Roadster Quiz: Amazing Low Power Consumption

[Johann Koeber]

After a hard day's work, I relaxed taking my Roadster 2.5 for a spin.

Arriving home, look what the screen said:

View attachment 9564

So I went 133.3 km in 49 min
and consumed a total of 7.08 kWh
(53 kWh/km on average)


Quiz: How did I do it.

I will post my answer after:

a) someone else found the right answer
b) one week from now

whichever is first

Hint: I did not go downhill

Happy guessing !

The first person to post the right answer will get an invitation to Nuremburg.

 

[ElSupreme]

Dyno? or rollers?

 

[brianman]

Drafting.

 

[ElSupreme]

Due note that 133.3 km over 49 minutes is 163kph or about 101mph. So he was going really fast.

 

[TEG]

...
So I went 133.3 km in 49 min
and consumed a total of 7.08 kWh
(53 kWh/km on average)
...

I think you meant Wh/km, not kWh/km...

If not drafting, perhaps someone was pushing or towing you at least part of the time?

Tremendous tail-wind?

 

[dsm363]

Did your car hop on one of those car transport trains for part of the trip?

 

[NigelM]

Did your car hop on one of those car transport trains for part of the trip?

The trip meter isn't connected to a GPS. Wheels would have to be turning to push the trip meter up.

 

[dsm363]

Ah, my second guess:

Traveling through a tunnel for most of the trip maybe drafting as brianman said?

 

[YoungStranger]

UUm Tailgating a fast car on the Autobahn? Dont think that would be 'relaxing' though!

 

[brianman]

Oh, and just for entertainment purposes:

"Hyperloop."

 

[daniel]

I think you meant Wh/km, not kWh/km...

Johann said kWh but the screen pic said Wh, which of course it has to be. 53 kWh per km would suggest that his car was pulling a freight train car.

I am baffled. I look forward eagerly to seeing the answer. I don't think even drafting could get those numbers. Maybe being towed, but nobody tows cars at that speed. And the speed makes the 53 Wh/km even more baffling. I also would not consider driving at 101 miles per hour to be relaxing. I suspect there's a hint there. 101 mph is not relaxing and would take far more than 53 Wh/km.

 

[pgwoosley]

Could this have happened with the car transported on a truck or trailer (with the "ignition" on)? The question assumes that the distance moved is based off of the GPS rather than the odometer.

 

[W.Petefish]

After recharging? You charged the car with it on. (or at least thats my take on it.)

 

[TEG]

Did you really, actually go 133km? What if the tires were slipping on ice , for instance if you were "drifting" in a circle on a frozen lake?
Then the speed would read artificially high, and the energy usage wouldn't be so high because you weren't actually going so fast...

 

[ChadS]

Time travel.

Semi-seriously: is this what the display shows if you reset the clock? Or cross a timezone boundary? Or daylight savings becomes effective?

 

[TEG]

Time travel...

Required text...

 

[wycolo]

> Time travel...[TEG]

A proper Whovian collection of ____??
--

 

[tetsuos]

The trip meter is obviously incorrect. I suspect the time and energy consumption are accurate, which suggests usage of 144Wh per minute of drive time. This is quite possible. Most likely, there is an error in the distance calculation due to charging and not resetting the odometer.

 

[daniel]

Could this have happened with the car transported on a truck or trailer (with the "ignition" on)? The question assumes that the distance moved is based off of the GPS rather than the odometer.

A truck going 101 mph??? Anyway, someone said the wheels have to be turning.

Did you really, actually go 133km? What if the tires were slipping on ice , for instance if you were "drifting" in a circle on a frozen lake?

Probably not a lot of frozen lakes in Germany in September.

 

[donauker]

Well I guess you could always put it up on jack stands, set the cruise and take a nap!