How can 200kwh worth of batteries fit in the new Roadster?

[Carl W]

How can 200kwh worth of batteries fit in this car? It seems like there's not enough room to fit two stacks of 100kwh packs under there without the car being wider and longer or at least taller.

I'm assuming that the main reason for such a large capacity battery is in order to be able to pull enough amps for the power requirements. In other words, they chose the battery size for the power requirements and the range was a side benefit, right?

I'm blown away by all the specs on this car, but 10,000NM of torque? That's over 7000 lbft, so something like 28 times my roadster? Really? Sounds like a typo! Perhaps in order to exceed 250mph while also breaking 2 seconds in the 0-60, extreme torque was necessary to overcome the very tall gearing? I think it's got to be that while this much torque is technically achievable by the motors, it's not possible to apply this much torque without wheel spin.

I love my roadster 1.5 and will stick with it, but if I had $250k sitting around, I'd have to order a founders edition. Any thoughts on how this new roadster will affect the value of our original roadsters?

I know this post rambles over several topics. I think the specs are messing with my ability to write.

 

[Doug_G]

Are we sure the dual motors are in the rear? I’m expecting innlarge motor in the rear and separate motors in the front wheels.

No, because physics. The center of gravity of the car is above the axles, so at high acceleration the weight transfers to the rear axles. That means the rear wheels have a LOT more grip than the front wheels, so that's where you put the power delivery.

There's a reason most race cars are RWD! (Rally and ice racing cars are typically AWD for obvious reasons.)

 

[strider]

How can 200kwh worth of batteries fit in this car? It seems like there's not enough room to fit two stacks of 100kwh packs under there without the car being wider and longer or at least taller.

That is the subject of much speculation. Are there 2 P100DL packs under the seats? Test riders reported that it felt like they were sitting "high" in the car. They may also be banking on battery advancements in the new few years.

I'm assuming that the main reason for such a large capacity battery is in order to be able to pull enough amps for the power requirements. In other words, they chose the battery size for the power requirements and the range was a side benefit, right?

Yes, that is the current assumption.

I'm blown away by all the specs on this car, but 10,000NM of torque? That's over 7000 lbft, so something like 28 times my roadster? Really? Sounds like a typo! Perhaps in order to exceed 250mph while also breaking 2 seconds in the 0-60, extreme torque was necessary to overcome the very tall gearing? I think it's got to be that while this much torque is technically achievable by the motors, it's not possible to apply this much torque without wheel spin.

That is wheel torque, not motor torque. Turns out it's only about 10% more than the SP100DL.

I love my roadster 1.5 and will stick with it, but if I had $250k sitting around, I'd have to order a founders edition. Any thoughts on how this new roadster will affect the value of our original roadsters?

I know this post rambles over several topics. I think the specs are messing with my ability to write.

There are some thoughts in this thread:
Holding on to your Roadster. . .

 

[hcsharp]

No, because physics. The center of gravity of the car is above the axles, so at high acceleration the weight transfers to the rear axles. That means the rear wheels have a LOT more grip than the front wheels, so that's where you put the power delivery.

What you said about RWD is true but it's because the center of gravity is above the point of contact between the tires and the road, not above the axles. Just sayin'