Tesla Model S Versus Airplane

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm not sure how fast a 737 has to be going by the time it takes off but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of cars out there that could pull this off. This is still a pretty neat video and a testament to the all around badassery of the Tesla Model S.
 
Depending on the exact model, weight, balance, and a load of other factors, 150 mph - 180 mph is a good range. And because aircraft aren't "direct drive" (they accelerate by pushing air with their propellers or through their jet engines, rather than by applying direct forward momentum through their wheels,) they don't generally have super-high acceleration. A Tesla S with "Ludicrous Mode" could probably out-accelerate an F-15, one of the fastest-accelerating jets out there. At least from 0-60.

Considering the Tesla's max speed is 130 MPH, it would hit max speed quickly, but the plane would *HAVE* to overtake it before taking off.
 
I read somewhere that in a tug of war, the Titanic would win against the 777.
 
The badassery of a P90d isn't in how fast it goes. It's in how fast it get to top speed. No feeling in the world like your eyes trying their best to bore through the back of your skull when you stomp the gas.
 
The badassery of a P90d isn't in how fast it goes. It's in how fast it get to top speed. No feeling in the world like your eyes trying their best to bore through the back of your skull when you stomp the gas.

I agree 100%. In college I worked at a high end auto dealership. If it sat on the main lot long enough, I would occasionally drive (used) Vipers, Vette's, Diablo's, a Murcielago, and similar cars about 30 miles to an area with more wealth. The drive had a strip of highway that was a straight shot, little to no traffic, farm land on both sides, and no traps. Best of all there was a single stoplight at the beginning of it. I never got too crazy, but a handful of times topped or got around 100 (it was a 70 limit) off the drop - especially when the guy in the rice burner would pull up next to me and rev it up. I'd slow her down right away, but that initial acceleration is an amazing feeling.

Good times. Vipers were fun with the side exhaust, fire that guy up in neutral and shake the Honda CRV next to you when they play tough guy at the light. My cousin who lives about a 1000 miles away from me has one of these Tesla's. I have a business trip down there soon, pretty excited to take it for a drive.
 
lol comments disabled on youtube, probably because everyone knows a stupid fucking jet is slow as shit and a honda civic could beat it from 0-60. I guess whoever came up with this was like "ooooh, bigger means better right?!". The Tesla could outrun the space shuttle for a minute. Hell a SmartCar can outrun a lambo for the first 6 feet. I could outrun the P90 in a Cessna if you gave me the entire runway to do it.
 
There are quite a few videos showing how 'great' a Tesla is. No doubt that for the price, it is king of 0-60. Once it hits 100 though, pretty much any car half it's price will out accelerate it, as well as pretty much any car half its price can go well beyond 130 mph... which is the downside of the electric motor. I think the thing I hate most about Tesla is they try to portray the car as a high performance vehicle, when realistically, all it does is accelerate fast. Handling is no better than a full sized sedan, top speed is horrendous, and IF you were to push it, it would go for about 2 min before it overheats. Ever wonder why a Tesla can't complete a single lap on the Nurburgring?

And ya, as others have said, look at how a motorcycle accelerates vs a car.. comparing the Tesla to a 737? Really?
 
Vipers were fun with the side exhaust, fire that guy up in neutral and shake the Honda CRV next to you when they play tough guy at the light.

Who the hell does that in a Honda CRV? The only thing slower than a CRV is a Prius.
 
There are quite a few videos showing how 'great' a Tesla is. No doubt that for the price, it is king of 0-60. Once it hits 100 though, pretty much any car half it's price will out accelerate it, as well as pretty much any car half its price can go well beyond 130 mph...

You spend much time driving >130 MPH? If there is one thing I don't give a rat's ass about, it is a cars top speed. 100MPH around here and the cops can impound your car, suspend your license.

Acceleration OTOH is fun even a low speed.
 
lol comments disabled on youtube, probably because everyone knows a stupid fucking jet is slow as shit and a honda civic could beat it from 0-60. I guess whoever came up with this was like "ooooh, bigger means better right?!". The Tesla could outrun the space shuttle for a minute. Hell a SmartCar can outrun a lambo for the first 6 feet. I could outrun the P90 in a Cessna if you gave me the entire runway to do it.

