Tesla’s new Roadster patent doesn’t do what Elon said it would (and that’s good)
Tesla filed for a patent which looks like it could be the promised “SpaceX package” which it will supposedly include on its oft-delayed next-gen Roadster. But will the system let the Roadster “fly,” as CEO Elon Musk has promised?
In 2017, at Tesla’s Semi unveiling, Tesla pulled one of its few-ever Jobsian “one more thing”s and unveiled the next-gen Tesla Roadster, which caught everyone by surprise.
The idea, at the time, was for the Roadster to provide a “hard-core smack down to gasoline powered cars,” and our speculative technical analysis of the announced specs suggested that this could certainly be the case. The car was slated for a 2020 release.
However, 8 years later, you may have noticed that you have not seen a next-gen Tesla Roadster on the road yet. So we will have to wait to see if all those promised statistics will bear out, or if it’s all just smoke and mirrors.
Other than a few spottings of Franz von Holzhausen taking the Roadster prototype out in public or a model parked at the Petersen museum, all we’ve ever heard about the car is that it’s “in development” or “close to finalized“, over and over and over again. Heck, even Tesla seems to forget about it sometimes.
But today, we got the first positive verification of progress on a probable Tesla Roadster performance improvement that we’ve seen in a long time – or maybe ever.
It comes in the form of a patent filed with the US patent office which seems to show something somewhat similar to the “SpaceX package” that CEO Elon Musk has referred to repeatedly, claiming that the car will use “cold gas thrusters” to “fly.”
How Musk described Tesla’s “SpaceX package”
The point of the SpaceX package was always to add additional performance that is not attainable by traction alone.
Currently, a lot of electric cars have so much torque that they are “traction-limited,” which is to say, their tires cannot possibly accelerate them in any direction any faster than they currently do. You can add more power or bigger brakes, but it doesn’t matter, the limiting factor is the tires (and the weight…).
So you have to find other creative ways to get more performance. Lots of cars do this with aerodynamic surfaces like wings/spoilers to add downforce, which pushes the car to the ground so the tires can work a little harder. But there are limits to how much downforce you can add, and what speeds it works at.
This is where the SpaceX package would come in – it would presumably add additional thrust in a given direction, adding acceleration in whichever direction you choose.
The way that Musk has described it in the past, using “cold gas thrusters,” made it seem like there would be thrusters strategically placed around the vehicle to provide either forward or lateral acceleration, or deceleration in order to help the car stop.
However, Musk also described the car as being able to “fly,” which makes no sense whatsoever.
As mentioned above, downforce is an effective way to get more performance out of a vehicle when you are otherwise traction-limited. But flying would take upforce, not downforce, and that’s not a term anyone uses because it’s totally useless for any performance benefit and there’s absolutely no reason anyone would ever want to do that to a car – unless you’re trying to play a trick on Mark Webber or something.
(Yes, I’m aware of the jumping Yangwang U9. That’s a demo of active suspension, which does add performance benefit, and using that system to “jump” doesn’t add any unnecessary weight or complexity to the active suspension system, unlike downward-pointed thrusters which would be wholly unnecessary beyond providing a demo).
Thankfully, someone who knows how physics works showed up and reason has prevailed, and it looks like the system, as proposed, doesn’t do any of that nonsense Elon Musk was talking about. Instead, it does what it should have done all along – it acts as a “fan car,” a concept that has existed in automotive circles since the early 1970s.
Tesla’s actual patent shows old “fan car” tech, with a twist
There have been several “fan cars” or “ground effect cars” in the past, which operate with powerful fans to blow air out from underneath the vehicle, combined with side skirts underneath the car to reduce the amount of air that can replace it. This creates a low-pressure vacuum effect, and “sucks” the car to the ground (more accurately, ambient air pressure from above pushes the car to the ground, physics teachers please do not email me about how nothing sucks in physics).
Tesla’s patent shows a design that looks very similar to concepts that we’ve seen before in the automotive realm, but with some new tech applied. Have a look:
It has the fans and the side skirts, just as one would expect. And it shows the rough design of what the system might look like – a hexagonal-ish shape underneath the vehicle, with fans presumably at the rear of the vehicle to exhaust air to create the vacuum effect.
