Oh man, there's a great opportunity for a part 2 of this conversation. Sub-3 second cars have almost become common, especially with electric cars, and not on prepared surfaces either. The McMurtry and the variable speed fan system is particularly interesting, along with other cars that depend on the venturi effect. In this episode, they barely touched on the impact of active and passive aero. Deceleration is also a fun topic, as there are many cars with active aero tricks there. Then there's the benefits of driving 2 wheels versus 4 in achieving the maximum grip on launch, the complicated launch systems and procedures sports cars have now, and treaded vs slick tires increasing contact patch with the surface. So much to continue this conversation!
On paper ,but in reality 90% of this super fast cars cannot go faster than 2.5 seconds, even Tesla plaid cannot get to that 2.1 in the real life tests ( 2.1 here in Europe . 1.9 in america because we measure the real 0 100 not 0 to 60)
@@pogtuber5146 Yeah but heating up tires, increasing downforce/ weight all contribute to that. McMurtry does by creating a vaccum underneath. its pretty neat and clever. and pretty safe to create downforce like that. The car did 0-60 in less that 1.5 seconds and its road legal. Its quite impressive.
@@pogtuber5146 The coefficient of friction of a tire does not change just because more weight is applied to the tire. It just increases the force needed to break the tire free from static friction. It's just the ratio of grip to weight. Double the weight and you double the grip.
To be honest I initially didn't like Chuck cracking jokes while Neil deGrasse Tyson was explaining something, but now I can't even watch a single episode without him . 🙌
At one point in history of F1, the cars actually accelerated faster from 100 km/h to 200 km/h, than 0-100 mark. It was incredibly difficult to not spin the wheels from 0-100 and subsequently loose time
What I really love about Neil is that _consistently_ his lead-up communication is so good that, once he reaches his main point, it seems like an obvious thing I just never thought about before. "Well, _of course,_ maximum acceleration is 1G; beyond that, you lose traction because the wheels are spinning faster that gravity is pulling you down. DUH!"
There are cars that can accelerate to 60 mph in under 2.7 seconds, which is the time a free falling body takes to get to 60 mph. Your logic is flawed because you can have tires with coefficients of friction greater than 1.0 --- this also allows cars to corner with greater than 1G of lateral acceleration. Sorry, but Neil is dead wrong about this one.
@@thecarman3693 obviously he has never been to an NHRA event and seen a top fuel dragster do 1/4 mile in under 4 seconds and never break traction from the starting line pulling 5 Gs!!
@@michaelsane6136 Perhaps ... but one needn't go to one, as you yourself can purchase cars that can be equipped with tires having coefficients greater than 1. That is, if you have the $$$$.
Some production cars can achieve sub 3s 0-60 (or over 1G acceleration), because they utilize similar tricks that the top fuel dragsters do - they temporarily increase the stickiness of the tires. The road surface is never completely flat - it is rough with small imperfections, acting a bit like a gear rack. And the tire is deformed and pushed down by the weight transfer of the car and some clever suspension, so that it acts a bit like that pinion gear at the gear rack. So the friction coefficient is a bit greater than 1. All of this was also mentioned in the video. However those cars are pushing the usability limit and it cannot get much quicker than that. We know that dragsters can achieve much more than 1G acceleration, but no one actually wants to be driving a dragster on the street.
I think we need a follow up video to explain the accel and decel times that seem to beat the rule. Rimac and Tesla for example on Matt Watson's channel CarWow are pulling greater than 1G. We are dying here in the comment section for a Tyson explanation. (Oh, and one more thing...I was hoping you were going to mention the fan cars that suck the car to the ground to gain huge traction while not increasing the mass).
@@TheIncomparableGolfer The McMurtry does a 1.4s 0-6omph, but it weighs about 1000kg and can have 2000kg of downforce at standstill. Insane though that the Rimac and Plaid are sub 2s too
Gary, you nailed the NHRA model... those 11,000 HP Top Fuel dragsters (with the T-Rex fron t wheels) pull up to 5 G's on launch, due to the super sticky slick tires and the burnout warming the aforementioned tires up to increase traction to the point of insane.
BTW I highly recommend watching a top fuel drag tire in slow motion when they launch. Its amazing. Incredible engineering really, if you think of the forces on that tire at launch which then has to be able to handle 330+ MPH top speeds just a few seconds later.
@@Nefville what's even cooler as if you notice they don't have gears. They're just single speed transmissions. If you measure the tire they actually can't get to 300 miles an hour. But as they go faster the tire gets taller and taller increasing their gear ratio. Hence the tires are the transmission.
Three cars that are sub 2 second Rimac Nevera - 1.85 seconds (0-60mph) Lucid Air Sapphire - 1.89 seconds (0-60mph) Pininfarina Battista - 1.9 seconds (0-62mph)
Okay. I'm assuming that you're not just relying on manufacturer's numbers based on a dynamometer, right? You actually drove each of those cars and experienced this? Wow. What was it like to be in a car that was accelerating faster than 1G?
Even with tires spinning it's achievable. There are people that do "hard tire" drag racing on non prepped surfaces that still see above 1g and sub 3 second 0-60 times even without sticky tires digging into the surface. Weight tranfer and suspension setup are huge factors with most of those guys being able to accelerate like that without much traction.
Check out Gordon Murray's T.33 and T.50 based on the Brabham BT46B F1 car in 1978 which has a fan on the car's rear. This fan extracts air from underneath the car, producing heaps of downforce while it's at a standstill, and of course adding to the downforce as the car accellerates. The original car in 1978 was disqualified after only one race and if I recall it was an entire 6 seconds faster per lap than its competitors.
Just a couple of minutes into this and looking at comments too and I noticed something that it doesn't appear many people have much knowledge about. Instant center and anti squat, it's what allows dragsters to accelerate like they do, pro stock drag cars to accelerate like they do, and semi trucks to accelerate like they do (also comes into play on everyday vehicles just not as much effect) instant center is the point the rear axle (in a rwd vehicle) is lifting on the front of the vehicle ( it's the rotation about the center of the rear axle and the point it is being lifted at) and anti squat is a part of the geometry related to how the rear suspension reacts, if it has anti squat built into the geometry it means that instead of the rear of the vehicle "squatting" when it accelerates under power it actually stands up and pushes the rear tires into the ground harder. Add in adjustments to instant center and you can increase the amount of weight that is actually applied down into the ground on the rear tires which increases the contact patch of the rear tires which increases the amount of force needed to break the traction between the tires and the road surface... some of that may be included in the "Engineering the world's fastest cars" video I'm going to watch right after this
And this comment was posted here after I commented on that video because I was slow on typing and that video started before I posted the comment. Also realized instant center and anti squat were never brought up in that video either but that is how you increase the amount of friction on the drive tires without increasing the weight of the vehicle during acceleration.
Top fuel NHRA drag racing is the perfect balance of acceleration and traction (friction), the vehicles are designed for the maximum amount of downward force on the rear wheels that get heated up and become sticky in the pre-race burnout
Great video!! Many car manufacturers use “rollout” to achieve a quicker 0-60/62 time for their spec sheet. They don’t start timing until the car is already in motion. The channel, “Engineering Explained,” has a good video demonstrating this as well as factors limiting a cars quickness. With equations 😊
Other than Tesla (who only does that for the Plaid Model S) who else does this? Tesla is the only company I know of who does this, and they don’t do it consistently.
@@prckatastart the timer when the car is in motion meaning it cannot possibly be a 0-60 run because the car is not stationary when the timer begins. It’s a standard way to do the timer in a certain kind of drag race. Cool. That’s not the way ANY other car maker does it, and that’s not the way Tesla does times for any of their own cars aside from the Plaid Model S.
What I wouldn't do to be in a class that Neil DeGrasse Tyson taught. Thank you for arming your viewers with interesting and practical knowledge. I didn't know that physics could actually be fun.
I’m not an expert but I’d say the mentioned limit of 0-60 in 3 seconds accounts for a constant amount of torque (i.e. throttle). Modern cars, especially electric cars, have launch systems that allow an increased torque output as speed on the way to 60 increases, allowing the other forces other than friction to go into effect and increase the rate at which a car can accelerate.
I was suprised when Neal didn't include all wheel drive into the discussion, especially when snow plowing was mentioned. Having four drive tires vs 2 increases the coefficient of friction substantially which with current technology does allow several current production vehicles to easily surpass the 3 second 0-60 "barrier". Tesla plaid and Porsche 911 turbo are 2 examples
There is an old Audi TV advertisement where they drive up a ski jump tower with their quattro, and I think they did not need a lot more than spike tires to achieve that.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Maybe. Not as simple as you might think on a relatively slippery surface. In general you do have four contact patches which usually means better traction.
@Lawrence D’Oliveiro With an ice driven vehicle I doubt it. The drivetrain losses would start adding up quickly. Electric motor for each tire would be an interesting experiment. Diminishing returns though I would imagine with each driven tire added.
