The market analysts and financial blogs may hate companies like AMZN and TSLA, but Bezos and Musk will be laughing all the way to the bank because they didn't focus on short-term profits at the cost of long-term innovation.
Remember, every company on this planet has to constantly reinvent itself, or it will be disrupted by someone else. Musk is doing that. Don't listen to the financial blogs and analysts.
It's not clear if Tesla can do the same.
In other words, their finances are a mess. Negative free cash flow of $1.4b in the most recent quarter with $3.5b in the bank is cutting it very close. They're going to have to raise a ton more capital or issue debt just to execute on the Model 3, let alone all the other stuff they keep talking about (anyone remember the Solar Roof?). Their recently issued junk bonds are already trading off par, another issue is going to be expensive.
Based on their valuation being too high for where they are, I'm guessing they'll do a share offering to get cash. This could cause they're shares to tumble and I'll make 400-1200% or not. I'm ok with writing off such a small bet, but wow what a fun ride it'll be to see how this all turns out.
Isn't this part of not executing the roadmap as planned? Put another way, how do you know if they are on the right trajectory to profitability? How much are they ahead/behind?
Kidding aside they've been in much worse situations before, it just wasn't nearly as public because it was well before their IPO.
Well this is exactly the concern. Tesla seems to be struggling to execute on their plan to build Model 3s.
It's not like you're mentally deficient or anything so there has to be a logical reason in your mind as to why you ended up thinking this. I would be very keen to know what that is.
1. an odd camera motion;
2. scared spectators jerking; or,
3. altered video.
I do, however, think the people downvoting me have significant reading comprehension problems. However, that's a thing they will have to reflect on, internally, and has no bearing on me.
I'm kinda sad about the $200k price tag. I was planning on budgeting $125k for my next car in 2022. Obviously options have yet to be announced, but I'd really like to see a 100 kwh option for a cheaper price. That would give about a 300 mile range which would be plenty for me. Considering they announced 200 kwh as the base though, I'm not exactly holding my breath.
More battery cells in parallel = more current draw. The range is probably more of a bonus side effect of having enough battery cells to hit the power and acceleration targets.
I've been waiting for details on the next Roadster for quite a while now, really on the edge of my seat for the price. My plan was to get a Nissan GT-R in 2021 if the Roadster ended up being too expensive.
But since it was announced and too expensive, I'm still on the fence. I don't want to spend $120k on a GT-R and feel disappointed that I settled. I'm thinking I'll just have to save money for a couple years to make a serious down payment. Maybe I'll pick one up used depending on what kind of warranty Tesla will offer on a used one.
Base model requires $45k deposit.
Not sure what semi requirements are.
Even if they are biting off more than they can chew, they can gauge reaction and devote more/less to this. I'm thinking that these ventures give their engineers a space to get really creative and push the envelope. And, these advancements make their way into the mainstream models.
Net income was flat but the revenue kept going up.
I would prefer that Ford and GM not do this... I don't see how producing a $250,000 car will help the common folk, which is who Ford and GM serves.
Tesla had first mover advantage with their Model 3 and now they are floundering. GM's Chevy Bolt is out producing and out selling the Model 3 despite first movers advantage and all the 'good will' Tesla generated... Despite people saying 'GM could never do this'.
I also don't know why you would say Ford or GM couldn't do it when they produce vehicles that race in Nascar and have R&D for that sport.
Ford and GM are mature companies and expected to actually make money, while Tesla is expected to make good will and headlines.
I'll be more excited when Tesla meets their originally projected production numbers.
People underestimating the big players and cars aren't thinking about the economics right. Ford markets are almost two orders of magnitude more than Tesla is producing. If Ford sees the global opportunity to sell 10-20 million EVs a year they'll build the crap out of them.
I am never doing anything that gives them my money again.
Source: [ashamed] owner of Ford for 3+ years.
I think this is the one. http://fordpowershiftlawsuit.com/
Also, GM and Ford do highly profitable business with the wealthy - Ford pickups are the most owned vehicle among millionaires and Cadillac keeps turning profits that Musk should envy.
It's based on the semi truck. They didn't announce reservations for it or anything. It might be fair to call it a concept truck at this time, but I doubt it's the last we'll see of it.
