Buggy makers Ferrari and Lamborghini still afraid of EVs

[101101]

Now they have claimed that EVs are not appropriate for "supers," because they get winded (disproven) that battery packs raise the center of gravity and because they don't make noise.

I expect the Tesla Roadster may break all records at Laguna Seca and I mean all including the ones set by single seat pure race cars- Formula 1 and dual seat Le Mans type race cars. This is because the electric underpinning seem to produce at least that kind of power with better torque characteristic and because the announced specs of the base model are already there. But adding the cold pressure vessel thrust vectoring (which is well understood from jump sets and satellites and rocketry) will drive acceleration breaking and cornering way beyond the limits of traction for ordinary cars and of course the Tesla already benefits from precisely calibrated 4 wheel drive and torque vectoring. So in essence the new roadster is likely to beat the best cars Ferrari (Lamborghini isn't worth mentioning here) ever made even in competition garb at the race track with better numbers that they can't replicate. They are going to get KO'd. At least Sergio started to understand this but as soon as he left they started to back slide. Pathetic! Ferarri's own styling house gets it as its doing an electric super of its own. Why not Ferrari?
Lamborghini might as well be Tata its been tossed around so much its not speaking from a real history, its just a brand cover.

 

[Domenick]

Now they have claimed that EVs are not appropriate for "supers," because they get winded (disproven) that battery packs raise the center of gravity and because they don't make noise.

I expect the Tesla Roadster may break all records at Laguna Seca and I mean all including the ones set by single seat pure race cars- Formula 1 and dual seat Le Mans type race cars. This is because the electric underpinning seem to produce at least that kind of power with better torque characteristic and because the announced specs of the base model are already there. But adding the cold pressure vessel thrust vectoring (which is well understood from jump sets and satellites and rocketry) will drive acceleration breaking and cornering way beyond the limits of traction for ordinary cars and of course the Tesla already benefits from precisely calibrated 4 wheel drive and torque vectoring. So in essence the new roadster is likely to beat the best cars Ferrari (Lamborghini isn't worth mentioning here) ever made even in competition garb at the race track with better numbers that they can't replicate. They are going to get KO'd. At least Sergio started to understand this but as soon as he left they started to back slide. Pathetic! Ferarri's own styling house gets it as its doing an electric super of its own. Why not Ferrari?
Lamborghini might as well be Tata its been tossed around so much its not speaking from a real history, its just a brand cover.

Source?

 

[101101]

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-roadster-ferrari-lamborgini-all-electric-supercars/

 

[galderdi]

101101, You come across as very biased towards EVs as is your right. But when you write something like that which has such an obvious bias it does nothing to further your cause. Starting with a heading like "Buggy makers..." just gets fans of those brands off side.

Similarly there are still plenty of people with a bias towards the ICE way of doing things. Regardless of our preference for EVs there are still a lot of people who consider the rumble of a powerful ICE motor as a key part of the overall motoring experience.

I do believe EVs are here to stay and will form a very large percentage of the market over the coming decades. But I also recognise we don't have all the answers and for some people ICE will the only way to meet their expectations. I don't think it is helpful to our cause to alienate groups like motoring enthusiasts.

 

[DaleL]

Remember When Top Gear and Tesla Clashed Over the Roadster? https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/12536/remember-when-top-gear-and-tesla-clashed-over-the-roadster Tesla filed a lawsuit and lost.

Driven hard, all vehicles' efficiency is poor and range drops considerably. In the case of the roadster, the range when driven like a race car was just 55 miles, not 200. The difference is that gasoline has far greater energy density and refueling takes just seconds (40 seconds for GT Daytona cars, for full tank fill).

 

[interestedinEV]

I understand @101101 being passionate about EVs and being an evangelist. However, we cannot miss the whole picture.

Take Lamborghini. They are small niche manufacturer who provides their customers with a type of experience. They have decided based on technical and user experience considerations, to give EVs a pass for now. So what? What impact will have it on larger user adoption? If at later date, they want to move EVs they can.

