Ever since I rode in a BYD in China I've thought it would be great to be able to get one in the USA. It just really felt complete, put together and polished in a way that I haven't seen in a "normie" U.S. car in a long time. Too bad our country uses high tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect its dinosaur companies.
One of the leading indicators of not being able to do the "hard" thing anymore is that Apple gave up on building an EV after spending a decade and billions in R&D. Meanwhile, Huawei and Xiaomi were both able to produce good EVs. Xiaomi in particular is doing what Apple wanted to do which is to integrate and control their ecosystem from phone to car.
Xiaomi is literally trying to make everything from phones, cars, electronic tooth brushes, air fryers, soap dispensers, etc. It's astonishing.
I've had a few Xiaomi electronics including a dust mite vacuum and an air purifier. Both well designed and worked well for the price.
> it would be great to be able to get one in the USA.
Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers. (US, Germany, France, S.Korea, Japan, etc.) Outside of Tesla, none have EV brands competitive with the Chinese firms and if customers in those non China markets migrate to Chinese brands en masse, it would be tremendous disruption and the failure of many storied domestic brands.
It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets.
Look at solar panels, drones, batteries, for similar comparisons.
> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
It is.
But the reality is that those companies are complacent fossils who have lost all their vigor, and only threat of extinction would force them to innovate. Which they’re not under because legislators agree with you (in no small part thanks to their lobbyists).
Like many things, we’ll realize the extent of how badly we messed up when it’s way too late.
Part of this is our own regulatory structure. You can no longer buy a basic, simple, cheap, reliable car in the united states. (at least not a new model) You used to be able to all the time. Just 11 years ago I bought a brand new car for $14k and it was pretty great! It had no features outside of air conditioning and a stereo. Roll-up windows, manual mirrors, etc. It was wonderful. The current regulatory safety and MPG standards combined with costs and customer desires have twisted modern cars into something awful; bloated, heavy, incredibly expensive, over-complicated, less reliable, terrible visibility, the blight of touch screens and screens in general.
The right way to do that is to lower the tax rate on these foreign models a little bit; enough to spur competition, not enough to crash local manufacturing capacity.
Western countries simply don’t have the supply chain required to compete with China. China is often by far the best supplier for a lot of components and the sole supplier able to provide some raw materials in large quantities.
Honestly, we are not far from reaching a point where using the old Chinese strategy might be our best bet: mandatory JVs with local companies if the Chinese companies want to access our markets.
> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
I agree in principle but I can’t fail to notice what is to me the obvious parallel with the subprime crisis.
We, as the general public via the state, are once again saving companies which badly failed according to the market due to their shortsightedness and inability to properly invest. It shows that the current system, which its proponents - generally profiting tremendously from it - like to frame as meritocratic, is a charade. It exists as long as the same wins and suddenly stops to apply when they don’t.
It’s hard for me to support intervention to save some companies while not doing anything to curb the rising inequalities and the overall lack of contribution of the richest. I think people are not blind to that and it partially explains while extreme political parties are on the rise.
BMW has great EVs and they just launched their gen 6 which is probably one of the best on the market. VW also did a stellar job with their newest models.
The problem is not that Chinese EVs are entering other markets, BMW and others have done that for decades. The problem is that China is making car manufactoring a commodity.
The margins have been high for car manufacturas. China rolls that complelty over with lower laber costs (normal car has only a few thousand dollars in labor costs), end to end supply chain, cheap energy, higher automatisation level, simplified stack and lower margins. Significant lower margins.
Btw. USA and Europe got as rich as they are because of being manufactoring powerhouses previously. Was that fair ever to the rest of the world? Probably not. Now China is doing the same thing and suddenly everyone needs to protect their markets? A little bit ignorant and short sighted eh? Btw. China was smarter then us. They stoped allowing this and made it mandatory to have chinese people invovled in the expansion of american and europeon companies.
And they are buying companies around the globe too while we all watch and let it happen.
Yeah but you can't blame China for that, When the west made EV's they made them a luxury product I could have bought a Porsche for the same price as an Audi electron. China made them affordable, its just a better strategy and it paid off.
> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers.
I want a level playing field/market competition. Allowing China's illegal subsidies and anti-market tactics to dominate the global EV industry is very dangerous, which is why they are already countervailed in many developed countries.
Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
China's EV subsidies are basically identical to US and EU subsidies. They offer tax credits and other perks to customers, just like in Western countries.
Subsidies are not the reason why China's EVs are cheap. The reason is that China has a much more competitive EV market than the US or EU. There are many manufacturers that are competing with one another, the charging infrastructure is much better than in the West, and Chinese cities heavily discourage internal combustion engine vehicles.
> Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
China specifically encouraged foreign car companies to enter its market, most recently Tesla (which has done very well in China). Allowing foreign car companies to compete in the Chinese market was a major part of China's strategy to improve its own domestic manufacturing.
Sadly, US auto makers were hollowed out by "maximize shareholder value" combined with state assistance. Expensive junk. I don't know a path out of that.
> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers
Tariff them so they're super expensive! Or set import quotas, so they can't displace too much demand. Either way, letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building while continuing to largely protect domestic manufacturers.
Especially awkward for the current ruling class, since their VP choice recently dismissed the Chinese as “peasants,” and will likely to cause cognitive dissonance within their base.
It would be great if the USA invested half of its military budget in all these technologies instead of claiming that those Chinese investments are 'destroying' the USA economy.
I have the impression that the USA is very capable, yet somehow chooses not to compete (on a technological investment level).
Because the US has moved onto a services economy. People don't want to build physical things. It's hard work, less pay, more pollution. They want to do consulting or software mostly.
And this has made the US more wealthy than ever with easier lives.
China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. Each country should do the same for their own situation. There is no such thing as pure capitalism- and what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc.
And as the other commenter mentioned, auto manufacturing plants were retooled to make tanks and jeeps in WW2 and so no country that cares about their own military survival should cede auto manufacturing to another country, let alone China.
We did too, but we didn't effectively hold any of the executives or financial planners liable for the terrible direction domestic auto companies had gone in, and as a result those companies are still failing to produce competitive vehicles.
"what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc."
This is laughable given the history of the auto industry in America.
Foreign automakers (Toyota, BMW, etc.) build competitive factories in southern states and often paid better wages and delivered higher quality products. All this without decades of protection.
U.S. auto jobs still got wrecked despite the decades of "By American" policies anyway, since domestic auto companies decided to automate and offshore much of the work.
You can't rely on Chinese companies to make the tanks and rockets you intend aiming at China.
Car manufacturers serve many purposes. Aside from keeping the UAW membership onside, they are a strategic buttress for an emerging future war risk.
Australia maintained subsidies to Ford and GM for onshore production precisely because of this. And they stopped when a strategic realignment made successive governments decide the risk didn't justify the expense. A decision they may now be regretting.
War with China.. ya'll are nuts. The American zeitgeist is completely poisoned and insane. Listening to this stuff from the outside is kind of horrifying. War with a nuclear armed country ends with a nuclear winter for the whole planet. There is no preparing for war with China unless you want everyone dead (which I'm starting to suspect a lot of people are okay with)
This seems so anachronistic.... When was the last war where tanks were important..?
Car are made using components from all around the world... How would you even make a tank in a Tesla factory?
In The 2022 Invasion of Russia into the Ukraine Tanks played an important role in the offensive and the counter-offensive especially around Kyiv, Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and Avdiivka
Are they still a factor? I thought they quickly were put out of the picture once drone warfare was ironed out. Haven't heard of tanks in Ukraine for the past couple of years
It describes how tanks were modified to protect, first, against attacks from the top, and then, from drone attacks from all sides.
They claim “But they remain important, especially for trying to take and hold territory. With their heavy firepower, they will continue to have a role in attacking, defending and supporting the foot soldiers of the infantry.”
Well, the last war where tanks and other old weapons were important is going on in Ukraine, for example. And I'm pretty sure you could build quite a few death machine components with what's available in Tesla factories as well (certainly not a full tank though, but you could probably not do that in an ICE car factory either).
FWIW, I agree with your general sentiment, though.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the car industry as it is now would fight retooling their factories tooth and nail, move production to other countries and do anything else they can to be able to continue making as much profit as they can.
Best way to find yourself in war is not prepare for one.
As shown time and again.
Also, persuading your enemies not to prepare for war is a part of the war effort.
what a load of warmongering bs.. I literally can't think of a single example. Korea, Vietnam, France, Britain, Japan, Germany every country involved in a war in the past ~100 years had prepared for it. Maybe maybe Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't properly prepare? Though they were highly militarized. On the contrary, the more you prepare and get people frothing at the mouth the more likely it's gunna happen.
Thank god none had been between two nuclear powers so far
> tell that to ruzzia
They had a bunch of tanks and seemingly lost huge amounts of them. They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context
It's 2025. We're still asking what happens when one group has lots of guns, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, and the other doesn't? Also, there is a difference between stockpiling arms and maintaining the ability to produce them if necessary.
Integrated markets and commerce is why we have had peace in the western world. The very things the current American head honcho is tearing apart.
We have had very little peace in the rest of the world in the meantime between the colonial wars, the various proxy wars of the Cold War, then the numerous stupid adventures of the modern America and now Russia wanting to be an empire again.
I don’t think integrated markets were the cause. There was plenty of integration between Ukraine and Russia in the oil and gas infrastructure for example.
(Nuclear) deterrence is why we’ve only had proxy wars instead of direct wars
If the "outcompeting" is possible because of Chinese government subsidies, then it's important to protect local industry from unfair competition.
It's similar to the logic behind anti-trust actions against monopolists. If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.
(Whether BYD is subsidised or not is another question, but the above is the logic of protecting local industry.)
> If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.
More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.
Not sure why this is downvoted. The Chinese government has been quite transparent in terms of globally dominating several industries including EV through heavy government support.
It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.
Ever since I ride them constantly in Chilean Ubers I wish other EVs were more prevalent because how the aluminum bends and creaks sometimes when I sit on the backseat doesn’t make me feel any safe (I weight 90kg).
I don’t if the Chilean models are built to the same standards (they should) but BYD is approved in both the US and the EU. Structural integrity is definitely not a problem.
Haha what was the manufacturer? I drove a Changan Uni-T there and it was not an EV and handled like a boat but a very serviceable car. To be honest, I was surprised because it was the first Chinese car I'd driven and my mind was blown how far they'd come.
yeah same thing when I tried their Huawei phones. their mobile phone market is much more innovative due to the competition it's a bit of a shame the monopolies stifle competitors to grasp their crown a little longer
> Too bad our country uses high tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect its dinosaur companies.
I’m fine with tariffs that keep around industries that are needed during wartime. That’s why there are tariffs on cars, no other reason is even remotely important. It has zero to do with GM and Ford making profits and everything to do with keeping GM and Ford around so they can pump out war materiel if needed.
This is the type of statement that often comes from pro China people. Because the quality of BYD in China is lower than outside of China, making it more propaganda than truth.
Edit: Sigh. I wish people would actually travel to China and try a BYD and then go to Australia and try BYD. it’s like 2 different cars. The China BYD is trash. BYD in Australia is actually quite nice and feels like really good value.
China subsidies Byd. It would be bad for american car industry. So if US wants to create a fair competition, they would need to use tariffs or subsidies the US car industry players that could compete fairly with BYD.
And the Tesla factory in Shanghai also gets Chinese subsidies.
The subsidies to Chinese EV companies isn't direct anymore. Most of it is in the form of tax refunds. The biggest "subsidy", though, is the incredible pipeline China has built to feed the industry. Their industrial policy has created an huge ecosystem capable of feeding batteries and components into their EV industry at a price point and scale that no other country can compete with. It's been an incredibly effective industrial policy.
I get what the OP means about the destruction of our auto industry but we can only hide behind that for so long. An ineffective and noncompetitive auto industry won't be able to scale up during a war either. I hope our industrial leaders and politicians are using tariffs and other trade barriers to the US car industry only as a temporary reprieve while we scale up our ecosystem too. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming one of those countries that keeps outdated domestic companies alive just to say we have those companies. Without export discipline and the ability to compete effectively on the global stage, domestic companies are just zombies kept alive by domestic subsidies. They won't be able to help us in the event of a war with a peer adversary.
Tesla's US subsidies mainly came from a ATVM loan from the DOE back in 2008/2009, repaid back in 2013 -- Ford ($6B) was the largest recipient. The DOE had/have other auto/EV/battery subsidies, equally available to foreign domestic producers/recipients, which is what the global subsidies standard requires. No special, or "specific" subsidy favoring Tesla over others (or local companies over foreign competitors). America's consumer purchase EV subsidies prior to the IRA were also neutral without preference to any "specific" company, industry or country of origin.
China's NEV subsidies were/are illegal and Chinese EVs are countervailed in many developed countries (eg, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, US) because they are misapplied in three key ways.
i. forced tech transfer: no subsidies or market access unless hybrid/BEV/batteries tech transfer to China since 2011; violates China's 2001 Accession Protocal (see Section 7, Non-Tariff Measures); litigated before the WTO by the EU (WT/DS549)
ii, local content requirement: no subsidies or license/permit to operate in China unless automakers' EVs used Chinese batteries made by Chinese local "champions" only, namely CATL, since 2015; all foreign battery producers effectively banned and all EV producers forced to switch to local battery suppliers; violates Article 3(a) Prohibition of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement
iii, export subsidies: subsidies given to MIC exporters to under price/under cut foreign competitors in markets abroad; EU Commission's counter measures: 2024/1866 and 2024/2754.
Tesla China benefited significantly from China's NEV subsidies and is likewise also countervailed in the EU, at the import tariff rate of 7+%. Tesla no longer imports EV from China in the US/Canada.
