Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Tesla Roadster 2.0
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Handling, the thing will handle like **** because it will weigh an absolutely enormous weight, that's not even up for discussion it's a given.
That is up for discussion. The only way I see the engineering working out for traction etc is with a lot less weight than a model S.
Cell energy density is increasing which means increases in battery capacity without increases in weight or volume.
The majority of the difference in capacity between the battery specs of the roadster from 2008 and the roadster 2020 are accounted for by these changes.
In addition the roadster 2020 is carbon fiber bodied vs the steel/aluminum roadster 2008.
There are a number of other inherent advantages EVs have over combustion that come into play with handling.
This is an i3 next to an ActiveE (electric 1-series):
Tall car right? how do you think it handles?
What if I told you the center of gravity of the i3 is lower than the 3-series (and pretty much at the same height as the GT86's) and it has weight distribution 48.5:51.5?
Batteries in a purpose built EV are mounted low in the chassis, comprise a lot of the weight of the vehicle and can be split and distributed to optimise weight distribution. And the low low CofG means they stick to the road like they're on rails.
The next big thing is Torque vectoring. Motors weigh and cost next to nothing in comparison to the battery or combustion engines.
You can have pretty much as many motors as you like, all coming with the advantages of precision control, torque from 0RPM, the ability to run freely without clutching and the ability to apply negative torque. All to individual wheels/axles.
I've driven the roadster and model S and both handle well and compare to the german competition. The only thing I dislike is the steering on the model S which is a bit vague.the interior is a joke.
*cough* prototype almost three years from volume production. Let's not judge just yet. For the record I'm not a fan of the prototype's interior either.Do you guys talk about hydrogen cars here or is that in the main forum? Seeing as that's where the major Jap manufacturers plus Hyundai are betting over ev that would be an interesting read
HEVs would technically belong in this forum. However they don't make any sense from an economic or technical standpoint.
I've direct experience in my day job of working with H2 fuel cells for certain remote and large scale applications.
They make sense for some purpose, but the last place they make sense is road transportation.
None of the car manufacturers have made anything close the the progress required on total roadblocks to practical HEVs. A not remotely exhaustive list:
The production cost of the stack (due to raw material costs not just production scale).
h2 production - 95% of which is currently from reformed natural gas.. this and my last point makes H2 expensive... around double the cost per km of petrol... and as much as 25 times higher than battery electric.
Safety issues due not least of which to high pressure requirement of storing usable quantities of H2 in acceptable volumes (want to see a Toyota engineer stop breathing? Ask them what happens if there's the tiniest flaw or damage to the COPV H2 tank). Not just confined to the vehicle itself, there are persistent safety issues throughout, largely down to H2 being a pain the arse to store and transfer (highly reactive gas, odourless, leaks through airtight seals, embrittles metals, reacts with many materials in common automotive use like rubber and certain plastics).
Refueling and infrastructure - 350kW rapid chargers being deployed right now are faster than H2 refueling. H2 refueling is not a simple process or even that quick, regardless of the sophistication of the H2 refueling station it's a lot more difficult, time-consuming and intolerant of errors/faults than pumping a liquid at atmospheric pressure. Other consequences of this include the inability to provide home refueling due to safety and cost issues which makes people reliant on a commercial infrastructure. And the commercial infrastructure? reliant on massive subsidies... how massive? Well you could buy 10-20 BEV rapid chargers for the cost of a single H2 pump. What commercial infrastructure has been built is unreliable in the extreme, many issues with the HEV lessees in california being unable to refuel their vehicles and having to leave them garaged for weeks or more due to all stations within range being out of operation.... meanwhile electricity is everywhere, the only issue is billing and allowing access.
Power output of automotive fuel cells is cack. Buffer batteries are required since the FCs operate fairly steady state. These buffer batteries are small to keep cost/volume/weight low... therefore discharge is low and they can't run powerful electric motors.
Degradation - not just of the fuel cell (parasitic reactions), issues with the entire h2 fuel system and how long it can be trusted without replacement or major overhaul/inspection. The Mirai for example has a "do not fuel after" date on the inside of the filler flap.
and the biggest issue of all... Efficiency... total system efficiency from electricity source (if using electrolysis... which you'd have to for it to be clean) to road surface not only 3-5 times lower than a battery EV, but also lower than some existing combustion vehicles (from the crude). There are substantial losses at every step in the chain all the way through H2 production and distribution <= many of these are inherent to the processes and materials involved and are unfixable (at least within the known laws of physics) and hands the cost of operation and TCO advantage to BEV
Apart from two projects well into the pipeline for ZEV credits, Hyundai has abandoned HEV development. Daimler's HEV team disbanded.
