Tesla Roadster races 387 km (240 miles) on a single charge in France, Monaco
Not long ago, the guys at Top Gear had the chance to enjoy a Tesla Roadster (sadly, the video of that much-discussed event is no longer available). Two things Jeremy Clarkston and crew criticized were the Tesla's range and brakes. The Roadster has now made a strong counter-claim about its range. Recently, a Roadster was taken to the Rallye Monte Carlo d'Energies Alternatives where it managed to go 241 miles on a single charge, just about the maximum range the Roadster is rated for (244 miles).
The car ended up being the only EV on the race, which went from Valence, France, to Monaco. The course used highways, where speeds of 90 km/h (60mph) were common, two-lane roads at 60 km/h (40 mph), and some 30 km/h (20 mph) mountain roads. Did the Roadster have a problem? Nope. The drivers didn't even stop to have lunch. The Roadster finally reached Monaco after 387.6 km (241miles), and the indicator said the car could run for another 61 km (38 miles). An absolute record for a production EV.
[Source: Le Blog Auto]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Epyx 1:50PM (4/01/2009)
Nice, pretty impressive.
What was the average speed and how did the it compare with the others in the race?
Reply
moogy 2:01PM (4/01/2009)
This is just good publicity.
At this point any EV good news is welcome even if doesn't really reflect what the average person would do with EV.
Reply
PabloKoh 2:19PM (4/01/2009)
Yes Big 3 it can be done.
Reply
Pholostan 4:22PM (4/01/2009)
I always find it amusing when people give credebility to the entertainment show Top Gear. The show that flips cars ower cliffs and fires RPG:s at them. And if I recall correctly, the show where the Tesla appeard they showed an experimental hydrogen car and said that hydrogen was the future. Seriously? Come on, Top Gear might be hilariously funny, but they are not a great source of unbiased information.
Reply
Tohe 4:43PM (4/01/2009)
Keep it up Tesla! Their zero compromise vision is truly remarkable and commendable.
Reply
Marc-O 4:48PM (4/01/2009)
Pretty damn impressive, especially when you consider they were getting whipped around... One more nail (as if any more were needed) in Top Gear's deceitful claims' coffin. Hopefully they can be laid to rest now...
Reply
Snoopy 5:32PM (4/01/2009)
So you want to see the Top Gear Tesla review? Once something goes online, it's hard to keep it offline. Even if you take it off one source, it'll usually pop up somewhere else. Like this! http://video.aol.com/video-detail/top-gear-reviews-the-tesla-roadster/4052367588.
Cheers
Reply
Mike 5:58PM (4/01/2009)
Whilst this is all very nice clarkson was not talking about range in normal use which this article appears to be. he was talking about range when used on their track which would of been pretty flat out from start till battery death.
Clarkson likes to push the limits of what they can get away with saying. the program has no cooperate sponsorship it's funded by us brits paying our TV license fees so they can get away with most things so don't worry about it folks
Reply
Dave 7:35AM (4/02/2009)
Top Gear the UK TV show may have no corporate sponsorship but other activities Clarkson et al perform under the Top Gear banner do - e.g. TG Live sponsored by Shell. Oh yeah, who supplied the hydrogen in the FCX review, again?
fuel.shy 9:50PM (4/02/2009)
Thank you, that was what I was going to say. The Top Gear review may or may not have been accurate, but this race is not at all the same and doesn't prove anything as related to the "findings" of Top Gear.
Randy C. 6:28PM (4/01/2009)
It could have been the GM EV5 Super Sport that did this. But no, GM unilaterally decided America didn't need electric cars. GM destroyed their cars and forced the other auto makers to do the same. What has GM gotton for their efforts? Certainly not prosperity. Now upstart auto makers are building electric cars that out perform GM's wildest dreams.
Congratulations to Tesla for proving many of the electric car myths to be false. Keep up the good work. Every Tesla on the road is another point in the GM is stupid column.
Reply
Mark D 8:16AM (4/02/2009)
Goiod show Tesla, I'm not fussed about Top Gears range claim as they were driving it flat out but this should show that the car is reliable and good for distances.
They just gotta get their factory going and get the price down to really start shifting them in numbers.
Reply
naz 3:29PM (4/02/2009)
That's very misleading. Those speeds suggest 'parade laps' instead of 'race'. That said, I don't think it matters for 99% of the buying public. Most will buy this car to pose and brag about green cred and actual track junkies will buy a ICE car that has been proven capable of sustained track use
Reply
mark howarth 9:10AM (4/04/2009)
We should all boycott general motors for killing the EV1. Get the word out that electric cars are the future and a good way to kill the greedy oil companies huge profits.
The U.S government have basically helped kill their car industry by not forcing the car companies to adapt.Hydrogen cars are a fantasy.Clarkson has his greedy paws backhanding money from the likes of the big car companies -the only real talent he has is performing like a clown -people love watching fools it makes them feel good! since when has top gear been truly about cars?Anyway clarkson hated diesels once -now he realises that they are better than petrol vehicles to drive.The man will have to eat his words again!
