Model S Specifications, Teases and Leaks - Page 27

vfx · 03-27-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flabby

I usually just feel for the knobs.

This is key here. Muscle memory with get you close but without look at the screen you will surely slide across the glass triggering all sorts of wacky results.

WarpedOne · 03-27-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

This is key here. Muscle memory with get you close but without look at the screen you will surely slide across the glass triggering all sorts of wacky results.

I'm sure tactile response can be supplemented with sound and clever touch algorithms.
Like if you are on the border of the knob or between the two of them, the sound effect is quiet or in different tune.

It is different but surely doable.

stopcrazypp · 03-27-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarpedOne

First Look at Tesla's Stunning Model S:

Amazing what some additional cooling brings. 300kW is a lot, even by today's sport luxury sedan's standards. Feeding it from 42kWh pack could mean some very short meals, like 8 minutes. Of course, you cannot constantly draw peak power under realistic driving conditions, even by constantly flooring it up the hill.

I think 402hp (300kW) is overkill for an entry model, they should save the extra performance for the sport model. Especially at a $57k base price, since the 550i is 360hp for $60k, A6 4.2 is 350hp for $61k, E550 is 382hp for $62k. It depends on how much extra it costs for that kind of performance; if it doesn't cost much more then I suppose it's something else that puts it above a gasoline car.

WarpedOne · 03-27-2009, 02:03 PM

The main difference to ICE cars is that production ready 300 kW PEM is almost same price as say 200 kW PEM. There are same components in both of them, the stronger version only has a few more IGBTs and maybe stronger cooling. Much much less difference than between a V6 and V8 ICE engine.

Performance will come from reduced weight and stiffer suspension. But at the end of the day, they can easily program it to only offer 250 kW if that would sell more Sport versions.

Cobos · 03-27-2009, 02:12 PM

I beleive it was mentioned here somewhere earlier that for electric motors it is a trivial increase in price to increase power in contrast with ICE cars. The problem though is that more horsepower usually means you will drive more agressive also when just cruising and hence the delta between EPA range and actual range increases (because you are draining the battery too fast). Too much delta and it starts to look bad.

Cobos

TEG · 03-27-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveF

So I'm no engineer, but can we assume that if these batteries were put into a battery pack for the Roadster, the range could go from 244 miles to nearly 300 miles just like that? (244*1.2 = 292.8 miles)

I would assume that is true, but it probably isn't just as simple as plopping in the newer cells. The charge and discharge characteristics are probably different enough that they have to come up with new control software to take advantage of and treat the new batteries appropriately. I imagine they may have a prototype Roadster with these cells, but would need to test it for a long time to know if the new batteries can work well with revised software.

My guess would be they offer them as an option on the Roadster someday.

Joseph · 03-27-2009, 03:25 PM

"I think 402hp (300kW) is overkill for an entry model"

To me it sounds like overkill also, but remember that electric motors are acutally slightly more efficient as they get larger. This coupled with the relatively minor difference in cost, justifies the giant motor.

WarpedOne · 03-27-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

justifies the giant motor

Nine inch electric motor is not what I'd call a giant. Nine inch, 22 centimeters.
More dwarflike, but with giant capabilities, yes.

James · 03-27-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEG

I imagine they may have a prototype Roadster with these cells, but would need to test it for a long time to know if the new batteries can work well with revised software.

My guess would be they offer them as an option on the Roadster someday.

From my discussing this with Tesla employees, the Roadster battery pack could be completely different when it is replaced. I have heard that the replacement in 5 to 7 years will likely have a range of 300 to 400 miles and may even be lighter than the current battery pack. There may even be different options based on a Roadster owner wanting more range or more performance.

But the current Roadster will never have a fast swap battery. It would take a complete redesign.

SteveF · 03-27-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

From my discussing this with Tesla employees, the Roadster battery pack could be completely different when it is replaced. I have heard that the replacement in 5 to 7 years will likely have a range of 300 to 400 miles and may even be lighter than the current battery pack. There may even be different options based on a Roadster owner wanting more range or more performance.

But the current Roadster will never have a fast swap battery. It would take a complete redesign.

I don't anticipate needing or wanting a fast swap option for my Roadster, personally. I intend to use it as a daily commuter, and would use a roomier, more comfortable second car for those few long excursions I take.

I have always assumed that when the Roadster battery is ready to be replaced that lighter and/or longer range options should be available - but it's nice to hear that the Tesla folks are thinking along those lines too.