Tesla Roadster • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Roadster

#41

Post by BonoboIO » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:20 PM UTC

martin_a wrote: post #32

I call bullshit on this. 1000km range and 400km/h top speed? Obviously you can't have both but each of this is unrealistic enough on its own. You can't even go 400km/h on the Autobahn, which roads are they building this for? And fully loaded SUVs like the Hyundai Kona get somewhat about 500km in normal crusing mode. 1000km is either a breakthrough in battery technology or measured/calculated when going 50km/h at best…

400 km/s is possible on the Autobahn ... but it is an exception.

1000km range at 100km/h maybe :D

Re: Tesla Roadster

#42

Post by dharmab » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #8

If that top speed ("Over 250 mph") is accurate wouldn't it put it in contention for "Production car speed record" per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_car_speed_record Additionally I hope nobody ever tries to "red line" it on a public road for their own and everyone else's safety. 4.2 sec 0-100 and a 250+ mph max is a very temping but potentially deadly combination. Does anyone who owns a Tesla know if you c…

Taking any car up to 250mph requires special tires and can only be achieved at a handful of test tracks. Most airport runways don't have enough room to do it.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#43

Post by dharmab » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

OrgNet wrote: post #10

What's the mile range at 250mph? Also, that picture look cartoon-ish... I wonder if it was modified in any way?

The Bugatti Veyron fuel tank lasts about 12 minutes at 250mph

Re: Tesla Roadster

#44

Post by Robotbeat » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:23 PM UTC

gizmodo59 wrote: post #9

“The first supercar to set every performance record and still fit seating for four.” Where are the remaining two seats?

In the back.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#45

Post by AgloeDreams » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #13

620 mile range seems like a lot of battery weight for a performance car. Is that weight of batteries necessary to supply enough current and to reduce heat load on individual cells? Or would there be a smaller battery pack that would be even more performant due to reduced weight?

Theoretically, you could get more performance out of a smaller pack, the VW ID. R used just 43kWH to set the electric record at the Nürburgring Nordschleife. However, that's a lightweight race car. Tesla seemed to want to make this a really livable car with lots of superlative records so by using super light construction paired with a massive battery they can build a car with incredible range (This range would be a production car record.) but that same pack can handle incredible draw. I imagine this will be like a model S on crack: It won't handle fantastic but will have hilarious power.

Also, they claimed that it was using twin Model S packs in their design but were planning to move to a Model 3 evolution based pack. (The Model 3's pack is much more energy dense due to larger, better, specialized cells.)

Re: Tesla Roadster

#46

Post by martin_a » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #34

martin_a wrote: post #32

I call bullshit on this. 1000km range and 400km/h top speed? Obviously you can't have both but each of this is unrealistic enough on its own. You can't even go 400km/h on the Autobahn, which roads are they building this for? And fully loaded SUVs like the Hyundai Kona get somewhat about 500km in normal crusing mode. 1000km is either a breakthrough in battery technology or measured/calculated when going 50km/h at best…

Range is easy: just add more battery. It’s expensive, but this is an expensive car.

But space and weight are limited on a supercar. So you have to choose one.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#47

Post by dharmab » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

gizmodo59 wrote: post #9

“The first supercar to set every performance record and still fit seating for four.” Where are the remaining two seats?

They're likely "insurance seats" suitable only for a backpack or duffel bag as is typical for performance cars.

Re: Tesla Roadster

#48

Post by el_don_almighty » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

somebody get me a new shirt! ... And a new keyboard... . These are all covered in man drool... . I'd pour hot grits in my pants for one of these

Re: Tesla Roadster

#49

Post by Robotbeat » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

nbevans wrote: post #33

The Lotus Evija looks better than this. But hey, that is a 1.5mil car. The "250mph+" claim looks dubious given the shape/aero of this car - though I don't claim to be an expert and I suppose this might not be the finished shape of the car either.

Seems pretty aerodynamic to me. Can you point to a better shape?

Re: Tesla Roadster

#50

Post by gnode » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #34

martin_a wrote: post #32

I call bullshit on this. 1000km range and 400km/h top speed? Obviously you can't have both but each of this is unrealistic enough on its own. You can't even go 400km/h on the Autobahn, which roads are they building this for? And fully loaded SUVs like the Hyundai Kona get somewhat about 500km in normal crusing mode. 1000km is either a breakthrough in battery technology or measured/calculated when going 50km/h at best…

Range is easy: just add more battery. It’s expensive, but this is an expensive car.

Speed / power is a similar affair; a bigger battery is essentially more battery cells, and more power. The increased weight doesn't significantly detract from top speed, as air resistance dominates. In fact, additional weight increases down-force on the road, and thus the maximum force the wheels can apply.