Talk:Tesla Roadster (second generation)

Tesla is making it now?

Elon says in the launch video that they are making it now at 2:20 in this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOjtM9D86y4 Does this mean that production has already started?Nzoomed (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote: Musk said the new Roadster ... that will begin production in 2020.... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musks-fast-route-to-more-cash-a-new-tesla-roadster-2017-11-17 Peter K Burian (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes i agree, I thinking that when he said "we are making it now", that it is more or less suggesting that they are working on the development of it rather than starting production now.Nzoomed (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Biased independent analyses

I feel its probably unnecessary to quote the bloomberg article, I feel its biased, as i saw this published before the bloomberg article https://jalopnik.com/heres-what-a-battery-researcher-told-us-about-the-tesla-1820558723 It quotes a battery researcher saying the figures are not unreasonable and that the high capacity battery pack is an enabler for the fast acceleration times as we have already seen demonstrated from passengers who witnessed this for themselves on the launch night.Nzoomed (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Why in the world would a finance web site like Bloomberg L.P. be biased?? Granted, not all experts agree on everything. I added a section about the comment from the Jalopnik site, but that expert was never asked: With today's battery technology, is the range claimed by Tesla possible? (THAT is the issue that Bloomberg addressed.)

   Venkat Viswanathan,[31] described as a "mechanical engineering assistant professor who works at the Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation and focuses on next-generation battery technology" told Jalopnik (a Gizmodo Media Group publication) that the 1.9-second figure for 0 to 60 mph seems reasonable in spite of the estimated battery weight of 833 kg, or 1,836 pounds. He added that the feasibility of the acceleration claim assumed that suitable tires would be available for the maximum traction that will be required. Viswanathan did not address the issue of the claimed range with current battery technology.[32]

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And I agree; the 1.9 second claim is credible. Even the current S model P100D is super fast to accelerate, just under 2.8 seconds to 60mph in a MotorTrend test. The P100D is equipped with Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires but the current plans for the Roadster indicate the newer Michelin Pilot Sports Cup 2 tires.

   We all understand acceleration. It’s the rate of change of velocity. This 4,891-pound Tesla Model S P100D (weighing 5,062-pounds with gear and driver) does it best, reaching 30, 40, 50, and 60 mph from a standstill more quickly than any other production vehicle we’ve ever tested ... In our testing, no production car has ever cracked 2.3 seconds from 0 to 60 mph. But Tesla has, in 2.275507139 seconds. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla-model-s-p100d-first-test-review/

   Requires launch control: press and hold the Ludicrous button for five seconds .... press "Yes, bring it on!" Selecting the latter initiates a process of battery and motor conditioning, wherein the battery temperature is raised slightly and the motors are cooled using the air-conditioning system. a process of battery and motor conditioning, wherein the battery temperature is raised slightly and the motors are cooled using the air-conditioning system. It usually takes just a few minutes ... From the driver seat, the ride generates g-forces akin to those felt on a roller coaster ... http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla-model-s-p100d-first-test-review/

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There's significant commentary on why this claim is dubious. The minimum weight of batteries of the promised capacity, combined with the extraordinary cooling requirements for the battery and the motors, lead to a minimum curb weight that is not consistent with the kind of handling and drivabiltiy claimed for this car. You could make a straight-line dragster that could do this, or a non-production one-off special that might do this, or a car that you could drive more than half a lap around a track without overheating, if you dispensed with the 1.9 seconds. But all of these claims together are not plausible. They don't belong in an article about a car that nobody has even tested yet. The fact that large numbers of sources have published speculation about Tesla's speculation does not make it more credible. Speculation is still speculation.

Just get rid of it. Leave it out. We can add content about the car's performance when we have verifiable facts about the cars performance. Wikipedia is supposed to be patient and willing to wait months or years before gushing out content over speculative woolgathering. Newspapers and fan blogs serve a different role, and they are supposed to devote more space to things that nobody knows will happen. It's not the role of an encyclopedia to be treating Musk's boasts as facts, or even treating them as worthy of mention. Wikipedia isn't competing with gossip blogs and fanciful YouTube channels. They have their place and an encyclopedia has its place.

