1.1 sec 0-60

[Car-Guy]

I'd rather see OEMs focus on making an EV that can go for 300+ miles without costing $75,000+ versus focusing on lowering 0-60 mph times.

I think distances per charge is important but from my POV, at this point, getting full charging times down to ~10mins would really get my attention and interest in EV's. At my age, I don't like to spend much of my time waiting on too many things, but that's me.

 

[eytonxav]

FTFY

I've never purchased a car for ego purposes, but maybe you need counseling if this triggers you.

 

[Car-Guy]

Oh yeah, my next car is going to be all about impressing others because of my personal insecurities, and it’s also going to be useless!

I've never purchased a car for ego purposes, but maybe you need counseling if this triggers you.

+1


BTW, for you car guys/gals out there, the History Channel is running a series on the Cars that Built the World. I watched the first part last night and learned a lot of things I didn't know about the early day of cars... Next chapters tonight. Worth a watch if you like automotive history too.

 

[ERD50]

Said another way and, as usual, telling you way more than I know: I've always heard that HP is more important to, for instance top speed in, say, quarter mile runs. Raw acceleration is more related to available torque. We all know that Teslas have insane torque but HP more in the range of a standard Vette. YouTube is full of guys doing 1/8 mi drags against super cars and blowing the doors off of them. BUT if you watch to the end, you see that same "loser" of a super car BLAST past the Tesla just after losing on time. Enough HP always wins top speed. Properly applied torque wins at the timing lights.

Teslas (all electric cars) develop their maximum torque at ZERO rpm while most super cars (or just any street legal car from a VW bug to a Vette) must be about mid-range in the rpm range to develop their highest torque. SO electric cars begin with a huge advantage at the starting lights and lose that advantage at the end.

So ends todays lesson on HP vs Torque. Returning you now to folks who actually know what they're talking about and HEY, as usual, YMMV.

Yes. For top speed, clearly, the more HP (which is torque * RPM * a constant), the faster you can go (all else being equal), and assuming you are geared properly so that the HP peak is matched to the top speed.

The torque curve and gearing affect how fast you can get to that top speed.

Technically, at ZERO RPM, where an electric motor produces max torque, the HP is ZERO. Can't have power without moving something, you have only force, but no "work".

-ERD50

 

[Amethyst]

What happens when your dog doesn't wear his seat belt. Wouldn't want to see the mess behind those seats.

 

[NW-Bound]

Said another way and, as usual, telling you way more than I know: I've always heard that HP is more important to, for instance top speed in, say, quarter mile runs. Raw acceleration is more related to available torque. We all know that Teslas have insane torque but HP more in the range of a standard Vette. YouTube is full of guys doing 1/8 mi drags against super cars and blowing the doors off of them. BUT if you watch to the end, you see that same "loser" of a super car BLAST past the Tesla just after losing on time. Enough HP always wins top speed. Properly applied torque wins at the timing lights.

Teslas (all electric cars) develop their maximum torque at ZERO rpm while most super cars (or just any street legal car from a VW bug to a Vette) must be about mid-range in the rpm range to develop their highest torque. SO electric cars begin with a huge advantage at the starting lights and lose that advantage at the end.

So ends todays lesson on HP vs Torque. Returning you now to folks who actually know what they're talking about and HEY, as usual, YMMV.

Yes. It's impossible to beat an electric motor on torque at low speeds. It's just the nature of the beast, or the laws of physics if you will.

And speaking of transmission gears, up until I bought a new car earlier this year, I did not know that the 6-speed transmission is pretty much standard now, and many cars have a 9-speed transmission.

Growing up at a time when the 4th gear was often called "overdrive" and a 3-speed transmission was standard, I was impressed by this development.

 

[ERD50]

...
And speaking of transmission gears, up until I bought a new car earlier this year, I did not know that the 6-speed transmission is pretty much standard now, and many cars have a 9-speed transmission.

Growing up at a time when the 4th gear was often called "overdrive" and a 3-speed transmission was standard, I was impressed by this development.

You should read up on these "dual clutch" transmissions (I believe this is the most common design these days). Unlike the old "automatic transmissions" with planetary gears, these are much more like the old manual transmissions (with a torque converter and electronic control). Very simple, allows for simple speed matching of the gears and almost constant power delivery during the shift (one clutch disengages as the other engages).

The only occasional negative is that the even # gears are on one shaft and the odd # gears are on the other. The auto gear shifting logic might be anticipating an up-shift and gets that gear in position, but if you change what you are doing and it needs to downshift instead, there can be a delay as it moves those gears around. It's a little like those sliding number puzzles.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

^^^ I ran across a description of the above transmission, but did not appreciate the more subtle aspects.

And speaking of mechanical design and manufacturing which I do not follow, I was also impressed by the more widespread use of the variable-displacement AC compressor. These are of course not new inventions, but it is the advancement in manufacturing that makes them more common.

These invisible progresses in manufacturing improve our life, but often go unnoticed and unappreciated.

 

[anothercog]

I'm not a car guy but I don't understand the market for cars that go 200mph or 0-60 in 2 seconds. Freeway traffic only goes about 20 mph during rush hour. where and when can you safely use these performance cars?

 

[Car-Guy]

I'm not a car guy but I don't understand the market for cars that go 200mph or 0-60 in 2 seconds. Freeway traffic only goes about 20 mph during rush hour. where and when can you safely use these performance cars?

Not in SF or on the 101 anywhere near there ... Although, I'd guess there are a bunch of "those supercars" in the San Jose and neighboring areas.


Best to keep those speeds on a race track. In Texas there are a lot of drag strips for use, even some of the major professional tracks have "race days" for the average "Joe" to run his street car... And then there are events like the "Texas Mile" to open it up, in relatively safety.

 

[audreyh1]

I-10 in West Texas. Or loop 130 around Austin.

 

[Car-Guy]

I-10 in West Texas. Or loop 130 around Austin.

I've seen the 85mph speed limit signs on 130 a few times. Folks think that's the minimum speed from my experaince there. A little too much traffic for my liking in some places/times at those speeds+.... Been there when it's pretty empty too....

 

[MRG]

I'm not a car guy but I don't understand the market for cars that go 200mph or 0-60 in 2 seconds. Freeway traffic only goes about 20 mph during rush hour. where and when can you safely use these performance cars?

I appreciate the acceleration when passing. We live in the mountains with limited passing areas, when the roads open I'm passing. It's frustrating to sit and wait for the transmission to downshift, the engine revs, and the passing zone is gone.

Someone upstream mentioned 50-80 in sub 3 seconds, more like <2 seconds.

 

[anothercog]

Not in SF or on the 101 anywhere near there ... Although, I'd guess there are a bunch of "those supercars" in the San Jose and neighboring areas.


Best to keep those speeds on a race track. In Texas there are a lot of drag strips for use, even some of the major professional tracks have "race days" for the average "Joe" to run his street car... And then there are events like the "Texas Mile" to open it up, in relatively safety.

Pretty much everyone has a Tesla. Occasionally I see a Lamborghini making a lot of noise to go 15 mph and I'm shaking my head.

 

[OldShooter]

... Someone upstream mentioned 50-80 in sub 3 seconds, more like <2 seconds.

Me. Some rough calculations give me a passing exposure of about 3 seconds with a 55-85 ET of 3 seconds. My WRX goes faster but it is unnecessary.

 

[Koolau]

Yes. It's impossible to beat an electric motor on torque at low speeds. It's just the nature of the beast, or the laws of physics if you will.

And speaking of transmission gears, up until I bought a new car earlier this year, I did not know that the 6-speed transmission is pretty much standard now, and many cars have a 9-speed transmission.

Growing up at a time when the 4th gear was often called "overdrive" and a 3-speed transmission was standard, I was impressed by this development.

