Flying Tesla Roadster

[Cyclotron]

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. 

Gyro,

I realized I forgot to apologize for my attempt at humor toward what I see as an obvious non-contributing troll (curious_roy); we went through such gyrations to better understand each other.
Thanks for being an upstanding person!

[Cyclotron]

@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?

@Analog Kid,

I'm flattered you're so interested in me. Would you like my phone number too?

I'm an engineer, architect, and lifelong nerd. You know, exactly the sort of person who might find this technology fascinating enough to discuss at length on an *engineering forum*. Imagine that!

As a sufferer of autism, I find human behavior baffling at times. I sometimes find myself morbidly fascinated by human behavior, especially dastardly behavior such as what I've seen from you. More particularly, people who claim to be thoroughly unimpressed by something yet devote extraordinary amounts of time discussing it, attacking those who find it interesting, and apparently counting their posts. Sound familiar?

Look at my recent exchange with Gyro. We misunderstood each other, exchanged some pointed words, and ultimately reached an understanding. Gyro did something increasingly rare in online discussions: he acknowledged the misunderstanding and apologized. I owed him the same and fixed that. That's how grown-ups communicate, disagree, and occasionally learn something from each other.

Now, here's what I find particularly remarkable about your post.

I recall a previous exchange where I referenced something you'd said earlier, and you dismissed me with "Oh, you're one of those guys," chastising me for bringing your posting history into the discussion. I can dig up the link if you've forgotten. Yet here you are, examining my posting history, counting my contributions, and using them to insinuate that I'm being paid to participate.

**Apparently, examining someone's posting history is objectionable when I do it, but perfectly acceptable when you do.**
That's quite a remarkable double standard.

And after all that careful accounting, you've still contributed absolutely nothing to the engineering discussion.
And as disinterested as you are in this thread, keep adding to your own count. Continue....

[Analog Kid]

And after all that careful accounting, you've still contributed absolutely nothing to the engineering discussion.

Who says this is an "engineering discussion", or that it even should or must be?

To me, it (Musk's stunt) is as much an exercise in "engineering" as is the guy in high school who figured out that you can flush a lit M-80 down a toilet in the washroom and make it go Boom!

[Psi]

Who says this is an "engineering discussion", or that it even should or must be?
To me, it (Musk's stunt) is as much an exercise in "engineering" as is the guy in high school who figured out that you can flush a lit M-80 down a toilet in the washroom and make it go Boom!

wtf, it was an extreme exercise in high-level engineering to fit that system into a car and perfect the air release and control loop logic for the accuracy needed to do stunts.
It's not at the same scale and complexity as Starship but definitely a high level engineering challenge.

Throwing a M-80 down a toilet is something anyone on earth could do.

[Cyclotron]

And after all that careful accounting, you've still contributed absolutely nothing to the engineering discussion.

Who says this is an "engineering discussion", or that it even should or must be?

To me, it (Musk's stunt) is as much an exercise in "engineering" as is the guy in high school who figured out that you can flush a lit M-80 down a toilet in the washroom and make it go Boom!

@Analog Kid,

In this electronics engineering forum, some of us actually enjoy discussing the engineering behind unusual technical achievements. Feel free to go away and let us chat. I know you've seen how grownups behave at some point in your life.

You're certainly free to dismiss the Roadster demonstration as a stunt. That doesn't make the engineering involved disappear.

And comparing a controlled demonstration involving high-pressure gas propulsion, vehicle dynamics, thrust control, and precision timing to flushing an M-80 down a toilet says considerably more about your willingness to examine the engineering than it does about the engineering itself.

You don't have to find it impressive. But your lack of interest sure does show a lot of interest; I believe since you're counting my posts that you're stalking me again (yes, you did it before), or are you really, really interested in the Tesla Roaster2?  Watch out, horse; AK is coming again.  

[Randy222]

Would have been so much better if "The Incredible F-lying Car" had joined the circus. They already have the ramp. 

https://www.nitrocircus.com/

[Curious_Roy]

BTW, here is another fun trivia WRT RDSTR II.

Elon has promised MANY things about it. Take just one - 600 mile claim, for example.
Even a simple back-of-the-napkin calculus shows that this is quite impossible with batteries of the time.
So a baterry for such a thing would have to weigh close to  expected mass of the car.

