Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Motors Opens Retail Store

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the vaporless-ware dept.

Transportation 442

Tesla Motors has opened their first retail store front to allow the masses access to their new cars. Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,000 price tag. "The company told the Associated Press that it is impressed with demand: it has taken 600 orders for the Roadster and has a waiting list of another 400. CEO Elon Musk owns the first one produced. The fancy showroom near Beverly Hills takes its inspiration from Apple stores, Musk said. [...] The company plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar that will come in two versions: an all-electric model that will run entirely on its lithium ion battery pack, and a range-extended vehicle that will also use liquid fuel to extend its range. The Roadster will have a range of 220 miles per charge and the mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hehe (5, Funny)

mdaitc (619734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301896)

Tesla Roaster?

new battery powered kind of way to cook Turkey?

Re:hehe (2, Funny)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302030)

There's no air-con...

Re:hehe (-1, Redundant)

another joe (1132353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302262)

That's why its a "Roaster".

Re:hehe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302544)

I got the joke too.

That's cheap! (5, Funny)

randyest (589159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301912)

Tesla Motors has opened their first retail store front to allow the masses access to their new cars. Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,00 price tag.
Only $109? That's amazing. But why is slashdot suddenly using the European decimal punctuation?

Re:That's cheap! (5, Informative)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302306)

I would correct your mistake, but I run the risk of being modded Informative.

Re:That's cheap! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302798)

I would point out the wit of the moderators of your post, but that might be insightful.

Neat! (4, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301918)

I can't wait for these types of cars to hit mass production and come down in price so that us normal people can afford them.

That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."

Re:Neat! (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302040)

Cars like the Tesla will never come down in price that much, and even if they did, you wouldn't be able to afford upkeep on the batteries (they use laptop cells; they pamper them, but even still, that LiCoO2 cathode is still going to kill the cells after several years). Tesla is simply not designed around low price; it's designed around performance and range for a high-end target customer.

Now, this doesn't mean that *EVs* won't come down in price. There are already a number of them coming out (see my post further down) with prices in the $25-30k range that'll give you 0-60 in 7-10 seconds and 100-120 miles range, with the whole range of modern safety and comfort features. They use less energy-dense variants of li-ion, such as phosphates and spinels, that have vastly superior lifespans that should last at least a decade, and probably last the lifespan of the vehicle. The batteries should also be cheaper once they enter mass production due to their much cheaper raw ingredients.

Re:Neat! (4, Interesting)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302472)

Also, companies like Tesla are training another generation of expert electrical vehicle engineers. It's quite likely that some will leave to start their own EV company down the road. One of them might be the Henry Ford of electrical cars.

As in making an affordable, more practical electrical vehicle for the masses, not as in winning the Order of the German Eagle or whatever Nazi medal Ford got in 1938.

Re:Neat! (2, Interesting)

rednip (186217) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302114)

That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."

But the holiday would only last until it becomes a problem collecting taxes for road repair. The gas tax generally means that cars are taxed by their usage, and weight, but electric cars bypass the taxman. Eventually (perhaps hopefully), the numbers of electric cars would cause a shortfall of funding for the most important part of our national infrastructure.

Re:Neat! (1, Redundant)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302174)

Please. Do you honestly think the U.S. Government would not find a way to add a tax to make up for any losses in gas taxes, whether real or imagined?

Re:Neat! (3, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302776)

Perhaps the government will start taxing your local coal or natural gas powered Electric concern to pay for the roads. One wonders how much interest there would be in electric vehicles when the taxes are figured in and it ends up being about the same operating cost as a conventional car.

Re:Neat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302808)

I think you can safely remove the "U.S." from your post to capture a larger audience.

Re:Neat! (1)

EMeta (860558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302202)

Road maintenance issues will continue to be less significant than oil supply maintenance issues for a while longer, I believe.

Re:Neat! (1)

SockPuppet_9_5 (645235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302246)

Just have the cars that use no fuel to pay a higher license fee, say, $80/year. Let the state figure out where that money would have otherwise gone.

Re:Neat! (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302290)

How cute! You actually believe that gas taxes are used to build and repair roads, rather than going into the general fund for congress to spend on whatever they please!