They had multiple real Roadsters at the announcements. You can see a red one in the main event video, and there are pictures of a silver one on Twitter.
But there is so much to be optimistic about! Uber or Lyft or Didi could place 100K size orders of Model 3s for their driverless fleets, with substantial support contracts, by 2019. Powerwalls may become standard components in emerging market power grids in the global sun belt. And envisioning charging stations as travel lounges or overnight rest stops is a stealth real estate and hospitality investment.
Tesla is acting as if the Model 3 will change the game. My personal bias is that the analysts are neglecting the raw consumer demand for this brave new electrical world. And if that holds true, continuing to raise cash to finance their production via stock, debt or pre-orders shouldn't be the hard part. Especially if 12 month price targets in the $350-375 range hold ;)
The reason I ask is because that is EXTREMELY impressive. I tune EFI systems on race cars as a hobby, and any car in the 8 second range usually needs to run slicks or drag radials to have enough traction.
Even all wheel drive cars (GTRs, DSMs, EVOs, etc.) usually run 4 slicks once they get to that speed.
It seems very hard to make a pass like that on regular street tires, even with AWD.
EDIT: To add, I'm not knocking Tesla here, as there are very few cars that can actually run an 8 second pass off the showroom floor without any modifications at all. Even if they had to put slicks on the car to reach that time, that still puts it on par with 1000 HP dedicated drag cars.
The main issue I found is that street tires often just don't have the traction required, even under ideal conditions. The result is that traction control has to cut power so much that it ends up hurting the quarter mile times.
It does help tremendously on consistency and safety though. Things start to pucker when all four wheels start hazing in a 1000 HP AWD car.
You seem familiar, but for others, here's what a typical 8 second car looks like leaving the line:
Notice how massive the rear tires are.
EDIT: Added picture of an 8 second all wheel drive car (GTR). The interesting thing here is the clear bias of traction towards the rear. When launching a car with that much power, the weight shifts towards the rear enough to render the front wheels almost useless (unless the suspension is extremely stiff).
The suspension on most of these cars is also far from normal. There's very few cars in the world which make an8 second pass on independent rear suspension. Most of these cars have straight axles and 4 link suspension.
I really want to see a Tesla Roadster make an 8 second pass with whatever tires it needs because tires alone won't get you there. They got some serious engineering in that thing to make it hit 8 seconds with a suspension that doesn't make you hate life.
x = 0.5*a*t^2 = 0.5 * 41.25 ft/s2 * (8s)^2 = 1320 ft = 1/4 mi
v = a*t = 41.25 ft/s2 * 8s = 330 ft/s = 225 mph
This is why you see so many approx 2.9s 0-60 times in higher end sports cars, it's hard for aerodynamics to affect it much over the first couple of seconds.
But for the first couple of seconds, you can't generate much downforce from aerodynamics because you aren't going fast enough. And there are limits to what a spoiler, etc. can generate. For a lot of street legal sports cars, this all evens out about the same way, and they end up with very similar 0-60 times.
If you try and systematically knock down all of these problems, you'll end up with a top fuel car. In that case you may get ~1000lb of downforce from exhaust alone, which gets you past the first bit while you are going too slow for the big wing to be really effective.
Now that the 2015+ Mustang has IRS, I expect to see more of them as well. I think there's already one in the 8's.
But yeah, IRS is a major pain at that power level. Most (all?) of the performance cars today have IRS, so I expect improvements to come.
As a matter of fact, F1 cars in the 70s-80s were using venturi tunnels that extended the entire length of the vehicle. This is impractical in a modern gasoline-powered car.
Theu were even getting so good with their aerodynamics that they were rumoured to be generating more downforce with ground effects than from wings.
In an electric car, you could do what they were doing back then.
Aero at street legal speeds is basically worthless and range-destroying. Many supercars don't have more aero than the Roadster, just go look at them, they usually either have no wing, like the Lambo Huracan, or a wing with virtually no angle of attack.
Roadster will be lighter, have a better drag coefficient, 2x the power (1500hp), 3 motors, 200 kWh battery (?).
According to Electrek's ride along the wheels are "fat" - 325mm rear/295mm front. Dodge Demon's are 315/40R18 Nitto NT05R. https://electrek.co/2017/11/17/new-tesla-roadster-halo/
Should be close!
