How do Teslas get any traction? They have 800+ lb/ft of torque and only have 265s from the factory...

How do Teslas get any traction? They have 800+ lb/ft of torque and only have 265s from the factory. Is it just the traction control is really aggressive or what

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0yACTJl-P7s
youtube.com/watch?v=hWy_x8r5zbg
nasaspeed.news/tech/wheels-tires/getting-a-grip-examining-the-elements-of-tire-traction/
youtube.com/watch?v=ccLjv3FLldM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

have you heard of this weird all wheel drive thing

teslers come in rwd and awd

Single gear, weigh 5000 pounds, motor spool up. Electric motors don’t really free rev like gasoline engines when there is no load, they still ramp according to the current going through them.

Nothing to do with it. 911 Turbo is AWD, has the same size fronts (245), much bigger rear (325 vs 265), much stickier tires, weighs 1500 pounds less, has a better weight bias for acceleration, yet is still significantly slower to 60.

Think about power curves on an ICE. Take the 911 Turbo, it makes 600hp or so, but only at peak power. You take off at 2500 RPM violently as a clutch is engaged, it has traction for a moment but approaches the limit of traction as the power curve comes on, the car now has to slip clutches and apply the brakes to ensure power goes to all 4 wheels, a gear is shifted violently again dropping the engine back in the power curve, the cycle repeats, it's a lot going on in a few seconds. An electric motor can just be firmwared to put the exact amount of current necessary to the motor to be right under the absolute limit of traction 100% of the time from 0 to top speed.

...

the weight

low center of mass
awd
fancy electric traction control magic
traction control and things like that work far better on ac electric motors btw

AWD and Weight. Same reason why big trucks can be quick in the 1/4.

youtube.com/watch?v=0yACTJl-P7s

>weight makes it faster
They don't teach physics in school anymore?

they don't teach reading comprehension in school any more? the weight helps with traction you absolute retard

>the weight helps with traction you absolute retard
No, it doesn't. More available traction is necessary to move a heavier car, because like Newton told you when you weren't paying attention in 2nd grade, f=ma.

Weight helps you hook up and bite harder without running big ass drag radials. Traction=Speed in the drag racing world. It's why Chad's poorly tuned cummins takes off from the line quicker than the $300k meme toys you change the oil on.

Are you actually retarded? More weight on the wheels = more traction

Ok retard

She must have some good pussy

Who the fuck is that? Is that the Tesla guy? That woman behind him seems like a gold digger but conventionally beutiful.

With more sprung weight over the rear tires gives you more contact surface of rubber without running a dangerously low psi, and allegedly keeps tires and suspension stable but that depends on a hundred different factors. Pretty much all serious racers have tuned their suspension to transfer as much weight as possible to the powered tires, but heavier vehicles already have a greater advantage, but also they keep the weight there longer. 80% of your weight transfer on a 400-600 hp launch is over in about a second

Holy shit you figured out the secret, that's why top fuel cars have 10k lbs of ballast on the chassis, to make them accelerate even quicker!

When you demonstrate you don't understand the simplest, easiest to understand law of physics it's pretty tough to turn it around and call anyone else a retard but yourself. There is no situation in which adding weight (not to adjust the weight bias, just adding weight centrally) will make a car accelerate faster, because the thought you have of added traction is far outweighed by needing much more traction than that amount to accelerate the new weight from a rest. This is why drag cars weigh as little as possible.

this is all very fascinating coming from someone who details cars for a living

most impressive

please tell me how to get cumstains out of my seats, i was fucking your mother the other night and some of it came out her nose when i blew my load

Actually, outside of extreme cases, most weight advantages are surpassed by top end horsepower around 1/8 of a mile in drag racing. You should go watch some races sometime

its just another episode of fagbreaker acting like a dumb wanker
let it go

i swear he makes posts so he can reply to them

I should mention that becomes an issue of the vehicle needing more power to overcome the wind and friction resistances, but the point is weight is really only a huge factor in getting off the line quickly. But it’s not like you can drive cars in a vacuum. Road racing is a whole different story though

>fails to disprove basic laws of physics
>you're gay!
That'll show em

Why are you talking about horsepower?
>if a car has more power it will still be faster that proves that weight=traction
Take two identical cars. Add 1000lbs to one. Is the car with the weight ballast quicker? According to multiple posters ITT it should be. Now take 1500lbs off the Tesla to match the 911, is the Tesla slower now? Add 1500lbs to the Porsche, is it faster now?