If we must write about this topic, then the speculation that this car will do 1.9 seconds should be given equal credibility to the speculation that this theatrical product announcement is intended to boost the faith of investors who are worried that Tesla is spending money faster than it can sustain and will run out of cash well before this car is ready to release. Tesla's unsustainable cash burn rate is calculated based on known data and future predictions, and the car's 0 to 60 time is calculated on a similar basis. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think its good to have the other article mentioned to make this balanced, although I do agree that its questionable if these opinions are really even necessary in the article.

Is bloomberg biased, perhaps not. But are they battery experts? Do they know anything about the capability of Tesla's battery technology?Nzoomed (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include critics but Tesla is a hot topic and an independent teardown of the Model 3, by Monroe & Associates , suggest that Tesla has leading technology by a significant margin, which surprised a lot of OEMs. So it isn't surprising that outside experts doubt their claims, because they are indeed big claims. But there's also independent drivers who have tested the car - like the driver who was doing the launches at the event. His name is Emile Bouret and he talked about his experience with Tesla among other car companies, and called the performance numbers "conservative" and claimed "those are actual figures, [not] theoretical [or] calculations - we've done those numbers". Muskar (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Numbers

WP:OR sanity check of the numbers; based on the available source material—launch sprints of 0–70/80mph-ish with video footage;

1. 1.5tonnes * 75mph * 75mph == ~0.5kWh (energy required for the launch acceleration, [1] demos 0–82mph)
2. 0.5kWh / 1.8 seconds == ~1MW (battery pack delivering ~1 Megawatt peak for 2 seconds)
3. 1MW / 400 volt == ~2500A (probably ~3000 maxA fuse; nb. P85 fuse 1520maxA; P100 fuse 1720maxA)
4. 200kWh / 1000km == 200Wh/km (stated range/efficiency)
5. 1km * 200Wh/km == 0.2kWh (1 kilometre circuit length on evening)
6. 0.5kWh + 0.2kWh == <1kWh (<1kWh per demo ride)
7. 1hour / 2.5 minutes == 24 rides/hour ([2] uncut ~1 hour of rides, departing every ~2.25 minutes)
8. 1kWh * 24 rides/hour == <25 kW
9. <25kW * 4hours == <100kWh
10. 100kWh / 200kWh == <50% (4 hours of laps including 0–to–70mph launches before battery pack even hits 50%)
11. 200kWh / (17Wh) == ~12000 cells (~12,000 off 2170 cells, probably ~96 series * 125 parallel)
12. 1MW / 17W / 12000 cells == 5C (acceptable discharge for a few seconds)

In conclusion, everything makes sense. Could not really have been much less than 200kWh of on-board battery to achieve the discharge rates during the demonstrated 0-to-70mph, or to happily do >100 kilometres of laps and high-discharge launch sprints in one evening. Sometime late in the evening[3] the driver states 67% of charge remaining, down from 92% of charge at the start of the night (50kWh used), and that the acceleration times are remaining consistent "all night". —Sladen (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what i agree with!

There was enough evidence from people who took the ride in this car themselves that day to verify that these claims are legit. Nzoomed (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What's really amazing/amusing is that it cost Tesla ~$10 on electricity to give that entire night's worth of demo rides. (For which punters paid $250,000+ for their $5k/person tickets to ride, and a balance of millions due in the next fortnight. —Sladen (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Two pages?

Since when do we have different pages for different generations of cars (Tesla Roadster (2008) and Tesla Roadster (2020))? --Ita140188 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

They are completely different cars. The 2008-2012 car is an electrified Lotus Elise. And we already have two separate articles for that, one for the Elise and one for the Tesla. This car, is unrelated to the earlier car, except by name. It is a different platform, different body. If two cars were to be combined, it would be the Elise and the 2008-2012 Roadster, and not this 2020 Roadster, since the 2008-2012 Roadster and the Lotus Elise are very similar. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As for two different generations having different articles, what do you think all the Corvette articles are for? Chevrolet Corvette (C6) / Chevrolet Corvette (C5) / Chevrolet Corvette (C4) etc -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See discussions here and here. I'm opposed to these future product stubs, and I'm not alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you are opposed, but this is something that has plenty of notability that would pass WP:NOTE with flying colors. If you want to take this up to a VfD, I think you would lose. I agree that these really are two different vehicles. It is also highly unlikely that this vehicle will get cancelled unless Tesla itself goes out of business. Give it time for things to develop here, and as always use reliable sources to write this article and keep it neutral.

