When Dave met Elon...and his Tesla Model S

Tesla Motors' Elon Musk has a friend in David Letterman.

Musk, the CEO and product architect of electric car maker Tesla Motors, was a guest on the "Late Show with David Letterman" Wednesday night. Also making an appearance on the set was the prototype Model S electric sedan, which made its first trip to New York this week.

But even though Musk and the Model S were the main event (well, after actress Jennifer Garner), Letterman did most of the talking. Actually, "complaining" might be a better word.

David Letterman finds a sympathetic ear with Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk.

(Credit: Screenshot by Martin LaMonica/CNET)

Letterman is frustrated, downright irritated, that electric motors, which have been around for 100 years, are still considered cutting-edge technology. The Chevy Volt's 40-mile range is "crap," good enough to get the paper at the end of the driveway, he joked.

"If (auto companies) were actually working on technolgies that were actually in showrooms, they wouldn't need to be closing down plants and filing bankruptcies," Letterman griped.

As for the electric Tesla Roadster sports car, Letterman called it "bulletproof" and said it drives like a "bat out of hell." He admitted, though, that the first time he charged the car he was nervous it would burn down his house and "magnetize his nuts."

Musk did manage to get a few words in. He reiterated that the company's long-term plan has always been to build a mass-market car. "Anyone who does buy the Roadster is helping pay for the development of low-cost cars to follow," he said.

The reason Musk is pouring his energy and much of his personal wealth into Tesla is to spur the electric car revolution. "I thought that the existing car companies would do it," he said.

Both Musk and Letterman took digs at General Motors and its decision to cancel its EV1 electric cars, which were crushed when the program was canceled despite loyal customers. "With the benefit of hindsight, I think that (GM) should have built an EV2 rather than crushing them," Musk said.

After a commercial break, a curtain lifted and the Model S electric sedan rolled out, welcomed by oohs and ahs from the studio audience. Tesla will open a showroom later this year in New York.

While Letterman opened the door and poked about, Musk tried to make an "important point" about the Model S, which he said will be ready in "a couple of years."

But we may never know what Musk had to say. Letterman grabbed the steering wheel and started yelling "I'm being electrocuted!"

"Late Show with David Letterman" airs on CBS. CNET News is published by CBS Interactive, a unit of CBS.

Photos: Tesla Model S hits New York party scene

[Bubba_Gump]

If you are criticizing a late night comedy show for not taking the topic seriously, I think you're forgetting exactly who the audience was last night.

[biffhenerson]

Tesla is big news. Is he able to get investors or doesnt he want them?

[Atlas_]

I look at this electric car idea and I cry inside, because I don't see a car, I see millions of acres of useful farmland turned into an ugly wind farm (and they will be everywere). I see hundreds of NEW coal power plants needed to back up all that unreliable wind power. I see a nuclear power plant engineer off to the side, unemployed, screaming "I have the solution!" but nobody is listening.

We the public DON'T WANT ELECTRIC CARS! They are too expensive, too slow, are wasteful in energy usage, are to expensive, aren't big enough for our families, don't go far enough on a charge and are TO EXPENSIVE!

For the record if I could buy an electric car for 20,000 I would do that in a HEART BEAT, but that will never, ever happen. so all I can do is cry (inside of coarse).

[some_guy_555]

Your comment makes no sense. If "millions of acres of useful farmland turned into an ugly wind farm" then that would imply that electric car use has become widespread, which according to you is never going to happen because "We the public DON'T WANT ELECTRIC CARS! ". So which is it?

[epross]

Atlas_
There's nothing stopping farmers from planting around the base of wind-towers; and you left solar, tidal and hydroelectric power generation out of your rant.

As for the expense - any new technology is expensive and will come down in price as it is adopted. When the first PC's came out they were thousands of dollars. Now you can buy PCs that are hundreds of times more powerful for 500 bucks or less.