Is that really correct? I have no idea how to compare one to the other but if I search for "how much money did China give BYD" the AI claims 3.7 billion. If I ask "how much money did the US government give Tesla" it has 3 different numbers. $4.9 billion, $11 billion, and $38 billion. Not sure how it's counting
Asking for other companies: Ford $9 billion, Chevy $11 billion
No idea if this is made up and no idea how to compare them but without knowing better it seems like both sides are subsidized
BYD made electric busses for US transit agencies. They were the worst buses that I have ever ridden. Today, no U.S. transit agency still uses BYD busses, because none of them managed a service live longer than about a year.
BYD vehicles seem really nice for the first few hours, until you start discovering all the corners they cut to make their price point.
Ah - that's interesting. I see there's an LA Times article from 2018 about it "Stalls, stops and breakdowns: Problems plague push for electric buses".
On the other hand they seem to be getting a lot in in London, mostly for short less busy routes far from the center. Here's some youtube shot in one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaHZufvD_C4 They do look a bit cheaply made compared to usual London busses.
I've never used BYD vehicles but I've felt this about budget vehicles. Eg. In India, a Hyundai/kia sedan will be cheaper than a Toyota or a Honda of the same class with much more features.
However, they start to break down and over a while, you can see the corners they cut.
Yes they do, it’s reflected in the retail and also used prices of Korean vs Japanese vehicles. Go compare any two similar Hyundai and Toyota, the Toyota will retain its value longer than the Korean cars because they’re more reliable and last longer. If what you were saying is true, the used values would be comparable, but they aren’t.
That's been my understanding too. I do think the Korean companies have come a long way in their journeys but the cars don't have resale value and age much worse than their Japanese competitors.
The most attractive parts are the features they pack into the car for a fraction of the cost. The compromises are usually made where it's not immediately visible and for someone who changes his car in less than 5 years, I don't think it's an issue.
Anecdotally this is false though, I still see them being used in San Fransisco, in fact I rode one last month as a free shuttle. Perhaps it means of a specific weight class?
Tbh i have to agree with you. I tried byd and cuts corners everywhere. Look at the screen: static video instead of Tesla interactive, low screen dpi. Other small details I can’t recall.
I also don’t like Tesla, but at least they have a nicer screen. Tesla also has big gaps between their parts looking from outside.
> BYD released that many since you wrote this comment :)
You say that like it's an advantage while it's really the opposite. As a car buyer I'm only looking at cars their manufacturer plans to fully support over their lifetime.
That rules out new, unproven manufacturers as well as the ones with proven bad support.
I own 2014 Tesla S, my next door neighbour has 2024 Tesla S, same f’ing car. Tesla X was modern looking back in 2017, looks the same now. Tesla 3 is chopped up S and Y is 3 blown up in height a bit. These are all old outdated cars - hence the dinosaur comment.
Support-wise, trying owning an older model of Tesla like a do and you’d know that your statement cannot be further from the truth, my car bricked several times after a software update and getting repairs done gets met with “oh that’ll take __ to get parts”
>dinosaur would be a compliment for tesla which designs/releases one new car every decade
...because they don't do model years? Most cars are like that too, except they increment the model year annually, whether or not there are substantive changes.
Yes, it’s impressive there are so many Teslas in China. I saw at least 10-20% of Teslas there. But I think it’s not because of being competitive price wise but more about status.
> it’s not because of being competitive price wise but more about status
It's a premium product. Whether due to brand, features or something else, it's undeniable that Tesla was doing something right vis-à-vis BYD. (That said, they've been losing their edge since even before Musk's recent fuckups [1].)
The time separating Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex is greater than the time separating T. Rex from modern-day humans. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs but yes, Chrysler is from an even more ancient time than Tesla.
3000 hp? Not sure if that's measured at the "crank" or the dynamo, but that's over 2MW, probably pushing 2.5MW of power draw from the batteries assuming a motor efficiency of 90% and some other losses. Apparently that's getting drawn at 1.2kV from the batteries, so "only" around 2kA of current draw.
That top power draw would drain the 80kWh batteries in around 2 minutes, though I'm guessing you'd hit thermal throttling or catastrophic failure before that. The batteries are allegedly rated to 30C, meaning 2 minutes to full discharge at max current.
I'm curious how the heat dissipation of EVs compares to ICE vehicles. You have much higher efficiency vs combustion and get to split the power between 4 motors instead of one engine, but you don't get the heat capacity of a massive engine block, or the convection of cold air intake + hot exhaust out the tailpipe.
28kW of dissipation is pretty solid, though obviously is irrelevant during a short burst with hundreds of watts of heat generated. I guess the frame itself act as the fallback heatsink for storing excess heat in these scenarios? Because by my math, a modest 100kg heatsink (no idea if that's reasonable) would reach 270°C in only around 45 secondw if it's trying to handle 250kW+ of heat transfer (270C is roughly the max differential for heat pipes,liquid cooling might be significantly lower limit). And obviously the batteries can't handle 270C.
Motor output, so you’ll still have transmission loses beyond that (but with a fixed drivetrain, with no multi-speed gearbox, quite possibly more like 95%).
2kA was pretty standard for a high end DC motor controller back 20 years ago when people were doing EV conversions with Optima Yellow Top batteries and Warp9 DC motors. Doing it at 1200V is new, though.
It's not unexpected for a record-attempt car to have severely decreased range at top speed, they're pushing up against all the limiting factors at once, hard. I seem to recall reading something about the Bugatti Veyron only having 15 minutes of tyre life at full throttle, but this not being an issue because it only carried 12 minutes worth of fuel. :)
> The U9 was developed by German car designer Wolfgang Egger, who previously served as a head designer for Alfa Romeo, Audi and Lamborghini, and began working for BYD in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangwang_U9
Seven minutes for the Nordschleife? Sabine Schmitz could have done that with a van.
But honestly, ther are a Lot of production cars that went considerably faster. And the non-production Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO did it in 5:19, which is an entirely different league.
and here we learn that fast and a straight line does not necessarily mean fastest round the track.
There is a “car” in my hometown in Coventry that goes (I think) 700 mph, but I can only do it in a straight line because it’s powered by two turbo jet engines
And it is very difficult to fine a straight road that is long enough to reach the top speed. At the Volkswagen test track the Bugatti had to leave the oval with 200km/h to reach top speed on the connected 9km straight track.
It's the KERS (kinetic energy recovery system). It's battery power that's collected from braking (perhaps some other additional sources) that can be released by the driver when they choose. Similar to F1 car systems in the early 2010s.
Intake pressure provided by the turbo or supercharger - basically exhaust gasses spin one side of the turbine that causes the other side to pump air in to the engine at higher-than-atmospheric pressure.
This allows for more fuel to be added for more bang per engine stroke!
They'll perhaps never be faster due to weight limitations from the battery. Gasoline is just so light compared to batteries, and the car becomes lighter as the lap goes further and gasoline is used.
There’s no point comparing apples to deep fried oreos for caloric density. The 919 Evo is a fully de-restricted prototype based off a legendary homologated race car, not remotely in the same category. The BYD U9 is a road-legal EV, comparing the two doesn’t mean much.
Funny you mention the Ford SuperVan because that’s much closer to the 919 Evo in the "no homologation no limits" category than anything you could register and drive off a lot. A fairer and much more impressive benchmark is the road-legal Ford Mustang GTD running a 6:52. That's still far quicker than the BYD, with roughly two thousand less horsepower.
And it was driven by Romain Dumas someone far more qualified to set such a record than Sabine Shmitz - despite your "even without Sabine Shmitz" disingenuous wording. Sabine is half television personality half racing driver...
It's wild that after a hundred years there is still exponential progress in the power output of cars. The most unusual part to me is how EVs are fundamentally a consumer technology, so it all rapidly falls into mass production territory; eg. Xiaomi sells a 1527hp car for $73k. Horsepower is rapidly reaching 'solved' territory; even at its record speed, BYD's car wasn't even power limited.
> It's wild that after a hundred years there is still exponential progress in the power output of cars.
We hit a wall there for a while. Cars were actually becoming less powerful and slower on average for a couple of decades as governments tightened emissions and safety requirements. It took Tesla to blow the walls off EV production and consumer acceptance. It's a good reminder that progress doesn't happen in a straight line.
I was thinking more wrt. the top end, which did stall out for 30 years from WWII but has otherwise been on fairly smooth exponentials since the beginning.
A car with a 4 second 0-60 time can reach 40mph, a speed lethal to 80% of pedestrians, in under 80 feet from a standstill. That's the distance from the limit line to the far crosswalk when crossing a 5 lane road.
Putting this level of performance (and better) into boring suburban SUVs bought by ambivalent consumers is negligence.
For sure; the US kills literally hundreds of thousands of people in ways other countries have solved, and bigger faster vehicles seems at odds with the lack of driver and infrastructure responsibility here. I don't want to make light of that.
I just had the numbers run to check this. About 650,000 fewer people would have died over my short life so far, if the US had the vehicle fatality rate of my home country.
At that speed the limiting factor likely moves from raw power output to things like cornering ability on the track, grip of the tires, aerodynamics, downforce, driver skill, mechanical linkages, etc.
There's a reason why all the world's land speed records since the 1930s [1] get set at the Bonneville Salt Flats or similar flat desert terrain. FWIW, the speed listed in this article was exceeded in 1937. The hard part is not necessarily going fast, it's going fast in a street-legal vehicle.
For a top speed run, cornering ability is next to useless. You need grip to put down the power and be stable at speed, the corners taken for top speed runs are fairly wide. The bigger issue here is for how long can a BEV sustain max power output - it can deplete its battery in 2 minutes. EVs also can only produce top power whilst battery is at top voltage, since draining it drops voltage, max power drops with charge levels. The tyre grip itself is fine, the issue is tyre durability - they can usually last less than 20 minutes at top speed.
It is an impressive feat of engineering to get to a vmax record in a BEV.
I'll need evidence of "Top power at Top Voltage." Since so little capacity is at that part of the curve, It'd make sense to design around (as in avoid, not feature) it rather than use it.
I suspect theres inductance and capacitance enough that even if the motors can't handle the voltage, it can be "clipped" until the pack comes down. (Especially since fmu these are 3phase AC motors, the motor driver is already regulating voltage and current to produce whatever the optimal waveform is)
You don't need to design around it - it is not like you can use top power for 100% of the time in most EVs anyway, and there's no good reason to restrict it such that the vehicle can operate at a limited max power for longer. ICE cars also reach top power only in a given RPM range, so it still is a curve, albeit turbo cars can flatten the curve quite a bit.
Apples to broccoli comparison. Besides what I mentioned being optional (I'm sure it has downsides, probably cost), comparing road legal cars with a supercar is... interesting.
There was quite an interesting youtube from Engineering Explained speculating it had enough power to do 400 mph. There may have been other constraints limiting things like the tyres being safe and apparently the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power, plus bits may overheat and the like.
It's also interesting that the fastest time on the Nürburgring at 5 min 19 was from a Porsche hybrid with 900 hp, a fair bit quicker than the BYD which took 6:59 I think. The Porsche had a lot more downforce than the BYD.
>the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power
"The tires on the Veyron can only last 15 minutes at top speed, but that's ok because the fuel tank only has capacity for 7 minutes at top speed." (From memory, IIRC, Top Gear on the Veyron)
I watched a video of the speed test a few days ago and it looked like the BYD car was still accelerating when the top speed was reached, such that it could have gone faster than the record they were aiming for—there was a speed curve and it wasn't plateauing. Of course there are lots of possible reasons why the car couldn't have managed a higher speed, but I wonder if it's like incredibly tall skyscrapers having secretly validated a taller version in the wind tunnel so they can change plans if competition catches up during construction.
The best batteries have like 40 times less energy density than engines running on oil derivatives. Even considering that electrical engines are 90% efficient while combustion engines get like 25% efficiency, that still leaves the factor of 10 for energy density. That implies much bigger weight. And to compensate the engines must be more powerful.
Well, power at top speed will probably be similar, they don't seem to be too different aerodynamically (maybe the Bugatti has got the edge there, but still, won't be a 2x difference).
The question is also how much power the battery can continuously output, if it's the 3000hp for 15 seconds that won't be of much use for a max speed test.
It seems to me like building the fastest EV has nowhere near the complexity of building the fastest ICE car. Way too many moving parts and fine tuning required to get an engine to 440Kmh (Chiron SS) than an EV with 4 big motors.
While I agree with your statement in broad strokes - I'd reframe it as the same amount of engineering takes you much further in an EV than an ICE car. Considering this, the Chinese really swung for the fences, and what they made here is quite impressive
People have been putting engines that powerful in cars since Campbell's blue bird in the 1930s. I'm not going to say it's easy, but it's doable in custom vehicles.
The hard bits are connecting that power with the ground long enough to reach speed safely, and storing enough energy to do so. EVs don't solve that.
Chiron still has that Piëch handwriting on it. It's driveable enough to take your wife to the opera. Full regulatory compliance, low wind noise at high speeds, all that. I don't want to say it is compromised, but it's not as extreme as it could be.
The closer ICE comparison would be Koenigsegg (447 kph/278 mph), Hennessy Venom GT (435/270) and SSC Tuatara (455/283, no shenanigans). SSC have reached 295, they were clearly aiming for 300. It's no 308 but it's reasonably close.
All these are also relatively small companies with relatively low budgets -- none of the big manufacturers seem interested in top speeds anymore.
Are they even trying? It seems like the only reason to do this is for publicity. Maybe a manufacturer that's known for their ICE vehicles would want an opportunity to show off their electric vehicle engineering but I don't know any it would make a difference for. US manufacturers even sell electric trucks. It's not like any mainstream manufacturer needs to rebrand to sell electric vehicles.
