Talk:Tesla Roadster (first generation)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Remove "Criticism and Rebuttal"

I think we should remove the criticism and rebuttal sections. The tag at the top, {{future automobile}}, is enough to signal readers that information may change once the car is released. Future cars from Ferrari, Porsche, BMW, and others don't have a criticism section. Also, it seems a bit ridiculous that the electric Tesla Roadster is criticized for not being green enough while the other $100k cars that produce so much more pollution are not. The criticism and rebuttal sections are written in a conversational, un-encyclopedic tone and are comprised of entirely unreferenced claims. -Kslays 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. To leave a door open to discussion, I've opted to comment them. This definetly needs to be discussed on the talk page before being finalized in a presentable version!
MaxDZ8 talk 09:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them to clean up the article. If anyone wants them they'll always be available through the history tab. -kslays 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Good thing it was removed.Sacor1192 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla's nationality

He is born in Croatia but is Serbian....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_tesla

Confused

The Tesla Roadster is the first fully electric automobile to be produced by electric car firm Tesla Motors under the supervision of Patrick Meyer(43) whos all about putting lots of poop on that motor.

poop?

yes, poop.

Who the heck is Patrick Meyer? He doesn't work at Tesla. 63.83.63.2 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Scott Brenneman

Stephen Colbert

Is the engine seriously design by Stephen Colbert, as the article claims? 208.51.59.132 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Didn't you know? You need to watch a lot more TV. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wh/km

I've tried to reduce this articles petrol-centricness by minimising the tendency to use mpg or CO2 at every opportunity. When comparing electric cars, or trying to calculate running costs, Wh/km, or Wh/mile, is the standard and more useful measure. The equivalence debate belongs in the "fuel efficiency" section alone.

One thing I note though is that Tesla don't state the test cycle for their 110 Wh/km. I suppose it's too much to hope for that it was evaluated using the standard UNECE R101 test cycle. (Is there a US EPA equivalent?) --KJBracey 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just spotted that their 110 Wh/km is stated as "energy used from the battery". R101 requires that energy usage is measured from the charging port (as it's the only sensible way to compare cars). Given their 86% figure, that drops them to 95 Wh/km, in R101 terms. Just goes to highlight the need for proper enforcement of standards in this area. I'll change the article accordingly. Still don't know their test cycle though... --KJBracey 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Too used to thinking in mpg, rather than gpm. That should, of course, be 130 Wh/km.--KJBracey 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for noticing this. We should bug them on their blog to use R101, or at least give Wh/km from the outlet, not the battery. -kslays 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for isolating the petrol-centricness. It's good to keep it confined. Footnote 8 in Tesla Motor's white paper "The 21st Century Electric Car" indirectly references a 60mph constant speed test cycle. This is a very common way to "test" electric cars. Mwarren us 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a rather optimistic figure, if that's what they used. R101 requires the same urban+extra-urban cycle used for measuring petrol car efficiency to be used for measuring electric efficiency and range. --KJBracey 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The bulk analysis method suggested above (in the Fuel Efficiency discussion) also suggests that 110Wh/km was derived on a cycle different from the EPA "highway" cycle.--Mwarren us 05:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me out with Wh/km I am not familiar with the Wh units. Can these be introduced or wiki linked? Thanks --68.38.131.226 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Total (monetary) Cost of Ownership?