Horsepower is a misleading figure, because 1000 HP means a maximum of 1000 HP at some engine RPM. So, in other words, if a gasoline car delivers 100 HP @ 0-2000 RPM, and only delivers 1000 HP between 5500-6000 RPM, we call it 1000 HP.
The Tesla delivers its power constantly, from 0 RPM and — more importantly — its torque is also constant and available from 0 RPM. Add to this the fact that an electronic drive train can adjust the power independently for each wheel 100 times per second, which is simply impossible for a combustion engine (mechanical parts transferring that much power can’t switch that fast).
I don't think torque is constant. The power is constant, and torque gradually decays as RPM increases as per the following equation:
HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252
Most 1000 HP drag cars are in their power band from the time the driver lets go of the trans brake until the race is over (unless it's a stick shift, but most drag cars are automatic).
Like any other conventional automatic, there is a torque converter between the engine and the transmission which allows the engine to spin faster than the transmission input shaft.
At the starting line, the driver engages the transmission brake, which locks the transmission and allows him to floor the engine, which brings it up to the optimal RPM (and spools the turbos if so equipped). It's almost the same as if you were to hold the brake and floor the accelerator at a red light. The only difference is that the brakes on a drag car wouldn't be able to hold it back, so they use the transmission instead.
Then, when it's time to start, he lets go of the trans brake and the power is instantly delivered to the wheels.
There usually isn't an issue with not having enough power at the starting line. It's actually the opposite. High power cars usually have to limit their starting RPM to avoid doing a wheelie or losing traction.
The torque is constant for the first 40% of the RPM, something like this:
The horse power increases gradually as RPM increases.
The almost perfect linear decline after the constant part is what I would have expected for an electric motor running with a constant power.
Also he specified max torque was 10k newton meters which is absolutely enough to pull a steel driveshaft like taffy. That's triple the torque a semi produces.
Tesla specs special tires because one of their selling points is "look how quiet EVs are and how little maintenance they need". Said special tires have increased mass over normal tires. Tesla also needs to spec something that delivers a reasonable service life under a big heavy Tesla. You can't just hand wave and say "it's a 700hp rocket, of course it eats tires" because that doesn't fit their brand image. Then there's rolling resistance. They can't spec something that has a ton of rolling resistance because it would tank range.
All of those design criteria require trade-offs from traction and each other.
Since I'm "good with computers", I would always help them with their electrical issues, which eventually evolved into me tuning their cars and dealing with any other EFI related issues. Most tuners charge around $500, but I do it all for free, so that helps.
If you really want to get involved, seek out some car clubs in your area and check out some of the open source ECU projects (such as Speeduino). Usually, car hobbyist can be identified by a group of people standing in a parking lot staring at their cars. Most of them love to brag about their setup, so they're pretty receptive to people asking questions.
I think you'll find it's past those. Even 1200hp GTRs don't run eights.
The fastest 1/4 mile production cars are supercars such as the Veyron and 918, which are at or just under a 10seconds.
Remember, an increase from 20->18 seconds is roughly a 10% increase in acceleration; 10->8 is roughly 20% increase over an already ludicrously fast million-dollar supercar.
It's frankly ridiculously fast.
Except for the Dodge Demon, which does the 1/4 in 9.65
That's also why I am skeptical of this Tesla running an 8 second pass in stock trim. Is there a video of the pass?
Most of the 8 second cars I've seen are running slicks or drag radials, and usually weigh a lot less.
I'd be curious to see how Tesla managed to make a car that probably weighs over 4000 pounds have enough traction for those numbers using regular tires. Even with all wheel drive, 8 second Nissan GTRs usually have to resort to slicks.
Can you provide links? I seriously doubt you can get anything into the 8s with only $10k.
However, I'm assuming you are interested in brand new production cars. The cars I listed above are all old and do not compare to the Tesla in anything other than drag racing. If you're interested, let me know and I can go into a more detailed breakdown of the last car I tuned (LSx swapped Mustang).
As for new cars, it depends on how much work you're willing to do yourself vs paying a shop.