Tesla goes on to say that these skirts and fans could be controlled automatically by vehicle systems in order to offer different performance benefits in different situations. This is where we start to see the new tech – like adding the modern concept of active aerodynamics to the concept of fan cars.
Rather than deploying the skirts the same way in all modes, there could be different modes for a prepared track surface which is known to be high quality and flat, or for a more uneven road surface where you might not be able to create as secure of a seal with the maximum-downforce configuration.
This is an issue with fan cars – they only work on the right kind of surface. If air leaks in to the vacuum region under the vehicle, you can’t really create as much negative pressure as you’d like. That’s why the side skirts are necessary, but of course that doesn’t work if there are potholes, unsecured manhole covers, and the like.
Tesla also says the system could have different configurations for low- and high-speed operations, adjust the skirts based on vehicle weight transfer, or potentially detect upcoming road conditions and modify configuration based on what the car sees ahead. And mention of deploying the skirts based on GPS position lends itself to the idea that Tesla could create specific settings to optimize performance for track use, or even individual corners on tracks.
Is this the “SpaceX Package,”or something else?
Tesla has said for years that the Roadster would have a “SpaceX package” to increase the performance even further than the specs it mentioned in the original unveiling event. This was meant to use expertise from SpaceX, another company Musk runs, and whose primary facility is sited on the same Hawthorne, CA property as Tesla’s Design Studio.
At least one of the designers listed on Tesla’s “fan car” patent, David Lemire, worked at both Tesla and SpaceX in the past, before leaving and then returning to Tesla as a senior engineer on Tesla’s “new programs” team.
However, there is no mention in the document of “fly,” “flight,” “thruster,” “rocket” or “lift.” Nothing like the “cold gas thrusters” package that Musk has spent years telling us will make the car fly – and in fact, the exact opposite, as this will suck the car to the ground, not make it fly at all.
This could mean that Tesla has another idea in mind which will use thrusters, and will be applied in addition to this “fan car” idea.
Theoretically, adding lateral thrusters around the car could still add a performance benefit over and above the fan car idea, so these could be used in tandem, though it would add a lot of complexity to the vehicle. But these may or may not be worth the added weight – and they definitely wouldn’t be worth the weight if they’re directed in such a way to make the car able to “fly.”
Or it could be that the “fan car” patent will be applied to cars like the Model S Plaid, which has set racing records, and Tesla has another trick up its sleeve for the Roadster.
Or… this is what the SpaceX package was all along, and Musk was just running his mouth about the car flying. Which would be the best option, to be honest, because it’s dumb to pretend that flight would add any performance benefits to a sportscar.
Regardless, the fan car idea is an actual interesting performance idea, and it would actually work, unlike some of the previous public statements made by Tesla’s CEO. So it’s nice to see some sort of progress that could be applied to a performance car, after so many years of waiting.
But… does it matter anymore?
With so many performance EVs, does this matter?
The problem is that in the intervening 8 years since the Roadster was first introduced, some other electric cars with truly wild specs have already hit the road, and have delivered the “hard core smack down” that Tesla promised.
We’ve got the Rimac Nevera R, a 2,078hp electric car that can hit 300km/h (186mph) a full 3.5 seconds faster than a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport. We’ve got the Lotus Evija X, which set the third-fastest Nurburgring lap ever, only beaten by two one-off, track-only, purpose-built racecars (one of which is a hybrid, the other is electric).
And in the realm of actual consumer-available vehicles, we have the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra – made by a smartphone company, mind you – with 1,548hp and record-setting performance of its own.
So anybody who tells you these days that EVs aren’t fast is just… embarrassingly wrong. They’ve had their head in the sand for at least 19 years. It’s honestly a bit boring at this point.
So, what’s left for Tesla to do? The smack down has been delivered, and delivered by many other companies, startups and otherwise. I mean, heck, we’ve got a company that went from making phones to beating Porsche on its home track in the course of less than three years worth of development. Everyone is aware of how easy it is to beat complex, inefficient gas engines at this point.
A fan car seems like it could be a worthy addition to this menagerie, another way to deliver the smack down, as none of the above EVs have leveraged this particular type of active aerodynamics for a performance benefit, so Tesla could have something unique here….. oh, wait.
