Tesla Motors Opens Retail Store

Tesla Motors has opened their first retail store front to allow the masses access to their new cars. Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,000 price tag. "The company told the Associated Press that it is impressed with demand: it has taken 600 orders for the Roadster and has a waiting list of another 400. CEO Elon Musk owns the first one produced. The fancy showroom near Beverly Hills takes its inspiration from Apple stores, Musk said. [...] The company plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar that will come in two versions: an all-electric model that will run entirely on its lithium ion battery pack, and a range-extended vehicle that will also use liquid fuel to extend its range. The Roadster will have a range of 220 miles per charge and the mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon."

hehe

[mdaitc (619734)]

Tesla Roaster?

new battery powered kind of way to cook Turkey?

Hawt!

[Spacepup (695354)]

I'm a girl. I'm not into cars. I drive a low end toyota because it was cheap and gets great gas mileage. But. that. car. is. HAWT! I just need to convince 110,000 suckers to give me 1 dollar each.

Re:Hawt!

[Bucc5062 (856482)]

You're a girl on /. ... that should not be hard.

Re:hehe

[wsanders (114993)]

Considering the technologies that the namesake Tesla was into, one small mistake and you get fied.

Once these LiIon powered cars are widely available, firefighters and other emergency responders are a little concerned about digging in to extract crash victims from twisted smoking piles of LiIon battery wreckage so maybe your name is an apt one.

Re:hehe

[MrNaz (730548)]

Because the current scenario, stepping into a crash site's puddle of highly flammable liquid, is just so much more appealing.

Re:hehe

[paeanblack (191171)]

I think that the electrical hazard is a bit overstated, though. I can't think of a reason why high-current electrical loads would be carried through the structures normally cut through by the jaws of life

If you need the jaws of life, it's safe to assume that there have been some modifications to the structure. You've probably voided your warranty too.

Re:hehe

[hey! (33014)]

Lithium ion phosphate technology is almost as good as Li-ion technology, and considerably safer.

Personally, I'd have not much more concern about driving a plain old Li-ion powered car than I have using a Li-ion laptop. Granted, the worst case scenario in a car is much more destructive of the battery, but it doesn't seem to be beyond the capabilities of engineering to render the risk of Li-ion to be on the same order of danger as gasoline or ethanol. If safety is so important, then we should be talking about Li-ion phosphate or NiMH.

What's holding things back in electric cars and plug-in hybrids are all the patents covering the kinds of things you'd need to do to produce large batteries. It's not so much a question of physical practicality than legal practicality, That's why we haven't seen the next logical step on hybrids: the plug-in hybrid. It's not possible to license the technology to scale the NiMH hydride batteries used in current generation vehicles to a size large enough to make the plug-in idea really work.

We're pretty close to being able to make reasonably versatile electric cars economically, and given the popularity of hybrids the plug-in hybrid is a no-brainer. If we don't see those technologies become practical for widespread use in the next decade, it won't be because the world lacks the engineering talent to do it.

That's cheap!

[randyest (589159)]

Tesla Motors has opened their first retail store front to allow the masses access to their new cars. Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,00 price tag.

Only $109? That's amazing. But why is slashdot suddenly using the European decimal punctuation?

Re:That's cheap!

[AutopsyReport (856852)]

I would correct your mistake, but I run the risk of being modded Informative.

Re:That's cheap!

[Oktober Sunset (838224)]

haha, butt slammed by offtopic.
Just goes to show that contrary to popular belief that mods just just sheepishly give you whatever moderation you suggest at the end of your post, funny.

Re:That's cheap!

[roman_mir (125474)]

and there I thought your post was not simply funny, and that it was in fact informative.

Re:That's cheap!

[justinlee37 (993373)]

If I had mod points, I would mod you informative, and that would be funny.

Neat!

[KingSkippus (799657)]

I can't wait for these types of cars to hit mass production and come down in price so that us normal people can afford them.

That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."

Re:Neat!

[Rei (128717)]

Cars like the Tesla will never come down in price that much, and even if they did, you wouldn't be able to afford upkeep on the batteries (they use laptop cells; they pamper them, but even still, that LiCoO2 cathode is still going to kill the cells after several years). Tesla is simply not designed around low price; it's designed around performance and range for a high-end target customer.

Now, this doesn't mean that *EVs* won't come down in price. There are already a number of them coming out (see my post further down) with prices in the $25-30k range that'll give you 0-60 in 7-10 seconds and 100-120 miles range, with the whole range of modern safety and comfort features. They use less energy-dense variants of li-ion, such as phosphates and spinels, that have vastly superior lifespans that should last at least a decade, and probably last the lifespan of the vehicle. The batteries should also be cheaper once they enter mass production due to their much cheaper raw ingredients.

