• Tesla next-generation Roadster breaks all the records: 0-60 mph in 1.9 sec, 620-mile range, and more
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;52899793]99% of petrol cars aren't high performance sports cars??? i dont get what you're getting at here[/QUOTE]I'm saying it'll kill all petrol cars, I used 99% so the revheads don't cry about it. Are you serious nit picking a statement I made praising this car. "I don't understands the technical aspect of your praise, what are you saying" This car > all most petrol cars. Talk about the damn car which is basically the future of all performance vehicles.
Oh look, an electric car that looks cool for once. Annnnnd it costs more then a house, lovely.
[QUOTE=capgun;52899939]Oh look, an electric car that looks cool for once. Annnnnd it costs more then a house, lovely.[/QUOTE] It's actually pretty nicely priced for it's performance compared to other supercars.
[QUOTE=capgun;52899939]Oh look, an electric car that looks cool for once. Annnnnd it costs more then a house, lovely.[/QUOTE]You don't have to buy it for it to be cool. It's to show how electric cars can shit on every other road car. In 10 years a $35,000 Tesla could shit on today's Lamborghinis.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52899170][media]https://twitter.com/DavidHodge/status/931391188065705984[/media][/QUOTE] At this point they probably had to implement something like ABS but for accelerating instead of braking.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;52900179]At this point they probably had to implement something like ABS but for accelerating instead of braking.[/QUOTE] You mean traction control?
If these are the kind of cars we can make without gasoline, then fuck gasoline.
WELL, my dream-car just changed. God-DAMN this is fucking awesome!
[QUOTE=dustyjo;52900274]If these are the kind of cars we can make without gasoline, then fuck gasoline.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of cars that accelerate even faster than this on gasoline though. Electric cars are all about torque, and I've still yet to see one shear it's lug nuts off. [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] Really interested to see it on the track though. Maybe this one is actually faster around Nordschleife than an Opel Corsa.
I wish I made enough money to even ponder trying to finance a $200,000+ vehicle under reasonable terms
[QUOTE=joost1120;52900322]There are plenty of cars that accelerate even faster than this on gasoline though. Electric cars are all about torque, and I've still yet to see one shear it's lug nuts off. [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] Really interested to see it on the track though. Maybe this one is actually faster around Nordschleife than an Opel Corsa.[/QUOTE] No production cars accelerate faster on a 0-60 though on 'factory settings'
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52900367]No production cars accelerate faster on a 0-60 though on 'factory settings'[/QUOTE] not only that, but also what is that about being faster around nordschleife? that doesn't make any sense, at all
[QUOTE=Adeptus;52900531]not only that, but also what is that about being faster around nordschleife? that doesn't make any sense, at all[/QUOTE] ? The Tesla Model S is slower on Nordschleife than an Opel Corsa OPC. I wonder if they've managed to fix their problems.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52900576]? The Tesla Model S is slower on Nordschleife than an Opel Corsa OPC. I wonder if they've managed to fix their problems.[/QUOTE] never heard of that, honestly. maybe I haven't checked enough. care to post source? [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] done my checks, seems battery overheating is a thing. forget what I posted.
360 launch video: [video=youtube;ubDSY_1A8Ug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubDSY_1A8Ug[/video] [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Adeptus;52900583]never heard of that, honestly. maybe I haven't checked enough. care to post source? [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] done my checks, seems battery overheating is a thing. forget what I posted.[/QUOTE] If it's using PM motors like the Model 3 then the heat build up should be less in the motor, since they are a bit more efficient. I imagine they will put a bigger radiator in as well.
I swear cars just look more and more samey. This one reminds me of one of Audi's sport cars.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52900603]360 launch video: [video=youtube;ubDSY_1A8Ug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubDSY_1A8Ug[/video] [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] If it's using PM motors like the Model 3 then the heat build up should be less in the motor, since they are a bit more efficient. I imagine they will put a bigger radiator in as well.[/QUOTE] If they've solved the overheating problem and the new roadster can manage to come in <4000lb then it has the potential to be a monster performance vehicle. Gearing+reasonable nannies would make it even more so, but that much instantaneous torque would destroy most gearboxes I would think, plus you would need 4 individual gearboxes... Probably not worth the effort over just improving the operating range of the motors. I think Tesla's biggest problem with this car will be deciding whether they want it to be a GT car (huge range+highway crushing in comfort) or a true performance car (lap times/fun in the corners). It's usually hard to do both [editline]17th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Antimuffin;52900634]I swear cars just look more and more samey. This one reminds me of one of Audi's sport cars.[/QUOTE] Probably because the chief design officer at Tesla worked directly under the head of design for VW group for a while
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52899140]60 in 1.9 seconds is almost exactly half the acceleration of an F-18 being launched off a carrier. That's fucking nuts[/QUOTE] IIRC, fighter jets don't use their engines during a carrier launch. They're launched by the catapult, then they hit their engines. It takes a lot of oomph to get a 32,000 pound chunk of metal that fast. Still impressive though.