And the only reason Toyota & Honda have continued is the money being handed to them by the Japanese government (who have a madcap plan to mine ocean methane hydrates that will never (and should never) get off the ground) and the lack of another plan (though Akio Toyoda has set up a BEV development team headed by himself and has been poaching some of the best engineers from every project in sight).
I used think (and still see some use cases for) SOFC methane fuel cells would be good as range extender for long range electric HGVs.... Methane is much more energy dense and way easier to store and handle. but battery density and pricing has moved quicker than anticipated and for the limited remaining use cases it's not worth the development cost vs a diesel or petrol generator given that batteries would likely cover those edge cases too with the advent of any of the energy dense metal air chemistries.
HEVs are really just a combined delay tactic and PR exercise. Not something that has any future.0 -
That is up for discussion. The only way I see the engineering working out for traction etc is with a lot less weight than a model S.
Cell energy density is increasing which means increases in battery capacity without increases in weight or volume.
The majority of the difference in capacity between the battery specs of the roadster from 2008 and the roadster 2020 are accounted for by these changes.
In addition the roadster 2020 is carbon fiber bodied vs the steel/aluminum roadster 2008.
There are a number of other inherent advantages EVs have over combustion that come into play with handling.
This is an i3 next to an ActiveE (electric 1-series):
Tall car right? how do you think it handles?
What if I told you the center of gravity of the i3 is lower than the 3-series (and pretty much at the same height as the GT86's) and it has weight distribution 48.5:51.5?
Batteries in a purpose built EV are mounted low in the chassis, comprise a lot of the weight of the vehicle and can be split and distributed to optimise weight distribution. And the low low CofG means they stick to the road like they're on rails.
The next big thing is Torque vectoring. Motors weigh and cost next to nothing in comparison to the battery or combustion engines.
You can have pretty much as many motors as you like, all coming with the advantages of precision control, torque from 0RPM, the ability to run freely without clutching and the ability to apply negative torque. All to individual wheels/axles.
I've driven the roadster and model S and both handle well and compare to the german competition. The only thing I dislike is the steering on the model S which is a bit vague.
*cough* prototype almost three years from volume production. Let's not judge just yet. For the record I'm not a fan of the prototype's interior either.
HEVs would technically belong in this forum. However they don't make any sense from an economic or technical standpoint.
I've direct experience in my day job of working with H2 fuel cells for certain remote and large scale applications.
They make sense for some purpose, but the last place they make sense is road transportation.
None of the car manufacturers have made anything close the the progress required on total roadblocks to practical HEVs. A not remotely exhaustive list:
The production cost of the stack (due to raw material costs not just production scale).
h2 production - 95% of which is currently from reformed natural gas.. this and my last point makes H2 expensive... around double the cost per km of petrol... and as much as 25 times higher than battery electric.
Safety issues due not least of which to high pressure requirement of storing usable quantities of H2 in acceptable volumes (want to see a Toyota engineer stop breathing? Ask them what happens if there's the tiniest flaw or damage to the COPV H2 tank). Not just confined to the vehicle itself, there are persistent safety issues throughout, largely down to H2 being a pain the arse to store and transfer (highly reactive gas, odourless, leaks through airtight seals, embrittles metals, reacts with many materials in common automotive use like rubber and certain plastics).
Refueling and infrastructure - 350kW rapid chargers being deployed right now are faster than H2 refueling. H2 refueling is not a simple process or even that quick, regardless of the sophistication of the H2 refueling station it's a lot more difficult, time-consuming and intolerant of errors/faults than pumping a liquid at atmospheric pressure. Other consequences of this include the inability to provide home refueling due to safety and cost issues which makes people reliant on a commercial infrastructure. And the commercial infrastructure? reliant on massive subsidies... how massive? Well you could buy 10-20 BEV rapid chargers for the cost of a single H2 pump. What commercial infrastructure has been built is unreliable in the extreme, many issues with the HEV lessees in california being unable to refuel their vehicles and having to leave them garaged for weeks or more due to all stations within range being out of operation.... meanwhile electricity is everywhere, the only issue is billing and allowing access.
Power output of automotive fuel cells is cack. Buffer batteries are required since the FCs operate fairly steady state. These buffer batteries are small to keep cost/volume/weight low... therefore discharge is low and they can't run powerful electric motors.