Re:Neat!

[Hoplite3 (671379)]

Also, companies like Tesla are training another generation of expert electrical vehicle engineers. It's quite likely that some will leave to start their own EV company down the road. One of them might be the Henry Ford of electrical cars.

As in making an affordable, more practical electrical vehicle for the masses, not as in winning the Order of the German Eagle or whatever Nazi medal Ford got in 1938.

Re:Not entirely accurate either

[Rei (128717)]

Second, the roadster is expected to last about 100K miles before needing to have the batteries replaced.

Perhaps... assuming you drive it 200 miles a day. Laptop cells suffer serious time degradation. They *also* have cycle life limit problems, but that's the smaller of the two issues.

Third, while the current generations of LiIon have a limited set of charges, the research is extending this out all the time. A number of the other types which Tesla will no doubt buy patents rights for, will charge many more times than a 1000.

Yes -- phosphates, titanates, spinels, etc -- which I've been mentioning. And no, they won't buy the rights; there's no way they could afford them (except perhaps on titanates, since AltairNano is struggling... not sure it'd be a wise buy). And in some cases , such as the phosphates, who owns the rights is confusing enough. Almost everyone making reasonable-priced EVs right now is using phosphates, titanates, or spinels. Tesla is *behind* on this. I don't fault them; they need the better energy density, their customers can afford it, and when they started, these techs were less mature. But that doesn't change the fact that they're using something that's inferior tech for automotive applications.

Re:Not entirely accurate either

[dgatwood (11270)]

The problem is that even if they last 100,000 miles, the cost of the batteries is half the price of the car. It uses 6800 of the 18650 LiIon cells. These things are on the order of $7 apiece at the cheapest retail price. Even if they could get them for half that, you're still talking about almost $25,000 ever 100,000 miles (plus whatever profit they tack on). That means you're paying $0.25 per mile just for the batteries---seven cents per mile more than my gasoline cost for a Ford Windstar, and you haven't even factored in the cost of charging them.

Further, it takes 75 kilowatt hours of power to charge it, and a charge only lasts 220 miles. At my current PG&E rate of 33 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes out to $24.75 for that 220 miles, or an additional $0.11 per mile, for a grand total of a whopping $0.36 per mile---seven cents per gallon more than the average cost of driving a Lamborghini roadster....

The fundamental flaw with all current electric cars is the LiIon battery cost/lifespan ratio. It needs to be increased by at least an order of magnitude for it to make sense compared with conventional cars. Whether that means the batteries come down to $2500 or last a million miles doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Honestly, though, I'm holding out for ultracapacitors. Chemical cells just aren't nearly robust enough for this sort of application.

Not entirely accurate either

[mcmonkey (96054)]

That means you're paying $0.25 per mile just for the batteries---seven cents per mile more than my gasoline cost for a Ford Windstar...at my current PG&E rate of 33 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes out to $24.75 for that 220 miles, or an additional $0.11 per mile, for a grand total of a whopping $0.36 per mile---seven cents per gallon more than the average cost of driving a Lamborghini roadster....

For the EV, you're including long term matintencance costs in the per mile calculation. Are you doing the same for your Windstar?

Re:

[rednip (186217)]

That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."

But the holiday would only last until it becomes a problem collecting taxes for road repair. The gas tax generally means that cars are taxed by their usage, and weight, but electric cars bypass the taxman. Eventually (perhaps hopefully), the numbers of electric cars would cause a shortfall of funding for the most important part of our national infrastructure.

Re:Neat!

[ivan256 (17499)]

How cute! You actually believe that gas taxes are used to build and repair roads, rather than going into the general fund for congress to spend on whatever they please!

Re:Neat!

[tompaulco (629533)]

Perhaps the government will start taxing your local coal or natural gas powered Electric concern to pay for the roads. One wonders how much interest there would be in electric vehicles when the taxes are figured in and it ends up being about the same operating cost as a conventional car.

Re:Neat!

[plague3106 (71849)]

Same operating costs? Doubtful. You don't need a transmission, alternator or a host of other components of common cars today, so that's much cheaper. And assuming TM is accurate in the price of a full charge being less that $5, you won't have to pay the ~$3 / gallon of gas which ISN'T tax.

