quantumsolace

You're comparing a car built, as far as I can tell, for a single lap with no formula (i.e. anything goes) to a LeMans 24 hr car.

Also, the full 22.8km Nordschleife record is Niki Lauda's in a 45 year old Formula (i.e. w/ rules) F1 car - 6:55. The VW's record is for the 20.8 km circuit. No F1 car has raced either the 20 or the 22 km Nordschleife since Lauda's crash. An any F1 car since the mid 90s would demolish any track record for any configuration of the track.

Is he wrong?

Also, the Nevera has 4 wheels. Which means that the 2 000 hp it has are, mostly, BS. That much power can't be delivered to the tires. Not unless they have custom, street illegal, tires.

Can't edit my original answer any more, but I just wanted to state that:

- I think every proposition (not just sentence) of this comment is wrong.

- Tesla, not only didn't break the lap record (they only broke the EV record) which is ridiculous, but the Ring is probably the best suited lap for an EV: large track with mostly long straights or gentle curves. Try breaking the lap record at Suzuka.[1]

- Even if Tesla had the record, a single lap is hardly a fair comparison to a Ferrari or a McLaren. The Tesla couldn't do 30 laps before taking 4 hours to recharge. Those ICE cars are raced in LeMans 24. That's 24 hr. straight of driving. I'd love to see a Tesla compete in that.

[1] Full respect to the Ring - see Rush's explanation for it in the link bellow. But the Ring Niki did in under 7 minutes [2] in the 1970s is not the ring of today, and the prime difficulty of the Ring is that it's so long that

a. Weather conditions are different around the track

b. No driver can really learn the track

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyIrLKgbbA

[2] Niki's record still stands today because the original, much longer, ring is no longer.

Indeed not. We've been putting engines mid-bay since at least the 60s. If you want to compare this Tesla or the Taycan fairly, you have to compare it to a mid-engined car. Like the Corvette C8 (The C7 vette's record's better than either EV anyway, but I digress)

Low center of gravity is good, but no one would add dead weight just to lower the CoM. Stiffen up the springs and the lighter car is ahead by a lot.

[EDIT] Also, we've had boxer engines in race cars since at least the 40s.

Let me quote my Math Phys professor:

"You're utterly and completely wrong."

Let's assume we're talking about acceleration due to change of direction, or braking (since for increasing speed weight is obviously a disadvantage you simply decided to disregard)

The force required to change car's direction due to change of direction or braking is proportional to weight.

F = m*a

Therefore

(1) a = F/m

The expression for the turning torque is similar

To a first order approximation the maximum traction force available to a car is proportional to the normal force

(2) Ff = u Fg = u m g

Where Fg is force of gravity, and Ff is maximum force of traction.

So, it appears that the mass cancels out. It doesn't:

1. there's the fact that Coloum's law of friction is incorrect, especially for rubber. That's why race cars have wide tyres.

2. aerodynamic downforce is independent of weight. So my expression (2) is wrong.

Ff = u* (m*g + k*v^2)

Where k has all the information about lift.

As you can see mass no longer cancels out. As mass increases the force required to change direction increases proportionally, but the traction force available stays roughly the same.

But it gets worse. Let's say we ignore aerodynamics and assume Coloumb's law of friction (hahahahaha), largely your scenario

In comparing two cars, one double in mass than the other, the heavier car will wear out tires more quickly (since they're subject to double the loads). The heavier car will run the breaks hotter and be more prone to fading.

There is nothing good about added mass for the dynamics of a car. Nothing.*

No. OP is completely wrong and has zero understanding of car dynamics. They put weights in F1 cars to get them to the regulated minimum weight.

Car (dry weight I believe) + driver + weight > minimum.

There is no advantage to adding dead weight in a car. The disadvantage can be minimized by using very dense metals that minimize their impact on the car's moment of inertia.

I appreciate all the effort put into LO, or any complicated and sophisticated free (as in libre) project. I despise LO. I use gnumeric when I need a spreadsheet. Or grab my Mac.

I haven't tried running office in wine in over a decade, although I've realized they've achieved great things (by the games they support). I don't game, and all I need the Mac is MS Office, so I never tried again.

Lol, I asked rhetorically. I know the legality behind it.

It's a pickle to to balance all the higher order principles involved.

True, but consider that the vast majority of Android users have no clue how to do that.

Aside for YouTube "tut tut" what has Markson said that disqualifies her? I ask in full faith, as I don't know who she is.

But why does YT get to tut tut anyone? The only basic reason for it is that you fundamentally agree with YT's worldview and are OK with their dominance.

I'd ask for you to turn the tables around, YT censoring PoV you agree with. But we both know that is a ridiculous question; introspection by the hegemon usually is.

That's literally the opposite of the scientific method. A healthy scientific community rejects "scientific consensus" because the scientific method is about testing hypothesis including previous work (see the replication crisis).

As an example, the study proving that hydrocholoroquinine was useless for treating COVID was retracted by The Lancet. Turns out that the data was faked, and yet the paper still gets cited.

A good scientist doesn't hold any "scientific facts" as sacrosanct. Only hypothesis, theories, and evidence.

Already is. There must be more smartphones and tablet users than personal computer users in the world. Simply because a person who use a PC but doesn't have a smartphone (hyper nerds like Stallman, or ppl who have very particular jobs that give them the freedom not to have a smartphone) are outnumbered by those who have a tablet or smartphone but not a PC (my 94 year old grandma)

This "year of the Linux Desktop" joke is getting a bit tiresome. What is missing exactly?

Sure the desktop is a bit ugly. But pretty much everything works out of the box. If MS released a native Office for Linux I could get rid of my Mac.

Some thoughts. Do with them what you will.

0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1]

1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution.

2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently.

3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains.

I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago.

4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE.

5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced.

6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars.

So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would

- put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work).

- put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load).

That said, it's not obvious to me that:

1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035.

2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else

3. It's economically possible within the time frame

[1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.