It turns out that someone else has done an electric fan car already. The McMurtry Spierling already has this idea, and it’s an absolute beast. It’s already the fastest car ever at Goodwood thanks to the 2,000kg of downforce that it makes with the huge fans underneath the roughly 1,000kg vehicle, even at 0mph where traditional aerodynamic surfaces provide no benefit whatsoever.
And if it seems interesting that one of those numbers is bigger than the other, well, yes, McMurtry has done that too – it briefly drove the car upside down just to show off how much downforce its fans can make, which we would say might qualify as “the most epic demo ever.”
That said, the Spierling is just one application of the idea, and it’s not like more cars can’t try something similar.
Also, it looks like Tesla’s solution would add a lot of adaptibility that McMurtry’s doesn’t have. Not only is the Spierling a purpose-built, track-focused single-seat racecar whereas the Roadster would be a regular roadgoing sportscar, but also Tesla’s flexible solution described in the patent would allow travel on less track-prepped terrain.
This would make the concept of a fan car much more practical for real life – as long as you’re not somewhere where you wouldn’t want to spray high-velocity pebbles out of the back of your vehicle. Maybe there’s a reason nobody has done this on a consumer vehicle yet (that said, Tesla includes a filter to stop the spray of dust and pebbles in the patent).
But in terms of real-life applications, there is also the consideration of driver skill. Drivers of performance vehicles get used to their car’s limits and learn where those limits are. But with a presumably enormous amount of adjustable downforce, those limits could change drastically based on road conditions.
We could see this being a dangerous situation if drivers think they’re in max-downforce mode but aren’t, and suddenly find mid-turn that the car is a lot less capable than they thought it was. So we’ll have to see if this mode is track-only or what.
For now, the main question is whether Tesla will ever make this thing, given that it’s already five years late. Any takers?
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Over the last few days, Elon Musk has been making several statements claiming that autonomous driving systems that use lidar and radar sensors are more dangerous than Tesla’s camera-only computer vision approach because the system gets confused when interpreting data from different sensors.
It’s not only false, Musk told me directly that he agreed that radar and vision could be safer than just vision, right after he had Tesla remove the radars from its vehicles.
Tesla has taken a controversial approach, using only cameras as sensors for driving inputs in its self-driving technology. In contrast, most other companies use cameras in conjunction with radar and lidar sensors.
When Tesla first announced that all its cars produced onward have the hardware capable of “full self-driving” up to level 5 autonomous capacity in 2016, it included a front-facing radar in its self-driving hardware suite.
However, in 2021, after not having achieved anything more than a level 2 driver assist (ADAS) system with its self-driving effort, Elon Musk announced a move that he called “Tesla Vision”, which consists of moving Tesla’s self-driving effort only to use inputs from cameras.
Here’s what I wrote in 2021 about Musk sharing his plan for Tesla to only use cameras and neural nets:
CEO Elon Musk has been hyping the vision-only update as “mind-blowing.” He insists that it will lead to a true level 5 autonomous driving system by the end of the year, but he has gotten that timeline wrong before.
By May 2021, Tesla had begun removing the radar sensor from its lineup, starting with the Model 3 and Model Y, and later the Model S and Model X in 2022.
Tesla engineers reportedly attempted to convince Musk to retain the use of radar, but the CEO overruled them.
We are now in 2025, and unlike what Musk claimed, Tesla has yet to deliver on its self-driving promises, but the CEO is doubling down on his vision-only approach.
The controversial billionaire is making headlines this week for a series of new statements attacking Tesla’s self-driving rivals and their use of radar and lidar sensors.
Earlier this week, Musk took a jab at Waymo and claimed that “lidar and radar reduce safety”:
Lidar and radar reduce safety due to sensor contention. If lidars/radars disagree with cameras, which one wins? This sensor ambiguity causes increased, not decreased, risk. That’s why Waymos can’t drive on highways.We turned off radars in Teslas to increase safety. Cameras ftw.
The assertion that “Waymos can’t drive on highways” is simply false. Waymo has been conducting fully driverless employee testing on freeways in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles for years, and it is expected to make this technology available to rider-only rides soon.
