In what way was the race less engaging than the races you normally watch and don't fall asleep to?

I watched E-Formula one time and I just couldn't stick with it. The cars are fast and have crazy amounts of acceleration but without the engine noise I just felt like something was wrong the whole time.

Regarding "E" cars though.... if I could afford a Tesla Roadster I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Tesla is definitely moving in the direction of the future. I think that company has clearly demonstrated that you can have power and a reasonable amount of run time/distance per charge.

Have you seen the drag races with the stripped down Tesla vs (you name it)?? It's rare that the Tesla gets beat.

Personally, I think the people that have most of the money in this world will continue to keep the gasoline engine alive. With the advancements that have already been made in emissions reduction with the catalytic converters and such... gas is burning cleaner and cleaner. I'm sure science with continue to improve the emissions and that will calm down the environmentalists and keep the mighty dollar (Insert whatever currency here) being the true driving force behind it all.

Well have you actually watched a live E-Formula race Vs any races that are powered by race fuel engines? Before I answer your question.

I've watched an E-Formula race. My initial interest was more from a novelty standpoint than actually wanting to watch the race for an extended amount of time. I found it to be fascinating but for me, whatever the reason, it was not as exciting as F1. Maybe it was the lack of engine noise, maybe it was other aspects to the race but it just didn't have the same appeal. Just something about a ICE growling out big HP.

I have not. I don't regularly watch any kind of racing, though, I don't see how my experiences affect your perceptions. :confused:

Forget all the "retiring" crap.
I have been a life-long Z guy.

The current Z34&the great Z33 are fantastic vehicles to cost effectively mold into
what you want.
There are an abundance of parts available at affordable prices to make the car be
what you want.
I've been fortunate to own both a Z33&Z34.
My 34 is pretty much unmodified accept for some body CF.
On the contrary,the Z33 is very much removed from stock.
Besides max Nismo upgrades,carbon aero parts sets it apart.
An original/one owner 350z,with mods ,I am asked,if this is the NEW Z...

Don't worry,plenty of room to upgrade your Z at a cost effective scale.
Should you desire.

So you dont watch any kind of racing? How about horse racing???

So tell me then what was your experience so I will know how it does not or affect my perceptions? Then I will tell my first hand experience watching live a petrol race car series versus a Formula E races. So I will be fair to you in explaining my boredom watching the Formula E races.


Besides I never said formula E doesn’t have the same engagement as other car races would have. I believe some of the well known Indy and European drivers drives at the Formula E series,

Btw you sold your Z was it because the sound of the exhaust too loud for your or the Z is too slow for you?

Just curious.

:facepalm:

Efficiency comes with a increased cost. The "science" is already here to make emissions lower than tree hungers can possibly imagine. Formula 1 cars already have a thermal energy efficiency of 50%, compared to normal road cars that are around 20-30%. But the technology behind F1 is too expensive. Having a car with this level of efficiency would likely cost way too much or would be way too slow for most people (weight being a major proponent to efficiency). Or on the flip side of using exotic unstable materials, it would be too dangerous. So we are pretty much locked into this fine window of materials and efficiency due to cost and safety.

Electric cars are already far ahead in this realm (around 75-85% thermal efficiency), but the energy density is far behind gas fuel. So there is generally a stalemate between the two technologies. We don't need rich people to keep one or the other alive. The battle within itself is enough to keep both going on well.

Electric cars are however the future for metropolitan commuting. Keeping emissions at the lowest level possible in our cities has huge health benefits. This is what we should all be paying attention to. Nothing else is relevant as chemical mining for battery fuel and magnetic motors are equally environmentally impacting compared to mining gas.

If we could take our v6 engines to a level of efficiency as a F1 car, it would not only make more power but would produce less emissions. But this comes at a cost of reliability. So trade offs are always an issue. Would an electric motor swap make more power or get us better mileage? Its arguable still.

Lastly on the topic of hypothetical powerplants, there is generally no return in investments for companies to produce powerplants with greater effieciency then what its currently at, thus we may not see these vast improvements unless there is a major shift in chemical design in the coming years with similar pricing and implementation.

For the longest time companies would never have considered electric motors given the trade off of increased weight for typical batteries and extreme cost if Lithium. Now that Lithium production has increased tenfold compared to a decade ago, the cost has come into a reasonable window for it to be used mainstream. I'm still curious too what exactly allowed this boom in production, but we can thank whatever it was for the growing use of electric technology.

I would happily swap my Z's drivetrain for the drivetrain out of a Model S. Nissan just needs to figure out that electric cars need to be fun, then bring the Z car back that way. Problem is every company except Tesla makes s*** slow electric cars. Nismo Leaf at least attempts to not be ugly and boring, but 8 second 0-60 isn't enough to make me give up my Z. Now the original Tesla Roadster on the other hand. I'd take that over the Z. or at the same time, or idk, at least it makes it a tough choice.

:iagree:

Not really a logical comparison. The leaf is a $20k ecobox, Tesla makes $60k+ luxury sports cars. The motors are bigger the battery capacity is significantly larger and the power conversion is greater. The fastest top of the line tesla is over 120k$. Its like comparing a Versa to a Gt-r. Just because they share similar technology doesn't mean much. Ultimately large corporations can't/won't take the risk like Tesla is doing investing unnecessary amounts of money into a different business model.

This is a pretty daft argument for the average joe, but Tesla's are not the fastest cars overall. They are fastest where it counts (0-60mph). Outside of this, supercars of similar price have no problem running it down to 80-140+mph. Again, something that is relatively unimportant in the real world on regulated streets considering anything over 80mph should be jail time in America. Luckily it's just a expensive fine at the least.

It's happening. CNBC this morning:

"Toyota to make over 10 battery EV models in early 2020s"

Published 10 Hours Ago
Reuters:

"Toyota Motor on Monday said it will market more than 10 all-electric vehicle models globally in the early 2020s.

"The investment to develop their batteries is likely to exceed $13 billion through 2030.
The world's second-biggest automaker by sales said it needed to accelerate the pace of battery development."

Apparently they plan on partnering with Panasonic for battery development and supply.

Not a fan of the use of the word "development", portrays the outlook that they are making some new technology. In reality all they're doing is implementing a current design in a form factor most suitable for their cars.