Nyet

[zogger (617870)]

It is much cheaper to get the equivalent energy at average US electric rates per mile driven then using either gasoline or diesel. It is something ludicrously cheaper like a few cents a mile. couple of quick googlized refs here http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2006/08/04/electric-car-cost-per-mile/ [ecoworld.com]
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car1.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Granted, eventually you'll have to treplace the batts, but if they last ten years and the R&D goes on for ten years, I imagine tomorrow's prices will be considerable less for better quality batteries. And like gas cars, they will depreciate as you drive them off the lot, probably unless you get a collector car, like these first run Teslas will be. I don't see anyone actually losing money on them if they can afford the upfront costs. And for that matter, anyone who can afford one of these cars could also afford a solar rig setup to keep them charged, eventually that is paid off and it is more or less free driving.

The government will most likely go to odometer readings to charge taxes though, that will screw with your cost per mile again.

No free lunch, but you can get a cheaper lunch, and going all electric with personal production means eventually at least the cost of the fuel will be free, just leaving minimal maintenance and taxes.

I am not sure, but I bet the cheapest way right now for joe sixpack to get a functional all electric car that isn't exotic or supremely cobjobbed would be to get a well used prius, rip out the gas engine and tank (save them for later, see next), add additional batteries, now you have a full electric with some legs and it weighs less most likely. I don't know if anyone has done this yet, I know they made plugins that mean you lose most cargo space for the additional batts, but carrying around two engines, the ICE and the electric, plus the gas tank, plus the batteries, is just lame, it works but it is stoopid, twice as much weight as you want or need. The hybrid idea is OK- but not in the same frame, it is ridiculous really. The ICE and fuel tank need to be in a small trailer for trips, most of the time around town and commuting you can leave it unattached and just run pure electric. I could even see people not even buying the ICE trailer part if they only needed it a few times a year and just renting it on the odd weekends they need one.

Re:Neat!

[witherstaff (713820)]

You're right - the Aptera [aptera.com] Even has a design with solar panels on the car itself.

I think the major advantage is that you can clean a power plant much easier than every tailpipe out there. Now if we just started getting more nukes started, with fast breeder tech that reduced the waste drastically, it'd be even better.

Re:Neat!

[raddan (519638)]

But not only that-- this also means that any method we have for producing electrical power is a candidate for powering vehicles. So large solar arrays, wind farms, hydropower, geothermal power, trash incinerators, and [whatever else] all gain the ability to power our transportation network. This allows us to diversify our energy consumption, making it less likely in the future that our economic stability will depend on those-who-control-the-oil.

Re:Neat!

[tgd (2822)]

You should see what you pay in other taxes. Gas taxes pay for the roads (and the taxes are not high enough based on the state of the roads in most of the country).

What builders of EV and alternate fuel cars tend to learn the hard way is if you're not paying taxes on your fuel, you're breaking the law.

Most states have substantial (to the tune of $500 or more) additional yearly registration or excise taxes which have to be payed on pluggable EVs.

You're not going to escape the gas tax one way or another.

Air Bags

[ModernGeek (601932)]

It said in the article that the car got a special exemption for Air Bags. Was that only in the prototype, or also in the final version? I can see a nice lawsuit coming right after the first fatality in one of these.

Re:Air Bags

[dapyx (665882)]

It includes only "regular" air-bags, having an exemption from the "advanced" air-bag systems, which have been required in the United States since 1998. Such exemptions are common for compact roadsters, including Ferrari.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

I'd like an "off" switch for the air bags. Tami's under five feet tall, which makes air bags dangerous and even deadly for her.

Re:Air Bags

[EatHam (597465)]

Well, the solution to that problem doesn't revolve around air bags, it revolves around not dating 11 year olds.

Re:Air Bags

[by Anonymous Coward]

They are also professional drivers whose situation not only allows but forces them to put all attention on the task at hand (driving). The traffic they're in is also entirely made up of professional drivers whose situation not only allows but forces them to put all attention on the task at hand. And there are no pedestrians, wild animals, dropped matresses, or other foreign objects in general in their path.

This is not to say that the current state of regulation is necessarily right -- but the comparison to race cars is inane. The circumstances are totally different and so the safety concerns are totally different.

It's all well and good to ask why the law protects some idiot from his own mistake when he drives distracted. But did you ever notice how accidents often involve more than one car, and the other guy -- even if he's doing everything right -- is in harm's way, too? Again, intelligent people can argue about the government's role in regulating safety, but don't try to disguise the issue by pretending only idiots are in car accidents.

Re:Air Bags

[by Anonymous Coward]

Airbags are, like many other "safety" inventions, needless complications foisted on the car-buying public at large because a small percentage of lawyers insist that, as an occupant of a vehicle, you should be protected from yourself, regardless of any lack of common sense you might exhibit in the car.

