[HN Gopher] New world record with an electric racing car: From 0...
___________________________________________________________________
New world record with an electric racing car: From 0 to 100 in
0.956 seconds
Author : ldes
Score : 247 points
Date : 2023-09-12 15:14 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ethz.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (ethz.ch)
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Interesting video from Engineering Explained on the impact of
| grip on acceleration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7yigpPSu_o
| tromp wrote:
| Particularly impressive considering the previous record stood at
| 1.461 seconds! Few records get broken by such a huge margin...
| alwaysrunning wrote:
| As someone who grew up racing go karts and still enjoys motor
| sports (mostly F1), the problem I have with e-racing is the lack
| of sound. The winding noise they make just isn't adequate and
| really puts me off to the racing.
| onychomys wrote:
| On the other hand, the Formula-E cars sound exactly like TIE
| Fighters, and that's awesome.
| chrsig wrote:
| I'm sure there's some equivalent of putting a playing card into
| the spokes
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Straight cut gears in the transfer case.
| js2 wrote:
| Impressive but for reference, about half the acceleration of a
| Top Fuel dragster, which are also still getting faster.
|
| Here's Brittany Force who holds the current records (fastest
| time, fastest speed):
|
| https://www.nhra.com/news/2022/brittany-force-sets-national-...
|
| 0 to 338.43 mph in 3.665 seconds over 1000 feet. (The cars got
| too fast for 1,320 feet and have been racing 1000 feet since
| 2008.)
| bluedino wrote:
| 8G's max acceleration and -6G when they hit the brakes (using a
| parachute)
|
| 11,000hp!
| epolanski wrote:
| Aren't electric cars bound to beat any dragster car eventually?
| You get max torque instantly.
| xcv123 wrote:
| Depends on how fast you can release that energy from the
| batteries. Not as instant. Chemical explosions are rapid.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The dragsters need to have a complete engine tear-down after
| nearly every run, regularly explode in a giant ball of flame,
| etc.
| 93po wrote:
| I thought maybe this was a superficial tear-down but nope,
| it's a whole heckin teardown and measurement of components
| and relubing and cleaning and etc.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1RYmUxUqso
|
| Also the end of this video gives an awesome perspective that
| really shows the insane speed of these cars.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| They also blow a lot of that power out of the exhaust pipe. I
| bet in terms of efficiency per km/h/s the electic go-kart
| wins.
| CarVac wrote:
| The exhaust provides downforce though.
| itishappy wrote:
| Electric: 0-60mph in ~0.9s
|
| Top Fuel: 0-60mph in ~0.4s
|
| Wow.
| westmeal wrote:
| yeah top fuel is bonkers those engines literally eat
| themselves alive down the track within milliseconds!
| hardcore!!!!
| rnk wrote:
| Electric: 0-60mph in ~0.9s Top Fuel: 0-60mph in ~0.4s
|
| That's students though, students at ~0.9s! Wow.
| papa-whisky wrote:
| I wonder if they'd go any faster if the rules allowed
| overhead cams!
|
| Even though these cars have disastrous efficiency and need to
| be completely rebuilt after every run and have backwards
| rules that leave them using "ancient" technology, I can't
| help but be awed by the effectiveness of the sledgehammer
| approach.
| semanticc wrote:
| I was sure you made a typo and meant 10000 feet, instead of
| 1000. But after checking, yeah, it makes sense to make the
| track shorter to avoid the cars reaching even more insane
| speeds.
| m463 wrote:
| they've been playing this trick with top-fuel dragsters for
| decades - the "speed" was measured far before the end of the
| course. I think it was to keep the speeds below 300mph to
| help with track insurance.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| They had a choice, lengthen drag strips everywhere or
| decrease the length of the race. Because physics / braking
| distance.
| papa-whisky wrote:
| I don't think it's a "trick", it's purely for safety
| reasons. The distance change was made following a fatal
| crash.
| elmerfud wrote:
| The impressive thing to me is the level of traction needed to do
| something like this. It seems they're taking old tricks and
| building a "sucker car".
|
| https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/a32350/jim-hall-cha...
|
| Still neat stuff.
|
| Race sanctioning bodies will need to update their rules or these
| will just be one off bragging rights.
| glax wrote:
| Had the same thought, 0-100kmph in 3sec gives so much wheel
| spin. Must be a whole lot of electronic trickery ever invented
| from launch control, traction control to power management plus
| the mechanical stuff sticky tyres, down force.
|
| It amazes me how much faster we have got the last 6-7 years.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Fans (no pun intended) of sucker cars are likely to be
| interested in the Goodwood record setting run by the McMurtry
| Speirling car.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JYp9eGC3Cc
| bborud wrote:
| Then there's the Brabham BT46 "Fan car" that actually raced in
| F1. Once. Before it was banned. :-)
|
| https://youtu.be/B294RfWj1QE?si=jxYpIgwtH44at6Bq
| raleec wrote:
| ...and it's current spiritual successors The McLaren F1 and
| now the GMA T.50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Murray_Automotive_T.50
| CarVac wrote:
| From a Youtube interview with Gordon Murray I saw, the T.50
| has fan-enhanced diffusers, the fan ingesting the boundary
| layer to prevent flow separation.
|
| It's not able to produce extra downforce at zero speed.
|
| The McMurtry Speirling is more akin to this, with a 1.4s
| 0-60mph run.
| Nick87633 wrote:
| Huh, never knew that the F1 had floor suckers!
| emmelaich wrote:
| Huh the Nick Mason credited with being a McLaren F1 owner is
| the drummer from Pink Floyd.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| Suddenly I remember a Top Gear episode where Nick Mason
| drops off his F1 (maybe it was a Ferrari Enzo?) at the test
| track, then his personal helicopter lands on the strip,
| picks him up, and flies him out of the scene, all while
| "Money" by Pink Floyd plays in the background.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| In Micromouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromouse) - a
| competition where autonomous devices solve a mouse maze - the
| fastest competitors are all using fans to increase traction
| (and thus speed).