Re:Neat! (1)

The FNP (1177715) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302804)

I read Slashdot for the +2 Trolls. --The FNP

Re:Neat! (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302380)

We seemed to have been fine when oil was at $30/barrel. Lets say there's a 4:1 reduction in oil usage (yeah, right - your electric socket is powered by invisible aliens, right? Or do you believe there's no tax on ethanol, bio-fuels, etc?). That's just equivalent to taxes at $30/barrel.

Where's the issue?

Oh wait - did you know that 40% of all sick leave is taken on Mondays and Fridays! We better put a committee together to study this issue!

Re:Neat! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302580)

Not really, gas taxes are generally fixed amounts per gallon, not percentages of the retail price. So a gallon of gas that cost $2.00 had ~50-75 cents of tax built into the price, and a gallon of gas that costs $3.99 has ~50-75 cents of tax built into the price. See how the tax revenue only depends on the amount of gasoline sold and not the price that it is sold at?

Re:Neat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302414)

I'd happily pay an annual $2000 "electric vehicle levy" in lieu of gas tax. It'd still be cheaper than gassing up all the time.

Re:Neat! (2, Informative)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302834)

I pay about $2500 a year on gas. Yet if I had an electric car, I don't think it would really save me all that much because my local Electric company has the nerve to charge me for the electricity I use. Currently I pay about $2000 a year, but I imagine that would probably go up substantially if I had an electric car that needed charging up every day.

Re:Neat! (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302510)

You don't have that option. buy now, before that price tag is beaten by the price of a gallon of gas.

Re:Neat! (1)

Fr0mZer0 (708046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302726)

Only to tax the electric power grid when 150 million people plug 1-2 of these in every night. How quickly do you think the public utilities will act when they see the increased usage? The burden on the gird will require power stantions to invest heavily to support it. That means rising prices for electricity. What used to be 150-200 mpg will quickly fall to within the 50 mpg gasoline range very quickly. Not to mention that most of our grid is running off of coal. Environmentally friendly people say? I think not. If you put enough separation between the consumer and the source they become ignorant of it. Like of like buying and eating hamburgers.

Ill be visiting the san jose store hopefully (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301922)

Im heading out there for vacation in October. Here's hoping they allow test drives :)

Air Bags (2, Interesting)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301926)

It said in the article that the car got a special exemption for Air Bags. Was that only in the prototype, or also in the final version? I can see a nice lawsuit coming right after the first fatality in one of these.

Re:Air Bags (5, Informative)

dapyx (665882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302016)

It includes only "regular" air-bags, having an exemption from the "advanced" air-bag systems, which have been required in the United States since 1998. Such exemptions are common for compact roadsters, including Ferrari.

Re:Air Bags (2, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302230)

I'd like an "off" switch for the air bags. Tami's under five feet tall, which makes air bags dangerous and even deadly for her.

Re:Air Bags (4, Funny)

EatHam (597465) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302538)

Well, the solution to that problem doesn't revolve around air bags, it revolves around not dating 11 year olds.

Re:Air Bags (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302796)

She's 42 and I'm not dating her, she lives with me while her 28 year old alien husband is in Basic Training for the National Guard.

I see you haven't been reading my journals.

Re:Air Bags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302686)

wtf is a Tami?

Re:Air Bags (2, Funny)

q-the-impaler (708563) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302868)

Tami's under five feet tall, which makes air bags dangerous and even deadly for her.

wtf is a Tami?
Oddly enough Tami is a blow-up doll. Go figure.

Re:Air Bags (2, Insightful)

TigerNut (718742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302084)

Stock cars (the Nextel Cup or-whatever-it's-called-these-days variety) don't have airbags.

F1 cars don't have airbags.

Thousands of racing sedans don't have airbags.


Instead, the driver wears a safety harness that fits, sits in a seat that fits, and doesn't spend time hunched over sideways fiddling with the radio controls. And they only die in exceptional circumstances.


Airbags are, like many other "safety" inventions, needless complications foisted on the car-buying public at large because a small percentage of lawyers insist that, as an occupant of a vehicle, you should be protected from yourself, regardless of any lack of common sense you might exhibit in the car.