Tesla is in a similar situation with its Robotaxi: they don’t drive on freeways without an employee supervisor.
Musk later added:
LiDAR also does not work well in snow, rain or dust due to reflection scatter. That’s why Waymos stop working in any heavy precipitation. As I have said many times, there is a role for LiDAR in some circumstances and I personally oversaw the development of LiDAR for the SpaceX Dragon docking with Space Station. I am well aware of its strengths and weaknesses.
It’s not true that Waymos can’t work in “any heavy precipitation.”
Here’s a video of a Waymo vehicle driving by itself in heavy rain:
In comparison, Tesla’s own Robotaxi terms of service mention that it “may be limited or unavailable in inclement weather.”
Last month, Tesla Robotaxi riders had their rides cut short, and they were told it was due to the rain.
There’s plenty of evidence that Musk is wrong and misleading with these statements, but furthermore, he himself admitted that radar sensors can make Tesla’s vision system safer.
‘Vision with high-res radar would be better than pure vision’
In May 2021, as Tesla began removing radar sensors from its vehicle lineup and transitioning to a vision-only approach, I was direct messaging (DMing) Musk to learn more about the surprising move.
In the conversation, he was already making the claim that sensor contention is lowering safety as he did this week in new comments attacking Waymo.
He wrote at the time:
The probability of safety will be higher with pure vision than vision+radar, not lower. Vision has become so good that radar actually reduces signal/noise.
However, what was more interesting is what he said shortly after claiming that:
Musk admitted that “vision with high-resolution radar would be better than pure vision”. However, he claimed that such a radar didn’t exist.
In the same conversation, I pointed Musk to existing high-definition millimeter wave radars, but he didn’t respond.
It was still early for that technology in 2021, but high-definition millimeter wave radars are now commonly used by companies developing autonomous driving technologies, including Waymo.
Waymo uses six high-definition radars in its system:
In short, Musk was already concerned about sensor contention in 2021, but he admitted that the problem would be worth solving with higher-definition radars, which already existed then and are becoming more common now.
Yet, he criticizes companies using radar and lidar, which work similarly to high-resolution radars but on different wavelengths, for even attempting sensor fusion.
It’s not impossible because Tesla can’t do it
Part of the problem here appears to be that Musk thinks something doesn’t work because Tesla can’t make it work, and he doesn’t want to admit that others are solving the sensor fusion problem.
Tesla simply couldn’t solve sensor fusion, so it focused on achieving autonomy solely through camera vision. However, those who continued to work on the issue have made significant progress and are now reaping the rewards.
Waymo and Baidu, both of which have level 4 autonomous driving systems currently commercially operating without supervision, unlike Tesla, have heavily invested in sensor fusion.
Amir Husain, an AI entrepreneur who sits on the Boards of Advisors for IBM Watson and the Department of Computer Science at UT Austin, points to advancements in the use of Kalman filters and Bayesian techniques to solve sensor noise covariance.
He commented on Musk’s statement regarding the use of radar and lidar sensors:
The issue isn’t a binary disagreement between two sensors. It generates a better estimate than any individual sensor can produce on its own. They all have a margin of error. Fusion helps reduce this.
If Musk’s argument held, why would the human brain use eyes, ears, and touch to estimate object location? Why would aircraft combine radar, IRST, and other passive sensors to estimate object location? This is a fundamental misunderstanding of information theory. Every channel has noise. But redundancy reduces uncertainty.
Musk’s main argument to focus on cameras and neural nets has been that the roads are designed for humans to drive and humans drive using their eyes and brain, which are the hardware and software equivalent of cameras (eyes) and neural nets (brain).
Now, most other companies developing autonomous driving technologies are also focusing on this, but to surpass humans and achieve greater levels of safety through precision and redundancy, they are also adding radar and lidar sensors to their systems.
Electrek’s Take
Musk painted Tesla into a corner with its vision-only approach, and now he is trying to mislead people into thinking that it is the only one that can work, when there’s no substantial evidence to support this claim.
Now, let me be clear, Musk is partly correct. When poorly fused, multi-sensor data introduces noise, making it more challenging to operate an autonomous driving system.