Post that pic of you in the brown suit, the one where we can see your bald spot and gut hanging out. You know the one.

Protip: that isn't a cordless ratchet

Whatever you say sweetie, you're just upset that people have started to chronicle your retardation.

I think you need to learn how drag racing works. Rednecks can figure it out, A fine automotive technician like yourself should be able to too.

youtube.com/watch?v=hWy_x8r5zbg

Actually everyone was talking about traction and then you went off on a tangent about weight and speed.

wew lad

""""tech""""" advice, everyone

take it with a grain of salt

Can you post it? Would love to see

Chronicle my retardation by suggesting an angled impact is a cordless ratchet, then taking a picture of their own incorrect post?

So with what I've learned in this thread, which disagrees with physics but must be correct, if you cut 1500lbs of weight off that truck it would be slower and added that 1500lbs of dead weight to the Porsche it would be faster, right?

They were?

>weigh 5000 pounds
>the weight
>AWD and Weight

Energy equals mass squared. High torque into high mass equals more energy.
I'm switching my major to physics soon, so I'm brushed up on this. You don't understand shit. Physics isn't common sense, otherwise anyone could be a rocket scientist.

Yeah, because people don’t use sandbags in the bed of their trucks in winter time.

...

>how do Teslas get any traction?

Wrong click.

This tripfaggot is literally retarded.

Heart breaker, you are full of shit. Learn actual physics.

>switching major to Physics
>doesn't understand Newton's first or second laws
You are off to a great start!

They don't use them to go faster. Try reading my post you quoted again if you don't understand weight bias vs absolute weight in a car.

Dumbass, e=m sq. is Einsteinian physics, not Newtonian. It invalidates the absolutelidity of the Newtonian laws.
You don't even know what you are talking about. Get your physics straight.

>all of this buttblasted damage control

truly pathetic

Your own post showed that more energy is required to move a heavier car from a rest than a lighter one given the same amount of force acted on them. What breakthrough do you think you are coming to? What are you changing your major from, pottery?


The scientists in this thread just opened my eyes to something else, now I understand why loaded semi trucks have better braking than a Miata. All that weight pushing down on the tires! They can easily get more traction, drastically reducing their braking distance and speed.

Low IQ and bad physics.

Not anymore, they're all AWD except the base model 3

you are probably right. linear power delivery like a bmw engine helps electric cars.

>Energy equals mass squared. High torque into high mass equals more energy.
What else needs to be said?
Nothing. You are in so much denial that you cannot refute this.
This doesn't even take into account the magnetism generated by moving steel, which further gives the vehicle more traction. You're stuck on 2nd grade newton physics, you need to read up on relativity and quantum mechanics.

>What else needs to be said?
Nothing needs to be said, you already proved that I am right. More energy is required to move a heavier vehicle, thus adding weight will slow the vehicle down.

nasaspeed.news/tech/wheels-tires/getting-a-grip-examining-the-elements-of-tire-traction/
>It’s easy to understand the car will not accelerate as quickly because it weighs more
Well maybe not so easy, at least for our local "about to be physics major"

...

Got that backward dumbass
The more mass, the more energy you'll get out of the damn thing, not less. Read hawking. Notice his theory on electrical matter infeteinfeterence more weight on a simple machine, the easier it moves.

How do locomotives get any traction? They have 80 000+ lb/ft and only have 30s from the factory.

They don't, that's why they have to start so fucking slowly even if they're not pulling anything.

I bet you smell like cheese

>the more energy you'll get out of the damn thing
You won't get any energy out of a car accelerating, it's a consumer, not a generator. The potential energy is in the gas tank or battery. The heavier the car is, the more you need to move it at a fixed rate. Hard for me to believe you aren't trolling, but I'm sure there are "going to be a physics major soons" out there that actually are stumped by f=ma. Maybe they should be hired by race teams so they could add 5000 lbs of tungsten to the car to "have more energy" (while the acceleration is cut in half)

With modern traction control and a fuckload of sand they can accelerate pretty good for half a million pounds.