What, like being dumb enough to let a drunk driver hit you? Or silly enough to allow your brakes to fail? Ooh, or being too stupid to notice that deer! It's not a "protect[ion] from yourself thing," it's just a "protection" thing, same as your seat belt, safety windshield, center brake light, and a dozen other things. I'd be happy to let you drive a car without those safety features -- just sign this little card explicitly refusing taxpayer-funded ambulance and emergency room services. After all, why should those of us who can be bothered to pay for the bare minimum precautions be forced to support your dumb ass on life support?

Congrats, Tesla

[Rei (128717)]

And, for those of you with more down to earth budgets, there's always Aptera [youtube.com], which starts shipping this winter (although reservations are filled through almost the end of '09 already). 2+1 seater, hyperefficient, space-age styling, 120 miles for all-electric or 40 miles electric + 130mpg. Test drives and factory tours start in a month or so.

If they bring it to the US (probably around the 2010 timeframe), there Mitsubishi i-EV [youtube.com] -- 4 seater, 100 miles, styled like a cross between a VW beetle and a PT cruiser, or perhaps between a Prius and a minivan.

There's also the Chevy Volt [youtube.com], late 2010, a 4 seater PHEV (40 miles electric, 50mpg after that) with "chopped" styling (I find it ugly, but a lot of people find it "sporty").

Lastly, as a bit more of a long shot, there's the VentureOne [youtube.com], a tandem two-seater cross between a car and a motorcycle that tilts into turns. 120 miles in the EV version, and should be pretty efficient, too.

Tesla Roadster in the Automotive X Prize

[by Anonymous Coward]

Tesla plans to compete for the Automotive X Prize, maybe with the Roadster (see Roadster Stat Page [xprizecars.com]), but more likely with the mentioned "Whitestar", about which nobody knows anything except that it has 4 seats and an optional range-extending ICE. The Roadster is actually only borderline able to compete - they have trouble with the 200 grams/mile CO2-equivalent emissions requirement. So it's likely they would have to drive slow (such a shame!).

Bad omen?

[Itninja (937614)]

plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar

I seem to remember another European company called White Star. I think they were in the news a few years back about some unpleasantness surrounding a shipwreck or some such. Said the Tesla CEO, "Even God himself couldn't wreck this car!".

I don't see the point...

[shawnmchorse (442605)]

...of a store opening to sell something they have no inventory of, and have no hope of having inventory of for quite some time due to already existing waiting lists. Seems like an expensive way to just keep their name/product visible, opening a store that can't sell anything.

Re:I don't see the point...

[llZENll (545605)]

It's a dealership! No normal mechanics are trained or certified to repair or maintain Teslas cars, so they have to open a dealership in every area they wish to sell cars.

"Tesla Motors will service your car at our Tesla Stores. We plan to open the first Tesla Stores in our five key markets (metropolitan San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami), each offering direct sales and support for buyers and owners. Our first two stores will open in early 2008."

Here's the Link

[Evets (629327)]

Oddly, the Tesla Motors website was missing from both the slashdot submission and the article.

http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]

The new "classic age" of autos

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Maybe it's just me, but I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling with the new electrics under development (or in production).

Having grown up around adults who worshipped at the altar of limited-run classic cars (59 1/2 Shelby Cobra, anyone?) I feel like we're witnessing (or in some cases, participating in -- lucky bastards) the dawn of a new era of classic cars.

I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to.

Anyway, my point is that I feel that we're finally witnessing the green car revolution, and I'm glad to be here for it.

Attention scuttlemonkey:

[sm62704 (957197)]

The masses can't afford a $100,000 car like you and Mr gates can.

Hot product!

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

The Roaster will have a range of 220 miles per charge and the mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon.

The Roaster? I didn't realize they were using Sony batteries! Or are they also taking inspiration from Apple laptops as well as their stores?

Rods per hogshead

[cocotoni (594328)]

Before anyone asks, 135 miles per gallon is 2 721 600 rods per hogshead.

And that's the way I likes it!

Meaningless phrase

[jamesl (106902)]

... mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon.

What is the conversion factor when going from "batteries charged off the grid" to "miles per gallon internal combustion gasoline engine?"

Tame racing driver

[boot1973 (809692)]

Give it to The Stig, Give it to the Stig!!

not 135 MPG equivalent!