| underlines wrote:
| radicalbyte, you're absolutely right that the use of fans in
| Micromouse increases the traction, and therefore the speed at
| which the maze is solved. Suction allows for impressive
| performances.
|
| However, a small caveat that might be worth considering is
| that while the suction indeed increases speed, it might be
| more accurate to say that it primarily improves acceleration
| instead of car speed: The issue often lies with achieving
| rapid acceleration rather than with maintaining high speed.
| Even systems with relatively low traction can reach high
| speeds given enough time and distance, but the ability to
| accelerate quickly is crucial in competitions like
| Micromouse.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Speed = [?](acceleration) dt
| epolanski wrote:
| Exactly, thus you can simply integrate over a longer time
| span.
|
| But if you want to increase the acceleration you need
| traction, your tyres need to be glued to the asphalt.
| Since you don't have aerodynamic pressure at those speeds
| you need to suck the vehicle to the ground.
| westurner wrote:
| Derivatives of relative displacement as defined by a
| distance metric in a [e.g. metric tensor] space:
| Length = Point2 - Point1 Length * Time^-1 =
| Velocity or Speed Length * Time^-2 = Acceleration
| Length * Time^-3 = Jerk Length * Time^-4 = Snap or
| Jounce Length * Time^-5 = Crackle Length *
| Time^-6 = Pop
|
| Displacement (geometry) > Derivatives: https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/Displacement_(geometry)#Deriva...
|
| Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position: https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth,_fifth,_and_sixth_deriv...
| anikan_vader wrote:
| Sure, but once you have speed you can use aerodynamics to
| get grip (e.g., F1 cars). So this is really only relevant
| if you need acceleration from low speed.
| hanniabu wrote:
| > radicalbyte, you're absolutely right that the use of fans
| in Micromouse increases the traction, and therefore the
| speed at which the maze is solved. Suction allows for
| impressive performances.
|
| This reads like chatgpt
| 0xDEF wrote:
| So many old polite people on the Internet are going to be
| accused of being AI chatbots.
| chen_dev wrote:
| Interesting topic. A pretty good video about this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQbHMgK2rw
| gladoskar wrote:
| These cars stem from the Formula Student, which since 2022 has
| re-allowed the previously forbidden "powered ground effect".
|
| But this car has an upgraded battery and powertrain beyond what
| the rules allow and they maybe also use tire warmers and
| potentially rubber/glue on the launch surface/tires
| sjburt wrote:
| Interesting. This is a Formula Student car, the european
| version of the Formula SAE. Powered ground effects were banned
| a long time ago in Formula SAE, but it seems like Formula
| Student does allow them.
| gladoskar wrote:
| It was disallowed for many years but is re-allowed since the
| 2022 season
| rfwhyte wrote:
| I was expecting be disappointed when it was some kind of RC or
| slot car type thing, but for a vehicle an actual human person
| fits inside and controls, this is epically awesome.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I think hub motors like this are the future. Frees up space under
| the car for more battery. Removes the complexity of drive shafts
| and universal joints. Gives software full traction control.
| Reduces design time for new vehicles (just route a power and data
| cable to a wheel and you have a vehicle). Is the first step to
| all-electric braking.
|
| The downside is more unsprung mass. But modern motors are getting
| lighter and lighter. And without a drive shaft, wheels could do
| crazy things like moving in and out to avoid potholes, or
| dynamically adjust camber to match the road you're on.
| namdnay wrote:
| Modern motors get lighter in part because they can offer lower
| torque with a smaller rotor but compensate with higher rpm.
| That's not possible for a hub motor
| spixy wrote:
| Can you compensate smaller rotor with larger stator (magnet),
| so rpm could stay the same?
|
| And why you cannot have small hub motor with high voltage
| (kilovolts) and very high rpm?
| xnx wrote:
| Very cool, but also kind of impressive that a Tesla manages this
| in ~2.5 seconds while doing all the other stuff a production car
| does. What time would a Tesla get if you stripped out all the
| extra weight? (seats, glass, electronics, roof, etc. etc.)
|
| Video here (900 MB download):
| https://polybox.ethz.ch/index.php/s/uKWFRcBjtl4foEy/download...
| (couldn't find it on their YouTube page yet:
| https://www.youtube.com/@AMZFormulaStudent/videos)
| londons_explore wrote:
| I'm pretty sure a Tesla spends most of its 2.5 seconds traction
| limited. Ie. if you could fit gearwheels and drive on a toothed
| road, I think a stock tesla could accelerate faster.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Or burn, or cost three times the price! Most components used
| in Teslas are not made to run so intensively, wether it is
| the wheels, the motors, the battery, the brakes, ... they
| most likely limit the acceleration to prevent bad things.
| tw04 wrote:
| >What time would a Tesla get if you striped out all the extra
| weight? (seats, glass, electronics, roof, etc. etc.)
|
| That's been done - you don't actually want to remove things
| like glass because the aerodynamic efficiency loss doesn't
| outweigh the weight removal.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywvGbus3yxo
| dave7 wrote:
| There's still lots of extra weight on that Tesla! Take a look
| at this one lol:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z27t9uHp7nY
| xnx wrote:
| Neat! It looks like their 0-60 mph time was 1.37s.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Funnily enough, better than the previous world record
| holder.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Not exactly -- the previous record was for 1 to 100, not
| 1 to 60.
| AntiRush wrote:
| That's 0-100kph (0-62mph).
| bluedino wrote:
| What's the math on the weight vs the affect of drag at that
| level? Aero doesn't come much into play in 0-60.
|
| "Drag karts" are becoming a thing and they do just fine
| m463 wrote:
| Uh, Telsa plaid does 0-60 in 1.9 seconds
| enragedcacti wrote:
| The 1.99* that Tesla reports is a 0-60mph on a VHT prepped
| surface (glue basically) with one foot of rollout deleted.
