Roadster 3.0
- Thread starter DrComputer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Roadster
wiztecy
Active Member
Right. But its a test, the driver should have been prepared or at least people setup this test should have configured the person driving the test with the correct wear for the conditions predicted for the night of the drive. They should have given them fleece gloves, hat, coat even if they didn't need it just so they'd be prepared if need be. The heated seats do get very warm, I can attest to that. That should have been enough to be comfy.
Throwing the heater on just killed the range I'm sure. Even Tesla states this with the S and the Roadster. And what metrics do they have for the heater. If they ran if for only 2-5 mins, that'd be very minimal. However if they ran it for 30mins+ well that for sure affects numbers. If Tesla can come back with how much the HVAC system used in energy, turn that into miles of what was lost due to usage, that could be another way to address it.
Possibly this may not be the only test, and if there are more tests they'd want to run, there's nothing wrong in stating that.
If they left San Jose in warm conditions in a t-shirt and shorts, then hit colder temps on the Grapevine, well that'd be just unprepared to say the least for what the trip was to be proving. I know the Tesla Bling, the jackets, hats, shirts appear to be very warm. The Roadster should have been stocked with these goodies to ensure the driver was warm enough for the journey no matter what conditions they encountered.
Again this test was to prove overall performance of range with the new ESS and the aerodynamic upgrades. I personally would have asked this to be retested if I was asking for a metric on how these upgrades performed alone in the most controlled manner possible on a trip.
I'm very picky in this area since I do testing myself. If I am on the hook to test a feature, I need to test that feature for what it was marketed for. If I vary from what it was marketed for I will get results that may not meet the original requirement. Following proper test procedures for a product, especially when trying to meet a metric, is very important.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the 340/360 mark, but I think it could have been planned better and have a higher outcome for the final target range.
To give the benefit of the doubt, possibly the test driver was instructed that they only had to reach Santa Monica, then in that case I could see they were well within the test range / requirement that was given to them hence their decision to turn on the heater. I / we don't know the full story of what went down.
Also what is the grade comparison from going to SJ to Santa Monica? Would they achieve the same range coming back? Or would it be less?
Throwing the heater on just killed the range I'm sure. Even Tesla states this with the S and the Roadster. And what metrics do they have for the heater. If they ran if for only 2-5 mins, that'd be very minimal. However if they ran it for 30mins+ well that for sure affects numbers. If Tesla can come back with how much the HVAC system used in energy, turn that into miles of what was lost due to usage, that could be another way to address it.
Possibly this may not be the only test, and if there are more tests they'd want to run, there's nothing wrong in stating that.
If they left San Jose in warm conditions in a t-shirt and shorts, then hit colder temps on the Grapevine, well that'd be just unprepared to say the least for what the trip was to be proving. I know the Tesla Bling, the jackets, hats, shirts appear to be very warm. The Roadster should have been stocked with these goodies to ensure the driver was warm enough for the journey no matter what conditions they encountered.
Again this test was to prove overall performance of range with the new ESS and the aerodynamic upgrades. I personally would have asked this to be retested if I was asking for a metric on how these upgrades performed alone in the most controlled manner possible on a trip.
I'm very picky in this area since I do testing myself. If I am on the hook to test a feature, I need to test that feature for what it was marketed for. If I vary from what it was marketed for I will get results that may not meet the original requirement. Following proper test procedures for a product, especially when trying to meet a metric, is very important.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the 340/360 mark, but I think it could have been planned better and have a higher outcome for the final target range.
To give the benefit of the doubt, possibly the test driver was instructed that they only had to reach Santa Monica, then in that case I could see they were well within the test range / requirement that was given to them hence their decision to turn on the heater. I / we don't know the full story of what went down.
Also what is the grade comparison from going to SJ to Santa Monica? Would they achieve the same range coming back? Or would it be less?
Last edited:
Hey, that was a PR ride! I am positive they knew beforehand from more scientific runs how much mileage they´d get and that they would comfortably make it. Probably they even did the same run more than once. Mentioning the heater, they are taking away the bear arguments of how you only can reach good mileage in EVs if you give up all comfort.
Regarding speed limit on I5 - as I am too far away to really know I got google driving directions from the Jose Store to Santa Monica Pier and it gives 344mi in 5h 9min, which would be an average speed of 66.8 mph for the whole trip. So I assume 70mph must be the speed limit on I5. I agree if they say "we set cruise control to stay right around the speed limit" it probably means 65mph. Cool!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
People use heat in vehicles sometimes, so it's a bit more realistic scenario, which I think is much better than some extreme hypermiling run that almost no one will ever duplicate.
ecarfan
Well-Known Member
I think Tesla was being refreshingly honest in describing the drive. They drove right around the speed limit, they used heat when they wanted to keep comfortable going over the Grapevine (and a few weeks ago it could have been in the high 30's to low 40's, cold for us wimpy Californian's ;-) and they still arrived with a nice safety cushion of range. You know, real world driving.