@5:51 🤔The statement "The fastest you can accelerate forward is 1g" is in fact incorrect. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to intuitively realize this. If we examine the tribology of the contact surfaces, i.e., where rubber meets road, we realise that the limiting factor to road "grip" is the ablation of our tire compounds. Therefore, if we were to replace our road and tire with a rack and pinion system, we can be confident that the limiting factor to acceleration becomes inertia, engine (or motor) power, and drag. A real life counterargument to the assertion @5:51 is the McMurtry Speirling, an all-battery electric race car. The McMurtry Speirling can sprint from 0-60mph in 1.4 seconds and cover the quarter mile in 7.97 seconds. The quarter mile is about 400m. From kinematic physics, (distance) = (1/2)*(acceleration)*(time^2). We can rearrange the equation to get (acceleration) = (2)*(distance)/(time^2) = (2*400m)/(7.97^2 s^2) = 12.6m/s^2. Gravity on earth is generally approximated as 9.8m/s^2, so the McMurtry is pulling 12.6/9.8 = 1.3g.😳 Yes, the McMurtry is a fan-car (it uses a powerful fan to create a suction force of almost 2 metric tonnes). This suction force increases the apparent weight of the car. Friction force is just apparent weight x coefficient of friction. The higher the friction force, the higher the potential acceleration, if the motors are up to the task, which they clearly are for the McMurtry Speirling. It gets even crazier though, because the McMurtry actually has a 150mph speed governor. Back to our ballistics equation, (velocity) = (acceleration)*(time), which we can rearrange to get (acceleration) = (velocity)/(time). 60mph is 26.8m/s, so (acceleration) = (26.8m/s)/(1.4s) = 19.1m/s^2. Again, on earth, gravity is generally approximated as 9.8m/s^2, so the McMurtry is capable of (19.1m/s^2)/(9.8m/s^2) ~2g!!!!!!!!🤯😂
You need to look into the McMurtry Speedster & The T50. Both have fans in the underbody that increase downforce significantly. Mind bending to watch these tech’s effect on a car.
Terminal velocity is a fascinating concept in physics, describing the maximum speed an object can reach when falling through a fluid, such as air. It occurs when the force of gravity is balanced by the drag force, causing the object to fall at a constant speed. This equilibrium creates a unique dynamic where heavier objects can have different terminal velocities compared to lighter ones. But what factors exactly determine how quickly an object reaches its terminal velocity, and how can we manipulate these factors in practical applications like skydiving or engineering?
@@homewardboundphotos I'm a long time listener and a big fan. He did get some facts wrong this time. That's ok everyone makes mistakes. Still a huge fan of his.
@@adamthomas1222 he was wrong a few weeks ago about the fusion breakthrough that everyone was freaking out about. lol. it's not some monumental breakthrough and it will change nothing. he doesn't mention they are only calculating the direct energy from the lasers, not the power consumption of the entire system. the actual energy of the lasers is like 1% of the entire system. i mean theres more. and if he's not directly wrong, he leaves out half the argument, glosses over big problems relating to his arguments.
Well, what Neil didn't account for is while it's true that spoilers and such do not work when you're standing still, however as you start moving the effect gradually increases. Though it's probably not that much at such relatively low speeds, but especially towards the end you can increase the acceleration. It's also funny since Neil mentioned gears... Technically friction between two materials is working similar to gears but on the atomic level. So it highly depends on the actual road surface and the material structure of the tire. Even when using gears it would be necessarily be special gears that do not produce any upwards force that may make the gears slip as well. Though in reality, especially when increasing the torque / force any kind of material would probably bend slightly. So there's always a point where the gears could be pushed out and slip. In the extreme case the material would simply break / deform.
So how does a standard Tesla S Plaid standard out of the box do 0-60 in 1.99s? I know in regular conditions it's more like 2.3s but that is still faster than freefall which is 2.7s. I thought it had to do with the traction control measuring the ground 1000 times a second to keep the car in Static coefficient of friction which is higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction.
Niel wasnt like way off, they use couple of tricks but he is basically right on point. Best sport cars do little over 1G force in straight acceleration 0-60 and 2.5s 0 to 60, when no special surface or tyres are used, since manufacturers have couple of tricks when it comes to downforce and aerodynamics of the cars couple of cars can do better, but when you do not deduct 1feet like they like to do for their stats, its realistically something like 2s 0 to 60, for Rimac Nevera, and i think 1.5G (thats not just sport car, but 2 million dollars hypercar) and that is near physical limit.
@@B0ZA92 it’s amazing that you can buy the 17 tesla plaids for the price of 1 Rimac Nevera and they can all equal its acceleration. Teslas traction control is key to allowing the 0-60 to be 1.98s.
@@beyondplanesight yes thats true, but true power of nevea is on track, and there it would smoke tesla. Teslas are not cornering that good and max speed is also smaller. But its true that its far more expensive.
@@B0ZA92 the Rimac weighs in at 4740lbs top speed 258mph and the Plaid at 4766lbs top speed 217mph and that’s only because they ran out of runway during the test. Plaid is the fastest electric car on the Nurburgring which has to do with cornering. I’m curious to see with a software update if the plaid can come closer to Rimacs numbers even though 17,000% more dollars were spent making it go 19% higher top speed.
@@beyondplanesight all true, i agree with everything, but people that want the best anything will spare no buck, plus its more exclusive knowing that very limited number of people will be able to drive nevera.
I grew up with parents who raced in the NHRA, top fuel now accelerates from 0 - 300 in less than 4 seconds, NHRA developed the perfect mix of stickiness of tires and track surface and fuel to make it happen and it's a beautiful thing to see
There are several cars on the market right now that advertise two or less seconds for their 0 to 60 acceleration. Frankly, I don't buy it for a second. The only way they can achieve that, as The good professor tells us, is if they are using special tires and testing it in very specific conditions. In other words, they are lies. Of course, when will you ever want to accelerate from 0 to 60 that fast? The answer is never, because if you ever do it you would be putting everyone around you at extreme risk. EDIT: I was wrong. Tesla and others have done it. The techniques are complicated, but they essentially have found ways to achieve faster than 1G acceleration from a stop.
@@williampeek7943 not really. Motor trends was able to get close to that though, which is pretty impressive, for a measurement of performance that means nothing in has nothing to do with how you would use it. There are multiple ways of making this measurement, and I'm not a car guy so I'm not going to pretend to know the specifics in each of the different ways of making it, and professor Tyson didn't get into any of those specifics about how this is measured. Another way of saying what professor Tyson is saying is that a car can't accelerate faster than it can decelerate. The Tesla model s, while not meeting the numbers that they advertise, does accelerate slightly faster than it can decelerate, proving that this rule is more of a rule of thumb. Edit: and if both accelerates and decelerates at faster than 1G.
4m 20s No, Neil, they do NOT scale EXACTLY together! When speaking about the surfaces, both road and tire, the limit to force the flexible tire into the road surface is limited. there is a point that more weight does not benefit increase Increasing the surface mating area, the contact patch increases the ability to accelerate. the material of the tire will sheer away at a given, calculable point. this can be written in force per millimeter, centimeter, square inch, etc... The weight can be shifted, by design, without increasing the vehicle's weight. then again, you are not taking into account that the speed at which a tire rotates, adds to the amount of material of the tire that interlocks with the road surface. Tires actually provide their maximum forward acceleration, cornering and braking with a certain amount of slip (in some cases @7%). BTW, Neil, Skidding out is NOT the proper term for the loss of traction in acceleration, but in deceleration (stopping, negative acceleration). The contact patch cannot generate enough friction to slow the vehicle as much as the brakes and energy (vehicle mass*forward motion) require. I just described a skid. Skidding out is the loss of trajectory due to a skid. A burnout, as your buddy said, is correct, That doctorate does not mean that you know it all and your inability to even research the proper terminology would have caused you to never have received your doctorate, as you think you are speaking about one thing, while actually speaking about another.
Sorry, but you can play with control arm angles and shock rebound settings to throw the tires into the ground when you hit it (lots more normal force). You can find video of slicks deforming and squatting down, while the back raises up. Then you need to make sure the suspension unloads slowly enough or you'll do a wheely then spin. You might like the science behind it. Lots of geometry. Kevin Wilson does a lot of RUclips explainers on suspension.
Well yes, but that is vehicle dynamics, something taught in Bachelor/Master level Education. This is a STEM channel so everything is on high school level, every considered is in static. Pretty much simplified to just the wheel and ground. At 0 second there is no torque from engine, when control arm started to factor in the time already not 0.
That modifies the weight transfer. Look at classic drag sedans from the '60s. They improved weight transfer by crudely raising the front ends, changing the location of the mass of the engine and transmission. Also, when dragsters are still the tires squash down due to low tire pressures they run. When they launch the tires "centrifuge" to a larger diameter, narrower contact area.
The keywords are "tires digging into the road". The same arguments were proposed by physicists in the 60's, that dragsters will not get below about 9 seconds in the 1/4 mile, because that's about 1G of acceleration. But that's because they took a too simplistic view of friction and reduced the concept of friction to a single number; a coefficient. "Friction" is actually the interference between the microscopic structures of two surfaces in contact with each other. To break friction, the surfaces must shear off their microscopic structures. Similarly, tire traction is due to the soft rubber flowing into the crevices in the pavement, providing grip (adhesion). Take this to the extreme, end you end up with the gears and rack teeth embedded in the ground that Dr. Tyson mentioned, and the limit of acceleration would be the strength of the teeth. This is why the dragsters use huge tires; to put more rubber against the pavement for more strength (cohesion). Also, the tire treads need to be soft, but not necessarily "sticky", as that means it will take energy to peel the backside of the tread off the pavement.