Here's a link to a newer 5.0 Mustang with a completely stock engine and a ~$8500 twin turbo kit. He does have other supporting mods (tires, suspension, torque converter) that likely put him over the $10k mark, but you can also save a few thousand on the turbo kit by piecing it together yourself.
"He estimates the car makes over 900 horsepower at the tire, but what really matters is the stock Coyote engine paired with an off-the-shelf Hellion turbo kit added up to an 8.6-second e.t. at over 150 mph."
Many cars in the 1200 HP range are much faster, such as the "Red Demon" DSM which is somewhere in the 7 second range.
Because at the top of the ladder of the 1/4 (excluding top fuel making 4000-8000hp), you only have Lambos and GTRs.
Right, but you're comparing what is ultimately powered by the good old Karl Benz design from the 1880s, burning dinosaur juice, that has zero torque at zero RPM, needs to shift gears multiple times, and is about as responsive to control inputs as a cow munching on marijuana leaves - with a very different thing powered by something that has maximum torque at any RPM, has no gears, and responds to control inputs extremely quickly and with immense precision.
1. A drag car does not start at zero RPM. The engine is probably over 4000 RPM and under load before the race even begins. In fact, many cars have to dial their launch RPM down because it ends up making enough power to lose traction from a dead stop. Look up "trans brake launch" to see what I'm talking about.
2. Your comment actually further confirms my skepticism of the Tesla not being able to maintain traction. If an unresponsive internal combustion engine powered car has trouble, imagine a car capable of shocking the tires even harder.
I own a modern sportbike and I've done enough of quarter mile attempts to understand how the process works in general, even though it's not a 4-wheel vehicle.
The main point here is that the internal combustion engine has a primitive torque profile. You have to keep it in the sweet spot if you want maximum performance. Hence all the stupid tricks you need to play with gear shifts and the clutch and all that junk.
This whole coordinated ballet is unnecessary with electric motors, that's the point that you've missed. At any RPM, including zero, the electric motor is near peak torque. A whole range of complex issues that would otherwise need to be mitigated simply vanish, so you can focus on defeating other obstacles. Understand the difference now?
> If an unresponsive internal combustion engine powered car has trouble, imagine a car capable of shocking the tires even harder.
You're missing the point again. A much more responsive engine such as the electric power plant allows traction control to work much, much more precisely and respond much faster. No inertia from crankshaft assembly and transmission. No clutch. Torque goes from any value to any other value in a small fraction of a second. The feedback loop can operate that much faster, and with greater precision. Internal combustion engines are not even in the same ballpark.
Like I've said, I do own a racing vehicle powered by internal combustion. I am quite fond and proud of it, which is something I believe you understand. But it's game over for this technology. Electric engines are winning by all metrics and in all applications, either sports, or utility, or whatever. It's the end of an era.
Plus 620 miles of range, and it is a 4 seater. Expensive as hell, but this is exotic car territory.
Acceleration 0-60 mph1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile8.8 sec
Top SpeedOver 250 mph
Wheel Torque 10,000 Nm
Mile Range 620 miles
Drive All-Wheel Drive
Base Price $200,000
Base Reservation $50,000
Founders Series Price $250,000
Founders Series Reservation
(1,000 reservations available)$250,000
"What’s blanching, though, is the car’s ride and handling. If anybody was expecting a typical boring electric sedan here, nope. The ride is Alfa Giulia (maybe even Quadrifoglio)–firm, and quickly, I’m carving Stunt Road like a Sochi Olympics giant slalomer, micrometering my swipes at the apexes. I glance at Franz—this OK? “Go for it,” he nods. The Model 3 is so unexpected scalpel-like, I’m sputtering for adjectives. The steering ratio is quick, the effort is light (for me), but there’s enough light tremble against your fingers to hear the cornering negotiations between Stunt Road and these 235/40R19 tires (Continental ProContact RX m+s’s). And to mention body roll is to have already said too much about it."
Surely, you're joking? Virtually every carmaker has announced a whole bunch of electric cars for 2020-2021 (without giving nearly as many details or demoing the cars already). And that's discounting their "concept cars".
This. If you're buying a supercar to actually drive on a track, this is key. Any specs relating to what happens below 100 mph are worthless. If you spend any significant percentage of time going so slow, you need to spend ~$8k on a BMW E36 M3 instead, and learn how to drive.
