Talk:Tesla Roadster (first generation)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why didn't Tesla tell buyers about the transmission?

Hundreds of people have put down a deposit for a car that was advertised as needing almost no maintenence. But only now is Tesla letting people know that the transmission will need to be replaced after a few thousand miles. I think it was very wrong that Tesla went all this time without letting buyers know about this. I thought this car was a great thing when I first heard about it. But after all of these repeated delays, the repeated downgrading of the mileage between recharges, and how this transmission thing, I now think the people at Tesla Motots have been promoting a car that doesn't really exist - at least not in the form that was promised to buyers. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that the transmissions that Tesla is testing now internally have reliability problems at a few thousand miles. But they are working on these problems and I would assume they will be fixed by the time the first car is shipped to customers. Have you seen something that indicates customers will have to replace their transmissions after a few thousand miles? --Steve Pucci | talk 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This. I already added it to the article. I don't think it was very nice of Tesla to have kept this information a secret from the people who already put a deposit down on the car. And why did they lie about the mileage? If I buy a box of Cheerios and it says "15 ounces," it better have 15 ounces. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be what you were referring to. If they do this (and it's not clear they will), it will be an option for those people who want it, and will not be forced on anyone; people who would prefer to wait for the final transmission can do so at their option. If you drill down through the links reported in that article you'll find that the original source of that article clarified that here; the original source posting here also quotes Tesla's new CEO as saying this would be an expensive option for them (not surprisingly), implying that they're not about to do it for people who don't want it.

I've also seen nothing that indicates Tesla knew about the latest transmission problems, or the mileage estimate changes, when people were still putting down deposits, so I don't think it's fair to say they were keeping either a secret from anyone. There also has been small print on Tesla's website where they post the mileage estimates since I've been tracking them (over a year) qualifying the numbers as being for preproduction vehicles and that production vehicles might have different numbers as the production specifications change. It's not so great that it's hidden in the small print, but it has been there. I've also seen nothing about what happens to the deposits of customers who decide that the reduced range isn't sufficient for them, or that the delay is more than they are willing to wait for. It's possible those deposits would be fully refundable. In general, Tesla claims here that deposits are refundable up to three months prior to production minus a $100 processing fee. Based on the current production schedule estimates we're well before that range for all customers. --Steve Pucci | talk 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You referred to "people who would prefer to wait for the final transmission." Uh, no. No one "prefers to wait." Tesla has already broken their promise for when the car would be available, and now it seems that they are breaking it again. Why didn't they tell buyers from the very start that the transmissions didn't work properly? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. By "prefer to wait" I meant "prefer waiting rather than getting an early non-final transmission." But I take your point, that no one likes delays.

Again, I've seen nothing that says Tesla held back information from people when they put down deposits. As far as I know the delivery estimates that buyers were given on the website matched what Tesla knew at that time. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd personally like to see it. --Steve Pucci | talk 03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't Tesla tell buyers from the very start that the transmissions didn't work properly? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the second paragraph of the article to remove the impression it left that the cars that initially shipped would permanently have downgraded performance. Also, while the autoblog article referenced there says that the transmissions "won't allow the cars to go as fast as promised", it's not clear that this refers to top speed as opposed to an imprecise description of acceleration. It was my understanding that the configuration is identical to that which has been in testing for the past few months, which essentially has a transmission locked in second gear. Such a configuration would limit acceleration but not top speed. However, I have seen nothing which addresses this one way or the other. Until this is clarified by Tesla I have left it out of the introductory paragraph; better to leave out something that might be true rather than insert something that might be false. --Steve Pucci | talk 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your profile page says you're an engineer in Silicon Valley. Do you by chance work for Tesla Motors? If so, I guess that explains why you keep erasing my criticisms in the article. The article is supposed to be balanced and objective. It's not supposed to look like an advertisement. The fact is that Tesla Motors is not providing people with a car that matches the performace that was promised to them when they paid for it. It was wrong for Tesla to lie to customers about the car's performance. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. My experience working on this article and in particular this discussion soured me from working on Wikipedia and I literally have not seen this talk page (nor any other) since posting here last (check my contribs list). Had I seen the question asked me above I would have answered it immediately. For the record, I have never worked for Tesla. My defense of Tesla above was an attempt to limit the article to factual statements and remove speculative criticism. Sorry if I appeared to be an apologist for the company. --Steve Pucci | talk 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A wikipedia talk page is not the appropriate forum for you to voice your opinion about preproduction estimates not matching production figures. Fact: Tesla Motors is offering customers a temporary transmission that simply reduces 0-60 times by 1.7 seconds while they work out transmission issues. They will then replace this temporary transmission with the production transmission when completed. This is not a standard production vehicle, and I believe most, if not all, of the buyers understand this. BrandonG (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tesla claims that this transmission is "temporary," but they have a track record of lying to their customers. Why didn't Tesla tell customers about this before it took their money? Why did Tesla advertise the car's acceleration as being better than it actually is? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) It's irrelevent whether it's going to be fixed or is in the process of being fixed - or even that it was completely and utterly resolved to the satisfaction of everyone years in the past. What matters is whether this is a verifiable fact about the history of the car that is notable enough to mention in an encyclopedia. It sounds to me like it's pretty notable - there aren't many cars out there where the transmission is recalled with a temporary transmission provided! That's a very unusual thing. We don't have to write this as a criticism - simply state the facts and point to the place where the facts may be verified. Let the readers decide for themselves whether this is a damning thing that should put them off buying a Tesla car - or whether this is customer service above and beyond the call of duty. We aren't here to express opinions - merely to state the facts. SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, what you say is true. I cited my sources, so it is indeed a verifiable fact. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After a certain person in this section of the talk page repeatedly kept defending Tesla's lying to its customers, I said the following:

"Your profile page says you're an engineer in Silicon Valley. Do you by chance work for Tesla Motors? If so, I guess that explains why you keep erasing my criticisms in the article. The article is supposed to be balanced and objective. It's not supposed to look like an advertisement. The fact is that Tesla Motors is not providing people with a car that matches the performace that was promised to them when they paid for it. It was wrong for Tesla to lie to customers about the car's performance."

That person never answered my question. And he has since stopped posting on the talk page.

Therefore, I think that there is indeed a very high probability that this person works for Tesla Motors.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? Tesla probably has what, ten people in LA? What makes you think he isn't just some nerdy fanboy, one of the tens of thousnads of engineers that live in the area?Lukesed (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See my belated response above. --Steve Pucci | talk 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tesla has offered to upgrade the new 1.5 transmission to any of the pre-existing cars with the "unreliable" transmission AT NO COST TO THE OWNERS. Also, Tesla deposits for the 2008 cars are fully refundable up until the day of delivery. Subsequent model deposits are fully refundable up until the day of production (about 3 months before delivery, giving customers more than 9 months to cancel). Also, the cars are capable of having their batteries interchanged when they "expire" or when better batteries are available. This is all verifiable information. Let's compare this consumer friendliness with other car companies. Tesla also refuses to franchise their showrooms in order to completely control the consumer experience and avoid "middleman" mark-ups. Let's check our facts before condemning one of the most incredible technologies seen in a long time. Also, if we start using solar panels on our homes we are solving that efficiency dilemma mentioned below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/EVgrrrl (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog references.

There are a number of references to 'blog' entries in this article. Please remember that links to blogs and forums are NOT permitted in Wikipedia as either external links or (especially) as references. What's doubly worrying is that I'm now seeing edit summaries suggesting that people are editing on the basis that certain information is or is not available in some blog or other...and that's doubly wrong!

The rules are simple:

• Do not refer or link to blogs and forums AT ALL (unless this is an article about the blog or forum - which this one obviously isn't).
• Do not add information into the article (especially if it's of a controversial nature) that doesn't have a decent reference (by which we mean NOT A BLOG!).

Thanks.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on this point. While I would consider the speculation by various blog/forum contributors of the "official Tesla blog" to be of dubious quality, the primary article that start out each major thread in the blogs are written as official announcements by Tesla Motors or certainly would merit inclusion into this article. Links to those blog entries... particularly as it relates to the Roadster... should not only be used but strongly encouraged as they are a primary source of information regarding this vehicle. I would also give similar levels of credibility for those replies that were written by Tesla staff such as Martin Eberhard or even Elon Musk, both of whom have made some minor comments on the blogs themselves.

As for Martin's post-Tesla blog, you can give that as much or as little credit as you feel. And the "fan blogs" certainly shouldn't be treated as primary source of information... or even tertiary sources of high reliability.

The blanket prohibition of removing all references to all blogs should be tempered by acknowledging the quality of the source and to form a consensus on what constitutes a quality source of information. Many blogs are just a persons opinion and nothing more... so legitimately should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But don't throw out legitimate original sources of information just because they don't come neatly packaged in some academic journal that has been peer reviewed and gone through some other knowledge meat grinder first. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really rather irrelevent whether you disagree or not. The WP:V document is Wikipedia-wide POLICY - it's not just a guideline - it's not just there to be waved away by someone who disagrees with it. It's pretty clear: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." - if you read supporting materials linked from WP:V you'll see that "largely not acceptable" offers a loophole only for articles ABOUT the blog. This is pretty clear policy. It is not the place of authors of this article to ignore this policy. If you dispute it - then by all means head over to WT:V (the associated talk page for WP:V) and express your theory that this page should be exempt from that rule. Good luck with that. Meanwhile - we should follow the rules and remove the blog references. SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. This is not a policy. It is a guideline only. One that can be tempered by individual circumstances and dealt with on a case by case basis. The huge key word here is are largely not acceptable. Some blogs may be acceptable, but you have to weigh the source. This "policy" certainly is not one of the foundational pillars of Wikipedia.

