Flying Tesla Roadster

[Gyro]

I wonder how long it will be before Sodium Ion batteries replace Lithium in EVs. They are already becoming popular in home storage. I noticed that BYD invested $1.4bn in a plant in 2023, Mercedes and GM have interests too.

If the energy density is good enough (there seem to be several competing technologies), it ought to remove the Lithium reliance and bring down the costs down significantly.


Edit: There do already seem to be a few (fast charging) Chinese ones.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery

[mikeselectricstuff]

Toyota has been to-market with HFCEV since 2014.

And sold only 30K cars worldwide in 10 years : https://youtu.be/01a3wSB2QTI?t=590
Despite unsustainable incentives of large amounts of free fuel in some cases

Nowadays they are just advancing the technology.

Maybe, but not for cars - that ship has long sailed.
They've been promising solid-state batteries for years with nothing to show, and will likely be destroyed by China before that happens.
I suppose they might have  a small ongoing market selling old pickup truck designs to the Third World

[Randy222]

Bigger batt also means a way more expensive replacement when that time comes.

except chances are that time  won't come, barring physical damage. Batteries will typically outlast the car, and then still have value for storage applications.

Tesla Model S with 12 year old battery, over 330,000 km on the battery.  Capacity 79.6%, still working.

(In fairness: the car had a new battery installed at 1yr old due to a Tesla recall, early Tesla batteries did have several known defects, but the later models are very solid.)

322km range is now 256km.
My suv is 20yrs old with 483kkm on the odo (engine is still all OEM), it still has same range ~665km as when I bought it.

[Randy222]

Toyota has been to-market with HFCEV since 2014. Nowadays they are just advancing the technology.

Oct. 05, 2026
Toyota Launches New Fuel Cell Route Bus "Sora"
https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/toyota/44712219.html

I've already covered heavy transport. Where's the passenger cars?

You just not following.
Toyota already has H cars on the roads. Minimal. They not only showcased their tech, they actually brought it to market.

I've already covered HFCEV cars under worldwide vehicle use.
But like the DAT analogy you dont understand, the H cars are coming, just as CD did to kill DAT.
Making small dents in aluminum and then covering it with plastic just so happens to be much easier than solving H problems, of which Toyota and the H consortium are moving H tech fwd very quickly relative to the problems at hand.

Like Wonka says.........  GOOD DAY, SIR!         

"A reasonable preliminary estimate is that hundreds of thousands to around 1 million metric tons of used lithium-ion batteries may end up in landfills or other improper disposal streams worldwide each year."

Won't happen - lithium is too valuable a resource to end up in landfill. By the time that much is reaching end of life, there will be infrastructure to recycle it. Why mine it from rocks when you can mine it from used batteries?
The thing holding up lithium recycling now is that batteries are lasting so long that there aren't enough available to recycle.
Compared to the impact of extracting and burning fossils for the life of a car, extracting lithium for long-term storage of renewable energy seems vastly preferable.
ISTR reading that the generally accepted figure for the resource usage break-even point for EVs vs. ICE cars is about 10-15K miles

The quote provided is an estimate of current toxic lithium ending up in landfills. Did you read it and understand something else?

[Cyclotron]

Toyota has been to-market with HFCEV since 2014. Nowadays they are just advancing the technology.

Oct. 05, 2026
Toyota Launches New Fuel Cell Route Bus "Sora"
https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/toyota/44712219.html

I've already covered heavy transport. Where's the passenger cars?

You just not following.
Toyota already has H cars on the roads. Minimal. They not only showcased their tech, they actually brought it to market.

I've already covered HFCEV cars under worldwide vehicle use.
But like the DAT analogy you dont understand, the H cars are coming, just as CD did to kill DAT.
Making small dents in aluminum and then covering it with plastic just so happens to be much easier than solving H problems, of which Toyota and the H consortium are moving H tech fwd very quickly relative to the problems at hand.

Like Wonka says.........  GOOD DAY SIR!         

"A reasonable preliminary estimate is that hundreds of thousands to around 1 million metric tons of used lithium-ion batteries may end up in landfills or other improper disposal streams worldwide each year."