And keep in mind, at the beginning of the video, Tyson used the example of a snow plow where the vehicle would not be increasing downward force due to momentum of the acceleration.
Great video Neil! What about new technology though? This video looks mostly at weight increase to horsepower. Introducing, the McMurtry Speirling! An all electric, carbon fiber car that uses massive vacuum suction power, even from a dead stop to add down force. Able to maintain as much down force sitting still as moving forward, with minimal extra weight needed to achieve the traction needed for the power its able to produce to the wheels. Truly next generation in automotive technology in my opinion.
Let's just say that at sea level the acceleration of gravity is 32.174 ft/sec^2. That means in order to accelerate at greater than the rate of acceleration of gravity you have to increase the speed of the car (in a straight line) at a rate greater than 32.174 ft/sec per second, which is 21.94 MPH per second. So accelerating a car from 0 MPH to 60 MPH at the acceleration rate of gravity would take 2.73 seconds. There are PLENTY of vehicles on the road that can accelerate from 0-60 MPH in less than 2.73 seconds. I used to own a Kawasaki ZX-11 that would do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, and that was stock off the showroom floor, on stock tires.
There are performance tires out there now that have a higher than 1.0 coefficient of friction, so they can actually break the sub-3.0 second acceleration barrier (usually around 2.5 s)! I think they don't need any specially prepped tracks, just regular roads. The tires are obviously softer than normal passenger car rubber. With specially prepped tracks, they will probably do 1.9 second accelerations, which is 1.44 g! Higher than the acceleration of gravity!
Don’t they get some aerodynamic downforce soon after they start? Also exhausts may add downforce. Spinning tires increase diameter and they push the car up, creating an opposite downforce, as well.
You guys need to attend a National Hot Rod Assoc NHRA race sometime and watch the nitro-fueled drag races hit 300+ mph in a 1,000ft!! Then, the next problem is stopping the thing.....Come to Sonoma Raceway in July for the NHRA races and I'll meet ya there...
Learnt that concept fast when I bought a Tata SuperAce Mini Truck and couldn't drive uphill after some slight drizzle. Zero grip on the asphalt! I had to put sacks of sand on the back wheels for it to have traction because it is super light. But when it carried its max 1 tonne load it drives like a dream LOL!
I love you guys! 🙌 There’s plenty of mass produced cars that can do 0-60mph in less than 3 secs from stand still (no roll out) and with good but mainstream roadworthy tires on normal asphalt/concrete roads at let’s say normal temps at around 20 degr. C
The fastest on record was a ThrustSSC driven by Andy Green, a twin turbofan jet-powered car which reached 763 mph.still interested how it was still able to remain on the ground without going airborne. Velocity and speed working together?
The tires, traction, air pressure and wind speed is always the issue. The all wheel drive Bugatti Chiron super sport managed 300 mph, but the tires had to be reinforced, and the speed was impacted by air pressure and wind speed and direction. Does 0-60 in less than 3 seconds which isn’t a stretch nowadays (in supercars anyway). My Audi RS3 managed it in 3.8 but that was a perfect windless day. Slightly wider rear wheels compared to the front wheels and electronic computer controlled all wheel drive to control traction helps. Basically looks for deviations in RPM between all 4 wheels and speeds up/slows down each to maintain traction and that software is improving all the time. Am only talking cars people can buy and go to the store with - not drag stuff with rockets and things. They’re not cars. Musk’s roadster is a car but was “slightly” modified to manage escape velocity. Fun fact: at top speed, the Chiron’s tires would only last for 13 miles, but it would run out of gas with 3 miles to spare anyway.
@Richard Waddington First, I didn't say that I don't want to hear him speak. That's your projection speaking. Second, what is the point of having guests and co-hosts if they are not allowed to have the courtesy to let them complete their sentences? This could easily have been a solo video and NDT has done that before. Not all criticism is about hate.
Another way of saying what professor Tyson is saying here is the old rule that a car can never accelerate faster than it can decelerate. That is no longer the case. Using various means manufacturers have found ways to accelerate faster than 1G and to decelerate faster than 1G. "According to calculations based on MotorTrend's data, it turns out that in the case of Plaid, the acceleration was 1.199g on average, while braking was at 1.156g on average."
These 3 men have never seen the McMurty. They figured out how to create downforce from 0. And the Lucid Air Sapphire can turn it's motors on and off 1,000 times per second. It just beat the Tesla Plaid by 3 car lengths in the 1/4 mile.
I've heard this argument before, and it's very flawed. When a Top Fuel Dragster can go from 0 to 100 MPH in .8 tenths of a second and will accelerate to almost 340 MPH in 3.6 seconds to cover 1000 feet. That's way, way, way more than 1G!
The main thing keeping cars from going faster isn't engine power or traction issues, it's the tires themselves. it's hard to make a tire that can rotate are the speed of sound and not rip itself apart while undergoing the forces in play
@@ShawnRitch ever heard of a typo? They're quite common, especially when a "smart" phone thinks it knows the word you want to use, and then replaces the word you actually typed with that word. Does Neil have to do an explainer on how auto-correct doesn't always correct things?
Neil, How can you hold yourself up as an expert in ANYTHING when you get something as basic as this so wrong. A coefficient of friction between the tires and the road greater than gravity, along with positive downforce as the vehicle picks up speed will ensure faster-than-gravitational acceleration (given enough hp). The quickest vehicles are currently accelerating at roughly 1.5 g; improvements in tires and aerodynamics will continue to push the upper bounds of acceleration. How am I wrong?
One of the great new motorsports is generally referred to as "Drag and Drive". Pretty much exclusively amateur events (no real prize money, although many are professional car builders), which are, in general, one week long, drag races at 4 or 5 different tracks. The format they shoot for is gather at track A, register, car inspection and test on day 1. On day 2 Race for time only at track A, then DRIVE that same car to track B under it's own power (no time limit or any sort of race between tracks) following a predetermined route with check points.On day 3 Race for time only again at track B, pack up and DRIVE the same car to track C, wash and repeat. The path of travel after approximately one week ends up back at track A with the best aggregate time of the race portion who also made all of the check points declared the winner. There are multiple class and therefore multiple winners with the Grand Prize going to the quickest aggregate TOTAL, or average fastest at all the tracks, time. They, very loosely shoot for 1320 miles total for the drive part, so as to correspond to the 1320 feet of the drag race. The current record holder is TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE to old school drag racers. Not, because of it's track speed, but because of it's ability to drive hundreds of miles on the streets and highways, pull into the track and do those dedicated race car like track times! www.motortrend.com/events/tom-bailey-wins-hot-rod-drag-week-2022/
Precisely why drag cars have huge wings on them and why they use slick tires with low pressure and burnout before launching. They get maximum surface to surface contact with the track along with partially melted rubber which increases traction and then combine it with all the downforce created by the wings on the front and rear of the car to reach speeds of over 300 mph in just over 3 seconds in a quarter of a mile.
5:10 - you don't want air underneath the car. Air underneath the car = drag and lift. Ideally, you want to seal the bottom of the car off so as little air can go under as possible to maximize downforce and optimize drag. Take a peak at F1, NASCAR, IndyCar, etc.
Have you ever done it? Have you ever taken a Tesla model s onto a test track and measured at 0 to 60 acceleration? Or are you just relying on the test that they did, and are you aware of the condition of that test? Where it was done, whether it was done using stock tires, etc. The one thing we know is is that we cannot take these numbers seriously if you only place we are getting them is the manufacturer.
Ok to be clear I own 2 teslas. My new model x plaid is has performed at 0-60 at 2.15 seconds on stock tires which are actually all season tires not slicks… This was in southern ohio. If anyone wants to test my claims I’m happy to have them come here and independently verify this. It’s not a model s but it is once again a model x plaid 2022.
Coefficient of Friction = Cf = Force Down/(Friction at road-tire interface). Using acceleration = a = Friction at road/m (from Newton F = ma). Cf stays constant as Force Down increases since Road friction increases proportionally to it. I don't know if acc will be limited to 9.8 m/s/s since the mass of the car at the rear wheels is not known, but if the front wheel lifts off a little all the weight of the car is on the rear wheels and Tyson is correct thin. You can put Force Down in to Newton's equation to find the maximum accel.
Not sure it's fair to call this an oversight, but you guys might find it interesting. In motorsports that require a takeoff at the beginning of the event (such as drag racing), where maximizing acceleration is key to a good time, pro drivers are known to not go full throttle, because of that burnout principle where too much spin doesn't let you grip the tarmac. They actually use just enough throttle to grip the tarmac without being too much, and they'll add more throttle as they gain speed and have less room for grip loss, due to how the RPM of the wheels and the speed of the car interact mathematically. Pretty cool.
Dr. Tyson is one of the greatest, but I have to say he is not totally right here. Cars are able to overcome loosing friction to some extent by not applying 100% of the car's capability at launch, and only applies a fraction and increases it's output over time till friction is close to optimal. This is called "launch control". The porsche 911 turbo S uses semi-road tires and with launch control is does a 2.6 0-60. Thr compound in those tires aren't as soft as they may seem. It's possible to drive up to 12'000 miles on those tires. If a car's engine could rev up to 7000 rpm, launch control would limit it to around 3000 to 4500 rpm depending on the car.
