daveo4porsche

items 3 & 4 added to this list Pete - thanks...

Archimedes

Well, you're talking about a car that's rumored to cost about $250,000, so once again a bit of an apple and an orange to your GT3, but even at that, I'll believe that the Tesla Roadster can be fast around a track lap after lap after I see it. Not when Musk claims it. Given his track record of overselling just about everything.

The EV crowd has been making excuses and parroting the 'just you wait, soon we'll be able to' argument since the original EV1. And things keep getting over promised and under delivered. Let's wait and rave about these cars when they actually do all these things that we've been told they will do for decades. I'll be first to admit they're awesome, when they're awesome. All I keep hearing is 'just you wait, next year...'

Petevb

$200k if you don't order the founders series, easy spitting distance from an optioned GT3, RS or Turbo, less than many.

Right now: please tell me an alternative car in the Model 3 Dual Motor's class that's going to all around outperform it, both day to day and on say a MotorTrend test. The "it's not here yet" argument is already becoming contorted: "the ICE car will win if it's an endurance test of something in xxx price bracket and in yyy class". But real world I'm about to jump into a four door sedan I paid mid 40s for, and if I happen upon a Carrera or a Vette on my commute home I can roll on from 40 mph and destroy them. Consumer reports has them at 3.0 and 3.1 seconds 45-65 mph respectively, the Model 3 Dual Motor is 2.1. At the autocross it was faster than over half the Porsche field (all of them actual sports cars on real rubber). On 400 treadwear all seasons. This isn't tomorrow, it's now. Or how does that somehow not count?

limegreen

I apologize and certainly did not mean to insult anyone. This is clearly a hotly debated subject and is nearly as polarizing as the politics behind it all.

I just don't buy that the EV is already superior to ICE as you and others are suggesting. I have driven a Model S P85D and thought it was a downright dreadful car. I don't think that the instant torque offers much benefit to driving dynamics and the car drove down the road like lead brick. It's acceleration speed is somehow made unimpressive because the whole experience is so bland and soulless. It feels less like a car and more like a tool similar to the way an electric golf cart or airport tram feels. I am not clinging to ICE like some caveman afraid of change I just approach this whole thing with a heavy amount of skepticism because I believe much of it is hyped up and skewed facts with a heavily political agenda that has no place in the sports car world.

I believe strongly that when things stand the test of time it's only because time itself has proven it to be the best method. The electric car was first attempted over 100 years ago and failed for some of the same reasons we are debating here. The very idea of EV is fundamentally flawed and I'm not convinced it's the best way forward given the limitations of current technology.

limegreen

This is getting ridiculous with the you and the Model 3's supposed performance. Forget low speed point and shoot autocross where once again we have a situation where EV has a small advantage , we also have no idea what the driving talent or equipment was at the event so it's hard substantiate your claims of taking out half the Porsche field.

Come to a real road race track to throw down a solid session in the Model 3 you'll get destroyed by someone in comparable ICE car who can actually drive. Or better yet come to the North East ( If your not already here) and I'll personally show you.

Or better yet I'll spare you and let you read this Road and Track article instead where the Model 3 was run at Lime Rock.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...ce-track-test/

Cutting to the chase it can run hard for a handful of laps before things begin to fall apart and output is reduced due to the heat buildup. So there's your " the future is here " real track day in a nutshell, where halfway through a 25 minute session you'll be getting lapped by a base model 15 year old BMW 3 series with 150k miles on it.

Petevb

Numbers again discounted. Results will be posted later this week that will include both cars and classes. Driving talent was good on average as it was a Zone 7 points event, and that brought out many good drivers (including the Parade TTOD winner from this year) to benchmark against. The 3D was roughly 1 to 1.5 seconds behind something like a very well driven 981 Cayman S on RE-71s if that means anything to you. Meaning roughly equal on the same tires. Clearly autocross favors an EV in some ways, the 3D's stability control and sheer size were also obvious disadvantages. No one is saying it can hang on a track, but having tested many different cars (and sometimes getting paid to do it) if you tell me what you drive I'll likely be able to tell you how the Model 3 Dual Motor would measure up.