While I get your point, just... No. Not gonna happen. Around 10 seconds after liftoff the shuttle would already be going 170 mph or so, 20 seconds in and it'd be right around 350mph or so, and at a minute in and you're talking almost 1000mph. Rockets have awesome acceleration broski, that's why Tesla is adding them to future revisions of the S (citation needed). Rare leaked image of new Tesla Model Rocket S below!

iu
 
There are quite a few videos showing how 'great' a Tesla is. No doubt that for the price, it is king of 0-60. Once it hits 100 though, pretty much any car half it's price will out accelerate it, as well as pretty much any car half its price can go well beyond 130 mph... which is the downside of the electric motor. I think the thing I hate most about Tesla is they try to portray the car as a high performance vehicle, when realistically, all it does is accelerate fast. Handling is no better than a full sized sedan, top speed is horrendous, and IF you were to push it, it would go for about 2 min before it overheats. Ever wonder why a Tesla can't complete a single lap on the Nurburgring?

And ya, as others have said, look at how a motorcycle accelerates vs a car.. comparing the Tesla to a 737? Really?

The downside is having one drive ratio. Put a gearbox up to the electric motor and you'll have an unheard of top end speed. The whole point of it all is to get peoples heads out of their arses on the fact that electric cars are fast and powerful.
 
Top Gear did a Veyron versus a Typhoon. The Typhoon had to get to 1 mile altitude IIRC. It still won.
 
The downside is having one drive ratio. Put a gearbox up to the electric motor and you'll have an unheard of top end speed. The whole point of it all is to get peoples heads out of their arses on the fact that electric cars are fast and powerful.

The Top Speed of Tesla Performance models is 155 MPH(140MPH on base models). When would you possibly ever need to go faster than that? Would you put in a gearbox, just to have a higher spec sheet speed, that you would never actually reach under any circumstance? That would be seriously shitty engineering.

Fixed gear ratio is the way to go for EVs. One less thing to break, one less thing to lose efficiency on. KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid).
 
Top Gear did a Veyron versus a Typhoon. The Typhoon had to get to 1 mile altitude IIRC. It still won.

Yup, was going to mention this - same thing with the Veyron. The Veyron kicked the Typhoon's butt for the first half... but it lost in the second stretch.

This just in...: motorcycles can beat cars off the line!
 
My dad used to do this with his 1970's station wagon with my brother & I in the car 30+ years ago when we were kids.

Granted we had a little bit of a rolling start, but we would beat it halfway down the run way, with the plane only beating us near takeoff.

At night there would be no traffic or cops on Airport Road right next to runway. Google Maps
 
I wonder if a SR-71 could go supersonic before a Veyron hit 200 mph?
 
How about a competition that matches the time it takes to fill up the fuel tanks on a jetliner vs the time it takes to fully charge a Telsa Battery...
 
How about a competition that matches the time it takes to fill up the fuel tanks on a jetliner vs the time it takes to fully charge a Telsa Battery...
It wouldn't even be close, the jet fuels much faster. Some airlines can turn around a 737/A320 class jetliner in less than 30 minutes.
 
I'm not sure how fast a 737 has to be going by the time it takes off but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of cars out there that could pull this off. This is still a pretty neat video and a testament to the all around badassery of the Tesla Model S.

Actually not a lot, only a few. The thing is cars accelerate fast in the beginning, but as torque drops off and aerodynamic drag increases by a V*V (V squared factor). So, speed increases at the top end take a long time. I could get my 400 HP 400 ft-lb corvette up to 180 no problem...IF you gave me a lot of straight road. I'm talking miles.

Jets don't have that problem. They have such a large reserve of horsepower, and constant thrust (torque) that the remaining forces (drag) are negligible and most jets can reach 180 well before the vast majority of cars can.
 
I wonder if a SR-71 could go supersonic before a Veyron hit 200 mph?
SR-71 are NOT safe to go supersonic till the skin heats up enough to seal the tanks. When they sit on the ground, they quite literally leak fuel. Fun stuff huh?
 