Explainers are my favorite Star Talk videos. But I have an issue with this video and that is that power is not related to acceleration (and yes, I'm a fuss budget about this). Maybe Dr. Tyson should do an explainer on that. Demonstration: I have a rear-wheel drive motorcycle that is accelerating at a constant 1G. It has a mass of 1,000 KG. The drive tire is 1 meter in radius. There is no wheel spin. How much power is being delivered to the drive tire? How much torque is being delivered to the drive tire? Spoiler alert: You will find that you cannot calculate the power without introducing either the instantaneous speed of the vehicle or the instantaneous tire RPM, and that value of power is valid only for that particular speed/tire RPM. You will find that to achieve a constant acceleration the torque remains constant, the power varies directly with the speed/tire RPM.
Yeah you also have several other factors involved as well the overall surface the contact space between the tires in the surface As well as the air pressure in the tires and the melting point of the rubber so you have to factor in not just the way to put all these other factors as well
That works under certain conditions. As the contact area increases there must be a increase in "sticky" to show a net gain. Drag slicks are not only wide, they are sticky.
You ever seen a pickup with a heavy plow and no weight in the bed? Some of them.. because the center of gravity is moved so far forward… the rear tires are barely even touching the ground. So yes, additional weight is there to provide traction.. but one component of that is to balance the cG of the vehicle so it’s no longer inherently unstable.
So I calculated the actual formula of max acceleration. Its = u*g (u= coefficient of static friction between road and the tyres ) When u=1 (max. theoretical C.O.F), Amax = g (one g)
Why is the thumbnail "terminal velocity", when it's all about acceleration from 0? Could also have mentioned, that the best practical way to improve on this is 4-wheel-drive: All of the mass of the car weights on accelerating-force producing wheels instead of just part of it weighing on the driven axle (unless the front wheels lift off due to dynamic forces). This probably was much more of a reason of Audi's success in 80's rally racing than any other off-road advantages.
I did not see any mention of tire size, circumference and width, It surely would make a difference on traction (more friction), I know there will be a tire size limit on each car tested, but I would think this would be a major factor.
Nice to see even Neil is human and gets things wrong sometimes! The 1 G limit he mentions is just a nonsense unless you drive off a cliff. Yes your acceleration, braking and cornering is ultimately limited by the grip of your tyres but there are many road cars these days that can generate well over 1G acceleration (either accelerating, braking or cornering) and there are quite a few road cars now that do well under 3 seconds 0-60, Bugatti Chrion (2.3), Ariel Atom, Tesla S etc and even under 2 seconds! Lucid Air Sapphire(1.9) , Rimac Nivera (1.85). Modern grippy road tyres mean even my own car an do 1.3G (lateral, as I don't have the power to accelerate that fast!), and many modern supercars can do around 1.5G and hyper cars like the McLaren P1 are closer to 2G. A Bugatti Chiron can brake at 2.5G but 1.7G of that comes from the tyres an an extra 0.8G deceleration comes from a big air brake that pops up into the air flow. The current limit for road cars seems to be around 1.8 secs 0-60 (although the McMurtry can do it in 1.4 as it sucks itself to the road with a fan) and interestingly Elon Musk wants to beat the tyre limit by adding rocket thrusters to the new Tesla supercar! And as for racing and drag cars they can do way more Gs with slick tyres and sticky compounds that chemically bond the tyres to the tarmac to increase the friction. Modern F1 car generate anywhere up up to 6G lateral and braking (due to downforce and tyres) and Top Fuel dragsters do 0-300 in around 4seconds which is around 5G acceleration which must to be seen to be believed!
Well, that only works for initial acceleration. As soon as it starts moving, and seeing as downforce squares with speed, any downforce producing vehicle can technically accelerate exponentially, until the downforce + air resistance exceeds the propulsion force of the engine. His point about convergence around 3 seconds is kinda valid, but his point about cars only being able to accelerate at a maximum of 1G is only valid for the very initial part of acceleration, which makes his entire point is a little bit of a misnomer. He also says look up and see if any vehicle can do it faster than 3 seconds, when racing cars do it regularly below that, and F1 cars have done it in around 1.6s. even reaching 190mph in 10s, clearly demonstrating an accelerative force higher than 1g.
"McMurty Speirling". That uses a pair of huge fans to drop the pressure under the car, effectively raising traction. It's not a reaction engine (jet or rocket), but I'm not sure that counts as "just" friction either, despite only getting propulsion from tyres on the road.
i would like to point out that addition weight caused by the down force of air is only 0 if there is no wind, if the wind is high enough and in the right direction you still can get down force at a stand still. though i would perfer not to go walking around in 60-90 mile wind to to get to my car.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh man, there's a great opportunity for a part 2 of this conversation. Sub-3 second cars have almost become common, especially with electric cars, and not on prepared surfaces either. The McMurtry and the variable speed fan system is particularly interesting, along with other cars that depend on the venturi effect. In this episode, they barely touched on the impact of active and passive aero. Deceleration is also a fun topic, as there are many cars with active aero tricks there. Then there's the benefits of driving 2 wheels versus 4 in achieving the maximum grip on launch, the complicated launch systems and procedures sports cars have now, and treaded vs slick tires increasing contact patch with the surface.
So much to continue this conversation!
On paper ,but in reality 90% of this super fast cars cannot go faster than 2.5 seconds, even Tesla plaid cannot get to that 2.1 in the real life tests ( 2.1 here in Europe . 1.9 in america because we measure the real 0 100 not 0 to 60)
@@bratosin1 mcmurtry can do 0-60 in under 2 seconds on a normal surface.
@@syedshabih1798 it's being made mechanically heavier which increases its coefficient of friction on the tires
@@pogtuber5146 Yeah but heating up tires, increasing downforce/ weight all contribute to that. McMurtry does by creating a vaccum underneath. its pretty neat and clever. and pretty safe to create downforce like that. The car did 0-60 in less that 1.5 seconds and its road legal. Its quite impressive.
@@pogtuber5146 The coefficient of friction of a tire does not change just because more weight is applied to the tire. It just increases the force needed to break the tire free from static friction. It's just the ratio of grip to weight. Double the weight and you double the grip.
To be honest I initially didn't like Chuck cracking jokes while Neil deGrasse Tyson was explaining something, but now I can't even watch a single episode without him . 🙌
I'm gonna demand that Chuck Nice be on with every special guest episode 💯
Yes, please
Get this comment pinned!!!
Isn’t he on every episode?
@@timothyvenable3336 No not always. I'm sure there are times when he has other obligations. But he's certainly missed when he isn't on!
He's pretty much on every episode.
At one point in history of F1, the cars actually accelerated faster from 100 km/h to 200 km/h, than 0-100 mark. It was incredibly difficult to not spin the wheels from 0-100 and subsequently loose time
It’s just think of the old hyper- and ultrasoft tires. Lest go baby
And also the pressure of the tyres. F1 tyres usually run very low on pressure so both temperature and grip get to optimum levels.
half mile drag cars do this. look up the videos. they basically spin the entire first and second gears
What I really love about Neil is that _consistently_ his lead-up communication is so good that, once he reaches his main point, it seems like an obvious thing I just never thought about before. "Well, _of course,_ maximum acceleration is 1G; beyond that, you lose traction because the wheels are spinning faster that gravity is pulling you down. DUH!"
There are cars that can accelerate to 60 mph in under 2.7 seconds, which is the time a free falling body takes to get to 60 mph. Your logic is flawed because you can have tires with coefficients of friction greater than 1.0 --- this also allows cars to corner with greater than 1G of lateral acceleration. Sorry, but Neil is dead wrong about this one.
@@thecarman3693 obviously he has never been to an NHRA event and seen a top fuel dragster do 1/4 mile in under 4 seconds and never break traction from the starting line pulling 5 Gs!!
He explained why they can do that with special tires and preparatory tire spinning (pre-run burnout)
@@michaelsane6136 Perhaps ... but one needn't go to one, as you yourself can purchase cars that can be equipped with tires having coefficients greater than 1. That is, if you have the $$$$.
@@raydrexler5868 Yes, but unnecessary, please read my reply to Michael.
Some production cars can achieve sub 3s 0-60 (or over 1G acceleration), because they utilize similar tricks that the top fuel dragsters do - they temporarily increase the stickiness of the tires. The road surface is never completely flat - it is rough with small imperfections, acting a bit like a gear rack. And the tire is deformed and pushed down by the weight transfer of the car and some clever suspension, so that it acts a bit like that pinion gear at the gear rack. So the friction coefficient is a bit greater than 1. All of this was also mentioned in the video.
However those cars are pushing the usability limit and it cannot get much quicker than that. We know that dragsters can achieve much more than 1G acceleration, but no one actually wants to be driving a dragster on the street.
They need a downforce /vacuum fan to increase the downward force without excessive weight
When dragsters take off the diameter of the tires increases due to centrifugal force.
Would love to see Neil and the boys interview a F1 driver or engineer 😊
Pls make it happen😍😍😍😍😍😍
Oh yes please!
Totally... Yes please
Why?