Research also might trickle down to production cars. Maybe research for some extreme project has more opportunity to find unexpected improvements compared to more tightly budgeted production research
This comment has the same vibe at "football is easy, because the rules are simple". Something is only easy if you don't have to compete with others. If it's "easy" for you, then it is easy for others. So being the best/fastest is hard.
Isn't the complexity in storing and and moving the electrons rapidly? Stringing a bunch of 18650s with a copper wire harness won't cut it. You've got to invent some novel chemistries and new materials to pull it off.
Well, while impressive I would like to see them do a second lap right after or try the Nürburgring (seems they have, way off pace versus ICE cars).
One thing many car channels are pointing out is that the car could've reached even better numbers looking at how easily it reached its record pace. I wonder if the bottleneck is the battery. Hell, it supposedly discharges at full power in 2 minutes.
No, EV are too heavy. On an actual track they loose to lighter ICE cars since they corner better. Plus for a prolonged race EV might run out of battery.
True, if your goal is "the fastest car, period" then you're going to pick the best technology for that. And as of now onwards, that's not Internal Combustion Engines. As you say, there are way too many moving parts in a legacy tech ICE engine.
The Yangwang U9 is a production car. This is a boosted version, the 9X Track Edition.
The regular 9X costs about US$236,000 before Trump tariffs. About half of a Ferrari. Also jumps potholes, can do tank turns, and has some autonomous capability.[1]
There's also the Yangwang U8, which is an hybrid off-road SUV. Does tank turns, and floats.
It's really a promotion for their other cars, but these things are sold in the UAE, Kuwait, and China, at least.
It's a regulations driven race. It would be hard or impossible to make any kind of fair rules and it would still end up a race about which manufacturer and driver(s) can find the best spots in the rules to focus on.
Outside of Formula or Nascar or other monocultures, that would be interesting, though.
Given the data and research that goes into these sorts of high dollar races, I suspect it wouldn't be very interesting. It would be a relatively simple calculation (that I cannot do and do not know all the variables for) to determine when the benefits of batteries clearly outweigh the benefits of combustion engines with quick and simple refuels. These teams know exactly how many laps they need to complete and the speed they need to do it in order to be competitive. They track the fuel and refuels and other pit stops very closely, so as soon as they can see they would benefit from batteries I'd expect almost the entire fleet to switch over. There will be almost no overlap between electric and combustion cars in races.
The only benefit combustion engines have is the current faster refuel and run time. Everything else about electric motors is far superior to combustion. If and when F1 can hot-swap battery packs efficiently, combustion engines will be dead in that sport.
Combustion engines have in general benefit of energy capacity. F1 has not had refuelling since 2010. Pit stops are for in essence forced for tire changes and have something to actually happen in races. As tires could be designed to last entire race as well.
I find it interesting that Chinese brands copy Western brands, then Western brands copy Chinese brands and so on. Result is that new cohort of cars look like characterless AI slop.
It'll be a battery swap. There was that video of emergency battery pack ejection for battery fires, then you need a loading mechanism.
I haven't tracked LeMans much, I know the Toyota hybrids have been dominating it, but is it unrestricted hybrid drivetrains? Can builders make any kind of hybrid / regen / battery size / recharge drivetrain?
If not, I'd love to see what builders can do with go-nuts hybrids: wankel compact recharging, max-solid-state chems, etc.
That's probably one of the least interesting records. Besides the tires, what's the problem reaching that speed? Need a big engine and some downforce. This is much easier than building a car that cam set a record on the track.
On the track you need a good setup which has a lot of factors and can be very hard to achieve. Way more complex than going straight as fast as possible
Ever since I rode in a BYD in China I've thought it would be great to be able to get one in the USA. It just really felt complete, put together and polished in a way that I haven't seen in a "normie" U.S. car in a long time. Too bad our country uses high tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect its dinosaur companies.
One of the leading indicators of not being able to do the "hard" thing anymore is that Apple gave up on building an EV after spending a decade and billions in R&D. Meanwhile, Huawei and Xiaomi were both able to produce good EVs. Xiaomi in particular is doing what Apple wanted to do which is to integrate and control their ecosystem from phone to car.
Xiaomi is literally trying to make everything from phones, cars, electronic tooth brushes, air fryers, soap dispensers, etc. It's astonishing.
I've had a few Xiaomi electronics including a dust mite vacuum and an air purifier. Both well designed and worked well for the price.
My impression was Apple gave up on building EVs because they wouldn't be as profitable as phones and tablets.
Phones weren't that profitable too before the iPhone. They did it anyway.
Because they found a new approach (smartphones). There's nothing new with cars.
Self driving cars? Apple taxis service? Apple family self driving vans?
They simply thought it was too hard and went back to what was already working.
> it would be great to be able to get one in the USA.
Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers. (US, Germany, France, S.Korea, Japan, etc.) Outside of Tesla, none have EV brands competitive with the Chinese firms and if customers in those non China markets migrate to Chinese brands en masse, it would be tremendous disruption and the failure of many storied domestic brands.
It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets.
Look at solar panels, drones, batteries, for similar comparisons.
> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
It is. But the reality is that those companies are complacent fossils who have lost all their vigor, and only threat of extinction would force them to innovate. Which they’re not under because legislators agree with you (in no small part thanks to their lobbyists).
Like many things, we’ll realize the extent of how badly we messed up when it’s way too late.
Part of this is our own regulatory structure. You can no longer buy a basic, simple, cheap, reliable car in the united states. (at least not a new model) You used to be able to all the time. Just 11 years ago I bought a brand new car for $14k and it was pretty great! It had no features outside of air conditioning and a stereo. Roll-up windows, manual mirrors, etc. It was wonderful. The current regulatory safety and MPG standards combined with costs and customer desires have twisted modern cars into something awful; bloated, heavy, incredibly expensive, over-complicated, less reliable, terrible visibility, the blight of touch screens and screens in general.
The right way to do that is to lower the tax rate on these foreign models a little bit; enough to spur competition, not enough to crash local manufacturing capacity.
For EV, the situation is even more dire.
Western countries simply don’t have the supply chain required to compete with China. China is often by far the best supplier for a lot of components and the sole supplier able to provide some raw materials in large quantities.
Honestly, we are not far from reaching a point where using the old Chinese strategy might be our best bet: mandatory JVs with local companies if the Chinese companies want to access our markets.
That’s the right way to make any economic change. Gently, by gradations, so as to give the market time to adjust.
> It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
I agree in principle but I can’t fail to notice what is to me the obvious parallel with the subprime crisis.
We, as the general public via the state, are once again saving companies which badly failed according to the market due to their shortsightedness and inability to properly invest. It shows that the current system, which its proponents - generally profiting tremendously from it - like to frame as meritocratic, is a charade. It exists as long as the same wins and suddenly stops to apply when they don’t.
It’s hard for me to support intervention to save some companies while not doing anything to curb the rising inequalities and the overall lack of contribution of the richest. I think people are not blind to that and it partially explains while extreme political parties are on the rise.