If there is a legal avenue by which carmakers can choose not to equip certain vehicles with airbags, then power to them.

Re:Air Bags (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302242)

They are also professional drivers whose situation not only allows but forces them to put all attention on the task at hand (driving). The traffic they're in is also entirely made up of professional drivers whose situation not only allows but forces them to put all attention on the task at hand. And there are no pedestrians, wild animals, dropped matresses, or other foreign objects in general in their path.

This is not to say that the current state of regulation is necessarily right -- but the comparison to race cars is inane. The circumstances are totally different and so the safety concerns are totally different.

It's all well and good to ask why the law protects some idiot from his own mistake when he drives distracted. But did you ever notice how accidents often involve more than one car, and the other guy -- even if he's doing everything right -- is in harm's way, too? Again, intelligent people can argue about the government's role in regulating safety, but don't try to disguise the issue by pretending only idiots are in car accidents.

Re:Air Bags (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302314)

Airbags are, like many other "safety" inventions, needless complications foisted on the car-buying public at large because a small percentage of lawyers insist that, as an occupant of a vehicle, you should be protected from yourself, regardless of any lack of common sense you might exhibit in the car.


What, like being dumb enough to let a drunk driver hit you? Or silly enough to allow your brakes to fail? Ooh, or being too stupid to notice that deer! It's not a "protect[ion] from yourself thing," it's just a "protection" thing, same as your seat belt, safety windshield, center brake light, and a dozen other things. I'd be happy to let you drive a car without those safety features -- just sign this little card explicitly refusing taxpayer-funded ambulance and emergency room services. After all, why should those of us who can be bothered to pay for the bare minimum precautions be forced to support your dumb ass on life support?

Re:Air Bags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302474)

taxpayer-funded ambulance

Unless you live in a major city they're most likely not taxpayer funded.

Re:Air Bags (1)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302628)

Yeah, out here in the sticks (but near a major hospital) they're not. It took me a while to realize why I was seeing a half-dozen different ambulances, each with their own logos. I think the point the AC was making, though, is not that the parent poster should be left to lie on the road (if nothing else, that could cause further accidents), but that he should pay for his own health care/transportation. Or maybe he's a jerk and really did mean that, I don't know.

Re:Air Bags (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302524)

Stock cars (the Nextel Cup or-whatever-it's-called-these-days variety) don't have airbags. F1 cars don't have airbags. Thousands of racing sedans don't have airbags. Instead, the driver wears a safety harness that fits, sits in a seat that fits, and doesn't spend time hunched over sideways fiddling with the radio controls. And they only die in exceptional circumstances.

True. Also true is that those racing seats are custom made to fit each driver (ever watched a 1000 km race and wonder why they switch seats when they switch drivers?), the safety harness and roll bar/cage costs several thousand dollars together, and the cars themselves are made to literally come apart in pieces as the crash progresses in order to save the driver. So, unless you want to pay for a custom made seat, five point harnesses, a roll cage and have even a relatively minor accident rip the wheel, brake and suspension arms off your car, you'd better stick with airbags.

Comparing custom made race cars to mass-produced passenger cars is just plain stupid.

Re:Air Bags (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302884)

...the safety harness and roll bar/cage costs several thousand dollars together...

That's only because they're low-volume items. Mass produce them and they'd be a lot cheaper. They'd certainly be able to beat airbag systems, which are inherently expensive even when they are mass produced!

...and the cars themselves are made to literally come apart in pieces as the crash progresses in order to save the driver.

So are normal cars: between crumple zones and unibody construction, any crash severe enough to activate the airbags is also likely to total the car. Hell, if the car's more than a few years old, the mere fact that the airbags deployed is enough to total the car by itself, because they're so expensive to replace!

So, unless you want to pay for a custom made seat, five point harnesses, a roll cage...

That's not the problem. The problem is that, in addition to those things, you would also need to wear a helmet, and very few people would be willing to do that due to fashion and comfort issues.

...even a relatively minor accident rip the wheel, brake and suspension arms off your car...