However, who said that this is an unsolvable problem? Others appear to be solving it, and we are seeing the results in Waymo’s and Baidu’s commercially available rider-only taxi services.
If you can take advantage of radar’s ability to detect distance and speed as well as work through rain, fog, dust, and snow, why wouldn’t you use it?
As he admitted in the DMs with me in 2021, Musk is aware of this – hence why he acknowledged that high-resolution radar combined with vision would be safer than vision alone.
The problem is that Tesla hasn’t focused on improving sensor fusion and radar integration in the last 4 years because it has been all-in on vision.
Now, Tesla could potentially still solve self-driving with its vision system, but there’s no evidence that it is close to happening or any safer than other systems, such as Waymo’s, which use radar and lidar sensors.
In fact, Tesla is still only operating an autonomous driving system under the supervision of in-car employees with a few dozen cars, while Waymo has been doing rider-only rides for years and operates over 1,500 autonomous vehicles in the US.
Just like with his “Robotaxi” with supervisors, Musk is trying to create the illusion that Tesla is not only leading in autonomy, but it is the only one that can solve it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Trump’s Interior Department halted construction on 704 megawatt (MW) Revolution Wind, the US’s first multi-state offshore wind project that’s already 80% complete. Grid operator ISO New England says the decision is a threat to the grid.
ISO New England released a statement responding to the stop-work order, warning that “delaying the project will increase risks to reliability.”:
As demand for electricity grows, New England must maintain and add to its energy infrastructure. Unpredictable risks and threats to resources – regardless of technology – that have made significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and are close to completion will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future.
Revolution Wind, a joint development between Ørsted and BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners, is a 65-turbine project capable of powering around 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut once it’s complete. It was expected to come online next year. The project has created more than 1,200 jobs.
On August 22, the director of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent a vague letter to Ørsted commanding it to halt all activities on the fully permitted Revolution Wind, citing “national security interests,” yet providing no details.
BOEM’s Record of Decision for Revolution Wind, reported in 2023 in Section 4.6, page 185, states that the national security effects of the project would be “negligible and avoidable.”
This latest move echoes Trump’s cancellation in April of New York’s $5 billion Empire Wind 1 project, which was already under construction off New York’s coast. No viable reasons were given for that stop-work order either, and the cancellation was reversed in May.
Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), released the following statement in response to the Revolution Wind order:
The Trump administration’s war on the electricity needed to power the grid continues on all fronts. Halting Revolution Wind is a devastating attack on workers, on electricity customers, and on the investment climate in the US.
New England homeowners will feel this when they tear open their electricity bills and look at the surging costs of keeping the lights on.
This administration has it exactly backwards. It’s trying to prop up clunky, polluting coal plants while doing all it can to halt the fastest growing energy sources of the future – solar and wind power.
It makes no sense to say we have an energy emergency and then make decisions like this. Unfortunately, every American is paying the price for these misguided actions.
Read more: Trump reversal revives Empire Wind, NY’s offshore energy giant
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla is teasing a new product release on Friday, August 29th, coming to Europe and the Middle East. It’s likely going to be the Model Y Performance.
On X today, Tesla has teased an upcoming product release coming this friday.
The post is cryptic. It only mentions ‘spoiler alert’ and the date August 29 with what looks like a close up of a vehicle with what appears to be a spoil – hence the “spoiler alert” reference:
There are main suspect is the Model Y Performance due to the spoiler reference.
Since the Model Y refresh in January, Tesla stopped selling the Model Y Performance. It is due to launch the top performance version under the new design.
When Tesla released the Model 3 refresh in 2024, it took about 4 months for Tesla to launch the new performance version.
Electrek’s Take
The only thing that I find strange with this likely being the Model Y Performance is the fact that they tweeted this from the Europe and Middle East account.
It would be strange for the Model Y Performance to launch there first, but who knows. Maybe Tesla started production at Gigafactory Berlin first.
I don’t think this will have a major impact on Tesla’s business. The Model Y Performance is the least popular version of the best-selling Model Y.
We don’t have the full mix of sales, but I wouldn’t be suprised if it represents less than 10% of Tesla’s Model Y deliveries.
The Model 3 Performance is probably a more popular option within the Model 3 lineup as it is a lot more fun to drive.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024