It is much more efficient to produce electricity at a centralized source then to have millions of (inefficient) gasoline engines running around polluting. The pollution is less and can be managed more effectively.

Lastly, electric cars are not slower than gasoline. I recently saw a test vehicle blow the doors off of a Corvette. The advantage to electric is it has maximum torque and horsepower from the outset unlike gasoline engines that have to build up RPM and speed to achieve.

Quite frankly a significant portion of the public DOES want electric cars. They want to reduce their environmental impact and to stop sending gallons of money to the Arab fat-cats for overpriced gasoline. Thanks for showing everyone that such narrow-minded thinking is probably the biggest obstacle that electric cars face. Developing the technology is easy by comparison.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Speak for yourself.

I'm part of "we the public" and I'd love to own an electric car. If one was available in my price range a few years ago when I bought a new car, I would have gone electric.

In my area, 99.9% of electricity is generated by hydro, which we also export. Chew on that for a while.

[bdoyle87]

Actually the Tesla Roadster does 0-60 in under 4 seconds and has a 90% battery to wheel efficiency.

[lumpoco]

Dude...we don't want acres and acres of farmland either. Did you know that farmers get millions and millions of gallons water for just a fraction that it costs the average consumer? I am tired of subsidizing the poor farmers of our country. If they want to be a farmer then they should struggle to keep their business alive like the rest of us. You cannot speak for the public that it doesn't want electric cars. Because most of the public is so liberal green that if they could give birth to their own Toyota Prius they would do it. However, we live in a democratic society so I will hear you out. If you say we don't want electric cars, gas-powered cars then what else is there? Please don't say the Segway. That mode of transportation is a joke. It's too slow, too expensive and too stupid!

[Cole_Brodine]

Wouldn't most cars be charging in the evening and actually helping level out the terrible daytime peak in most places? Also, you obviously have never been to the plains states if you think they are "wasting valuable farm land" where they build wind towers. In Nebraska, they build them on what was previously just pasture in mostly low population areas. The wind farms are typically a big boost to the local economy. It's not like they force these farmers to sell their land and build wind farms. Many of them can make quite a bit of money leasing property to wind farms, and can still ranch or farm the majority of it.

I think nuclear is about to see a big comeback anyway. After they pass carbon taxes, nuclear will suddenly become much more economical. Also, I think you will see lots more natural gas plants being used to back up wind power, thanks to the carbon taxes.

I don't think wind is the silver bullet to save us all, but it is certainly part of the solution. The same with electric cars. They might not be the most efficent system now, but they will only improve. Battery technology gets better everyday. You will see hybrid systems with hydrogen or natural gas someday, to help extend ranges for electric vehicles.

The end is not near.

[markb1967]

Altas must work for the oil companies or GM.

[ledhead1962]

Maybe someone should hook up a methane gathering station to your mouth. The pile of manure that your assumptions for the "we the public" assumption represents could power your gas car for a few hundred miles. What a load of nonsense!!

[nebby74]

Fears of electric cars being wasteful on energy only demonstrate ignorance on the topic. Our current grid can support adding millions and new cars without using any extra energy (which half is wasted keeping the lines powered). Keep researching before resorting to CAPS.

[Thranx]

People love the idea of no more going to gas stations, being able to charge thier car at thier home. People love the idea of a super quiet car, and no exhaust. Ignorant people love the idea that they're saving the world by driving an electric car.

Bottom line, people here in the US will most certainly drive an electric car, many would gladly pay more for one as well, but until the price point is below 30k, you're not going to see a broad acceptance... but we're not even to the point where we have any level of acceptance at any price tag... the cars just aren't available.

Clean power is needed too. No, not windmills or 50 failed attempts at generating power using waves at the beach. We need nukes. Nuke power is the more efficent and cleanest power technology we have, bar none. Solar tower power technology is good, but takes alot of space for not alot of juice. In the end, we just need to take a page from France's book (gasp!) and go all nuke.

