71–80 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait you even have to physically remove it ???
Yes, like most convertible supercars/hypercars. The Pagani Huayra, all the Koenigseggs, the LaFerrari Aperta, Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport, etc.
The Lotus Evija looks better than this. But hey, that is a 1.5mil car. The "250mph+" claim looks dubious given the shape/aero of this car - though I don't claim to be an expert and I suppose this might not be the finished shape of the car either.
Seems pretty aerodynamic to me. Can you point to a better shape?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hellcat is dangerous, but I wouldn't say it's as dangerous as a Model S or Model 3 Performance, all that power can't hook so the Traction control lights are just flashing from a stop. Meanwhile a Model S P100D is a whole second faster to 60 with this incredible 20mph 'JUMP' with zero lag, I got a test ride in one and felt as if something like a slip on the throttle off the brake would find you 20 feet inside a st…
I'd argue the rear wheel drive makes it more dangerous. Lower velocity, but way more unpredictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You only get 620 miles if you drive it like a Yugo. ;) Otherwise, if you do lots of hard starts and stops, you'll probably get about 400ish.
Is that really true? Electric cars should theoretically be able to handle rapid acceleration more efficiently than ICE vehicles, and regenerative breaking makes deceleration less wasteful as well. How much energy would really be wasted by pushing the vehicle to its limits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems pretty aerodynamic to me. Can you point to a better shape?
Any other supercar; the parent posted one example.
The large intakes of non-electric supercars also kills the drag coefficient.
The supercar Bugatti Veyron has a drag coefficient of 0.38.
So again, can you point to a more aerodynamic supercar? I'm not talking about subjective cosmetics (frankly, I find the cartoonishly "aggressive" features on lots of supercars a little childish), but objective aerodynamic performance?
What's the mile range at 250mph? Also, that picture look cartoon-ish... I wonder if it was modified in any way?
You probably achieve the stated range at ~65MPH. Range decreases approximately with the square of the speed, so range at top speed would be around 16 times lower.
got a quote to back that up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably achieve the stated range at ~65MPH. Range decreases approximately with the square of the speed, so range at top speed would be around 16 times lower.
> You probably achieve the stated range at ~65MPH. got a quote to back that up?
Note that the listed range comes from a standardized EPA test cycle. It’s more thorough than just cruising at 65MPH but the end result appears to approximate that.
I've loved Tesla Roadsters since "Nash Bridges".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sports cars tend to be neither luxurious, comfortable nor practical. One of the many reasons that I never understood why one would buy something like a new Lamborghini Huracan, when you for a similar price could be looking at a Rolls Royce Phantom.
Why would you buy a Rolls Royce Phantom? They're boring and don't hold their value.
If you want a great car (we are of course ignoring fuel costs here), it is the most comfortable thing you'd ever park your buttocks in, and a much more well thought out vehicle. The usual Lamborghini or Ferrari would in comparison feel like a Peugeot 104 on a good day.
If you want to turn heads, this certainly does it better (although a Lamborghini or Ferrari is likely to get more attention from kids).
Sure, a Huracán has a faster 0-100, but if you want to enjoy the car outside of the track, it would be awful to drive in. Plus, it's still slower than a much cheaper production sedan (Tesla Model S P100D Ludicrous). If you're not going to be the fastest anyway, you might as well be the most comfortable.
None of these high-end vehicles hold their value anyway. Hell, there are really no new vehicles that hold their value. Only classics do.