it lives..........

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Adeptus_Minor

Amen.
They're cool as shit looking and it's nice to see a company realize the fact that not everyone who buys an alternative energy vehicle is going to be happy with a boring driving experience. But seriously... that price tag.
One would hope that their investment in battery manufacturing precipitates a drop in the cost of their vehicles.

For a supposed supercar (125mph top speed hurts that argument more than a little) the price isn't really horrible. Mercedes has a few cars that aren't even AMGs with base prices higher than that.

For a car that generously claims a range of under 250 miles though, any price is kind of hard to justify. Driven at full pace by Clarkson on Top Gear their Tesla only managed 45 miles before it ran out of juice. That automatically relegates the Tesla from transportation to toy in the eyes of most.

[unknownroad]

Originally Posted by goof2

One side issue, what dipshit decides to build a battery factory in the SF bay area? With their stringent environmental regulations, high labor costs, high property costs, and (I'm guessing) high tax rates that would be the last place I would want any factory, much less a battery factory. I would be concerned about any company that makes this kind of business decision.

That was my first thought as well. They could probably buy an operational facility in Detroit for less than the cost of the land they'd need to build their factory's parking lot in the Bay area.

A 250-mile range isn't a deal-killer for the ragtop, IMO. If you're dropping $90k on one, you've probably got other cars for long trips. 250 miles is more than enough to get you out to a fancy restaurant, pose downtown for a while, hit the clubs, and get back home to recharge. If you're a big-city hipster rather than a suburbanite, it'll probably get the job done for the whole weekend.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by unknownroad

That was my first thought as well. They could probably buy an operational facility in Detroit for less than the cost of the land they'd need to build their factory's parking lot in the Bay area.

A 250-mile range isn't a deal-killer for the ragtop, IMO. If you're dropping $90k on one, you've probably got other cars for long trips. 250 miles is more than enough to get you out to a fancy restaurant, pose downtown for a while, hit the clubs, and get back home to recharge. If you're a big-city hipster rather than a suburbanite, it'll probably get the job done for the whole weekend.

And that shows the limited usefulness of the vehicle. How many people do you think have the money to spend $90k (actually just over $100k) for a second or third vehicle, even if it didn't have significant range restrictions?

I also consider the 250 mile range optimistic. Again, Top Gear tested one on their track and only managed to get the car 45 miles before it needed recharging. While they were using it at 10/10ths the whole time I wouldn't feel very confident the car would get anywhere near 250 miles when driven at 7/10ths.

This car would be ideal for a "big-city hipster" except most big city hipsters don't have a private garage. How are they going to charge the thing when they have to park on the street or in a large parking garage?

Most of the young "big-city hipsters" I have seen are also $40k per year millionaires living off credit and couldn't afford one $90k car, much less one as a second car.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by goof2

How long did the battery last?

It requires an outlet to recharge. So, when the battery was low - just plugged it in and good to go in about 15 minutes.

The real bummer was - about a week after it was at the track, it was destroyed on IH35 by having a semi destroy it in a major traffic incident. The driver OK - car destroyed.

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by azoomm

It requires an outlet to recharge. So, when the battery was low - just plugged it in and good to go in about 15 minutes.

The real bummer was - about a week after it was at the track, it was destroyed on IH35 by having a semi destroy it in a major traffic incident. The driver OK - car destroyed.

I would love to see a battery completely drained that you could recharge to full capacity in 15 minutes. If that were the case we would all be driving plug ins. On a different note this looks like one more times some campaign contributor bought influence (oh and apparently your tax dollars too)

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

On a different note this looks like one more times some campaign contributor bought influence (oh and apparently your tax dollars too)

pppssshhhhhaaaaa... that wouldn't EVER happen....

[goof2]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

I would love to see a battery completely drained that you could recharge to full capacity in 15 minutes. If that were the case we would all be driving plug ins.

Tesla quotes 3 1/2 hours to go from fully discharged to fully charged, but that is only if you have had their high power recharge kit (240 volt, 70 amp) installed in your home. After 100 miles it still takes 2 hours. They don't quote a time for using a standard outlet as they say people will charge when they sleep and it will be recharged when they wake up so it doesn't matter.

They also don't say who is willing to have you hook up to their outlet to charge it, which is a factor when the car needs electricity about equal to what the average house uses in 2 full days.

[askmrjesus]

It should be pointed out, that the innovation that drove the technology now found in consumer based transportation, often came from ridiculously expensive vehicles.

Think MotoGP, F-1, and for that matter, NASA.

JC

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

It should be pointed out, that the innovation that drove the technology now found in consumer based transportation, often came from ridiculously expensive vehicles.

Think MotoGP, F-1, and for that matter, NASA.

JC

The difference is taxpayers are not required to fund MotoGP and F-1. I'm OK with NASA but I don't think we need another one to fund what what amounts to a rich person's toy.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

The difference is taxpayers are not required to fund MotoGP and F-1. I'm OK with NASA but I don't think we need another one to fund what what amounts to a rich person's toy.

I guess it all depends on whether or not it's successful in creating jobs and new technology.

I would be the first to admit, however, that this project would not have been my first choice.

JC