[willdryden]

Nukes are not clean. PV solar is and it will work. The payback time is 10 years or less depending an your electric rates and with an electric car, that would be cut even more.

[KevinK]

Actually if you charge the car's batteries off-peak very little additional additional infrastructure is required, and electric motors are at least 3X more efficient than gasoline engines. My understanding is that the typical electric car in gasoline equivalent terms would be getting a couple of hundred mpg. The Tesla site has more information on this and many other issues. I think a sedan that can travel a few hundred miles between charges and can be quickly charged on long trips (as opposed to slow overnight charging at home) might be a practical vehicle for daily use.

[bigmc6000]

What nobody seems to be realizing is that creating electricity is very inefficient. The thing that ends up making gasoline fueled vehicles more efficient (in raw energy units) is the fact that you're putting the actual fuel into your system and while you may only get 30% of the raw energy out of it there's only a single step. Compare that to an electric car - you've got energy creation (we'll just talk natural gas and coal since that's where most of it comes from in the US anyway) and you're looking at best 50% (for brand new natural gas) and at worst 25% (for older coal plants) and then on top of all of that you've got the losses in transmission from the power plant to your house and then you've got the efficiency of the electric motor itself. So even if the electric motor is 85% efficient it's still, at best, comparable to a gas engine. It's also probably a little cheaper although at the current fuel prices it's probably a wash.

Really the only large benefit you'd see is if 1) the electricity you get for your car comes from hydro, solar, or wind and 2) you only charge at off-peak hours.

Personally I'd rather have a Chevy Volt so I wouldn't be stuck out in the middle of nowhere searching for an electric outlet (also keep in mind the system the Volt uses is more efficient than a regular vehicle as the motor runs at peak efficiency all the time as opposed to the stopping and starting of a normal vehicle).

Sorry for the long post...

[dgiamanco]

I continually see the argument that generating electricity is still going to be wasteful, but wouldn't electric cars allow innovation in new forms of renewable energy to be adopted fast? Looking at gasoline powered cars, everyone has to purchase a new car to take advantage of new technology that makes cars more efficient. Now looking at electric powered cars, if there is a new technology that makes our cars more efficient, we can implement it at the power grid level and allow everyone to take advantage of it right away. I tend to think of electricity as a neutral energy medium. Almost all forms of energy can be turned into electricity, therefore all electric cars can adopt new innovations right away. An example would be hydrogen fuel cells. Lets say hydrogen power can be harnessed efficiently and safely. Great! Now we can place this on our power grid, or even better, place hydrogen stations around town like gas stations. As long as these stations are converting the power into electricity then there is no reason people can't take advantage of this new technology right away.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I only drive about 20 miles a day (if that), I would love one of those sedans. They look awesome too.

[jclayc]

Have any of the Teslas actually made it through an honest road test? Every time I start to read an auto review, the reviewers end up going through both Teslas the company brings to the track and both break...

[sickjohnson]

I want an electric car! Put up some solar panels and drive for free. Live off the grid. It sounds like a dream. Just think how much power we would save on shutting down some petro plants; you have to remember that has to be part of the equation too. Shut down 1 gas plant could run maybe 100 000 cars on the power savings. Just wait till the higher efficient in hub motors come out and better storage batteries. True the Volt should get better distance, but it does have a small motor that generates power to run the car once you go over the 40 miles. The price of gas is only going to go up in the future.

[eletain]

As several people here have mentioned so much of the electricity generated is wasted in the transmission lines. Ideally we need cheap solar/wind on your house with the excess feeding the grid or a local storage battery. Then you can be relatively self sufficient, typically electricity use is highest when the sun is shining due to business and industrial use and AC in hotter parts of the country. So peak solar and peak use coincide. I can buy a solar and small wind turbine system to partly power my house now but the payback period is too long and even small house sized wind turbines havs sound and other issues.