|
| This is 0-100kph (0-62.1mph) on standard tarmac without any
| rollout which a plaid does in about 2.5 seconds.
|
| https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-s-
| plaid-0-100-...
| [deleted]
| bdcravens wrote:
| Still wouldn't get close (in the performance sense, where the
| effort to time gained is logarithmic in nature).
|
| This car weighs 309 lbs. The batteries alone in a Model S
| weight 1200 lbs.
| linsomniac wrote:
| True, but this car has low 300s HP, no torque mentioned that
| I saw. The Tesla is over 1K HP and torques. The Teslas, for
| road cars, are pretty stunning for acceleration. Agreed that
| it's not going to reach this level of 0-100 performance, but
| it sounds like it can get shockingly close.
|
| I've driven Porsches on the track, and the Tesla Model S
| Ludicrous loaner I had for a few days is startlingly fast.
| Fast enough that I decided I was glad I didn't get one.
| MrMan wrote:
| [dead]
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| This thing has a power to weight ratio of close to 2 HP per
| kg. That is beyond insane, and if they didn't have active
| suction that is essentially doubling the grip, this thing
| would just be fast at converting rubber into smoke.
|
| Just to put in perspective how ridiculous it is, the
| equivalent would be if the Tesla was close to 5000 HP and
| could produce 5000 lbs of suction downforce at standstill.
| CodeL wrote:
| Considering the rapid advancements in electric vehicle technology
| and traction control, how will traditional metrics of automotive
| performance evolve, and what new benchmarks will define the
| supercars of the future?
| mydriasis wrote:
| Now _that_ is hot rodding. Can't wait to see what the drag strip
| looks like in ten years!
| adolph wrote:
| I was thinking the same. It is interesting to think of
| different fuel modalities. Liquid fuels seem to have a
| throughput advantage for now. The article doesn't seem go into
| electrical depth. From the pictures, it looks like they are
| powering all four wheels at the hub.
|
| This articles says" The vehicle weighs just 140 kilograms and
| has an output of 326hp." https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-
| students-break-world-reco...
|
| _A top fuel dragster accelerates from a standstill to 100 mph
| (160.9 km /h) in as little as 0.8 seconds (less than one third
| the time required by a production Porsche 911 Turbo to reach 60
| mph (96.6 km/h))[1] and can exceed 297 mph (478.0 km/h) in just
| 660 feet (201.2 m). This subjects the driver to an average
| acceleration of about 4.0 g0 (39 m/s2) over the duration of the
| race and with a peak of over 5.6 g0 (55 m/s2)._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel
| [deleted]
| eimrine wrote:
| 8-wheels or more and tons of batteries
| sottol wrote:
| ...and lithium fires.
|
| Unfortunately, I think there will be pearl clutching and new
| rules that allow gas/diesel powered vehicles only "due to
| safety", at least my guess.
| poniko wrote:
| In ten years it's all going to be solid state, no more
| fires.
| sottol wrote:
| I hope so!
| sroussey wrote:
| For sure, assuming we haven't switch from Lithium to
| Aluminum by then.
| gambiting wrote:
| .....the what now? Have you watched any drag strip racing,
| like, ever? Cars regularly go up in flames. The suggestion
| that normal ICE cars would be allowed over EVs for "safety"
| is actively hilarious.
| sottol wrote:
| Just the first example I could quickly find:
|
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-cars-banned-
| from...
|
| Or
|
| https://www.yellowbullet.com/threads/evs-got-banned-from-
| rac...
|
| And sounds like it's not for lithium fires only but also
| traction control.
| trashtester wrote:
| I think you missed the point. For a petrolhead, a lithium
| fire is like a nuclear fire for a Green Part voter in
| Germany.
| athorax wrote:
| I highly doubt this. It is already a pretty regular
| occurrence for ICE cars to combust on drag strips
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yeah.. if people think the prospect of a lithium fire is
| going to scare drag strips into banning them, even under
| 'false' pretenses, they haven't spent any time at a drag
| strip.
|
| Most drag strips are run by volunteers or extremely small
| hobbyist tracks and have almost no regard for safety.
| Basically if the driver is wearing a helmet (and a fire
| suit at more formal places) you can run it. To compete
| they'll often require roll cages but most pulls are just
| against the clock so on many nights they let any random
| joe schmo pull up and get a time.
|
| The crowd often line the lanes behind small concrete
| barriers and people are usually welcome in the staging
| area and right up next to the burnout boxes..
|
| Explosions and fires are common, as are crashes.
|
| https://youtu.be/O7P_2voFMRE?t=35
|
| https://youtu.be/QeIwAJK3iBg?t=128
| sottol wrote:
| Maybe it's the traction control then
|
| https://www.yellowbullet.com/threads/evs-got-banned-from-
| rac...
| orangepurple wrote:
| Drag racers used to use hydrazine which would slowly
| convert into a contact explosive when mixed with gasoline.
| The exhaust flames were green. If the carburetor and fuel
| tank was not purged fast enough after a race the engine,
| carb, and/or fuel tank would explode and sometimes kill
| people. I doubt drag racers or venues are scared of
| lithium.
| jansan wrote:
| Remember the six wheeled Tyrrell P34 F1 racing car?
| Admittedly, ony the rear axis was driven, but that was one
| badass car (and it won a Grand Prix).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34
| cromulent wrote:
| Yeah it was unforgettable. Also the Williams FW08B, but
| that was banned before racing.
|
| https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/six-wheeled-formula-
| one-w...
| briandear wrote:
| A Ducati MotoGP bike does it in 2.3 seconds just as a point of
| reference.
| mrob wrote:
| Interesting that they went with an open-cockpit design. I'd have
| thought closed cockpit would be faster because of better
| aerodynamics, even at these relatively low speeds. Any idea why
| this was chosen?
