To be precise, 1.44 g.

For comparison, a Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket -- without payload -- at takeoff mass has 1.19 g of thrust.

I used to navigate/copilot a 480ci methanol powered jet sprint boat, Group-A class. It would pull just over a G accelerating, and did the 0-100kph sprint in 1.9 seconds. That boat could also do 100kph-to stop-to 180 degree turn - to 100kph the opposite direction in about three seconds. (This is something unique to jetsprint boats, they can pirouette like nothing I've ever experienced). That pulled insane G's, so much so that you needed the HANS device around your neck to stop the weight of your helmet breaking your neck.

Imagine having to strap into a HANS device to drive a road car. I want this future.

For those that are unaware, all rockets then rapidly increase their G. For example the Saturn V had 1.20 g at takeoff but climed up to 4-ish: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/saturnV.htm

Someone on the Saturn V started experiencing more G than the Roadster about a minute into the launch.

When you move a building-sized fuel tank under its own thrust it's going to start off slow, but accelerate as more fuel is burned.

Plus I'd expect thrust to be kept low until clearing the lower atmosphere so it's not all lost on drag.

So your body experiences 1.44 g horizontal plus 1 g vertical, giving total 1.75 g. Is that right?

It has twice the wheel torque of a Hellcat, but the traction is impressive too. Obviously making good use of that AWD.

wow i had to reread that, thought it was kmph.. silly me

Wow, that‘s more than 400km/h

that's a significant challenge from a friction/grip/tire treat compound (and electronic traction control) perspective, no matter what kind of AWD systems is in place...

I wonder how a AWD system works, when the Roaster has 3 motors (according to the Tesla live stream today only 3 motors). Why not 4 motors, one for each wheel.

I think the range is even more impressive

and 250mph+ top speed is PLAID

should come with the warning to consume food or beverages before the test drive.

Well, maybe afterwards is safer.

It's darn near the limit of what we can do with current tire technology, don't be surprised if this drops - all we need is a tire that can deal with it.

You're right that it's absurd but most sports cars can do 60-0 in about the same amount of time, it's interesting to think about running that acceleration in the oppisite direction.

The Tesla Model S P100D has the exact same 0-60 and 60-0 times. So Tesla has already achieved that, but with a much heavier car.

I can't find better than 2.28 seconds documented.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2017/2017-tesla...

The parent just wanted to point out that braking is just as fast as accelerating. They didn't mean to say that the Model S can accelerate as fast as the new Roadster.

Yes exactly. I was just pointing out that Tesla has already managed to make a car that had acceleration times equal to stopping times. With this purpose built performance car I would expect nothing less. The Model S will of course not match up to the new Roadster.

Being traction limited 0-60 is nothing new for high performance sports cars, the difference is that using an electic motors, the power output can be modulated on a millisecond by millisecond basis. So the electric car can live on the ragged edge of traction eeking out every last newton. ICE cars on the other hand use motors that throttle responses that are orders of magnitude greater. Restricting how much the the traction envelope they can use. Which is why their 0-60 and 60-0 times tend to be different.