BMW has great EVs and they just launched their gen 6 which is probably one of the best on the market. VW also did a stellar job with their newest models.
The problem is not that Chinese EVs are entering other markets, BMW and others have done that for decades. The problem is that China is making car manufactoring a commodity.
The margins have been high for car manufacturas. China rolls that complelty over with lower laber costs (normal car has only a few thousand dollars in labor costs), end to end supply chain, cheap energy, higher automatisation level, simplified stack and lower margins. Significant lower margins.
Btw. USA and Europe got as rich as they are because of being manufactoring powerhouses previously. Was that fair ever to the rest of the world? Probably not. Now China is doing the same thing and suddenly everyone needs to protect their markets? A little bit ignorant and short sighted eh? Btw. China was smarter then us. They stoped allowing this and made it mandatory to have chinese people invovled in the expansion of american and europeon companies.
And they are buying companies around the globe too while we all watch and let it happen.
Yeah but you can't blame China for that, When the west made EV's they made them a luxury product I could have bought a Porsche for the same price as an Audi electron. China made them affordable, its just a better strategy and it paid off.
> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers.
I want a level playing field/market competition. Allowing China's illegal subsidies and anti-market tactics to dominate the global EV industry is very dangerous, which is why they are already countervailed in many developed countries.
Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
China's EV subsidies are basically identical to US and EU subsidies. They offer tax credits and other perks to customers, just like in Western countries.
Subsidies are not the reason why China's EVs are cheap. The reason is that China has a much more competitive EV market than the US or EU. There are many manufacturers that are competing with one another, the charging infrastructure is much better than in the West, and Chinese cities heavily discourage internal combustion engine vehicles.
> Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
China specifically encouraged foreign car companies to enter its market, most recently Tesla (which has done very well in China). Allowing foreign car companies to compete in the Chinese market was a major part of China's strategy to improve its own domestic manufacturing.
Sadly, US auto makers were hollowed out by "maximize shareholder value" combined with state assistance. Expensive junk. I don't know a path out of that.
> Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers
Tariff them so they're super expensive! Or set import quotas, so they can't displace too much demand. Either way, letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building while continuing to largely protect domestic manufacturers.
> letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building
Politically problematic - the illusion of China as a peasant state manufacturing little more than knock off rubber dog turds would be shattered.
Especially awkward for the current ruling class, since their VP choice recently dismissed the Chinese as “peasants,” and will likely to cause cognitive dissonance within their base.
It would be great if the USA invested half of its military budget in all these technologies instead of claiming that those Chinese investments are 'destroying' the USA economy. I have the impression that the USA is very capable, yet somehow chooses not to compete (on a technological investment level).
Because the US has moved onto a services economy. People don't want to build physical things. It's hard work, less pay, more pollution. They want to do consulting or software mostly.
And this has made the US more wealthy than ever with easier lives.
That works until it doesn't. Moderation in all things.
> It is important that the US have strong auto companies.
Totally agree. The problem is that it instead has General Motors and Ford.
Or you know - American companies can give customers a better product, instead of hiding behind yet another “too big to fail” scenario.
America was synonymous with competition. To see protectionism championed, is to really see the end of an empire.
It's not that simple.
China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. Each country should do the same for their own situation. There is no such thing as pure capitalism- and what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc.
And as the other commenter mentioned, auto manufacturing plants were retooled to make tanks and jeeps in WW2 and so no country that cares about their own military survival should cede auto manufacturing to another country, let alone China.
> China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_i...
We did too, but we didn't effectively hold any of the executives or financial planners liable for the terrible direction domestic auto companies had gone in, and as a result those companies are still failing to produce competitive vehicles.
"what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc."
This is laughable given the history of the auto industry in America.
Foreign automakers (Toyota, BMW, etc.) build competitive factories in southern states and often paid better wages and delivered higher quality products. All this without decades of protection.
U.S. auto jobs still got wrecked despite the decades of "By American" policies anyway, since domestic auto companies decided to automate and offshore much of the work.
In what sense are domestic car manufacturers "important"? They're inefficient if they're being outcompeted by China.
You can't rely on Chinese companies to make the tanks and rockets you intend aiming at China.
Car manufacturers serve many purposes. Aside from keeping the UAW membership onside, they are a strategic buttress for an emerging future war risk.
Australia maintained subsidies to Ford and GM for onshore production precisely because of this. And they stopped when a strategic realignment made successive governments decide the risk didn't justify the expense. A decision they may now be regretting.
War with China.. ya'll are nuts. The American zeitgeist is completely poisoned and insane. Listening to this stuff from the outside is kind of horrifying. War with a nuclear armed country ends with a nuclear winter for the whole planet. There is no preparing for war with China unless you want everyone dead (which I'm starting to suspect a lot of people are okay with)
This seems so anachronistic.... When was the last war where tanks were important..?
Car are made using components from all around the world... How would you even make a tank in a Tesla factory?
In The 2022 Invasion of Russia into the Ukraine Tanks played an important role in the offensive and the counter-offensive especially around Kyiv, Mariupol, Severodonetsk, and Avdiivka
Are they still a factor? I thought they quickly were put out of the picture once drone warfare was ironed out. Haven't heard of tanks in Ukraine for the past couple of years
This is from last month: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/08/world/europe/...
It describes how tanks were modified to protect, first, against attacks from the top, and then, from drone attacks from all sides.
They claim “But they remain important, especially for trying to take and hold territory. With their heavy firepower, they will continue to have a role in attacking, defending and supporting the foot soldiers of the infantry.”
super interesting! thanks
Well, the last war where tanks and other old weapons were important is going on in Ukraine, for example. And I'm pretty sure you could build quite a few death machine components with what's available in Tesla factories as well (certainly not a full tank though, but you could probably not do that in an ICE car factory either).
FWIW, I agree with your general sentiment, though.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the car industry as it is now would fight retooling their factories tooth and nail, move production to other countries and do anything else they can to be able to continue making as much profit as they can.
Best way to find yourself in war is not prepare for one. As shown time and again. Also, persuading your enemies not to prepare for war is a part of the war effort.
> so anachronistic
tell that to ruzzia
> As shown time and again
what a load of warmongering bs.. I literally can't think of a single example. Korea, Vietnam, France, Britain, Japan, Germany every country involved in a war in the past ~100 years had prepared for it. Maybe maybe Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't properly prepare? Though they were highly militarized. On the contrary, the more you prepare and get people frothing at the mouth the more likely it's gunna happen.
Thank god none had been between two nuclear powers so far
> tell that to ruzzia
They had a bunch of tanks and seemingly lost huge amounts of them. They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context
>> They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context
Without proper strategy nothing works. Size of the russian army was too small for the task to fight and occupy such a huge county as Ukraine.
Also russians had bunch of old tanks, almost all of them made in USSR.
So what do you propose we do when China attacks? Capitulate?!
Why "when"?
They're not even winning the war on Portland.
