Rimac electric car. 0-60 in 1.85. 360 mile range
 

https://www.carscoops.com/2021/06/new-rimac-nevera-takes-electric-supercars-by-storm-with-1914hp-0-62mph-in-1-85-sec-and-340-miles-range/

Yes please...just for a day. Want to scare myself silly and get it out of my system. Very curious what that 0-60!feels like.

https://www.carscoops.com/wp-content...c-Nevera-7.jpg

I would need a heart health check before trying that.

I've read that more and more F1 drivers are in danger of passing out from the intense G forces. At some point for me, the brute speed gets to be too much.

Man has not created safe batteries yet that have very high energy densities. Something that is being missed in all the hype on electric cars.

In many cases you will be in far too close proximity to a battery of this type going off. So far there have been no safe high energy density batteries developed. Chances of getting out of the car alive are small if one does internally short out.

The types that are fairly safe just do not have the energy density needed. Possibly these are being used in the cars with limited range. Fumes produced from these batteries are also very corrosive.

Good points. One wonders about possible issues. Supposedly living under high power lines can be a hazard. Just the energy in a standard car battery can get hotter than bejesus if shorted in the right/wrong way. The battery energy in one of these supercars is what, exponentially greater? Not sure what sort of superlative would work.

What makes a liquid-fueled car intrinsically safer than an electric car?

Would be a hard question to answer I'd agree. We know that people do burn to death in liquid fueled cars, unless I've missed something I haven't yet read of someone burning to death in a Tesla or similar. A couple of crashes with burning batteries strewn about, even into nearby homes but that's it.

Not sure why, I'm offended at the push-button nature of driving the damned things. The guy in the vid mashes the accelerator and that's it.

Here's the real problem with this. Batteries have a peculiar property called Peukert's Law. The more current you demand from a battery, the lower its capacity. You may be able draw a burst of power and accelerate to 60 in 1.5 Seconds, but doing so crushes the range. You won't see anywhere near 300 miles per charge.

I drank too much Champaign at a wedding reception once and broke Puekert's law at least a half dozen times.

Oh no you dih-unt!

I drank some Champagne in Champaign, IL once.

I had to check the spelling myself as I wasn't sure.

I'm doubtful of under-2-second 0-60 times. Are they on DOT tires with a Street legal car ?

Engineering Explained did this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7yigpPSu_o

But in summary - look at the 60-0 braking times for most cars - it is (my opinion) a safe assumption that a car cannot accelerate faster than it can brake.
**if** this is true, then if a car takes 2 seconds to go from 60 to 0 (limited by tire traction and weight/inertia) then a car should not be able to accelerate from 0-60 in less than 2 seconds. In addition - the air resistance of a car will help it brake quickly, but hinder its ability to accelerate.

Granted, the video and I are making a lot of assumptions here (awd, no jet-assist, DOT tires, constant deceleration when braking, measurements are being made with appropriate precision, no 'roll out')... but it seems like 2 seconds is the time to beat, and unless you start rocking top-fuel dragster tires, its gonna be tough.

thoughts ?

-John

What was the donor car?

https://www.hagerty.com/media/what-if/what-if-1957-tesla/?utm_source=SFMC&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Tuesday_DailyDriver&hashed_email=1299b143bf3edb931a367 3e5c531db0d780001991859f3a31093f47e49030e38

Basic shell resembles a 4 door 1957 ford. I am extrapolating from the side panels and the glass and roof shaped components. The butchered type of the general headlight type the 57 fords had. Could be put on many bodies.

Not the most tasteful creation in any event.