Won't happen - lithium is too valuable a resource to end up in landfill. By the time that much is reaching end of life, there will be infrastructure to recycle it. Why mine it from rocks when you can mine it from used batteries?
The thing holding up lithium recycling now is that batteries are lasting so long that there aren't enough available to recycle.
Compared to the impact of extracting and burning fossils for the life of a car, extracting lithium for long-term storage of renewable energy seems vastly preferable.
ISTR reading that the generally accepted figure for the resource usage break-even point for EVs vs. ICE cars is about 10-15K miles

The quote provided is an estimate of current toxic lithium ending up in landfills. Did you read it and understand something else?

Toyota has only one passenger car: the Mirai.  Just look at its initial in the sales graph. 
I've repeatedly asked you for information, but you act like a troll, and the cycle continues.

@Randy222, your lithium-in-landfills numbers are wrong; I've already corrected you. Move on.
EVs  (on topic for this thread) do not contribute to lithium in landfills. It ranges from zero to negligible. 

Continue your Elon Musk holy war!   

[tom66]

Bigger batt also means a way more expensive replacement when that time comes.

except chances are that time  won't come, barring physical damage. Batteries will typically outlast the car, and then still have value for storage applications.

Tesla Model S with 12 year old battery, over 330,000 km on the battery.  Capacity 79.6%, still working.

(In fairness: the car had a new battery installed at 1yr old due to a Tesla recall, early Tesla batteries did have several known defects, but the later models are very solid.)

322km range is now 256km.
My suv is 20yrs old with 483kkm on the odo (engine is still all OEM), it still has same range ~665km as when I bought it.

No, it doesn't.  As the engine bore and seals wear, the combustion efficiency decreases.  The engine will be less efficient, even if the fuel tank hasn't got any smaller.  Also, components in the gearbox, differential, and bearings wear and create additional losses.  Yes, you can replace and recondition these parts, and people do rebore engines and replace engine seals, but you can also replace and recondition batteries. In the Tesla case in that video, there is one module with a particularly weak set of cells. Replacing that module (a new module costs about $1,000 US) would likely bring the battery back to 90% or better capacity.

[Randy222]

Bigger batt also means a way more expensive replacement when that time comes.

except chances are that time  won't come, barring physical damage. Batteries will typically outlast the car, and then still have value for storage applications.

Tesla Model S with 12 year old battery, over 330,000 km on the battery.  Capacity 79.6%, still working.

(In fairness: the car had a new battery installed at 1yr old due to a Tesla recall, early Tesla batteries did have several known defects, but the later models are very solid.)

322km range is now 256km.
My suv is 20yrs old with 483kkm on the odo (engine is still all OEM), it still has same range ~665km as when I bought it.

No, it doesn't.  As the engine bore and seals wear, the combustion efficiency decreases.  The engine will be less efficient, even if the fuel tank hasn't got any smaller.  Also, components in the gearbox, differential, and bearings wear and create additional losses.  Yes, you can replace and recondition these parts, and people do rebore engines and replace engine seals, but you can also replace and recondition batteries. In the Tesla case in that video, there is one module with a particularly weak set of cells. Replacing that module (a new module costs about $1,000 US) would likely bring the battery back to 90% or better capacity.

It's super minimal decrease. I have documented my fuel/distance use for approx 4 consecutive tank fills done every 2years. Analyze it any way you like, I have identical fuel:distance ratio today as I did 20yrs ago.

Certainly no argument on some bore wear, but wear on some other things can be less drag than when new, so it perhaps balances out.
And just for clarity, rings & bore wear can be remarkably almost zero (not zero). My UOAs do not show increasing fuel in my engine oil. Credit Toyota for building engineering a great engine.

Certainly some argument to be made on cost of regular maintenance, less for an EV, more for a gas/hybrid. But 20yrs later I might be near $10,000 in overall maintenance costs.

As for that vid and that 76% number, maybe really something wrong with that batt or system, online info from numerous sources seems to suggest a bit of linear graph from year 5 to 20, yr 5 is 93% and at yr 20 it should ne near 81%.

