You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The internet is full of "articles" that are just filler, content that is easy to pull together and hopes to attract clicks but contains no new information or useful analysis. That "article" is one them.I'm kind of curious why they published the article in the first place. Where's the news?
I'd like to hear TEG's evaluation.
...Tesla CEO Elon Musk took delivery of the first production car in February 2008. That car had an AC induction motor rated at 248 horsepower, 200 lb-ft of torque, and a two speed transmission. Later in 2008, the Roadster 1.5 was offered with a single speed gearbox. In 2009, the Roadster 2.0 offered a motor with 288 horsepower and 273 lb-ft of torque...
...The Sport was the fastest Roadster of all. It galloped to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds, 0.2 tenths faster than its siblings...
6,831... Oops......Is it a coincidence that the Tesla Roadster used a battery pack with 6,832 lithium-ion batteries?...
...Eberhard and Tarpenning envisioned starting with less expensive cars that mainstream buyers could afford but Musk was adamant that the best strategy was to start by building premium luxury cars that would appeal to wealthy opinion makers. Eventually, the two split with Musk over what direction the company should take. They cashed out their Tesla stock and went off to pursue other ventures. Musk took over as CEO and Straubel became CTO, positions they hold to this day...
...Elon Musk was furious and Tesla actually sued the BBC for libel but ultimately lost the case in the British courts. In the end, the controversy brought Tesla a world of free publicity. Public awareness of the Tesla Roadster specifically and electric cars in general can be traced directly to that episode of Top Gear and the controversy that followed. As politicians are fond of saying, “Write whatever you want about me. Just make sure you spell my name right.”...
...The new battery pack, which costs $29,000 and has 40% more capacity, is rated at 80 kWh versus the original 52 kWh. The extra capacity gives the Roadster enough range to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a single charge...
...Roadster owners can also elect a separate upgrade that adds new, more aerodynamically efficient bodywork and low-rolling-resistance tires to further boost range...
...Tesla says it intends to offer an entirely new Roadster based on a shortened version of the Model S chassis for model year 2019. No other details are known at this time...
More than "a tad". Tesla's own blog post at Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge states "drive non-stop from San Jose to Los Angeles on a single charge in a prototype of the Roadster 3.0 upgrade." They did it with just 20 miles or range remaining and the ended in Santa Monica, not downtown LA which is farther. Obviously the trip was driven in Range Mode. It was done at the speed limit or a bit less. It was likely done with all or most of the 3.0 upgrades, not just with the higher capacity battery.But the SF to LA on one charge boast might be a tad overstated.
It certainly has and what that article stated is basically just made up speculation.I think the time-table for any possible next generation Roadster has been a moving target.
That was my understanding as well. For a long time now, my "Roadster lust" has been tamped down by mumbling to myself "must wait for Model 3 deliveries".Wasn't it supposed to be based on Model 3 chassis, not Model S ?
And isn't that just an unfounded rumor?Wasn't it supposed to be based on Model 3 chassis, not Model S ?
Right, as I see in the last graph, the max efficiency is about 93% which is a rather small area. Yes, it is true, in this graph the areas of 92, 93% are much larger.
But has the increased range of dual motor MS not something to do with optimized drive gear ratios? Otherwise I can not explain the better efficiency as compared to RWD models? Is it soley because of vectoring between front and rear drive units. It is not logical that a 200+ kg heavier vehicle goes further. Maybe it is much more complex than I think and the power/energy sharing between front and rear DU is a secret of our cars.
Friends of mine who ask me how many miles I have to "sacrifice" for having AWD. And when I tell them that I actually have an even better range than with only one DU and less weight. They dont believe me. Has it also something to do with Battery SW? Charge levels max / min?
It is fascinating anyhow!
The model S AWD comes with different gear ratio between rear & front(& different motor sizes also for PxxD)
This allows programming the car to distribute the power where it is most efficient depending on each motor's optimum torque/speed curve...
Back to your regularly scheduled roadster topic...
When I picked up Roadster #33 on Halloween, 2008, I was told that my car was the first or second one delivered with the 1.5 drive train already installed. My friend who has #2 (not Founders #2, that's Martin) had to wait many months before Tesla got around to replacing the 1.0 drivetrain with 1.5.This leaves out some details of the 1.0 -> 1.5 transition.
The 1.0 drivetrain was only in the first batch of Roadsters temporarily until they got the promised 1.5 retrofit ready.
The 1.0 drivetrain had an analog PEM, and (apart from maybe Elon's and some test cars) the customers had the gearbox locked in 2nd gear.
Between the lower torque analog PEM, and the gearbox locked in the higher gear, 0-60 acceleration was no where near what was promised.
The 1.5 drivetrain introduced the digital PEM with such a low end torque bump that they no longer needed the lower gear.
To get the promised 0-60 I think they had to reduce the new top gear a bit so top speed dropped from something like ~135 to ~125...