Also Lamborghini is owned by Audi which in turn is owned by Volkswagen. So the parent companies with much larger volumes (VW group is the largest automobile manufacturer in the world) are now signing on to EVs (at least they claim). VW is the company that can deliver large volumes and really move the EV needle. That is the company that we should focus on, not an small niche subsidiary (or more correctly a subsidiary of a subsidiary). For the foreseeable feature, there will always be a segment that might prefer ICEs. Rather than fight them, it is best to pick the battles that we need to win, and that is to concentrate on the the segments with mass appeal. my 1 -c-.

 

[bwilson4web]

Remember When Top Gear and Tesla Clashed Over the Roadster? https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/12536/remember-when-top-gear-and-tesla-clashed-over-the-roadster Tesla filed a lawsuit and lost.

This one?

Driven hard, all vehicles' efficiency is poor and range drops considerably. In the case of the roadster, the range when driven like a race car was just 55 miles, not 200. The difference is that gasoline has far greater energy density and refueling takes just seconds (40 seconds for GT Daytona cars, for full tank fill).

It had an excellent effect:


Well I'm off to run errands with my Tesla that starts every day fully charged and costs about $2.50 to drive 100 miles. In contrast, our BMW i3 REx, a plug-in hybrid, costs $6.00 to drive 100 miles on gas. As for recharging time on the road, my wife and her pet dogs insist every stop, gas or electric, take 20-30 minutes ... 'plumbing'.

Bob Wilson

 

[101101]

Well I disagree with the leave the ICE people to it stance. No, ICE is a trespass and a clear cumulatively saturated social harm. So they don't get to propagandize with stupid things that run contrary to an apparent existential threat. I do realize the market will clean up this trash but they beg for it when they say such stupid things. I get that some people really love their toys but that stuff has had a good run and its hurting people, its damaging health and survival and trying to keep the halo thing going doesn't make any sense-no prestige for gross pollution machines and the politics of slavery and global instability they drag along with them- their are like instruments that instigate wars. This crowd can install speakers and vibrators on their electrics with emulate ICE but they don't need to be forcing other people and children to smoke their second hand tail pipe on the road anymore. Its enough that the old stuff isn't limited to being only driven on private property.

We don't need new ICE junk. When we hear that the GND is for instance only aspirational its is because the petrolcrats think some sort of privilege or deference is owed to them. Nothing could be further from the truth, they have a fate that will be much rougher than the tobacco companies, they are lined up globally for unlimited liability civil and criminal, Diesel gate was nothing. Their best hope was and is attempting to reverse course as fast as possible to be part of the solution, instead we get aggravating belligerence with them digging their hole deeper.

 

[galderdi]

Your vision for the future is noble. But painting ICE users as evil earth trashers just pushes them further away. Faced with that attitude from the alternative will promote the division and they will just dig their heals in. We are early in the transition from ICE to alternatives. People will need time to be educated and transition. Blaming them for everything is just not helpful.

Our impact on the planet is not limited to the emissions from our vehicles.

Some vegans suggest anyone eating animal products are evil. To some omnivores this just promotes the view that all vegans are nut jobs (Not my personal view).

Some environmentalists say we should have 0 single use plastics and anyone using any single use plastics are evil earth killers. To others in the public this promotes the view that environmentalists are nut jobs (Not my personal view)

Really I could be said that to stop harm to our planet we really need to end human life entirely. Even EVs use tyres and oil base lubricants so even EVs have a negative impact on the planet.

I don't think extreme views and using provocative labels on subjects like these are helpful, it just alienates people who then move away from the conversation. Lets just promote the positives of the new alternatives and keep people engaged in the conversation.

 

[101101]

I understand what you're saying but at the same time it reminds me of some disgusting comments by Bill Gates. Gates has said that petrol equity is owned by a handful of people in the world (disgusting) and that therefore we shouldn't divest petrol because we don't want to sour these people . So sub message from Bill is we should let them wait another 150 years before we take action? Same kind of logic he used on even a basic income when what we really need is a high indexed GAI. Bill said we can't afford even a basic income. My position is we couldn't afford Bill Gates or even is foundation. From my perspective the reason we have the idiocy of insurance funds being invested so that they don't rot is that the funds carry water and provided cover for billionaires like Gates which are a rotting of capital in its purest unearned sense. Some huge pool of capital masking health care driving up rates and socializing constant and ever unending petrol losses from the likes of Exxon's ilk are hidden but made a precondition to a necessity like health care and then then the idiot related claims like what we're supposed to provide access to emergency rooms- what next providing free cars to everyone- and these comments come from useless a-holes that have never done a day of work in their lives and come from an environment where no one they know has either and yet all these free loaders are dependent for everything they have other people and families they are trying to deny emergency rooms too. So you can't see I am not sympathetic!

