Regarding the blogs, we don’t edit our customers’ posts (except for curses and spam and the sort). We have had 38 customers drive the car to date and will continue the program. Some of them choose to share their experiences (good and bad) and we publish them verbatim. I am the “company editor” so we aren’t talking about some huge corporate PR machine washing the blog posts. I don’t even edit out flame posts that directly insult me or the company. It’s good for the dialogue since it shows people we aren’t trying to hide anything.

We aren’t perfect by any means, but we aren’t engaging in obfuscation. Early on we thought we would have a range of 250 miles. When it looked like we were missing our goals we announced that to customers and the public. Why would we do that if we were out to deceive? Now we have done hard work and achieved a great result so we shared it with our customers and the public. To me, that is pretty straightforward. It is also straightforward to me that a delay is disappointing to our customers and to us as well, but I know it is the right course of action and will result in a better car when it is ultimately put in the hands of our customers and the public.

Once production ramps up, and customers actually drive their vehicles around, is when most people will start to believe the hype.

Your comments are appreciated here. I guess we’re just jaded from promises from other automotive companies (cough…GM cough.) We are aware that many of the “promises” made were not of your companies doing, but of an overzealous media grasping for a story.

How is the White Horse project going? I think that car is more in my price range.

LS.

Breathless Silicon Valley hype gets really old, and I live there!

I haven’t been silent on the topic, I just haven’t read your blog until now. I’ve been pretty busy, as you might imagine. I also don’t think I have ever been combative in my replies to your editorials – which tend to be combative.

The problem with having a dialogue with you on this blog is that your basic argument is that I am a liar so that nothing I (as a spokesperson for the company) say can be believed. How can we have a dialogue with that as a premise?

Very soon I will hand over VP10 (the silver one) to the buff mags for first drives. We have already been letting dozens of our customers drive them (several of them write about their experience on our company blog) After those articles come out I will let bloggers drive our cars. I imagine you will be able to read plenty of third party perspectives on the car at that point.

Darryl
VP Sales, Marketing & Service
Tesla Motors

P.S. I congratulate you for not using the word “alleged” even once in your editorial!

Regular readers may recall that Tesla has posted a combative reply to our coverage on every previous occasion.

This time, not.

Their silence speaks volumes.

I see no problems with Tesla’s claims when the numbers are crunched. About 1000kgs of lithium-poly batteries is certainly sufficient to give it the range claimed.(200wh/kg energy density, 50hp required for 60mph cruse, 5hr operating time). Anyone capable of doing a simple bit of math can verify this. The good prof must be using some erroneous assumptions.

http://openthefuture.com/2006/11/wednesday_topsight_november_8.html

Interestingly, it’s clear that Muller knows physics, but doesn’t understand other subjects quite as well as he should. He dismisses the Tesla Roadster, claiming it will cost a million dollars and weigh well over three tons — all on the basis of a comment in a Wired article about the kinds of batteries it employs. In reality, the Tesla runs about $100,000 — not cheap, but 90% less than Muller asserts — and weighs about one ton. Maybe somebody needs to teach a class on Googling for Future Physics Professors.

Unfortunately it seems the wired article is no longer available.

Here’s the link to his on-line course. If someone can wade through the 3 semester podcasts and find something on Tesla, give us a shout.

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html

I applaud all efforts to develop new and innovative vehicles, especially ones that use electric power and are really friggin’ fast. :)

However, Tesla deserves to be flogged publicly, because they have taken good money from customers and investors based on claims they have failed to verify, timelines they have failed to meet, and performance they have failed to deliver. Failure in pursuit of a difficult goal is acceptable and, frankly, expected. What is not acceptable is to spin every failure as a success, all the while continuing to accept and spend other peoples’ money.

I would be applauding Tesla if they did any of the following things:

1) Addressed their problems openly, and only made positive claims that could be backed up and verified.
2) Temporarily returned customer deposits until they actually began production, as a sign of good faith.
3) Just shut the hell up with the press releases and delivered a working prototype to SOMEONE for independent testing.

But they haven’t, and they won’t. The only thing I can say in their favor is that they haven’t gone public yet, so the only investments they’ve taken are from big boys who understand the risks. But I would really like to know what they’ve done with customer deposits… are they sitting in escrow, or has the money gone into their general account? If the latter, then good luck to their customers when chapter 11 comes.

Can’t wait for the movie…

Sorry can’t recall the specific episode. It is in response to a question from a student. Apparently Prof. Muller sent a letter to some motoring website (can’t recall which one) detailing the issues but received no reply

You only have to listen to the Prof. Richard Muller’s UC Berkeley Physics for Future Presidents podcasts to learn how literally physically impossible the Tesla claims are.

Have you got a specific lecture or podcast that can be listened to?

You are right to applaud the attempt and the vision.

However an electric sportscar is hardly the solution most are looking for. Look at we we are really talking about here.

Tesla will show that you can make a good performing vehicle if you take a highly impractical car (Elise) that is really only suitable for very occasional use or track days as a starting point. Next put in a whole bunch of Li ion cells from a laptop so that it performs quite well but still has very limited range. Finally charge $100K for it.

Let’s just take this in. 100K for a quick, but short lived (before a recharge), highly impractical go-cart for the well heeled eccentric.

I’m sorry but there is a long list of vehicles I would spend 100K on before an overgrown slot car

The early adopters will pay a lot, and be a bit disappointed with the result, (but they won’t admit it). The initial influx of money & publicity will enable Tesla to A) sell battery pack tech to other companies and B) work on a more practical daily driver car at a more reasonable price point.

I’m disappointed by the results so far, but I applaud them for the effort. So far, the Tesla seems to be less vaporware than the Volt.

Here’s a sampling:

“Best Cars 2006: New car that best lived up to the Hype”
-Forbes

“People’s Choice: Most Exciting 2007 Car Launch” -CarDomain

“Tesla Motors: Affordable Electric Cars are Coming”
-Treehugger.com

Yes, that was “lived up” to the hype. Funny, because I don’t see a Tesla driving down the freeway. Yes, affordable transportation for only $89,000.

I’m all for electric cars, but these people have to be a little more realistic in their expectations.