met a hybrid or alternative with the character of a good, simple ICE. The future, though, belongs to the alternatives, though practical electrics may still be 10 or 20 years out. Gas WILL become more expensive – Chinese and Indian demand is simply too much too soon for even aggressive exploration and production efforts to keep up with. It’s also dirty – cleaner than ever before, but you still don’t want to inhale exhaust fumes. Even leaving aside the greenhouse gas stuff, gas is STILL bad. Sometimes I wonder if TTAC has forgetton these things.

TTAC, in keeping with it’s mission of critical inquiry, has done a good job of pointing out the failures (of Tesla) and weaknesses (driving dynamics of the Prius) of alternative vehicles. I just think that sometimes these cars deserve a little more credit.

David Dennis:

If Tesla provides us with a vehicle, we would hand it over to a [mutually agreeable] independent scientific organization for full testing. Here are the main issues we’d like analyzed…

1. Range under normal, real world driving conditions, from full charge to no charge, including an indication of when “limp home” mode occurs.

2. Range from full charge to no charge on a rolling road, using the EPA protocol.

3. Recharge time, from no charge to full. We also want to know the exact energy required to perform a full charge.

4. Performance. The usual measurements, including zero to sixty, quarter mile and braking distances.

5. Safety. An examination by an expert in battery safety to ascertain the efficacy of Tesla’s cooling systems, and monitor the battery pack’s safety during operation and recharge.

That being said, I think there are a few things that are pretty obvious, and indeed well known.

(1) One of the auto magazines that tested it got about 100 miles on a charge during spirited, auto magazine style driving. I would expect 200 miles would be reasonably feasible if you’re not driving like auto magazine testers do. I certainly think it’s reasonable to say that a typical Tesla, on a typical day, will get at least 100 miles per charge. This would seem to make it an ideal commuter car, especially if you can charge it at work.

(2) Everyone who has driven it says it’s an absolute blast to drive. I don’t think this should be overlooked. People who have tried it really seem to love it. To me, this is a strong indication that the company has a future, even if it’s imperfect, and even if it doesn’t meet all of its ambitious goals. People will still love the car and they will still pay big bucks for it.

So I don’t think this is such a bad business – plenty of people want it and are willing to pay sizable sums for it. Pretty good business — if, at least, you can make a few hundred a month instead of ten. Let’s just hope Siry is right and production will ramp up in the next month or so.

I don’t think that “anyone can make a great Electric sports car”. I think that took an enormous amount of time, treasure and hard, hard work that should be appreciated. If they can’t produce it, that’s an enormous problem, but it doesn’t mean their achievements to date should not be appreciated as significant.

In a recent speech, Siriy did say Tesla was interested in linking up with an existing automaker … maybe that’s what has to be done. I hope not, personally, but we shall see …

Tesla Birth or Death Watch continues.

D

as someone who sells products that are often stll in development, or unproven, I can tell you that all companies face delays and unforeseen problems. I can also tell you that the bad players make it really tough for the good players to succeed. I can usually tell the difference based on the marketing and PR. Not everyone can.

TTAC also likes to attack “flying cars” or roadable airplanes, but I don’t see a conspiracy or bias. Why? because there is this SOB named Moller who has been fooling investors and the main stream press for DECADES and has never made his car fly (I mean really fly, not float in ground effects no better than an electric vacuum hover craft built by a ten year old).

I can tell you that Tesla appears in every way to operate like Moller and other companies I have known that are empowered by the folks who look past the suspicious behavior due to their belief and/or hope in a particular technology. It doesn’t matter if they are dishonest or fooling themselves. What matters is results.

If RF is skeptical, he has good reason to be. History is on the side of the skeptics. Besides, he would not be the same writer if he were not skeptical. In hindsight you can say the Prius is a success, but how many other electric cars never really made it to the mainstream? Hint: all the other ones.

We are not talking about GM here. It is not as if Tesla is going to be able to release another plastic clad hulk with a 1986 pushrod engine on schedule, ready for rebates and lot rot. They have to deal with a federal govenment headed by two oil men. Do you think Bush’s minions are going to make things easy? Oil-think fuels this administration and I would not be surprised if paperwork gets lost now and then.

I have never seen anything positive written by RF about either the Tesla, Prius, or any alternative vehicle. He seems ready to nit pick over the range, over the delivery dates, ready to start the “death watch.” Hey, here’s an idea: How about a death watch for the internal combustion engine?

I think that people like Sergy Brin of Google, one of the main Tesla investors, are smarter than most of us. If he believes in Tesla, then I am at least intrigued. On the other hand, if Bill Gates was the main promoter; I would have grave doubts.

I hope electric technology filters down and I can buy a decent plug in electric sedan with a 200 mile range, swapable power pack, and decent performance for 25K by 2020. But I know such a car car won’t be provided by the current roster of companies whose fortunes are tied to fossil fuel engines. Nor do I expect that automotive journalists who eat, sleep and excrete fossil fuel cars to be in the best position to judge electric vehicles.

For these reasons I am grateful for visionary investors like Mr. Brin, who perhaps can help change the world for the better, one roadster at a time.

I’m more concerned about production taking so much time. If roadsters don’t start hitting the beach at the rate of at least two per week by June, then you know they’re yet another Vector. Making a superb EV is easy, organizing logistics to mass-produce it is what’s making or breaking a company.

BTW, I estimate their per-car production costs to be around 40K. Everything else goes towards covering their fixed losses. Given such ridiculous margins, I don’t see why they can’t spend another 5K a car just to get some more alternative parts sources and just get the assembly line rolling. Any delay will cost them big, A380 style. Heck, another 2-3 years and their cells will become painfully obsolete. End result will be a lot of pissed-off customers who paid a hundred big ones just to see their janitor buy a 20k electric kit-car that has better range and performance.