Move Over, Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari!

Electric Sports Car Tesla Roadster Makes "Going Green" Flashy!

(CBS)  If you were told a sleek sports car is hitting the road that can go from zero-to-sixty mph in 3.9 seconds, that might catch your attention.

If you were told it's totally electric, you might be shocked.

Not only does the brand new Roadster from Tesla Motors look good, it's totally green.

It has a watermelon-sized electric motor -- not a engine -- and that motor produces no emissions as it kicks out 250 horsepower. It's also totally silent.

Tesla veep Darryl Siry showed off a Roadster on The Early Show plaza Thursday.

With a price tag of about $100,000 and only 600 being made for 2008 model year, don't expect to see many of them on the road, but every one from this year has already been bought in advance.

The car can travel 220 miles on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack. You have to plug it in for three-and-a-half hours to get a full charge.

The Roadster gets the equivalent of 135 mpg.

Tesla plans to make 1,800 Roadsters for the 2009 model year, of which 500 have already been reserved.

To see the Roadster on our plaza and going through its paces, click on the arrow in the image below.



MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Share:

Digg

Share

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

More From The Early Show

• Palin "Vindictiveness" in Her New Book?
• Quick Fixes to Add Years to Your Life!
• Many Twists in Kidnapping of N.C. Girl, 5
• How Longest-Living Among Us Do It
• Super-Healthy Eating, on a Shoestring
• When It Hit Laura George Was Out of Office
• Macy's Helping Kids "Believe"

• 

  VideoLaura Bush Speaks Out

• 

  VideoDoc. Inseminates with Wrong Sperm

Add a Comment See all 18 Comments

by funkotronic July 5, 2008 10:08 PM EDT

To quote: "not a engine" Did this writer graduate 3rd grade? ***?

On topic: Until a greener method of GENERATING the power these cars will run on is commonplace and economically feasible, the EVs will just be an oddity, rather than a viable transportation method. Solar is the most obvious choice, but solar conversion with today''s (unsupressed) tech only converts a small fraction of the available energy.

Here%u2019s an idea: Put the solar cells in orbit (and create plenty of high-tech jobs in the process), harvest 95% of the available power (no atmospheric filtration), beam it down to Earth as microwaves (there are many 1000%u2019s of square miles of unusable land just in the US southwest that would make dandy microwave antenna farms), convert it to electricity at these farms and then inject it into the existing power grid. Not only do you get limitless power, but it''s 100% non-polluting, other than the residual heat from the devices consuming the power. So now you have all the power you could possible need and you could "fuel" your EV for literally pennies, even considering the subsidies required to bootstrap the entire conversion process.

Oh, wait - this will never work cuz the oil companies (or the totally honest, completely uncorrupt government) won''t make any money off of it. I have to go now - the assassins are at the door to kill me for being an independent thinker.

Not an original idea - proposed IN DETAIL by Jerry Pournelle in his "High Frontiers" series of essays.

Reply to this comment

by jaykay3141 July 4, 2008 3:53 PM EDT

Amazing. A small private company builds a good-looking pocket rocket that runs for 220 miles on one 3.5 hour charge and sells it now. GM produces an ugly lump called the Volt that might be able to go 40 miles after sucking juice all night, IF they can get the kinks worked out by 2010 or 2011.

No wonder GM is a dinosaur.

Reply to this comment

by zykracosmos July 4, 2008 11:53 AM EDT

...and you worry what a cellphone does to brain tissue,
Try sitting on a huge electric motor for hours....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Inventagod2 at 08:29 PM : Jul 03, 2008
----------------

A most interesting question!

Reply to this comment

by j_flood July 4, 2008 11:40 AM EDT

Is there anyone doing risk analysis on the planetary effects related to electrifying automobiles, ala dead batteries, acids, lithium residue, and all the bits involved in electric cars? I''m not pro-anything - just when we went gasoline crazy about a century ago we didn''t see the polar caps melting either.

Reply to this comment

by incog-nito July 4, 2008 7:00 AM EDT

Electric motors get that automatically--you turn them on and they are roaring to go. Combustion engines have to go through the the gears.

Posted by djconklin at 07:40 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Yes, but the size of the motor in part determines its horsepower, which in turn determines the acceleration of the vehicle.

Reply to this comment

by ndg1979 July 4, 2008 6:09 AM EDT

Many of you are mistaken. We ALREADY produced a 100% electric cell vehicle that could have been in mass-production. And the company that was going to bring it to you - General Motors. The car was called the EV-1 (electric vehicle-model 1 for those of you playing at home). The reason you don''t see it - a combination of entities associated with the industry of the internal combustion engine fought it, and eventually persuaded GM to fight against it''s own creation!! There eventual excuse? - it wasn''t time for the electric car.

Only 400 were made and lease-tested in California. Only 1 is known to have survived (in a museum disabled to a point it will never run I understand). And the electric car is nothing new. During the very early 20th century, the electric car was in combat against the internal combustion engine. For some reason, electric lost, but the idea has existed for some 100 years.

