-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Shocked by the new Roadster rolling out of the Tesla Semi!
- Thread starter rudholm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster 2020
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
It's just 2-2.5 seconds of, say, 900kW for each 0-70mph run itself, and then some taxiing and another short burst. Lots of regen capacity.
"all night" could be 10 runs, could be 30.
I'm not convinced, I just feel Fiskered.
If the technology existed, with those smaller build numbers, I don't think it would take 3 years to start delivering a car that's technically already sorted.
"all night" could be 10 runs, could be 30.
I'm not convinced, I just feel Fiskered.
If the technology existed, with those smaller build numbers, I don't think it would take 3 years to start delivering a car that's technically already sorted.
sillydriver
Member
The roadster is very cool, but what also excites me is that if Tesla can put a 200 kwh battery into a car with the form factor of the roadster, whether through battery packaging, chemistry or both, then they can put a 200 kWh battery into a car with the larger form factor of the Model S: there will be 600 mile future Model S versions when the roadster is available.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Love the acceleration but it would seem, given the physics involved in getting a 4500 lb car to go around a corner (or stop for that matter), that you would be better off buying a used big block alcohol bracket rail and a used McLaren 12C. Neat car but I just can not bring myself to drop $250K on one. By the time Tesla delivers, Mac or Porsche will have found a way to put 4K W-Hr of battery and two front motors into an affordable version of their cars removing the only real hole in the ICE sportscar's game (corner exit).
May we live in interesting times.
Oh, and I'll put up with Model S' interior in my daily driver because BeV is soooooo good for the task but there is no way I'm trading a Mac or F car interior for anything Tesla does. Let's face it; there is an interior in Tesla's products because there must be one to sell the car. That's where Tesla's interest in interiors stops.
May we live in interesting times.
Oh, and I'll put up with Model S' interior in my daily driver because BeV is soooooo good for the task but there is no way I'm trading a Mac or F car interior for anything Tesla does. Let's face it; there is an interior in Tesla's products because there must be one to sell the car. That's where Tesla's interest in interiors stops.
I tweaked JB Straubel's original 2008 Roadster spreadsheet for 200 kWh and 250 mph.
So 74 mph = 620 miles.
250 mph = 110.7 miles. That's 7 laps of the Nürburgring
So 74 mph = 620 miles.
250 mph = 110.7 miles. That's 7 laps of the Nürburgring
Last edited:
I'm hoping Tesla will formally answer: Will I get more than 8 minutes of track time at any PNW track before any power limiters kick in if the outside temp is > 40F? (The answer is no for P100DL; hopefully it's yes for the 2020 Roadster.)
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
I'm not up for a debate about a conspiracy, but at the very least: there were hundreds of people in line for a ride and 3 (maybe only 2) vehicles available
I very much doubt that it is both technically sorted and also that the Tech is currently affordable. All we've seen is a working prototype under controlled conditions
Maybe the regen is massive, compared to MS / MX ... but if not there wasn't enough run-out to slow the car with current levels of regen, so brakes would have had to be used. Either way 30% SoC had been used up at the point in the evening when the video above was shot, so high speed runs were able to be made in high 60%'s SoC
Suppose the power of the Roadster is just double of the current flagship models. That also should double regen. In case of temporary power cells to just give the luanch experience, such a pack could regen up to as much as power output. 1MW output, 1mW input.
With a light car, 1MW (extreme case) of regen does a good amount of slowing
I'll add though, that I did seem to hear the sound of disc brakes bringing one of the cars to a standstil from low speed.In a 0-70-0 situation where the 0-70 didn't take a lot of time, the relative efficiency due to regen improves due to the ratio of kinetic energy versus the distance (air) travelled (through). The power (cell) pack may be both lighther than the production version, it could also provide better regen than we'd expect at current state of commercial (range) battery tech.
We don't know what these roadster prototypes weigh.
What we do know is that they offer significantly more power than P100D's. Unless...the road is really, really light, which I personally doubt. Intuitively, mostly from the tire noise and its fluent movements.
I truly hope that Tesla has cracked the triple battery density thing, the Roadster pack will offer 3 times the kWh capacity in a sub-Model 3 sized battery pack. Tesla would be well placed (it's they way of life) to reduce costs. Hopefully, eventually they'll reduce the cost to consumers also. But likely only when the competition does also.
For the S/3/X cars, updated higher density packs would be a great thing. The cars are fine as they are, but more range is always better. It just may not be nearly full after an overnight home charge.
Roadster, when indeed equipped with a 200kWh pack, could do a quick US coast to coast drive. Imagine Tesla building/sourcing a few Megachargers (or CCS350kW) along the route. In Germany, it could also offer impressive A to B trip rivalling petrol car.
I remarked on the reltively low 620mi range for 200kWh. Would drag be so terrible, or could it be the motors being very output performance focused more than economy focused? No small front motor...
dhrivnak
Active Member
One day I took more than 50 runs down a 1/4 track at full power. Lot of Tesla grins and at the end of the day still had nearly half a battery.
PS I also took a half dozen runs on the auto cross as welll.
And I think Tesla needs to scale the Model 3 and work on a new factory before they can deliver on the Roadster 2.0.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm betting that Roadster prototype did not have a 200kWh pack, I'd think maybe half that. They should be able to launch all night long with no recharge, the distances are small and the full power output is only for about 2 seconds.
My guess is that when other ICE companies worked their asses off to catch up 2.0 second 0-60 by 2020, Tesla will ruin it with a surprise by announcing 0-60mph in 1.6 seconds!!
Looks like Tesla enjoys trolling other companies.
GG ICE...
Makes me think: no matter how much power you manage to make a battery and motor deliver, as long as that power is to pass by the wheels, traction must be the real physical limit, no? (something to do with gravity/friction/mass/downforce). I know top fuel dragsters can do 0-60 in 0.2s or so, but I wonder what the physical limit is for a "normally sized" roadworthy car with "not abnormally sized" wheels. I also understand ETC can help a lot, but it of course can't overcome the laws of nature. What would the 'magical barrier' be? 1.5 seconds? Lower still?
This video clearly shows the two tiny displays set into the dash on each side. They show: gear selected (PRND), EAP icon,current speed, TACC icon, and a thin horizontal line that I cannot explain. There is some black space on the left side of the display where another icon could be show but we don’t know what that could be.
So in fact the driver (and the passenger) does have some critical information displayed directly in front of them. Very interesting approach. But what is that thin horizontal line supposed to represent?
So in fact the driver (and the passenger) does have some critical information displayed directly in front of them. Very interesting approach. But what is that thin horizontal line supposed to represent?
In the video here the driver says they are getting times under 1.9 seconds
I agree. I doubt that prototype had a 200kWh pack. I suspect it is under development and Elon is confident it will be ready in time for production.
But I could be wrong...
Last edited:
The coefficient of friction where the rubber meets the road is the main physical limit, and Tesla has been tightly against it since the P100DL came out - which you can see by looking at the distance for 0-60 vs 60-0 braking. There's a reason Tesla puts high performance summer tires on that car...
I was surprised that they beat it so conclusively with the Roadster, seemingly on an ordinary road surface, and I'm very curious what tires the Roadster had on it - maybe racing semi slicks?
From one of videos that might be the G meter which the driver said was not working.
To the left of the line is a number that seems to be 70. Could the two represent SoC?
Problem is Tesla is great at the marketing hype, but the devil is in the details. No doubt it will be one amazing car. But I doubt the performance will be sustained (unlike ICE) wnd history has taught us that Tesla skimps on engineering, over promises, and then after you buy the car neuters the car via firmware updates to prevent warranty claims.
Unacceptable for them to do this on any car, and as much as I’d like to put a deposit on this, I can’t because I don’t trust Tesla to not repeat its mistakes.
Unacceptable for them to do this on any car, and as much as I’d like to put a deposit on this, I can’t because I don’t trust Tesla to not repeat its mistakes.
It doesn't work that way. The only way that it's *possible* for this thing to get the sort of performance it does is specifically because it does have a 200kWh pack. More cells = more power.
As for how it's possible when the Model 3 can't, two reasons.
1) Model 3's pack is very space limited. Fits entirely inside the wheelbase.
2) The new Roadster's pack is stacked 2 high, not 1 high.
The number only sounds unrealistic when you don't take the time to actually think about it. There's nothing unreasonable about either the weight or the volume of this pack. With a pack density of, say, 180Wh/kg, it's a 1,1 tonne pack. What's so unreasonable about that? With a pack density of, say, 500 Wh/l, that would be 400l, aka 0,4 m³. Say that the pack area is 6m² - then that's 6,7 centimeters / 2,6 inches high. What's so unreasonable about that?
As crazy as it sounds, I would be willing to bet that there will be even more expensive variants that add *more* than 200kWh capacity.
Last edited:
