Tesla Unveils - Semi Truck and next-gen Roadster

[skankhunt]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Electrifying freight trains isn't economically viable, so it'll likely not happen for many many, many years. 

To be fair, Tesla is likely a much larger company backed by a much richer man. This company is likely aimed at a very niche market, only have the capacity to produce a few vehicles, and as such have to charge a much higher figure to reach profitability. 

Here in Scotland quite a large proportion of the railway systems are all electrified - but all the freight is all still diesel electric. 

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, skankhunt said:

Here in Scotland quite a large proportion of the railway systems are all electrified - but all the freight is all still diesel electric. 

do you know if its diesel or bio diesel?

[michaelocarroll007]

10 hours ago, Bigbootyjudy said:

WHAT

 

I expected tesla to get into normal SUV's and stuff before they went big. This does sound really cool though as it will lower costs of transporting goods(if it becomes a thing). It might also be good for the drivers if the autopilot is good enough because then they won't get so fatigued after driving for so long.

 

That roadster also sounds crazy. 0-60 in under 2 seconds? faster than 250mph? I'm no fan of tesla but geez

 

Tesla Model S does 0-60 in 2.28 seconds if you get the high end model. Fucking ridiculous number and is the fasest production car you can buy right now.

 

Roadster is going to do it in 1.9 Not much Faster BUT HOLY FUCK THAT 0-100 and Quarter mile passes? Almost a complete second faster then the two fastest quarer mile cars and the Dodge had race fuel not premium gas and only one seat in the car.

 

This gose 0-100 4.2 seconds which is faster then my car goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds  lol

 

Car[iii]	Year[iv]	Time[v]	Noted specs[viii]
Dodge Challenger SRT Demon	2018	9.65 @ 140 mph (225.3 km/h)[66]	Time taken with only one seat and running 100-octane racing fuel on a prepared dragstrip; 9.9–10.2 sec estimated under street conditions[67], limited to 3,303 produced
Bugatti Veyron Super Sport	2011	9.7 sec[26]	Limited to 30 produced

[goodtofufriday]

11 hours ago, Bigbootyjudy said:

WHAT

 

I expected tesla to get into normal SUV's and stuff before they went big. This does sound really cool though as it will lower costs of transporting goods(if it becomes a thing). It might also be good for the drivers if the autopilot is good enough because then they won't get so fatigued after driving for so long.

 

That roadster also sounds crazy. 0-60 in under 2 seconds? faster than 250mph? I'm no fan of tesla but geez

 

10 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

If they can get the charging stations set up and avoid any seroius production problems, that semi truck is where it's at. Course, those are a couple of very big ifs.

i think part of doing semi trucks is to establish a network of charging stations. That way it becomes more feasible for consumers to use their cars as they could charge anywhere. 

[aubryscully]

5 hours ago, tsk said:

That Roadster is damn slick, I might buy it when it comes. Any ETA?

2020

[79wjd]

20 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

 

Tesla Model S does 0-60 in 2.28 seconds if you get the high end model. Fucking ridiculous number and is the fasest production car you can buy right now.

 

Roadster is going to do it in 1.9 Not much Faster BUT HOLY FUCK THAT 0-100 and Quarter mile passes? Almost a complete second faster then the two fastest quarer mile cars and the Dodge had race fuel not premium gas and only one seat in the car.

 

This gose 0-100 4.2 seconds which is faster then my car goes 0-60 in 4.8 seconds  lol

 

Car[iii]	Year[iv]	Time[v]	Noted specs[viii]
Dodge Challenger SRT Demon	2018	9.65 @ 140 mph (225.3 km/h)[66]	Time taken with only one seat and running 100-octane racing fuel on a prepared dragstrip; 9.9–10.2 sec estimated under street conditions[67], limited to 3,303 produced
Bugatti Veyron Super Sport	2011	9.7 sec[26]	Limited to 30 produced

2.3 vs 1.9 is probably a massive difference. 4.2 feels significantly faster than 4.6, so that trend probably continues.

