bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
But Palo Alto (HQ) to Bel Air (Elon's house) is 349. Which is probably the drive he's made. And I'll bet he just used the larger city names because those would be more familiar to people.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Roadster 3.0
- Thread starter DrComputer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster
But Palo Alto (HQ) to Bel Air (Elon's house) is 349. Which is probably the drive he's made. And I'll bet he just used the larger city names because those would be more familiar to people.
Bonnie, good point. My wonderful spouse is saving up to get my Roadster the 3.0 package. Maybe I will be able to try that drive this year (I live near Palo Alto) and see if Elon will let me charge off his home HPC when I get to his house. I'll call ahead and ask permission first. ;-)
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
New blog post, the trip was 340 miles: Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors
New Tesla blog post on Roadster 3.0 upgrade package
New blog post today about Tesla driving a 3.0 Roadster 340 miles from San Jose to Santa Monica and arriving with 20 miles of range remaining. Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors.
They drove "close" to the speed limit on the I5 freeway and used the heater for 40 minutes going over the grapevine.
The blog post implies that 3.0 hardware is not finalized yet and they continue to work on improving it. But this is a very positive announcement!
New blog post today about Tesla driving a 3.0 Roadster 340 miles from San Jose to Santa Monica and arriving with 20 miles of range remaining. Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors.
They drove "close" to the speed limit on the I5 freeway and used the heater for 40 minutes going over the grapevine.
The blog post implies that 3.0 hardware is not finalized yet and they continue to work on improving it. But this is a very positive announcement!
tomsax
Member
Hmm. That doesn't sound like they are going to be shipping the upgrade especially soon.
Still, 340 miles, with 20 remaining at the end, driving on I-5 at the speed limit sounds pretty awesome. That would make Seattle to Spokane very easy and trivial with a stop for food and leg-stretching in Ellensburg.
wiztecy
Active Member
Regarding the the trip speed, the blog post states: "On the highway, we set cruise control to stay right around the speed limit. We turned on the heater for a 40-minute stretch going over the Grapevine. And less than six hours from leaving San Jose, we pulled into the Santa Monica Pier, with 20 miles remaining in the battery pack.".
I suspect and hope they averaged at least 65mph. 340 miles divided by 65mph equals 5.2 hours. Allowing for a couple of short stops or one longer stop to eat, 65mph seems reasonable.
I suspect and hope they averaged at least 65mph. 340 miles divided by 65mph equals 5.2 hours. Allowing for a couple of short stops or one longer stop to eat, 65mph seems reasonable.
tonybelding
Active Member
From the way this trip is described... It sounds like they could get 400 miles out of it, if they just set the cruise control on 60 and didn't use the cabin heater -- which is pretty much how I would run it on a long trip where range was a significant concern to me.
Still wondering what the aero kit will look like. I'm hoping for something like this...
Still wondering what the aero kit will look like. I'm hoping for something like this...
spaceballs
Member
From the Tesla blog post, seems to me just the ESS upgrade alone will give >300 miles range.. which is more than good enough for me. I not even sure if I would want the rest of the 3.0 upgrade (if that is an option).
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Bonnie it turns out your prediction of Palo Alto to Bel Air was very close to the 340 mile Roadster 3.0 San Jose-to-Santa Monica drive described in today's Tesla blog post! Given that they arrived with 20 miles of range remaining they could have started at Tesla HQ in Palo Alto and easily driven to Bel Air, or to downtown LA.
So they are very close to "SF to LA" in a Roadster on a single charge.
The Roadster pictured in the blog post doesn't show any aero upgrades. I wonder if that means the range improvement came entirely from the ESS. If so, and driving a little slower than I5 they might still achieve a 2-cycle EPA test of 400 mi.
wiztecy
Active Member
I suspect the Roadster pic is a canned marketing image since windmills are displayed in the background.
I think they just used a "stock photo" from their archive. It may well not be the test car in question.
For instance, you can see the same photo used in the "fast in any climate" section here:
Roadster Features and Specifications | Tesla Motors
and on slide 3 here:
Used 2011 Tesla Roadster for Sale | Edmunds.com
Yes, I see you made a similar observation as I was working on my post.