Either the airbags deployed, in which the accident wasn't "relatively minor," or they didn't and you didn't need them anyway.

Also, that does happen on normal street cars: my girlfriend's brother totaled a big sedan by swerving (to avoid an oncoming driver in his lane) and hitting a curb at probably about 40 mph. The right front wheel ended up somewhere around under the front door hinge. Since this car had airbags, it obviously shouldn't have done that, right? The body of the car was hardly damaged, but the suspension was destroyed, the passenger side dash was destroyed (from the airbag going off), and the windshield was destroyed (from his head hitting it, since the driver's side air bag didn't go off).

Re:Air Bags (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302642)

A race car is also exceedingly expensive in part because of that safety equipment and also because it's been designed around protecting the driver.

Passenger require a number of compromises in order to make them practical for the driver. First of all, a helmet is mandatory in a race car because if they're in an accident it's a near certainty that they'd crack their head on the roll cage without one.

A passenger car needs usable interior space, trunk space, windows that can be opened, comfortable seats in addition to various other amenities like air conditioning, spare tires and whatnot.

In addition, the race track itself is designed with safety in mind, with sand traps, open fields, barriers that dampen impacts and close monitoring by track crew. The track is meticulously maintained and racing even stopped is an accident is serious enough to warrant it.

Competing cars are reasonably similar in dimensions and weight. Drivers are extensively trained and usually follow proper etiquette or face being penalized. And lets not forget that the cars are rigorously inspected and maintained.

Racing is about as controlled an environment as can be encountered. And where the track is more unpredictable, like rally racing, the cars are sent down the track one at a time; they race the clock, not each other. And those guys crash all the time, sometimes spectacularly.

If passenger cars and the roads we drove on were regulated the same way race cars and tracks are most people wouldn't have a driver's license. Not that it would matter since cars would cost $100,000+ and who knows what the tax rate would be for keeping roads maintained at that level.

I realize there is amateur level racing. But even those guys require some level of licensing and inevitably anyone who gets involved ends up spending a surprisingly fair bit of money to be competitive.

Re:Air Bags (1)

zen_sky (1157991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302788)

Last time I looked, there weren't any tractor trailers on the track at Indianapolis, or super duty facking F350's either. Not to mention the dearth of non-exploding plexiglass windshields and big-ass roll cages on normal roads full of large vehicles with often inattentive drivers. A close look (not on TV) at a real race car would make it blindingly obvious why they don't need airbags and we do...

Re:Air Bags (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302088)

The waiver, which isn't too unusual for sporty cars like the Tesla, is about the automatic ability to *deactivate* the passenger-side airbag when there's a child in the seat. Airbags can kill small children.

Tesla Motors (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23301932)



Bankrupt in 3 years.

This might make a claim for Ideosphere [ideosphere.com] .

Cordially,
K. Trout

Let me see if I understand this (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302162)

They have deposits on their cars until the start of 2010, and that was just from US locations only. Now, they are about to expand to outside of the USA and gear up a faster production line. In addition, they were geared to produced a car to compete against beemers/mercedes in late 2009, but will be introduced in late 2010. Followed by a full average car by 2011.

And you feel that they will be bankrupted early 2011?

Open to the masses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23301944)

"Of course, this is assuming you can afford the $109,000 price tag... CEO Elon Musk owns the first one produced."

That doesn't exactly describe "the masses" now, does it?

Re:Open to the masses? (4, Insightful)

Bombula (670389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302886)

Hopefully the retarded 'vaporware' tag will be removed from this article. $109k is quite expensive, but there is a VERY large market for luxury autombiles, many of which are MUCH more expensive that $109k. We're not just talking about Ferraris here either. High-end BMW and Mercedes, and even Cadillacs, can reach or exceed these prices with full options.

The fact that this car is in production, that there is now a showroom where the public - if not the 'masses' - can see production models in person, and that according to Motor Trend and Car & Driver the Tesla Roadster out-performs every other production car EVER in the 30-70mph range (where 95% of all 'sport' driving of sports cars takes place), and that the car has gone from concept to production in under 10 years, in addition to the fact that this is an all-electric vehicle, altogether makes this a positively ASTONISHING accomplishment. Add to that the fact this car is a proof-of-concept and is, by design, a logical stepping-stone toward a mass-market all-electric vehicle, and you've got one of the few genuine harbingers of the green technology future in action TODAY.

So fuck you assholes and your vaporware tags. Get out of mom's basement, grow some balls and some vision, and maybe - just maybe - you might one day have a shot at being involved in a project one tenth as exciting and momentous as this one.

Whitestar? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301948)

What comes to mind for me is either that ship from Babylon 5 or the Titanic (Whitestar line).

Congrats, Tesla (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23301962)

And, for those of you with more down to earth budgets, there's always Aptera [youtube.com] , which starts shipping this winter (although reservations are filled through almost the end of '09 already). 2+1 seater, hyperefficient, space-age styling, 120 miles for all-electric or 40 miles electric + 130mpg. Test drives and factory tours start in a month or so.

If they bring it to the US (probably around the 2010 timeframe), there Mitsubishi i-EV [youtube.com] -- 4 seater, 100 miles, styled like a cross between a VW beetle and a PT cruiser, or perhaps between a Prius and a minivan.

There's also the Chevy Volt [youtube.com] , late 2010, a 4 seater PHEV (40 miles electric, 50mpg after that) with "chopped" styling (I find it ugly, but a lot of people find it "sporty").

Lastly, as a bit more of a long shot, there's the VentureOne [youtube.com] , a tandem two-seater cross between a car and a motorcycle that tilts into turns. 120 miles in the EV version, and should be pretty efficient, too.

Re:Congrats, Tesla (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302122)

The Tesla is shipping. The other ones are purely showroom wet dream concepts.

That is worth 109k if you ask me.

Re:Congrats, Tesla (1)

ahoehn (301327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302598)

While I absolutely and desperately want an electric car, I'm trying not to get too excited about anything that's not already on the market after the whole Zap Car debacle [wired.com] .

Tesla Roadster in the Automotive X Prize (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302006)

Tesla plans to compete for the Automotive X Prize, maybe with the Roadster (see Roadster Stat Page [xprizecars.com] ), but more likely with the mentioned "Whitestar", about which nobody knows anything except that it has 4 seats and an optional range-extending ICE. The Roadster is actually only borderline able to compete - they have trouble with the 200 grams/mile CO2-equivalent emissions requirement. So it's likely they would have to drive slow (such a shame!).

Re:Tesla Roadster in the Automotive X Prize (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302216)

Actually, they never said that it was an ICE. They said that white star would have all electric AND an option of REEV (range extended electrical vehicle). It is possible that they will make a pluggable arch. so that it a number of types can be used. What is interesting is that if done right, it would allow for post manufacturing add-on type work. This would encourage companies to build smaller, better replacements. It would be nice to see them hook up with other electrical companies and come up with a standard.

short range (1)

ANCOVA (1175953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302024)

Look at my shiny new Tesla! Oops, it's 110 miles away from my garage already, gotta turn around...

Re:short range (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302268)

I have friends in St Louis, 100 miles from here, and often make the hour and a half trip down there to visit.

I wouldn't call that "short range". Seldom do I travel any farther.

Re:short range (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302640)

I live :
5 hours from my parents.
2.5 hours from Chicago
3 hours from my Alma Mater
4.5 hours from a Rugby tournament I went to at SIU
6 from where my family has Thanksgiving
7 hours from a tournament I went to in Nashville.

100 miles in the USA, to me, is very short range.

My diesel TDI does perfectly fine with the 600-800 range tank.

Re:short range (1, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302836)

You, sir, are a very big contributor to global warming and the price of fuel. I sincerely hope you're not driving an Escalade.

Re:short range (4, Insightful)

MidKnight (19766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302344)

So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home? Better yet, when was the last time *you* drove 100 miles away from your home? My point being, it doesn't happen every day for most people. Even so, you can charge the Tesla from a standard outlet [teslamotors.com] if you're away from home. But a roadster (electric or otherwise) isn't exactly the best choice for a road trip anyway.