But if you buy a supercar mainly to park in front of Harrods, 0-60 time is... still worthless.
A lot of the appeal is in the perception of performance and that initial acceleration. It's putting your foot down with a passenger, or breezing someone at the lights whilst putting a smile on your face. 0-60 is probably one of the more relevant performance statistics for road use (even if 1.9s renders it all but pointless!)
I drive a 2004 330i; I track it. I get better times than most drivers who have much better 100-140 high speeds in the straights - despite me only getting to ~100.
Of course, somehome a pro driver in a lowered 140hp toyota pickup truck can get better times than all of us.
I thought the instant torque was able to get great acceleration at all speeds?
And delivery will be in 2025.
Knowing how bad Tesla is with keeping their schedule
> The 2016 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,400 hp/t (1.05 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2.5 seconds to reach 100 km/h (62 mph)
Even adjusting for 60 mph = 2.4s, I don't see how the traction of the Tesla is better.
Formula-E cars are doing 0-62 it in 3s :
> An average Formula E car has a power of at least 250 horsepower (190 kW). The car is able to accelerate from 0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) in 3 seconds, with a maximum speed of 225 km/h (140 mph)
F1 tires are nothing like road tires. They're not even vaguely comparable - at normal operating temperatures (over 100C, and they're preheated before starting - although not to quite this hot) they have the consistency of chewing gum. They are also huge - far bigger than a road car could ever hope to accommodate. This car also looks to weigh around double what an F1 car will weigh, and with far, far, FAR less grip, so it simply doesn't seem possible that it can accelerate faster.
To address some of the other replies. Traction control: F1 cars are driven by some of the best drivers on the planet. I think it's straining credulity to believe that an electronic traction control system is going to outperform them to such a huge degree. Gear changes: F1 gear changes take about 8 milliseconds. A road-going automatic gearbox is definitely not going to beat this.
In short - it doesn't matter HOW much power you have, if you can't get it down on the road. Given the limitations of the weight of the car, the limited grip from road tires, and a gearbox that needs to survive everyday use, it seems frankly totally impossible that a sub-2s 0-60mph is correct.
Agreed, but they don't need to be. Remember, the magic number here is ~1.4G, for a 1.9s 0-60. The Pilot Sport Cup 2 – a track-friendly R-compound tire used in the webcast car and in the videos – can pull close to that on a skidpad (i.e. less than optimal conditions), meaning the grip is there.
> I think it's straining credulity to believe that an electronic traction control system is going to outperform them to such a huge degree.
Launch control and traction control can make several tenths of seconds of difference, which is critical when you're talking about sub-2s times. Also, traction control can keep the car on the cusp of slip the entire run to 60MPH, which is critical in a car that has a completely flat torque curve and probably enough torque to break the wheels loose at any speed (which is not true for F1 cars).
I also suspect that the Roadster has active damping – another technology disallowed in F1 – meaning that the duration of contact with the road can be maximized. This is important if the road surface isn't glassy-smooth.
> This car also looks to weigh around double what an F1 car will weigh
That doesn't help it at all in cornering, but in a straight line, the increased weight of the car will help it launch even better since it'll increase the traction on the drive wheels (equivalent to downforce at speed).
> Gear changes: F1 gear changes take about 8 milliseconds. A road-going automatic gearbox is definitely not going to beat this.
There's no gearbox to speak of; the wheels are direct-drive. To be fair, this won't contribute significantly to faster 0-60 times, but the gearbox exists to compensate for some less-than-ideal characteristics of an ICE, namely uneven power delivery and physical limitations on peak RPMs. An electric motor has none of these problems.
That's lateral grip, which isn't the same at all. Longitudinal grip, which is what's important here, is very different. There's a lot of clever things you can do to increase lateral grip, such as wheel camber, that don't really apply to purely longitudinal grip, so I'm not sure this is valid.
> I also suspect that the Roadster has active damping – another technology disallowed in F1 – meaning that the duration of contact with the road can be maximized. This is important if the road surface isn't glassy-smooth.
But it has to have (comparatively) extremely soft road-going suspension. I really doubt that no matter how smart the active damping is that it will compare with race springs and dampers. Le Mans cars have all these active damping tricks, traction control, along with slick tires, low weight, very high power:weight ratios, skilled drivers, etc, etc, etc and they still don't get to 60 that quick.
