RE: Tesla Roadster: 'Quickest car in the world'
Discussion
Hahaha, I'm watching Tesla Bjorn's live stream and he uses autopilot a lot. He's now driving through snowy roads, not covered with snow but with some traces of snow. He's managed to end up on the other side of the road twice within 1 minute because the fantastically intelligent AP doesn't understand the concept of snow tracks.
Truly hilarious. Awaiting shill attack in 3 2 1.
Truly hilarious. Awaiting shill attack in 3 2 1.
Nanook said:
8V085 said:
Hahaha, I'm watching Tesla Bjorn's live stream and he uses autopilot a lot. He's now driving through snowy roads, not covered with snow but with some traces of snow. He's managed to end up on the other side of the road twice within 1 minute because the fantastically intelligent AP doesn't understand the concept of snow tracks.
Truly hilarious. Awaiting shill attack in 3 2 1.
LOL, that's so fricking funny!Truly hilarious. Awaiting shill attack in 3 2 1.
Bloomberg not buying semi or roadster claims...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
fblm said:
Bloomberg not buying semi or roadster claims...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
As do many others - I don't doubt the figures capable with electric power.... but the range and charging claims are utter nonsense, simply not possible at this moment in time, maybe in 3-5 years , but now? Not a chance. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
fblm said:
Bloomberg not buying semi or roadster claims...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
Arstechnica taking an opposite view..https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/teslas-expect...
We know Chevy are at $145 per kwh. We suspect Tesla are at about $100 per kwh. In 2-3 years time a 1000kWh battery should be well under $100k.
As for the roadster we know with current commercial batteries you can fit 200kWh into a space as small as 325 litres so theres plenty of space...
Bearing in mind range claims are made by all manufacturers based on a known drive cycle, might it be that Tesla's Roadster 2 doesn't regenerate energy into batteries, but into supercapacitors? They charge much more efficiently from a regenerative braking event than batteries, they are also more efficient for delivering current to the motors and not as temperature sensitive. The batteries could provide lower current capabilities for sustained cruise and mild acceleration, and the energy management system could switch in the supercaps for ridiculous acceleration and regenerative abilities.
mpkayeuk said:
fblm said:
Apple only survived the mid 90's because they were rescued by Microsoft.
That's actually not factually correct, but I accept it's easy to be fooled by Internet myth.Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 26th November 22:27
wst said:
Bearing in mind range claims are made by all manufacturers based on a known drive cycle, might it be that Tesla's Roadster 2 doesn't regenerate energy into batteries, but into supercapacitors? They charge much more efficiently from a regenerative braking event than batteries, they are also more efficient for delivering current to the motors and not as temperature sensitive. The batteries could provide lower current capabilities for sustained cruise and mild acceleration, and the energy management system could switch in the supercaps for ridiculous acceleration and regenerative abilities.
The roadster has twice the battery capacity of the 100D which can do 300+ miles on the EPA test, a 200kwh battery can chuck out more power but also recharge at a higher rate. I'm guessing they dont need anything fancy to get 600 miles on epa cycle.The truck though is another matter, its likely got a 1000lwh battery ( 5 times the roadster) but on braking will have a lot more energy to dump, if theres any supercap magic it'll be on those.
craste said:
The car makers will want to make their electric cars fun so stuff like this will work, so rather than bash this new dawn of vehicle we should embrace it.
Except that when you push for ultimate performance the ICE car always has the edge by virtue of being lighter. Nothing beats fuel for energy density - particularly when the oxidiser is grabbed from the atmosphere. If you want sufficiently high performance you have to ditch batteries and go with fuel - whether that fuel comes from an oil well is a different question.RobDickinson said:
SidewaysSi said:
Forget the Turbo - what about a GT3? It's completely out of its depth and will surely get a good kicking.
The 911 GT3 is claimed to be able to accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.1 seconds or less, and the quarter mile in 11.2 seconds at 126 mph (203 km/h).[30][31] The GT3 has a claimed top speed of 202 mph (325 km/h). The lap time on the Nürburgring Nordschleife is 7 minutes and 25 seconds.[32]Yeah well out of its depth... Though I doubt the roadster is track focused at all, so again somewhat unfair comparison.
fblm said:
Bloomberg not buying semi or roadster claims...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
Analysts can normally argue in favour and against, depending on how may column inches they are trying to create.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24...
Financial analysts similarly, but more so that they have an opinion to their clients. In my experience they are often wrong, especially for “market disrupters”
SidewaysSi said:
Take acceleration put of the equation (gets dull very quickly) and what does the Tesla actually offer the keen driver? Very little IMO.
Wont they both be sat still without acceleration? Probably best waiting for the actual car whenever that will be, Im guessing it wont be quite as track focused as a gt3 more a turbo s competitor
RobDickinson said:
SidewaysSi said:
Take acceleration put of the equation (gets dull very quickly) and what does the Tesla actually offer the keen driver? Very little IMO.
Wont they both be sat still without acceleration? Probably best waiting for the actual car whenever that will be, Im guessing it wont be quite as track focused as a gt3 more a turbo s competitor
WestyCarl said:
Theoretically electric motors on each wheel of huge handling potential due to very quick torque vectoring potential. I'm not sure if Tesla have the experience to take advantage of this though.
If they don't have the experience they will 'buy' the engineers that do and put them to work on itSidewaysSi said:
RobDickinson said:
SidewaysSi said:
Forget the Turbo - what about a GT3? It's completely out of its depth and will surely get a good kicking.
The 911 GT3 is claimed to be able to accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.1 seconds or less, and the quarter mile in 11.2 seconds at 126 mph (203 km/h).[30][31] The GT3 has a claimed top speed of 202 mph (325 km/h). The lap time on the Nürburgring Nordschleife is 7 minutes and 25 seconds.[32]Yeah well out of its depth... Though I doubt the roadster is track focused at all, so again somewhat unfair comparison.
98elise said:
Personally I never tire of acceleration. High Speed doesn't excite me in the slightest, but sticking your foot down and getting pushed back into the seat is always fun.
I've always liked the trick that the Mini and MX5 manage - that of "apparent" high speed. Always feels like you are going much faster than you are. The torque of the Roadster will, I imagine, amplify that immediate effect of being pushed into the seat, etc.ikarl said:
WestyCarl said:
Theoretically electric motors on each wheel of huge handling potential due to very quick torque vectoring potential. I'm not sure if Tesla have the experience to take advantage of this though.
If they don't have the experience they will 'buy' the engineers that do and put them to work on itIIRC the new truck will have torque vectoring to prevent jackknifing, and given the Roaster has 3 motors I would suspect it also employs torque vectoring (on one axle)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff