Talk:Tesla Roadster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tesla Roadster article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This is not a forum for general discussion of Tesla Roadster.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives

Contents

[edit] Why didn't Tesla tell buyers about the transmission?

Hundreds of people have put down a deposit for a car that was advertised as needing almost no maintenence. But only now is Tesla letting people know that the transmission will need to be replaced after a few thousand miles. I think it was very wrong that Tesla went all this time without letting buyers know about this. I thought this car was a great thing when I first heard about it. But after all of these repeated delays, the repeated downgrading of the mileage between recharges, and how this transmission thing, I now think the people at Tesla Motots have been promoting a car that doesn't really exist - at least not in the form that was promised to buyers. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that the transmissions that Tesla is testing now internally have reliability problems at a few thousand miles. But they are working on these problems and I would assume they will be fixed by the time the first car is shipped to customers. Have you seen something that indicates customers will have to replace their transmissions after a few thousand miles? --Steve Pucci | talk 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This. I already added it to the article. I don't think it was very nice of Tesla to have kept this information a secret from the people who already put a deposit down on the car. And why did they lie about the mileage? If I buy a box of Cheerios and it says "15 ounces," it better have 15 ounces. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought that might be what you were referring to. If they do this (and it's not clear they will), it will be an option for those people who want it, and will not be forced on anyone; people who would prefer to wait for the final transmission can do so at their option. If you drill down through the links reported in that article you'll find that the original source of that article clarified that here; the original source posting here also quotes Tesla's new CEO as saying this would be an expensive option for them (not surprisingly), implying that they're not about to do it for people who don't want it.
I've also seen nothing that indicates Tesla knew about the latest transmission problems, or the mileage estimate changes, when people were still putting down deposits, so I don't think it's fair to say they were keeping either a secret from anyone. There also has been small print on Tesla's website where they post the mileage estimates since I've been tracking them (over a year) qualifying the numbers as being for preproduction vehicles and that production vehicles might have different numbers as the production specifications change. It's not so great that it's hidden in the small print, but it has been there. I've also seen nothing about what happens to the deposits of customers who decide that the reduced range isn't sufficient for them, or that the delay is more than they are willing to wait for. It's possible those deposits would be fully refundable. In general, Tesla claims here that deposits are refundable up to three months prior to production minus a $100 processing fee. Based on the current production schedule estimates we're well before that range for all customers. --Steve Pucci | talk 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You referred to "people who would prefer to wait for the final transmission." Uh, no. No one "prefers to wait." Tesla has already broken their promise for when the car would be available, and now it seems that they are breaking it again. Why didn't they tell buyers from the very start that the transmissions didn't work properly? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. By "prefer to wait" I meant "prefer waiting rather than getting an early non-final transmission." But I take your point, that no one likes delays.
Again, I've seen nothing that says Tesla held back information from people when they put down deposits. As far as I know the delivery estimates that buyers were given on the website matched what Tesla knew at that time. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd personally like to see it. --Steve Pucci | talk 03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't Tesla tell buyers from the very start that the transmissions didn't work properly? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the second paragraph of the article to remove the impression it left that the cars that initially shipped would permanently have downgraded performance. Also, while the autoblog article referenced there says that the transmissions "won't allow the cars to go as fast as promised", it's not clear that this refers to top speed as opposed to an imprecise description of acceleration. It was my understanding that the configuration is identical to that which has been in testing for the past few months, which essentially has a transmission locked in second gear. Such a configuration would limit acceleration but not top speed. However, I have seen nothing which addresses this one way or the other. Until this is clarified by Tesla I have left it out of the introductory paragraph; better to leave out something that might be true rather than insert something that might be false. --Steve Pucci | talk 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Your profile page says you're an engineer in Silicon Valley. Do you by chance work for Tesla Motors? If so, I guess that explains why you keep erasing my criticisms in the article. The article is supposed to be balanced and objective. It's not supposed to look like an advertisement. The fact is that Tesla Motors is not providing people with a car that matches the performace that was promised to them when they paid for it. It was wrong for Tesla to lie to customers about the car's performance. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
A wikipedia talk page is not the appropriate forum for you to voice your opinion about preproduction estimates not matching production figures. Fact: Tesla Motors is offering customers a temporary transmission that simply reduces 0-60 times by 1.7 seconds while they work out transmission issues. They will then replace this temporary transmission with the production transmission when completed. This is not a standard production vehicle, and I believe most, if not all, of the buyers understand this. BrandonG (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Tesla claims that this transmission is "temporary," but they have a track record of lying to their customers. Why didn't Tesla tell customers about this before it took their money? Why did Tesla advertise the car's acceleration as being better than it actually is? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) It's irrelevent whether it's going to be fixed or is in the process of being fixed - or even that it was completely and utterly resolved to the satisfaction of everyone years in the past. What matters is whether this is a verifiable fact about the history of the car that is notable enough to mention in an encyclopedia. It sounds to me like it's pretty notable - there aren't many cars out there where the transmission is recalled with a temporary transmission provided! That's a very unusual thing. We don't have to write this as a criticism - simply state the facts and point to the place where the facts may be verified. Let the readers decide for themselves whether this is a damning thing that should put them off buying a Tesla car - or whether this is customer service above and beyond the call of duty. We aren't here to express opinions - merely to state the facts. SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, what you say is true. I cited my sources, so it is indeed a verifiable fact. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After a certain person in this section of the talk page repeatedly kept defending Tesla's lying to its customers, I said the following:

"Your profile page says you're an engineer in Silicon Valley. Do you by chance work for Tesla Motors? If so, I guess that explains why you keep erasing my criticisms in the article. The article is supposed to be balanced and objective. It's not supposed to look like an advertisement. The fact is that Tesla Motors is not providing people with a car that matches the performace that was promised to them when they paid for it. It was wrong for Tesla to lie to customers about the car's performance."

That person never answered my question. And he has since stopped posting on the talk page.

Therefore, I think that there is indeed a very high probability that this person works for Tesla Motors.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blog references.

There are a number of references to 'blog' entries in this article. Please remember that links to blogs and forums are NOT permitted in Wikipedia as either external links or (especially) as references. What's doubly worrying is that I'm now seeing edit summaries suggesting that people are editing on the basis that certain information is or is not available in some blog or other...and that's doubly wrong!

The rules are simple:

  • Do not refer or link to blogs and forums AT ALL (unless this is an article about the blog or forum - which this one obviously isn't).
  • Do not add information into the article (especially if it's of a controversial nature) that doesn't have a decent reference (by which we mean NOT A BLOG!).

Thanks.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree on this point. While I would consider the speculation by various blog/forum contributors of the "official Tesla blog" to be of dubious quality, the primary article that start out each major thread in the blogs are written as official announcements by Tesla Motors or certainly would merit inclusion into this article. Links to those blog entries... particularly as it relates to the Roadster... should not only be used but strongly encouraged as they are a primary source of information regarding this vehicle. I would also give similar levels of credibility for those replies that were written by Tesla staff such as Martin Eberhard or even Elon Musk, both of whom have made some minor comments on the blogs themselves.
As for Martin's post-Tesla blog, you can give that as much or as little credit as you feel. And the "fan blogs" certainly shouldn't be treated as primary source of information... or even tertiary sources of high reliability.
The blanket prohibition of removing all references to all blogs should be tempered by acknowledging the quality of the source and to form a consensus on what constitutes a quality source of information. Many blogs are just a persons opinion and nothing more... so legitimately should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But don't throw out legitimate original sources of information just because they don't come neatly packaged in some academic journal that has been peer reviewed and gone through some other knowledge meat grinder first. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's really rather irrelevent whether you disagree or not. The WP:V document is Wikipedia-wide POLICY - it's not just a guideline - it's not just there to be waved away by someone who disagrees with it. It's pretty clear: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." - if you read supporting materials linked from WP:V you'll see that "largely not acceptable" offers a loophole only for articles ABOUT the blog. This is pretty clear policy. It is not the place of authors of this article to ignore this policy. If you dispute it - then by all means head over to WT:V (the associated talk page for WP:V) and express your theory that this page should be exempt from that rule. Good luck with that. Meanwhile - we should follow the rules and remove the blog references. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hardly. This is not a policy. It is a guideline only. One that can be tempered by individual circumstances and dealt with on a case by case basis. The huge key word here is are largely not acceptable. Some blogs may be acceptable, but you have to weigh the source. This "policy" certainly is not one of the foundational pillars of Wikipedia.
You have also completely missed the point I was trying to make, and that is there are very legitimate sources of information that can be used as a primary source. The official Tesla blog is IMHO one of these very legitimate sources, as is perhaps even Martin's blog. This is a formal written record that was in this case created by the individuals who are actually manufacturing the vehicle that is the topic of this article. I don't know how to get a more reliable primary source of information than that. We are not talking about a Shakespeare blog by a bunch of fans of his literature. This is more like something written by Shakespeare himself commenting on his own plays.