That said, I'm looking forward to the day that either A) I have the expendable cash to afford a car like this, or B) the technology filters down to more typical consumer-targeted cars.

Re:short range (0, Flamebait)

Moofie (22272) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302786)

"So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home?"

Um, every month or so? My wife and I drive all over the place in the Miata. Never really understood why two people need a station wagon's worth of junk for a long weekend trip.

Looks like a plucked turkey (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302026)

he company plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar that will come in two versions: an all-electric model that will run entirely on its lithium ion battery pack, and a range-extended vehicle that will also use liquid fuel to extend its range.
What about the model using Minbari and Vorlon technology?

Bad omen? (4, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302028)

plans to make a luxury sedan next year called the Whitestar
I seem to remember another European company called White Star. I think they were in the news a few years back about some unpleasantness surrounding a shipwreck or some such. Said the Tesla CEO, "Even God himself couldn't wreck this car!".

Re:Bad omen? (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302656)

"Even God himself couldn't wreck this car!" Tesla CEO

I bet if you give it to Eddie Griffin [youtube.com] or Stefan Eriksson [joystiq.com] that they'd bring it back in a million pieces.

I don't see the point... (3, Insightful)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302054)

...of a store opening to sell something they have no inventory of, and have no hope of having inventory of for quite some time due to already existing waiting lists. Seems like an expensive way to just keep their name/product visible, opening a store that can't sell anything.

Re:I don't see the point... (2, Insightful)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302286)

It's called advertising.

It's a high-end product and people in the market know they can't purchase one "today" like you can with other cars. They know they have to wait. The showroom is to invigorate the senses and hope a wealthy buyer makes an order. It's the best kind of advertising they could buy.

Re:I don't see the point... (3, Informative)

llZENll (545605) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302382)

It's a dealership! No normal mechanics are trained or certified to repair or maintain Teslas cars, so they have to open a dealership in every area they wish to sell cars.

"Tesla Motors will service your car at our Tesla Stores. We plan to open the first Tesla Stores in our five key markets (metropolitan San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami), each offering direct sales and support for buyers and owners. Our first two stores will open in early 2008."

Re:I don't see the point... (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302400)

Seems like an expensive way to just keep their name/product visible
Because there's absolutely no value in advertising... *rolls eyes*

The point is they are taking reservations and shipping Tesla cars, some are already on the road - albeit in very limited quantity. In addition and as you said, the company is gaining visibility and publicity for their brand. Honestly I think it's a great way to do things.

I'd also much rather sign over $109k in person than wire it to some random company online... maybe that's just me.

Re:I don't see the point... (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302578)

Yeah...so it is EXACTLY like an Apple store!! I can see it now... "But I paid you for the car, why did you go out of business?"

Re:I don't see the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302608)

Fly to London (the UK one). Seriously, I'll wait.

Are you there? Good. Now go to the McLaren dealership and look at the F1. They won't sell it to you (even if (maybe especially if) you could pay cash on the spot) because they don't make them anymore, but once you've done that go home and try to post that it wasn't cool to be there and check it out (they'll let you sit in it if you ask nicely), just try, the lameness filter will get you for obvious lies.

Re:I don't see the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302682)

The store is more like a dealership, where customers can get repairs, etc. It will definitely help their PR, but it serves a function, too.

Here's the Link (4, Informative)

Evets (629327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302082)

Oddly, the Tesla Motors website was missing from both the slashdot submission and the article.

http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]

Re:Here's the Link (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302300)

Oddly? You must ne new here!

Re:Here's the Link (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302792)

Given his 6-digit ID [slashdot.org] , I don't think he's that new.

The new "classic age" of autos (2, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302100)

Maybe it's just me, but I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling with the new electrics under development (or in production).

Having grown up around adults who worshipped at the altar of limited-run classic cars (59 1/2 Shelby Cobra, anyone?) I feel like we're witnessing (or in some cases, participating in -- lucky bastards) the dawn of a new era of classic cars.

I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to.

Anyway, my point is that I feel that we're finally witnessing the green car revolution, and I'm glad to be here for it.