>my thread turned into heartbreaker being retarded and btfoing himself multiple times
nice

>How do Teslas get any traction?
On a road selected for demonstrations, that road surface might have additional preparation work to ensure that the Tesla's tires have the least slip. The first 100 feet of road surface might even be treated to reduce tire slip resulting from ludicrous mode.

F(max) = ma(max) = uN
N is directly proportional to m, so:
a(max) ~ u

u is constant for a given tire/surface, therefor weight is meaningless if you have enough power. As soon as traction control kicks in, you've reached as much power as you can physically use. Therefor, the secret is squeezing as much power onto the ground as you can without slipping.

Remember, that tesla has pretty much max torque at low rpms. Off the line it's got its full howevermany horsepower. A Porsche or any gas engine car has less than half of it's rated power off the start. Combine that with incredibly good traction control because 4motors and you've got a 0 to 60 machine.

A high stall converter and a transbrake will let you launch at almost full power. A moderately tuned big diesel with a high stall TC will be making as much TQ and HP as a Tesla as it waits on the line.

tldr: You don't need motors for instant torque just some bald eagles.

youtube.com/watch?v=ccLjv3FLldM

>90 psi
>only 1500hp
diesel a shit

e=mc^2 acualy

1500hp..... And 2500 lb/ft of torque. That's pretty good from 6 cylinders and less than 7 liters.

Sh, it’s fun to watch the tards argue with made up facts

You obviously have no understanding of physics or electric vehicles.

>people in this thread not knowing that friction is friction coefficient times force

Nice, I liked the part where you rewrote my original post while at the same time ignoring everything posted in the thread so far

Wait, you aren't saying it can accelerate faster than the Porsche because it has 11x the torque, right? Earlier you said it was faster because it was heavier.

You'll have to elaborate for us laymen, I love a simple ad hom but you aren't bringing anything to the conversation with that post.

It's fast because it makes power and puts it down. Something like a dyno queen supra makes big power but can't put it down. Tesla's make power and put it down. See a pattern here?

NDT here.
I have never observed anyone so utterly eviscerated in a physics debate as this heartbreaker character.
He shows such a profound misunderstanding that I am literally dumbfounded. This perversion of classicalistic physics is obscene.
The point the aspiring physicist made regarding infetterence of the electrical fields went over his head.
Heartbreaker. Wors of advice. Stick to cars. Leave physics to the professionals.

He is pretending to be retarded because he wants people to reply to him, this makes him feel better about his pathetic life.

>Something like a dyno queen supra makes big power but can't put it down
All it needs is a few thousand pounds of ballast, right?

When you find yourself enthusiastically agreeing with the post that made reference to the grocery store copypasta to make yourself feel better maybe it's time to evaluate for the 3rd time who the retard really is.

They're direct drive so there's no wind up in the drivetrain so traction loss can be mitigated in much more granular methods. Once a drivetrain has a bit of windup from plenty of torque applied a loss of traction results in the drivetrain unwinding so even with the computer attempting to halt the loss it cannot account for that delay and you end up with stuttering at the tyre which is nicely visible in slowmo.

They'd be faster with multi geared transmissions.

Okay guys... This thread is about traction, not speed. We all know that more weight will make a car slower. The OP is asking about traction, as in putting power to the ground. More traction = less burnouts.

Put something heavy like the Empire State Building on a wheel. Can you make the wheel do a burnout? No, because there's too much weight on it.

I doubt it, at this point I'd say it's all up to tyre technology, you can smash out as much torque as you like off the line but unless you turn it into traction it's an absolute waste of time. There are plenty of ICE motors which make more but they have more trouble putting it down off the line.

Sure, just strap some nuclear thermal rockets to that damn tired and let her rip

faster, but not quicker

Both. Electric dragsters aren't even remotely close to their ICE counterparts. motors aren;t miracle devices. They still have torque and powerbands.