Since there’s no good reason to do any of that, we should absolutely lose that capability since to use it is to abuse it
> Since there’s no good reason to do any of that
It's 2025. We're still asking what happens when one group has lots of guns, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, and the other doesn't? Also, there is a difference between stockpiling arms and maintaining the ability to produce them if necessary.
Deterrence is a very good reason, and the reason we’ve had peace in the western world for as long as we have.
Integrated markets and commerce is why we have had peace in the western world. The very things the current American head honcho is tearing apart.
We have had very little peace in the rest of the world in the meantime between the colonial wars, the various proxy wars of the Cold War, then the numerous stupid adventures of the modern America and now Russia wanting to be an empire again.
I don’t think integrated markets were the cause. There was plenty of integration between Ukraine and Russia in the oil and gas infrastructure for example.
(Nuclear) deterrence is why we’ve only had proxy wars instead of direct wars
If the "outcompeting" is possible because of Chinese government subsidies, then it's important to protect local industry from unfair competition.
It's similar to the logic behind anti-trust actions against monopolists. If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.
(Whether BYD is subsidised or not is another question, but the above is the logic of protecting local industry.)
> If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.
More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.
Government subsidies effectively provide protection for a local market and capital.
America has some of the lowest cost of capital and most effective financial markets in human history.
If the Chinese markets are blocked that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is inaccessible.
Another aspect of government subsidies is that they mask incompetence.
Not sure why this is downvoted. The Chinese government has been quite transparent in terms of globally dominating several industries including EV through heavy government support.
It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.
If it is such a successful strategy, why doesn't everybody do it?
Subsidise industries?
Everyone does.
China funds it upfront, while the US does it after the spending and calls it a bail-out, or a "government contract"
Ever since I ride them constantly in Chilean Ubers I wish other EVs were more prevalent because how the aluminum bends and creaks sometimes when I sit on the backseat doesn’t make me feel any safe (I weight 90kg).
I don’t if the Chilean models are built to the same standards (they should) but BYD is approved in both the US and the EU. Structural integrity is definitely not a problem.
Haha what was the manufacturer? I drove a Changan Uni-T there and it was not an EV and handled like a boat but a very serviceable car. To be honest, I was surprised because it was the first Chinese car I'd driven and my mind was blown how far they'd come.
BYD is now the 6th most popular brand in Australia, up 176% YoY.
BYD has only 4.9% of car sales market. Why BEVs are so unpopular in Australia, only 9.31% of sales?
https://www.fcai.com.au/new-brands-surge-in-strong-august-sa...
Long driving distances in many areas, plus high electricity costs and poor charging infrastructure. Plug in hybrids sell like hot cakes though!
Plug in hybrids are only 14.87%
https://www.aaa.asn.au/research-data/electric-vehicle/
yeah same thing when I tried their Huawei phones. their mobile phone market is much more innovative due to the competition it's a bit of a shame the monopolies stifle competitors to grasp their crown a little longer
> Too bad our country uses high tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect its dinosaur companies.
I’m fine with tariffs that keep around industries that are needed during wartime. That’s why there are tariffs on cars, no other reason is even remotely important. It has zero to do with GM and Ford making profits and everything to do with keeping GM and Ford around so they can pump out war materiel if needed.
This is the type of statement that often comes from pro China people. Because the quality of BYD in China is lower than outside of China, making it more propaganda than truth.
Edit: Sigh. I wish people would actually travel to China and try a BYD and then go to Australia and try BYD. it’s like 2 different cars. The China BYD is trash. BYD in Australia is actually quite nice and feels like really good value.
China subsidies Byd. It would be bad for american car industry. So if US wants to create a fair competition, they would need to use tariffs or subsidies the US car industry players that could compete fairly with BYD.
Looks like US is using tariffs to compete.
Tesla relies on US govt subsidies as well.
And the Tesla factory in Shanghai also gets Chinese subsidies.
The subsidies to Chinese EV companies isn't direct anymore. Most of it is in the form of tax refunds. The biggest "subsidy", though, is the incredible pipeline China has built to feed the industry. Their industrial policy has created an huge ecosystem capable of feeding batteries and components into their EV industry at a price point and scale that no other country can compete with. It's been an incredibly effective industrial policy.
I get what the OP means about the destruction of our auto industry but we can only hide behind that for so long. An ineffective and noncompetitive auto industry won't be able to scale up during a war either. I hope our industrial leaders and politicians are using tariffs and other trade barriers to the US car industry only as a temporary reprieve while we scale up our ecosystem too. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming one of those countries that keeps outdated domestic companies alive just to say we have those companies. Without export discipline and the ability to compete effectively on the global stage, domestic companies are just zombies kept alive by domestic subsidies. They won't be able to help us in the event of a war with a peer adversary.
Tesla's US subsidies mainly came from a ATVM loan from the DOE back in 2008/2009, repaid back in 2013 -- Ford ($6B) was the largest recipient. The DOE had/have other auto/EV/battery subsidies, equally available to foreign domestic producers/recipients, which is what the global subsidies standard requires. No special, or "specific" subsidy favoring Tesla over others (or local companies over foreign competitors). America's consumer purchase EV subsidies prior to the IRA were also neutral without preference to any "specific" company, industry or country of origin.
China's NEV subsidies were/are illegal and Chinese EVs are countervailed in many developed countries (eg, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, US) because they are misapplied in three key ways.
i. forced tech transfer: no subsidies or market access unless hybrid/BEV/batteries tech transfer to China since 2011; violates China's 2001 Accession Protocal (see Section 7, Non-Tariff Measures); litigated before the WTO by the EU (WT/DS549)
ii, local content requirement: no subsidies or license/permit to operate in China unless automakers' EVs used Chinese batteries made by Chinese local "champions" only, namely CATL, since 2015; all foreign battery producers effectively banned and all EV producers forced to switch to local battery suppliers; violates Article 3(a) Prohibition of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement
iii, export subsidies: subsidies given to MIC exporters to under price/under cut foreign competitors in markets abroad; EU Commission's counter measures: 2024/1866 and 2024/2754.
Tesla China benefited significantly from China's NEV subsidies and is likewise also countervailed in the EU, at the import tariff rate of 7+%. Tesla no longer imports EV from China in the US/Canada.
All US car companies rely on US govt subsidies
Is that really correct? I have no idea how to compare one to the other but if I search for "how much money did China give BYD" the AI claims 3.7 billion. If I ask "how much money did the US government give Tesla" it has 3 different numbers. $4.9 billion, $11 billion, and $38 billion. Not sure how it's counting
Asking for other companies: Ford $9 billion, Chevy $11 billion
No idea if this is made up and no idea how to compare them but without knowing better it seems like both sides are subsidized
> No idea if this is made up
It's an AI generated answer. That's always the problem so you shouldn't be using it as a factual information source.
Just because AI found an answer doesn't mean it's not true
Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/e...
Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192
Subsidy Tracker: General Motors https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/general-moto...
etc... etc... etc...