Should this article retain the TCO section? Tesla Motors specifically chose not to compete on a Total (monetary) Cost of Ownership basis and other Wikipedia automotive articles do not discuss Total Cost of Ownership. I vote no on the TCO section. There are just too many unknowns (insurance cost? depreciation? repair cost? "typical" financing? etc...) and, even if a good TCO could be calculated, there is little data for comparison in Wikipedia. Edmunds.com's "True Cost to Own" system explains one set of factors to calculate TCO but those factors are not yet available for the Tesla Roadster. Mwarren us 07:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make much sense anyway. By sure it shouldn't be a direct comparison (there should be another article, or a note on other cars and let the reader take considerations). Also, some data of their calculation seems way off (3$ per cell? 2000$ for 100+ miles? 100k roadesters/year?).
Furthermore, it doesn't take in consideration the satisfaction of producing your fuel yourself (priceless). I believe it should be considerably rewritten, checked, worked on. In the actual form, it shouldn't be there.
MaxDZ8 talk 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the TCO section. If it's relevant at all, it seems to me to be an argument against a straw man -- no one is claiming that the Tesla is cheap. It also needs a lot of cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards. --Steve Pucci | talk 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the TCO section with a reference to the cost comparison section in the Battery Electric Vehicle article. The TCO section is still visible in the article history here.Mwarren us 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I was about to modify my comment to say that it's not quite a straw man because of the monetary cost discussion in the fuel efficiency section, and a reference there to the BEV article might be appropriate. :-) --Steve Pucci | talk 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call on removing the section. The link is plenty. -kslays 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the Relationship Between Tesla Motors and AC Propulsion

While we at Tesla Motors are generally impressed with the caliber of information provided on our company and vehicles here on Wikipedia, there are a couple of minor areas that warrant clarification. For this reason, I have made a few edits to the Wikipedia entry as they relate to the Tesla Roadster and our partners/component suppliers for this vehicle.

AC Propulsion’s significant innovations in advancing EV technology notwithstanding, it is an overstatement to say that “The Roadster was developed in collaboration with Lotus Cars and AC Propulsion.” In fact, while it is true that Tesla Motors licensed AC Propulsion's reductive charging patent which is used in Tesla’s proprietary drive electronics, Tesla buys no components from AC Propulsion and AC Propulsion was neither a partner in, nor otherwise involved in, the design or manufacture of the Tesla Roadster or any of the principal drivetrain components that are used in the Roadster. It would be more accurate to say, “The Roadster was developed in collaboration with Lotus Cars” and leave out the reference to AC Propulsion.

It is also not entirely accurate to state: “Roadster propulsion technology is principally matured from that seen in the tzero, Venturi Fetish, and Wrightspeed X1.” This one is trickier. If propulsion technology loosely translates as AC motors, then it is roughly accurate. However, we interpret – as would most people following the EV industry – “propulsion technology” to include not only the AC motor itself (invented long before any of the named platforms by our company’s namesake, Nikola Tesla) but the combination of the AC motor controlled as controlled by a PEM (Power Electronics Module) and fed by the ESS (Energy Storage System). These are the fundamental subsystems that encompass the Roadster’s “propulsion technology,” and the only component which loosely connects the above-listed vehicles is the use of an AC motor fed by some source of stored electricity (in some cases, as with both Wrightspeed and AC Propulsion, a final battery vendor or type has not yet been identified).

For this reason, the statement should either read “AC motor technology found in the Tesla Roadster is principally matured from…” or, the reference to the other electric vehicle platforms should be eliminated in favor of a Tesla-specific explanation of the patented subsystems which comprise Tesla’s unique propulsion technology: “The Tesla Roadster’s propulsion technology includes three primary subsystems. These include the polyphase AC induction motor, PEM (Power Electronics Module) and ESS (Energy Storage System), each of which Tesla has a number of significant patents both issued and pending.”

One area in which an outside supplier is under-credited is in the following statement: “The car will be assembled at the Lotus factory in Hethel, England, with all drivetrain components and body components supplied to the factory by Tesla.” This gives the impression that there are no body components supplied by Lotus, and this is not the case. In fact, Lotus is a component supplier to Tesla for a number of body components, including carry-over parts from the Elise which include the windshield, air bag components, a number of dashboard components including ancillary switchgear.”

I hope these revisions help clarify relationships and technologies as they relate to the Tesla Roadster and welcome the opportunity to provide additional information that can further supplement the Wikipedia entries for Tesla Motors and our vehicles.

David Vespremi, Tesla Motors, Director of Public Relations

Hello Mr. Vespremi and welcome! This article should gain with additions and corrections from an "insider" such as those that you've detailed above. I'm pleased to see the longer explanation here and clarification about Tesla Motors' patent licensing. I've always wondered a bit about that section and so I'm glad to have a contributor who can shed more light in this area. Without more details from Tesla, the web page "Vehicles featuring AC Propulsion Technology" from AC Propulsion might have been the source of some confusion as well. Speaking of details, do you know how Tesla Motors' determined the 110Wh/km figure used in "The 21^st Century Electric Car" white paper?

