The SL 65 AMG definitely has better tech than any Formula 1 car, but I think that it's also a little important to note that a Formula 1 car is going to be much faster around a track than the SL 65, since it'll be a full thousand kilograms lighter. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_test_track#The_Power_...
I'm not sure if having TCS matters if you're going to be slow.
Even in that case a much lighter (and cheaper!) car like an Atom or Caterham will be a lot more fun than one of these hulking great monstrosities. Often faster as well, depending on the track.
I mean, you could prefer a smaller, lighter, better handling vehicle even if it doesn't have more horsepower. That's traditionally what a sports car was.
I'm sure the Plaid model S is faster than an MG TC too.
You did mention that "F1 cars go a little bit slowly". The difference is that speed is pretty much irrelevant. It's sub/trans/super-sonic that matters.
> The 2016 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,400 hp/t (1.05 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2.5 seconds to reach 100 km/h (62 mph)
Even adjusting for 60 mph = 2.4s, I don't see how the traction of the Tesla is better.
Formula-E cars are doing 0-62 it in 3s [1]:
> An average Formula E car has a power of at least 250 horsepower (190 kW). The car is able to accelerate from 0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) in 3 seconds, with a maximum speed of 225 km/h (140 mph)
You might be thinking of heavier race cars with bigger engines generally having higher top speeds. They aren't more efficient, just more powerful, and weight doesn't affect top speed (only acceleration).
A Tesla is way too heavy and soft to produce a decent lap time. They accelerate really well but fast cornering is not their forte. The Nurburgring has some very fast sections where you go top speed or near top speed for a long time. I also would have my doubts about the brakes holding up.
it doesn't matter how many poorly driven races you can find on youtube, the statistics are the statistics. the p85+ is not as powerful. period.
this isn't up for debate, it's a factual statement. the german cars are lighter and produce more power. they also cost a lot more, because winning is expensive.
Is it just me who is a bit wary of the sports car claims?
Acceleration is going to be impressive and CoG will be lower than for similar vehicles but likely much higher than say for a BMW M2 or similar sporty car, so cornering isn't likely to be anywhere near as good which coupled with the extra weight, it seems that this will be good for a pick up truck but no competition for a car in a circuit.
And I'd like one that can corner on rails, which is arguably more valuable than both speed and acceleration (after all, acceleration, after a certain point, is also useless).
Agreed, but they don't need to be. Remember, the magic number here is ~1.4G, for a 1.9s 0-60. The Pilot Sport Cup 2 – a track-friendly R-compound tire used in the webcast car and in the videos – can pull close to that on a skidpad (i.e. less than optimal conditions), meaning the grip is there.
> I think it's straining credulity to believe that an electronic traction control system is going to outperform them to such a huge degree.
Launch control and traction control can make several tenths of seconds of difference, which is critical when you're talking about sub-2s times. Also, traction control can keep the car on the cusp of slip the entire run to 60MPH, which is critical in a car that has a completely flat torque curve and probably enough torque to break the wheels loose at any speed (which is not true for F1 cars).
I also suspect that the Roadster has active damping – another technology disallowed in F1 – meaning that the duration of contact with the road can be maximized. This is important if the road surface isn't glassy-smooth.
> This car also looks to weigh around double what an F1 car will weigh
That doesn't help it at all in cornering, but in a straight line, the increased weight of the car will help it launch even better since it'll increase the traction on the drive wheels (equivalent to downforce at speed).
> Gear changes: F1 gear changes take about 8 milliseconds. A road-going automatic gearbox is definitely not going to beat this.
There's no gearbox to speak of; the wheels are direct-drive. To be fair, this won't contribute significantly to faster 0-60 times, but the gearbox exists to compensate for some less-than-ideal characteristics of an ICE, namely uneven power delivery and physical limitations on peak RPMs. An electric motor has none of these problems.
> Speed is overrated [...] the average sports car can do it if you have enough space.
Returning to car examples, the race build of sport car tends to be worse in top speed that its street version and favor braking/acceleration, simply because modern racing and racetracks put emphasis on cornering where driver skill and tactic is decisive, and not on long straights, where take overs result from top speeds.
> A Mercedes SL55 AMG sans limiter will hit 200mph at roughly 500HP, and it's pretty easy to pick one of the 2007s with the fixed top for around $20k.
Huh, you're right. Actually, more than right. If I don't mind travelling across the country, I can get a 2005 SL55 AMG for $7,500. That car was 6 figures at release, though. That's a LOT of value to lose!
> They're also, to my eyes, pretty good looking
I will disagree there. I think they look boring as all hell. Obviously, this is entirely subjective.
> There are a ton of cars out there that really are pretty incredible for not a lot of money.
I might dispute "incredible" here, for two reasons. First, surprisingly cheap high-performance cars are so frequently from luxury brands that don't consider long-term reliability to be luxury features. Also, despite the SL55 AMG being able to hit 200 MPH, it weighs more than most SUVs, and so has a pitiful 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds. I admit I'm moving the goal posts a bit here, but quick acceleration is more important to me than top speed. I can't use 200 mph on my daily commute, but I can use a 0-60 speed on the on-ramp, or whenever I need to accelerate quickly to pass someone.
I'm not sure if having TCS matters if you're going to be slow.
reply