It is disappointing that Tesla did not choose to call this something substantially different, or at least say it is the "Roadster II". Still, its performance characteristics and fabrication methods are going to be so radically different that they really are vastly different vehicles. Even the number of passengers is going to be different with this new vehicle having a back seat and is going to be physically larger in a number of ways. It really is a different vehicle.

I am also supporting this as a separate article so far as to keep all of the speculation and barrage of new details about this vehicle to be separated from the article about the historic vehicle. From a purely article management perspective and for Wikipedia admins to deal with contributors, it will be far easier to deal with two separate vehicles. It has been formally announced as a vehicle with even several reporters having actually had a chance to ride inside of the vehicle and give independent accounts about it (at least the prototype that was at the unveiling). More will come in the future. Let's keep all of those tweets from Elon Musk about this vehicle along with other news stories that will eventually happen (and no, this isn't WP:CRYSTAL) confined to just here instead of messing up what is arguably a pretty good article already. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla has a track record of of diving in with both feet with new fabrication methods and it blows up in their face. See the Model 3, or the X. This radically different process has a significant chance of failure. It's not like every car Detroit ever started developing, using utterly conventional technology through and through, always went into production. This bad Wikipedia habit of churning out hundreds of words every time there is a Tesla press release is why we have so much crap to clean up now. The editors who spew all this poorly sourced material out aren't helping with that. I'm saying it hast to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Tesla has a terrible track record. Of note, the Model 3 and the Model X are in production and are notable by themselves with information from numerous sources including oddly even flat out academic sources. In this case, a formal announcement has happened and a working prototype has been made available for journalists to physically interact with. Future vehicles that hadn't been announced yet formally by the manufacturer as a standard to keep an article about them from getting written is perhaps a reasonable standard.... but that threshold has been crossed in this case and the formal announcement has been made. Why are you fighting this now? This also isn't a mere 'press release" but a formal press 'conference' and public reveal of the vehicle and subsequent aftermath from that. If you are waiting for post-production independent reviews and testing, I think your standard for notability is a far bit too extreme and is beyond what WP:NOTE requires. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I brought up Tesla's record of not always meeting their announced goals because it contradicts the claim that a "formal" announcement from Tesla is of any consequence to Wikipedia. It's only so much speculation or conjecture, or "crystal ball" prediction. What is a "formal" press conference? The medium is irrelevant: tweet, fax, TV commercial, or formal (?) press conference. A "formal" press conference is no more a binding contract than an offhand comment in a pub. What matters is it's Tesla's PR, not independent sources. The policy WP:CRYSTAL says "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Tesla is speculating about what they will do. Maybe they will. As we have seen, they don't always do what they say. I don't think Tesla has a terrible track record: it's typical of any company that takes risks. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, not a blog that shares gossip and press releases, and we focus on established facts, not dreams or wishes or goals. The media that cover that type of stuff are fine. Blogs and such. Wikipedia is not one of those blogs.

Are you saying there are academic sources for the Roadster 2? Or the Model 3? We aren't talking about the Model 3 or X. Only noting that those cars had serious problems that Tesla didn't anticipate, so there's plenty of reason to be skeptical that the Roadster 2 will be deliverable. I would bet that the technical challenges of mass producing a with this level of performance are too great, and after much drama, they will fall back on less ambitious levels of power, speed an acceleration. If there are academic sources verifying any facts about the Roadster 2, can you cite them?

The reason this discussion is happening now is that the (unjustified) article on the Roadster 2 was just created now.

Do you mean why am I bringing up the promotional, shopping guide content of EV articles now? I've been trying to address that since March, starring with the Volt, Leaf and i-MiEV articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the and "200kWh power output"/"three phase battery"/"three electric batteries" + word soup that appeared has been removed again.[4] None of this was in the original Draft article when it was migrated to main article space. (Most of which appeared in IP edit Special:Diff/810901652). As for crystal … the thing exists, and was giving test drives with 0-to-60 sprints time-after-time-after-time yesterday—which is completely different to most other manufacturers doing a 3D-render accompanied by a lump of plastic on a turntable under some spotlights. —Sladen (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The stated numbers for the base version Roadster2 are 0-60mph in 1.9s and 1⁄4 mi in 8.9 s. Let's see how reasonable such numbers are for reliable sources.