I hope G.M go bust and Tesla and all those evolving car companies thrive.
Reply
Mark 1:43PM (4/03/2009)
Rallying seems like a great way to show off the Tesla Roadster's capabilities. In theory, the Roadster's maximum range is over 400 miles (644 km)! But you'd need to drive at a constant 17 mph (27 km/h) on a level road without wind for around 23 hours! That's the most efficient speed according to Tesla's CTO (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=70 ). The 244 mile maximum range came from EPA specific conditions where the driving profile, air density, elevation change and accessory use were all very tightly controlled. Outside of the lab the variation in driving, weather and routes means that the actual max range will vary.
Reply
kgurnsey 5:30PM (4/03/2009)
First of all, there is a big difference between what happened here, by the information presented in the post, and punishing a car around a closed course. This sounds like a lesurely drive from point A to point B, not a race. Don't mistake me, I'm a big fan of the Tesla Roadster, but it does have it's flaws. Put aside the hype for a moment, and you will realise that the Top Gear segment was actually quite close to the mark.
First off, though it was presented primarily for entertainment, there is some good truth to what Clarkson had to say about the Roadster. Don't forget that Clarkson isn't comparing the Tesla with other EVs, where it is clearly one of the best, he's comparing it to other sports cars in it's class, regardless of powerplant. For all his bluster and euphomisms, he is a man who has driven a LOT of sports cars, very hard. The Stig, whoever he is, is a race driver, and knows how to push a car to the breaking point, as any decent race driver would be able to do. Watch the clip of the Tesla, and you can see the suspension working way too hard in the clips of the car being caned around the track. The weight of the battery is very high in the car, and that's not a good thing for handling. You can see the car trying to fight against the high centre of gravity, and the extra weight. You can see the Tesla squirming a lot under hard breaking, and getting rather unsettled through transitions. Compare that to the clip of a 911, any Ferarri, or even the Elise or the Exige upon which the Roadster is based, through the Top Gear test track. No comparison. It is a remarkable car for what it is, but it is no Porsche, Ferrari, or even Lotus. It is simply not as refined a machine, and suspension tuning is a field that requires a great deal of R&D. Remember how long it took Porsche to sucessfully overcome putting a big hunk of weight in the wrong spot. Tesla is finding out that building sports cars well is a very different game from thier dot-com roots. The rules are not the same, cars are exceptionally complex systems, mass manufacturing (even in small volumes) is exceptionally difficult, and thier nievety as a company shows in how the whole package works together. I highly doubt the Telsa Roadster has had the kind of development that the major players put into thier offerings, and it shows in the handling at the limit. It may be the best EV out there, but it's not the best sports car. I imagine that when Porsche, Ferrari, Lotus, or any one of the majors puts out a sports EV, Tesla will be shown to be the boulevard cruiser that it really is. Most of Teslas customers likely won't ever push the car hard enough to find this out. Most Porsche and Ferrari drivers don't either. The difference is that the big boys will play ball when asked, and Top Gear asks. It wasn't all bad either, Clarkson praised the straight line acceleration, the feel of the car in a straight line, the torque, in fact he was totally bowled over, until he hit the first corner. That is very telling, and I expect very true.
Second of all, I would expect if you handed the car to Sabine for a 'jaunt' around the 'Ring', you'd get a range roughly equivalent to what they were predicting on Top Gear. Gas cars get much worse mileage when pushed hard (and I mean HARD, not a 'sporting drive throught the country', hard as in break stuff hard, 24 hours of LeMans hard, race hard), there's no reason why the Tesla would be any different. Energy is energy, whether it's explosions or electrons. I would not be surprised if the Tesla did in fact overheat under hard, race conditions either. Air cooling the motor and electronics just doesn't cut it after a while. Perfectly fine for looking the part of the sporting environmentalist though.
Thirdly, they made a very valid point in regard to the hydrogen fuel cell. The one trump card that a liquid fuel has over the battery is the ability to re-fuel on the fly. It's the one feature, coupled with a fueling infrastructure, that gives the ICE a practically infinite range.
If you have a sufficient rotation of drivers, to combat driver fatique, you can theoretically drive non stop until the car falls apart. Taxis do this regularly. One car, two drivers, 12 hour shifts. The engine never shuts off except for maintenance and refueling (but only because it's required at gas stations). Even a range of 700 kms or more still depends on eventually being able to stop somewhere and charge for an extended period of time (hours). The one key to completely supplanting the ICE is the ability to completely refuel/recharge in less than 5 mins, and it's the one thing that currently available batteries cannot do. Even the ranges currently available (200-300 miles) would be much easier to live with, without any range extender, if you could recharge on the fly. I realise that there are some advanced batteries claiming this ability, but they are not yet proven or being mass manufactured.