Heh, heh, you must be a bit younger than I. I recall most (at least) GM autos were TWO speed. I think one of their "brand name" trannies was called "DynaFlo" (maybe in Buick?). Most of us called it the "DynaFlush" to be as derogatory as possible.

When you're on the verge of getting a license, it's even more fun to talk about various cars, their options, engine HP, etc. than now that we're geezers.

Of course, there's little comparison between today's cars and the cars I grew up with (all the way back into late '40s cars to early '60s cars). I remember the "horse-power" wars. I remember the introduction of the first Sting Ray, the introduction of the "Hemi" and all the car songs that went along with the age.

Gas was cheap, girls loved guys who had cars - especially fast cars (they didn't understand the difference between "quick" and "fast" but they instinctively knew who the guy with the "hottest" car was.) Of course, since I drove my dads station wagon - when he'd let me, I wasn't one of the cool guys - but what a time to be alive! YMMV

 

[ERD50]

Heh, heh, you must be a bit younger than I. I recall most (at least) GM autos were TWO speed. I think one of their "brand name" trannies was called "DynaFlo" (maybe in Buick?). Most of us called it the "DynaFlush" to be as derogatory as possible. ...

My first (only?) experience with a 2-speed transmission was in High School (late 60's). Before we had our DLs, my friends Grandma picked us up from some gathering and drove us home. On a stretch of 55 mph road, I recall this car accelerated oh-so-slowly, and at ~ 40 mph, she let her foot off the gas, I think to let it gingerly shift to "High" (2nd!), then gave it a bit of gas after the shift.

I think it was a Chevy or some other GM brand, and probably ~ 1954 model? So would have been ~ 16 YO at the time (about the same age as me at the time!).

I almost couldn't believe there were 2 speed transmissions in cars.

-ERD50

 

[Walt34]

I'm not a car guy but I don't understand the market for cars that go 200mph or 0-60 in 2 seconds. Freeway traffic only goes about 20 mph during rush hour. where and when can you safely use these performance cars?

Lots of places in WV and surrounding locales. Adding in the qualification of "safely" narrows the choices quite a bit though. That almost limits one to Summit Point Raceway, which still offers quite a few options.

 

[NW-Bound]

A car with a 2-speed transmission? Are you pulling my leg? Were you driving back in WWI?

My late father had an 1956 Opel Olympia Rekord. It had a 3-speed manual transmission. I still remember, because I drove it for a short distance when I was 14.

See Web photo below.


PS. OK, I looked on the Web, and there were 2-speed auto transmissions. I have not found an example of a 2-speed manual. If the 1st gear was low enough to get the car rolling without burning the clutch, particularly if you started out going uphill, then the 2nd gear would also be so low the engine would be redlining at 40 mph.

 

[ERD50]

A car with a 2-speed transmission? Are you pulling my leg? ...


PS. OK, I looked on the Web, and there were 2-speed auto transmissions. I have not found an example of a 2-speed manual. If the 1st gear was low enough to get the car rolling without burning the clutch, particularly if you started out going uphill, then the 2nd gear would also be so low the engine would be redlining at 40 mph.

My friend's Grandma's car looked kinda like that, but a 1950's American Iron version.

Yes, the two-speeds I'm talking about were automatics. I guess the torque converter allows the 1st (low) gear to be higher than it would be in a manual. Like you say, you'd burn up the clutch trying to get started otherwise.

Geez, now I'm curious, might have to go look up the gear ratios...

OK, lots of detail here, I just skimmed, but it sounds like it normally stayed in HIGH gear, and relied on a multi-stage torque converter to get up to speed. LOW gear was an optional selection by the driver to boost acceleration.

In normal driving, Dynaflow started in high gear (direct drive), relying on the converter's 3.1:1 torque multiplication, Ref. 1963 Buick Service Manual to accelerate the vehicle. Low gear, obtained via the planetary gearset, could be manually engaged and held up to approximately 60 mph (97 km/h), improving acceleration.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflow

edit/add. I thought that the lowly Model T was 3-speed as well, but (from wiki)...

