This is getting silly - Tesla Model S Plaid runs a 9.2 sec quarter mile!

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.

Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer. 

Whoopee.

This sounds like a statement that could be made at any time in the past, oh, 50-60 years. The only thing that has changed is what "seriously low ETs" means.

Keith Tanner said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.

Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer. 

Whoopee.

This sounds like a statement that could be made at any time in the past, oh, 50-60 years. The only thing that has changed is what "seriously low ETs" means.

I hear 3s are fast... but I don't know. 

It looks like Robbie's theory of braking time = max acceleration holds some merit:

In reply to STM317 :

He puts some good solid math in there.  There are a few things that could change the braking vs acceleration traction limits a bit that he alluded to a bit, such as narrow front tires while braking and wide rear tires while accelerating - so I believe a car could possibly accelerate slightly faster than it could brake, if both were at 100% of possible traction in each scenario, although the difference would be slight.

I guess the only way to really prove it would be to see some hard data.  I wonder what the 0-60 time was in this 9 second run.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:I also have my batteries stored in fire resistant bags in a safe location.  Once you see a li-ion battery fire it'll leave an impression. 

Were any of those Li-Ion batteries liquid cooled and thermally managed? I doubt it.

Oh, and once you se a gasoline explosion it'll leave an impression (I was a passenger in a sports car that exploded and burned to the ground nearly taking me with it. Trust me, I'm quite aware of driving around in a rolling gasoline bomb). 170,000 gasoline cars burn down every year in the US. I don't think I'll have a problem with driving a battery powered car.

I'll have to come back and watch this, because I like math.

The 9.2 second 1/4 had a 1.48 second 60 ft.

That's 1.7Gs of acceleration, and in that 1.48 seconds the car is moving 55.xx mph.  I have not mathed anything beyond that, but I feel like it is going to break the 60mph barrier in that next half second.

FWIW, the theoretical 1/4 if that acceleration is maintained is a 6.95s pass @ 260mph

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

 An LS swapped aftermarket ECU controlled engine with a modern trans in an older CK or C series probably gets decent mileage and it's a whole lot cheaper and more environmentally responsible than buying something built with rare earth metals. 

Lithium isn't a rare earth metal. In fact, it's pretty common on Earth, and quite common in seawater, and just now has become easy to get out of seawater: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-06/kauo-ech060321.php

Rare earth metals are in the magnets in electric motors, but those same metals are in the magnets in modern alternators, so it's a wash. BTW, rare earth metals aren't actually "rare." "Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element

Keith Tanner said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.

Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer. 

Whoopee.

This sounds like a statement that could be made at any time in the past, oh, 50-60 years. The only thing that has changed is what "seriously low ETs" means.

It's less about the raw times, and more about the level of drama, skill, and emotion (passion) involved in developing and driving a car to whatever is considered a 'seriously low ET' at any given point in time. While it had always been evolving, it didn't really start going exponential until AWD + launch control started becoming standard fare in the production supercar world and trickling down from there.

A 9 second Mustang is more exciting than a 9 second Bugatti, and a 9 second Bugatti is more exciting than a 9 second Tesla... Tesla has turned the performance-sterility factor up to 11.

Driven5 said:

Keith Tanner said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.

Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer. 

Whoopee.

This sounds like a statement that could be made at any time in the past, oh, 50-60 years. The only thing that has changed is what "seriously low ETs" means.

It's less about the raw times, and more about the level of drama, skill, and emotion (passion) involved in developing and driving a car to whatever is considered a 'seriously low ET' at any given point in time. While it had always been evolving, it didn't really start going exponential until AWD + launch control started becoming standard fare in the production supercar world and trickling down from there.

A 9 second Mustang is more exciting than a 9 second Bugatti, and a 9 second Bugatti is more exciting than a 9 second Tesla... Tesla has turned the performance-sterility factor up to 11.

It seems to me to be a natural byproduct of technological advancement. The means of propulsion is changing, so the results are easier to get while being less like the out-going methods. 

Look at getting on the internet. We use smaller and more effecient devices. So, no longer do we get to experience the screeching tones of dial-up while connecting to the internet. The experience has been steralized. 

In reply to Chris_V :

Once you see a thermite explosion it'll leave an impression too.  You may or may not have a problem driving the battery powered car, but should that battery ever get a puncture and see oxygen it'll be interesting. 

