Tesla Roadster Electric Sports Car

TriedandTested · 12 Aug 2006 at 12:56

The electric Tesla Roadster has the equivalent of 135 mpg and a range of 250 miles on a single charge, a combination unseen until now in a mass-produced electric car. Its extended range is due to its state-of-the-art lithium-ion Energy Storage System.
The Tesla Roadster is capable of accelerating from 0-60 mph in four seconds.

Using a unique two-speed electrically activated manual transmission, the Tesla Roadster's power comes from a 3-phase, 4-pole AC induction motor. The motor is controlled by the Power Electronics Module (PEM) which also controls the inverting direct current to 3-phase alternating current, charging and braking systems.

Tesla Motors's engineers have gone to great lengths to ensure that not only is the Tesla Roadster safe to drive, but also is safe when charging, at home or on the road.

The electric motor's efficiency rating is likely to be as high as 95 percent, while the internal combustion engine's efficiency is 20 percent or less. With this efficiency, the Tesla Roadster achieves the equivalent of 135 mpg.

That efficiency doesn't slow this sleek sports car down, either. Estimated 0-60 mph time is around four seconds, and with an electric motor, the torque is instantaneous, throw-you-back-in-the-seat responsive.

All in all, this is remarkable sports car!

Oh heck: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17612701

Vita · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:07

Looks like a Konesiegg or w/e and a Lotus Elise

. Nice car for electric though.

clv101 · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:09

Tried&Tested said:
The electric motor's efficiency rating is likely to be as high as 95 percent, while the internal combustion engine's efficiency is 20 percent or less.

That's as may be but if the electricity was generated in a coal power station running at 35% efficiency, a nuclear power station at 30% efficiency or even a gas power station at 55%, ~7% was lost in transmission and the battery charge/discharge cycle would only be some 95% efficient at best would might be left with an overall efficiency of 26%, lower than a regular internal combustion engine.

Electric cars are good in that they can run on coal, nuclear, wind energy etc... but don't go thinking they are more efficient that regular internal combustion engines. Good diesel engines are pretty close to what's ever going to be available with a single cycle thermal system.

Rosbif · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:18

and its cost?

Scottland · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:18

Rosbif said:
and its cost?

$80k I think

clv101 · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:19

Rosbif said:
and its cost?

So far, it appears that Tesla is the closest to actually getting some cars on the road -- the Silicon Valley firm says 40 well-heeled customers have paid $100,000 each for a car, even though they won't get their new toys for at least a year.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/09/MNGSSKDMBT1.DTL

Rosbif · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:27

right so nice idea practically useless to 99% of people

clv101 · 12 Aug 2006 at 13:32

Rosbif said:
right so nice idea practically useless to 99% of people

Well how many 0-60 mph in four seconds cars can you name for <$100,000? Maybe a 0-60 in 10 sec car could be cheaper, also there'll be a lot of scope for that price to come down if they were made by the 10,000's not the 10's.

Dr.EM · 17 Nov 2006 at 14:18

They will be building an electric coupe, look out for that

.

Very nice car though, must be wierd to drive, so simple with no gears (well, unless your going over 60). I would probably choose it over a petrol sports car of similar price as its just generally very interesting to me. Only letdown is the fact it needs charging after 250miles as that is not such a quick process as refuelling. Not a problem for a majority of uses though, nice

Puzzled · 17 Nov 2006 at 15:31

Dr.EM said:
They will be building an electric coupe, look out for that .

Very nice car though, must be wierd to drive, so simple with no gears (well, unless your going over 60). I would probably choose it over a petrol sports car of similar price as its just generally very interesting to me. Only letdown is the fact it needs charging after 250miles as that is not such a quick process as refuelling. Not a problem for a majority of uses though, nice

What about the noise though?

The car could be as fast a rocket ship but without the lovely exhaust note it's just not the same.

Glaucus · 17 Nov 2006 at 15:35

Nice car, but unfortunately, it doesn't take seconds to refill..

Psycrow · 17 Nov 2006 at 15:42

If every house hooked their car up to a wind/solar recharging station then maybe this would be a 1/2 decent idea. With our current power generation methods its stupid, we should be looking for easy to make, less polluting readily available fuels OR entirely change the power generation system first.

Dr.EM · 17 Nov 2006 at 16:08

I wouldn't miss the noise personally, but can see it may be dangerous around pedestrians etc.

Your right Psycrow in some ways. I'd agree that either people need to be producing thier own energy (a wind turbine and solar cell can power most british houses) or a serious revamp in the way energy is produced is needed. This simply has to happen and if the ones in charge don't get about doing it, I will be adding wind turbines and solar cells to my house (if I ever get one!). Since these things must happen soon anyway, these cars need to be produced alongside. They just happen to appear a little before, but thats good since it will take time to produce enough of them anyway

FireBIade · 17 Nov 2006 at 16:58

I think the idea is that we find greener ways of producing electricity and that eventually efficiencies will increase...