If they had not used any heat during a wintertime drive, driven a lot slower than the 70mph speed limit on I5, and driven the battery down to practically zero then they would be criticized for not driving "realistically". And quite likely they could have driven almost 400 miles.
It sounds like they are still working on optimizing the 3.0 changes. I'm happy to give them time to do that!
If they had not used any heat during a wintertime drive, driven a lot slower than the 70mph speed limit on I5, and driven the battery down to practically zero then they would be criticized for not driving "realistically". And quite likely they could have driven almost 400 miles.
It sounds like they are still working on optimizing the 3.0 changes. I'm happy to give them time to do that!
I couldn't agree more! I'm a former Nissan Leaf owner, and I was very unhappy with their unrealistic range claims and the wildly inaccurate "guess-o-meter". I love that I have the range that was advertised and I have complete confidence in my Roadster's indicated range. Tesla's honesty is indeed a breath of fresh air.
Totally agree on that too, and
A side benefit that actually makes me enthusiastic as well!
Guess with the trip they did, we should quite easy get 400 miles out of the 3.0 once we start hypermileing at lower speeds and with our fleece sweaters and gloves on
I wish Elon had never talked about the 400 miles because people will focus on that but you're right, over 300 miles at highway speeds is a big accomplishment.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
The drive results exceeded my expectations. We were hoping for real world miles in excess of 300. Looks like that's what we're getting
ecarfan
Well-Known Member
Measured the tread depth in my tires today and as I suspected my rears need replacing, they are down to 2/32. Of course what I want to replace them with is the "new tire" that will be part of the 3.0 upgrade package. But we don't know yet what kind of tires they are.
I knew it was a long shot, but I sent an email to [email protected] explaining my situation and asking if they could tell me what the new tire was. They replied within two hours but said they did not have that information, they also contacted a service center but they don't know either.
So I will get a pair of new Yoko AD07's. TireRack.com has them for just $146 but with shipping and taxes and mounting and balancing that is going to come out to at least $400. Would rather have the mysterious "new tire" type!
I knew it was a long shot, but I sent an email to [email protected] explaining my situation and asking if they could tell me what the new tire was. They replied within two hours but said they did not have that information, they also contacted a service center but they don't know either.
So I will get a pair of new Yoko AD07's. TireRack.com has them for just $146 but with shipping and taxes and mounting and balancing that is going to come out to at least $400. Would rather have the mysterious "new tire" type!
PokerBroker
Member
Actually they were pretty clear that this was the first of multiple planned tests... A little early to get bent out of shape.
"For our first test outing,"
"The drive is a positive step in the evolution of the Roadster. Next up, we'll apply our learning from the trip to further development work on the vehicle."
I was happy to hear anything.
I'm coming in late to this thread...this is super exciting. Was there any info from Tesla on whether the 3.0 upgrade applies to the 1.5?
They don't say what the base requirements are.
They don't say what the base requirements are.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The 1.5 is missing a few things though. Like the tire learning mode, different PEM etc. I think the upgrade from the 1.5 may be pretty drastic.
ecarfan
Well-Known Member
I don't understand what the 1.5 PEM compared to the later PEM has to do with the 3.0 upgrade. And I assume the new tires Tesla has identified are usable on a 1.5.
All the information Tesla has officially released about the upgrade is in these two blog posts:
Roadster 3.0 | Tesla Motors
Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors
Everything else you may read is conjecture.
Last edited:
So I've followed the thread but haven't seen a couple of points addressed more than in passing. My Roadster is a 2010 2.0, which I have owned for a glorious 6 weeks.
1. Will the aerodynamic changes do anything substantial to reduce the wind noise that we experience? For a car that's so quiet below 50 mi/hr, it's roaring loud above that. I'm not versed in such things, but I would assume, perhaps only out of hope, that reducing the wind resistance would also help with the noise. I already have installed the "glass" hard top from Italy (beautiful, by the way!), and that helped a bit, but the high noise level is still one thing I did not expect with the car. Is there any quantitative data on what we might expect, given the little data at hand?
2. The new tires, chosen for the sake of efficiency, have me concerned. The tires that came with my car still have a bunch of tread left, but I undersand these don't last very long as tires go. I'm used to purchasing relatively high-end "M+S" tires for my cars, usually ones that have at least 50-60k miles of life. Since I'm not into racing the car (more than anyone else on the local freeway), I don't need the super-sticky-on-dry-roads-only tires, nor (being in California) true snow tires for the winter. What is the practical difference (in rolling resistance and traction) between the anticipated new tires, the OEM tires that I have, and a set of high-end All Season tires that I was thinking I would replace them with when the time comes?
3. Because I purchased the car used, I can't get any of the tax incentives offered for new E-car purchases. Will the 3.0 Upgrade qualify for any incentives?
