-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
And likely structural members to stiffened up the chassis. Agreed, the frunk will either disappear or become a tiny little pocket. Which goes back to the question I asked earlier... Is it worth sacrificing some of the key features and benefits of Model S to chase the Ring record?
seattlite2004
Active Member
Thought Elon said that it was gonna be a 7-seat model... So "record" is pretty wide open...which the Taycan won't be able to touch.
dark cloud
Active Member
In a word? Yes.
The length of this thread and all this internet hype is an indication. The effort is well worth the price of admission.
The results will not change the base model S, but if they produce a limited batch of P100DL+’s that sell and make lots of money for Tesla it is good for us all.
Does anybody have any information on the battery in this thing? I have a hard time believing they can use the standard Model S Long Range battery for this 3 motor setup. One of the reasons the Roadster 2.0 has a 200kWh battery is to provide the insane current/power needed to drive the motors at the power levels needed to meet the stated performance specs. There also would need to be serious cooling system changes inside the battery. You can't just add a larger radiator and think everything will be fine. It's also possible they are using Ultracaps to provide short bursts of high current. Let the speculation begin.
I think it depends though. My recollection is Model S frunk got significantly smaller across the entire lineup when the dual motor version was introduced, even when ordering the RWD version. There maybe some fundamental changes needed for the chassis to work on track, and those may not worth the cost without making them common parts to the whole lineup. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
dark cloud
Active Member
Yes , and then the frunk got smaller again with the refresh. But I would love to have the bio-filter over the reduced space.
The leaks that came out earlier this year said the battery would be bigger, but didn't reveal by how much. But the range was supposed to increase to more than 400 miles. 400 / 345 = 1.16. So maybe a 120 kwh pack. So that could provide a 20% increase in power. Some of the advantage of the dual rear motors is increased handling performance due to torque vectoring.
Low end torque is already limited by traction. Roadster's 200kWh pack lets it hit the 200+ MPH speed where the power needed to fight aero is 8× the levels at 100MPH.
Ultra caps don't help. Their voltage curve is incompatible without a seperate high power DC-DC converter. Their density is too low, and cost too high.
It's traction limited to about 45 mph. Some additional power might let them extend that to 60 mph, lets say.
Last edited:
The model s requires about 14 hp to cruise at 70 mph. Some of this is due to drag sources other than aero, but if we assume a cubic power law increase in power with speed, it would require about about 640 hp to cruise at 250 mph. Of course you would want more to be able to accelerate to that speed. Those are going to have to be some pretty awesome motors to be able to sustain that kind of power. You'd drain a 200 kwh battery in about 25 minutes.
Last edited:
While travelling ~100 miles. Perfect to hop between Supercharger sites.
We're going to need more superchargers, Elon.
But seriously, Bjorn Nyland did an analysis of what the best speed was for long trips, taking into account charging frequency and time. It turned out to be about 190 kph / (120 mph). This was for the Model 3.
dark cloud
Active Member
I'm thinking 180 mph is sufficient to set some pretty good lap times.
The Taycan only got up to 259 km/h = 161 mph.
A stock P100D is not traction limited in a straight line. The car has a fixed torque setting set well below the limits of factory tires. Also the amount of surface area that touches the ground is determined by car weight, tire pressure and downforce, not tire width. The tire width is to change the shape of the patch to improve handling in corners. Also soft compound tires need more width for the sidewall to support the car weight.
Granted Elon's team will have certainly have increased the torque setting with the stickier tires. Most drivers would probably get better lap times with the torque setting preventing most wheel spin. With a professional driver they might get better times with the limit set higher.
It would be an interesting track mode to have the torque setting dynamic based on ambient and tire temperature, tire pressure, suspension settings, car velocity and lateral g forces. My understanding is that autopilot is designed to not use map data but instead only rely on the cameras, but I suspect that if the car knew the race track route it could optimize considerably as well.
My theory on the front trunk is that it is the easiest place to access a CANBus port and to quickly swap a solid state storage device on a CANBus data recorder.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's kind of weird that they didn't run the taycan at 160 mph if all they wanted to do was test the cars endurance over 24 hrs. Instead what they did is run at plus or minus a few mph around 125. That coincidentally is close the the speed Bjorn suggests to maximize your distance for a given time, taking into account charging time. It's almost as if they were trying to maximize the distance they traveled in 24 hrs. I wonder if that is a record for a 4-door, all-electric vehicle?I'm thinking 180 mph is sufficient to set some pretty good lap times.
Last edited:
