[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

And that confuses me greatly... I personally think most car reviews are meaningless as they drive on the track and do figure 8 etc... If I had bought a M3, I would never drive it on a track or slide and burn its tires out. I think that's the case with overwhelming majority of potential performance car owners. Therefore, most of those numbers simply is marketing and for psychological consumption since most owners would never experience anything close to those numbers (even if they tried they wouldn't be able to drive as well as the testers) physically ever.

What I care about is how a car drives between 0-80, and how it handles at speeds that you can actually use on a road... I don't care if a car can tackle a tight corner at 70mph, slide onto the shoulder and come out all composed because I will never do that on a road and I hope NO ONE ever tries to do that ever on a public road.

Depends on where you live and what roads you have access too.
Open your eyes a bit as the world is a very large place.
I don't think any performance car is for you, even though you like 0-80, it should only be 0-65 as that is the speed limit and Tesla definitely wins in that category.
I do care if my vehicle can handle a 70 mph sweeping turn or a 60mph emergency lane change maneuver as that could mean life or barreling head on to a semi truck.

[litxus]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

They (teslamotors) only want to emphasize the strongholds of the electric motor, not the shortcomings of their batteries.
But the challenge is not in the electric motor. Thàt performance was also available 50 years ago. A simpe tram has a more powerful motor than a tesla model S and also fits in the boot of any car, so that is absolutely no technological achievement. And certainly not an a achievement from Tesla.
So where tesla must make a difference is with the batteries, and as far as performance driving on a track, they don't hold up in the model S imho.

It is very strange that a car like the p85d that is globally marketed so heavily as a performance car ("we wanted to match the performance of the mcLaren F1"), it can only do a good 0-60mph sprint, but cannot do anything on the track.
As if 0-60mph is the thing that defines performance
Why not take boot space in the equation too, I bet it rivals the mclaren F1 also on that performance....

Can you imagine a brand like bmw, developping a new m3 or m5, and then in the world media compare it to the mcLaren F1 (or any other supercar), without posting some nordschleife times or so?
Thàt would be completely ridiculous and unthinkable, but that is wat Tesla is doing.
Nobody in the performance car business cares about 0-60 times, they all look at track times. Because you want the damn thing to handle. (so your comparison to 60's musclecars is pretty good)

I don't think you understand the whole point of Tesla. It is made to be a step forward to sustainable energy (solar, wind, hydro) and fits the bill for 99% of the people in terms of range, acceleration, top speed, safety etc... For ICE cars once you burn your fuel it is gone forever, and resources are not limitless, plus there are more users of oil every day. Plus, I'm sure you would really love oil if some of it spills out next your coast?

If you were in business making cars, would your goal be to make something for everyone or a little for the few, plus with unproven new technology? You can't make a car which will do everything, especially with battery technology where it is now. As for track, there are track toys. I really don't care that my daily could blast full speed at some track, it is not meant for that. I mean where did you get the impression that sport / sporty cars are meant to prove something on the track. Take any sport / sporty car and chances are it will suck at the track as is.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

What I care about is how a car drives between 0-80, and how it handles at speeds that you can actually use on a road... I don't care if a car can tackle a tight corner at 70mph, slide onto the shoulder and come out all composed because I will never do that on a road and I hope NO ONE ever tries to do that ever on a public road.

I do this a few hundred times a day. There's no difference between an empty public road with no inlets onto it and a track. I don't see the point of going to the track as I drive like that daily for past 30 yes 50,000 miles a year worth. Tesla would be good for a few minutes of 0-60 then I'd have a dead battery and 300 miles left to drive. It's fun for someone who wants a new gizmo, likes jumping out of a light, only drives a few miles a day, hates the environment, and likes the posing it gets. But unlike a ferrari, etc, which are universally impressive, less than half the population cares. More than half says wtf was that or just laughs at you.

[Fundguy1]

I'd rather get a Porsche panamerica turbo s or Nissan GTR. Similar cost, similar 0-60, crush tesla in every other way.
Porsche 0-60 3.3 seconds car and driver
GTR 0-60 2.9 seconds Car and Driver
Tesla 0-60 3.2 according to the maker.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Devilzmantis

I know Teslas can hit 3.5 secs 0-60 but how does it do on the track? Will it keep up with the 4door M3? Anyone have a video or information on Teslas on Tracks?

It looks like these are two morons on a public road but here you go.

[Fundguy1]

That's Florida. How boring the tesla looks if that's the best it can do.

[pikkagtr]

Teslas suck from a roll
Try having one pass you on the highway 80+ mph
Won't happen

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Hate them. Yes you get quick off the line. Then after its slow. Gotta find a plug. They're environmental nightmares too. You use just as much carbon fuels generating the electrical. Then the batteries, over 1000 of them, are a toxic mess making and disposing of them. These are produced in lithium and nickel plants in China and Canada and have some of the most toxic waste biproducts ever created. Makes love canal look pristine but it's out of site out of mind.

You use just as much carbon fuels generating the electrical? Care to provide a source for that? It's against everything I've researched, so I'm interested to see where it came from.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by zer0cool

If you drive above 90 regularly on public road, well I hope you get arrested since you are a danger to both yourself and others.

That's just cause everyone else is going too slow.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

It's amazing technology. The best part is that it doesn't care what the power plant burns or how it makes its energy. Hydroelectric, fission, fusion, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, natural gas, etc, it doesn't care. Even if the power has to be generated at the power plant and transmitted through lines to the charging station, it still ends up far more efficient than a gas/diesel engine.

Another fact, super-efficient gas turbine engines are becoming the power plant of choice as far as power stations, due to their hyper efficiency (broke the 50% barrier a few years back, many are in excess of 60%) and the technology that has made them relatively clean.

While there may not be full infrastructure in place for it, there's at least a good amount in place for transmitting electricity to support charging cars. Compared to hydrogen, which is extremely wasteful to produce (lots of energy) and where there is no infrastructure, holding tanks, refineries, trucks, ships, etc.

Now look at how much energy is wasted just trucking gas all over the globe for cars, trucks running everywhere, ships full of fuel, storing it in tanks everywhere, it's incredibly wasteful, and then there's the energy it takes just to create all those conveyances and storage facilities.

We'll have gas for a while and there will be a steady transition through hybrids to full electric, but the tesla IS amazing and ground breaking. The first car with enough energy density to make the car practical for most everyday driving and many trips. Supercharger stations are showing up and the cars are living up to most of the hype.

And if you irrationally hate electric cars, just think about the fact that hybrids are taking over in super and hypercar ranks due to their ability to recover energy to slingshot out of a corner much faster than a gas engine is capable of. Expect to see more of this as battery density continues to increase.

This is here, now, and it works.

Since this was one of the more rational responses in this thread I'd like to make a few comments. The reason an EV is super efficient is because at rest, the car barely uses any energy and under motion converts stored energy to kinetic energy very efficiently, which is an attribute of an electric motor rather than the efficiency of its fuel. Gasoline, and especially diesel fuel, have extremely high levels of energy to weight ratios (i.e. energy density) as compared to an electric battery. The Tesla battery weighs in at around 1,200 pounds and has the stored energy equivalent of 2.5 gallons of gasoline. The issue with petroleum fuels is not efficiency of the fuel, but rather the energy conversion efficiency of the apparatus that uses the fuel.

The Tesla battery is no great technological advancement in battery energy storage. It uses commercial-format lithium-ion cells found in the average laptop computer. Tesla's technology is more on the side of keeping the cells temperature-stable and not catching on fire. If one wants to look at a more advance EV battery design, the GM Voltec battery is a unique cell format, designed with cooling built into the base cell design, rather than designing a battery pack around a standard cell and figuring out how to keep the cells cool. The real recent advancement in EV batteries is not in some new chemical methodology to increase energy density of the storage medium, but rather advancement in the control technologies of the chemical conversion process that maximize the amount of energy that can be repetitiously drawn from the medium while maximizing battery life.

Any true state-of-the-art efficient automotive design would be to use an existing high energy density fuel, which already enjoys an inexpensive and cost efficient distribution system, in a new energy conversion apparatus other than an internal combustion engine, or a radical increase the efficiency of the ICE combustion process. The issue there is the Leftists have declared burning of fossil fuels to be sacrilegious and therefore any advancement in the efficiency of the combustion process has little or no research impetus.