This is not new - just way past due.
For more info: http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

Reply to this comment

by nocatnowaco July 4, 2008 6:01 AM EDT

Excellent green car i have ever seen. It is a better one if it comes with a retractable cord.

Reply to this comment

by nocatnowaco July 4, 2008 5:49 AM EDT

Good innovation. Get the price down and people will buy it; this car can be in mass production.

Reply to this comment

by inventagod2 July 3, 2008 11:29 PM EDT

...and you worry what a cellphone does to brain tissue,
Try sitting on a huge electric motor for hours....

Reply to this comment

by susanhelit July 3, 2008 11:01 PM EDT

Nice! Electricity is far more environmentally friendly. Instead of millions of car tailpipes, all we have to manage is the fewer powerplants, control their emissions. A powerplant is already far less polluting than a car engine, and far more efficient. And I''ve driven an electric car before - it''s incredible feeling the acceleration when you don''t have those clunky gears going on. You push the pedal, and it just GOES!

Reply to this comment

by seafang July 3, 2008 10:40 PM EDT

Scuse me if I''m not impressed.
Tom Swift had Electric cars 60 years ago; so what''s taking Tesla so long to get going; can''t find enough duffers to cough up the dough to fund this boondoggle.

No nasty chemicals eh?

Try to convince me that those batteries just turn into water, when they are exhausted. Oh I forgot; water is a greenhouse gas which the Suprememcourt says is a pollutant that the EPA has to regulate.

Wait till they say your batteries are a pollutant that the EPA has to regulate (and reduce to 25% below 1990 levels.)

Reply to this comment

by djconklin July 3, 2008 10:40 PM EDT

"... do without the 3.9 sec acceleration."

Electric motors get that automatically--you turn them on and they are roaring to go. Combustion engines have to go through the the gears.

Reply to this comment

by seafang July 3, 2008 10:32 PM EDT

Well so the car emits no pollution; for $0.1meg.

How much pollution is put out by the electric power generating station that is going to charge those batteries; and speaking of batteries; what about all the pollution involved with making or recycling those batteries. The more energy efficient batteries are the more chemically obnoxious they are. We already know the complete periodic table so there''s no mystery about what makes the best possible batteries; and even they don''t cut it.

Reply to this comment

by incog-nito July 3, 2008 8:38 PM EDT

Now...whats the solution to having cars that cost a tenth of a million dollars???

Posted by DaVicar2 at 02:44 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Easy: Economies of scale. More demand, more production, more research, lower price. They can probably extend the range of this car if they use a smaller motor and do without the 3.9 sec acceleration.

Reply to this comment

by djpompea July 3, 2008 6:06 PM EDT

Hey, if the high school kids in North Carolina could build a great electric car in the 90''s (See the book "Electric Dreams"), then it is about time to get production models on the road. In time, I''m sure the prices will move down. (The first PC''s were about $8000, now PC''s that are a thousand times more powerful can be had for about $300.) Way to go Tesla Motors!!

Reply to this comment

by env_oil July 3, 2008 4:23 PM EDT

Totally Green? How do you get the electricity for the car? Just because the car doesn%u2019t produce emission doesn%u2019t mean it is green. Some form of emissions were produced to make the electricity for the car. Unless you use wind, solar or hydro you don%u2019t have a green car. Even with wind, hydro and solar you need to consider the emissions and materials used to create the wind, hyro or solar generators.

Reply to this comment

by andor3 July 3, 2008 4:04 PM EDT

if you have ever driven a serious electric car--wow! the smooth power and acceleration are breathtaking.

Reply to this comment

by andor3 July 3, 2008 4:02 PM EDT

electric motors have been the best choice for a long time... they are smaller, more efficient, require less cooling and lubrication (and nasty chemicals that go along with it). The produce more power and torque over a wide range.

If you want serious power, you use electric-- it is what trains and big ships use. The problem is getting the electricity for the motor, batteries in the case of the car. It will be interesting to see how this solution works out.

Reply to this comment

See all 18 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[funkotronic]

To quote: "not a engine" Did this writer graduate 3rd grade? ***?

On topic: Until a greener method of GENERATING the power these cars will run on is commonplace and economically feasible, the EVs will just be an oddity, rather than a viable transportation method. Solar is the most obvious choice, but solar conversion with today''s (unsupressed) tech only converts a small fraction of the available energy.

Here%u2019s an idea: Put the solar cells in orbit (and create plenty of high-tech jobs in the process), harvest 95% of the available power (no atmospheric filtration), beam it down to Earth as microwaves (there are many 1000%u2019s of square miles of unusable land just in the US southwest that would make dandy microwave antenna farms), convert it to electricity at these farms and then inject it into the existing power grid. Not only do you get limitless power, but it''s 100% non-polluting, other than the residual heat from the devices consuming the power. So now you have all the power you could possible need and you could "fuel" your EV for literally pennies, even considering the subsidies required to bootstrap the entire conversion process.

Oh, wait - this will never work cuz the oil companies (or the totally honest, completely uncorrupt government) won''t make any money off of it. I have to go now - the assassins are at the door to kill me for being an independent thinker.