Hydrogen does have this ability, as it is a fuel. It is transportable, dispensable, and allows you to create electrons without tailpipe emissions. It's not as efficient, but it works, where batteries currently do not. Hydrogen fuel cells inherently provide the ability to refuel on the fly, and they work, it's just a matter of driving costs down.
If batteries/ultracapacitors/some hybrid of the two are developed that can reliably, and cheaply, quick charge for 10+ years, then fuel cells may be a footnote in history. However, if batteries do not achieve that ability, then hydrogen fuel cells could still be the option that finally buries the ICE. Since both are still in development, with no proven winner yet, hydrogen, for the moment, is still in the game. For hydrogen, the end solution would likely look like a fuel cell EREV, with some plug in range and a fuel cell range extender.
Reply
Matt 5:53AM (4/04/2009)
You are right about most of your comment (which was very thoughtful, unusual for articles such as this one which tend to attract the nutcases, so thanks), but wrong about the fuel cell as being a viable alternative. Did you notice the Top Gear guys never mentioned the cost of that fuel cell FCX? That's because it's ASTRONOMICAL: around 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS. You could buy over 20 Teslas, high end sports cars, for the price of that one chubby city car! And the cost is mostly a result of the rare and expensive materials used in the fuel cell (such as platinum), not the technology, so it won't go down with time - if anything, it would increase if more fuel cell cars were made and the materials started being in higher demand.
We need to lay our hopes in better battery and capacitor technologies, which are coming now that the battery industry has been woken up from its decades of stagnation. (There's always someone working on fuel cells. After 50 years they still can't make 'em cheaply.)
And you're right about Tesla not being in Porsche and Ferrari's class. But it's a good start. And as you said yourself, a vast majority of drivers wouldn't notice the difference, would even maybe consider Tesla a better ride. After all, if only race car drivers used ICE cars, I would be perfectly happy.
Chris 3:36PM (4/12/2009)
Hello... The problem with ICE is the infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands hydrogen pumps would have to be installed across the country. The hydrogen has to be kept pressurized. It would be like buying propane, and a chic, well dressed business woman will not go through the hassle.
By the time we got the system halfway built, the money could have been spent on battery technology, and a system that automatically plugs the car in at any parking space.
It would be a lot cheaper than hydrogen, with the added value of not having to create so much heat.
kgurnsey 1:09PM (4/04/2009)
Matt: Thank you for the compliment, The Tesla Roadster, and Top Gear's review, have enflamed quite a few emotions, because of what the Tesla symbolises. I'm simply trying to keep some perspective on the issue.
You are correct about the astronomical cost of fuel cells, and the ongoing cost issues surrounding the platinum required to make them currently. The point Top Gear was making, which I believe to be a very astute one, is that fuel cells are the only current technology that has proven to be both clean and refuelable, at any cost. The ability to refuel is the great linchpin, and the last great fortress of the ICE. Mass adoption, to the tune of complete replacement of the ICE under all circumstances, will not happen unless cars can refuel. Currently, only fuel cells allow this.
What Top Gear is perhaps unaware of, as many who are not keeping up with the bleeding edge of battery/ultracapacitor development, is the advent of quick charge technology. However, fuel cells have not been resting on their laurels either. There is still development, as you mentioned, but there have been advances. The major advances are coming in the form of replacement materials for platinum, in order to drive the cost down, and there has been success. Commercially viable fuel cells are getting closer to being a reality as well. While my personal thoughts favor battery/ultracapacitor technology, due to efficiency and infrastructure advantages among others, It is still very much a race.
We must not loose sight of the fact that the end goal is nothing short of ensuring the complete irradication of the ICE. In the end, we need to lay our hopes not only with batteries, but with whatever technology will allow for quick refueling, because in that lies the secret to completely and irreversably overthrowing the ICE for good.
Reply
tahrey 10:10AM (4/29/2009)
heh... nice attempt by the PR guys...
unfortunately, if I drove my gasoline car at the listed kind of speeds over such terrain, I'd be expecting to get north of 40mpg (UK) for the whole trip.
If I went off and gave it a full-on sportscar track day battering like TG did? As you might expect to use an Elise-based roadster? I'd be lucky to see 20mpg. And I believe exactly the same effect happened there. The regenerative brakes would have pulled some energy back, but there's a limit to how fast you can charge the batteries is there not...? So a lot of the battery power will have disappeared to wind resistance and brake disc heating instead.
Very easy to get big range numbers in gentle driving (90kmh roads? What of the 130kmh autoroutes France has so many of, or even 110kmh dual-carraigeway multipurpose roads?). Not so much in racing.
I know TG are not that great a source of hard-hitting motoring journalism for the everyman, and more a big of sensational escapism, and I too found some holes in the Tesla / FCX coverage - but give them their due; they don't lie. The BBC tends to get pulled up pretty hard if they try.
Reply