On patents: I assume the Reductive^TM charging patent referred to is patent 5341075; is that correct (if not, the link should be fixed to point to the correct patent)? Is that the only patent licensed? I thought that Tesla Motors might have also licensed the "T"-rotor bar patent 5642010, the AC motor fabrication patent 5729885 or the Anti-clipping circuit patent 6018224. (My apologies in advance for bothering Tesla's lawy... - wait, you're a lawyer - with those questions).

For those wishing to read more of David Vespremi's writing, his Tesla Motors "Feel" _{(awww, what a cute lil ol' name)} blog entry entitled "Driving Dynamics" was a great read. I haven't had a chance to read his book "Car Hacks and Mods for Dummies". Mwarren us 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Vespremi, thanks for the clarifications. They are appreciated. -kslays 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a reference to Tony Bazouni in the Development section and did a minor rework of the phrasing that seemed to indicate that Tesla was working off a modified Elise chassis (this is not the case). I checked with Malcolm Powell, VP of Vehicle Integration here at Tesla (formerly of Lotus) and he did not recognize Mr. Bazouni or know of his involvement in the Roadster. If there were a need to call out specific names in the Roadster's development process, JB Straubel, Tesla's Chief Technology Officer, would be the obvious choice over Mr. Bazouni (whomever he may be).

-- David Vespremi

EV1

Is this car's system like the EV1? DOes it run soely on battery? Or is it a hybrid which runs 50/50? --Elven6 20:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It runs on battery only; no petrol fuel is used. As for similarities to the EV1, the Roadster's Energy Storage System (ESS, aka battery pack), drive electronics and motor represent significant advancement beyond the EV1. The GM Impact/EV1 was originally designed starting in 1988! EV1 Gen I used lead-acid and the EV1 GenII was upgraded to NiMH. The Roadster now uses much improved li-ion batteries. In addition, at least two prominent figures in the development of the GM Impact drive system are involved with the Roadster as well. Wally Rippel worked at Aerovironment on the GM Impact (later renamed EV1) and now works at Tesla Motors. Alan Cocconi at AC Propulsion also consulted on the Impact/EV1 drive system and one of his patents (Reductive charging technology) has been licensed by Tesla and used in the Roadster. --Mwarren us 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Ownership

I'm thinking about removing Jim Marver from the notable ownership section. Sure, he's a rich investor, but that doesn't make him "notable"--neither he nor his company even have articles. If being rich is the standard, than just about every current customer could be considered "notable"... Kardax 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reference indicating that Milen Tesic Tesla is a Tesla Roadster customer. He should be removed if a reference is not found soon. Kardax 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry but he IS a future owner.

At the very least, the citation for Milan Tesic Tesla should be removed. Tesla never had children, so this cannot be his grandson. Gunther von Wienerschnitzel 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

After a two day grace period, I have removed Milan Tesic Tesla from the notable ownership list. His only apparent claim to fame is that he's supposed to be Nikola Tesla's grandson and - as explained above - that is patently false. Further online research yields no remarkable feats associated to his name, save a base semblance to a historically influential character's name. Gunther von Wienerschnitzel 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just a question: Is OJ Simpson really known for his acting career. I mean, he's known for a lot of things, but I wouldn't define him by his acting career. Especially without a citation.

OJ is not an owner. I have removed the entry.

-- DavidV

About reference 18

It actually reads as:

“ 18: Sam Davis (12 2006). Roadster Gets 250 Miles Per Charge. “A private email from Mr. Davis further cites the source of the pack layout information as Tesla Motors program manager who also reviewed this Electronic Design article for accuracy. Tesla Motor's CEO Martin Eberhard states categorically that this description of the arrangement of cells is completely wrong.” ”

Uhm... What's the rationale in providing a reference like that? Is it the wiki entry wrong? Is it the article? Where? It puzzles me a bit.