In any event, people pay for 99% batt on day 1, but that investment becomes neg ROI since what was purchased is decreasing it's value (performance) every time it's used. In other words, an batt EV buyer is not buying a vehicle with range, they are buying a range curve, of which no EV dealer tries to explain that, because if they did less people would buy it.

Arguing the small stuff is pointless though, it's about source tech vs the global impact from using such tech.

[Randy222]

Toyota has only one passenger car: the Mirai.  Just look at its initial in the sales graph. 
I've repeatedly asked you for information, but you act like a troll, and the cycle continues.
(Attachment Link)
@Randy222, your lithium-in-landfills numbers are wrong; I've already corrected you. Move on.
EVs  (on topic for this thread) do not contribute to lithium in landfills. It ranges from zero to negligible. 

Continue your Elon Musk holy war!   

I know how many were sold. Global from 2014 it's about 30k units.
HFCEV vs all-batt EV is worldwide tech battle, not US, not Asia, not EU, etc.

Toyota measures their innovative tech as "fleet", aka worldwide data.
A measurable +0.1% in fleet efficiency is a huge accomplishment. The general driver does not care or even notice if they save 0.001gal of fuel in a year.

The big picture, worldwide global tech, all-batt EVs are already marked as dead-end tech, HFCEV has nothing but growth for many many many decades to come. Yeah, batt EV making some (very little) money in global market, and that's how it will stay.


I still not impressed of the f-lying Tesla. Sorry not sorry.

[Psi]

As expected, Thunderf00t came out swinging.
Attacking it on the ground of using carbon fiber and comparing it to the Titan sub.
I guess if you need to find some way to attack it that's as good a one as any.  It's true that 350kg of air at 10000 PSI isn't exactly safe.  But neither is jumping off a cliff with a wingsuit. Which is about the same level of extreme sports that I would compare to someone doing flying stunts in the rocket version of the Roadster.

[Cyclotron]

I still not impressed of the f-lying Tesla. Sorry not sorry.

Randy, at this point I think everyone following this thread can see what's going on.

You repeatedly make sweeping claims, ignore evidence that contradicts them, and when challenged to substantiate your position, simply move on to the next unsupported assertion. That's not engineering skepticism. It's intellectual dishonesty, and I doubt you're fooling anyone.

Take the Mirai. Roughly 26,000 sold globally, about 16,000 to ordinary consumers, with the remainder going to fleets, often at substantial discounts. Approximately 14,000 U.S. sales, primarily in California, where owners have brought class-action litigation against Toyota to buy them back.  Yet you insist battery EVs are a dead-end technology and hydrogen is the inevitable future. Apparently, actual market performance and engineering economics are irrelevant when they contradict your preferred narrative.

And then there's your insistence that you're utterly unimpressed by the Roadster 2 demonstration.
Randy, you've spent days repeatedly returning to a thread devoted to something you supposedly find completely uninteresting. You've invested an extraordinary amount of time and energy telling everyone just how unimpressed you are. For someone who couldn't care less, you care a lot. I'd say the Roadster 2 has captured your attention rather spectacularly. Perhaps not in the way Tesla intended, but here you are, still talking about it. And for Tesla and Elon, that’s a nice win. They have Randy222 talking. Maybe they can advise Apple on how to get you to pay attention.

You don't have to admit that your dislike of Musk colors your judgment, either. Your arguments, selective treatment of evidence, and repeated attempts to dismiss the engineering have already made that apparent to anyone paying attention.

The irony is that you've become one of the most dedicated contributors to keeping this Roadster discussion alive.  Get em, tiger.

Thanks for the enthusiasm, @Randy222

[Cyclotron]

As expected, Thunderf00t came out swinging.
Attacking it on the ground of using carbon fiber and comparing it to the Titan sub.
I guess if you need to find some way to attack it that's as good a one as any.  It's true that 350kg of air at 10000 PSI isn't exactly safe.  But neither is jumping off a cliff with a wingsuit. Which is about the same level of extreme sports that I would compare to someone doing flying stunts in the rocket version of the Roadster.

Backseat riders like tundrafeet. 

