Breaking News: Electric cars can be fast
Tesla Roadster - Click above to for high-res gallery
If there's any one area that Tesla Motors seems to have succeeded above all others with its first electric car, the Roadster, it's changing perceptions about what an EV is all about. After all, electric vehicles have been around for a hundred years or more. Still, tell someone who's not aware of the Tesla Roadster that an electric car can out accelerate a good number of Italian Prancing Horses at the drag strip and prepare for an unbelieving look of bewilderment.
With that in mind, it's not surprising to read about shocked reactions from those driving powerful electric cars for the first time. Such is the case with KUOW News reporter Colin Fogarty, who recently got the chance to drive a 1978 Ford Pinto that had been converted into an electric drag racer. Later that day, a Tesla Roadster Sport would go on to take top honors at the local drag race at Portland International Raceway, and Fogarty was on hand to witness the event. Click here for the complete story on how it all went down. Prepare to be shocked.
Gallery: First Drive: Tesla Roadster
[Source: KUOW News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sean lawrence 12:49PM (8/07/2009)
A two-seat $80,000 car that is based on a Lotus is fast??? It had better be, but drag racing is one thing and top end speed is another. The GM EV-1 was quick in its day. Those Italian pracing ponies, or even an every day Accord has a higher top end speed.
Why this endless pimping for Tesla?
Reply
Lorena Palin 1:39PM (8/07/2009)
Yeah...and also, is it fast around corners? I mean the top gear test of it was less than flattering, driving it hard made it run out of juice after 2 laps, and the low rolling resistance tires did not make for good cornering.
I think they are pimping tesla because "autoblog green" is really "EVs are the only type of transportation we can have and everything else is EVIL" and tesla is the only company that makes EVs that drive nice and have good range...and for 100 grand they had better...
sean lawrence 1:54PM (8/07/2009)
Obama is god and Al Gore is his profit!
CaramelZappa 2:08PM (8/07/2009)
In everyday driving, how often to you go above 120mph?
@Palin
Of course the Top Gear test was less than flattering. The top gear crew is very openly anti-green, and it's well known that the car never did run out of juice, they calculated it did and filmed their crew pushing the car for no reason. It's an entertainment show, not a solid place to find real reviews.
Keep in mind they compared the cornering to a Lotus Elise, which is one of the best cornering cars in the market. The Tesla might not be as quick through the corners as the Elise, because it has different tires and more weight, but it's still pretty damn close, and it catches up in the straights.
Lad 2:12PM (8/07/2009)
Judging from how the car performed on Top Gear's track, it appears to be poorly balanced front to rear and has a poorly located roll center. the stig seemed to be fighting oversteer on every rotation of the car. Definitely not a good track car at this stage...needs lots of help!
jeff 3:05PM (8/07/2009)
In the real world, top speed isn't nearly as relevant as acceleration, and this car accelerates as fast as cars that actually sell for far more money.
@Lorena, the Top Gear review of the Tesla contained a certain amount of "Artistic License" and both Clarkson and BBC have come clean to say they wanted to show what it would be like "IF the Tesla ran out of Juice". On top of that, it didn't die after 2 laps, they claimed it "died" after 55 miles. Even if that were true, it's not surprising that a car being flung around at track speed will achieve much lower mileage than on an EPA drive cycle. When Top Gear tested the Ford GT (one of my favourite cars) it average 4mpg for a range of only 75, while EPA rates it at 12mpg.
Considering it's performance on the track, you can see it landed the exact same time as a 911 GT3 RS, both on mildly moist tracks. What it lacks in agility, it seems to make up for in accessible power.
At $80,000, I'd say the Tesla is priced surprisingly competitively. It's definitely subsidized by the company to get their name out there, but the fact is its a pretty damn good deal for an impressively quick car that happens not to have a tailpipe.
sean lawrence 3:41PM (8/07/2009)
Teslas at the drag strip is not a new topic. It is not suprising that an electric motor, which has max torque immediately, should be fast. This is just more pimping for Tesla, which is currently in self-destruct mode. I do not think that Tesla will survive. Fisker might have a better chance. These companies are at best boutique car firms like Spyker or Vector, or Pagani. Fisker hired the North American marketing director from Maserati. When fuel cells or battery technology improves and the technology goes mainstream, these companies will cease to be relevent.
No one is saying that the Tesla is a bad car. I am sure that any Electric Lotus would be nice. When Dodge (Fiat) gets their electric Lotus going it will be even better, or when Lotus launches their own electric car it will be even better yet. I applaud electric vehicles, and think that they should be just as sportly as their gas bretheren.
Dave 4:15PM (8/07/2009)
"A two-seat $80,000 car that is based on a Lotus is fast??? "
The Tesla website says $101,500
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php
jpm 4:54PM (8/07/2009)
You haven't noticed all the postings for the GM Volt?
skierpage 7:44PM (8/07/2009)
"These companies are at best boutique car firms like Spyker or Vector, or Pagani."
