Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Not sure what you mean. Traction is traction. If you can brake at 6G then you can accelerate at 6G if you have enough power.Not good enough for sub 1 sec 0-60, as already explained to you several times with linked sources explaining why.
I suspect the only reason the McMurtry can't do it is that the motor doesn't make 1000hp until it's well over 60mph and if they fixed that (more torque at lower speeds) they would also need stronger axles.
They'll make liquid hydrogen from water vapor in the air.They're not going use rocket fuel in an electric car (not to mention the nightmare for safety and inability to FIND the fuel for customers)
The Plaid already goes 200mph speed and power requirements go up with the cube of speed. (250/200)^3= 1.95 times as much power to go 250mph. Of course the Roadster should be smaller so it would have less drag. 1000V architecture will double the power handling with the same wire thickness.As a non physicist and non EE, I’m most interested in the transition from 1) active downforce at launch and 2) power needs at higher speeds.
Can anyone do the math based on current weight, estimated tire patch area and current tire traction properties, if you want to keep a constant 3Gs, for how long and how much extra downforce do you need? Not all the way to 250mph right? Also, what is the total amount of power area needed over that time to 250mph?
Does it really make sense to reconfigure the battery cell layout for double or triple max power when you know that the car can only use that much power for a few seconds?
I know ultracapacitors are bulky and heavy but does that amount of power still mean all batteries and no ultracapacitors?
The Roadster makes no sense but that's kinda the point of hypercars.