Couldn't stay up to watch the big Tesla event last night? No time to watch the whole thing today? Here's a 9-minute redux, care of the Verge.
7375 Torque Est 1500 hp below Able to go a lot further at top speed than Chiron Guessing higher weight helped with lower cd i.e. that and wider tires allowing for smaller cd killing spoiler. Nio 9 set Nurimberg record couldnt have been that light but a lot of spoiler and like roadster low center of gravity and maybe torque vectoring. Wondering if cd which is lower than a model s (whereas Chiron is higher the Tesla Semi) will help off the line or to 60mph. What Tesla seems to be saying with all of in cluding low center which will help keep front tires engaged off line is look: half the torque of the largest dump truck off the line but more HP (in a chill mode streetable car) than in any hyper car ever. So if you want to beat it with ICE you need a dragster or funny car set up which won't be very road worthy or a rally car set up but they are so light and tiny they don't count either. So in short, the roadster is in a space along core performance characteristics that ICE simply can't go. All while being way more efficient and cheaper to operate. This is one of the problems with the Bolt. Opened the hood and its still full of designed to fail after a certain profit maximizing point legacy junk. Still probably has 10x more moving parts than a Tesla. They went to their unreliable parts bin instead of starting from scratch. A Tesla has 18 moving parts, ICE has thousands. http://www.thedrive.com/tech/16315/science-confirms-new-tesla-roadster-will-be-the-greatest-getaway-car-ever When we catch a media firm lieing about stuff like this they should be black listed like the sponsored spam they are. For instance consumer reports while at times favorable at other times tried to conflate leave you on the road stranded with reliability in gull wing doors, that is a black list kind of thing, lie and you're noise not signal.
That's not how the physics of Cd (drag coefficient), weight, and center of gravity works. A higher weight is not advantageous in any way for acceleration. A low center of gravity doesn't affect (straight-line) acceleration. Drag coefficient is only one part of understanding air pressure resistance (one has to also take into account frontal surface area, for example) Finally, it seems like you're accusing the author of The Drive article of lying, though you don't go into detail as to what he's not being forthrightly honest about. I read the article, and it seemed rather reasonable. If you make claims of people lying, you should go to some length to justify that charge. Or at least mention the specific point you feel is not true.
No issue with the drive article, only consumer reports for lying and I explained it. Weight correlated with potentially higher traction (otherwise negative) lower center of gravity with greater resistance to rotational angle that will lift the front end reducing frontal traction. Lower cd useful for less wind resistance at points in the 0-60mph spriny i.e moving in the direction of less resistance.
Perhaps this is quibbling, but that generality is not always true. Consider the case of a 4-wheel drive (or "all wheel drive") car: A lower center of gravity would reduce the amount of weight shifting from front to back which occurs in a fast acceleration. Shifting the weight to the back decreases the traction on the front wheels, perhaps letting them spin instead of grip. So, in some cases, a lower center of gravity should help in straight-line acceleration. Please note I did not suggest that would have a measurable effect in most cases. It would not have much if any effect on the Tesla Semi Truck, since its front wheels are not drive wheels.