F1 can't touch a top fuel dragster at 0.8 seconds 0-60mph
The McMurtry Spéirling does 0-60 in 1.4 seconds thanks to a system of fans that push the car into the road.
the Chapparal?
And a quarter mile of 8, and the fans create the over 2200 hp of downforce at 0
Well the fans are underneath so it sucks it down to the road, pushing it down would imply the fans are on top of the car.
Went to the comments to find you, thanks 😊
That is just insane. This would blast past even a jet fighter on full burner on its take off roll.
I think we need a follow up video to explain the accel and decel times that seem to beat the rule. Rimac and Tesla for example on Matt Watson's channel CarWow are pulling greater than 1G. We are dying here in the comment section for a Tyson explanation. (Oh, and one more thing...I was hoping you were going to mention the fan cars that suck the car to the ground to gain huge traction while not increasing the mass).
I thought they would talk about the McMurtry Fan car also.
@@TheIncomparableGolfer I was also thinking about fan cars, but they suck
@@johnks6733 yah literally 😉
@@TheIncomparableGolfer The McMurtry does a 1.4s 0-6omph, but it weighs about 1000kg and can have 2000kg of downforce at standstill.
Insane though that the Rimac and Plaid are sub 2s too
@@benwu7980 yah the technology is pretty cool. But it is actually old. Formula 1 cars used the same tech in the past
Gary, you nailed the NHRA model... those 11,000 HP Top Fuel dragsters (with the T-Rex fron t wheels) pull up to 5 G's on launch, due to the super sticky slick tires and the burnout warming the aforementioned tires up to increase traction to the point of insane.
BTW I highly recommend watching a top fuel drag tire in slow motion when they launch. Its amazing. Incredible engineering really, if you think of the forces on that tire at launch which then has to be able to handle 330+ MPH top speeds just a few seconds later.
The exhaust pointing upward also adds to the downforce
Your giving too much credit to the tires, track conditions rule everything you do in drag racing.
@@dalelc43 Sure ... any old tires will do. 🙄
@@Nefville what's even cooler as if you notice they don't have gears. They're just single speed transmissions. If you measure the tire they actually can't get to 300 miles an hour. But as they go faster the tire gets taller and taller increasing their gear ratio. Hence the tires are the transmission.
Three cars that are sub 2 second
Rimac Nevera - 1.85 seconds (0-60mph)
Lucid Air Sapphire - 1.89 seconds (0-60mph)
Pininfarina Battista - 1.9 seconds (0-62mph)
Dyno tested ,not street tested
Okay. I'm assuming that you're not just relying on manufacturer's numbers based on a dynamometer, right? You actually drove each of those cars and experienced this? Wow. What was it like to be in a car that was accelerating faster than 1G?
We cannot forget the Mcmurty Speirling- it will be road legal and has a quarter mile of sub 8 and 0-60 of 1.4
@@JamesCAlien fair enough. I don't know. But marketing wouldn't lie would they? 😉
I recall air resistance increases exponentially . As with water and fluids .
Even with tires spinning it's achievable. There are people that do "hard tire" drag racing on non prepped surfaces that still see above 1g and sub 3 second 0-60 times even without sticky tires digging into the surface. Weight tranfer and suspension setup are huge factors with most of those guys being able to accelerate like that without much traction.
Check out Gordon Murray's T.33 and T.50 based on the Brabham BT46B F1 car in 1978 which has a fan on the car's rear. This fan extracts air from underneath the car, producing heaps of downforce while it's at a standstill, and of course adding to the downforce as the car accellerates. The original car in 1978 was disqualified after only one race and if I recall it was an entire 6 seconds faster per lap than its competitors.
Just a couple of minutes into this and looking at comments too and I noticed something that it doesn't appear many people have much knowledge about. Instant center and anti squat, it's what allows dragsters to accelerate like they do, pro stock drag cars to accelerate like they do, and semi trucks to accelerate like they do (also comes into play on everyday vehicles just not as much effect) instant center is the point the rear axle (in a rwd vehicle) is lifting on the front of the vehicle ( it's the rotation about the center of the rear axle and the point it is being lifted at) and anti squat is a part of the geometry related to how the rear suspension reacts, if it has anti squat built into the geometry it means that instead of the rear of the vehicle "squatting" when it accelerates under power it actually stands up and pushes the rear tires into the ground harder. Add in adjustments to instant center and you can increase the amount of weight that is actually applied down into the ground on the rear tires which increases the contact patch of the rear tires which increases the amount of force needed to break the traction between the tires and the road surface... some of that may be included in the "Engineering the world's fastest cars" video I'm going to watch right after this
And this comment was posted here after I commented on that video because I was slow on typing and that video started before I posted the comment. Also realized instant center and anti squat were never brought up in that video either but that is how you increase the amount of friction on the drive tires without increasing the weight of the vehicle during acceleration.
Top fuel NHRA drag racing is the perfect balance of acceleration and traction (friction), the vehicles are designed for the maximum amount of downward force on the rear wheels that get heated up and become sticky in the pre-race burnout
Setting the clutch on top fuel is an art which is critical slip rate .
Great video!! Many car manufacturers use “rollout” to achieve a quicker 0-60/62 time for their spec sheet. They don’t start timing until the car is already in motion. The channel, “Engineering Explained,” has a good video demonstrating this as well as factors limiting a cars quickness. With equations 😊
Engineering Explained is a fantastic channel, good shout
Other than Tesla (who only does that for the Plaid Model S) who else does this?
Tesla is the only company I know of who does this, and they don’t do it consistently.
@@zero11010 does what?
@@prckatastart the timer when the car is in motion meaning it cannot possibly be a 0-60 run because the car is not stationary when the timer begins.
It’s a standard way to do the timer in a certain kind of drag race. Cool. That’s not the way ANY other car maker does it, and that’s not the way Tesla does times for any of their own cars aside from the Plaid Model S.
Honestly, quite a pointless video in my opinion.
What I wouldn't do to be in a class that Neil DeGrasse Tyson taught. Thank you for arming your viewers with interesting and practical knowledge. I didn't know that physics could actually be fun.
Well, that's the whole point of Neil on all his career in science communication lol
Physics is everything
Imagination what his mid term exams would look like.
I’m not an expert but I’d say the mentioned limit of 0-60 in 3 seconds accounts for a constant amount of torque (i.e. throttle). Modern cars, especially electric cars, have launch systems that allow an increased torque output as speed on the way to 60 increases, allowing the other forces other than friction to go into effect and increase the rate at which a car can accelerate.
I was suprised when Neal didn't include all wheel drive into the discussion, especially when snow plowing was mentioned. Having four drive tires vs 2 increases the coefficient of friction substantially which with current technology does allow several current production vehicles to easily surpass the 3 second 0-60 "barrier". Tesla plaid and Porsche 911 turbo are 2 examples
Nevera from rimac is even faster than plaid
There is an old Audi TV advertisement where they drive up a ski jump tower with their quattro, and I think they did not need a lot more than spike tires to achieve that.
Would more than four driven wheels be even better, then?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Maybe. Not as simple as you might think on a relatively slippery surface. In general you do have four contact patches which usually means better traction.
@Lawrence D’Oliveiro With an ice driven vehicle I doubt it. The drivetrain losses would start adding up quickly. Electric motor for each tire would be an interesting experiment. Diminishing returns though I would imagine with each driven tire added.
@5:51 🤔The statement "The fastest you can accelerate forward is 1g" is in fact incorrect. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to intuitively realize this. If we examine the tribology of the contact surfaces, i.e., where rubber meets road, we realise that the limiting factor to road "grip" is the ablation of our tire compounds. Therefore, if we were to replace our road and tire with a rack and pinion system, we can be confident that the limiting factor to acceleration becomes inertia, engine (or motor) power, and drag.
A real life counterargument to the assertion @5:51 is the McMurtry Speirling, an all-battery electric race car. The McMurtry Speirling can sprint from 0-60mph in 1.4 seconds and cover the quarter mile in 7.97 seconds. The quarter mile is about 400m. From kinematic physics, (distance) = (1/2)*(acceleration)*(time^2). We can rearrange the equation to get (acceleration) = (2)*(distance)/(time^2) = (2*400m)/(7.97^2 s^2) = 12.6m/s^2. Gravity on earth is generally approximated as 9.8m/s^2, so the McMurtry is pulling 12.6/9.8 = 1.3g.😳
Yes, the McMurtry is a fan-car (it uses a powerful fan to create a suction force of almost 2 metric tonnes). This suction force increases the apparent weight of the car. Friction force is just apparent weight x coefficient of friction. The higher the friction force, the higher the potential acceleration, if the motors are up to the task, which they clearly are for the McMurtry Speirling.
It gets even crazier though, because the McMurtry actually has a 150mph speed governor. Back to our ballistics equation, (velocity) = (acceleration)*(time), which we can rearrange to get (acceleration) = (velocity)/(time). 60mph is 26.8m/s, so (acceleration) = (26.8m/s)/(1.4s) = 19.1m/s^2. Again, on earth, gravity is generally approximated as 9.8m/s^2, so the McMurtry is capable of (19.1m/s^2)/(9.8m/s^2) ~2g!!!!!!!!🤯😂
Neil redeemed himself by making a video on the same topic with Jason from Engineering Explained
You need to look into the McMurtry Speedster & The T50. Both have fans in the underbody that increase downforce significantly. Mind bending to watch these tech’s effect on a car.
