David Jenkins
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
Form an orderly queue...
CLICK ME
Doesn't say how much it will cost, though... 
|
|
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
very very tidy!!
Cheers Austen
RGB car number 9
www.austengreenway.co.uk
www.automatedtechnologygroup.co.uk
www.trackace.co.uk
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
Not a bad looking car 
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
I can't imagine how they manage to dump so much energy into the car in a 10 minute recharge...
[Edited on 27/1/09 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:38 PM |
|
|
a poster wties:
quote:
I call bull on the 0-60 in 2.5s figure, and I'm an engineer.
Since the maximum forward force that can be maintained is limited by the frictional forces between car and road, this figure is essentially capped at
F = m*g*u, given your maximum forward acceleration, F=m*a, this cancels down to acceleration=g*u
Given best case scenario where coefficient of friction is 1 (which is unlikely), your maximum acceleration is 9.8 ms^-2, which give a best case 0-60
in 2.7s
However, this neglects downforce, but even if you were driving a wedge of a car, you still wouldn't be able to generate enough downforce to
achieve 0-60 in 2.5s, especially since your coefficient of friction is more like 0.7 with any road-legal tyres.
true or not?
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
Pro fuel dragsters manage 0-60 in <1sec and do the quarter mile in around 4sec.
By his theory cars wouldn't be able to do >1g in corners. If I read it correctly.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
I think that confirms that electric cars are the way forward.
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:09 PM |
|
|
the bugatti veyrons 2.5s to 60 though, isnt it??
why cant all electric cars look as good as that?
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
It is quite an old-fashioned design - all curves and no sharp angles - but all the better for that, IMHO.
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
I'll wait for the Locost 7 version. But I'll also wait for the one guy per month who electrocutes himself making it.
Those cars need a wind up handle like the little rechargeable flashlights (torches for you), so the passenger has something to do. He can charge the
car while you drive.
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
a poster wties:
quote:
I call bull on the 0-60 in 2.5s figure, and I'm an engineer.
Since the maximum forward force that can be maintained is limited by the frictional forces between car and road, this figure is essentially capped at
F = m*g*u, given your maximum forward acceleration, F=m*a, this cancels down to acceleration=g*u
Given best case scenario where coefficient of friction is 1 (which is unlikely), your maximum acceleration is 9.8 ms^-2, which give a best case 0-60
in 2.7s
However, this neglects downforce, but even if you were driving a wedge of a car, you still wouldn't be able to generate enough downforce to
achieve 0-60 in 2.5s, especially since your coefficient of friction is more like 0.7 with any road-legal tyres.
true or not?
utter poo
Cheers Austen
RGB car number 9
www.austengreenway.co.uk
www.automatedtechnologygroup.co.uk
www.trackace.co.uk
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 02:43 PM |
|
|
What that guy's missed is that max acceleration is not G. That's just acceleration due to gravity. Although, I do doubt that it can do
0-60 in 2.5, AND 208 mph, AND have a 150-200 mile range. And there is no way it'll do a fully flat to fully charged recharge in 10 minutes. Not
on a 220V system anyway.
Although I would like more details on the Charge on the Run system. It seems to be regen braking, but that can only do so much.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 03:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
What that guy's missed is that max acceleration is not G. That's just acceleration due to gravity.
What he's saying is that the maximum grip of the tyres on the road is the mass of the car times gravity times the coefficient of friction, say
0.7. Force (of the engine) = mass times [road] acceleration. The biggest force that the tyres can put down = 0.7 of the mass of the vehicle.
Therefore the maximum acceleration of a vehicle, even of infinite power, is g times the coefficient of friction.
The problem is that 0.7g acceleration = 0-60 in 3.95 seconds. A decent BEC will do that. A constant 1g of acceleration gives 2.77 seconds. 0-60 in
2.5 seconds needs 1.105g.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MK9R
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
a poster wties:
quote:
I call bull on the 0-60 in 2.5s figure, and I'm an engineer.
blah blah
true or not?
utter poo
that is easy for you to say but why?
I thnk of it like this.
Imagine a large wardrobe and you are sprinter using it as starting blocks.
The friction will determine how much force you can get going forwards. If it was solidly mounted to the gournd = infinite friction then you go a log
quicker than if it was on ice.
I know that top fuel dragster are exceeding those 0-60 times by a long way - the only explanation I have, without googling, is that hte coefficient of
friction must be more than one - wide slicks that are heated up prior to the run to make them very sticky .
|
|
|
Miks15
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 04:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
I know that top fuel dragster are exceeding those 0-60 times by a long way - the only explanation I have, without googling, is that hte coefficient of
friction must be more than one - wide slicks that are heated up prior to the run to make them very sticky .
you can have a coeffiecient of friction greater than 1
|
|
|
omega0684
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
i'll take 2 please one for me and the other one just so we can test all these radical theories !
|
|
|
MK9R
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
quote:
Originally posted by MK9R
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
a poster wties:
quote:
I call bull on the 0-60 in 2.5s figure, and I'm an engineer.
blah blah
true or not?
utter poo
that is easy for you to say but why?
I thnk of it like this.
Imagine a large wardrobe and you are sprinter using it as starting blocks.
The friction will determine how much force you can get going forwards. If it was solidly mounted to the gournd = infinite friction then you go a log
quicker than if it was on ice.
I know that top fuel dragster are exceeding those 0-60 times by a long way - the only explanation I have, without googling, is that hte coefficient of
friction must be more than one - wide slicks that are heated up prior to the run to make them very sticky .
Its easy to say, because there are cars/bikes that will do that, but i have no idea how to calculate it  :p
Cheers Austen
RGB car number 9
www.austengreenway.co.uk
www.automatedtechnologygroup.co.uk
www.trackace.co.uk
|
|
|
clairetoo
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
Just what we need - an eco-friendly 200mph supercar - way to save the planet...........not
Surely a better use of this technology would be an electric car with normal performance that cost's no more than a petrol/diesel car ?
Its cuz I is blond , innit
Claire xx
Will weld for food......
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 27/1/09 at 05:42 PM |
|
|
10 minutes for a full charge? Not sure how that works. Even if the batteries can take it without killing their life, would a 13 amp socket be
enough? Doubt it.
Reminds me of the hypercapacitor that eestor have been promising for ages (and continually delaying). If that ever comes about it'll be the
coming of age of electric cars. Seems to be a race between that and hydrogen.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