Not really. Tesla is far bigger than those companies, making about 50x more cars a month. And their Power Electronics Module engineering expertise was worth millions to Daimler, specifically "controls and cooling system for battery packs".
Tesla is a successful niche car manufacturer, and if the Model S comes out, they'll be in an even bigger niche.
I look forward to "endless pimping" for other electric cars actually available in the USA.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:12PM (8/07/2009)
It's not $80,000 or $101,000.
As mentioned on here, Tesla held their owners over a barrel and required them to buy accessories in order to "ensure delivery" of their vehicle "on time". And then after that they just flat out jacked the price up.
You can look at Tesla's site all you want, but my understanding from my friends who bought them, if you want one be prepared to pay between $110,000 and $120,000.
Sean 9:54PM (8/08/2009)
skierpage,
Tesla's technology is making 1,000,000 laptop battery work when strung together without it blowing up and catching fire. This is because they didn't have the clout to produce a really large automotive lithium battery. Concerning Daimler, my guess is that they see a dead man walking and are just waiting to take over the marketing right to the Tesla name for their own product when the company goes belly up.
Concerning GM volt. Well, they are union and the unions bankroll Obama. As we read, their battery supplier, LG, just got a $1B grant to build a new factory to employ more skill-less workers and pay them obscene paychecks, which will have union dues deducted an funneled back to Obama. The cycle of life!
LongshotX 12:59PM (8/07/2009)
Still no all electric mid sized sedan...will we ever see one? I don't need a race car.
Reply
Chris M 11:44PM (8/07/2009)
You haven't seen the Model S yet? Room for 5 adults and 2 children, luggage space front and back, 160 to 300 mile range depending on battery option, with plans for public 45 minute or less chargers or battery swapping. Gorgeous looks, est. $50K price.
They need to set up manufacturing facilities first, so it may take a year or two before they start customer deliveries.
After the Model S rollout, Tesla will be working on their 3rd model for about $30K.
Lad 2:22PM (8/07/2009)
If you can wait until next year, you might have a chance to buy a sedan BEV made by Nissan, currently called The Leaf in Japan; I'm in the market for one also.
Reply
Dave 4:22PM (8/07/2009)
"Obama is god and Al Gore is his profit!"
FWIW - Obama drove a V8 Chrysler 300 before running for POTUS. And now he is chauffered around in a large diesel truck chassis made up to look like a Caddy. Thats when he isn't in the presidential jet or helicopter.
Whatever Obama's personal agenda may be, green transportation is not a part of it - he just needs the votes of the green constituency, so he panders to them as needed.
Reply
Nick P. 5:33PM (8/07/2009)
As President of the United States, he is required to use whatever armored vehicle is made available to him. He also had to give up his blackberry for a more secure device. Safety before green -- until they make these as EVs.
Loena F. Palin 10:02PM (8/07/2009)
Really, I want something that is faster in the corners if I'm getting a "supercar" or something that can do 180+ mph. The top gear test did show that it was not the best car at cornering.
Now, personally, my issue is that this whole sight is dead set on EVs as the only option. As they are now electric cars are coal cars.
The overall "green" strategy of EVs is outright stupid- It requires creating new infrastructure and convincing people to buy less practical, more expensive cars, and then completely re doing our power generation system.
And I hate to say it, but the US is not going to stop using coal. We are the saudi arabia of coal. The best way to reduce coal emissions is to use less electricity. There are plenty of things that can be burnt incars to fuel them that are cleaner that keep the convenience of oil.
Reply
Chris M 1:46AM (8/08/2009)
So, Loena, what do you propose? Hybrids are nice, but they too are "more expensive". Diesels are more expensive, and have problems meeting basic emissions standards. H2 fuel cell cars are 10x more expensive than those "expensive EVs" are less efficient, and requires far more of a much more expensive infrastructure, both for fuel production and for H2 dispensing. Compressed air cars have very limited range and poor performance as well as low efficiency. Bicycles are very clean, efficient and cheap, but for most people have limited speed and range and cargo capacity. Biofuels can help reduce oil consumption, but there isn't sufficient land for it to completely replace petroleum fuels.
We don't think of EVs as the "only solution", it is just the best solution.
Here in California, we get 40% of our electricity from renewables (solar, wind, hydo, geothermal) but only 20.1% from coal, and that percentage is dropping as more renewables come online. So, no, we're not stuck with "coaltricity". But even where coal does provide a substantial portion of electricity, the higher efficiency of coal plants combined with the very high efficiency of the grid and EVs still means less CO2 emissions than the average gasser.
Alan 3:03AM (8/08/2009)
The best solution is to do nothing, gasoline ICE is best, always has been and always will be. Oil prices will never ever spike again and will not increase at all in real terms EVER. Don't you read the posts from all these wonderful people who know everything? I hope they are e-mailing Nissan, Mitsubishi and Tesla on a regular basis to inform them about their folly.