>0 cylinder electric motors

>Tesla model S
>Electric
>500hp
>consumption equivalent of 80MPG

Where's your god now?

>>13983265
>Base model corolla
>Would take decades to make up the cost in fuel

>>13983339
Except the tesla model s has the same performance of a mclaren f1 while being more efficient than a prius. Corolla isl shitbon both categories.

>>13983387
>same performance
0-60 does not dictate overall performance
>comparing the holy grail supercar to a glorified iPad on wheels

>>13983387
What's the Model S 0-186 time?
How much does it weigh?
How much faster is it on the track?
If all you do is stoplight racing then be my guest, but bikes have been better at that for ages.

File: 5KW_kg.jpg (37KB, 743x506px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 743x506px

>>13982877
electric motors are god-tier anon
batteries are (currently) not

>>13983428
>0-186
>relevant to a street car

>>13983435
>moving goalposts

>>13983406
this

Tesla is only fast from standstill. They get btfo on rolling starts.

>>13983445
Yeah the performance past 80 falls off hard.

They also aren't that incredible in corners because the car weighs so fucking much. I mean, don't get me wrong, it handles shockingly well for the land barge that it is, mostly due to it's low center of gravity, but at the end of the day, it's still a land barge, and a fucking big one at that.

>>13983387
>tesla model s has the same performance of a mclaren f1

Only thing that's the same is the 0-60 time

>>13982877
It's 1 cylinder tho.

>electric motor

>turbine generator in the front

>?????

>infinite power

>>13985375
Better yet, have some kind of nuclear reactor in the front to power it

File: 2013_02_olev.jpg (51KB, 530x318px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 530x318px

>>13985395
not powering your car with wireless electricity

>>13985452
This is so fucking inefficient.

I wonder how fast a Tesla could go if they made a dedicated track car with it. Drop the 762HP engine and 90KwH battery into a coupe that is (otherwise) made to be lightweight and aerodynamic as possible.

>>13985487
more efficient than charging batteries.

>>13985900
It's less efficient, the only way it works well is when the coils are extremely close together. The power field around the coil for a near field charger falls off with the inverse if the square of the distance. Double the distance from it and you get a quarter of the power. Flow batteries are more likely to be a near enough fix since you can refill your car with charged battery from a pump, especially with the hydrogen-bromine and hydrogen-bromate ones under development since they actually have decent power storage.

>>13983387
Has better 0-60 time than McLaren. And then after one 0-60 pull it needs a recharge.
FTFY

>>13985900
Only if the distances involved are incredibly short. As in a couple centimeters, probably even less.

Battery charging is actually very efficient now. Batteries also don't require a several trillion dollar investment in redoing all road surfaces to perform basic functions. Outside of public transportation for cities, wireless power solutions are completely infeasable. It's better to have overhead wires like how trolly systems used to because it's cheaper and more efficient. Even that isn't economical vs just using natural gas buses, at least for now.

>>13985888
The battery pack limits the total power output to under 500hp, even with the new "fuse" for ludicrous mode.