My BMW X6M had torque vectoring and it was amazing in the turns for a near 6000lb SUV.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
200 kWh Roadster Pack: How is Tesla Pulling This Off?
- Thread starter jackbowers
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Batteries Roadster 2020
There is no way the new roadster weigh 1900 kg. Remember that Model 3 weigh about 3800 Ibs even with all those heavy steel construction, and the new roadster got to weigh lower than that. I am betting new roadster weight between 3300 to 3500 Ibs.
Also, Tesla claims is 0-60 mph with 1 ft rollout is 1.9 second. Therefore, "0-100 km/h with 1 ft rollout" would be exactly around 2.0 second. NOT 1.82 second.
In addition, the difference between the "without rollout" vs "with rollout" figure is 0.25 to 0.3 second range. Definitely NOT 0.2 second difference.
That's is far too optimistic. You're setting yourself up for disappointment, if you're planning on getting one.
The battery pack alone will weigh in the area of 900 kg/1984 lb. For comparison, an original Roadster without battery pack weighs 852 kg/1878 lb. Adding 75 kg/165 lb for the driver means the bottom line is 1827 kg/4027 lb. There's no way it will weigh less than that. This is a larger car, and the Elise/Roadster is built to be extremely light. I expect they'll be able to use the battery pack for a lot of structural strength and use more carbon fiber, but on the other hand, they'll be stuffing in three motors vs one, plus more creature comforts, two more seats, etc. I think 1900 kg is probably close to spot on.
"These are conservative figures."
But right now the calculation just goes "Boom! 1.47G". I was thinking about softening the initial acceleration rampup. This matters for the 1 ft rollout, though probably not more than the 0.05 second area.
As others have said its very unlikely the prototype had a 200kWh pack. Probably in the area of 130-140 to get to the performance they advertised. They didnt show trunk space etc (probably because it wasnt designed yet but also I wouldnt be surprised if they crammed the front and rear full of batteries for this prototype so they can have the energy output required.
With increasing energy density and optimized cooling they are developing they are targeting 200kWh. At least that makes sense.
Also kind of confused with the 200kWh concept, Musk said they are staying at 100 for S and X, as its a good balance of range and price and weight. Now they say 200 in the roadster, totally destroying the other models in range and giving everyone the idea that in 3 years we will have 200kWh in the S and X.
With increasing energy density and optimized cooling they are developing they are targeting 200kWh. At least that makes sense.
Also kind of confused with the 200kWh concept, Musk said they are staying at 100 for S and X, as its a good balance of range and price and weight. Now they say 200 in the roadster, totally destroying the other models in range and giving everyone the idea that in 3 years we will have 200kWh in the S and X.
Last edited:
Capacity ~ power ~ range ~ charging power
A larger pack gives capacity and power that can be sustained.
I think the Roadster will have a multi-geared transmission.
I view the Roadster as Tesla's new development platform for EV powertrain. Of course, being Tesla it's also going to be a product.
Elon’s latest tweet suggests that lightweight SpaceX materials may be playing a role in saving weight, perhaps both in the pack and the car. Also, I suspect they did actually have 200 kWh packs in these cars for two reasons: (1) There would be no other way to know a relatively precise range number of 620 miles, and (2) These prototypes could have been built anytime in the last 3 years, but they didn’t make their appearance until now - suggesing that performance and range numbers could not be verified until production 2170 cells were available.
@JRP3 mentioned this first, so credit to him in this post: Holy ****
Franz's heel is still on the floor, so that floorpan looks way to thick for a single layer pack. They're going to need auto closing doors on this as my short arms won't reach that far to grab the door.
Screenshot taken from Bjorn Nyland's video on youtube.
Franz's heel is still on the floor, so that floorpan looks way to thick for a single layer pack. They're going to need auto closing doors on this as my short arms won't reach that far to grab the door.
Screenshot taken from Bjorn Nyland's video on youtube.
Last edited:
If you look it doesn't even look like there is a Frunk. It looked like one solid piece in the front to me...
I don't see any seams in the front for any opening of hood or frunk either, looks completely sealed/closed.
i was not there, but did find this photo below, looks like the trunk/hatch was opened and the roadster's top seems to be in the trunk area.
I don't know who took this photo to give them credit..
Your logic still makes no sense there's no way it can be cheaper to own, maintain, insure and license a Prius all year long as opposed to renting a car to use for a trip that you do once a year?? even if your rental car does burn more gas than your Prius would.
Well, I do have to use it a few times a year as well. Hauling recyclables to the recycling center, hauling my Roadster's tires to the tire place to have them switched twice a year. And I don't want to park the Roadster at the airport when I travel. I probably drive it once a month on average. Renting a car would be a pain in the ass.
Once I get the Model 3 I'll have to re-think it, since then I won't have any use for the Prius other than the summer trip to Canada. I'll have to check and see if the rental places will let me take a rental car out of the country.
But for now, as seldom as I use the Prius, it would be too much bother to rent a car every time I need to carry more than three grocery bags.
Okay. Just checked. Cars rented in the U.S. from Enterprise (the company I'm most likely to use) can be driven to Canada. I will re-visit the question of the Prius once I have my Model 3. As long as the Roadster is my daily driver I still need a car that has some actual space inside.
I'd still rather be able to make the long trip on electric, but that would require superchargers in places they're not likely to be for a decade, or a 500-mile range, because I'm not going to sit at an RV park for 4 hours and turn a 6-hour trip into a 10-hour trip.
I'd still rather be able to make the long trip on electric, but that would require superchargers in places they're not likely to be for a decade, or a 500-mile range, because I'm not going to sit at an RV park for 4 hours and turn a 6-hour trip into a 10-hour trip.
Rather than bothering with a rental car, I'd rather spend four hours charging en route once per year. I'd try to find a place to charge with access to a nice hiking trail or near an interesting town center, or maybe just add an overnight stay. On the other hand, everyone is entitled to set their own boundaries as to how much inconvenience they'll tolerate. I do hope to see 200 kWh batteries eventually become available on other Tesla cars for this reason.
Actually twice per year: Once going, once returning. Splitting a 6-hour drive into two days, no thanks. And RV parks are seldom located anywhere I want to spend time. I'll burn gasoline for that one trip, until EVs have enough range or there are superchargers. Six hours is a tolerable drive. Ten hours is beyond my tolerance level. I'm aware that there are people who drove cross-country in the Roadster before there were superchargers. They had more fortitude and commitment than I have.
Similar threads