Terminal velocity is a fascinating concept in physics, describing the maximum speed an object can reach when falling through a fluid, such as air. It occurs when the force of gravity is balanced by the drag force, causing the object to fall at a constant speed. This equilibrium creates a unique dynamic where heavier objects can have different terminal velocities compared to lighter ones. But what factors exactly determine how quickly an object reaches its terminal velocity, and how can we manipulate these factors in practical applications like skydiving or engineering?
This is the first time I felt smarter than an astrophysicist.
not me, i've heard Tyson talk before...
@@homewardboundphotos I'm a long time listener and a big fan. He did get some facts wrong this time. That's ok everyone makes mistakes. Still a huge fan of his.
@@harut82 He makes a lot of mistakes. I've heard him say a lot of stunned things
@@homewardboundphotos I always hear people saying this but nobody can ever prove it
@@adamthomas1222 he was wrong a few weeks ago about the fusion breakthrough that everyone was freaking out about. lol. it's not some monumental breakthrough and it will change nothing. he doesn't mention they are only calculating the direct energy from the lasers, not the power consumption of the entire system. the actual energy of the lasers is like 1% of the entire system. i mean theres more. and if he's not directly wrong, he leaves out half the argument, glosses over big problems relating to his arguments.
Automotive literature typically runs with a “roll out”.
This is why the general public believes 3 second 0-60 is commonplace these days.
Actually... Rimac Nevera - 1.85 seconds (0-60mph)
Lucid Air Sapphire - 1.89 seconds (0-60mph)
Pininfarina Battista - 1.9 seconds (0-62mph)
Tesla Model S Plaid - 2.3 seconds (0-60mph)
Well, what Neil didn't account for is while it's true that spoilers and such do not work when you're standing still, however as you start moving the effect gradually increases. Though it's probably not that much at such relatively low speeds, but especially towards the end you can increase the acceleration.
It's also funny since Neil mentioned gears... Technically friction between two materials is working similar to gears but on the atomic level. So it highly depends on the actual road surface and the material structure of the tire. Even when using gears it would be necessarily be special gears that do not produce any upwards force that may make the gears slip as well. Though in reality, especially when increasing the torque / force any kind of material would probably bend slightly. So there's always a point where the gears could be pushed out and slip. In the extreme case the material would simply break / deform.
So how does a standard Tesla S Plaid standard out of the box do 0-60 in 1.99s? I know in regular conditions it's more like 2.3s but that is still faster than freefall which is 2.7s. I thought it had to do with the traction control measuring the ground 1000 times a second to keep the car in Static coefficient of friction which is higher than the kinetic coefficient of friction.
Niel wasnt like way off, they use couple of tricks but he is basically right on point. Best sport cars do little over 1G force in straight acceleration 0-60 and 2.5s 0 to 60, when no special surface or tyres are used, since manufacturers have couple of tricks when it comes to downforce and aerodynamics of the cars couple of cars can do better, but when you do not deduct 1feet like they like to do for their stats, its realistically something like 2s 0 to 60, for Rimac Nevera, and i think 1.5G (thats not just sport car, but 2 million dollars hypercar) and that is near physical limit.
@@B0ZA92 it’s amazing that you can buy the 17 tesla plaids for the price of 1 Rimac Nevera and they can all equal its acceleration. Teslas traction control is key to allowing the 0-60 to be 1.98s.
@@beyondplanesight yes thats true, but true power of nevea is on track, and there it would smoke tesla. Teslas are not cornering that good and max speed is also smaller. But its true that its far more expensive.
@@B0ZA92 the Rimac weighs in at 4740lbs top speed 258mph and the Plaid at 4766lbs top speed 217mph and that’s only because they ran out of runway during the test. Plaid is the fastest electric car on the Nurburgring which has to do with cornering. I’m curious to see with a software update if the plaid can come closer to Rimacs numbers even though 17,000% more dollars were spent making it go 19% higher top speed.
@@beyondplanesight all true, i agree with everything, but people that want the best anything will spare no buck, plus its more exclusive knowing that very limited number of people will be able to drive nevera.
@8:55 "You're not gonna get a car going 0-60 in 2 seconds unless theres something digging into the road"
There are a few cars that have achieved this
I grew up with parents who raced in the NHRA, top fuel now accelerates from 0 - 300 in less than 4 seconds, NHRA developed the perfect mix of stickiness of tires and track surface and fuel to make it happen and it's a beautiful thing to see
There are several cars on the market right now that advertise two or less seconds for their 0 to 60 acceleration. Frankly, I don't buy it for a second. The only way they can achieve that, as The good professor tells us, is if they are using special tires and testing it in very specific conditions. In other words, they are lies. Of course, when will you ever want to accelerate from 0 to 60 that fast? The answer is never, because if you ever do it you would be putting everyone around you at extreme risk.
EDIT: I was wrong. Tesla and others have done it. The techniques are complicated, but they essentially have found ways to achieve faster than 1G acceleration from a stop.
Bugatti Chiron 300+ can easily go 0-60 in 2 seconds!! Besides that’s not the most important measure!!!
The Model S Tesla acceleration goes from 0 to 60 in 1.9 seconds
@@williampeek7943 not really. Motor trends was able to get close to that though, which is pretty impressive, for a measurement of performance that means nothing in has nothing to do with how you would use it.
There are multiple ways of making this measurement, and I'm not a car guy so I'm not going to pretend to know the specifics in each of the different ways of making it, and professor Tyson didn't get into any of those specifics about how this is measured.
Another way of saying what professor Tyson is saying is that a car can't accelerate faster than it can decelerate. The Tesla model s, while not meeting the numbers that they advertise, does accelerate slightly faster than it can decelerate, proving that this rule is more of a rule of thumb.
Edit: and if both accelerates and decelerates at faster than 1G.
4m 20s No, Neil, they do NOT scale EXACTLY together! When speaking about the surfaces, both road and tire, the limit to force the flexible tire into the road surface is limited. there is a point that more weight does not benefit increase Increasing the surface mating area, the contact patch increases the ability to accelerate. the material of the tire will sheer away at a given, calculable point. this can be written in force per millimeter, centimeter, square inch, etc... The weight can be shifted, by design, without increasing the vehicle's weight.
then again, you are not taking into account that the speed at which a tire rotates, adds to the amount of material of the tire that interlocks with the road surface. Tires actually provide their maximum forward acceleration, cornering and braking with a certain amount of slip (in some cases @7%).
BTW, Neil, Skidding out is NOT the proper term for the loss of traction in acceleration, but in deceleration (stopping, negative acceleration). The contact patch cannot generate enough friction to slow the vehicle as much as the brakes and energy (vehicle mass*forward motion) require. I just described a skid. Skidding out is the loss of trajectory due to a skid. A burnout, as your buddy said, is correct,
That doctorate does not mean that you know it all and your inability to even research the proper terminology would have caused you to never have received your doctorate, as you think you are speaking about one thing, while actually speaking about another.
Sorry, but you can play with control arm angles and shock rebound settings to throw the tires into the ground when you hit it (lots more normal force). You can find video of slicks deforming and squatting down, while the back raises up.
Then you need to make sure the suspension unloads slowly enough or you'll do a wheely then spin.
You might like the science behind it. Lots of geometry.
Kevin Wilson does a lot of RUclips explainers on suspension.
Well yes, but that is vehicle dynamics, something taught in Bachelor/Master level Education. This is a STEM channel so everything is on high school level, every considered is in static. Pretty much simplified to just the wheel and ground.
At 0 second there is no torque from engine, when control arm started to factor in the time already not 0.
That modifies the weight transfer. Look at classic drag sedans from the '60s. They improved weight transfer by crudely raising the front ends, changing the location of the mass of the engine and transmission. Also, when dragsters are still the tires squash down due to low tire pressures they run. When they launch the tires "centrifuge" to a larger diameter, narrower contact area.
The keywords are "tires digging into the road". The same arguments were proposed by physicists in the 60's, that dragsters will not get below about 9 seconds in the 1/4 mile, because that's about 1G of acceleration. But that's because they took a too simplistic view of friction and reduced the concept of friction to a single number; a coefficient. "Friction" is actually the interference between the microscopic structures of two surfaces in contact with each other. To break friction, the surfaces must shear off their microscopic structures.
Similarly, tire traction is due to the soft rubber flowing into the crevices in the pavement, providing grip (adhesion). Take this to the extreme, end you end up with the gears and rack teeth embedded in the ground that Dr. Tyson mentioned, and the limit of acceleration would be the strength of the teeth. This is why the dragsters use huge tires; to put more rubber against the pavement for more strength (cohesion).
Also, the tire treads need to be soft, but not necessarily "sticky", as that means it will take energy to peel the backside of the tread off the pavement.
Yup 👍
And keep in mind, at the beginning of the video, Tyson used the example of a snow plow where the vehicle would not be increasing downward force due to momentum of the acceleration.
Great video Neil!
What about new technology though? This video looks mostly at weight increase to horsepower. Introducing, the McMurtry Speirling! An all electric, carbon fiber car that uses massive vacuum suction power, even from a dead stop to add down force. Able to maintain as much down force sitting still as moving forward, with minimal extra weight needed to achieve the traction needed for the power its able to produce to the wheels. Truly next generation in automotive technology in my opinion.