You spend much time driving >130 MPH? If there is one thing I don't give a rat's ass about, it is a cars top speed. 100MPH around here and the cops can impound your car, suspend your license.

Acceleration OTOH is fun even a low speed.

Won't argue there, acceleration definitely is fun. My beef is just the fact that Tesla is always marketed comparing it to a supercar when it is far from one. There are plenty of videos of how a $130k Tesla can beat a $250k sports car in a quarter mile. Which is great and all, but how about on a track? Model S Laguna Seca Lap Times | Tesla Motors

Granted the data is from 2015 so doesn't include the latest Teslas, but that same $250k car consistently destroys the Tesla... which is more on par with a $50-60k car.

As for the gearbox, Tesla originally did have a gearbox. This is what caused the huge delay in making the Roadster production ready. So while it would definitely assist in making the car much higher performance, it isn't as simple as just putting a gearbox in. Tesla had massive transmission issues with this, and ultimately had to remove it.
 
Won't argue there, acceleration definitely is fun. My beef is just the fact that Tesla is always marketed comparing it to a supercar when it is far from one. There are plenty of videos of how a $130k Tesla can beat a $250k sports car in a quarter mile.

Where is this marketing. Most of the drag races I see are just Tesla owners having some fun. Here is the Tesla official youtube channel. Beating super cars doesn't seem to be the thrust of their marketing.
Tesla

Which is great and all, but how about on a track? Model S Laguna Seca Lap Times | Tesla Motors

Need to give Randy Pobst a P90d with Ludicrous mode and see what happens and hear his impressions. But in the end this is big luxury sedan, not a dedicated sports car.

As for the gearbox, Tesla originally did have a gearbox. This is what caused the huge delay in making the Roadster production ready. So while it would definitely assist in making the car much higher performance, it isn't as simple as just putting a gearbox in. Tesla had massive transmission issues with this, and ultimately had to remove it.

It really wouldn't be that much of a benefit, except maybe on top speed. For a very wide RPM range an electric motor puts out fairly constant HP, so changing gear really doesn't change acceleration much. It is just at the end of the RPM range when you are doing 140+MPH, you could gear up and extend top speed until you were HP limited.
 
Where is this marketing. Most of the drag races I see are just Tesla owners having some fun. Here is the Tesla official youtube channel. Beating super cars doesn't seem to be the thrust of their marketing.
Tesla



Need to give Randy Pobst a P90d with Ludicrous mode and see what happens and hear his impressions. But in the end this is big luxury sedan, not a dedicated sports car.



It really wouldn't be that much of a benefit, except maybe on top speed. For a very wide RPM range an electric motor puts out fairly constant HP, so changing gear really doesn't change acceleration much. It is just at the end of the RPM range when you are doing 140+MPH, you could gear up and extend top speed until you were HP limited.

HP = Torque x RPM

If your HP is consistent then your Torque is dropping the higher you go in RPM's dT/dRPM = c

This sounds great to drop a gear and get all that torque back, but your torque drops again once it goes through gears. However you will overheat motors quickly if you don't. And this is still a problem in today's models.
 
HP = Torque x RPM

If your HP is consistent then your Torque is dropping the higher you go in RPM's dT/dRPM = c

This sounds great to drop a gear and get all that torque back....

You mean go up a gear. It might sound great, but it has no benefit at all.

Say you have 1000 lb-ft at 4000 RPM, making ~760 HP.

So you gear up, to put the motor closer to the torque peak:

2000 lb-ft at 2000 RPM, still making ~760 HP.


You have double the torque, but half the speed, and the exact same HP and same performance.


Furthermore , while your motor is now producing double the torque, you are doing it half the speed, and you need transmission gears to multiply speed by 2, which will cut the torque to the output shaft in half. So double x half = 1, back where you started.

So by the time you get to the wheels you have the exact same torque, as before you changed gears.

If you have a constant HP motor, changing gears does nothing, except waste time changing gears.
 
Last edited:
You mean go up a gear. It might sound great, but it has no benefit at all.

Say you have 1000 lb-ft at 4000 RPM, making ~760 HP.

So you gear up, to put the motor closer to the torque peak:

2000 lb-ft at 2000 RPM, still making ~760 HP.