[CottonThePirate (769463)]

I own a Prius, and I hate when you see some mod site say "get 120mpg with our extended battery pack". Oh and by the way you have to plug it into the wall using diesel generated power at $0.35 a kilowatt hour (I also live on Hawaii, power is hella expensive here). At electricity rates here most of these cars are more expensive to run than hybrid gas cars. We need a price per mile measurement. I realize that both gas and power fluctuate, but something similar to an energy guide on appliances. This car costs $.10 a mile on power at $.15 a kwH and gas at $4.00 a gallon. It's not ideal, but we need to quit letting these electric car makers get away with saying 135mpg. They may as well say "our all electric model gets infinity miles per gallon! It's the awesomest!"

Re:short range

[MidKnight (19766)]

So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home? Better yet, when was the last time *you* drove 100 miles away from your home? My point being, it doesn't happen every day for most people. Even so, you can charge the Tesla from a standard outlet [teslamotors.com] if you're away from home. But a roadster (electric or otherwise) isn't exactly the best choice for a road trip anyway.

That said, I'm looking forward to the day that either A) I have the expendable cash to afford a car like this, or B) the technology filters down to more typical consumer-targeted cars.

Re:Open to the masses?

[Bombula (670389)]

Hopefully the retarded 'vaporware' tag will be removed from this article. $109k is quite expensive, but there is a VERY large market for luxury autombiles, many of which are MUCH more expensive that $109k. We're not just talking about Ferraris here either. High-end BMW and Mercedes, and even Cadillacs, can reach or exceed these prices with full options.

The fact that this car is in production, that there is now a showroom where the public - if not the 'masses' - can see production models in person, and that according to Motor Trend and Car & Driver the Tesla Roadster out-performs every other production car EVER in the 30-70mph range (where 95% of all 'sport' driving of sports cars takes place), and that the car has gone from concept to production in under 10 years, in addition to the fact that this is an all-electric vehicle, altogether makes this a positively ASTONISHING accomplishment. Add to that the fact this car is a proof-of-concept and is, by design, a logical stepping-stone toward a mass-market all-electric vehicle, and you've got one of the few genuine harbingers of the green technology future in action TODAY.

So fuck you assholes and your vaporware tags. Get out of mom's basement, grow some balls and some vision, and maybe - just maybe - you might one day have a shot at being involved in a project one tenth as exciting and momentous as this one.

Re:A fool and his money

[Rei (128717)]

The transmission problem is interesting. Basically, they had this neat idea to do clutchless shifting by having the motor controller adjust the RPM during the shift. The problem was something that they didn't count on: the motor had too much rotational inertia, so they couldn't adjust the RPM fast enough. So, the motor would tear up the transmission. It wasn't that the transmission was somehow bad; it was just that their idea was unworkable.

Tesla gets its stated range... if you drive it like a normal car. If you drive it like a sports car, no surprise, your range gets reduced, just like you get worse mileage on high power gasoline cars when you actually exploit their power instead of driving them normally.

Re:Where does the electricity come from?

[danzona (779560)]

Instead of filling your car with gas, you're using coal/oil power plants instead. I don't see what the true benefit really is.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse, but in the US we get our electric power from the following (approximately, source: Wikipedia)
Coal: 49%
Natural gas: 20%
Nuclear: 19%
Hydroelectric: 7%
Other: 5%

You may not be American though, so in case you are French, you get your electric power from the following:
Nuclear: 78%
Hydroelectric: 11%
Coal: 4%
Natural gas: 4%
Other: 3%

Using a gasoline engine will never rid the US of dependency on foreign oil. Using a non gasoline engine, coupled with an energy program that emphasizes alternatives to fossil fuels has the possibility of ridding the US of dependency on foreign oil.

Re:Heat?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

I can't be the first one to think: how do they plan to ever sell electric cars as daily drivers in regions of the country where it gets cold?

You aren't. The Tesla has a battery heating/cooling system. They actually bring the batteries rapidly up to temperature, then try to hold them there.

People always criticize the internal combustion engine for being inefficient, but the fact is that all that "waste heat" isn't wasted at all. You need it to keep the passengers warm. I live in New England, and I'd like to not freeze on my way to work.

Cars are 25% efficient or less before the drivetrain losses, drag, et cetera. Just the ICE is that bad. Charging a battery can be over 80% efficient, the electric motor is probably around 95% efficient... Anyway, most of that heat IS wasted. You think that a lot of engine heat is entering your car because it feels hot to you. But the radiator transfers several times as much heat as your heater core, and that doesn't even count the direct radiative losses from the block, heads, pan, and especially exhaust manifolds.

It'll be pretty hard to sell people around here on a "family car" that you can't use between October and May.

You mean, It'd - since your objection is based on an already-solved issue. Are you getting paid to badmouth the Tesla, or is sharing your ignorance just a hobby?