Let's just say that at sea level the acceleration of gravity is 32.174 ft/sec^2. That means in order to accelerate at greater than the rate of acceleration of gravity you have to increase the speed of the car (in a straight line) at a rate greater than 32.174 ft/sec per second, which is 21.94 MPH per second.
So accelerating a car from 0 MPH to 60 MPH at the acceleration rate of gravity would take 2.73 seconds.
There are PLENTY of vehicles on the road that can accelerate from 0-60 MPH in less than 2.73 seconds.
I used to own a Kawasaki ZX-11 that would do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, and that was stock off the showroom floor, on stock tires.
There are performance tires out there now that have a higher than 1.0 coefficient of friction, so they can actually break the sub-3.0 second acceleration barrier (usually around 2.5 s)! I think they don't need any specially prepped tracks, just regular roads. The tires are obviously softer than normal passenger car rubber. With specially prepped tracks, they will probably do 1.9 second accelerations, which is 1.44 g! Higher than the acceleration of gravity!
Koenigsegg Gamera is at 1.9.
Don’t they get some aerodynamic downforce soon after they start?
Also exhausts may add downforce.
Spinning tires increase diameter and they push the car up, creating an opposite downforce, as well.
@@pascalbruyere7108 Those would be actual dragsters you're talking about. Normal car tires don't increase their diameters much when they spin up.
There's no such thing as too much horsepower, just not enough traction - Carol Shelby
You guys need to attend a National Hot Rod Assoc NHRA race sometime and watch the nitro-fueled drag races hit 300+ mph in a 1,000ft!! Then, the next problem is stopping the thing.....Come to Sonoma Raceway in July for the NHRA races and I'll meet ya there...
Learnt that concept fast when I bought a Tata SuperAce Mini Truck and couldn't drive uphill after some slight drizzle. Zero grip on the asphalt! I had to put sacks of sand on the back wheels for it to have traction because it is super light. But when it carried its max 1 tonne load it drives like a dream LOL!
I love you guys! 🙌
There’s plenty of mass produced cars that can do 0-60mph in less than 3 secs from stand still (no roll out) and with good but mainstream roadworthy tires on normal asphalt/concrete roads at let’s say normal temps at around 20 degr. C
So many comments jumped the gun on this video and didn’t finish watching it lol
The fastest on record was a ThrustSSC driven by Andy Green, a twin turbofan jet-powered car which reached 763 mph.still interested how it was still able to remain on the ground without going airborne. Velocity and speed working together?
twin turbofan jet-powered car = plane on wheels
Large helpings of downforce = upside-down plane on wheels.
763 mph is transonic, isn't it?
Aerodynamics. Velocity is speed and direction, BTW.
Really, you have no understanding of downforce? Do you think a plane will fly without its wings? 🤣🤣
The tires, traction, air pressure and wind speed is always the issue. The all wheel drive Bugatti Chiron super sport managed 300 mph, but the tires had to be reinforced, and the speed was impacted by air pressure and wind speed and direction. Does 0-60 in less than 3 seconds which isn’t a stretch nowadays (in supercars anyway). My Audi RS3 managed it in 3.8 but that was a perfect windless day. Slightly wider rear wheels compared to the front wheels and electronic computer controlled all wheel drive to control traction helps. Basically looks for deviations in RPM between all 4 wheels and speeds up/slows down each to maintain traction and that software is improving all the time. Am only talking cars people can buy and go to the store with - not drag stuff with rockets and things. They’re not cars. Musk’s roadster is a car but was “slightly” modified to manage escape velocity. Fun fact: at top speed, the Chiron’s tires would only last for 13 miles, but it would run out of gas with 3 miles to spare anyway.
Some rs3 cars has wider front tyres then back...
I was actually interested in Gary's anecdotes. Too bad Neil is always too in love with the sound of his voice.
Well it is HIS podcast and the other guy is a guest speaker… 🙄
@Richard Waddington First, I didn't say that I don't want to hear him speak. That's your projection speaking. Second, what is the point of having guests and co-hosts if they are not allowed to have the courtesy to let them complete their sentences? This could easily have been a solo video and NDT has done that before. Not all criticism is about hate.
I can't wait to hear about rails! Fantastic episode!
Oh…I love these explainers!!! Short, sweet, & to the point. 💯👌🏻👍🏻
@Star_Talk89 what did I get?!
Star Talk is great. Laughing and learning. Thanks guys. 🙏
Another way of saying what professor Tyson is saying here is the old rule that a car can never accelerate faster than it can decelerate. That is no longer the case. Using various means manufacturers have found ways to accelerate faster than 1G and to decelerate faster than 1G.
"According to calculations based on MotorTrend's data, it turns out that in the case of Plaid, the acceleration was 1.199g on average, while braking was at 1.156g on average."
Last year on the ARA rally tour, the late and great Ken Block had a crash that the investigators labelled as a 12g stop.
The three of you feed of eachother, perfect trio ❤️❤️❤️
Top fuel dragster: 0 to 100 in .8 sec.
The video specifically exempts vehicles that aren't powered by friction against the road.
These 3 men have never seen the McMurty. They figured out how to create downforce from 0.
And the Lucid Air Sapphire can turn it's motors on and off 1,000 times per second. It just beat the Tesla Plaid by 3 car lengths in the 1/4 mile.
I've heard this argument before, and it's very flawed. When a Top Fuel Dragster can go from 0 to 100 MPH in .8 tenths of a second and will accelerate to almost 340 MPH in 3.6 seconds to cover 1000 feet. That's way, way, way more than 1G!
The argument is not flawed at all. All that means is that the vehicle using means beyond just basic friction to keep it grounded.
This is addressed in the video.
They using huge sticky tires plus their spoiler is as big as a plane wing with 11,000 HP
Did you bother listening to the entire video before you commented?
@@mav3818 Yes
The main thing keeping cars from going faster isn't engine power or traction issues, it's the tires themselves. it's hard to make a tire that can rotate are the speed of sound and not rip itself apart while undergoing the forces in play
Static friction. You know, friction has been a very sticky subject in physics and engineering for a very long time.
Science fiction? lol
I see what you did there
Funny.
@@ShawnRitch ever heard of a typo? They're quite common, especially when a "smart" phone thinks it knows the word you want to use, and then replaces the word you actually typed with that word. Does Neil have to do an explainer on how auto-correct doesn't always correct things?
@@peterkallend5012 Ah, I thought you were being funny so I thought I would join in ;) Damn typos lol
12:10 lmao that imitation was on point!
What about four wheel drive, Neil? I am pretty sure some versions of the Porsche 911 do 0-60 in like 2.6’’
It looks like Tesla Plaid 0-60 anywhere from 1.9-2.3 seconds
Neil, How can you hold yourself up as an expert in ANYTHING when you get something as basic as this so wrong. A coefficient of friction between the tires and the road greater than gravity, along with positive downforce as the vehicle picks up speed will ensure faster-than-gravitational acceleration (given enough hp). The quickest vehicles are currently accelerating at roughly 1.5 g; improvements in tires and aerodynamics will continue to push the upper bounds of acceleration. How am I wrong?
Amazing videos as always!!
One of the great new motorsports is generally referred to as "Drag and Drive". Pretty much exclusively amateur events (no real prize money, although many are professional car builders), which are, in general, one week long, drag races at 4 or 5 different tracks. The format they shoot for is gather at track A, register, car inspection and test on day 1. On day 2 Race for time only at track A, then DRIVE that same car to track B under it's own power (no time limit or any sort of race between tracks) following a predetermined route with check points.On day 3 Race for time only again at track B, pack up and DRIVE the same car to track C, wash and repeat. The path of travel after approximately one week ends up back at track A with the best aggregate time of the race portion who also made all of the check points declared the winner. There are multiple class and therefore multiple winners with the Grand Prize going to the quickest aggregate TOTAL, or average fastest at all the tracks, time. They, very loosely shoot for 1320 miles total for the drive part, so as to correspond to the 1320 feet of the drag race. The current record holder is TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE to old school drag racers. Not, because of it's track speed, but because of it's ability to drive hundreds of miles on the streets and highways, pull into the track and do those dedicated race car like track times! www.motortrend.com/events/tom-bailey-wins-hot-rod-drag-week-2022/
Misleading title, but interesting none the less
In drag racing weight transfer comes into play, so the force pressed down onto the suspension can actually more than then weight of the car.
Ferrari SF90 Stradale - 0 to 60 in 2.4 seconds
1g would take 2.74s (~3s)
So the Ferrari is doing better than 1g
The Tesla Model S goes 0 to 60 is 1.9 seconds ... O g lol
@@ShawnRitch Is it?
Precisely why drag cars have huge wings on them and why they use slick tires with low pressure and burnout before launching. They get maximum surface to surface contact with the track along with partially melted rubber which increases traction and then combine it with all the downforce created by the wings on the front and rear of the car to reach speeds of over 300 mph in just over 3 seconds in a quarter of a mile.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, an unmodified stock Tesla Model S goes 0 to 60 in 1.9 seconds on regular roads ... O g lol | Explain That! ;)
He did.