Elon might say that this was just an optimistic early estimate that presents the inspirational goal or something.

But even that might be walking on a thin ice. Some might justifiably see it as a stock pumping.
Obviously this kind of performance would demand using something like solid-state-battery.

Elon might argue that this was part of the calculation.

But no one has had such a battery 9 YEARS AGO. And STILL doesn't.
And Elon has clearly intended to use HIS OWN 4680 cells for this.
Which were never solid-state.

So he had no realistic path to that milestone. Which he STILL DOESN'T BTW, 9 YEARS LATER.

But then he made two steps more:
 

• he took advance payments for THAT PRODUCT.
• he announced the time on the market. Was it 2019/20 or something ? In any case LONG AGO.

Even if he could say he was just posting "aspirational goals" before that point, after that - that kind of defence vanishes.
How is that not a fraud ?

[tom66]

600 mile range isn't impossible.  It would probably require a battery around 100kWh.  Remember that the Roadster has a very small aero profile and is also going to be tuned for range in that config, so no aero fans for instance.  Tesla have historically achieved 4mi/kWh in the Model 3 so a smaller two seater achieving 5-6mi/kWh seems possible.

Now of course this will be 600 miles range on the EPA cycle which is optimistic.  In the real world you could likely expect 450-500 miles range if you keep to 70, and 400 miles or less if you treat speed limits as a suggestion.

[Curious_Roy]

600 mile range isn't impossible.  It would probably require a battery around 100kWh.  Remember that the Roadster has a very small aero profile and is also going to be tuned for range in that config, so no aero fans for instance.  Tesla have historically achieved 4mi/kWh in the Model 3 so a smaller two seater achieving 5-6mi/kWh seems possible.

Now of course this will be 600 miles range on the EPA cycle which is optimistic.  In the real world you could likely expect 450-500 miles range if you keep to 70, and 400 miles or less if you treat speed limits as a suggestion.

Ofcourse.
There is nothing better for company public profile than constant rape of their devoted Cult with such poetic justice.
There is whole BDSM market for that.

Promise the "friggin flying car" that flies and then deliver something that flies like a dodo.
Promise 600 mile range and then deliver a friggin racer that might make it under special conditions, with a new battery and if driven like a golf cart speeds on a level plane parking lot. From 100.0% to the 0.0%.
Elon Cult apparently LOVES that.

[Curious_Roy]

FWIW, whole project "Tesla flying rocket car" is epic failure. For many reasons.
Elon Time being just one of them.

It was cool NINE YEARS AGO.

Now China already has a flying car. It REALLY flies and is meant for actually transporting people.
Compared to that one (that already can do 20 minute flight times etc) is not even a farting dodo.

If they decided to go forward with RDSTR II, they chould scrapped that sucking, blowing and farting crap and stay true to the Roadster mission.
They should have redone the motors, use solid-state batteries and called it a day.

[Psi]

If they decided to go forward with RDSTR II, they chould scrapped that sucking, blowing and farting crap and stay true to the Roadster mission.
They should have redone the motors, use solid-state batteries and called it a day.

That's not what Tesla does, it's not what they have ever done. They don't play it safe like that.
Tesla push things and do stuff others would never do. It's what people who like Tesla expect them to do and a big part of why people like them.

If Tesla had come out with a RDSTR II that was just like other supercars except faster and with a bigger battery then a lot of Tesla people would have been a bit disappointed. It would be boring and not in the spirt of Tesla.

[tom66]

I don't think they promised a flying car, it's a rocket car that maybe can do stunts on an invite-only basis. Remains to be seen if people actually do get that car, but they aren't selling it yet anyway.

[mtwieg]

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?

Your double standards are incredible. It's fine for you to troll and flame people, but it's a "problem" if people call you out on it.

@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?

I doubt anyone's getting paid. They're just sealioning, likely for their own entertainment.

[Cyclotron]

Interesting that Ferrari CEO gave Tesla's Roadster a 10/10 for both technology and presentation. Coming from Ferrari, that's quite an endorsement.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ferrari-ceo-hails-tesla-roadster-redesign-bold-innovation-industry-needs-2026-10-20/

Something I find even more interesting is what's going into the regular road-going Roadster, without any cold-gas propulsion. Tesla claims the new drive unit is 30% lighter yet 50% more powerful than the Plaid's. Two rear motors delivering over 1 MW, new 4680 cell chemistry and cooling, and a targeted 10–80% charge in roughly 10 minutes. That's some serious engineering for a relatively low-volume car.