You have also completely missed the point I was trying to make, and that is there are very legitimate sources of information that can be used as a primary source. The official Tesla blog is IMHO one of these very legitimate sources, as is perhaps even Martin's blog. This is a formal written record that was in this case created by the individuals who are actually manufacturing the vehicle that is the topic of this article. I don't know how to get a more reliable primary source of information than that. We are not talking about a Shakespeare blog by a bunch of fans of his literature. This is more like something written by Shakespeare himself commenting on his own plays.

I agree that the Tesla "fan blogs" should be strongly questioned as a source, and I did temper my suggestion to use the official blog to be mainly the initial thread articles and verifiable postings by "insiders" to Tesla. As the official blog is moderated, somebody claiming to be Martin or Elon would have been removed almost immediately if it wasn't true. This is a case of trying to weigh sources and try to determine what is credible and what may not be. In many circumstances, blogs are not credible. But don't let this one "policy" get to your head and prevent us from using solid primary sources of information that can significantly improve the quality and content of this article.

Besides this overblown reliance upon depending on this policy you are quoting, give me one good solid reason why the Official Blog on the teslamotors.com website should not be used as a primary source of information for this article. Why shouldn't we be referring to the actual engineers building the vehicle and the chairman of the board of Tesla Motors for information about when it may be released to the public? This just simply boggles my mind that you would throw this sort of source out the window here. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the company's blog in this case should be treated just like a series of press releases. -kslays (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is another suggestion: Rather than discussing if blog references are ok or not (I think not, but the Tesla blog is indeed more of a press release and thus okay), lets identify the problematic references in the article and discuss them on a case-to-case basis. There aren't that many.Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So what are the references that are causing you to be a little concerned about? I'm asking for specifics here. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through the citations and I believe that they are OK for inclusion according to the WP:V criteria that SteveBaker referenced. Nearly all of the "blog" references in this article are OK because they fall under the policy's allowance that:

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...").

The references that I think might still need more bolstering are:

• 23 "AutoBlog 2007-12-19"
• 28 "AutoBlog EDTA"
• 43 ref-4, Global Green Award
• 44 ref-5, Car Domain Car Blog.

For 23 and 28, AutoBlog seems to be a reliable source, but I'm not sure; AutoBlog appears to be a non-personal, reputable site. That said, the original source for 23 is really the Town Hall meeting with downloadable audio (there were reports that Tesla would provide a transcript, however, I have not found one) and 28, suspension of ESS sales to TH!NK, was likely reported in other media too. I haven't had time to track down 43 and 44 from the Awards section. --Mwarren us (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream reviews

Several reviews from mainstream auto magazines are now out. They are Motor Trend, AutoWeek, and Road & Track. I think these would fit well in the existing review section. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reviews, with hopefully representative quotes. Superm401 - Talk 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Euopean sales

Now that European sales have been announced, the sentence "no service centers outside of the US" can be deleted at any time, although there is no rush. Sales won't begin until the third quarter (July-September), and so far no service centers in Europe have been announced, but they obviously will be announced. "Tesla would target 'obvious' big markets such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, as well as countries such as Norway and Denmark." 199.125.109.98 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Public or private?

Tell me how the car was unveiled to the "public" at an "invitation only" event. Rtdrury (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of the event most likely. But I could be wrong. --StevenFurtado (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, coverage of the event by invited media companies was released publicly along with press releases from Tesla Motors.--Mwarren us (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Update opening paragraph's 135mpg to newer 105mpg?

During development and validation, the Roadster's recharge efficiency has dropped from 86% to 75% while the propulsion energy usage climbed from 110Wh/km to 149Wh/km. The 135mpg number in the opening paragraph, based on 110 132Wh/km, 86% recharge efficiency and 33705 Wh/gal, is no longer accurate. I would like to discuss it's replacement before changing it.

Tesla Motors recently switched to advertising the Roadster's efficiency as "256mpg equivalent" (from CAFE calculations based on a politically derived 82049 Wh/gal) instead of "135mpg " (from thermodynamic calculations based on the 33705 Wh/gal average LHV of US gasoline).