(Got interrupted part way through and so a good chunk of time elapsed.)
Last edited:
wiztecy
Active Member
djp
Model 3 Performance
Awesome, that covers Toronto to Montreal on a single charge.
A side benefit of the lower Wh/km is the car will effectively charge faster - that is it'll put on more km of range in same amount of charge time. With a one hour lunch stop at a 70A station you should be able to cover 680km in a day.
A side benefit of the lower Wh/km is the car will effectively charge faster - that is it'll put on more km of range in same amount of charge time. With a one hour lunch stop at a 70A station you should be able to cover 680km in a day.
wiztecy
Active Member
So my question is, why the heck did they use the heater in the Roadster???? Its California!! I live in colder Northern California, they're in warmer Southern when they used the heater. I use my heated seats all the time.
If I was doing some critical benchmark for range I sure as hell would NOT be using the HVAC heater which I know would pull lots of power from the pack.
Who was this test driver and was he/she given the run-down of what the goal was to be achieved in this test? This wasn't Alaska. Why did you turn on the heater in this test?? And since they used the heater when I think that was a bad choice, could a different driver, one who actually knows and drives the Roadster daily have actually achieved better results than Tesla did in this test? I personally believe so.
Damn, hire myself or some other true Roadster ownes for these tests next time Tesla!! I'd show total improvements in your range by using efficiencies already designed in the car. We may just do it under GoodWill, just as you have done for us.
I also think it wasn't good marketing to not use the 20 miles still available in the pack and say you went 340 miles. Instead of rounding down to 300 miles people would be rounding up towards the 400 mile mark that was originally marketed by going 360 miles. I hope Tesla learns from these minor but what could be major mistakes. It goes a long way in the news/publicity. It would have been better to have actually run the Roadster down to zero, show that Tesla has fixed the "bricking issue" in the Roadster with the new pack, allow it to sit there at 0 SOC for some time, and charge it back up. Then you Tesla would have demonstrated you can go 360 true miles on a charge, show that the battery didn't brick when it was run down to Zero and sat there for some time! These are two very important things people are really interested in. People don't care if the heater was on. They care about range and resilience of the battery pack. Again why why the heater? Its like driving with the windows down for the entire trip, it won't help your range at all. Engineers spent time designing all these areo features to gain small percentages of efficiencies (individually) all to be thrown out the door by the heater usage in the end. Eee Gads.
If I was doing some critical benchmark for range I sure as hell would NOT be using the HVAC heater which I know would pull lots of power from the pack.
Who was this test driver and was he/she given the run-down of what the goal was to be achieved in this test? This wasn't Alaska. Why did you turn on the heater in this test?? And since they used the heater when I think that was a bad choice, could a different driver, one who actually knows and drives the Roadster daily have actually achieved better results than Tesla did in this test? I personally believe so.
Damn, hire myself or some other true Roadster ownes for these tests next time Tesla!! I'd show total improvements in your range by using efficiencies already designed in the car. We may just do it under GoodWill, just as you have done for us.
I also think it wasn't good marketing to not use the 20 miles still available in the pack and say you went 340 miles. Instead of rounding down to 300 miles people would be rounding up towards the 400 mile mark that was originally marketed by going 360 miles. I hope Tesla learns from these minor but what could be major mistakes. It goes a long way in the news/publicity. It would have been better to have actually run the Roadster down to zero, show that Tesla has fixed the "bricking issue" in the Roadster with the new pack, allow it to sit there at 0 SOC for some time, and charge it back up. Then you Tesla would have demonstrated you can go 360 true miles on a charge, show that the battery didn't brick when it was run down to Zero and sat there for some time! These are two very important things people are really interested in. People don't care if the heater was on. They care about range and resilience of the battery pack. Again why why the heater? Its like driving with the windows down for the entire trip, it won't help your range at all. Engineers spent time designing all these areo features to gain small percentages of efficiencies (individually) all to be thrown out the door by the heater usage in the end. Eee Gads.
Last edited:
Similar threads