Power (rather, torque) and acceleration are the "easy" parts: the Roadster2 has three motors, twice the battery and is smaller, compared to Model S. Plenty of experienced drivers (some having their own P100D) confirmed that the Roadster2 was quicker.

The street legal specials do the quarter mile a lot faster than the Roadster2 here and here. They do 0-60mph in under 1 second, as do the slightly slower Red Victor series.

The fastest factory cars do 0-60mph in about 2.3 seconds, at similar prices (lower and higher). They are faster than Tesla at higher speeds. The Electric GT (Model S race version, reduced weight) reaches 0-60mph in 2.1s, as do rally cars.

So better power and acceleration have already been achieved elsewhere - not much different than other (performance) cars being made in similar numbers.

Experts deemed the battery engineering (power, range) feasible here and here and are not "extraordinary claims" to physicists.

As for speed, there are few places where a speed of 250mph (400kph) is possible - Volkswagen's test track is one place, although only for a few minutes before running out of straight track. I have not seen an indication that 250mph has been attempted for Roadster2, but the power levels are similar to Bugatti Veyron etc. TGCP (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Then why don't they just hand the car over to a journalist and let them test it?

It is absolutely extraordinary to promise all this, and it's street legal, and it's going to be mass produced, and it will be profitable. And safe enough that it won't sink the company in liability suits. And delivered on time. And meanwhile we've got Musk saying the Semi's glass is "nuclear explosion-proof" and it will be more economical than not just diesel trucks, but rail. Really? We're supposed to work out for ourselves which of these boasts is a joke, I guess. It's fine, honestly. I don't fault Tesla for managing their PR and marketing their products well. It's just has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Some is encyclopedic content, some is not, and yes we apply filter to do so - some sources make that job easier than others. Rail depends on volume and distance for economy, where diesel trucks are better for smaller cargo on short trips - it's a matter of wikt:Horses for Courses, which is why I marked that bit. It's a little difficult to take you seriously when your posts and edits contain so much emotion and so little fact. What are you referring to by "radically different process" ? TGCP (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewrites and refs

Some of the people rewriting the page seem to have left the refs behind in older revisions, with the new text unsupported by the original refs, which are no longer attached to the rewritten statements. Also, refs should be atleast attached to each paragraph, not just at the end of an entire section. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

70.51.45.76, please post exact diffs, so that we can (collectively) deal with them. The other possibility is to rollback until before the 2001:…:71f3 contributions/vandalism and start from there again. (Which is ideally what should have been done, but the impact wasn't spotted at the time). —Sladen (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Head-up display

There's video[5] of the dual head-up displays in the Roadster (duplicate HUDs, one on each side). Has anyone found a reliable source?… —Sladen (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Torque steering"

We need an expansion on the topic article, since torque steering is currently about unintentional and undesired torque steering, not deliberate intentional ones. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

70.51.45.76, there is also torque vectoring but the article is a bit-wordy, without actually saying what "torque vectoring" does. —Sladen (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Retimuko (Special:Diff/812764575 and D4R1U5 (Special:Diff/812750724). Please try to have a discussion here on the Talk page prior to making further edits. —Sladen (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

D4R1U5 has just thanked me for my last edit (adding "prototype" like in Semi article). I would still ask to better describe reverts of good-faith edits please. My first attempt to add "prospective" was reverted by D4R1U5 with no explanation. The second was reverted with "we don't do that" non-explanation. Retimuko (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"In-joke" link to Spaceballs

The History section contained (and has contained for some years) the following:

In 2015, Musk suggested a new Roadster in 2019, capable of faster acceleration.

Without discussing it further, or explaining why the Roadster's "faster acceleration" relates to the movie, that link appears nonsensical. And since there's no longer a § Spaceball One in the Spaceballs article, the destination doesn't really help explain it either. I've updated the link target to Spaceballs#Impact, the section where Tesla's speed modes are mentioned. That makes the link slightly better, but I still don't love it.

