5 ms·
'The rear-wheel drive cars will be able to go zero to 60 in less than 4 seconds. ' I don't believe that.
by arcanus 11y ago
'The rear-wheel drive cars will be able to go zero to 60 in less than 4 seconds. '
I don't believe that.
- grecy 11y agoIt's a typo, it's been clearly stated and reported as less than 6 seconds.
- jacquesm 11y agoIt is also absolutely irrelevant for normal driving. 0 to 100 km / h in 10 seconds or even more is perfectly acceptable, and lower accelerations are actually better for the range.
- vvanders 11y agoHaving the ability to tap into faster acceleration doesn't hurt range, in fact with dual motors it you can actually have a faster car that is more efficient. One of the motors is turned off when not needed so you can run essentially half-power and yet still have the second one available in a split second.
- jacquesm 11y agoFast acceleration (not the ability, but the actual acceleration) does use more power, it's just not as bad a difference as it would be with an ICE.
- vvanders 11y agoThere's actually a subtle difference, with an ICE you pay for the larger displacement with more fuel usage at idle and inefficient RPM ranges(things like VVT help mitigate it but physics is physics). For EVs you're largely just fighting against Ohm's law(constant voltage requires that you draw more amps which means resistance generates heat, etc) and to a lesser degree weight. Which has much less impact like you note. My basic understanding of ICEs is that they are most efficient when you can run them at a specific RPM(and tune for that RPM) which is why you see Diesel-Electric Locomotives where the ICE largely acts as a generator.
- jacquesm 11y ago> My basic understanding of ICEs is that they are most efficient when you can run them at a specific RPM(and tune for that RPM) which is why you see Diesel-Electric Locomotives where the ICE largely acts as a generator. That's spot on. This is why you can't use the cam from a generator on a car and vice versa (even if it is otherwise the exact same engine, such as with the Willy's engine). The cam on a generator will be very pointy to open and close the valves across a very sharply defined moment in the engine cycle, whereas on the car version the cam is much more smooth giving a wider operating range (but at lower efficiency). The reason why Diesel Electric locomotives use the electric motor to drive the wheels rather than using the diesel directly is twofold, one the efficiency that you already noted, the second reason is that the electric motor does not need a clutch and has a torque curve much better suited to getting a large weight accelerated (much like steam power is better than ICE's at this, it's the exact same reason).
- vvanders 11y agoYup, was aware of point #2 as well. They mitigate that in part by backing up too(thus putting slack in the cars) before moving forward. Always fun to hear the cars going thunk, thunk, thunk as they get ready to head out.
- anexprogrammer 11y agoWell it's handy for keeping pace with middle weight bikes when they're trying to show off I guess :)
- marssaxman 11y agoI pulled onto I-5 behind a Model S once while riding my 750cc Honda and was really impressed by the fact that I simply could not keep pace - it pulled smoothly ahead like it wasn't even trying. I have never seen any other car do that; it's part of the fun of riding, since cars on the freeway typically feel like they're all half asleep.
- james-watson 11y agoGet an S1000RR, an RSV4 or an R1 and you can go back to treating any Tesla like a normal sleepy car :)
- marssaxman 11y agoHah. I am too much of a hooligan to let myself acquire a proper sportbike; I get into enough trouble as it is. I'm actually thinking of switching to a BMW K75 or K100, since I'm no longer commuting via bike (nowhere to park downtown, alas) and something suitable for long weekend cruises might get more use.
- anexprogrammer 11y agoHeh. Me too. SV650 at moment. I'd like another Triumph 955, my licence wouldn't. :)
- manarth 11y agoThe model S 0-60 varies from 2.8s (P85D in ludicrous mode) right up to 5.9s (2012 Base model), so it's possible that they'll also release a version of the model 3 that will be able to go zero to 60 in less than 4 seconds. It sounds like less than 6 seconds is what we should expect from the base model though.
- elorant 11y agoIt’s a known fact that electric cars have superb acceleration mainly because they deliver all power from the beginning, in contrast to internal combustion engines that need to reach certain rpms to achieve the same thing. Even if it’s 6 seconds instead of 4 it still is an impressive number for a car at that price range.
- rplnt 11y agoEven 15+ ton trolleybus will accelerate faster than your basic diesel car.
- lttlrck 11y ago6 seconds at that price point is pretty normal for a car portending to be a sporty. For example a CLA is in its price range and does 0-60 a tad over 6 seconds.
- elorant 11y agoA CLA doesn’t have six seconds acceleration. The CLA 200 which in Europe is priced around €30k does 1-100 (or 0-60 miles) at 8,4 seconds. Unless you’re referring to the AMG version which does it at 4,6 seconds but costs north of €50k.
- encoderer 11y agoThe version in the US is a 2.5 liter.
- forgetsusername 11y ago>Even if it’s 6 seconds instead of 4 it still is an impressive number for a car at that price range. Not really. There are multiple Ford and Suburau models (off the top of my head) that will run sub-6.0, some models $10k cheaper than the Model 3.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoHow many of those can do it without revving the engine and popping the clutch? An electric car's low end torque is usable for everyday driving. Of course, where most people judge a car's power while driving it normally is the 60-80 mph time. That's the only time most people floor the accelerator, when they're pulling out to pass someone. Gasoline vehicles have a marked advantage in this metric.