| Saturn5 wrote:
| This is the typical design for the competition this car was
| originally build for. The rules of Formula Student require an
| open cockpit with a hoop, and you have to demonstrate that your
| driver is able to egress within 2(?) seconds if I remember
| correctly.
|
| This record was set with a modified version the car they
| competed with last season.
| kukkamario wrote:
| I'm guessing weight is more important than aerodynamics if
| target is 0-100km/h.
| omginternets wrote:
| Jesus, do you need a G-suit??
| rgmerk wrote:
| Nah, impressive as it is, if you've ever ridden a roller
| coaster you'll have experienced forces greater than this.
| mattferderer wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what's the point of a driver in something like
| this besides to have a human in the vehicle adding weight? Are
| they doing much?
|
| Serious & maybe very ignorant question.
|
| - Edit - For clarification, my reason for asking was due to this
| occurring in less than 1 second. I don't understand what the
| driver does as I'm assuming they have no gears to shift or turns
| to make.
| lazide wrote:
| Raises the stakes, provides a degree of accountability.
|
| Otherwise it's just a missle with a required degree of ground
| contact, no?
| xwowsersx wrote:
| I assume it's because racing, as a sport, is a lot less
| interesting without the variable of a human with particular
| skills operating the vehicle. I doubt crowds would be as
| interested in watching cars race on autopilot, though it'd
| still be kind of cool, I guess.
| madamelic wrote:
| > racing, as a sport, is a lot less interesting without the
| variable of a human with particular skills operating the
| vehicle.
|
| If full self-driving gets much better, I think it could be
| fun to see this happen. It would be like a hackathon with
| teams swapping out and improving on strategies through laps.
| The qualifiers could happen on electric miniatures then the
| final round would get a full car to race on a track.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| That actually does sound pretty fun haha
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I think a fully automated battlebots arena might be more
| fun but I'd still watch track racing.
| gladoskar wrote:
| The racing formula this is from, Formula Student, actually
| has a driverless competition as part of it. It's pretty
| fun, but also harder than one would think, still.
| wincy wrote:
| I'd hazard you can't get a world record without a human being
| in the car?
|
| I'm no mechanical engineer, but I could definitely make
| something without a human inside of it go from 0-100 in less
| than a second.
| itishappy wrote:
| A bullet will do 0-60mph in 20ms.
| xwdv wrote:
| Definitely could do it in sub 0.2 seconds quite easily.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Fair question. But ultimately human sports are about humans.
| It's just less exciting to watch robots compete (though I like
| it).
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Guinness world records are well defined and some are kinda
| arbitrary. In some sense, I'm sure the driver is there to
| satisfy the rules of the world record. In another sense, I'm
| sure they're there to have a load of fun, too.
| gladoskar wrote:
| AMZ's cars are also capable of autonomous driving (they were
| actually one of the top teams in the autonomous categories for
| the last couple of years).
|
| I assume it's just a requirement for this Guiness record
| category, or they didn't want to bother with all the software.
| hersko wrote:
| 100kmh, not mph.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| One of the photos really brought something home to me. Where I
| would expect to see an axle or something to provide torque to
| wheels from the engine, there is just a yellow wire.
|
| I _know_ that 's how electric cars work. But something about it
| in the racing car context just brings it home to me - electricity
| just works differently to all our other intuitions about the
| world. Factories used to have bands and axels taking power from
| one central steam engine to all corners of the building. And then
| they got redesigned once electricity came in.
|
| I got a gut realisation from that photo that something similar is
| / has happened.
|
| I like to emphasise using "boring tech" at work to avoid chasing
| too many rainbows. But sometimes there is a pot of gold and I
| need to remember that, else my factory will remain steam powered.
| 1-more wrote:
| > Factories used to have bands and axels taking power from one
| central steam engine to all corners of the building.
|
| From my own experience: a popular home woodworker tool from the
| middle of the 20th century is a Shop Smith. It had a motor that
| you would couple to the various mounted attachments to run the
| lathe or the band saw or the table saw etc one tool at a time.
| I guess part of the appeal was certainly the size savings, but
| I have to think it was also only having to buy one electric
| motor. Life changingly good motors are now commodity parts, and
| artisanally crafted ones are setting acceleration world
| records. Cool time to be alive.
| munificent wrote:
| Tractors, still widely used today, as essentially a mobile
| version of this.
|
| One of the main purposes of a tractor, compared to other farm
| vehicles, is that it has a power take-off [0] to enable the
| engine to drive other farm implements like combines.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_take-off
| pests wrote:
| I've never actually thought about what a tractor actually
| is. I've seen them in use and could roughly describe one
| but its actual purpose or intent was unknown to me until
| now.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Kind of. This team is specifically using hub motors, thus
| bypassing the need for traditional axles. Hub motors are
| notoriously inefficient, though, so you don't see them in
| normal BEVs which typically mount the motors near the center of
| the axle (as part of an "e-axle"). Basically, this team's car
| is purpose built only for acceleration and thus gets away with
| doing things you wouldn't see in cars that need to maintain
| speed or drive efficiently. Great ingenuity by them!
| toss1 wrote:
| YES
|
| The use of hub motors is probably best when acceleration is
| paramount, but when handling starts to come into play (e.g.,
| on road courses), it is likely best to bring the motors
| inboard and spend the extra weight and complexity of axles,
| as the unsprung weight outboard of the suspension is a
| serious detriment to handling.
| tromp wrote:
| They needn't be inefficient, as demonstrated by their use in
| the hyper efficient Lightyear0 solar powered car. But they do
| have plenty downsides [1].
|
| [1] https://evcentral.com.au/why-dont-evs-have-four-in-wheel-
| mot...
| mannyv wrote:
| Yeah, they've taken the "distribute mechanical work" part out
| of the process.