Degradation - not just of the fuel cell (parasitic reactions), issues with the entire h2 fuel system and how long it can be trusted without replacement or major overhaul/inspection. The Mirai for example has a "do not fuel after" date on the inside of the filler flap.
and the biggest issue of all... Efficiency... total system efficiency from electricity source (if using electrolysis... which you'd have to for it to be clean) to road surface not only 3-5 times lower than a battery EV, but also lower than some existing combustion vehicles (from the crude). There are substantial losses at every step in the chain all the way through H2 production and distribution <= many of these are inherent to the processes and materials involved and are unfixable (at least within the known laws of physics) and hands the cost of operation and TCO advantage to BEV
Apart from two projects well into the pipeline for ZEV credits, Hyundai has abandoned HEV development. Daimler's HEV team disbanded.
And the only reason Toyota & Honda have continued is the money being handed to them by the Japanese government (who have a madcap plan to mine ocean methane hydrates that will never (and should never) get off the ground) and the lack of another plan (though Akio Toyoda has set up a BEV development team headed by himself and has been poaching some of the best engineers from every project in sight).
I used think (and still see some use cases for) SOFC methane fuel cells would be good as range extender for long range electric HGVs.... Methane is much more energy dense and way easier to store and handle. but battery density and pricing has moved quicker than anticipated and for the limited remaining use cases it's not worth the development cost vs a diesel or petrol generator given that batteries would likely cover those edge cases too with the advent of any of the energy dense metal air chemistries.
HEVs are really just a combined delay tactic and PR exercise. Not something that has any future.
I'm not even going to try to argue against you there , fair play and thank you that is one seriously informative post.
3 questions
do you not foresee a huge problem in Ireland because we don't have nuclear which we really need to make ev viable for everyone to drive. I should add I'm heavily pro nuclear
Second question, these battery's require a mineral that is not infinite and will become more expensive as more are produced and less mineral will be available.From what I have read, at the moment there is only one company in the world that can extract it from used batteries, they can extract very little and it costs a fortune and is not even viable . will this not pose a problem?
I read an article that addresses the safety issue of hydrogen and said it was an absolute non issue, hence why the manufacturers are going ahead with it? I.e greatly exaggerated danger
Only thing I have to take issue with is the handling, you've posted 2 regular cars that aren't for performance. The Tesla weight is alot higher than it's competition in the performance car world. There's no way it can handle as well, I'm not talking about regular road cars where it doesn't really matter tbh
Cheers0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
do you not foresee a huge problem in Ireland because we don't have nuclear which we really need to make ev viable for everyone to drive. I should add I'm heavily pro nuclear
Short answer at least for the short/medium term is that we already have pretty much the generation capacity we need for over a decade of 100% of new cars being EV.
This is Eirgrid demand across the 32 county grid for the last week:
Those troughs are the drop in nighttime electricity demand and represent an amount of power roughly equivalent to 40-60% of the energy consumption of the private car fleet in Ireland over the same period if they were 15kWh/100km EVs. Most EVs charge at night anyway.
I'm an engineer, not a political activist. I have no issue with nuclear power, I've done a lot of reading on all the new reactor products like the VVER reactors and Toshiba's 4S. The big problem with nuclear is that in large part due to the political/ideological opposition the cost per kWh to build a reactor is off the scale and the time to getting the power station in service is way too long. In an ideal world there would have been a production line cracking out thousands of small modular reactors 20 years ago, but we don't live in that world.
In the world we live in at the moment you can (in most countries) go from greenfield site to 100MW solar PV plant inside of 6 months and, unsubsidised, produce power for a fraction of the cost per kWh of a new nuclear plant. It's just way way cheaper to overprovision solar PV and Wind than build a nuclear plant. And Solar PV and Wind costs are dropping (see Swanson's law) while nuclear's are going up.
Then there were the old arguments about base load. With smart grid management, a good mix of complimentary renewables, some demand response, some gas peakers and a little energy storage (pumped hydro and grid battery) for frequency support and short term needs we're seeing a lot of those worries evaporate.Second question, these battery's require a mineral that is not infinite and will become more expensive as more are produced and less mineral will be available.From what I have read, at the moment there is only one company in the world that can extract it from used batteries, they can extract very little and it costs a fortune and is not even viable . will this not pose a problem?