Which value seems more encyclopedic, "256 mpg equivalent based on CAFE" or "105 mpg equivalent based on thermodynamics"? "256 mpg equivalent" changes both the number and the method of determining equivalence; "105mpg equivalent" changes only the number. Thanks, Mwarren us (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Change to 105 then. 235 is like measuring a speaker's output in Watts PMPO Towel401 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change. Thanks for the feedback. --Mwarren us (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Apples-to-Apples" Efficiency Comparison is biased and original research

This section compares factory numbers from different makers, yet only takes a critical view on the Tesla Motors numbers. It is widely known that all factory numbers are higher or different from what most people get in practice. This is as true for a Prius as the Tesla. For this reason, this section shows bias.

It is also original research. The calculations look like they are original to wikipedia, and have no references. 80.62.46.25 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, completely inappropriate. Removing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

the calculations on this section were not biased. In fact they represented the "best case scenario" for the Tesla Roadster. If a truly unbiased analysis were done the results would have been less favorable for the Tesla. Also, Wikipedia has no policy against original research, as long as the original research is well supported by proper citations. This was the case here. I would like the section reinstated. Not to do so will be viewed as Wikipedia bias favoring Tesla Motors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyworth2101521 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 July 2008

Wikipedia:No original research is quite clear on this point to me. Spare us the "people will think the article is biased if my research isn't allowed into it" spiel, please. Surely there is some more reliable source which could be used to produce the same claims if they're factual. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon O'Dell's statement in the Edmunds.com article This Electric Sports Car Is the Real Thing that the Roadster has an

"EPA-rated range of 220 miles (more like 180 miles if you like to goose it every once in awhile and down around 150 if you regard speed limit signs as mere suggestions)"

does not provide enough detail about the driving cycle used to derive the 180 mile range nor the 150 mile range claims for those results to be reproduced or compared. Without knowing the specific driving cycle, it is not possible to verify the results nor accurately compare them to other vehicles. This article's existing "Energy efficiency" section already contains lots of information to help readers make their own comparisons with other vehicles. --Mwarren us (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: A new account (possible sockpuppet) just re-introduced that section, and I reverted it. Please, folks. Don't engage in syntheses, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, the section cites Wikipedia as a source, which is also not allowed. And finally, it draws conclusions! That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. This is original research, pure and simple. Read the policy on that. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Energy efficiency section

Three points were raised for discussion here:

1. What does the page mean by "efficiency"? Nuclear is not more efficient than coal, at least in any significant sense. Is someone conflating power efficiency with carbon output?
2. Should this be its own section? I say that it should. In an electric vehicle, efficiency and fuel consumption is more than a mere statistic - it's the whole reason to purchase the vehicle. Giving the issue due weight implies giving it its own section.
3. Is there a need for a lead sentence in the "costs" section which says "Monetary cost offers another way to find an equivalent fuel efficiency"? I say there isn't. It should be possible to write the section's prose in such a way that it is implied that this is an alternative way of looking at things without having to lead with a rather obvious sentence. I dare say that the section could already do without it.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On the first point - Tesla Motors says that "Tesla Motors cars combine style, acceleration, and handling with advanced technologies that make them among the quickest and the most energy-efficient cars on the road." Some people have the opinion that efficiency and fuel consumption are "the whole reason to purchase the vehicle", others however might consider the performance, styling, technology or cachet as the reasons to purchase. Opinions vary and energy efficiency is just one specification that influences those opinions.

On the second point about the quality of the prose - the transition could be made better with improved prose, however, it's still important to insure that a transition exists; in the past there was confusion about this point.--Mwarren us (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I would be extremely surprised if anyone purchasing a Roadster (y'know, the limited edition hundred thousand dollar cars) was doing so while considering the vehicle's power source / fuel efficiency to be "just one specification". As-is, the section is long and putting fuel efficiency in it forces us for fourth-level headers. I don't see that this is a difficult call at all for all of those reasons.
2. I don't see that the archived thread in question explicitly makes the point in question either, but pending a rewrite I'm happy to go with the existing layout.

Anyway, yeah. For now, I reckon we should split fuel efficiency and leave the other thing, if only to avoid fouth-level headers and to balance the article's section lengths a little. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article's balance would be better by moving the Energy efficiency section up and it would cater to folks' tastes. On the other hand, keeping the Energy efficiency section under the Specifications heading has the advantages of warding off generic EV efficiency discussions (they used to crop up which lead to adding the link to the Electric vehicle article) and setting a good precedent for other EV articles. While people find the energy efficiency discussion of the Tesla Roadster novel now (2008), when/if battery electric vehicles become more common Energy efficiency should be just one specification like mpg for petrol cars. Hopefully this article can set the correct precedent. --Mwarren us (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a call that can be made in the future. For now, alternative-energy vehicles are novel, and that novelty deserves its own section. Happy to reconsider at a later date when electric cars are no big deal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess (to move Energy Efficiency back to a separate section). Future editors, hopefully, will have to reconsider this when electric cars become more common. --Mwarren us (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)