The mainstream issue with EV's is they cost too much for long range. An overpriced performance EV reinforces the "toys for the rich" image. Besides, if you aren't out performing the Rimac you're just fighting for second place :wink: Not that I'm discouraging anyone from building performance EV's, I just don't think it's an important market segment at this point, EV's have proven their performance capabilities. Tens of thousands of Model S's roaming the streets will have far more impact than a handful of EV supercars.
I agree with this. Once they proved what electricity could do with the Roadster, it was not necessary to continue the line for now.
sorry but for most of the people I know the Model S is in that camp... how many people do you think can afford a car in the $50K bracket?
True. But for the same reason that Tesla could not begin with Bluestar and had to begin with a hand-built high-performance car for the rich, so too they cannot jump from Roadster to Bluestar, but need to proceed with an in-between car which can succeed with middle volume sales before moving on to an affordable car. Starting high-end and gradually moving downscale is a sound business plan.
Except that you have forgotten what drew many of us to the Roadster in the first place...
What drew me to the Roadster was that it was the first "real" electric car available to me. The Xebra's 35-mph top speed was just too limiting, though I'd have continued to drive it until something better became available. Before I bought my Roadster I said that its target market was sports-car enthusiasts for whom a Ferrari was not fast enough. But I didn't buy mine for being a sports car. I bought it for being an electric car. And I realize now that there are plenty of other Roadster owners who bought theirs for the same reason. A 150-mile electric Civic would have been my ideal car. I hope the Bluestar will be something along those lines.
Not at all, and it served it's purpose. We are past that stage now. Roadster -> Model S -> Bluestar gets us to EV's for the masses, another EV supercar does almost nothing in that respect. The Model T was not a supercar, it was affordable transportation. I think you are holding on to a 3-4 year old outlook where people thought EV's were slow, I don't think that's the case any longer, and that's certainly not the main arguments we see against them.
I agree with this also.
Chevy keeps producing and promoting the Corvette. Why, I wonder. Price? Image? Racing? Someone buying a Chevy "for the masses" likes to think that somewhere in the DNA is a really hot car, which is why Corvettes are still being made, and being improved with bigger engines, etc. etc. A Roadster II will be advertising. "This is what Electrics can do. You may not be able to afford one, but you have Roadster DNA in every Tesla."
I disagree. People don't buy a Chevy because it has a fast cousin in the Corvette. They buy a Chevy because they like the car they're buying, and perhaps they trust the brand.
GM can afford to build the Corvette because it's a gigantic car company with a huge number of models, so they build a wide range of cars. When Tesla is a huge company with ten or twenty car models, it will make perfect sense to have a roadster among them. But for now, Tesla needs to concentrate on building itself as a company, and a Roadster Mk II would soak up too much of its resources at this time. It's coming, but this is not the time for it.
The Roadster served its purpose, and even though they're not building any more of them for now, it's on the roads, in the public eye, and it's creating name recognition and respect.