The three pedal controls of the Model T

The Model T is a rear-wheel drive vehicle. Its transmission is a planetary gear type billed as "three speed". In today's terms it is considered a two-speed, because one of the three speeds is reverse.

Well, alrighty! Three-speeds, including REVERSE! And you can have any color, as long as it is black! Hah, I bet Elon took some lessons from Henry!


-ERD50

 

[38Chevy454]

Ford Model T has 2 speed manual transmission. Its actually a planetary gear transmission. Shift with feet on pedals. With neutral being in the midway position on the fwd pedal. Push down for low, then lift all the way up for high. There is also a reverse pedal, and a brake pedal. Throttle is on the steering column.

The fastest nitro dragsters and funny cars are single speed with controlled slip clutch lockup. Most other dedicated drag cars use 2 speed automatic trans. Unless they are heavy and then 3 speed automatic mostly.

I understand some think more than basic transportation is a waste or some kind of ego thing. I'm one that believes more power is good. I love performance, it's a lot of fun to experience.

 

[Telly]

A two-speed automatic trans story... ow, my neck is hurting remembering it!

When Ford came out with their 3 speed auto, they discontinued their 2 speed. But not Chevrolet, they were late coming out with a 3 speed auto, and their 2 speed the "Powerglide" stumbled on for years as an option, or the only auto trans available with some combinations. Chevy even had a negative-cost option, that would reduce the Powerglide auto's cost something like $40. I forgot the name of the option. IIRC, with that negative-option, the trans didn't have a governor nor much of a valve body. The driver would make the shift from LO to HIGH and back using only the column gearshift lever.

The Powerglide was still around in 1971. Had a relative with a Nova with the 250 cube straight 6 in it, that had the Powerglide. He was the most uneven driver I ever rode with. His natural driving style was on or off the gas, digital-like, not smoothly in-between analog-like. So he would accelerate up to the speed limit or traffic, then take his foot completely off the gas, the trans would automatically upshift up to HIGH. Then he'd let the car coast down, then put his foot on the gas again, the trans would downshift to LO to accelerate. Then foot off gas, trans upshifts again to HIGH. The constant forward-backward jerking going down the road was awful on my poor neck, my head was snapping forward and backward.

The Powerglide was used by drag racers, after rebuilding to take the power, to do one full-power shift going down the quarter mile. There I think it found it's true use.

 

[ncbill]

I think distances per charge is important but from my POV, at this point, getting full charging times down to ~10mins would really get my attention and interest in EV's. At my age, I don't like to spend much of my time waiting on too many things, but that's me.

Solid-state batteries (electrolyte is solid) for EVs should be able to do the above plus cost half as much as today's batteries but even their biggest boosters acknowledge they are still at least 5 years away from commercialization.

Hopefully Tesla's new 4680 tab-less battery cells can partially close the gap...heck, I'd love to see Tesla sell a flashlight that takes a couple of those.

 

[Koolau]

My first (only?) experience with a 2-speed transmission was in High School (late 60's). Before we had our DLs, my friends Grandma picked us up from some gathering and drove us home. On a stretch of 55 mph road, I recall this car accelerated oh-so-slowly, and at ~ 40 mph, she let her foot off the gas, I think to let it gingerly shift to "High" (2nd!), then gave it a bit of gas after the shift.

I think it was a Chevy or some other GM brand, and probably ~ 1954 model? So would have been ~ 16 YO at the time (about the same age as me at the time!).

I almost couldn't believe there were 2 speed transmissions in cars.

-ERD50

Yeah, my dad's 54 Chevy was a 2 spd. auto. It DID manage to shift without letting up - somewhere around 30 mph unless you were really accelerating hard.

 

[eytonxav]

The fastest nitro dragsters and funny cars are single speed with controlled slip clutch lockup.

Right, no transmission at all, just multi-stage clutch packs. Their challenge is to keep adjusting the clutch based on conditions over the course of the eliminations.