I have to imagine, if and that's a solid if, the engineers at Tesla/SpaceX took time to respond, I think it might be something like a verse from Imagine Dragons' song Thunder,

"Who do you think you are?
Dreaming 'bout being a big star
They say, 'You're basic,' they say, 'You're easy'
You're always riding in the back seat
Now I'm smiling from the stage while
You were clapping in the nosebleeds"

 

[Curious_Roy]

Fun trivia for EEVBLOG and knuckleheads, saying Tesla did it just because they can:

Elon had overhyped NON_EXISTING RDSTR II and collected 1000+ deposits of $250k each, so $250 MILLION USD.
After initial "reveal" SO NINE YEARS AGO.

Also, interesting debunks:
" Common Sense Skeptic - TESLA ROADSTER - Not As Advertised"


"Thunderf00t - Tesla Flying Roadster BUSTED!!!!"

[Cyclotron]

Fun trivia for EEVBLOG and knuckleheads, saying Tesla did it just because they can:

Elon had overhyped NON_EXISTING RDSTR II and collected 1000+ deposits of $250k each, so $250 MILLION USD.
After initial "reveal" SO NINE YEARS AGO.

Also, interesting debunks:
" Common Sense Skeptic - TESLA ROADSTER - Not As Advertised"


"Thunderf00t - Tesla Flying Roadster BUSTED!!!!"

Looser. I put that content on the internet just to see if you would take the bait. 

[Gyro]

Fun trivia for EEVBLOG and knuckleheads, saying Tesla did it just because they can:

Elon had overhyped NON_EXISTING RDSTR II and collected 1000+ deposits of $250k each, so $250 MILLION USD.
After initial "reveal" SO NINE YEARS AGO.

Also, interesting debunks:
" Common Sense Skeptic - TESLA ROADSTER - Not As Advertised"


"Thunderf00t - Tesla Flying Roadster BUSTED!!!!"

Looser. I put that content on the internet just to see if you would take the bait. 

If you're pulling that sort of stunt, you're behaving like a trolling asshole who has no place on this forum! 

[Cyclotron]

Fun trivia for EEVBLOG and knuckleheads, saying Tesla did it just because they can:

Elon had overhyped NON_EXISTING RDSTR II and collected 1000+ deposits of $250k each, so $250 MILLION USD.
After initial "reveal" SO NINE YEARS AGO.

Also, interesting debunks:
" Common Sense Skeptic - TESLA ROADSTER - Not As Advertised"


"Thunderf00t - Tesla Flying Roadster BUSTED!!!!"

Looser. I put that content on the internet just to see if you would take the bait. 

If you're pulling that sort of stunt, you're behaving like a trolling asshole who has no place on this forum! 

@Gyro,
I'm a trolling asshole for sarcasm and making fun of a troll. You must be joking.

[Gyro]

@gyro,
I'm a trolling asshole for sarcasm and making fun of a troll. You must be joking.

I didn't call you a trolling asshole, I would never do that to someone. I said you were behaving like a trolling asshole. People don't change, behaviors can.


P.S. I only responded to what I saw. From all I can gather, you could both be behaving like trolling assholes. Your post was particularly provocative though.

[Cyclotron]

I'm a trolling asshole for sarcasm and making fun of a troll. You must be joking.

I didn't call you a trolling asshole, I would never do that to someone. I said you were behaving like a trolling asshole. People don't change, behaviors can.

@Gyro
Semantics aside. You didn't address the core of my inquiry. The prior post is an obvious troll. I made fun of it with an obvious joke.

But you called me a trolling asshole and not the prior one. You don't see a problem with that? 

[Gyro]

As I said, I criticized your behavior, no there's no problem with that. To call somebody an asshole would be to criticize something they can't help. I detected no joke.

This is exactly what I said:

If you're pulling that sort of stunt, you're behaving like a trolling asshole who has no place on this forum! 

[Cyclotron]

As I said, I criticized your behavior, no there's no problem with that. To call somebody an asshole would be to criticize something they can't help. I detected no joke.

This is exactly what I said:

If you're pulling that sort of stunt, you're behaving like a trolling asshole who has no place on this forum! 