85.18.201.168 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The exact layout of the Li-ion cells within the ESS has been the subject of much speculation. After research on the web and questioning Tesla Motors employees (all of whom said basically "no comment"), Mr. Davis' article seemed like the most reliable (but still not great) source about the ESS' layout. The comment in private email from Mr. Davis regarding his primary source of information seemed relevant for others wishing to follow up on the information. After I placed the ESS layout information in the article, an author with the Wikipedia userid "Mfeberhard" added the above comment inline in the article. It seemed quite a bit less than encyclopedic, thus I moved it into the citation section awaiting verification and have attempted to contact Tesla Motors (via email on their web site contact page) to confirm or deny the author's identity as the CEO of Tesla Motors and veracity or lack thereof of the ESS layout described in Mr. Davis' article. No response has been received. Ideally, Tesla Motors would provide a citation/reference for the ESS' actual layout. Mwarren us 07:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the above IP, that was really me).
If I understand the point, the issue here is that we have no knowledge of the exact issue for which the source is wrong. That's problematic. Let's see what information we have from that reference which is not covered in the official Tesla Motors' docs.

• "Each cell is 18 mm in diameter and 650 mm long with a nominal 3.6 V and a 2.2-A/hr rating". This cannot really be. 650mm is something hardly usable for a laptop. I guess the best way to confirm the voltage and H/h rating is to check out the cell docs. They'll probably be available.
• "Each sheet produces 32.4 V (nominal)". Uhm... as far as I remember from my little knowledge of electronics, connecting in series some generators will add the voltage. So, 11 generators of 32.4V each will output ideally ~356V... while the "nominal" voltage of the pack is declared to be 375V. Is this the problem? Does it make any sense? It is still possible to use a converter to raise voltage at the expense of current but it seems rather dumb.
• "One sheet supplies voltage for the car's accessories, such as lights and power windows". I guess we'll never have official confirmation on this - it's part of their secrets.

Also, from the wiki entry I can read:

• "Each sheet contains 69 parallel strings and provides 32.4V (nominal). Each string contains 9 cells in series". If we have 69 parallel strings each with 2.2A/hr they'll sum giving 151.8A/hr. Then, assuming 375V, this is ~56kWh, which is what was declared in the docs. Note that effectively, 9 * 3.2V = 32.4V, which seems to be ok.

Besides this gritty thing about the power source, it seems to match.
I think you also get the bigger picture - there's a bit of an issue on dismissing a source based on a "private email". Maybe we could try a compromise solution getting the rid of that "10+1 strings" stuff?
I wouldn't expect an official statement on this - they've better things to do than rectifying WP articles...
MaxDZ8 talk 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the article needs this level of detail. The articles for other car do not describe the minutiae of engine mechanics, so why should the roadster article describe the exact layout, especially when it's not even verified! I think a general description of layers of many batteries surrounded by circulating coolant with thermal runaway containment for each cell is sufficient. If no one objects, I'll remove the unverified nitty-gritty. -kslays 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support this.
MaxDZ8 talk 05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I removed the following section. -kslays 19:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Total internal heat exchange surface: ~27m².
• Completely passive current limiting device with positive temperature coefficient for each cell.
• Current Interrupt device ("CID") at cell level for internal pressure protection.
• Cells arranged in 11 battery modules ("sheets"), each with a monitoring processor.
• Operates at nominal 375 V
• Electric power: 200 kW
• Global monitoring circuit.
• No high voltage systems normally accessible from outside.
• Electrically isolated enclosure.
• High voltage output only on external request using special signals (contactors typically open).
• The liquid cooling system uses 50% water and 50% glycol.
• Arrangement: 6831 cells, size 18650, in 11 sheets. Each sheet contains 69 parallel strings and provides 32.4V (nominal). Each string contains 9 cells in series. 10 of the sheets provide traction power, the 11th sheet provides accessory power.

I understand the need to keep low level details to a minimum on Wikipedia but some of those points are quite interesting. I think at least some of them should be left in the article because the central piece of equipment in the Telsa is arguably the battery system.