Overall I'm thrilled and appreciative of Tesla's offer to do this upgrade. It speaks volumes about the company, and is one of the reasons I purchased the Roadster, and the company and this community along with it. While the added range makes several destinations much more accessible, to me the big advantage of the change is more a matter of the overall longevity of the ESS (the ICE it will replace is a 1994 Integra GS-R with 264k mi on it, and I'd like for this car to last as long), and the lower electric cost afforded by the reduction in drag (so I burn fewer electrons for the same daily commute). At $0.33 per KWH electric cost, vs 30mi/gallon the Integra gets, at current gas prices the two are about equal in cost.
Thanks,
Greg.
1. Will the aerodynamic changes do anything substantial to reduce the wind noise that we experience? For a car that's so quiet below 50 mi/hr, it's roaring loud above that. I'm not versed in such things, but I would assume, perhaps only out of hope, that reducing the wind resistance would also help with the noise. I already have installed the "glass" hard top from Italy (beautiful, by the way!), and that helped a bit, but the high noise level is still one thing I did not expect with the car. Is there any quantitative data on what we might expect, given the little data at hand?
2. The new tires, chosen for the sake of efficiency, have me concerned. The tires that came with my car still have a bunch of tread left, but I undersand these don't last very long as tires go. I'm used to purchasing relatively high-end "M+S" tires for my cars, usually ones that have at least 50-60k miles of life. Since I'm not into racing the car (more than anyone else on the local freeway), I don't need the super-sticky-on-dry-roads-only tires, nor (being in California) true snow tires for the winter. What is the practical difference (in rolling resistance and traction) between the anticipated new tires, the OEM tires that I have, and a set of high-end All Season tires that I was thinking I would replace them with when the time comes?
3. Because I purchased the car used, I can't get any of the tax incentives offered for new E-car purchases. Will the 3.0 Upgrade qualify for any incentives?
Overall I'm thrilled and appreciative of Tesla's offer to do this upgrade. It speaks volumes about the company, and is one of the reasons I purchased the Roadster, and the company and this community along with it. While the added range makes several destinations much more accessible, to me the big advantage of the change is more a matter of the overall longevity of the ESS (the ICE it will replace is a 1994 Integra GS-R with 264k mi on it, and I'd like for this car to last as long), and the lower electric cost afforded by the reduction in drag (so I burn fewer electrons for the same daily commute). At $0.33 per KWH electric cost, vs 30mi/gallon the Integra gets, at current gas prices the two are about equal in cost.
Thanks,
Greg.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Doug_G
Lead Moderator
ecarfan
Well-Known Member
@gregd, welcome to the joys of Roadster ownership! I am also a relative newcomer, just over 4 months.
Regarding your post, everything Tesla has formally announced about the 3.0 upgrade can be found on these two pages
Roadster 3.0 | Tesla Motors
Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors
This statement from. The first 3.0 blog post answers one of your questions:
"The original Roadster tires have a rolling resistance coefficient (Crr) of 11.0 kg/ton. New tires that we will use on the Roadster 3.0 have a Crr of roughly 8.9 kg/ton, about a 20% improvement. "
Since we don't know the manufacturer/model of the new tires we know nothing about their traction characteristics. Last week I emailed Tesla asking what the new 3.0 tires would be and customer support was unable to provide me with that information at this time.
The 3.0 upgrade cost will definitely not qualify for any government incentives, those only apply to new car purchases, not used cars.
I also have the polycarbonate clear hardtop. A bit quieter than the soft top, but not much. It's just a noisy car at speed. I seriously doubt the aerodynamic modifications in the 3.0 upgrade will effect that.
Enjoy your Roadster, noise and all.
Regarding your post, everything Tesla has formally announced about the 3.0 upgrade can be found on these two pages
Roadster 3.0 | Tesla Motors
Roadster Road Trip Update: San Jose to Los Angeles on a Single Charge | Tesla Motors
This statement from. The first 3.0 blog post answers one of your questions:
"The original Roadster tires have a rolling resistance coefficient (Crr) of 11.0 kg/ton. New tires that we will use on the Roadster 3.0 have a Crr of roughly 8.9 kg/ton, about a 20% improvement. "
Since we don't know the manufacturer/model of the new tires we know nothing about their traction characteristics. Last week I emailed Tesla asking what the new 3.0 tires would be and customer support was unable to provide me with that information at this time.
The 3.0 upgrade cost will definitely not qualify for any government incentives, those only apply to new car purchases, not used cars.
I also have the polycarbonate clear hardtop. A bit quieter than the soft top, but not much. It's just a noisy car at speed. I seriously doubt the aerodynamic modifications in the 3.0 upgrade will effect that.
Enjoy your Roadster, noise and all.
PokerBroker
Member
Holy crap! Have you explored off peak rates in your area? My time of use plan off peak rate is below .05/kWh here in Minneapolis.
Similar threads