@Gyro,

I understand the distinction you're trying to make between someone's character and their behavior. However, describing someone as "behaving like a trolling asshole" is still insulting, regardless of how you frame it. You've acknowledged that you didn't recognize the sarcasm in my post. Fair enough, misunderstandings happen. You've been provided the correction.

But you've still not addressed my central question: why did my sarcastic response warrant such an aggressive reprimand while the deliberately provocative post I was responding to apparently didn't?

And here's the irony: by resorting to personal insults, selectively criticizing others, and then defending your own conduct through semantics, **you're exhibiting the very behavior you've accused others of.**  I'm simply asking you to apply the same standards to your own behavior that you expect from everyone else.

[Gyro]

Not semantics, just proper use of the English language and appropriate lack of criticism of a person's character.

Yes there may have been some misunderstanding as I detected no sarcasm or joke. Your post read as, in fact said that you had put something up on the web for a fellow member to see and be trapped by. If so, that would indeed be unacceptably trollish behavior, calling somebody a loser in the process, and I would stand by my comment. If this wasn't true then I certainly didn't get the joke or sarcasm. [Edit.... but ok, misunderstandings happen].

[Cyclotron]

Not semantics, just proper use of the English language and appropriate lack of criticism of a person's character.

Yes there may have been some misunderstanding as I detected no sarcasm or joke. Your post read as, in fact said that you had put something up on the web for a fellow member to see and be trapped by. If so, that would indeed be unacceptably trollish behavior, calling somebody a loser in the process, and I would stand by my comment. If this wasn't true then I certainly didn't get the joke or sarcasm. [Edit.... but ok, misunderstandings happen].

@Gyro,

You insulted me based on your own misunderstanding of my post. You could simply acknowledge that, apologize, and move on. Instead, you continue defending what you meant while seemingly unwilling to consider what I obviously meant.

Let's put this in context. I was responding to an obvious troll who was posting videos from well-known anti-Tesla content creators. My opening "Loser" was directed at that trolling behavior.

The rest was clearly a joke. How could I possibly have planted videos produced by two well-known YouTube personalities specifically to bait Curious_Roy? I mean, seriously? That's the absurdity that makes it sarcasm. I even ended it with an evil grin emoticon.

You took an obviously implausible statement literally, interpreted it in the worst possible light, and publicly characterized my behavior as that of a "trolling asshole." I can accept that you missed the joke. What I find harder to understand is your continued insistence on justifying the insult after the misunderstanding has been explained.

And ironically, you're now exhibiting the very sort of unnecessarily provocative behavior you were so quick to condemn.
Is it really that difficult to simply acknowledge a misunderstanding and move on?

[Gyro]

I have no way of knowing whatever internet presence either of you may have, video or otherwise.

If you are in fact saying that what you posted was not true and was some kind of sarcastic joke, then fine it was beyond me and I am, of course happy to publicly apologize for my comments. I still think publicly calling somebody a "looser"  is inappropriate though, but I'm not the injured party.

Can I suggest that you make your jokes a little more obvious in future to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. (  )

[Cyclotron]

I have no way of knowing whatever internet presence either of you may have, video or otherwise.

If you are in fact saying that what you posted was not true and was some kind of sarcastic joke, then fine it was beyond me and I am, of course happy to publicly apologize for my comments. I still think publicly calling somebody a "looser"  is inappropriate though, but I'm not the injured party.

Can I suggest that you make your jokes a little more obvious in future to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. (  )

Gyro,

Apology accepted, and no hard feelings.

But one last thing, particularly given your earlier insistence on the proper use of the English language...
I never claimed his behavior was that of a "loser." I said it was "looser."

Surely there's an important distinction!

[Gyro]

Fair enough, no hard feelings.

I didn't even spot that. I'm not sure whether describing somebody as loose (or even looser) is worse. I guess that one depends on your the subject's gender. 

[Analog Kid]

@Cyclotron, I find it remarkable that you've made 51 posts to this thread out of 224 so far (including this one), 22% of the total by bulk, almost all of them in defense of Musk or of his stunt. That puts you in the #1 spot here.

Tell us, are you being paid by the post?