You have double the torque, but half the speed, and the exact same HP and same performance.


Furthermore , while your motor is now producing double the torque, you are doing it half the speed, and you need transmission gears to multiply speed by 2, which will cut the torque to the output shaft in half.

So by the time you get to the wheels you have the exact same torque, as before you changed gears.

If you have a constant HP motor, changing gears does nothing, except waste time changing gears.

That's what I was saying. However by spinning the motor at a lower speed, you are less likely to burn it out.
 
That's what I was saying. However by spinning the motor at a lower speed, you are less likely to burn it out.

Not really. It is constant Power Load, that produces the heat, not RPMs that heats up electric motors. You pump 400KW into a motor ( A toaster is only ~1.5 KW), some of that dissipates in the coil resistance as heat. Big power equals big heat. It doesn't matter much what the RPMs are.

I could gear gear a Tesla motor so it hits 60 MPH at 12000 RPM, and drive at 12000 RPM till I ran the battery down and the motor would not overheat.
 
My dad used to do this with his 1970's station wagon with my brother & I in the car 30+ years ago when we were kids.

Granted we had a little bit of a rolling start, but we would beat it halfway down the run way, with the plane only beating us near takeoff.

At night there would be no traffic or cops on Airport Road right next to runway. Google Maps


Haha I was wondering when you said Airport Road. I work in Earth City :D :D
 
Depending on the exact model, weight, balance, and a load of other factors, 150 mph - 180 mph is a good range. And because aircraft aren't "direct drive" (they accelerate by pushing air with their propellers or through their jet engines, rather than by applying direct forward momentum through their wheels,) they don't generally have super-high acceleration. A Tesla S with "Ludicrous Mode" could probably out-accelerate an F-15, one of the fastest-accelerating jets out there. At least from 0-60.

Considering the Tesla's max speed is 130 MPH, it would hit max speed quickly, but the plane would *HAVE* to overtake it before taking off.
There are quite a few videos showing how 'great' a Tesla is. No doubt that for the price, it is king of 0-60. Once it hits 100 though, pretty much any car half it's price will out accelerate it, as well as pretty much any car half its price can go well beyond 130 mph... which is the downside of the electric motor. I think the thing I hate most about Tesla is they try to portray the car as a high performance vehicle, when realistically, all it does is accelerate fast. Handling is no better than a full sized sedan, top speed is horrendous, and IF you were to push it, it would go for about 2 min before it overheats. Ever wonder why a Tesla can't complete a single lap on the Nurburgring?

And ya, as others have said, look at how a motorcycle accelerates vs a car.. comparing the Tesla to a 737? Really?
top speed is 155mph

And outside of racetrack or Autobahn (mostly at night - during day traffic prevents you from driving over 120mph) you cant legally drive over 90mph anyway.
 
Not really. It is constant Power Load, that produces the heat, not RPMs that heats up electric motors. You pump 400KW into a motor ( A toaster is only ~1.5 KW), some of that dissipates in the coil resistance as heat. Big power equals big heat. It doesn't matter much what the RPMs are.

I could gear gear a Tesla motor so it hits 60 MPH at 12000 RPM, and drive at 12000 RPM till I ran the battery down and the motor would not overheat.

Yes and no. There are two points an electric motor generates more heat than mechanical force. When you stall it, and when you rev it really high. The more you fight it the more current it uses. Since the current is regulated the first condition (stall current) isn't so bad. HOWEVER motor inefficiency increases as you rev the RPMs up. It's the same reason you can't rev a conventional motor indefinitely. The mechanical inefficiencies take over and things like balance and bearings and friction start to take a toll in the form of heat.
 
Yes and no. There are two points an electric motor generates more heat than mechanical force. When you stall it, and when you rev it really high. The more you fight it the more current it uses. Since the current is regulated the first condition (stall current) isn't so bad. HOWEVER motor inefficiency increases as you rev the RPMs up. It's the same reason you can't rev a conventional motor indefinitely. The mechanical inefficiencies take over and things like balance and bearings and friction start to take a toll in the form of heat.