To make electric cars practical we need to solve two problems, making price and convenience closely match gas/diesel power. Since Americans (and Canadians) currently own an average of 2.28 vehicles per household, and more than 35 percent of households own three or more cars. (February 2008 study by Experian Automotive) if only one of them was electric it would make a huge difference in oil prices, pollution, and global warming. Especially if the electricity was generated by home solar/wind not requiring the building of more centralized, wasteful and polluting centalized power stations with the accompaning NIBMY fights.

[Jurvetson]

Regarding "we may never know what Musk had to say"
I just got the answer to that cliffhanger and posted on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/3489129065/

[Charlief1]

One of the answers to wide spread adoption of electric vehicles will be 'electric filling stations' for vehicles, which will effectively extend their range past commuting distances. Read about one grand plan at http://www.betterplace.com/

There is a very good interview with the founder of the company in the New York Times online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/09electric.html

There are many bright people working hard at overcoming the real-world barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles. I believe it's only a question of 'when,' NOT 'if." Our future depends on it.

[markb1967]

Exactly what I have been saying here for 2 years. GM dug their own graves when they crushed the EV-1 and cancelled a very promising program. Chevy and Ford are screwing with the public with their hybrids that suck in electric and gas catagories... I would take a Rav4 electric from the 1990s right now and beat the crap out of Detroits "new" technology.

[markb1967]

Once we have more wind power and solar power, these arguments will have no merit.

[NervClaX]

Musk can complain all he wants about how disappointed he is that Detriot didn't carry the torch for electric vehicles sooner. Chrysler, GM, and Ford were all powerless to do so and they will remain powerless without seriously major reorganization. The fact is Tesla has a competitive advantage in that they have control over their labor costs where Detroit does not. Tesla can pay their workers what they want, take it or leave it, while Detroit is now being PWND by the UAW.

With such high labor costs, Detroit couldn't make money building and selling small vehicles while Japan and Korea can and do. When gas was cheap, people bought the cars they wanted. Now that we've seen how explosive and volatile gas prices are, people are only buying as much car as they need.

Detroit will NEVER be competitive without direct control over their cost of labor. Now that the UAW are such huge shareholders that seems unlikely to happen. They will likely continue to limp along like wounded animals occasionally stopping to feed on TARP funds. Now that we finally have the demand to grow and sustain a market for all-electric vehicles, our auto industry isn't in a position to supply.

[b_baggins]

Physics always wins in the end. Electrics cars cannot compete with gasoline. Period. But, never fear, Obama will force auto makers to build nothing but electric cars so everyone will be able to get an underperforming vehicle, pay through the nose in taxes to subsidize it and be told that those lithium fires from auto accidents are figments of their imaginations. But, hey, you're saving the planet...

[jlpotts]

b_baggins, I know your worried about those lithium fires, but if I'm not mistaken gasoline burns too.

[ZetaZeta_]

It's not about saving the planet. It's about accelerating fast in a sexy quiet vehicle. You may enjoy your Porsche, but I drive a clunky Chevy Cavalier around. Teslas outperform Cavs. Electric cars in general outperform cheap gas machines, and I want the adoption rate of electric to go up so that the prices come way down into the range of these grossly over-expensive vehicles.

[roshan-thomas]

Having seen several interviews of Elon Musk I think the important point that he probably wanted to make about the Model S as a follow up point to its price of $49 900 was that ?The ownership cost of Model S, if you were to lease and then account for the much lower cost of electricity vs. gasoline at a likely future cost of $4 per gallon, is similar to a gasoline car with a sticker price of about $35,000." I think he wanted to say that because Letterman reacted sort of unfavorably (all part of Letterman's histrionics) when he said the price of Model S would be $49,900. But between Letterman winking at the pretty models and electrocution enactment, Elon did not get a chance to complete his point. :)

Roshan

[duelingtampons]

Per Roshan's comment below, watch the clip of Wharton Entrepreneur Elon Musk's Appearance on Late Night TV + find out the Exclusive Tesla Info Elon Revealed to DT! (VIDEOS)

http://tr.im/emusk