Not an original idea - proposed IN DETAIL by Jerry Pournelle in his "High Frontiers" series of essays.

[jaykay3141]

Amazing. A small private company builds a good-looking pocket rocket that runs for 220 miles on one 3.5 hour charge and sells it now. GM produces an ugly lump called the Volt that might be able to go 40 miles after sucking juice all night, IF they can get the kinks worked out by 2010 or 2011.

No wonder GM is a dinosaur.

[zykracosmos]

...and you worry what a cellphone does to brain tissue,
Try sitting on a huge electric motor for hours....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Inventagod2 at 08:29 PM : Jul 03, 2008
----------------

A most interesting question!

[j_flood]

Is there anyone doing risk analysis on the planetary effects related to electrifying automobiles, ala dead batteries, acids, lithium residue, and all the bits involved in electric cars? I''m not pro-anything - just when we went gasoline crazy about a century ago we didn''t see the polar caps melting either.

[incog-nito]

Electric motors get that automatically--you turn them on and they are roaring to go. Combustion engines have to go through the the gears.

Posted by djconklin at 07:40 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Yes, but the size of the motor in part determines its horsepower, which in turn determines the acceleration of the vehicle.

[ndg1979]

Many of you are mistaken. We ALREADY produced a 100% electric cell vehicle that could have been in mass-production. And the company that was going to bring it to you - General Motors. The car was called the EV-1 (electric vehicle-model 1 for those of you playing at home). The reason you don''t see it - a combination of entities associated with the industry of the internal combustion engine fought it, and eventually persuaded GM to fight against it''s own creation!! There eventual excuse? - it wasn''t time for the electric car.

Only 400 were made and lease-tested in California. Only 1 is known to have survived (in a museum disabled to a point it will never run I understand). And the electric car is nothing new. During the very early 20th century, the electric car was in combat against the internal combustion engine. For some reason, electric lost, but the idea has existed for some 100 years.

This is not new - just way past due.
For more info: http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

[nocatnowaco]

Excellent green car i have ever seen. It is a better one if it comes with a retractable cord.

[nocatnowaco]

Good innovation. Get the price down and people will buy it; this car can be in mass production.

[inventagod2]

...and you worry what a cellphone does to brain tissue,
Try sitting on a huge electric motor for hours....

[susanhelit]

Nice! Electricity is far more environmentally friendly. Instead of millions of car tailpipes, all we have to manage is the fewer powerplants, control their emissions. A powerplant is already far less polluting than a car engine, and far more efficient. And I''ve driven an electric car before - it''s incredible feeling the acceleration when you don''t have those clunky gears going on. You push the pedal, and it just GOES!

[seafang]

Scuse me if I''m not impressed.
Tom Swift had Electric cars 60 years ago; so what''s taking Tesla so long to get going; can''t find enough duffers to cough up the dough to fund this boondoggle.

No nasty chemicals eh?

Try to convince me that those batteries just turn into water, when they are exhausted. Oh I forgot; water is a greenhouse gas which the Suprememcourt says is a pollutant that the EPA has to regulate.

Wait till they say your batteries are a pollutant that the EPA has to regulate (and reduce to 25% below 1990 levels.)

[djconklin]

"... do without the 3.9 sec acceleration."

Electric motors get that automatically--you turn them on and they are roaring to go. Combustion engines have to go through the the gears.

[seafang]

Well so the car emits no pollution; for $0.1meg.

How much pollution is put out by the electric power generating station that is going to charge those batteries; and speaking of batteries; what about all the pollution involved with making or recycling those batteries. The more energy efficient batteries are the more chemically obnoxious they are. We already know the complete periodic table so there''s no mystery about what makes the best possible batteries; and even they don''t cut it.

[incog-nito]

Now...whats the solution to having cars that cost a tenth of a million dollars???

Posted by DaVicar2 at 02:44 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Easy: Economies of scale. More demand, more production, more research, lower price. They can probably extend the range of this car if they use a smaller motor and do without the 3.9 sec acceleration.

[djpompea]

Hey, if the high school kids in North Carolina could build a great electric car in the 90''s (See the book "Electric Dreams"), then it is about time to get production models on the road. In time, I''m sure the prices will move down. (The first PC''s were about $8000, now PC''s that are a thousand times more powerful can be had for about $300.) Way to go Tesla Motors!!

[env_oil]

Totally Green? How do you get the electricity for the car? Just because the car doesn%u2019t produce emission doesn%u2019t mean it is green. Some form of emissions were produced to make the electricity for the car. Unless you use wind, solar or hydro you don%u2019t have a green car. Even with wind, hydro and solar you need to consider the emissions and materials used to create the wind, hyro or solar generators.

[andor3]

if you have ever driven a serious electric car--wow! the smooth power and acceleration are breathtaking.

[andor3]

electric motors have been the best choice for a long time... they are smaller, more efficient, require less cooling and lubrication (and nasty chemicals that go along with it). The produce more power and torque over a wide range.

If you want serious power, you use electric-- it is what trains and big ships use. The problem is getting the electricity for the motor, batteries in the case of the car. It will be interesting to see how this solution works out.