I'd prefer if the connection is explicitly set up from this article's side, with slightly more discussion of the reason why "faster acceleration" is related to Spaceballs. Or, if the interest is in keeping § History brief, the Spaceballs link can be removed entirely. But I don't feel right making that call on an article I'm uninvolved with, without at least seeking consensus first. So, here we are. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No Model Years

Tesla has model designations (1.1, 2.0, p90d, p100dl). Tesla doesn't do model years (it's one of the reasons they have such a difficult time selling in Texas) I suppose it would be proper to say "the Roadster released in 2008" or "the model released in 2020", but to call it the "2020 Roadster" or "2008 model" is just false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B032:7A8C:0:53:891:B301 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on WP:DISAMBIG, is there a better suggestion? —Sladen (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tesla may not do model year updates but it's fair to refer to the year (either model or calendar) of when the 2 versions were first released. Nobody will be confused.  Stepho  talk  12:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Roadster vs. Coupé

Have reverted a couple of edits altering definition of Tesla Roadster; from roadster to a Coupé. —Sladen (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitions are not strict, and some leeway is available. Wikipedia has few conflicting examples of nomenclature; the Lotus Elise has roof structure behind front seats but is described as a roadster.
Roof structure is important for high-speed capability.

• A roadster "is an open two-seat car with emphasis on sporting appearance or character". Little or no roof structure behind front seats. Rear side window is not fixed. Individual roll bar for each seat? (Mazda MX-5)
  
• A coupé "is a two-door car with a fixed roof", but definition is vague. The fixed roof is usually load-bearing. Possibly "Convertible coupe: A roadster with a removable coupé roof" (1916 definition) which is really a Targa top or a Retractable hardtop.
  
• A Targa top is a semi-convertible car body style with a removable roof section (usually not load-bearing) and a full width roll bar and some roof structure behind the seats. The Chevrolet Corvette targa seems to not be described as a coupé.
  

The 2-seat Porsche Boxster/Cayman seems to differentiate by roof; open Boxster is roadster, and closed Cayman is coupé. Of the many, many Porsche 911 versions, the ones with 4 seats all seem to have fixed roof. Coincidentally, the Tesla Model Y seems to be a 4-door Fastback.
The Bugatti Veyron is classified as a Targa top for the non-fixed roof version (Grand Sport).

Red version of Roadster has no fixed roof, and is not a T-top. Rear side window frame is fixed.
"Roadster" seems to not apply due to roof structure behind front seats.
"Coupé" seems to not apply due to removable roof section.
Conclusion: Body style seems mostly to be a Targa top. . TGCP (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollout

• "Tesla Roadster". Canada. Retrieved 2019-08-23. 2.1s 0‒100 km/h
• "Tesla Roadster". United Kingdom. Retrieved 2019-08-23. 1.9s 0‒60 mph
• Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (2019-06-27). "2.1 sec 0-60 mph is base model before adding rocket thruster option" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
• von Holzhausen, Franz (2018-08-24). "Tesla: The Past, Present, Future". Jay Leno's Garage (Interview). Interviewed by Jay Leno. Retrieved 2019-08-23 – via Youtube. 600 miles on a charge, zero to sixty in 1.9 seconds, a quarter mile in 8.8 seconds"
• Bouret, Emile (2018-06-26). "I drove the new 2020 Tesla Roadster" (Interview). Car Stories. VINwiki – via Youtube. zero-to-eighty mile… zero-to-whatever rides… the entire night … we ended up giving rides until about 01:30 in the morning … I know there's some scepticism about the figures that Elon quoted that day … those are actual figures, those aren't theoretical goals, those aren't calculations; we've done those numbers … those numbers are conservative

