Talk:Tesla Roadster (first generation)

Charging time

The Tesla page [1] says it needs approx. 4h with a 90A(!) breaker, not 3,5 (and now assume the Tesla numbers are even a bit more positive). The "High Power Connector" (which is named Home Connector) must be installed by a professional electrician, it might be interesting to point out also the others possibilities. Suggestion (i'm not a native speaker, so i will not change the article directly):

"A full recharge takes approx. 4 hours using the (high power) Home Connector connected to a 90A breaker rating at 240 volt. The Home Connector must be installed by a professional electrician, but there are charging solutions for standard outlets available. The charging time with these vary from 6 hours (50A breaker (NEMA 14-50 connector) to 30 hours with a standard 15A wall outlet." source: http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.125.189 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 April 2010

Roadster v. 2.5

I jumped to the official Tesla website and it announced the Roadster v. 2.5. I'm thinking for a minute.... WTF? I know that the drive train was updated and called v. 1.5, but I wasn't aware of model versions being labeled like computer software.

I guess it would figure for a company like Tesla to throw out the concept of a model year, but instead do "revision" numbering instead. More to the point.... is there some kind of comparison between the different model versions in terms of specs, and does this "version 2.5" really mean much of anything other than it is just an upgrade to the Roadster? It still is the same car, but I don't see any mention in this article about the different model version numbers, and certainly nothing that would reference a "version 2.0" or anything else like that. I don't even know where to stick this "fact" into this article either. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, after 2012 they are ending their contract with Lotus, and designing an entirely new convertible ("Roadster") based on the Model S which they will manufacture at the NUMMI facility. I wonder what they'll name that version? I would have named it the Roadster 2.0, and this Lotus-built incremental upgrade 1.8 or something, but that's just me. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would find it hard to believe that Tesla would give up a profitable product line without something else to take its spot in the high end, high performance sports car market. I know Tesla has been increasing its in-house manufacturing capabilities, and the basic design and form of the Roadster is something that Tesla has full control over in terms of intellectual property concerns. Lotus derived parts are relatively few, and the final assembly for the Roadster has been happening in California for quite some time now. The real issue for Tesla is to fulfill the contract with Lotus without having to pay a financial penalty for canceling the contract.

Speaking from the perspective of writing this article, it would seem reasonable to mention some production variants and how this vehicle has evolved over the course of its production. This is done for other vehicle articles on Wikipedia, and if there is a distinction of "Version 2.5" it would be nice to know what "Version 2.0" really was or if something like that ever existed in the first place. Is this something stamped on the VIN nameplate or is this something done more internally to Tesla? What kinds of changes have been made between each version and is it something cosmetic or something more involved? Obviously there have been changes to the transmission, and some discussion about the battery pack has been made by Tesla over the years too (particularly by Martin Eberhard). Is there something else that I'm missing here, and where might some good sources of information about these different production models be found? --Robert Horning (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best source of that kind of information I've found is Tesla Motors Club, but that forum is clearly not Wikipedia reference quality. I doubt we'll find a ref to 2.0, and Eberhard took down his blog long ago. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 production versions of the car released 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5, each edition created changes in the power train, PEM and interior/exterior styling components. I will start creating a list here of what was different in the versions to eventually be moved into the article when it is complete.

Version 1.5 VIN#'s founders series 0-37, signature series 0-100 Production series 101-500

Version 2.0 VIN#'s 501-?

Version 2.5 Vin#'s ?-2500

In July 2010, Tesla introduced the "Roadster 2.5", the latest update of the Roadster. New features in Roadster 2.5 include:

• A new look, which includes a new front fascia with diffusing vents, and rear diffuser reflecting the future of Tesla design
• Directional forged wheels available in both silver and black
• New seats with improved comfort, larger more supportive bolsters and a new lumbar support system
• Power control hardware that enables spirited driving in exceptionally hot climates
• An optional 7" touchscreen display with back-up camera
• Improved interior sound reduction including new front fender liner material make the cabin quieter

Stupidity

"The Roadster does not actually use gasoline"

D'uh! --213.130.254.20 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain.... or explain why you can't re-word this? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the wording. When it is taken out of context it looks bad, but in actuality it is being used to explain why determining a petroleum equivalent efficiency is complex. --Leivick (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, Leivick. Taken in context, this is perhaps the best wording for the basic idea that is being attempted here at least trying to explain the MPG equivalence. I just didn't think I needed to spend a paragraph explaining myself to what looked like it was a troll trying to be a gadfly and failing in the process. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the IP. The sentence as it stands is banal in the extreme. "Automobile efficiency is currently measured in terms of miles travelled per litre of fuel consumed. The Roadster's efficiency in those terms can be calculated by converting the energy contained within one litre of fuel into electrical energy" or such would be a much better way of handling it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. "Starting at the Geneva autoshow, the roadster will travel until its arrival at the Paris Autoshow on September 28, 2010."

This entry should be in the past tense.

2. The "History" section needs to be reworked. The updates for the 2010 and 2.5 versions should probably have their own section or be a subsection. They don't say much about history.

3. I think the "Development" section could easily and conveniently be merged with the "History" section. There is more history in "Development" than in "History".

4. The "6% part overlap" appears twice in the article. It's repetitive.

5. "At the "Town Hall Meeting" with owners in December 2007, Tesla announced plans to ship the initial 2008 Roadsters with their interim Magna two-speed direct shift manual transmissions locked into second gear".

What is the "Town Hall Meeting"? Where does it come from? There is no explanation why the gear had to be locked in second. This should be added.

6. "The coolant pump draws 146 watts." Is it 146W per hour or what?

7. "Richard Meaden was the first to review the all-new right-hand-drive version of the Roadster".

The "all-new" expression is a lousy marketing joke used by people in marketing to sell stuff. It should be eliminated or replace by a simple "new".

8. The reviews are not listed chronologically but backwards. I think it should be the other way around.

9. "This car is Biblically quick!" I understand this is a quotation but does biblically have to be capitalized?

ICE77 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"146 W per hour" doesn't make sense. GregorB (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)