 

[galderdi]

The best way to make cultural change is through inclusion and education. We need to promote the positives of Electric Vehicles. Persecuting people for the past actually will delay the outcome we are looking for.

For example I work with a person who is almost Vegan. She values animal rights but does not push it on anyone else around her. She is quite OK with sitting down and eating her lunch next to someone eating meat. I found my self gravitating towards the vegan options more frequently purely through association and seeing how some (I stress SOME) of the vegan options were actually quite tasty, healthy and filling. But then Australia had a couple of days of idiot vegan extremists invading farms, butchers and abattoirs stealing property and disrupting livelihoods. It has resulted in a massive backlash and set the vegan cause back many years (probably decades). There is no way I could contemplate being a vegan in this climate as I would be associated with these extremists.

People don't listen to views that come across as extreme. People also almost never change their entire values system in one hit. We need to embrace the journety with them and make each step in the change attractive and achievable otherwise they will just resist the first step.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Some environmentalists say we should have 0 single use plastics and anyone using any single use plastics are evil earth killers. To others in the public this promotes the view that environmentalists are nut jobs (Not my personal view)

I don't think we need to give up the convenience of plastics, but I strongly advocate moving to biodegradable plastics for single-use or disposable items.

I think there is waaaaaaaay too much emphasis on the problem of global warming, as if that's the only way human activity is damaging the environment. Humans are highly adaptable, and we live in a much greater range of climates than any other large mammal. If the Earth gets warmer, we'll migrate to what once were colder regions, or just adapt to warmer temperatures. Of course, this will be accompanied by much disruption, and wars... because wars are group struggles for resources. In fact, we're already seeing a rising number of small-scale wars and "conflict zones", but that has a lot more to do with human overpopulation than global warming. Land is a resource, and fertile crop land is the most valuable land. With continued global warming, fertile land will be either lost or it will move to other areas. That is, of course, already happening in some areas.

But back to the subject: The only reason why biodegradable plastic isn't already in widespread use for disposable items, is that it costs a bit more. But I wouldn't at all mind if a box of drinking straws or a box of Saran Wrap cost 10¢ or 15¢ more. In my opinion, that would be well worth the cost!

The environmental damage from the growing amount of plastics accumulating is absolutely horrifying. On the time scale of decades or even centuries, plastics don't go away; they just break into smaller and smaller pieces. Small pieces are accumulating in the stomachs of many types of animals, which in many cases eventually result in death. The number of animals killed by this environmental contamination every year is staggering.

It's too bad that manufacturers of disposable plastic items have not themselves already moved to replace normal plastics with biodegradable plastics. If those companies were run by people who were acting as responsible members of society, then there would already be a strong movement in the direction of eliminating use of normal plastics for disposable or single-use items. But since those companies haven't moved in that direction, it looks like once again it's up to government regulators to force them to do so.

​

 

[interestedinEV]

It's too bad that manufacturers of disposable plastic items have not themselves already moved to replace normal plastics with biodegradable plastics. If those companies were run by people who were acting as responsible members of society, then there would already be a strong movement in the direction of eliminating use of normal plastics for disposable or single-use items. But since those companies haven't moved in that direction, it looks like once again it's up to government regulators to force them to do so.

​

Being a realist, at least in the US, I do not see either happening, that manufacturers will be moving to bio-degradable plastics or regulators forcing the issue. It is a simple question of cents. A 5-c- saving means that 5 -c- that multiplied by millions of items, go directly to the bottom line. That said, some manufacturers may move towards it, but not all. In this regulatory climate, business and economic interests have a clear edge over environmental interests. Europe may be a different story but I do not see what you are suggesting happening in the next 2+ years.