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to avoid confusing our readers. These times (which are identical) have been provided consistently since the day of the unveiling in 2017. —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Musk/Tesla have not been very clear in what these numbers represent. One possibility is that 1.9 is the figure after the car has moved the 1-foot roll-out and 2.1 is the figure including that 1-foot. Another possibility is that 1.9 includes use of the rocket thruster and 2.1 doesn't. Yet another possibility is that 60 mph is only 97 km/h - perhaps that extra 3 km/h takes an extra 0.2 seconds (electric motors do their best down low and the higher speeds aren't quite as peppy). There may be other possibilities. Tesla/Musk don't say and there are not enough clues to figure it out, so all we can do is say these 2 figures exist and that Tesla haven't specified the context. The fact that the Canadian website says 2.1 and the UK website says 1.9 is not helpful enough because Musk has also sent out tweets without the country context with both these numbers. Also bear in mind that these are factory claims that have not been verified by an outside source and that they are for a prototype, not the production vehicle.  Stepho  talk  23:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"possibility is that 1.9 is the figure after the car has moved the 1-foot roll-out and 2.1 is the figure including that 1-foot"; correct, this is the definition of "1 foot rollout [allowance]". Please help suggest wording that makes this clear to our readers. —Sladen (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That is one explanation of the figures. But we don't know if it is the explanation. It is only an educated guess that it is the actual explanation. Tesla did not specify this and we cannot presume to know it. We can only say what is in the sources.  Stepho  talk  08:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The second difference is metric (100 km/h) vs imperial (97 km/h); together with rollout [allowance] these account for ~0.25 seconds, which are then subject to rounding. Have started Draft:Rollout (drag racing), where enthusiastic energy would be welcomed in sourcing citations and presenting the topic clearly in a way that is understandable to our readers. —Sladen (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately that also has problems. How do you know that the extra 3 km/h takes 0.25 seconds? Again, it is one explanation but we don't know if it is the explanation. If it is, then roll-out is not the explanation - which contradicts what you were so sure of earlier. Or possibly it is a combination of the two. Or possibly something else. Or a combination of other factors. We simple don't know. Now, if we had an accurate torque curve for whole drive train (including losses), knew the weight of the vehicle and the gearing multiplication factor between the motor and the road (including tyre diameter) then we could possibly calculate how long it takes for 97-100 km/h using high school maths. But that's playing with WP:SYNTHESIS. It's also possible that they are equating 60 mph with 100 km/h and that the difference has nothing to do with 3 km/h.

Also beware that the 1-foot roll-out is mostly to do with the initial engaging of the clutch friction surfaces. This is necessary in a combustion engine, depends heavily on the skill of the driver and takes on the order of 100-200 milliseconds before full engagement of torque is possible. However, an electric car doesn't have this need, the driver can just hold the brakes on, mash the go pedal (which does nothing while the brakes are on) and release the brakes at leisure - hence roll-out time has little relevance.  Stepho  talk  13:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs:

• "together with rollout [allowance] these account for ~0.25 seconds" is what was stated, and not "extra 3 km/h takes 0.25 seconds"
• "roll-out is mostly to do with the initial engaging of the clutch"; modern rollout allowance is based on distance; historical rollout is based on optical sensing infrastructure interacting with variable tyre diameter.

—Sladen (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I slightly misunderstood your wording. It is still an assumption on your part that roll-out and metric conversion together covers the difference. We still don't know because the source didn't say.

Roll-out is measured as a distance but the purpose is to try to remove variables (eg clutch slip, driver skill, tyre diameter compared to optical sensor placement). Many of these variables disappear in Tesla's case (no clutch to slip or need skill for and optical beam placement can be arranged). Even if my thoughts on the purpose/need for roll-out is wrong, the central point that it is not clearly and distinctly specified still holds true. We simply do not know.  Stepho  talk  22:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, the alleged "purpose/need" is auxiliary; it is enough to be aware that Motor Trend (and other US-based publications) use a rolling start measurement of ~10 to 97 kilometres per hour (6 to 60 mph), and not 0 to 97 kilometres per hour (0 to 60 mph) as figuratively published later, and the manufacturers, including Tesla do the same. Taking the 2017-Motor Trend "A Closer Look at the 2017 Tesla Model S P100D's Ludicrous Acceleration Run"
"T= -0.26 seconds … 0.71g acceleration averaged over the first foot of travel
T= 0.00 sec … The car crosses 1-foot mark and official timing starts. The car is traveling at 5.9 mph, averaging 1.30 g of longitudinal acceleration.
T= 0.40 sec … Longitudinal acceleration peaks at 1.41 g as the car passes through 10.3 mph.
T= 2.28 sec … The car crosses the official 60-mph mark". ie. 0 to 60 miles per hour (0 to 97 km/h) is 2.54 seconds; and 5.9 to 60 miles per hour (9.5 to 96.6 km/h) (the published timing used in the US, in mph) is 2.28 seconds. Telsa Roadster (2020) traction package is an iteration of the Tesla Model S algorithms, combined with a weight reduction (less mass to accelerate = quicker acceleration). —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You have shown that Motor Trend publishes a figure from somewhere after the roll-out to 60 mph and that we are explicitly told that they do this. Please show where Tesla explicitly tells us this. We have 2 different figures from Tesla, multiple possible explanations for the difference and no official explanation from Tesla. I keep harping on about this but we simply do not know why there is a difference. Everything else is guess work.  Stepho  talk  22:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Rollout (2020)