That's an excellent example actually - the Porsche 919 Hybrid LMP1 car has a 0-60 of 2.2 seconds, despite electric power, FAR less weight, FAR better tires and drivetrain . There is just no way you can make a road car that's faster than an LMP1 hybrid. If you can, maybe you can put a roll-cage in and take it to Le Mans.... but I doubt it.
> That doesn't help it at all in cornering, but in a straight line, the increased weight of the car will help it launch even better since it'll increase the traction on the drive wheels (equivalent to downforce at speed).
Weight increases the grip, but it also increases the amount of grip you need - you need more power to maintain the same acceleration, and this power needs to be transferred to the road. I'm not an expert, but AIUI, increased grip due to weight scales linearly, whereas the increase in power required (and thus the increase in grip required) scales geometrically, thus weight is counterproductive in getting you to 60mph faster. I could be wrong about this though - as always I'd be happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge!
Camber isn't a magical trick to get more grip; it's a way to restore grip that would otherwise have been lost because of uneven tire loading in a corner. In a straight-line drive situation, the load is already ideal; the contact patch is the maximum size and fairly evenly distributed across the width of the tire.
> There is just no way you can make a road car that's faster than an LMP1 hybrid.
Indeed, it's currently impossible to make an all-electric race car that can compete with an ICE or hybrid race car in general race conditions, mostly because of the limitations of the energy storage. If the goal is just for a road car to beat a hybrid LMP1 (or even F1) car in a drag race though, as is the case here, I think that's much more doable. The ICE is really the weak link there.
Mostly. But only mostly. Tire grip is actually really, really, really complex however, and this is one of the places where a simplistic model breaks down really badly.
If we were able to model tires with simple newtonian physics, then no car would be able to hold more than 1g in a corner, as at that point the force sideways would be more than the force of gravity holding it to the road. Manifestly this is not actually the case.
Tire grip through a corner is more than just coefficient of friction against a surface. There's a lot of complicated things that happen, but the one I'm going to very lightly cover here is that when you go around a corner your tires deform slightly. The sidewall of the tire is pulled out of place, and at the maximum cornering speed of a tire, it will actually be slipping slightly (which can be heard as tire squeal). Cambering the tire corrects for uneven loading, but it also changes the sidewall stress profile, and thus affects the way the tire deforms under lateral load.
I found a mathematical explanation of some the bits mentioned above here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5838/why-does-a-... but I haven't checked carefully through it to ensure it's actually correct.
The high-school physics model of grip has them both linear, but more sophisticated models may show a difference.
(Interestingly, more mass on a vehicle does help when it is towing something heavy.)
Electric motors do actually have an uneven response at different RPMs (in the form of back-emf losses). I worked for a while with an electric car team in university, and we used a mechanical system to adjust the stator position and tune the motor for different RPMs. I’m not sure what Tesla is doing to address this (could be mechanical or solid state), but you definitely can’t just keep dumping more power into a motor and expect it to get correspondingly faster, not even as a reasonable approximation.
Edit: the shortest 60-to-0 braking distance I find claimed is for a Dodge Viper ACR (Mk 5) at 87 feet. Assuming constant acceleration, that works out to 1.98 seconds.
They estimate 2.0s is roughly the limit on standard tires, F1 cars can do it faster due to stickier tires.
He also has a video about Tesla acceleration:
Which talks about whether the Model S has an advantage over the (old) Roadster due to the heavier vehicle gripping better.
Interestingly the number he calculates for a theoretical roadster car is very close to Tesla's new number.
They also have a video about "rollout" which can alter 0-60 times and needs to be taken into account for comparisons.
I'm pretty sure they aren't making it up.
I'm with you for the rest of the post, but this is not straining credulity. Look at the F1 season where traction control/launch control was not yet banned. You can see how the cars with that technology gained a massive advantage. Look no further than some starts featuring Schumacher vs Senna. The former wasn't a better driver, but Senna couldn't do anything but watch him pull away on the starts. And that's 1993 technology.
Now there are minor effects that do come into play, so 100x the weight would be meaningful. But, weight within the range of normal cars is not really important.