How is a geared transmission going to help a Tesla with launch traction?

eh well they tried to give the Tesla Roadster a transmission and it kept breaking from the instant torque, so they made it direct drive

They don't produce any more torque than ICE powerplants, grip is the issue ICE suffers not output. If they couldn't build a transmission to suit that's on them. Whether they need a transmission is another argument.

nah ICE suffers because it has to make use of expanding gases instead of magnetic fields

Wtf does that even mean user? There are countless cars out there which make use of traction control which is in the most literal sense the power/torque of the ICE overcoming available traction - you could easily make more with said ICE engine but that doesn't change your available traction.

because those expanding gases are pretty fickle with their ratios and stuff. you gotta retard the spark, trim out the fuel in relation to the air and then when you regain traction then you advance the timing and can put in more fuel but by then you've lost traction again and you have to pull timing and etc etc etc. EV you just meter out electricity in relation to how much wheelspin you have. much more efficient

I agree with basically all you said, how does that relate to your instant torque comment?

because EV produce torque from 0, ICE can't even drop below 500 rpm

Other than the fact that doesn't relate to your comment at all, why would you want an ICE to drop below 500, it's there running all your ancillary systems.

A lower gear would help you to meter out the power slightly better instead of dealing with a glob of torque.
Stop using cheap chinese transmissions and use a torque dampening device like on a 5 ton.
A Cummins ISB makes 400lb/ft at a little over idle.

>A lower gear would help you to meter out the power slightly better instead of dealing with a glob of torque.
No it wouldn't, it would multiply the torque delivered.

and to add to this and tie the whole thing together, in order to launch an ICE car you have to rev the motor til you're at some 'perfect' point in the powerband then you take off and then we go through that whole thing. whereas in an EV you just hit the throttle and take off and it's much easier to meter out the power for perfect acceleration to grip. if an ICE could have perfect grip off the line without needing super sticky tires like an EV does, they could be much faster.

it only charges the battery. everything runs off the battery otherwise

what do these even mean

Other than silly little things like hydraulics and vacuum/pneumatics.

oh that stuff doesn't matter

>The more mass, the more energy
ah, thats why car companies strive to have heavy vehicles

Actual physics major here

If we stick to classical models of friction and Newtonian mechanics, then the static friction from the wheels contacting the ground provides up to "umg" of force (u is the static friction coefficient, m is the mass, g is earth's surface gravity) if the car is transferring all of its power to the drive wheels and none of them are slipping

The acceleration of the car, as everyone pointed out, is given by F=ma => a = F/m . Since the static friction from the wheels is the only force pushing the car, then the maximum possible acceleration of the car is "ug"

note that this DOES NOT depend on its mass, it only depends on the type of rubber and the road surface.

In order to get this maximal acceleration, you need perfect weight transfer to the drive wheels and just the right amount of torque to get the wheels to almost spin but not actually spin, which can be acheived by a very precise launch and good suspension settings (or even better, four wheel drive)

However, a heavier car has more angular momentum, thus the weight transfer occurs more slowly no matter the suspension settings. It also puts more strain on the tyres, which heats them up and deforms them, lowering the friction coefficient.

On top of that, there is downforce, which at high speeds provides an extra force, say D, which would change the car's acceleration to a = u(g+D/m) note that part of this component is inversely proportional to mass, which means that a lighter car will be significantly more affected by downforce

Keep in mind that cornering and breaking are forms of acceleration too, so this all also applies to both (this is why F1 cars can basically pull insane high speed maneuvers that no other car can dream of)

In any case though, the lighter car always has a definite advantage. It is possible to partially compensate with advanced suspension and 4WD systems, (like the GTR for example) but it still doesn't beat a lighter car

Wrong.

I don't read to well, but are you saying that the weight of a vehicle on the tyres does not change the coefficient of friction available to a lighter vehicle?

the friction coefficient is, according to classical friction laws, constant for a given tyre and road surface, it does not depends on the mass of the car.

That being said, this is approximative, in reality it also somewhat depends on tyre pressure, the contact patch with the road, the temperature, and the shape of the tyre, which are all things that can vary because of the extra weight of a heavier car. This is too specific and steeping into plebeian engineer territory which I am less familiar with, you can probably find some good info in you google it

however, it remains that for the most part, the friction coefficient does not depend on the weight of the car

Because racers both topspeed and drag never weigh their cars up with lead for an advantage

for drag racing proper weight distribution is key, so weights can be useful in some scenarios

for top speed racing acceleration is irrelevant, and thus weight is an advantage because it adds stability

in almost every other case being lighter is better, nice try

>for top speed racing acceleration is irrelevant, and thus weight is an advantage because it adds stability
I suppose this is why cars with active aero reduce downforce at very high speeds. Weight is useful right up until the point where it hinders further acceleration.