We shall name it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302106)

The Power Roaster!

If there was only a cost friendly version (1)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302152)

If there was a sensible commuter car like this I would snap it up in a heartbeat.

Then I could go fight the good fight with my electric company on why they aren't providing me with cheaper/greener power. The best part is, if they refuse I can invest in solar panels or a wind turbine and make my own.

Re:If there was only a cost friendly version (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302328)

If there was a sensible commuter car like this I would snap it up in a heartbeat.
the aptera [wikipedia.org] might be of interest, though not sure if that fits the "sensible" qualifier.

Re:If there was only a cost friendly version (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302330)

If you can't afford a $100,000 car you can't afford solar panels and wind turbines.

A fool and his money (2, Informative)

ChrisCampbell47 (181542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302172)

... are soon parted.

Tesla's claims are terribly fraudulent [thetruthaboutcars.com] . 220 mile claimed range has already been shown to be as low as 93 miles. Transmissions seem to be vaporware. For that matter, so are production cars, as not a single one has been delivered (I don't count the single unit "delivered" to Elon Musk.

Tesla sounds cool, as do electric vehicles in general (including plug-in hybrids), but this is just another operation preying on people with too much money and not enough brains. I am firmly in the camp of those planning to buy an EV/PHEV soon, but I'm not drinking the Tesla Kool-Aid.

What's not to like about this scenario? (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302610)

...this is just another operation preying on people with too much money and not enough brains.

I'd love to find a way to separate the Intellectually Challenged Wealthy among us from some of their petty cash. Musk just beat me to it.

Attention scuttlemonkey: (2, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302176)

The masses can't afford a $100,000 car like you and Mr gates can.

Public transportation (1)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302318)

Most individuals can't afford this technology, but a city can.

Public transportation, if done correctly (a first in America), is safe and clean and cheap or free, runs 24 hours a day or close to it, and allows us to avoid the expense of private cars.

The rest of our driving can be done on golf carts for those errands near home. Or horses, which are as green as transportation is going to get.

There are intangible benefits to public transportation.

It brings us closer together with our neighbors. It ends the illusion that we can ignore problems like crime and abuse. It frees up acres of space from parking lots and duplicate roads. It gives law enforcement a better place to focus than on handing out parking tickets.

Most of us spend way too much on our cars, and that's the necessary expenses. This cost won't go down. The car was a design enabled by cheap oil, and now that's over, so we should adapt.

Re:Public transportation (2, Funny)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302434)

Or horses, which are as green as transportation is going to get.
That is a load of horseshit.

Re:Public transportation (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302766)

And that's brown, not green.

Re:Public transportation (2, Funny)

strack (1051390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302568)

Bloody hippy paradise. Intangible benefits to public transportation? How bout the highly tangible drawback that public transport could never be as convenient as a car. Oh, and good luck carrying anything large. Also, people aren't gonna hug their neighbors more cause there on a bus.

Hot product! (3, Funny)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302322)

The Roaster will have a range of 220 miles per charge and the mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon.

The Roaster? I didn't realize they were using Sony batteries! Or are they also taking inspiration from Apple laptops as well as their stores?

Re:Hot product! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302752)

Apple laptops also use Sony batteries, so you are correct on all accounts. ;-)

Vaporware tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23302334)

How is this vaporware? The car actually exists. It actually performs as they claim. Maybe it's not the final solution but at least its expanding the market for alternative cars.

The most important question about the Whitestar... (1)

darkside_lemming (1284594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302390)

Does it come complete with Mimbari crew and a Marcus-clone as a translator?

Rods per hogshead (5, Funny)

cocotoni (594328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302402)

Before anyone asks, 135 miles per gallon is 2 721 600 rods per hogshead.

And that's the way I likes it!

Meaningless phrase (4, Interesting)

jamesl (106902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302408)

... mileage equivalent of 135 miles per gallon.

What is the conversion factor when going from "batteries charged off the grid" to "miles per gallon internal combustion gasoline engine?"

Re:Meaningless phrase (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302666)

$/mile.

Tame racing driver (5, Insightful)

boot1973 (809692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302440)

Give it to The Stig, Give it to the Stig!!