Telsa is 4wd and has all it's torque and power from standing with no gears
But yeah its the real wheel drive that stops F1 cars going faster 0 to 60. (limited by the friction instead of the power the engine can deliver)
The whole startup trickery with the two clutch paddles is interesting too. Basically they use one of the paddle to find the bite point and leave it there and then use the other to fully disengage the clutch. Then once the lights go out they drop the other clutch so the clutch goes instantly to the bite point and then use the other paddle to modulate the launch (they are pretty much flatout while standing still and use the clutch to control wheel spin). A launch control computer probably could do this better but such things are banned in F1.
The very long range also suggests that this car will weigh considerably more than the old Roadster. Maybe there is an improvement to traction with all that extra weight? Or maybe the weight just helps with keeping the wheels on the ground at 250mph?
Did you fact check that? Actually, Bugatti is pretty close and partially outperforms, although at a way higher price point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Chiron
The Chiron can accelerate from 0–97 km/h (60 mph) in 2.4 seconds according to the manufacturer, 0–200 km/h (120 mph) in 6.5 seconds and 0–300 km/h (190 mph) in 13.6 seconds. In a world-record-setting test, Chiron reached 400 km/h (250 mph) in 32.6 seconds, after which it needed 9.4 seconds to brake to standstill.
The Chiron's top speed is electronically limited to 420 km/h (261 mph) for safety reasons. The anticipated full top speed of the Bugatti Chiron is believed to be around 463 km/h (288 mph)."
The 2nd picture on this page is interesting: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/271674/tesla...
Electric cars do not have a gearbox and just have one rotor.
This does place them in a disadvantage when starting though as there acceleration is affected.
Formula E cars, have started using a 3 gearbox for their cars in order to have a faster start.
So it is possible that the Roadster does have a gearbox.
Most high performance cars only shift once before 60, and with modern dual clutch transmissions it only costs a fraction of a second.
The only way Tesla are going to get below 2 seconds is either with non-street legal tyres (cheating!) or some new tyres that nobody else has.
The Roadster is significantly faster than other supercars from 0-60 on the same tires, so the advantage must come from much more efficient anti-wheel slipping from the three electric motors coupled to AWD. This dramatic speed advantage is probably a result of the ability to quickly alter the power output per wheel to minimize efficiency losses from breaking traction.
> it only costs a fraction of a second
In other words: exactly the scale of the differences we are talking about. In addition to the short interruption itself I guess that it also takes a few millis until traction control has settled after a shift.
This sounds very dubious, unless it has negative aerodynamic downforce. Even then, the times for each successive mph drop off too fast for it to be traction limited. Even F1 cars are not traction limited for more than a brief spell of straight-line acceleration. Aero drag dominates very quickly.
Cornering or braking, on the other hand...
[My caveat on this, I'm not a road-car enthusiast, so I'm just deducing. But I used to work in motor racing, mostly bikes. Based on the standard of reporting I saw about stuff I did know well, I don't trust the motor press on tech claims.]
I'm also curious as to how much it will weigh given the batteries (given the weight of other Teslas).
See: Hennessy Supercars
"Venom GT "World's Fastest Edition" (2014)
Is a limited (3 units) version of the Venom GT coupe commemorating the Venom GT coupe's 0–300 km/h Guinness World Record.
The vehicle went on sale for US$1.25 million. All three units were sold to customers shortly after their production was announced by the manufacturer."
They can't waste a large portion of battery capacity, because the heat from that much energy getting wasted would blow up the car.
Wikipedia has a nice graph to illustrate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_MPG_to_L-100km_v200...
I’m sure in another 5 or 10 years they’ll get there but these figures are for headlines not the track.
An actual race is one thing: you wouldn't expect most "supercars" to finish an actual race without being torn down and rebuilt for the race. I have no idea how you'd prepare something like a Bugatti for an endurance race, but I know the end result wouldn't be worth the expense. GT3 cars are a pretty good example of something bridging the gap. (On the other hand, the Bugatti is said to be a pleasant car to drive on the street, which I wouldn't necessarily expect out of a GT3 car.)
One lap at Nurburgring? I imagine Tesla can swing that. It seems like it would just be function of keeping the battery cool enough. If they found a way to air cool the battery effectively at speed, Nurburgring is a pretty friendly track for that.