5:10 - you don't want air underneath the car. Air underneath the car = drag and lift. Ideally, you want to seal the bottom of the car off so as little air can go under as possible to maximize downforce and optimize drag. Take a peak at F1, NASCAR, IndyCar, etc.
If you can speed up the air going underneath than the air going above the car, it will create low pressure and negative lift (down force).
Neil didn’t like him talking through the heated tires😂
Facts is facts. Thank you for no BS explanation
Model S Tesla is 0-60 in 1.9 seconds
Have you ever done it? Have you ever taken a Tesla model s onto a test track and measured at 0 to 60 acceleration? Or are you just relying on the test that they did, and are you aware of the condition of that test? Where it was done, whether it was done using stock tires, etc. The one thing we know is is that we cannot take these numbers seriously if you only place we are getting them is the manufacturer.
Apparently not on the street..the gearing could do it on a Dyno.
Margin of error will say otherwise
Engineering Explained demonstrated that the 1.9s claim isnt entirely true.
Ok to be clear I own 2 teslas. My new model x plaid is has performed at 0-60 at 2.15 seconds on stock tires which are actually all season tires not slicks… This was in southern ohio. If anyone wants to test my claims I’m happy to have them come here and independently verify this. It’s not a model s but it is once again a model x plaid 2022.
Coefficient of Friction = Cf = Force Down/(Friction at road-tire interface). Using acceleration = a = Friction at road/m (from Newton F = ma). Cf stays constant as Force Down increases since Road friction increases proportionally to it. I don't know if acc will be limited to 9.8 m/s/s since the mass of the car at the rear wheels is not known, but if the front wheel lifts off a little all the weight of the car is on the rear wheels and Tyson is correct thin. You can put Force Down in to Newton's equation to find the maximum accel.
Not sure it's fair to call this an oversight, but you guys might find it interesting. In motorsports that require a takeoff at the beginning of the event (such as drag racing), where maximizing acceleration is key to a good time, pro drivers are known to not go full throttle, because of that burnout principle where too much spin doesn't let you grip the tarmac. They actually use just enough throttle to grip the tarmac without being too much, and they'll add more throttle as they gain speed and have less room for grip loss, due to how the RPM of the wheels and the speed of the car interact mathematically. Pretty cool.
The traction coefficient between the tire and the road depends on road construction. But a more grippy road will mean shorter tire life.
The fastest production car can 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, sooooo clearly there's some wizardry at play
Dr. Tyson is one of the greatest, but I have to say he is not totally right here. Cars are able to overcome loosing friction to some extent by not applying 100% of the car's capability at launch, and only applies a fraction and increases it's output over time till friction is close to optimal. This is called "launch control". The porsche 911 turbo S uses semi-road tires and with launch control is does a 2.6 0-60. Thr compound in those tires aren't as soft as they may seem. It's possible to drive up to 12'000 miles on those tires. If a car's engine could rev up to 7000 rpm, launch control would limit it to around 3000 to 4500 rpm depending on the car.
@10:07 A Cure for Tailgaters!🚀👍
Mike in San Diego.🌞🎸🚀🖖
Anyone know what episode or video he is referring in the end when he speaks about rails and backwards.
Explainers are my favorite Star Talk videos. But I have an issue with this video and that is that power is not related to acceleration (and yes, I'm a fuss budget about this). Maybe Dr. Tyson should do an explainer on that.
Demonstration: I have a rear-wheel drive motorcycle that is accelerating at a constant 1G. It has a mass of 1,000 KG. The drive tire is 1 meter in radius. There is no wheel spin.
How much power is being delivered to the drive tire? How much torque is being delivered to the drive tire?
Spoiler alert: You will find that you cannot calculate the power without introducing either the instantaneous speed of the vehicle or the instantaneous tire RPM, and that value of power is valid only for that particular speed/tire RPM. You will find that to achieve a constant acceleration the torque remains constant, the power varies directly with the speed/tire RPM.
Somebody please share the title of the video where Neil discussed Rails, at the end of this video
Yeah you also have several other factors involved as well the overall surface the contact space between the tires in the surface
As well as the air pressure in the tires and the melting point of the rubber so you have to factor in not just the way to put all these other factors as well
What about increasing the surface area of the tyre and therefore the contact area between the tyre and road as in the case of the drag car?
That works under certain conditions. As the contact area increases there must be a increase in "sticky" to show a net gain. Drag slicks are not only wide, they are sticky.
5:02 Missed win at 5 minute mark...
Neil: How does the car look in a skirt?
[quick cut to Chuck]: Better than me!!
Looking forward to more explainers on cars etc 😊
4:59 But it adds drag and lowers the top speed. (And reduces fuel economy too, but that probably doesn’t matter in a race car.)
You ever seen a pickup with a heavy plow and no weight in the bed? Some of them.. because the center of gravity is moved so far forward… the rear tires are barely even touching the ground. So yes, additional weight is there to provide traction.. but one component of that is to balance the cG of the vehicle so it’s no longer inherently unstable.
Great video, but the title and thumbnail are misleading.
But the mcmurtry spéirling did 0-60 in 2.09 seconds. But it did use fans to literally suck it to the ground. So he is still correct.
The combination of science and comedy is amazing.
So I calculated the actual formula of max acceleration. Its = u*g (u= coefficient of static friction between road and the tyres )
When u=1 (max. theoretical C.O.F), Amax = g (one g)
Why is the thumbnail "terminal velocity", when it's all about acceleration from 0?
Could also have mentioned, that the best practical way to improve on this is 4-wheel-drive: All of the mass of the car weights on accelerating-force producing wheels instead of just part of it weighing on the driven axle (unless the front wheels lift off due to dynamic forces). This probably was much more of a reason of Audi's success in 80's rally racing than any other off-road advantages.
three things. Make the tires wider; make the care 4 wheel drive; add more tires. So what would a 12-wheel drive with 18 inch wide tires do 0 to 60.
I did not see any mention of tire size, circumference and width, It surely would make a difference on traction (more friction), I know there will be a tire size limit on each car tested, but I would think this would be a major factor.
How about Top Fuel Dragsters and Funny Cars that accelerate to 330 mph in 3.7 seconds?
Nice to see even Neil is human and gets things wrong sometimes! The 1 G limit he mentions is just a nonsense unless you drive off a cliff. Yes your acceleration, braking and cornering is ultimately limited by the grip of your tyres but there are many road cars these days that can generate well over 1G acceleration (either accelerating, braking or cornering) and there are quite a few road cars now that do well under 3 seconds 0-60, Bugatti Chrion (2.3), Ariel Atom, Tesla S etc and even under 2 seconds! Lucid Air Sapphire(1.9) , Rimac Nivera (1.85). Modern grippy road tyres mean even my own car an do 1.3G (lateral, as I don't have the power to accelerate that fast!), and many modern supercars can do around 1.5G and hyper cars like the McLaren P1 are closer to 2G. A Bugatti Chiron can brake at 2.5G but 1.7G of that comes from the tyres an an extra 0.8G deceleration comes from a big air brake that pops up into the air flow. The current limit for road cars seems to be around 1.8 secs 0-60 (although the McMurtry can do it in 1.4 as it sucks itself to the road with a fan) and interestingly Elon Musk wants to beat the tyre limit by adding rocket thrusters to the new Tesla supercar! And as for racing and drag cars they can do way more Gs with slick tyres and sticky compounds that chemically bond the tyres to the tarmac to increase the friction. Modern F1 car generate anywhere up up to 6G lateral and braking (due to downforce and tyres) and Top Fuel dragsters do 0-300 in around 4seconds which is around 5G acceleration which must to be seen to be believed!
Interesting to hear simple to think about.
Well, that only works for initial acceleration. As soon as it starts moving, and seeing as downforce squares with speed, any downforce producing vehicle can technically accelerate exponentially, until the downforce + air resistance exceeds the propulsion force of the engine.
His point about convergence around 3 seconds is kinda valid, but his point about cars only being able to accelerate at a maximum of 1G is only valid for the very initial part of acceleration, which makes his entire point is a little bit of a misnomer.
He also says look up and see if any vehicle can do it faster than 3 seconds, when racing cars do it regularly below that, and F1 cars have done it in around 1.6s. even reaching 190mph in 10s, clearly demonstrating an accelerative force higher than 1g.
The ultimate top speed is somewhere just under the speed of sound because the shock wave would lift the wheels off of the ground.
"McMurty Speirling". That uses a pair of huge fans to drop the pressure under the car, effectively raising traction. It's not a reaction engine (jet or rocket), but I'm not sure that counts as "just" friction either, despite only getting propulsion from tyres on the road.
A channel worth subscribing to twice
i would like to point out that addition weight caused by the down force of air is only 0 if there is no wind, if the wind is high enough and in the right direction you still can get down force at a stand still. though i would perfer not to go walking around in 60-90 mile wind to to get to my car.
2:44 in. Hello, NHRA!? Love you guys!
I’m confused. I just watched a video of Tom Scott going 0-60 in like 1.4 seconds.
Great point
Tesla is adding a compressed air-jet assist on their new sports car. How do you include that in your analysis?
You can also adjust the shocks in the rear and the angle so that the weight doesn’t go straight down but at an angle so thus creating more grip