Talk:Tesla Roadster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Remove list of colors?

I think the list of colors is way out of scope for an encyclopedia and is making this article somewhat cumbersome. Ideas? -- intgr 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me. removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.116.104 (talk • contribs).

Come to think of it, should the same be done to the 'Dimensions' section? I don't think it's really useful to anyone. -- intgr 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed with a whole lot of other cruft. -- intgr 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] availability date?

I put it as 2007 in List of hybrid vehicles. If that is incorrect, please correct it and remove this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.116.104 (talk • contribs).

It has already been removed as it is not a hybrid vehicle (eg, petrol-electric combo), but a battery electric vehicle. It's already on the list of production battery electric vehicles. -- intgr 18:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AC Propulsion

It seems appropriate to acknowledge Wikipedia's promotional effects -- and use them to honor and promote innovation. We should allow readers to not just "follow the money" but "follow the innovation". That seems important in the same way the Connections (TV series) was important in offering an innovation-threaded view of history instead of the more tradional war & conquest-threaded views. (forgiving its similarities to People magazine)

The innovation contributed by AC Propulsion merits more than a footnote. It should nicely assist readers following innovation threads by citing AC Propulsion's contribution in the body of the article.

The link on the tZero page semed about right:

Some of the technologies developed for the tzero live on in the Venturi Fetish, the Wrightspeed X1, and in modified form in the Tesla Roadster

So I added similar text here.

--Lonestarnot 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel efficiency equivalence

Although EV cars have much higher fuel efficiency than combustion engines, the calculations stated for the Tesla should be corrected in favor of primary energy equivalence. In essence, the formula as presented neglects the poor energy efficiency of electricity production of around 33%. The energy efficciency of the Tesla should therefore be multiplied by 0.33.

This would still yield fuel efficienies of almost 55m/gallon (against 164) or a consumptino of around 4.3 liters/100km.

These values are still good but not as fantastic (wrong) as the initial calculations. For the quality of Wikipedia primary energy efficiency should be used.

I havn't effected any changes in the main article yet because I would like to find a more reliable source for the electricity generation efficiency first. If someone finds it, go ahead.

--TomTompa 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

When I added the fuel efficiency section I too was concerned about choosing the "right" formula and the "right" values to use in that formula. For instance, the DOE regulation cites a generating efficiency of Tg=0.328, Tesla Motors' white paper cites another study's finding of 41% for the entire grid in one section and uses a third 60% generating efficiency in another section. Choosing the right formula is also of concern as it seems the end use of the derived number often drives the analysis. In any case, I could not figure out the formula behind Tesla Motor's 135 mpg figure (reverse engineering using 34.3MJ/L for gas & 110Wh/km for the roadster, convert, then multiply by 75% - a 25% "safety margin" - does yield 135 mpg. Interesting - how did they choose 25% safety?)

The first fuel efficiency equation was meant to be comparable to the typical Monroney labels' "station-to-wheel" efficiency (that label also omits well-to-station efficiencies). The second equation from the DOE regulation includes primary energy efficiency for both the USA electric grid and the crude oil to gas station path but then goes on to add a "'fuel content' factor" to quantify conservation and scarcity of fuels in the USA.

The discussion of wide spread adoption of new fuel sources (e.g. electricity, hydrogen, bio-diesel, ethanol, coal gassification) certainly highlights the need for more extensive fuel efficiency analysis than offered by EPA City/Highway mpg numbers. One way for the Roadster article to handle this added complexity might be to simply reference Wikipedia's Fuel efficiency article or another (new?) article that can address the issue in more detail.

I digress, but hopefully the referenced article would describe several of the many aspects of "fuel efficiency" and provide names for those numbers. For instance, the article might discuss various views of efficiency as:

  • Monetary cost to the consumer per distance
  • CO2 emissions by the vehicle per distance
  • Fuel cycle CO2 emissions
  • Fuel cycle monetary costs (i.e. different subsidies and taxes might alter the monetary cost to the consumer)
  • Political costs of a given fuel to a nation-state

--Mwarren us 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Tesla Roadster is a Scam

I was intrigued by the claims made by Tesla and, more in general, about the possibility that electric cars do represent a better alternative to our energy problems. So I sought to draw my own conclusions based on independent and credible data. Here is what I found.