[aubryscully]

3 hours ago, Smoofie said:

Emission friendly isn't eco friendly tho, especially when  it's coals powering the charge points and required materials for the batteries are also not mined in what one would say an eco friendly environment. I also cant imagine a hundred trucks are more economic than a single train, when it comes to containers.

 

The average internal combustion engine can only convert 20% of the raw energy of fuel into usable mechanical energy. A modern coal power plant can convert 80% of this raw energy into electrical energy. Therefore EVs are actually much more environmentally friendly. Also, not all power has to be produced by coal. You can also produce it via wind, hydro, solar, or even nuclear.

[ItsMitch]

brb robbing a bank for the roadster 

[michaelocarroll007]

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

2.3 vs 1.9 is probably a massive difference. 4.2 feels significantly faster than 4.6, so that trend probably continues.

you know ive never really been in a Sub 4 second 0-60 car. i would be curious if 2.3 vs 1.9 is big. i know what like 6 to 5 seconds and such feels like but at some point id imagine the differences diminishes somewhat.  

 

im not saying 1.9 should be faster just that the 7 seater Model S still holds up well and is crazy fast for its size weight ect and tesla in general is doing crazy good in this department in every vehicle they make and its awesome ( Though kinda just the fact its electric to some degree) 

 

Fastest car i have owned at 4.8 to 60 2018 WRX

Fastest quart mile car was low 13s   2007 Cobalt SS

 

Nothing special but Fun cars overall for the prices. 

[skankhunt]

48 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

do you know if its diesel or bio diesel?

As far as i'm aware all the diesel trains are running off ordinary red diesel - bio diesel is a very rare thing over here. Only cars pre 2008ish can even utilise it thanks to DPFs that have become commonplace in all new diesel cars nowadays.

[79wjd]

15 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

you know ive never really been in a Sub 4 second 0-60 car. i would be curious if 2.3 vs 1.9 is big. i know what like 6 to 5 seconds and such feels like but at some point id imagine the differences diminishes somewhat.  

 

im not saying 1.9 should be faster just that the 7 seater Model S still holds up well and is crazy fast for its size weight ect and tesla in general is doing crazy good in this department in every vehicle they make and its awesome ( Though kinda just the fact its electric to some degree) 

 

Fastest car i have owned at 4.8 to 60 2018 WRX

Fastest quart mile car was low 13s   2007 Cobalt SS

 

Nothing special but Fun cars overall for the prices. 

I haven't driven a car quite that fast, but I can tell you that the difference between 4.2 and 4.6 is pretty massive. Even more so than low fives to high fours. I'm sure at some point or diminishes, but I wouldn't put money on the roadster being at that point.

[michaelocarroll007]

29 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I haven't driven a car quite that fast, but I can tell you that the difference between 4.2 and 4.6 is pretty massive. Even more so than low fives to high fours. I'm sure at some point or diminishes, but I wouldn't put money on the roadster being at that point.

 

From my personal experiences where when and how the power is put down makes a much bigger difference to Feeling of fast then .4 seconds to 60. my WRX  has much less power to the ground then my cobalt. but the Traction of AWD gets it to 60 faster but that 30-60 feels much slower giving the impression its a slower car.  it doesnt help it  just falls so Flat feeling After 5k as well making it just feel slowish when its really not. shifting early actually feels faster but it doesnt give better times. 

 

Though this is a tiny Sample size of 2 cars ive had. From what i understand Torque Curve, Traction and many other variables play a big role in the feeling 

 

Also the differences of why one car feels faster then another im sure really dissapear at thoese speeds. 

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

 

From my personal experiences where when and how the power is put down makes a much bigger difference to Feeling of fast then .4 seconds to 60. my WRX  has much less power to the ground then my cobalt. but the Traction of AWD gets it to 60 faster but that 30-60 feels much slower giving the impression its a slower car.  it doesnt help it  just falls so Flat feeling After 5k as well making it just feel slowish when its really not. shifting early actually feels faster but it doesnt give better times. 

 

Though this is a tiny Sample size of 2 cars ive had. From what i understand Torque Curve, Traction and many other variables play a big role in the feeling 

That they certainly do. On paper a 2015 Cayman S and a mustang GT both do 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, but the mustang felt significantly slower -- it felt more like a 2012 A4, which does 60 in 6.3s. The 718 Cayman, which is faster than the old boxster 6, also felt a decent bit slower.

[James]

12 hours ago, Bigbootyjudy said:

WHAT

 

I expected tesla to get into normal SUV's and stuff before they went big. This does sound really cool though as it will lower costs of transporting goods(if it becomes a thing). It might also be good for the drivers if the autopilot is good enough because then they won't get so fatigued after driving for so long.

 

That roadster also sounds crazy. 0-60 in under 2 seconds? faster than 250mph? I'm no fan of tesla but geez

They have an SUV it's called the Model X

[Dissitesuxba11s]

40 minutes ago, James said:

They have an SUV it's called the Model X

I still think it's funny that Tesla named their cars S, 3 and X.

[Bigbootyjudy]

41 minutes ago, James said:

They have an SUV it's called the Model X

Yeah I should fix that. I meant bigger vehicles like trucks; something comparable to like a Chevy tahoe or yukon. 

 

also omg I got noticed by james

[James]

13 minutes ago, Bigbootyjudy said:

Yeah I should fix that. I meant bigger vehicles like trucks; something comparable to like a Chevy tahoe or yukon. 

 

also omg I got noticed by james

I would think that vehicles that are primarily used in rural areas (ie not as well serviced by charging stations) would be near the bottom of their list of markets to enter.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

Electrifying freight trains isn't economically viable, so it'll likely not happen for many many, many years. 

To be fair, Tesla is likely a much larger company backed by a much richer man. This company is likely aimed at a very niche market, only have the capacity to produce a few vehicles, and as such have to charge a much higher figure to reach profitability. 

 

Freight trains are already electric, they just have diesel generators on board to power the motors.  A battery bank would allow for regenerative brakes and improve general efficiency.

 

Also there are places that run electric freight trains. Here In Australia for example. 

[Tam3n]

The specs are insane ?

[michaelocarroll007]

1 hour ago, James said:

They have an SUV it's called the Model X

i think he meant like how the model 3 is semi purchasable by a large # of people vs the model S  not just a suv in general 

[Bigbootyjudy]

1 hour ago, James said:

I would think that vehicles that are primarily used in rural areas (ie not as well serviced by charging stations) would be near the bottom of their list of markets to enter.

Well I wasn't really expecting to start manufacturing/developing semi trucks, you never know lol. 

 

I think they could as like a luxury passenger vehicle. I personally think that it would be nice to have a very quiet 7-8 passenger vehicle. 

[Agosto]

14 hours ago, aubryscully said:

-Regenerative braking means that brakes never need to be replaced

-Almost 0 maintenance needed

The first is NOT true. Regenerative braking is not a substitute for brakes, there are still brakes on Tesla vehicles, obviously. Brakes may last longer, but they're not eternal.

And there comes the second point, I was at a conference with a Tesla employee on Tuesday and he said that maintenance usually involves brakes, battery cells and coolant. Don't know about the electronics though.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

I still think it's funny that Tesla named their cars S, 3 and X.

Something most Tesla drivers will never have.

[Agosto]

3 hours ago, aubryscully said:

The average internal combustion engine can only convert 20% of the raw energy of fuel into usable mechanical energy. A modern coal power plant can convert 80% of this raw energy into electrical energy. Therefore EVs are actually much more environmentally friendly. Also, not all power has to be produced by coal. You can also produce it via wind, hydro, solar, or even nuclear.

Wow wow wow wow, not so fast. Simply not true. Highest claimed efficiency for a coal powered plant is 47% and it's an exception. Regenerative Rankine based power plants with reheating usually get to η=0.35-0.4, maybe 0.42, more means higher complexity and much higher costs.

The value you quoted is probably including stuff like district heating, not bare electric conversion efficiency.

p.s.: Otto based engines usually hover around η=0.25
p.p.s.: values based on lower heating value

[2FA]

6 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

where's that hyperloop?

Elon stated he himself had no plans on building it back when he first talked about it.

 

6 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Low earth orbit travel?

Did he not announce that only 2 months ago? Besides that is SpaceX, not Tesla.