There are a wide variety of battery chemistries with various metals used. The biggest issue we have is with cobalt which is mostly a secondary output of mining for other metals and is therefore supply inelastic (though glencore and other mining groups are responding to high cobalt market prices and reopening some shut mines (whose primary metal had become uneconomic to mine but the cobalt price changes the equation) or exploring new opportunities, like the new mines in Spain). Not all chemistries use cobalt, for example BYD (the largest EV/PHEV manufacturer in the world... building more plugin vehicles per year than Tesla) uses cobalt-free Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries.
Next most problematic material is actually graphite, it this case it's not limited graphite supply, it's limited plant capacity to process raw graphite into high purity spherical graphite which is used as a battery anode material in a lot of chemistries.
Apart from those two materials the rest of the battery is common materials. Usually the largest component metal is aluminium then different chemistries have metals like nickel (nickel pricing may be a problem 'til supply can catch up), Iron, Copper, Magnesium etc. etc.
Lithium, despite the headlines, is very common. There's plenty of it in commercially viable quantities here in Ireland. In a pinch it can even be extracted from seawater (well, ideally from the brine from desalination plants and the market price for lithium would need to be quite high to make it viable) or even Iceland's geothermal wells (which would be more viable).
If you've drank water from a domestic tap or well in many areas of Ireland there's lithium in the water, it was even considered at one point that lithium might get added to water like fluoride in areas where it was not already present as lithium plays a role in normal fetal development and neurological development in children.I read an article that addresses the safety issue of hydrogen and said it was an absolute non issue, hence why the manufacturers are going ahead with it? I.e greatly exaggerated danger
It's definitely not a non-issue. Have they improved crash safety with recent designs, yes. But refueling safety and the lack of a margin for error in manufacturing remain problems. There's no way storing hydrogen at 700 times atmospheric pressure (like the Mirai does) in a moving vehicle will ever be described by any of the engineers as a non-issue. Toyota use a COPV (carbon overwrapped pressure vessel) to avoid having to add hundreds and hundreds of kilos of steel to the h2 tank to handle the pressure. But COPVs need to be manufactured with much more precision and are much more costly. We also don't fully understand the effect of stresses like temperature changes and repeated mechanical stress like road shocks on the long term structural integrity of COPV tanks. Even NASA is nervous about stress ruptures on COPV tanks and has long term research programs looking at them. A natural gas powered vehicle's tank pressure, for example, is usually at worst 250 times atmospheric pressure, which is much more manageable with common materials.Only thing I have to take issue with is the handling, you've posted 2 regular cars that aren't for performance. The Tesla weight is alot higher than it's competition in the performance car world. There's no way it can handle as well, I'm not talking about regular road cars where it doesn't really matter tbh
I'm not saying the weight has no effect. I'm just saying that the low CofG and weight distribution means that the increased kerb weight has less of a negative effect on handling than you'd expect. Put a Model S against say an M5 in the twisties and yes, the M5 has better steering and yes the M5 can corner a touch faster... but there's really not that much in it despite the 370kg weight difference.
The same is true of the original roadster. It handled it's 1300kg kerb weight well. I've only driven one once in California about 10 years ago but I didn't notice any handling issues.
With the carbon fiber chassis, and the improvements in chemistry already more than doubling the battery capacity with no weight penalty, I see the new roadster weighing at worst ~1500kg. Sure, that's not lightweight by any measure, but it's not way off it's competition. The McLaren P1 is 1,547kg.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
We'll have to see when it comes out but based on the only measurables available right now it's in adifferent league
In a straight line yeah it's a different league
How long of a straight, who knows
Even the multi million Rimac with 1000bhp gets eaten alive by a Veyron past 250kph
On a track the Tesla has big questions to answer
Tesla Model S P100D is an embarrassment on the track, can't even go 1/4 of a lap on the ring without limp mode, Model 3 performance is a bit better but won't complete a lap either, it has power loss too.
Model S cant even accelerate up and down the Autobahn without power loss and being overtaken by diesel Golf's in the process, think Bjorn has a vid on his Model X struggling with 200kph, my old diesel can do that all day
We all laugh at Nissan rapidgate and the lack of Evs by Germans/Japs etc, but Tesla are the biggest cowboys of them all
Lost count of broken promises
In fairness to the Germans they do it properly
Porsche Taycan will accelerate up and down the autobahn all day and complete a lap of the ring full blast with no issue
I will bump this thread in 2021 when the Roadster is beaten at the ring by a 10 year old V12 Aventador
0 -
-
-
-
In this video from Engineering Explained he talks about compressed air.
He also has another video where he explains why it is impossible right now to go below 2 sec without this helpers (thrusters) due to the limit of traction of the current tires.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PRi4B1APj0
Advertisement