|
I am not talking about tire diameter, I am talking about width. The roadster has 175s in the front ( 195s on the sport ) and 225s in the back.Originally Posted by 7racer
It's just not enough rubber.
I totally agree about picking a diameter that allows for race rubber and lightness - not looks.
I don't want to turn off or reduce the regen always, just sometimes. Motor heat may still trump brake fade sometimes, and then you want regen off.
Yes it's an easy fix to make the brakes bigger.
Last edited by richkae; 06-10-2012 at 06:58 AM.
If you look at the horsepower required to go a certain speed from the efficiency spreadsheet, it is clear that the Roadster could go faster.
Range will be a problem, but if you are trying to lap the racetrack with your friends in the ICE cars, they are going to blow past you on the straightaway every time. 200 mph is not necessary, but at the local car club track days, people will hit 150mph on the straights.
At a track day, you quite often only get 15-20 minutes to drive and then wait for an equal or longer amount of time. Plugging in at 20kW lets you extend your playtime, plugging in at 90kW would let you extend your playtime a lot.
Battery swapping would let those with ridiculously deep pockets road race in a manner very similar to ICE cars.
Last edited by richkae; 06-10-2012 at 06:55 AM.
I think there is a difference between peak horsepower and sustainable horsepower. Top speed requires constant output. The Roadster may be able to generate high horsepower for a limited time to do blasts of acceleration, but could start to overheat things if you try to keep it at max HP too long. The battery cells probably don't like having high output for too long either.
I like my Roadster.I DON'T want gears. That's just something else to go wrong. But then, I don't race and might never take it on a track. I like the acceleration and handling, but don't need it to be a race car.
The things that need fixing are minor:
--> The seats are very uncomfortable. They could be improved (softer).
--> Needs a way to recover change and other small items that fall out of my pockets and wind up under the seat.
--> Needs a few places to put stuff. Anything put in that little cubbyhole to the left of the steering wheel falls out every time I accelerate. Needs a change cup.
--> The Alpine unit is lousy. But I'm sure they'll never go back to that. Plenty of negative feedback already.
I don't need 245 miles of range, but I like it because it's a buffer against eventual aging of the pack. And the fact that other Teslas will have long range does not mean that Roadster doesn't need range. Plenty of people will own one EV. If I owned an S and the Roadster I'd take the S on longer trips, but I don't. 245 miles is ideal. Plenty for an enjoyable afternoon in the country.
They tried a two-speed transmission and it kept breaking. Stick with one speed! But I like the idea of all-wheel drive.
I gather that the Taylor mesh top would not exist were it not for the Lotus. The Roadster Mk II won't have that advantage. They should offer a mesh top. I cannot deal with top off on the freeway. Too much wind. With the mesh top it's perfect, but were it not for that, I'd need to have the top on at freeway speeds.
Agreed. They will need to improve the sustainable power as well. The current Roadster wasn't designed with the racetrack in mind.
I am trying to enumerate the things that need to improve so that when you show up at a club day at the local racetrack with your Gen III Roadster, that everybody there says "I have to get me one of those".
The current Tesla Roadster accelerates great, corners ok, brakes below average and gets toasted on the straights - and it only does it for 3 laps because the motor gets hot.
If the Gen III Roadster turns the fastest laps for 20 minutes ( which it could easily do by winning acceleration, and being close or equal in the other aspects ) a lot of sports car guys will want one - even if it will need to spend time plugged in to a supercharger after every session.
If you dominate when you are on the track, downtime is forgiven.
At the 2012 Stockholders meeting Elon started to call the Gen III the "Model..." and then changed to Gen3. Not sure if the car will be another Model, ("T") or if he was simply correcting staring to say Model S or X.
Just name it already!
The world loves to be deceived.
I think with a transmission they could actually improve the off the line performance a bit even if they don't try to raise the top speed.
The Roadster doesn't seem to accelerate as well in the 0-10MPH range as it does in the 10-60MPH range.
Even the gobs of low end motor torque are muted off the line due to the tall gearing.
But I am NOT voting for them to do a transmission. It is great that it is so simple and direct without the added complexity and expense of a variable ratio.
I bet next gen Roadster could have higher peak 'C-rate' cells, higher motor RPM, and better cooling all which could lead to a slight increase in top speed.
I caught that too, but I think he was talking about the sedan in any case (would make sense to keep with the "Model" nomenclature). Many have spoken up on here that a new roadster as described (2+2, possibly not convertible) wouldn't be a TRUE Roadster, so I could see them leaving the Roadster name in the past and calling it Model R or something. It's also possible there will be a Gen III coupe with a performance package that could be the Model R and Tesla will keep the "Roadster" for halo cars going forward.
The next gen roadster doesn't need a transmission just 4 wheel drive with different gearing on each axel, rear axel is a low gear for high torque off the line 0-60 and front axel is geared towards a tall gear for 60mph to 150+
I thought someone else here mentioned that as well. Is that what they're doing on the X?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