And we'll have gasoline for a long while since airplanes use its because of it super high energy density properties, meaning the industry that produces jet fuel and av gas, also make gasoline and diesel fuels for ground transportation systems.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

You use just as much carbon fuels generating the electrical? Care to provide a source for that? It's against everything I've researched, so I'm interested to see where it came from.

From the top utility fund portfolii manager in the country.

[Fundguy1]

Not that I care. Climate change is bs anyway. On the other hand the lithium and nickel plants are devastating. But that doesn't fit the political, grant driven scientific, or liberal media agenda. Back to cleaning my assault rifles.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

From the top utility fund portfolii manager in the country.

So not really.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Not that I care. Climate change is bs anyway. On the other hand the lithium and nickel plants are devastating. But that doesn't fit the political, grant driven scientific, or liberal media agenda. Back to cleaning my assault rifles.

Yep, it's a huge conspiracy. No one let you in on the action, so everyone else is making tons of money. Those college "scientists" that conduct the research are driving back and forth from their mansions to their labs in porsches and ferarris, don't you know?

Oh, wait, I actually HAVE done research at the graduate level. Although I got a partial grant for some research, it's not like that even covered my tuition or other costs. Research is a ton of hard work with little reward, you do it to learn and to further understanding. To have someone like you just say it's all a hoax is a slap in the face to us who have actually put in hard work and time doing research. Science brought you the internet and computers. Maybe that was a big conspiracy as well, my abacus worked just fine and letters were far cheaper than computers.

[pikkagtr]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Yep, it's a huge conspiracy. No one let you in on the action, so everyone else is making tons of money. Those college "scientists" that conduct the research are driving back and forth from their mansions to their labs in porsches and ferarris, don't you know?

Oh, wait, I actually HAVE done research at the graduate level. Although I got a partial grant for some research, it's not like that even covered my tuition or other costs. Research is a ton of hard work with little reward, you do it to learn and to further understanding. To have someone like you just say it's all a hoax is a slap in the face to us who have actually put in hard work and time doing research. Science brought you the internet and computers. Maybe that was a big conspiracy as well, my abacus worked just fine and letters were far cheaper than computers.

I thought the internet was invented by All Gore and computers were brought down by Jesus riding a velociraptor

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Not that I care. Climate change is bs anyway. On the other hand the lithium and nickel plants are devastating. But that doesn't fit the political, grant driven scientific, or liberal media agenda. Back to cleaning my assault rifles.

Buy really you should care because the Leftist politicians are using the claim to modify and control the US economy, which in turn will affect all of us. Not like the EPA hasn't already claimed lead bullets as an environmental climate change material and a good way to ban your assault rifles...

[Fundguy1]

Electric sucks. Pure and simple. When the tech allows you to have the top speed, range, fast refueling ability, cost, and does less environmental damage than Dino fuel I'll look. So far it falls short on all accounts.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

I thought the internet was invented by All Gore and computers were brought down by Jesus riding a velociraptor

Correction, they were brought by raptor jesus, who is part of the holy binity, being both a raptor and a jesus.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Electric sucks. Pure and simple. When the tech allows you to have the top speed, range, fast refueling ability, cost, and does less environmental damage than Dino fuel I'll look. So far it falls short on all accounts.

Right, because every morning you crank up your gas generator to make coffee and give you hot water.

[Fundguy1]

No I turn on my coffee maker using electricity from an oil fueled power plant. I don't expect it to go 150 mph. I don't worry that it has 1000 toxic laptop batteries, and I don't worry its going to due halfway through brewing my coffee and I'll have to wait a day to finish,.

[Blksnowflake]

Lot of immature hatorade being passed around. Everything isn't an opportunity to justify your choice. Someone bought this you bought that, can't we all just get along. The world would be a boring place if cars and coffee were 100% M cars only, or if we all had the same looking blond chick, variety is the spice of life.

[pikkagtr]

100% M cars isn't that bad.
An m3 5 door wagon is the perfect family hauler