Nope. You keep acting like this is a internal combustion engine it isn't. A combustion engine has a shitload of moving parts, things like pistons scraping up and down in cylinders, oscillation motions being converted into rotary, where you do have bearings they are subject offset forces. Big friction losses. You are limited by friction, balance, piston speed. There are all kind of mechanical limitations.

Electric motors have one moving part, the rotor, turning perfect rotary motions, perfectly balanced on simple bearings. There are no mechanical limitations or sources of friction that matter.

You could run a Tesla at 12000 RPM till the battery ran down and it wouldn't break a sweat. It is not mechanical action that creates heat in electric motors, it is the amount of resistive losses in the coil windings.

Heat in electric motors is directly proportional to input power, not RPM. Electric motors easily turn 100 000 RPM (there is even a 1 million RPM electric motor).
 
Nope. You keep acting like this is a internal combustion engine it isn't. A combustion engine has a shitload of moving parts, things like pistons scraping up and down in cylinders, oscillation motions being converted into rotary, where you do have bearings they are subject offset forces. Big friction losses. You are limited by friction, balance, piston speed. There are all kind of mechanical limitations.

Electric motors have one moving part, the rotor, turning perfect rotary motions, perfectly balanced on simple bearings. There are no mechanical limitations or sources of friction that matter.

You could run a Tesla at 12000 RPM till the battery ran down and it wouldn't break a sweat. It is not mechanical action that creates heat in electric motors, it is the amount of resistive losses in the coil windings.

Heat in electric motors is directly proportional to input power, not RPM. Electric motors easily turn 100 000 RPM (there is even a 1 million RPM electric motor).


1) There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced rotor, and it will never turn perfectly causing a vibration that gets more severe the faster the rotor turns. Also bearings are never perfectly smooth. The vibrations and surface imperfections will create friction in the bearings that will heat them up and eventually destroy them if they get pushed too hard.

1a) If there was no meaningful friction in a bearing, then you could spin the rotor with no load on it, and it would take forever to stop spinning. But they don't. They stop spinning within a few seconds, if not faster. That's because of friction (and to some tiny extent. atmospheric drag).

2) The higher the RPMs the higher the back-emf that's produced meaning you'll have greater resistance and will have to push more power into the coils to gain more speed. More power means more heat. That heat will also cause the shaft to expand, creating a tighter fit in the bearing, which means more friction.
 
1) There is no such thing as a perfectly balanced rotor, and it will never turn perfectly causing a vibration that gets more severe the faster the rotor turns. Also bearings are never perfectly smooth. The vibrations and surface imperfections will create friction in the bearings that will heat them up and eventually destroy them if they get pushed too hard.

1a) If there was no meaningful friction in a bearing, then you could spin the rotor with no load on it, and it would take forever to stop spinning. But they don't. They stop spinning within a few seconds, if not faster. That's because of friction (and to some tiny extent. atmospheric drag).

Perfectly balanced compared to an internal combustion engine, meaningful friction to the extent that they generate any heat that is of concern. They are perfectly balanced to that extent, and they don't have any meaningful friction.

Electric motors easily turn Hundreds of thousands of RPM. You don't do that if it is imbalanced or bearings generate too much friction.

Those are red herrings.

The heat generated in electric motors is not from physical/mechanical actions, it is from electrical action. It is proportional to applied power, not RPMs.

Transmissions for EVs are a sign you are doing it wrong, nothing more.
 
Electric motors easily turn Hundreds of thousands of RPM. You don't do that if it is imbalanced or bearings generate too much friction.

Tesla's motors had a problem with overheating when pushed. When they removed the transmissions it made the situation worse.

ONLY for very small motors with little torque can you achieve such RPMs. For big motors you are limited.

Trust me on this. I deal with big HP PWM wide RPM range electric motors every day attached to fans. I see all kinds of issues. Running a motor at it's max rated RPM is hard on it in the long run and causes them to heat up quickly. It wears out bearings faster, and generates static electricity which can damage the shaft if it's not properly grounded.

Heat = total input power - received mechanical power. Motors are NOT 100% efficient. Well into the 90% range when free spinning, but not 100%. And this efficiency drops once you add resistance. (Feedback to movement)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top