I agree that the Tesla "fan blogs" should be strongly questioned as a source, and I did temper my suggestion to use the official blog to be mainly the initial thread articles and verifiable postings by "insiders" to Tesla. As the official blog is moderated, somebody claiming to be Martin or Elon would have been removed almost immediately if it wasn't true. This is a case of trying to weigh sources and try to determine what is credible and what may not be. In many circumstances, blogs are not credible. But don't let this one "policy" get to your head and prevent us from using solid primary sources of information that can significantly improve the quality and content of this article.
Besides this overblown reliance upon depending on this policy you are quoting, give me one good solid reason why the Official Blog on the teslamotors.com website should not be used as a primary source of information for this article. Why shouldn't we be referring to the actual engineers building the vehicle and the chairman of the board of Tesla Motors for information about when it may be released to the public? This just simply boggles my mind that you would throw this sort of source out the window here. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the company's blog in this case should be treated just like a series of press releases. -kslays (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here is another suggestion: Rather than discussing if blog references are ok or not (I think not, but the Tesla blog is indeed more of a press release and thus okay), lets identify the problematic references in the article and discuss them on a case-to-case basis. There aren't that many.Splette :) How's my driving? 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So what are the references that are causing you to be a little concerned about? I'm asking for specifics here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I went through the citations and I believe that they are OK for inclusion according to the WP:V criteria that SteveBaker referenced. Nearly all of the "blog" references in this article are OK because they fall under the policy's allowance that:
"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...").
The references that I think might still need more bolstering are:
  • 23 "AutoBlog 2007-12-19"
  • 28 "AutoBlog EDTA"
  • 43 ref-4, Global Green Award
  • 44 ref-5, Car Domain Car Blog.
For 23 and 28, AutoBlog seems to be a reliable source, but I'm not sure; AutoBlog appears to be a non-personal, reputable site. That said, the original source for 23 is really the Town Hall meeting with downloadable audio (there were reports that Tesla would provide a transcript, however, I have not found one) and 28, suspension of ESS sales to TH!NK, was likely reported in other media too. I haven't had time to track down 43 and 44 from the Awards section. --Mwarren us (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream reviews

Several reviews from mainstream auto magazines are now out. They are Motor Trend, AutoWeek, and Road & Track. I think these would fit well in the existing review section. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reviews, with hopefully representative quotes. Superm401 - Talk 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euopean sales

Now that European sales have been announced, the sentence "no service centers outside of the US" can be deleted at any time, although there is no rush. Sales won't begin until the third quarter (July-September), and so far no service centers in Europe have been announced, but they obviously will be announced. "Tesla would target 'obvious' big markets such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, as well as countries such as Norway and Denmark." 199.125.109.98 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public or private?

Tell me how the car was unveiled to the "public" at an "invitation only" event. Rtdrury (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of the event most likely. But I could be wrong. --StevenFurtado (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, coverage of the event by invited media companies was released publicly along with press releases from Tesla Motors.--Mwarren us (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)