Don't get me wrong it's a deeply impressive vehicle. I'm just not an Elon fanboy and the precise milisecond that what Porsche, McLaren et. al. customers want something like that is when they will start making it. It's not like one company is the future and the rest of them are dinosaurs. One company is small and loosing money and the others are making it, enough of it to buy Tesla any time they feel like it, which being realistic is what's going to happen eventually.
After gearing, you'll have the same order of magnitude torque at the wheels as the Tesla.
Randomly picked example: Porsche G97/01 (997 Carrera 2 2005-08)
First gear total reduction 13.45 (gear 3.91, rack&pinion 3.44)
So, ignoring efficiencies, you'd have a first-gear torque of 400Nm * 13.45 = 5380Nm at the wheels.
Still "only" half of the Tesla, but not an earth-shattering difference anymore.
I was wondering, because I seemed to connect the expression with steering as well :-) At least I have the excuse of not being a native speaker.
Of course, they weren't trying all that hard to alleviate any confusion, and it worked even on the fairly tech-savvy HN crowd.
Ed: improved both facts and wording.
Tires only rotate at ~1000 RPM on the freeway where the electric motor in a Tesla might be at 10k rpm. That 10x reduction still needs to be factored in.
Motor RPM will go higher than 10000 RPM at really high speeds.
How big is the difference?
It must be pretty substantial to offset both friction losses and gearing efficiency.
Consider that at ~0mph and ~0rpm, producing any kind of torque at all is done with ~0% efficiency, all just resistive losses as the back-EMF is effectively zero. (Note this is no different for an internal combustion engine, although the heat generated is in the clutch or similar such device...)
Friction losses don't change much as a proportion of power as you increase speed. For aerodynamic drag, however, your losses do proportionally increase with speed, so "windage" (i.e. drag from spinning parts of the motor) needs to be cleverly reduced by making the rotor aerodynamic if you're planning on operating at high rpm.
EDIT: for properly designed electric motors (i.e. thin wire windings, iron core optimized for low eddy current losses), coil resistance usually dominates even at high rpms.
10,000nm in comparison is 7,375lb-ft, which sounds like Harry Potter land in comparison, if all of my conversions and memories serve me.
I'm kinda speechless, TBH.
700lb-ft is apparently 950Nm. So assuming the same gearing as in the sibling post (very likely a false assumption -- I guess these cars had longer gears), you'd end up with 12.7kNm of torque at the wheels.
BTW, if such traditional hot rods had automatic transmissions (they did, didn't they?), the torque converter would have amplified the torque even beyond the numbers I just gave you.
Building fast cars that are a little rougher in finish but can hold their own on the track compared to cars that cost a few times as much is kind of their thing. The teams that work on the Bolt are probably crossing their fingers for this.
Mclaren, Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, BMW M division are all in the process of producing electric sports cars. I don't think Tesla is holding any technology that makes other makers with a lot more racing experience unable to match their performance.
None of them will? Why? Has Tesla got some trade secret?
this guy is just collecting money on Kickstarter.
Nobody needs this car and nobody really wants to make it. Will they have to?
For S and X and 3, it's not beefy enough to handle an extended period of time. Also, the engine has to radiate heat.
So, you're boldly predicting that Tesla, which understands basic physics well enough that their existing cars accelerate well and don't burst into flames because of heat issues, is going to be unable to do any better cooling the battery and motors of a future car?
I just see how the thinking goes. "No way this issue that crossed my mind in the first 40 seconds I heard about the product was addressed by the bunch of hacks behind it".
I'm not saying either of you are wrong. I'm saying either of you know equally little about the engineers' decisions, and are making equally unreasonable demands.
Also guessing that a 300k P4-AWDD will be announced at some point.
Not necessarily applicable to this particular vehicle.
I'm not saying that Tesla has invented a sufficiently efficient battery, but to vaguely claim "physics" makes it impossible is wrong.
Yes, power is lower when efficiency is greater all other things equal, but you work around that by not making all other things equal.
It’s not a track car...what do people expect?
If they gave a shit about developing actual performance EVs, I'd expect them to be in Formula E, but they're not. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche are.