aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I'm sure there are some situations that $300,000 lambo could beat a 7000lb truck.

GAC06 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I'm sure there are some situations that $300,000 lambo could beat a 7000lb truck.

---

For one, after the EV driver has wasted all his power on a jackrabbit start, the Lambo will still have plenty of gas to keep going.

techno-ag said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I'm sure there are some situations that $300,000 lambo could beat a 7000lb truck.

---

For one, after the EV driver has wasted all his power on a jackrabbit start, the Lambo will still have plenty of gas to keep going.

---

Nah. That CT has better range than the Lamborghini in the city.

aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I can't remember the last time I saw a drag race conducted from a rolling start…….

There are numerous videos of EVs vs Lambos and the EVs will easily win at the 1000 foot point and then it gets close by the end of the quarter mile.

techno-ag said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I'm sure there are some situations that $300,000 lambo could beat a 7000lb truck.

---

For one, after the EV driver has wasted all his power on a jackrabbit start, the Lambo will still have plenty of gas to keep going.

---

I don't think that's necessarily true. a lambo probably gets like 10-12 mpg in the city, maybe 15-17 on hwy with a 20 gallon tank. full tank range is probably about the same as an EV pickup truck. depending on how it's driven, etc.

Kansas Kid said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

0-60 is simply a measure of traction in todays HP wars. They're both AWD, but the Lamborghini driver fumbled the shift and spun on launch. Weight, rotating mass, and most importantly aerodynamics give the Lamborghini a huge advantage past the 0-60 part of the race which is about all we saw here. From a Highway roll, it wouldn't be a contest.

---

I can't remember the last time I saw a drag race conducted from a rolling start…….

There are numerous videos of EVs vs Lambos and the EVs will easily win at the 1000 foot point and then it gets close by the end of the quarter mile.

---

EVs, sure, EV trucks currently for sale, I'll have to see it. I'm not on some mission to prove EVs are slow. Just pointing out that this was a pretty crappy example of a race if we're trying to prove that a CT is faster than a Lamborghini Aventador. I like fast trucks and I like the CT, but trucks are going to be at a huge disadvantage over a sports car at anything over 60mph. The high hp car world has moved on to 60 - 130 mph as a better measure than 0-60, because 0-60 is SO traction dependent. This race was also on a well worn asphalt road and the Lambo had their launch rpm set too high for that surface. The CT might still beat it 0-60 on a prepped surface with a good driver, IDK, but this was a poor example of a race.

9 city, 11 combined with a 22.5 gallon tank

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

GAC06 said:

---

9 city, 11 combined with a 22.5 gallon tank

---

oh no said:

---

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

---

How dare you use factory specifications and not assume that the Lamborghini just didn't have their car in the right setup.

Here is a Cyberbeast beating a Z06 off the line in a 1/4 mile:

oh no said:

---

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

---

Well at least the cybertruck driver has something to be proud of after blowing 25% of his battery's charge on that little race.

Do you actually believe this nonsense?

techno-ag said:

---

oh no said:

---

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

---

Well at least the cybertruck driver has something to be proud of after blowing 25% of his battery's charge on that little race.

---

what about the Aventador driver? he has nothing to be proud of, does he? (other than spending over 300k on a car that lost a race of course) ...and at least the CT driver can recharge his battery for a lot cheaper than the premium unleaded gasoline required by the Lambo.

oh no said:

---

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

---

I'm hardly defending anything. Just pointing out that 0-60 races are a measure of traction, much like trucks playing tug of war. If anything I'm condemning the Lamborghini for having a ****ty driver that poorly managed the launch system and upshift. I'd rather see this race on a prepped surface than a city street.

Neither vehicle is designed to maximize 0-60, that would require engineering limitations that would constrain their core mission.

The Lamborghini would be much more fun to drive, regardless of .3 second 0-60 deficiency. I'd rather daily the CT. It would be a great fast fun all around vehicle but will never be as visceral and exhilarating as a screaming Lamborghini.

I'm still seeing excuses. It's the driver's fault for not driving properly. It's the surface's fault for not being grippy enough for the lambo but too grippy for the CT. I see.

I think it's funny that a lot of dorks spend countless hours and money in a sweaty garage trying to get an ice car to perform at a high level and then some Indian dentist literally buys a Tesla S Plaid from the internet and dusts most of them the day it arrives.

oh no said:

---

I'm still seeing excuses. It's the driver's fault for not driving properly. It's the surface's fault for not being grippy enough for the lambo but too grippy for the CT. I see.

---

Maybe put some all terrains on the lambo

aggieforester05 said:

---

oh no said:

---

I keep seeing more excuses and more attempts to explain the excuses for why Mr. Aventador pulled up revving to race a CT and lost.

It's very simple. The posted 0-60 speed by the OEMs themselves are 2.9s for the Lamborghini Aventador and 2.6s for the Cybertruck. EVs are really fast off the line. End of story. Can't deny that fact.