Hey look, the Roadster has (two?) speedometers in front of the driver (and passenger?)
[QUOTE=OvB;52900765]Hey look, the Roadster has (two?) speedometers in front of the driver (and passenger?)[/QUOTE] it's too fast for just one speedometer
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52900764]IIRC, fighter jets don't use their engines during a carrier launch. They're launched by the catapult, then they hit their engines. It takes a lot of oomph to get a 32,000 pound chunk of metal that fast. Still impressive though.[/QUOTE] Jets have their engines at full power during cat launch. With heavy enough loads, they'll even light afterburners. It's pretty crazy to see.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52900764]IIRC, fighter jets don't use their engines during a carrier launch. They're launched by the catapult, then they hit their engines. It takes a lot of oomph to get a 32,000 pound chunk of metal that fast. Still impressive though.[/QUOTE] They have to use their engines. Jet turbines seem like they would be super responsive to changes in throttle, but they are actually sluggish. Prop aircraft are much more forgiving on that front and it is one of the reasons that beginners start on props. They have to throttle up early or they won't have the thrust to gain altitude. Likewise when they land on the carrier deck, they max the throttle out. In the event that they don't catch an arrestor cable, the need to maximize thrust in order to not crash, but the engines are too slow to respond after missing, so they max as soon as they are on the deck.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52900812]They have to use their engines. Jet turbines seem like they would be super responsive to changes in throttle, but they are actually sluggish. Prop aircraft are much more forgiving on that front and it is one of the reasons that beginners start on props. They have to throttle up early or they won't have the thrust to gain altitude. Likewise when they land on the carrier deck, they max the throttle out. In the event that they don't catch an arrestor cable, the need to maximize thrust in order to not crash, but the engines are too slow to respond after missing, so they max as soon as they are on the deck.[/QUOTE] That's super interesting. I always sort of assumed that you could spin down a turbine on a dime if necessary.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52900848]That's super interesting. I always sort of assumed that you could spin down a turbine on a dime if necessary.[/QUOTE] This is a gross oversimplification, but part of it is the speeds involved. The RPMs get scary high. Rotational kinetic energy gets really [i]really[/i] big stupid fast, and the larger the diameter of the mass, the faster it grows. That's why the shielding around the engines is so important. The shrapnel that a broken turbine ejects has substantial amounts of kinetic energy. An engine blowing without shielding could easily gut a wing, and potentially injure passengers 50 feet away through the walls of the cabin. A turbine blowing shares a lot in common with detonating a shrapnel bomb. There's no good way to instantly add that kind of energy to something without destroying it.
What kind of tires is this thing going to have? I know it's got some pretty advanced traction control, but the wheels still have to spin at an insane rate to hit 60 that fast.
This is what I was waiting for... My body is ready.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;52901024]What kind of tires is this thing going to have? I know it's got some pretty advanced traction control, but the wheels still have to spin at an insane rate to hit 60 that fast.[/QUOTE] The most aggressive tire any company would put on a car from the factory would be R-comps, so something like Bridgestone RE71Rs, Toyo R888Rs, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s, or Pirelli Trofeo Rs are the most likely candidates. IIRC the Model S performance tire option were Michelin Pilot Super Sports so the Sport Cup 2s may be their option here.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52900576]? The Tesla Model S is slower on Nordschleife than an Opel Corsa OPC. I wonder if they've managed to fix their problems.[/QUOTE] The model S is not a supercar, it only does one thing right in the performance aspect: acceleration (to be fair the handling is really good for a 2t car). Our P85-derived race car is still slower than a gt3 but it has more power than most gt3 cars, so that kind of gives you a hint that the model s may not be a good sports car
[QUOTE=eirexe;52901168]The model S is not a supercar, it only does one thing right in the performance aspect: acceleration (to be fair the handling is really good for a 2t car). Our P85-derived race car is still slower than a gt3 but it has more power than most gt3 cars, so that kind of gives you a hint that the model s may not be a good sports car[/QUOTE] To be clear are you talking about a 911 GT3? Because if so for comparison the P85 is about half the price base model to base model, which doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison
[QUOTE=eirexe;52901168]The model S is not a supercar, it only does one thing right in the performance aspect: acceleration (to be fair the handling is really good for a 2t car). Our P85-derived race car is still slower than a gt3 but it has more power than most gt3 cars, so that kind of gives you a hint that the model s may not be a good sports car[/QUOTE] I never implied that it was a sports car, but it is a performance sedan. But it's slower than your average hot hatch. Hot hatches are by no means slow, but they shouldn't be faster than car with 4 times it's horsepower. Robb Holland said this about the Model S after driving it around Nordschleife: [QUOTE]“Yes, it was heavy. Yes, it had almost no mechanical grip. And yes, the steering was as numb as my jaw after a trip to the dentist. However, considering that the Model S is a brand new car, from a car company that didn’t exist 10 years ago, using technology that had (at the time of founding of the company) never been successfully mass produced on any large scale, I am suitably impressed.”[/QUOTE] It makes up for poor handling with traction control and power.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.