They also seemed to put considerable emphasis on the drive-by-wire systems, including steering, braking, and their integration with torque vectoring and active vehicle dynamics. I'd really like to know what's new under the hood there. I suspect there's quite a bit more innovation than we've been shown.

Top Gear got some interesting details directly from Tesla's engineers:
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/tesla-roadster-has-finally-landed-thrusters-0-60mph-059s-and-flight

[Randy222]

BTW, here is another fun trivia WRT RDSTR II.

Elon has promised MANY things about it. Take just one - 600 mile claim, for example.
Even a simple back-of-the-napkin calculus shows that this is quite impossible with batteries of the time.
So a baterry for such a thing would have to weigh close to  expected mass of the car.

Many people and companies talk shit all the time. Do-nut Battery Labs as example. Theranos was another BS scam, as was Madoff.
I recall the time where AT&T was doing heavy TV commercials touting their "technology", and one TV ad showed a couple at an ATM machine buying concert tickets, "Have you ever bought concert tickets from a cash machine?", and the motto was "...... and AT&T will be the one to bring it to you". Part of their "You Will" campaign.

A lot of that ATT talk never came even close to being reality, it was more just hype on what the internet heels looked like at that time.
Heck, I had even bought Nokia phones long ago that had PTT functionality because the cell carrier said it was coming, and then they decided to not provide the PTT service to general public.

Some BS is legal, some is not.

[Randy222]

600 mile range isn't impossible.  It would probably require a battery around 100kWh.  Remember that the Roadster has a very small aero profile and is also going to be tuned for range in that config, so no aero fans for instance.  Tesla have historically achieved 4mi/kWh in the Model 3 so a smaller two seater achieving 5-6mi/kWh seems possible.

Now of course this will be 600 miles range on the EPA cycle which is optimistic.  In the real world you could likely expect 450-500 miles range if you keep to 70, and 400 miles or less if you treat speed limits as a suggestion.

There's a lot of empty space in a lot of EV vehicles, can put more batt there.
It also means a lot more wear on tires, more weight, more exciting poof when it lights.

Many gasoline vehicles can also do 600-800+ miles, just need to shove in there another 15gal tank, which I am sure they can do. But with gas stations on every corner, no need to have 30gal onboard.

[Cyclotron]

600 mile range isn't impossible.  It would probably require a battery around 100kWh.  Remember that the Roadster has a very small aero profile and is also going to be tuned for range in that config, so no aero fans for instance.  Tesla have historically achieved 4mi/kWh in the Model 3 so a smaller two seater achieving 5-6mi/kWh seems possible.

Now of course this will be 600 miles range on the EPA cycle which is optimistic.  In the real world you could likely expect 450-500 miles range if you keep to 70, and 400 miles or less if you treat speed limits as a suggestion.

I agree. it's possible and the engineering of the roadster is pointing to why.  They have dramatically reduced weight. Everywhere, the body too but most importantly substantial innovation in technology for the battery and drive motors. These innovations will translate well into the product line.

[David Hess]

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.

New engines and transmissions have greater friction losses until they wear-in, which takes 10s of thousands of miles.  Most if any efficiency loss is from lack of maintenance until wear-out becomes significant; sensors become inaccurate, spark plugs wear and foul, injectors clog, direct injection combined with exhaust gas recirculation and maybe crankcase ventilation clogs intakes, catalytic converters clog, and then there is whatever is going on with newer engines that use low tension piston rings.  The more intractable problems come about because of emissions requirements, which themselves lower efficiency and increase maintenance requirements.

Which seals in specific were you thinking of?  Worn or bad intake seals lead to vacuum leaks, which has become a bigger problem with more plastic components.  Seals in automatic transmissions can cause no end of obscure problems.

[David Hess]

There's a lot of empty space in a lot of EV vehicles, can put more batt there.
It also means a lot more wear on tires, more weight, more exciting poof when it lights.

Batteries are expensive and heavy.  Electric vehicles already suffer from excess weight.

[Cyclotron]

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.