I've said many times I'd never consider the 3D or any EV as a track car. Which just leaves essentially everywhere else. Not for fun, but for raw numbers. And Porsche buyers are going to need to get over that- EVs will soon be faster everywhere. If they can't get over that then they won't buy a new ICE car and they'll go the way of the dodo. Personally I'm not in denial, I'm at peace, and I'll walk past a faster electric and pay more to buy an ICE GT3 as long as they keep making them.

groundhog

Absolutely.

groundhog

This is accurate - I have seen this first hand, where EVS have been trialled at both a state and state/national level event - they were simply destroyed. In fact ICE drivers were asked to sign waivers to allow them to use aids such as flat bed trucks and flat bed diesel mounted generators on liaison stages.

One stage result 9.25 (P) - EV 10.19; heres another one from a different leg 6.19 (P) - EV 6.58

What I really don't understand is why Tesla owners feel so indignant - they are not performance cars they are daily drivers that can accelerate within given ranges better than the majority of ICE cars. This is obvious as the nose on your face.

Indeed this is ridiculous. The justifications around emissions using studies from California, Norway and BC where due to geography there is abundant access to hydro power are amusing. Unfortunately, you can't talk emissions without discussing economics - for the vast majority of people that live on this planet EVs don't make economic sense.


Figure 1 - The planet has been warming since the last ice age


Figure - CO2 levels have been 4 to 5 times higher in the past compared to the present.

By the way, the two graphs above are well understood and the product of good science. Unfortunately the EV debate always morphs into emissions missing two salient points - power generation is responsible for more emissions than ICE cars (by a long way) and the European motivation has far more to do with energy security than emissions. Note that Norway derived its recent wealth from North Sea oil and gas.

So lets stick to the facts

(1) EVs as they currently stand are not competitive on track or in multi-day road based events
(2) The planet was on a cooling trajectory until about 10,000 years ago - it is now on a warming trajectory (with or without us)
(3) CO2 levels in the past have been up to 4 times higher than they are now (and possibly as many as 5 times higher)
(4) The cheapest Tesla model (that is being delivered) is ~ $USD50k
(5) The average daily wage in India is $USD5
(6) China and the US dominate global emissions

I wish Tesla owners would/could get off the spin machine - unfortunately its a product of the Tesla mentality, a mentality that has lead to an investigation by the SEC in relation to misleading the market in regard to the model 3 and the fact funding clearly wasn't secured.

Petevb

groundhog

It wasn't your statement Petevb - its a general theme with Tesla owners and a very consistent one.

People generally don't like being confronted with facts particularly when they counter beliefs. I agree a broader discussion on the topics I raised would end up badly because as a general rule the details are not important to belief based mind sets.

P&C, you're right - best left alone

daveo4porsche

the data showing CO2 levels were higher int he past have nothing to do with "human" scale time - and they certainly don't have anything to do with what sorts of costs are associated with the dramatic and well documented rise of CO2 in the past 200 years since the industrial age - comparing the CO2 levels of the earth across million year scale has nothing to do with what is going to happen to climant and it's effects on our systems and expectations over the next 100 years

the earth will be fine - I understand that - the question is what will be the effect on weather, sea levels and the human settlements that are abundantly present and in the way of these changes...

to have a discussion you have to scope the conversation to the period of time that is relevant - and during modern human times (6000 years or newer) we have not lived or thrived in an environment with CO2 levels as high as they are - so please dispense with the comparison over millions of years - it's not relevant to the conversation of what is going to happen over the next 200 years due to increasing emissions that are human caused there are several facts that are indisputable

1. CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been during human existence
2. CO2 is a green house gas that traps heat
3. humans are more abundant than they have ever been
4. we have massive investments in infrastructure and populations in locations likely to be affected by change
5. CO2 and other emissions are causing changes in climate which will lead to changes we may not like

the scientific data is clear - but moving the question from what has the human species enjoy'd for climate norms to the scope of what has the earth enjoy'd during it's entire existence is a fool hardy and distracting conversation and entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand. it's a common tactic of climate deniers - and might as well include the Big Bang and it's time scale - which has as much relevance to what we should do about burning fossil fuels and their localized effect on our environment (the air we breath, the rain we require, and the coast lines we occupy).

the graph for the last 200'ish years is the only really relevant part to discuss - the rest of that chart is just noise - legit scientific data noise - but including it to talk about the recent past and near and medium future is like talking about reproduction rates of pre-human neanderthals and what should we do about today's population in China.

daveo4porsche

1) agreed - but it will change and is already changing - it's foolish to believe this is the end point and not the beginning - irrelevant to 99% percent of daily transportation needs of the general public - as is a Porsche.
2) but if you scope the last 200 years the trend drastically spikes in conjunction with the industrial revolution - yes the earth is warming after an ice age - but it warming faster than it ever has - the trend isn't the issue - it's the slope of the line which has gone up dramtically
3) irrelevant to human scale time - the contenents were also once the same land mass - doesn't matter - happened long before we existing - meaningless data point
4) the cheapest EV being delivered is less than a Tesla - Bolts can be had for under $29,000 after incentives
5) so what - yeah income inequity - everyone on the Porsche site cares about that
6) yes - and continuing to grow those emissions and not reduce them is foolish - it will cause changes to the climate that we may not be prepared to handle. - and may be why China is banning CO2 emitting ICE based cars over the next few years - so they do not continue to to grow those emissions at the same rate.

the argument that in pre-human times during the dinosaurs CO2 levels were much higher means we can keep pumping CO2 in the atmoshere with impunity is ridiculous on the face of it. What we're trying to avoid is the cost and hassle of displacing significant populations of humans who happen to occupy vast areas of coast line that could be subject to non-existence due to sea level rise - this is very very costly in terms of actual $$$ that will need to spent to relocate these human settlements - so the solution is to continue to increase our CO2 emissions to melt more ice causing more sea rise? Then you factor in all the possible changes to weather patterns, weather patterns we rely on to produce food and clean water…

the earth will be fine - we are not saving the earth - we are trying to reduce our consumption and find alternatives to produce power that do NOT emit green house gases, because we can show that while the trend has been warmer temperatures, the rate of change in the recent 50 years is dramatically faster than the previous 1000 years - so we have changed the rate of warming…and from that you may be able to draw some foreseeable outcomes:

1) open shipping in the attic - yeah win for economics
2) ice melts rising sea levels (all that melted ice had to go somewhere) washing out coast lines at great expense.

groundhog

Non of this concerns me dave - the planet had abundant life forms when the CO2 levels were four times higher. The mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the tertiary was caused by two principal factors (a) the eruption of the Deccan Flood Basalt Province and (B) the impact of a large meteorite - this resulted in differential extinction which allowed small mammals to thrive and ultimately evolve into Homo Sapiens.

The planet is warming, we will be fine, its simply a matter of how we adjust. Is it a good idea for humans to moderate our polluting behaviour? yes - will it change the fact the planet is warming? no - but it will have a small impact on the rate.

daveo4porsche

yes the question is the cost of adaption - it's expensive to put a sea wall around all of Florida…and when the planet was warmer there was no human population to speak of

we aren't saving the earth - we're trying to avoid compounding the moral, social, and financial cost of impact 7,000,000,000 humans the space they currently occupy and the systems they depend on. Doubling down on more emissions is not a recipe for curtailing this effect.

whiz944

As an aside, the following is a great talk by Marc Tarpenning about the founding of Tesla and his take on entrepreneurship in general. It is a few years old and a little long, but it addresses a number of things being discussed in this thread. One can skip past the first ten minutes to get to Marcs talk:


(FWIW, I was in the audience when he gave this talk.)