The fact that the CT has a whole frunk, bed, a whole row of back seats in the cab, etc. and weighs over 3 tons yet is still that fast is impressive to some people. Why it makes other people so defensive about the Italian sports car that costs 3x being faster in a longer race seems a little weird.

---

I'm hardly defending anything. Just pointing out that 0-60 races are a measure of traction, much like trucks playing tug of war. If anything I'm condemning the Lamborghini for having a ****ty driver that poorly managed the launch system and upshift. I'd rather see this race on a prepped surface than a city street.

Neither vehicle is designed to maximize 0-60, that would require engineering limitations that would constrain their core mission.

The Lamborghini would be much more fun to drive, regardless of .3 second 0-60 deficiency. I'd rather daily the CT. It would be a great fast fun all around vehicle but will never be as visceral and exhilarating as a screaming Lamborghini.

---

Until you go 0-60 in 2.6 in an EV you have no idea...

Ai insights:

In comparing the hypothetical "Cyberbeast" EV (0-60 mph in 2.6 seconds) to a Lamborghini (0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds), the Cyberbeast EV offers an edge in both acceleration speed and overall driving experience due to its electric powertrain. Here's a breakdown of the experience:

1. Instant Torque and Smoothness

• Cyberbeast: EVs like the Cyberbeast deliver peak torque immediately, resulting in a lightning-quick launch that's uninterrupted by shifts. This instant acceleration provides a smooth, jet-like experience that feels highly responsive and unique.
• Lamborghini: The Lamborghini's engine requires revving to reach its peak torque, giving a slight delay before reaching full power. Its automatic transmission still offers high performance but with a small pause during shifts, which may feel slightly less instantaneous than an EV.

2. Exhilaration and Engagement

• Cyberbeast: The lack of shifting makes the acceleration feel seamless and effortless. This uninterrupted power can feel more exhilarating, particularly because you don't lose even fractions of a second to gear shifts.
• Lamborghini: Many enthusiasts love the sensation of shifting gears because it adds a tactile, interactive layer to driving. Although slightly slower than the Cyberbeast, the Lamborghini's shifts add a feeling of control, while the roaring engine sound enhances the thrill.

3. Sound and Sensory Experience

• Cyberbeast: EVs are quieter, which for some adds to the thrill by amplifying the sense of pure, rapid motion, especially when you're reaching 60 mph in 2.6 seconds. Some may miss the auditory feedback of a gas engine, but the silence combined with the fast acceleration is a unique experience.
• Lamborghini: The engine sound is an integral part of the Lamborghini's appeal. Its roar during acceleration can make the 2.9 seconds feel more dramatic, amplifying the adrenaline for those who love the visceral aspects of driving.

4. Consistency in Performance

• Cyberbeast: EVs deliver consistently fast launches with minimal variation because they don't rely on gears. This makes them ideal for drivers who want reliable performance every time they press the accelerator.
• Lamborghini: While extremely consistent, a Lamborghini's performance can be affected by shifting, and over time, wear may introduce slight performance variations, although these are often negligible in high-performance cars.

In short, if you're after the most direct, immediate thrill, the Cyberbeast EV's uninterrupted acceleration can feel more exhilarating. If you appreciate the drama, control, and sensory feedback of a traditional supercar, the Lamborghini still has a strong edge in creating an engaging driving experience. Both are thrilling in their own right, but they offer very different experiences of speed and power.

The Lambo is 5x the price
Scores posted….

Why you pocket watching bro?

I find it hilarious how people argue that a 300K car can't beat a 100K car. Even if the CT lost, it SHOULD.

The same ICE lovers always argue that a $4M Bugatti Chiron Sport can barely beat a 90K Plaid in the 1/4 mile

What a milestone; small block turns 70. Isn't going anywhere, as GM plans 6th generation. (As I grumble about cylinder deactivation in my head.)

Quote:

---

While charting the changes would take an eternity, as there have been five generations and countless improvements, the latest lineup includes 5.3-, 6.2-, and 6.6-liter V8s. They can be found in everything from pickups to performance cars including the Corvette and Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing.

While rivals such as Stellantis have largely said goodbye to the V8, General Motors has already announced plans for a sixth-generation small-block engine that will be built at plants in Michigan, Ohio, and New York as part of an $854 million investment. The automaker has been tight-lipped about details, but promised the mill will showcase "power and efficiency."

---

nortex97 said:

---

What a milestone; small block turns 70. Isn't going anywhere, as GM plans 6th generation. (As I grumble about cylinder deactivation in my head.)

Quote:

---

While charting the changes would take an eternity, as there have been five generations and countless improvements, the latest lineup includes 5.3-, 6.2-, and 6.6-liter V8s. They can be found in everything from pickups to performance cars including the Corvette and Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing.

While rivals such as Stellantis have largely said goodbye to the V8, General Motors has already announced plans for a sixth-generation small-block engine that will be built at plants in Michigan, Ohio, and New York as part of an $854 million investment. The automaker has been tight-lipped about details, but promised the mill will showcase "power and efficiency."