The Tesla Roadster website basically make two important claims that boil down to: a) our car is cheaper to operate, costing only 1 cent per mile, and b) our car generates much less pollution than other cars using different technologies. Let’s also throw in c) our car will lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

Let’s first eliminate the obvious: a) our car is cheaper to operate, costing only 1 cent per mile. This statement is inane for the simple reason that a model similar in quality, performance, design, etc to the Tesla Roadster, the Lotus Elise (also the same manufacturer), has a MSRP of $45k. The Tesla costs $100k. So the difference in price that you would pay to drive a car that presumably consumes only 1 cent per mile (versus 4 cents per mile for a similar diesel car and about 7 cents per mile for a similar gasoline car) is $55k US dollars. With this money you can buy enough gasoline to propel a Toyota Camry for 625 thousand miles, or go around the Earth 25 times.

So cost is clearly not an issue for Tesla customers. So lets analyze claim b) our car generates much less pollution than other cars using different technologies. The Tesla manufacturers claim their cars need 110 Wh (Watt-hour) to run a distance of 1 Km. To convert this into an emissions figure (say grams of CO2 per Km) we need to know how much CO2 is thrown into the atmosphere per Wh of electrical energy generated. We also use their stated 86% between electrical energy input and energy available to propel the car.

Unfortunately, in the US the majority of CO2 related to electricity production is from coal-burning power plants and those run around 1.4 g CO2/Wh. If you multiply that to efficiency claimed by Tesla, the car emissions run around 179 g CO2/Km. Current high performance gasoline and diesel cars do around 200 g CO2/Km. Therefore, in essence you are buying a car for twice the price of an equivalent gas-powered ride and polluting just as much.

The CEOs of Tesla Motors, Inc. Mr. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning wrote a paper entitled “The 21st century Electric Car.” In that paper they claim that “assuming perfect combustion” their cars emit only 46.1 g CO2/Km. Problem is they calculated this figure assuming that all chemical energy released is available to do work. Problem is in nature there is no such thing as a 100% efficient energy conversion. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, the authors neglected the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The correct way to do this calculation is to simply lookup the average CO2 emission per Wh produced across all electricity producing technologies. This is best done by dividing the total energy generation in a region (say, California) by the total CO2 emissions in that region. That is how I did the previous calculation.

The only avenue where electric vehicles become a significant alternative in reducing CO2 emissions is if electricity power plants switch or are retrofitted to cleaner technologies. But, historically, reduction in plant emissions has always been accompanied by similar reductions in internal combustion engine emissions since the technology is similar and emissions policies have similar political origins. Also bear in mind that the most fundamental prerequisite of a long-term sustainable environmental solution is complete reliance on renewable energy carriers (carbon neutral). So far and for the foreseeable future, electric cars do nothing to help any economy reach this objective.

Decrease reliance on foreign oil? I don’t think 100-200 Tesla Roadsters will put a dent on this. Until the number of electric vehicles reach several million I don’t think this argument has any substance. And seeing that you can’t take this car on road trips, I don’t think we will be seeing many of them anytime soon. Prof Schnitzer 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nobody buying a car this expensive would worry about paying for fuel anyway.
  • Consider that competing high-end electric cars tend to cost a few times more.
  • They insist that future models will be cheaper, and that the high costs are partly to fund new research.
  • Not all electricity is produced in coal plants. Nuclear energy is way cleaner.
  • With stationary power plants, the pollution can be controlled and contained [or was this already considered in the CO2 emission ratio?]
  • Electricity can be considered the universal carrier for energy – electric cars will be compatible with newer means of energy production, gasoline-powered cars won't.
  • There is no 100% efficient energy conversion, but electric motors are much closer to it than combustion engines.
  • Did they factor in the inefficiency of recharging Li-ion batteries, or did they "forget" that as well?

Reply:

  • I think the above poster made the same argument.
  • Same.
  • What kind of research? Are they going to donate the money for univesities to fund research in, say, better batteries?? I seriously doubt it. They are just doing to use it to come up with better cars, which is what every FOR PROFIT auto company does.
Do you really consider investing into research "donating money to universities"? Yes, they will use the money to design cheaper and "better" cars to target more consumers, to make more profit. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on whether you think electric cars are a good idea, which is being debated. -- intgr 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well given that there has been several hundred million in battery research in institutions all over the world I seriously doubt some startup company founded by dot com millionaires who don't even know the second law of thermodynamics will somehow miraculously "revolutionize" anything. In fact if you even read their website they use weight saving technology that is already developed (by Lotus, McLaren and other race car makers) and Li-ion batteries which already power many portable electronics. There is absolutely nothing new with the Tesla Roadster and if there is some major improvement in the future, it sure as hell won't be by them. The only novelty of the Tesla Roadster is that they have found a new business formula that has found good acceptance among those will way too much money and way too little sense (mostly the newly rich with some guilt and idealistic environmentalist with no idea of what it takes to make a positive impact in global environment).
  • The above poster made it clear that those pollution emissions are true considering where electricity comes from in the USA. Of course, if every power plant were nuclear or hydro then there would be no pollution. This, however, will never happen due to policy and limited hydro resources. But the important fact is that electric vehicles don't necesarily help any of this, in fact it may even make it worse because is places a higher demand on power plants.
  • This argument is complete bull by the way. The emissions of a car are treated locally before gases leave the exhaust. So it is also "contained".
But no chemical processing of the exhaust gases is being done. -- intgr 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of something called the catalytic converter? Or diesel urea based filters? I'd suggest you read before you post.
  • What makes electricity the universal carrier of energy? Gasoline and diesel are just as "universal" and pack more energy density than a battery, are easier to transport, store and refuel. Presuming newer and cleaner means of electricity production will become available and that important technical hurdles limiting the practicality of electric cars are overcome. Answer me this: how are you going to install several tens of thousand of electricity recharging stations around the USA? Do you know how many billions if not trillions of dollars that will cost? And to top it off you are not doing anything to solve the real problem which is using renewable energy sources? Biodiesel is a much better alternative for cars, for instance. Biodiesel is a renewable resource (can be produced by plants and other means) so you are not a net producer of CO2, is easier to store and transport (you can use the already in place infrastructure for handling gasoline/diesel, and it is a proven technology that is already available.
I meant "universal" in the sense that almost any useful kind of energy can be converted into electricity. You obviously can't convert solar power or nuclear energy into gasoline. -- intgr 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This again is a lie regurgitated by tree huggers with no sense. While electrical motors are very efficient, charging a battery is not that efficient and PRODUCING the electricity is VERY inefficient. So what would you rather do? Fuel->electricity->battery->wheel, or Fuel->wheel???
  • They did take it into account, but they site a very high efficiency (like 90%), I seriously doubt it can be that high. A more reasonable figure is around 35% and that makes a huge difference.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "scam", although the 'cheaper' argument is indeed blatantly false. In my opinion, it's certainly a step forward. Obviously this car won't instantly solve all environmental problems or cure cancer – it will probably a few iterations of the technologies to get them more efficient and affordable to the average consumer. -- intgr 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There may come a point where electric vehicles become viable. For that to happen, though, you will need recharging stations where there are now gas stations. That won't happen within the next 30 years if ever. But even so it will do NOTHING to combat pollution because you are just shifting pollution from the streets to the plants. What will do a great impact is switch to renewable energy sources and cleaner technologies that reduce CO2 emissions.

Uramanbaja 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it inevitably will take time before this becomes viable; technology doesn't develop itself, there has to be a start somewhere. Given how long head start gasoline-powered cars have been given, it will take a while. And even if it doesn't prove itself viable in the long run, it will regardless be a good thing in terms of diversity/competition. Ditto for biodiesel and hydrogen-powered cars. Gasoline prices are only so high since there are no real alternatives at the moment. For the record, gasoline prices are about twice that in Europe what they are in America. -- intgr 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you think will be the better alternative: using already in place infrastructure to transport a renewable fuel or create all new multi billion dollar infrastructure to transport electricity which is not necesarily a renewable resource?

Is this really the place to debate whether the Tesla Roadster is a viable technology?? If someone has pointers to actual researched ARTICLES criticizing or debunking Tesla's claims and wants to discuss how to incorporate it into the entry then fine, but this really isn't the place to debate the merits of the object of the article. I think this whole section should be archived. Plymouths 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Plymouths motion. Mwarren us 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Plymouths motion also. No sources, so archive it. Kslays 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it was rather stupid to get involved in this. -- intgr 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Jepeltw 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed, Wikipedia is the place for this.

[edit] Pricing

The "base price" of the Roadster has now ([1]) been announced to be $92,000, but the first 200 models were all sold with "all options included" at $100,000. --Steve Pucci | talk 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/s/Talk%7ETesla_Roadster_e5af.html"