Lightweight and powerful electric motors are quite common as well as most of the other equipment in the car, but battery systems for elecric vehicles are real engineering headaches. In other words, if the battery system weighed 1 kilogram and cost $1, these cars would replace our gasoline cars overnight. And so I think low level details such as the cell arrangement and the methods they have used to move high voltage wires away from the outside of the battery block are important details of this invention.LegendLength (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gearbox Transmission

The infobox for the gearbox/transmission is getting a little messy. There is no clutch pedal, but someone edited it to say 'dual clutch.' There is no automatic transmission, but there is an automatic computer-controlled manual shifter. What is the best way to describe it clearly for non-experts? -kslays 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic is the euro term for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.231.179 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Revision

Looks like Tesla Motors has had trouble with the Magna transmission they switched to from their original Xtrac. I removed the entry in the infobox, but AFAIK, it is unknown what kind of transmission they will use now. Also, this will probably delay Roadster delivery well into 2008. -kslays (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Capacity

The Automobile infobox ({{Infobox Automobile}}) has a line that states Fuel Capacity. For a battery vehicle this line is being used to indicate the size battery used, hence it should not say n/a (not applicable), or none, but instead should say "Battery" followed by the battery specifications. 199.125.109.120 13:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's there now.--Mwarren us (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia list

These notable owners list are in not one single way still not relevant enouth, if you dsagree, then explain why are they relevant, is this because Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie dirves one, you have to want one. Before you bring it back, refer to WP:TRIVIA, WP:REL, WP:LC, WP:FAN. Please refer to WP:CARS for further discussion. Willirennen 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Companies give away free stuff to famous people so they can be seen being owned by the "right" people, as a form of promotion. So this list of famous owners of something that's not even out yet is pretty damn close to advertising. Perhaps the whole lot should be replaced by a sentence to the effect that early runs of the car are being driven by various celebrities for promotional purposes. Totnesmartin 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is now noted in the article. Wikipedia is not for advertising. This article already contains too much promotion. — CZmarlin 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be a valid argument if the company is actually discounting or giving away the cars to celebrities. Does anyone have any evidence of this? I haven't seen any. What I've seen says that these people have paid full price for the cars. Of course, for the wealthy among the list, full price is still less of a sacrifice than for most people. I'm not arguing for the return of the list; just that the sentence that's replaced it may have gone too far in the opposite direction.

I'd also ask that people who make controversial edits in this article (in both directions) wait until there is consensus on the talk page here before taking action. This is always a controversial topic (as noted in the WP articles referenced above) and not all editors agree about the correct amount of "cultural context" to provide. My personal vote is to replace the list with a sentence saying that a number of celebrities have purchased the car, without mentioning names or making any value statements about whether this is important. The sentence I would write is

Among the reported pre-sales for the car are a number of celebrities, which has increased the visibility of the car in the popular culture.

but I'll wait until there is consensus before editing. --Steve Pucci | talk 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the whole article is a promotion piece for the vehicle. It even starts out with the report and quote from its "celebrity" and "invitation-only" so-called "unveiling" as well as its "appearance" at the Academy Awards ... this is not your typical description of the product that is available for public purchase in other Wikipedia articles. — CZmarlin 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there's too much fluff here, particularly in the intro/history section, which needs paring down and rewriting. The words you quote are good examples and are particularly egregious. But there is also real content in the article, so it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the whole article is a promotion piece. So let's fix it (but please discuss any potentially controversial changes here first). --Steve Pucci | talk 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering these edits are made by a anon user, I will request this to be placed as a request for WP:RFPP. At least you IP users will have something to edit now! Willirennen (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this having need to be edited as this article look as it everything has been copied directly from every press release available and it make me think I am reading a car brochure or press release. My recommendation as other would say is castrate this article 100% and personally, I can't see what is the relevance of the celebrity part, its like going up to a celebrity and selling them a car. Willirennen (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy on 'celebrity owners' at WP:CARS is clear. We only mention owners who can be shown to have had some positive or negative influence on the image car...improved sales...extended production...design change...whatever. We need references for each and every mentioned celebrity to show what that influence was...it's definitely not enough to show that Mr X owned a Y. We need to see that Mr X owned a Y and as a consequence, Y's sales went up. The text on this subject must be written in prose - not a simple list of owners. SteveBaker (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)