|
| It's amazing that all those car cylinders going up and down (or
| technically, being forced up and down by tiny explosions) are
| transformed into work.
|
| Rotary motion -> work has been part of humanity for a long
| time. I suppose in our space-bound future it won't be a big
| factor
| imoverclocked wrote:
| Except as artificial gravity or pumps or geared robotic arms
| or automatic doors or ... I think we'll have rotary motion
| for some time to come.
| expertentipp wrote:
| How many football fields of acceleration is this?
| stuff4ben wrote:
| American or rest-of-the-world football?
| ozr wrote:
| Football, not soccer, of course.
| bborud wrote:
| Oh, you mean handegg :-)
|
| https://br.ifunny.co/picture/ag-not-soccer-not-football-
| it-s...
| [deleted]
| LanceH wrote:
| American or Canadian?
| jaclaz wrote:
| Since it is 12.3 meters a more suitable unit of measure (for US
| journalists) should be the schoolbus.
| perihelions wrote:
| It's *roughly* the gravitational acceleration at the surface of
| an Olympic-size swimming pool of electron-degenerate matter
| from a white dwarf star. Hope this helps!
|
| (Note: the swimming pool has collapsed under its own weight and
| is now a sphere).
| lucgommans wrote:
| A white dwarf's density is apparently around 1e9 kg/m3.
| Olympic swimming pools at 50m*25m*2m * 1e9kg/m3 would have a
| weight of 2.5e12 kg. As a sphere, the radius is (solving:
| volume_of_sphere = 4/3xpxradius3) $ qalc
| 50m*25m*2m = 4/3*pi*x^3 (((50 * meter) * (25 * meter)
| * (2 * meter)) = ((4 / 3) * pi * (x^3))) = approx. (x
| = 8.4194515 m)
|
| Gravitational acceleration (for a point mass) is: the
| gravitational constant, multiplied by the mass, divided by
| the radius squared, and we want the result in Earth
| gravities: $ qalc G * 2.5e12kg / 8.41945152
| m2 to gee (newtonian_constant * ((2.5 * (10^12)) *
| kilogram)) / ((8.4194515^2) * (meter^2)) = approx.
| 0.24 gee
|
| You're only one order of magnitude off -- if this is correct,
| which I am really not sure about!
|
| Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf *
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic-size_swimming_pool *
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=volume+of+a+sphere&ia=answer * http
| s://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=surface+gravity+calcula...
|
| What I'm even less sure how to calculate is whether an
| 8-meter sphere can be that heavy. Uranium is ~2e4 kg/m3, but
| under its own gravity, things shrink until they reach black
| hole status (infinite smallness; perceived size coming from
| its event horizon). Basically I'd want to turn the above
| 1e9kg/m3 into an unknown, but what's the formula for mass
| given your specified radius and gravitational acceleration?
| TBD
|
| I'm really curious if this was just a few words strung
| together and it happened to come out to within one order of
| magnitude by pure coincidence, or if (how) you calculated
| this!
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" You 're only one order of magnitude off_"
|
| Oh shit you're right. Root cause: I saw "3 g" and wrote "3
| m/s^2".
| lucgommans wrote:
| :D
|
| What calculation did you use though? Like some formula or
| is there a web utility for this, for example?
| perihelions wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=3+m%2Fs%5E2+%2F+%28gravit
| ati...
|
| I think
| lucgommans wrote:
| I don't understand, is that what you used originally to
| come up with your original comment (this one:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37483892)?
|
| If so, that is surprisingly similar to what I ended up
| with when trying to validate it!
| elboru wrote:
| At least 2
| uberman wrote:
| about 0.11 football fields were required to reach 100km/h
| hedora wrote:
| That seems high. What was the mass-to-energy conversion
| efficiency?
| uberman wrote:
| 13.5 yards to go from 0 to 60mph seems high? How far did
| you anticipate it would take to reach that speed?
| elromulous wrote:
| Is this for some kind of [European?] [electric?] Formula SAE
| equivalent?
|
| I took part in formula SAE ~20 years ago! Some of the first and
| most rewarding engineering work I've done.
| thedrbrian wrote:
| Yes but you ignore the bit where you're making a car affordable
| to the common man
| ihunter2839 wrote:
| Yes, or maybe more accurately - we are the American equivalent
| of Formula SAE Germany. The German teams are significantly more
| advanced and better funded, with some of the teams running
| custom built electric inhub motors (something that's unheard of
| here in the US)
|
| I am currently on San Jose States Formula SAE team - we merged
| our electric and combustion teams last year to go all electric
| since it's where the stiffest competition exists. If we could
| secure sponsorships we'd love to take our car to Germany!
| no_wizard wrote:
| I didn't know San Jose State had enough money to run an team
| like this.
|
| Unless I'm mistaken, aren't Formula teams expensive? the cars
| get rebuilt often, I imagine its no different with electric
| (less to rebuild, perhaps, but anything mechanical would need
| to be)
|
| Thats awesome though!
| gladoskar wrote:
| It's definitely expensive, and sponsor aquisition is always
| a success factor as in every racing league.
| consp wrote:
| Formula Student Germany has been leading the rules for the
| electric and driverless since their inception. There is a
| meeting every few years at the FSG event to align some rules
| for the different global student competitions. There was one
| this year again. (Source: I'm in the timekeeping
| team/organisation, to the driverless cars: please stop
| destroying our gear)
| tsunamifury wrote:
| On a related note in the sports car community its been
| interesting to watch Acceleration stop being a mark of a
| performance car. There is even a lot of chatter around this being
| the end of the supercar segment since there are family wagons
| that can now do 2 second 0-60 runs. On top of that the speed is
| now too much for anyone to reasonably use off a drag strip or
| circuit.
|
| Now there is a huge emphasis on engagement, dynamics, and a bunch
| of vague "feelsomeness" as sports cars slowly become like horses.
|
| The march of time is interesting...
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Strangely, acceleration seem to stop mattering when EVs took it
| over.
|
| Suddenly, ICE heads started extolling the sensory virtues of
| the combustion engine.
| jansan wrote:
| Acceleration was never really the top metric for super cars. It
| was more performance at high speeds, with high end cars like
| the Bugatti Chiron Supersport 300+ going up to 489 kmph (that
| is a lot in case you wonder). Part of the super car segment
| will go electric, that is for sure, but I do not see the end of
| the super car. Look at luxury watches. They are booming despite
| a Casio GShock with Multiband beating the shit out of them in
| terms of accuracy.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Super car segment is well below Bugatti. Thats a 2.5 million
| dollar car. Super cars are between 150k usedish and a
| million. Plus a lot of other vague definitions. Most people
| say call the 911 the dividing line of a supercar and top of
| the sports car range.
|
| In general this segment is dying off, chasis are being reused
| for 10+ years in the market, tons and tons of special edition
| and reissues. most of the new work is being done in the
| Hypercar segment which is almost just a nonsensical money-
| fight space. And they were, for the most part, defined by
| speed in the public eye. If you wanted feelsome-ness you just
| go a Cayman or a Lotus.
| jansan wrote:
| I stand corrected, the Bugatti is a hypercar. It's a bit
| embarrassing considering that I was in the workshop where
| they make the Bugatti engines just a few weeks ago. Awesome
| experience btw, seems to be part of the standard factory
| tour at Volkswagen Salzgitter currently.
| adfiognionio wrote:
| This is really quite wrong.
|
| Performance car /= sports car. Sports cars are light and nimble
| by definition. They are usually fast, but this is not a rule.
| There have always been sedans that are faster in a straight
| line than most sports cars. There have always been sports cars
| that are not very fast at all. None of this is new, and
| claiming otherwise is ahistorical. Even back in the '60s, a
| sports car enthusiast would have chosen an MGB over a much
| faster Camaro, because the MGB is a sports car and the Camaro
| is not.
|
| Engagement, dynamics, and "feelsomeness" are not vague at all.
| Handling is the product of engineering. It is largely
| objective. Some cars really are easier to control than others.
| Some really do hold on better in the corners. Cars really do
| have more or less body roll and more or less oversteer. What
| "character" is best is a matter of opinion, but the car really
| does have that "character". The fact that something is hard to
| measure does not mean it doesn't exist.
|
| Sports car fans mean exactly what they say: they value handling
| over acceleration. If they didn't mean it, they wouldn't buy
| sports cars.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| And the Tesla plaid is the fastest nurburgring sedan ever
| made.
|
| Go ahead, say that's not a sports car.
| timc3 wrote:
| Its not a sports car. Besides, BMW M4 CSL, Jaguar XE
| project 8, BMW M3, Mercedes AMG 63 GT have faster lap
| times.
| decafninja wrote:
| If Nurburgring times are all we're looking at, there are
| SUVs (ok, CUVs) that will destroy the times of "real sports
| cars".
| tsunamifury wrote:
| [flagged]
| adfiognionio wrote:
| [flagged]
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Again, read your own statements here and think about who
| you want to be. Why be such a angry person on a forum
| where nothing matters...
| jbm wrote:
| We see this same sentiment in comments on this very website.
| Comments like "Straight line acceleration doesn't matter", for
| example.
|
| Except, as a driver, I never accelerate in a tight curve. Once
| I got an EV, aggressive drivers were no longer able to block me
| from merging into traffic; if anything, I was able to easily
| get away from them if necessary.
|
| I believe what we are seeing is car enthusiasm being pushed
| further into the long tail. Aesthetics, self-sufficiency
| through repair, exotics, etc, will always have a place, but
| speed off-track is over. ("Drive feel" is the new "gold cable
| connectors".)
| tsunamifury wrote:
| The majority of the long-tail is just becoming "its really
| expensive" and "its an investment asset" unfortunately.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Now there is a huge emphasis on engagement, dynamics, and a
| bunch of vague "feelsomeness" as sports cars slowly become like
| horses.
|
| I think this is mostly just the experience of people who only
| started caring about performance cars when EVs started being
| competitive. Porsche people (and many others) have been ranting
| about the engagement and driving dynamics for 50 years now.
| There are decades of arguments on forums about handling, 50/50
| weight ratios, understeer and oversteer, shifter feel, track
| times, etc. in addition to arguing about straight line
| acceleration.
|
| EV people feel like those things are just excuses because
| previously they only digested mainstream auto news which puts a
| massive emphasis on straight line acceleration.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| This has been an age old debate -- if you read the comment
| closely it was saying that supercars were defined by
| acceleration and handling, but now acceleration is no longer
| their forte. You could always get a sports car like a P-car
| if you wanted handling.
|
| Don't think everything is just defined by this one issue, it
| goes way back, but Electric has now killed the first half of
| a supercar
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > if you read the comment closely it was saying that
| supercars were defined by acceleration and handling
|
| > _sports car_ community
|
| > as _sports cars_ slowly become like horses
|
| can you see how I might have been confused that the comment
| was about sports cars?
|
| > supercars were defined by acceleration and handling, but
| now acceleration is no longer their forte.
|
| I would argue that their forte is (usually) being fast
| around a track, and that acceleration and handling are just
| aspects of a complete system, subject to engineering
| tradeoffs like anything else. When we evaluate through that
| lens, ICE/hybrid supercars are doing just fine.
| [deleted]
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Honestly I'd bet that anything at or below a 9s 1/4 mile is
| physically painful. It's gotta feel like getting thrown into a
| padded wall.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| if it was 100m in that time, it would be almost exactly 10 times
| faster than Usain Bolt
| diziet wrote:
| I am curious what sort of physical preparation the driver (Kate
| Maggetti) did to train for these runs, if any? Surprisingly the
| average g-force is just under 3 g.
| [deleted]
| tim333 wrote:
| Not sure but it's fairly mild compared to what I think is the
| fastest accelerating car, Sammy Miller's Vanishing point which
| I think recorded 26g. They had some failsafe to stop the car if
| he passed out on that one. (car doing a 3.22 quarter
| https://youtu.be/7QC6tymIvKA?t=213)
| hprotagonist wrote:
| how many gees is that?
| mherrmann wrote:
| 3, as in "omg".
| tzot wrote:
| $ units You have: 100 km per hour / 0.956 sec
| You want: gravity * 2.9629132 /
| 0.33750567
| lucgommans wrote:
| Protip: no need for a dedicated unit conversions utility,
| this awesome calculator has it built in: $
| apt install qalc $ qalc > 100 km/h / 0.956 s
| to gee (100 * (kilometer / hour)) / (0.956 *
| second) = approx. 2.9629132 gees
| BizarroLand wrote:
| About 2.96gs.
|
| Using https://rechneronline.de/g-acceleration/, going from 0 to
| 100 km/h in .956 seconds says it is 2.96gs of acceleration.
| nickcw wrote:
| Python says this for 0 to 100 kph in 0.956s
| >>> 100*1000/3600/0.956/9.81 2.961901417494933
|
| So just about 3 standard Earth gravities!
|
| This assumes uniform acceleration which isn't likely so that is
| the average.
| csours wrote:
| > "To ensure strong traction right from the start, the AMZ team
| has developed a kind of vacuum cleaner that holds the vehicle
| down to the ground by suction."
|
| Traction is now the limiting factor, so better acceleration
| results will be driven (hah) by better traction.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| A similar thing was done in F1 in 1978:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
|
| It was swiftly banned of course, since it worked too well.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Traction has always been the limiting factor in automotive
| performance.
|
| There is a reason why a Civic Type R set a faster time than
| exotic cars of early 2010s, and thats because modern street
| tire compounds are as grippy as slick racing tires from those
| years. And now, race tires have a static friction coefficient
| greater than 1, because when warmed up they actually glue
| themselves to the road.
| csours wrote:
| At this level, yes. For the family sedan, ehhh.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| 100 km/h, to remove any ambiguity
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Thanks, my first thought was 100x the airspeed velocity of an
| unladen swallow.
| vondur wrote:
| African or European?
| ru552 wrote:
| mine was miles
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| rob74 wrote:
| Yeah, "0 to 100" is so commonplace in Europe that even the
| engineers from ETH Zurich leave out the units.
|
| Reminds me of being asked in the US what the fuel consumption
| of our car was (in miles per gallon) and not being able to
| answer because the usual unit in Europe is liters per 100 km
| (didn't have a smartphone back then).
| chungy wrote:
| "0 to 60" is likewise so common place in America that we
| often leave out the units (mph).
|
| It's probably obvious enough in the car context which unit is
| being talked about, between 0-60 and 0-100.
| [deleted]
| enragedcacti wrote:
| I find the suspension design to be really interesting. It seems
| like the front wheels and the rear wheels each share a single
| coilover and they use hydraulic cylinders at each wheel to
| transmit the force. I'm sure this saves a lot of weight but I'm
| interested in how the suspension dynamics are changed by two
| independent wheels sharing the same spring and damper.
|
| Do any other vehicles do this? Are there are any other
| applications where it would make sense?
| gladoskar wrote:
| This is actually fairly common in Formula Student cars. They
| often use decoupled heave/roll suspension systems, where one
| spring/damper is for the heave of the entire axle and another
| one for the roll on the axle. It has some advantages over
| separate springs, but I'd have to ask our suspension guys.
|
| The graphics in this article show its function fairly well, but
| don't explain the calculations either
|
| https://www.marekdostal.com/suspension-design/
|
| Recently, some teams have added the hydraulic relocation of
| dampers, and some (like Dresden) even have software control of
| them.
| Nick87633 wrote:
| Isn't the go-kart suspension still somewhat competitive,
| though? I'd heard of teams that have suspension travel for
| passing tech and then jack up the rates afterward.
| gladoskar wrote:
| Yes and yes
| onnnon wrote:
| You can watch the video on ETH Zurich's YouTube channel:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvoFemftA34
| sova wrote:
| km/h
| queuebert wrote:
| Weird, I was not expecting it to be basically a Formula SAE car.
| KerryJones wrote:
| The title should mention 100kmh, not mph
| jansan wrote:
| Or say it was done in Switzerland, that would make things
| clear, too.
| Symbiote wrote:
| It does, the domain shown after the title is eth.ch.
| [deleted]
| snovv_crash wrote:
| The domain name is ethz.ch, even if you don't know about ETH
| Zurich the .ch will tell you it's Switzerland.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I was wondering how this compared to motorcycles, and didn't
| realize that today's production motorcycles are not significantly
| faster than modern hypercars, the fastest motocycle clocking in
| at 2.2 seconds [1]
|
| Ignoring the million dollar sports cars, other cars such as
| Porsche 911 turbo s from 2020 is 2.1s.[2].
|
| I know, Tesla and Lucid, etc are also crazy fast, but I believe
| their quoted 0-60 times are all with a roll-out.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_mot..
| .
|
| [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car..
| .
| tstrimple wrote:
| Cars designed for high speed will have a significant advantage
| over a motorcycle through capturing down forces to dramatically
| increase the amount of friction between the tires and the
| surface before losing grip and spinning out. Motorcycles can
| own the power to weight ratio category, but they can't use all
| that power because at that point the wheels just spin.
|
| I found it super interesting when I learned that one of the
| biggest advances in maze solving races is that someone ended up
| putting a fan in their little "mouse" to push down so the
| wheels could get more traction.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2008/11/26/vacuum-micromouse/
|
| More details on maze racing from Veritasium:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQbHMgK2rw
| cogman10 wrote:
| Could we maybe change the title here and change it to 100mph?
|
| I realize this is the original article title but EV + 0 to 100
| led me to believe the article was talking about battery charging
| speed.
| beAbU wrote:
| 0 to 100% fully charged in less than one second?
| LanceH wrote:
| That sounds a lot more dangerous than 0 to 100km/h.
| trashtester wrote:
| It sounds like a capacitor.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| Nah, this thing is electrical. And in order to get that kind
| of power you're going to need plutonium.
| tekla wrote:
| Who the hell would think that a 1s battery charging time with a
| racing car would make any sense at all?
| hedora wrote:
| Pit stop times matter, and supercapacitors exist.
|
| I'd love to watch that race, especially if the cars were
| sucker cars like the one in the article, and the drivers got
| to wear high-G fighter jet suits.
|
| The best supercapacitors apparently have 20x the energy
| density of the best batteries. Apparently, self-discharge can
| be as low as 20% per day, which rounds to zero for racing.
| They only cost 10x more than lithium batteries, which again,
| for racing rounds to zero. Discharge current blows lithium-
| ion so far out of the water that I couldn't find a rule of
| thumb ratio.
|
| https://supercaptech.com/battery-vs-supercapacitor/
|
| edit: I had the energy density backwards; supercapacitors are
| at 10% the density of lithium ion. Still, the other
| advantages stand. I wonder how hard it would be to add an
| inductive charger to a straightaway...
| trashtester wrote:
| > Pit stop times matter, and supercapacitors exist.
|
| Imagine a pit "stop", where you keep your speed to
| 300km/h/200mph, and you have your on-board supercapacitor
| charged in 1 second, using a power transfer system borrowed
| from electric trains.
| timerol wrote:
| > The energy density rating of the average supercapacitor
| is between 2,500 Wh per kg and 45,000 Wh per kg.
|
| That's from your source, and those numbers are entirely
| made up. The Wikipedia article for supercapacitors lists a
| more normal 1.5 Wh/kg to 260 Wh/kg (with only one research
| nanomaterial going above 15 Wh/kg). No commercial
| supercapacitor has a higher energy density than a standard
| lithium ion battery.
|
| Edit: The absurdly fast charging speeds would make for some
| fun pit stops, though
| ticklemyelmo wrote:
| But 100mph (or kph) is also a way to describe charging speed.
| sh1mmer wrote:
| It's 100kph
| pcurve wrote:
| For those wondering it's g force of 2.95G.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| It shouldn't matter, but I'm personally delighted that the driver
| was female.
| moonchrome wrote:
| Did you just assume their gender ?
| Biganon wrote:
| Oh looks this brilliant joke is now on HN as well, great
| chrisweekly wrote:
| No. Her name is Kate, and there's a photograph.
| btbuildem wrote:
| That's almost 3Gs of acceleration. Impressive!
| cocoa19 wrote:
| So the same as the Gravitron amusement ride popular in fairs
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| i used this calculator[1]. Looks like 3.5 . Just for fun...
| Now, if we use the forces that air pilots can sustain for 2
| seconds we're looking at about 0.35 seconds is around the
| limit. and 0.3 seconds would create about 11Gs enough to kill
| you (all according to quick googles of numbers.
|
| If they can get a car to do 9Gs for 2 seconds we're looking at
| about 635Km/hr !!
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| 11G is not lethal for the short durations you need for 0-100
| (or even 0-200).
|
| A typical car crash at 20 mph is around 20 G deceleration.
|
| If you look at racing car crash data, one study reports 50 G
| as approximately the threshold for when you start to see
| frequent brain injuries.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16531891/
| rob74 wrote:
| Thanks! I was about to ask how many Gs this translates too, my
| physics are a bit rusty...
| mrb wrote:
| In GNU units you can just do: $ units -t '100
| kph / (.956s) / gravity' 2.9629132
| world2vec wrote:
| TIL!
| rjmunro wrote:
| That query works in Wolfram Alpha too: https://www.wolframa
| lpha.com/input?i=100+kph+%2F+%28.956s%29...
| lucgommans wrote:
| Rather than teaching a separate utility, I would recommend
| qalc which has unit conversions built in :)
| $ qalc -t 100km/h / 0.956s to gee 2.9629132 gees
|
| (where -t is for terse mode; by default it expands unit
| abbreviations and adds parentheses so you see whether it
| did what you wanted)
|
| The reason I recommend it is because it does so much more,
| I really love this utility since discovering it about a
| year ago. Example of using time notation combined with
| uncertainty and unit conversion: > (18:41
| - 09:00+/-00:30) hours * 250 W to kWh (((1121 /
| 60) - (9+-0.5)) * hour) * (250 * watt) = approx.
| (2.4208333+-0.125) kW*h
| chungy wrote:
| The irony of advocating against a "separate utility", and
| then promoting a separate utility...
| lucgommans wrote:
| You never use a calculator?
| chungy wrote:
| I use calculators plenty, but I neither have that one
| installed nor use it. On my PC, I use either grpn or
| units. More often, I pull out my HP 48G+.
| lucgommans wrote:
| GRPN for anyone else who doesn't know it:
| http://lashwhip.com/grpn.html
|
| What I meant to say is that, if one uses a featureful
| calculator like qalc, then you get unit conversion
| included without needing two separate utilities. Of
| course, if you've used a(n obscure) calculator for
| decades then it may be easier to learn to use a separate
| unit convertor instead
| nayuki wrote:
| I did the calculation manually from memory: 3.6 km/h = 1 m/s. 1
| g = 9.8 m/s^2.
|
| So, 100 km/h = 27.8 m/s. 36 m/s in 0.956 s is an average
| acceleration of 29.1 m/s^2. Divide that by 9.8 m/s^2 to get
| 2.96 g.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-12 23:01 UTC)