Another year, and this rollout allowance mess is continuing to confuse readers with reverts going back and forth between:

• 2.1 seconds (standing stand), and
• 1.9 seconds (rolling start).

Any newer suggestions to simplify the wording? —Sladen (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Did something change since our last discussion? Did you find a source that explicitly tells us that one was rolling start vs non-rolling start? Did you find an reference saying why 0-60 mph numbers are both the same and also different for both 0-100 km/h and 0-97 km/h ? It's a mess because our the sources do not tell us what they are measuring.  Stepho  talk  22:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) however a merger may be considered through WP:MERGE. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• Tesla Roadster (2020) → Tesla Roadster (second generation)
• Tesla Roadster (2008) → Tesla Roadster (first generation)

– The upcoming roadster is unlikely to come out in 2020, so the current disambiguation is not ideal. In addition, the first generation roadster was produced from 2008 to 2012, which makes that current disambiguation less than ideal also. I think it would be much simpler and more accurate to use "first generation" and "second generation" as the disambiguator rather than the current ones being used. It is also very common to refer to automobile model redesigns as "generations". Anecdotally, this does seem to be how I am often hearing people refer to the previous roadster and the upcoming roadster, as "first generation" and "second generation" respectively. See the article on Pontiac Grand Prix as another example of this commonly used nomenclature for automobile model redesigns. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Combine both in one article, like most other car articles do for different generations of the same model name. Mikus (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not really a valid reason to oppose a requested move. As long as the two separate articles exist, they should exist at the best article name. Whether or not to combine them into a single article is a topic of discussion for another venue, and this article has already survived one AfD. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom.

Scanning the Google SERPS for "Tesla Roadster" and the references on this article no description seems more common than any other with this model confusingly referred to as the "2020", "2021", "2022", "second gen" and "next gen" model. References to the prior model are mostly unqualified.

Where sources aren't consistent (or, in this case, even clear) on the terminology, we may choose NDESC names—especially for use as parethetical disambiguators (WP:PARENDIS)—that are both precise and consistent (and no one seems to know when the new model is coming out).

Llew Mawr (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead merge both articles to Tesla Roadster, currently a DAB pointing to them and Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. There's nothing to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

source for "350kw dc v3 Supercharging"?

V3 Tesla Superchargers are only officially capable of 250kW DC charging, so where does 350kW come from? I'm assuming it is a typo, also where is the source of the charging speed? I don't think is was every mentioned, and it is possible that it will support V4 Superchargers.

So I am just going to delete that for now. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about something. Shane04040404 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

coup or sedanca coupe

Another editor keeps trying the change type of vehicle from coup to sedanca coupe. I have undone these changes three times. Rather than having an edit war I ask other editors to consider also retaining the type as a coup. My position is simple 1) the change is unreferenced. 2) As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a "sedanca coup" as a designation of a design pattern. 3) the Sedanca was open roof on the drivers side door only, unlike the Roadster. Making this change incorrect, even if it was a thing. War (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sedance coupe exterior

Sedance coupe interior

Sedanca just leads to Sedanca de Ville, which has an open front area for the driver and an enclosed/covered rear area for the passengers. There is some variation in the covering(s) but the main point is that the driver is separated from the rear passengers. This does not and cannot apply to the 2 seat Tesla Roadster because the Roadster is fully enclosed. And even if it did apply, the average reader would not know what it is.  Stepho  talk  04:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and clarification.War (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: What "2 seat"? --37.144.246.117 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have said 4-seat roadster. But the common theme of the Sedanca coupe is a chauffeur up front and passengers at the rear, which doesn't apply to the Roadster.  Stepho  talk  00:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)