I'd also wager most of those cars burning down are early EFI cars that have never had their fuel lines checked, replaced or serviced.  There are makes and models of cars that are famous for this thanks to EFI and deteriorating rubber and plastic fuel lines.  It'll be interesting to see how electric cars are when they hit that age. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Unless they're Italian exotics, in which case you can get the excitement of a car fire immediately without having to wait for age and neglect!

 I love how we have physically hit the limit set by tires and traction now. My only fear is, that these improvements are the real reason why the Roadster isn't here yet- everything else just has been catching up too quickly.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Chris_V :

Once you see a thermite explosion it'll leave an impression too.  You may or may not have a problem driving the battery powered car, but should that battery ever get a puncture and see oxygen it'll be interesting. 

I'd also wager most of those cars burning down are early EFI cars that have never had their fuel lines checked, replaced or serviced.  There are makes and models of cars that are famous for this thanks to EFI and deteriorating rubber and plastic fuel lines.  It'll be interesting to see how electric cars are when they hit that age. 

 

Batteries need energy to start that rapid oxidation process tho- there's a reason why all the fires were when they were either being charged or being discharged. Besides, most battery fires are because of low quality China cells off Alibaba and Amazon; Endless Sphere has entire threads about it. The whole "Never had X Checked" is kind of a misnomer too, because even new cars go up without any known faults per my firefighter texts.

I just checked my mileage towing with the Colorado since I picked up the MR2 in Houston.  279 miles door to door and I got 16.0 mpg (I have photos to prove it if anyone is in doubt), and that was at TX speeds ranging from slow traffic to 75 mph+.  I probably spent most of the trip in the 70-75mph range. 

I'm not sure how much a U-haul car hauler weighs but they are hefty hunks of steel.  The MR2 and all the stuff is probably 2500lbs or so.  Open air trailer with an MR2 on it is pretty low drag compared to a box trailer. 

The truck gets significantly better mileage at 65.  At 65 with no trailer or vehicle in tow, it can get 24 mpg or so.  It's actually quite impressive how efficient newer trucks are given their size, weight and overall capability.  Being more contentious about and measuring my fuel mileage in various conditions has me thinking I would benefit from a Maverick even less than I thought.  According to the ECU, my lifetime mileage for the first 30k miles is 18.9mpg.  The first few hundred out that was outside my ownership.  Over the last 22k miles It's averaged 19.6 mpg.  I can show this via photos too.  That is mixed city and highway probably 50/50 by now. 

Has anyone done the math to see what the theoretical best 1/4 mile speed is for a car with a given weight an size/make of tire?

I wonder how close the EVs are getting to that . It is an equalizer when you specify tires as you can't just keep adding width to the tread to overcome excessive wheel spin.  I'm thinking that an EV may be better able to control power at the edge of traction than a peaky high tuned gas powered engine.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

What exactly is the purpose of reviving the Model S Plaid thread with a Colorado fuel economy update?

In reply to Driven5 :

Early in this thread someone stated they wanted a truck that could tow 5k lbs and have a range of 250 miles.  I said I already had that truck.  I said I could prove it too.  Others even said they didn't think so. Yesterday I made the measurements to prove it.  I suspect the new Ranger can do it too.  

I actually have a range of over 300 miles towing 5k, but I prefer to stop every two or three hours. If I drove slower, it'd do better but I don't drive slow. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Keith Tanner said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Driven5 said:

The more impressive the numbers get, the more they leave me cold... It's an odd feeling.

Add me to the list. In a sense, what's happening is by making amazing rates of acceleration commonplace, it's devalued. Used to be to get seriously low ETs in the quarter meant someone with balls (or ovaries) of steel driving a rolling bomb that they may well have built in their garage. Now you check a box, write a check, press the go pedal and steer. 

Whoopee.

This sounds like a statement that could be made at any time in the past, oh, 50-60 years. The only thing that has changed is what "seriously low ETs" means.

I hear 3s are fast... but I don't know. 

I haven't had a good run in my 3 performance but have watched videos of them eating modded Hellcats on slicks in the 1/4.  Definitely a first 100mph car vs the second though.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I like zombie resurrections just to beat a dead horse as much as the next person, but that point was already fully conceded to nearly 3 months ago... And which is still just as irrelevant when the actual point is looking for an EV capable of achieving ICE equivalency in those more much more practical units of measure.

In reply to Driven5 :

EV technology is improving rapidly but it's still not there.  If you want a truck that can meet those stated goals you can have it now.  It just won't score any cool points with those that think they are saving the world praising or buying EVs.