New engines and transmissions have greater friction losses until they wear-in, which takes 10s of thousands of miles.  Most if any efficiency loss is from lack of maintenance until wear-out becomes significant; sensors become inaccurate, spark plugs wear and foul, injectors clog, direct injection combined with exhaust gas recirculation and maybe crankcase ventilation clogs intakes, catalytic converters clog, and then there is whatever is going on with newer engines that use low tension piston rings.  The more intractable problems come about because of emissions requirements, which themselves lower efficiency and increase maintenance requirements.

Which seals in specific were you thinking of?  Worn or bad intake seals lead to vacuum leaks, which has become a bigger problem with more plastic components.  Seals in automatic transmissions can cause no end of obscure problems.

That reminds me of my BMW 1200RT. When I bought it, BMW service told me it needed about 10k miles before the engine was properly broken in because of the materials used in the semi-air-cooled engine. Only then switch to a synthetic oil.  I imagine there's a substantial plateau once break-in is reached, where optimal performance is achieved, even with variables like fuel quality. Then it tails off from optimal performance towards complete failure.

I expect EVs to suffer far less from break-in. There are likely some minor things like bearings and such, but given the substantial decreases in parts wear, they're unlikely to be a significant factor in the engineering work of the platform's running gear.

[tom66]

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.

New engines and transmissions have greater friction losses until they wear-in, which takes 10s of thousands of miles.  Most if any efficiency loss is from lack of maintenance until wear-out becomes significant; sensors become inaccurate, spark plugs wear and foul, injectors clog, direct injection combined with exhaust gas recirculation and maybe crankcase ventilation clogs intakes, catalytic converters clog, and then there is whatever is going on with newer engines that use low tension piston rings.  The more intractable problems come about because of emissions requirements, which themselves lower efficiency and increase maintenance requirements.

Which seals in specific were you thinking of?  Worn or bad intake seals lead to vacuum leaks, which has become a bigger problem with more plastic components.  Seals in automatic transmissions can cause no end of obscure problems.

Main ones are the piston ring seals which require substantial disassembly to change.  Those wear with every combustion cycle, and wear tends to accelerate with higher engine temperatures (acceleration - stop/start cycles or aggressive driving, less so highway miles). 

A friend of mine scrapped a Prius because at 150,000 miles the piston rings had worn so badly that the catalytic converter was clogged with oil and efficiency was below the requirement.  In the end, the cost to fix the car would have been one new catalytic converter, plus new piston rings on one or more cylinders (the cost for one is pretty much the same as four, since in all cases you have to take the engine apart.)  It's probably more of an issue on high compression ratio, small turbocharged engines which are common in Europe, although the Prius engine is NA, it does have a high compression ratio of 13:1.

[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?

I doubt anyone's getting paid. They're just sealioning, likely for their own entertainment.

To be fair, I posed that question somewhat in the mode of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

[Cyclotron]

@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?

I doubt anyone's getting paid. They're just sealioning, likely for their own entertainment.

To be fair, I posed that question somewhat in the mode of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

@Analog Kid @mtwieg
Thank you, guys, for letting me live rent-free in your heads.

Tsk, tsk, children, you know this forum has rules against personal attacks and the like.  Please try to avoid letting your hatred for Musk, and I keep taking this thread off the rails.

Analog Kid, you're openly acknowledging that your question was a deliberately loaded personal attack. Yet somehow I'm the one accused of trolling. 

The irony just keeps getting better.

[Analog Kid]

Analog Kid, you're openly acknowledging that your question was a deliberately loaded personal attack. Yet somehow I'm the one accused of trolling. 

The point, in case you missed it, is that I didn't really think you were getting paid for your posts.

Hint: I don't use smiley faces or other emojis.

[EEVblog]

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.

Those people could have asked for their reservation payment back at any time, and countless people did. Legally, they were not deposits.

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

I have not watched his video, but CSS got absolutely roasted on X by Scott Manley and countless others for saying the thing didn't "fly", and he got community noted too for not understanding how rockets work.
https://x.com/eevblog/status/2111984519083610569

Of course the new Roadster isn't what people ordered in 2017, they simply didn't deliver, everyone should be asking for their monkey back if they foolishly haven't done so already.
And of course Tesla haven't and will not deliver a production flying car, they flying part is just for kicks. Anyone who doesn't understand this is pretty dumb.