Search Tags:

Categories:

Cool Site List

Wrightspeed X1 Electric Car beats Ferrari and Porsche



Uploaded by: fpilato
Video Description:
Wrightspeed X1 electric car beats Ferrari 360 Spider and a Porsche Carrera GT and costs half as much.


Tags for this video: car electric race

Find more videos in the "Autos" category
See more videos uploaded by fpilato

Related Videos
Wrightspeed X1 vs. Lamborghini Gallardo and NASCARElectric Car FASTER THAN A FERRARI ENZO 0-60 3.07 sec!Top Gear - Ariel Atom - BBC
wrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.htmlwrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.htmlwrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.html
Wrightspeed X1 vs. Jet-powered VWDodge Viper 500 hp Vs Tzero Electric Car - See Who WinsWrightspeed X-1 Ride
wrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.htmlwrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.htmlwrightspeed-x1-vs-lamborghini-gallardo-and-nascar.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Array ( 4 months ago by marinaland18)
So true! and that
´s happening not just in USA
gratulations for ... ( 4 months ago by danieldick)
gratulations for the winning revolution !!!
nuclear power... =] ( 4 months ago by karlwolf2)
nuclear power... =]
Hydrogen is no ... ( 3 months ago by withindarkness)
Hydrogen is no better than electric. It's far less efficient to produce, and uses just as much polluting materials in the manufacture of the engine and the hydrogen itself. It's also far more expensive. Oil/coal/solar/etc--> electricity-->hydrogen-->engine or Oil-->gas-->hydrogen-->engine vs Oil/coal/solar/etc-->electricity-->engine Hydrogen isn't fuel...its an inefficient storage system.
Hopefully not. ... ( 3 months ago by withindarkness)
Hopefully not. Inefficient, dirty(despite what the nuke companies say),dangerous, entirely dependent on oil anyway. It takes over 20 years for a nuclear facility to achieve a total EROEI of '1'. The US gov is still scrambling to find a safe place to store its waste. Previous plans have tanked due to ground water and fault-line concerns. Electricity won't do you any good if your whole watershed is radioactive.
I cannot believe ... ( 3 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
I cannot believe the utter stupidity of the majority of most of the comments on this video. The internal combustion engine, as we know it, is history. It is simply unsustainable. Electric cars are the future. Get over it!
for fuck's sake its ... ( 2 months ago by AbosRacing)
for fuck's sake its about time someone speaks the truth.
not sure where your ... ( 2 months ago by fitzmorris)
not sure where your from but here in uusikaupunki, finland everything is within 15mins cycle, so whats wrong with a good pedal bike?
As an avid commuter ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
As an avid commuter cyclist I agree. But cycling isn't the answer for all. Parents with young kids and older people for instance. Also you must constantly battle the weather on a bicycle, not everyones cup of tea, and not always convenient.
Nuclear power is ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
Nuclear power is really the only option in the long term. Very efficient ( one kilogram of plutonium contains more energy than a trainload of coal ) and relatively clean. Coal fired powerplants leak more radioactivity into the surrounding area than nuclear facilities due to trace amounts of radioactive minerals in the coal. Sure, waste is a big issue. But with research into other cycles such as the thorium cycle, maybe a solution can be found there. There is a *lot* of energy bound up in matter.
How about scaling ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
How about scaling back use and using solar, etc. instead? You're going to hit a wall eventually...I'm just hoping it happens while the world is still a nice place to live. The real solution is to stop the Progress Trap we're all caught up in.
Most of them are ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
Most of them are about "power" "speed" etc.(-_-) Sorry...cars don't need to go super fast for any reason other than to build up your ego. Sustainably is far more important and always has been.
Not gonna happen ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
Not gonna happen any time soon. If you plot global energy consumption over history you will see that our energy requirements are increasing at an exponential rate that way outstrips even population growth. There is a physical limit to the Earths population, but I think energy usage will continue its climb well after the population has stabilised. More technology = more energy requirements. One man today can do with machines what used to be the work of hundreds. Imagine the future?
Solar etc, as you ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
Solar etc, as you put cannot yet deliver the baseload demands of cities. It may be able to power moderate size towns, but the bulk of the power will still be needed to be generated in some other way. Unless, as you put it we "scale back". What would you have scale back to, exactly? Apart from a global catastrophe, there will be no voluntary "scaling back". What is this so-called "Progress Trap"?
Essentially, short ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
Essentially, short term gains are thought of as good, even if in the long term they make things worse. As for scaling back...I doubt its gonna happen (see above), but it is the only truly sustainable choice. How much? As much as is necessary. I don't believe technological increase is "progress". Progress towards what? When looking at history and technology, I ask only one question: Does it make people happier? If it does not, it is useless. Are people happier now than in the past? Doubtful.
If we kept ' ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
If we kept 'progressing', increasing population, building intensive farming, energy production, etc. we could eventually remove the ability of the planet to sustain us without our artifice, or at least make it a terrible place to be. Should something go wrong in a world at it's maximum, we'd be screwed. If something went wrong 200 years ago...no biggy. Now? Some problems, but we'd recover easily. We make the consequences of failure and catastrophe worse each time we "find a solution".
How would you like ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
How would you like to measure happiness? Longevity? Nutrition? Productivity? All three are at the highest levels in human history. Average life expectancy, at least in the "west" has more than doubled in the last century. While it's impossible to say whether the dead are happy, at least a few of the living might be, so happiness is definitely on to up! ;-) What time in the "good old days" would you like to return to exactly?
Not "return to the ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
Not "return to the good old days". Find a truly sustainable way of doing things. Maybe that means reducing technological levels. Longevity has little to do with happiness...you never know when you might die anyway. Besides, it only recently that your statement is true. Tribes today have long lives, and bodies found in Celtic and Norse burials were, on average, longer lived than us. Lifespan dropped during the dark ages, and through the industrial revolution...we have only just got it back.
It's like saying " ... ( 2 months ago by withindarkness)
It's like saying "gas prices are good now because they aren't as high as they were a week ago" You're still paying more than you were 3 years ago. Nutrition is also something that dropped in quality before being brought back up. Productivity is an industrial term. It means nothing in regard to happiness. Humans can not increase their capacity for joy. A happy person 2000 years ago was just as content as a happy person today.
"A happy person ... ( 2 months ago by TheWatcherInTheTower)
"A happy person 2000 years ago was just as content as a happy person today." There were only 200 million people alive back then. For simplicity lets assume about the same percentage were happy then as now. With 6 billion folks around today, we are therefore 2900% happier today. You might want to check for facts regarding longevity. Some rare individuals made it to what we could consider an old age, but the majority died very young. Remember there was no antibiotics or sanitation back then.
it is Arial Atom ( 2 months ago by cleric022684)
it is Arial Atom
honestly, every ... ( 1 month ago by kamikrazi123)
honestly, every time I see videos like these, they're all so convincing! I see no consequences for electric cars except for the potentially sudden impact in the economy. One of the elementary things I learned in Econ class is it's close ties with ecology (i.e. electric cars) Watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I am a believer lol
Something else they ... ( 1 month ago by MohanndasChutney)
Something else they teach you in Econ: people go where the money goes. If you're in the auto industry and you don't move towards non-petroleum power, you lose. The petroleum powered industry will die because a new one will take its place, and capital, labor and consumers will move in the same direction. There will be no sudden impact on the economy because that kind of change can't take place overnight.
obviously cus its ... ( 2 weeks ago by chevelleinc12)
obviously cus its light.... you still have to appreciate the low cost and size of the engine of the x1....and how fast it is. the Veyron has a 16 cylinder engine



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code