---

---

Very smart. There will likely remain a strong market for a V8 pickup.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/10/31/chinese-ev-maker-byds-quarterly-sales-overtook-teslas-for-the-first-time.html

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/byds-outpacing-tesla-has-only-just-begun-2024-10-31/

Hold it. An EV maker (who is now the largest one) had almost 25% yoy revenue growth. I call BS because I have read here many times that EV sales are declining across the board and no one wants them.

Chinese never lie.

(Note, not directed at any of our resident evangelists, whom have disclaimed environmental snobbery/rationales, unlike the majority of EV drivers).

Chinese EV battery plant (this one for Germany) scrapped due to dropping demand forecasts/economy.

Ford, which has had the most popular pickup for decades/top truck producer (sorry, whatever, one of the top two), pauses Lightning production until 2025 due to…wait for it…weak demand.

"It's not worth it."

Woman shares her electric bill after installing a charger at home. Hilarity ensues.

https://www.the-sun.com/motors/12798502/women-installs-ev-charging-station-at-home-monthly-bills/amp/

Fire update:

After a recent fire involving a wrecked Tesla in a junkyard, firefighters show they're getting more adept, using blankets instead of 100,000 gallons of water.

Also noted a garage fire from a Tesla exposed to salt water in the recent hurricane.

Then some stats:

Quote:

---

As of Oct. 24, Tesla reported 232 confirmed cases of fires and 83 fatalities involving car fires since 2013 worldwide. Of that number, 132 cases have occurred in the U.S.

---

In before "But there's more ICE fires!"

Yes. There's also more ICE vehicles and a host of other differences that continue to concern many.

https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/local/2024/10/31/tesla-ev-electric-vehicle-fires-are-more-dangerous-require-more-water-bucks-county-firefighters/75811164007/

Tesla has 7 million vehicles on the road. Even if you generously assumed all 232 fires occurred in a single year the per 100,000 vehicle rate for a Tesla vehicle would be 3.33 fires per 100,000 vehicles on the road.

There are roughly 280 million vehicles on the road and there are 175,000 vehicle fires reported annually. Or 62.5 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

You're actually taking a decade of fires for the Tesla data and assuming it's in a single year, whereas the predominantly ICE vehicle data from NTSB is definitively a single year of data. It's also juiced because it's unlikely all 280 million vehicles are used at the rate a norm Tesla is.

In other words, yet again, EVs represent a substantial reduction in fire risk.

The data is also representative of what anyone that pays attention knows, that the vast majority of EV fires occur as a result of high speed collisions rather than what this board fear mongers about, random unpredictable ignitions.

hph6203 said:

---

Tesla has 7 million vehicles on the road. Even if you generously assumed all 232 fires occurred in a single year the per 100,000 vehicle rate for a Tesla vehicle would be 3.33 fires per 100,000 vehicles on the road.

There are roughly 280 million vehicles on the road and there are 175,000 vehicle fires reported annually. Or 62.5 fires per 100,000 vehicles.

You're actually taking a decade of fires for the Tesla data and assuming it's in a single year, whereas the predominantly ICE vehicle data from NTSB is definitively a single year of data. It's also juiced because it's unlikely all 280 million vehicles are used at the rate a norm Tesla is.

In other words, yet again, EVs represent a substantial reduction in fire risk.

---

In frequency, but maybe not in intensity

Lots of financially/basic arithmetic illiterate people that can't conceive of the fact that her costs are about the entire house electric bill, not the individual vehicle bills. I'm getting 3.5 miles per kWh in my car.

90 miles per day
2700 miles per month
770 kWh per month
$0.125/kWh
$96/mo to charge

30 mpg
90 miles per day
2700 miles per month
90 gallons per month
$2.70 per gallon
$243 per month in gas, more than her entire electric bill after accounting for her solar panels

Wouldn't even remotely make up the difference in firefighting burden. Not even close.

Let's say you have one house fire and 60 bonfire sized fires dispersed around the city. You'd need 60 trucks to visit those 60 fires, would you need 60 trucks to fight the single house fire? No. And each of those bonfire sized fires can grow into a house fire sized fire.

The majority of EV fires are also the result of a high speed crash, not some random unpredictable ignition while charging. So no, the gap is also not likely to be made up by concerns over fire propagation to other structures.

It is obvious to anyone that isn't trying to push propaganda that EVs represent a significant reduction in fire risk and firefighting burden.

Your math doesn't work out vs. reality, as in what fire departments actually say about EV fires, which are an entirely different category of risk.

This is a global reality.



Again, it's not a risk vs. a given unit of vehicles (especially when new), but of class of risk/mitigation once a fire does happen. 30,000 gallons of water in a multi-story garage (with dwellings on top especially) is exceptionally dangerous. And that assumes no other EV's/vehicles adjacent catch fire.

I heard they create their own oxygen so statistics and numbers don't matter at all