Expected/promised:
200 kWh
1.9 0-60 mph
quick to 400 kph
1,000+ km EPA range
3 motors
We have to assume these motors would be big fat Performance induction ones to have such short range in a small frontal surface car. At the same time, we need to assume a 2,000 kg car, if not more.
Perhaps better would be:
120 kWh
similar 0-60 and 1/4 mi thanks to:
three or four motors taken from Model 3, or off the shelf pancake motors
some with clutched to fully disengage.
400-500 kg lighter
Still 800 km range due to lower weight and efficient motor
Much quicker around the track (weight, less heat buildup)
Now, for the promised/joked Space X package.
I'm not sure it will happen although I do think it's doable and can get a 2-ton car off the ground momentarily or add some boost and even cornering speed and stability.
Imagine this system being a 200 kg add-on. It would add much more performance to the 400-500 kg lighter car than the 200 kWh one we're promised. Does 200 km of range really matter, to you? On the track, the lighter version would pull ahead midway through the first corner at worst and then never be caught. If the 200 kWh car gets further on the track, it will be due to power restrictions causing it to go even less fast.
Imagine the standard car with Space X package can just hover for just over a second. But in the lighter car, it's enough to take off, and turn around in a dead end alley. Then jump over the police car blocking the exit. OK, I'm exaggeration
200 kWh in any one 2-seater is crazy wasteful. And sticking only induction motors would add 10-15% more consumption for every km driven. It's kind of fun but a double bitch slap for Mother Earth.
Why not go about New Roadster a bit more economically? For most performance indicators, weight cannot be overcome with power. High speed is the one where weight is not the worst thing. But high speed in 1 atm is just daft, right?
How many miles would a New Roadster need to log before breaking even for environmental footprint with a run of the mill supercar? Will it ever log such miles? If no, then it's more wasteful than the supercars most of us frown unop.
80 of these are given to people who most likely would not have bought one. This makes them a CO2 emission no-one asked for. Not as green as some will try and pretend it to be. Guilt free acceleration? Guess again.
I plea for Tesla to be less hooligan, and be more sensible about the new Roadster. The old one wins eco races, the new one would get less range per kWh than a Model X?
As someone who cares for more than one performance indicator, and who hates to breath tire dust, I'd rather see a somewhat lightweight Roadster which can still do high speed, still beats all ICEVs to 60mph and 1/4mi, but is less of a boat around the track, the one place it can be let loose while turning the front wheels.
I fear some hateful replies for imagining something could be done better than what Tesla is telling they're going to do (even if already they have shown they can indeed do better), but I do hope this can be a civilized discussion. Please surprise me.
200 kWh
1.9 0-60 mph
quick to 400 kph
1,000+ km EPA range
3 motors
We have to assume these motors would be big fat Performance induction ones to have such short range in a small frontal surface car. At the same time, we need to assume a 2,000 kg car, if not more.
Perhaps better would be:
120 kWh
similar 0-60 and 1/4 mi thanks to:
three or four motors taken from Model 3, or off the shelf pancake motors
some with clutched to fully disengage.
400-500 kg lighter
Still 800 km range due to lower weight and efficient motor
Much quicker around the track (weight, less heat buildup)
Now, for the promised/joked Space X package.
I'm not sure it will happen although I do think it's doable and can get a 2-ton car off the ground momentarily or add some boost and even cornering speed and stability.
Imagine this system being a 200 kg add-on. It would add much more performance to the 400-500 kg lighter car than the 200 kWh one we're promised. Does 200 km of range really matter, to you? On the track, the lighter version would pull ahead midway through the first corner at worst and then never be caught. If the 200 kWh car gets further on the track, it will be due to power restrictions causing it to go even less fast.
Imagine the standard car with Space X package can just hover for just over a second. But in the lighter car, it's enough to take off, and turn around in a dead end alley. Then jump over the police car blocking the exit. OK, I'm exaggeration
200 kWh in any one 2-seater is crazy wasteful. And sticking only induction motors would add 10-15% more consumption for every km driven. It's kind of fun but a double bitch slap for Mother Earth.
Why not go about New Roadster a bit more economically? For most performance indicators, weight cannot be overcome with power. High speed is the one where weight is not the worst thing. But high speed in 1 atm is just daft, right?
How many miles would a New Roadster need to log before breaking even for environmental footprint with a run of the mill supercar? Will it ever log such miles? If no, then it's more wasteful than the supercars most of us frown unop.
80 of these are given to people who most likely would not have bought one. This makes them a CO2 emission no-one asked for. Not as green as some will try and pretend it to be. Guilt free acceleration? Guess again.
I plea for Tesla to be less hooligan, and be more sensible about the new Roadster. The old one wins eco races, the new one would get less range per kWh than a Model X?
As someone who cares for more than one performance indicator, and who hates to breath tire dust, I'd rather see a somewhat lightweight Roadster which can still do high speed, still beats all ICEVs to 60mph and 1/4mi, but is less of a boat around the track, the one place it can be let loose while turning the front wheels.
I fear some hateful replies for imagining something could be done better than what Tesla is telling they're going to do (even if already they have shown they can indeed do better), but I do hope this can be a civilized discussion. Please surprise me.