Range per charge. (1)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302548)

The Roaster will have a range of 220 miles per charge...
Assuming it even has that efficiency, how long does it take to charge? I would not want to drive 300 miles across the state and have to pull over and wait 8 hours at a gas station while the batteries recharge. Yes, I understand this car is not made for road trips, but a vehicle that has any real purpose will not be caught in such a situation.

Miles EV (1)

narsiman (67024) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302662)

Odd name for a product but http://www.milesev.com/ [milesev.com] seems to be the best and is already out there.

In other news.... (2, Funny)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302664)

Dragonweezel opens up a donation site @ paypal to try and garner enough captial to start his new company "AdvertiseOnMyTeslaRoadster.com"

Donate now!

not 135 MPG equivalent! (5, Insightful)

CottonThePirate (769463) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302702)

I own a Prius, and I hate when you see some mod site say "get 120mpg with our extended battery pack". Oh and by the way you have to plug it into the wall using diesel generated power at $0.35 a kilowatt hour (I also live on Hawaii, power is hella expensive here). At electricity rates here most of these cars are more expensive to run than hybrid gas cars. We need a price per mile measurement. I realize that both gas and power fluctuate, but something similar to an energy guide on appliances. This car costs $.10 a mile on power at $.15 a kwH and gas at $4.00 a gallon. It's not ideal, but we need to quit letting these electric car makers get away with saying 135mpg. They may as well say "our all electric model gets infinity miles per gallon! It's the awesomest!"

I like (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302768)

I'm normally opposed to anything green, but this car is sexy.

Weighs only 2700 lbs and makes 200 lb*ft of torque at no rev? Yummy!

My concerns... (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302852)

What I'm looking forward to seeing on the road is the Chevrolet Volt [wikipedia.org] . It's supposed to be more affordable than the Tesla, although apparently the estimated price has risen considerably. It was originally estimated to cost between $20,000 and $30,000. Then it rose to above the $30,000 range, and now its approaching $50,000.

This technology has to start somewhere, but people have this unrealistic expectations. Too many people seem to believe that automakers don't build these cars because of some grand conspiracy. Like they have something to lose by abandoning gasoline. What automaker wouldn't love to offer an inexpensive car than ran on something other than gasoline. What automaker wouldn't love to offer a car larger than a tiny 1-liter subcompact but more fuel efficient. That's been the appeal of hybrids. They allow someone to own a fuel efficient car that is actually reasonably practical.

I see another problem, however. There's all this talk about moving away from gasoline like suddenly we will not longer be using some kind of fuel to power our cars. Like that 100mpg Darpa challenge.

It's great, and they absolutely should spur development like that. But the fact is that we're merely replacing the fuel source with something else and it looks like the big thing right now is electricity.

Electricity isn't all that cheap. And like we've seen with ethanol and the price of food rising I shudder to think how expensive electricity rates are going to be if a significant portion of the population starts drawing from the grid to power their cars. And the irony, at least in my area, is that our electricity is generated using petroleum.

Maybe by the time electric cars are prevalent we'll have more nuclear power. Not that it would stop energy providers from charging more. At last gasoline can drop in price, and it has in the past. The last time I checked utility companies haven't dropped prices, but I do see an increase every year or two.

Where does the electricity come from? (2, Insightful)

koalapeck (1137045) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302860)

Where does our electricity for our homes come from? Fossil fuels?

Electric cars are a great idea but unless the electricity to recharge their batteries is coming from a renewable resource I don't quite see how this really helps.

Instead of filling your car with gas, you're using coal/oil power plants instead. I don't see what the true benefit really is.

If I can afford... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23302866)

...a $100k car, what do I car about gas mileage?

Really, all these manufacturers are missing the point. The people who need electric cars are the people that as a group, drive more than other groups.

That is definitely not the people can afford the Telsa.

So if they think they are being all kinds of green and helping the environment, they are seriously self-deluded. It's a play thing for rich folks (not that I don't want one or don't plan to be rich)

But as far as having an impact on the environment and reducing gas consumption for the nation, it's nothing but a curiosity.
 
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?