> Just because AI found an answer doesn't mean it's not true
Sure. But using AI for factual information seems akin to a form of gambling. ;)
Contrasting opinion:
BYD made electric busses for US transit agencies. They were the worst buses that I have ever ridden. Today, no U.S. transit agency still uses BYD busses, because none of them managed a service live longer than about a year.
BYD vehicles seem really nice for the first few hours, until you start discovering all the corners they cut to make their price point.
> [no BYD buses] managed a service live [sic] longer than about a year.
Gonna need a source for this.
> Today, no U.S. transit agency still uses BYD busses, because none of them managed a service live longer than about a year.
Is that true today? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-26/us-cities... (discussion in HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45386578) gives another reason: “Federal Transit Administration rules that prohibit using federal dollars to purchase buses made by Chinese companies”
Ah - that's interesting. I see there's an LA Times article from 2018 about it "Stalls, stops and breakdowns: Problems plague push for electric buses".
On the other hand they seem to be getting a lot in in London, mostly for short less busy routes far from the center. Here's some youtube shot in one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaHZufvD_C4 They do look a bit cheaply made compared to usual London busses.
On 13 routes with 16 more scheduled https://bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/BYD_BD11#Routes...
The problems seem to be mostly the batteries running out. Maybe they've improved?
(update - went and tried one in Canary Wharf https://postimg.cc/XBJ2zXvX https://postimg.cc/D8SjQWDM - was fine really)
I've never used BYD vehicles but I've felt this about budget vehicles. Eg. In India, a Hyundai/kia sedan will be cheaper than a Toyota or a Honda of the same class with much more features.
However, they start to break down and over a while, you can see the corners they cut.
Neither Hyundai nor Kia have a failure rate that's worse than any western or japanese manufacturers.
Yes they do, it’s reflected in the retail and also used prices of Korean vs Japanese vehicles. Go compare any two similar Hyundai and Toyota, the Toyota will retain its value longer than the Korean cars because they’re more reliable and last longer. If what you were saying is true, the used values would be comparable, but they aren’t.
Source? in India Toyota is considered much more reliable vs Kia
That's been my understanding too. I do think the Korean companies have come a long way in their journeys but the cars don't have resale value and age much worse than their Japanese competitors.
The most attractive parts are the features they pack into the car for a fraction of the cost. The compromises are usually made where it's not immediately visible and for someone who changes his car in less than 5 years, I don't think it's an issue.
> Today, no U.S. transit agency still uses BYD busses, because none of them managed a service live longer than about a year.
This is a fascinating data point. This should be more prominent.
Anecdotally this is false though, I still see them being used in San Fransisco, in fact I rode one last month as a free shuttle. Perhaps it means of a specific weight class?
It's most likely a flat out nationalistic lie.
Tbh i have to agree with you. I tried byd and cuts corners everywhere. Look at the screen: static video instead of Tesla interactive, low screen dpi. Other small details I can’t recall.
I also don’t like Tesla, but at least they have a nicer screen. Tesla also has big gaps between their parts looking from outside.
What did you try, and when? Their current models are well presented with impressive feature sets, and IMO are spectacular bang for buck.
I’m not sure the model. Was 9 months ago. Mainly was the screen, so I’d assume they would cut other corners
By dinosaur companies, you mean Tesla and Elon Musk
dinosaur would be a compliment for tesla which designs/releases one new car every decade (each delayed by a decade from initial release date) :)
They've released 6 models in the 22 years since founding (not counting Semi).
BYD released that many since you wrote this comment :)
Also check the same for say a Toyota
> BYD released that many since you wrote this comment :)
You say that like it's an advantage while it's really the opposite. As a car buyer I'm only looking at cars their manufacturer plans to fully support over their lifetime. That rules out new, unproven manufacturers as well as the ones with proven bad support.
I own 2014 Tesla S, my next door neighbour has 2024 Tesla S, same f’ing car. Tesla X was modern looking back in 2017, looks the same now. Tesla 3 is chopped up S and Y is 3 blown up in height a bit. These are all old outdated cars - hence the dinosaur comment.
Support-wise, trying owning an older model of Tesla like a do and you’d know that your statement cannot be further from the truth, my car bricked several times after a software update and getting repairs done gets met with “oh that’ll take __ to get parts”
>dinosaur would be a compliment for tesla which designs/releases one new car every decade
...because they don't do model years? Most cars are like that too, except they increment the model year annually, whether or not there are substantive changes.
model years what now? :)
From what I see in the roads in China, Tesla is pretty competitive in the right environment
Yes, it’s impressive there are so many Teslas in China. I saw at least 10-20% of Teslas there. But I think it’s not because of being competitive price wise but more about status.
> it’s not because of being competitive price wise but more about status
It's a premium product. Whether due to brand, features or something else, it's undeniable that Tesla was doing something right vis-à-vis BYD. (That said, they've been losing their edge since even before Musk's recent fuckups [1].)
[1] https://cnevpost.com/2025/09/08/tesla-sells-57152-cars-china...
Which is even more embarrassing, because they're miles ahead of the carmakers that came before them.
The time separating Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex is greater than the time separating T. Rex from modern-day humans. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs but yes, Chrysler is from an even more ancient time than Tesla.
Off: best usage of this random factlet yet
Not really
which is an entirely fine opinion, but would you mind using more words so our readers have something more to engage with?
At this point, a byd is a far superior car for the price. You should test drive one when you get a chance to escape North Korea, er, I mean America.
i did. its poor quality like tesla.
3000 hp? Not sure if that's measured at the "crank" or the dynamo, but that's over 2MW, probably pushing 2.5MW of power draw from the batteries assuming a motor efficiency of 90% and some other losses. Apparently that's getting drawn at 1.2kV from the batteries, so "only" around 2kA of current draw.
That top power draw would drain the 80kWh batteries in around 2 minutes, though I'm guessing you'd hit thermal throttling or catastrophic failure before that. The batteries are allegedly rated to 30C, meaning 2 minutes to full discharge at max current.
I'm curious how the heat dissipation of EVs compares to ICE vehicles. You have much higher efficiency vs combustion and get to split the power between 4 motors instead of one engine, but you don't get the heat capacity of a massive engine block, or the convection of cold air intake + hot exhaust out the tailpipe.
> how the heat dissipation of EVs compares to ICE vehicles
Xiaomi Su7 Ultra had a 400W twin fan, 530W liquid pump and a 28kW heat dissipation for powertrain.
28kW of dissipation is pretty solid, though obviously is irrelevant during a short burst with hundreds of watts of heat generated. I guess the frame itself act as the fallback heatsink for storing excess heat in these scenarios? Because by my math, a modest 100kg heatsink (no idea if that's reasonable) would reach 270°C in only around 45 secondw if it's trying to handle 250kW+ of heat transfer (270C is roughly the max differential for heat pipes,liquid cooling might be significantly lower limit). And obviously the batteries can't handle 270C.
Motor output, so you’ll still have transmission loses beyond that (but with a fixed drivetrain, with no multi-speed gearbox, quite possibly more like 95%).
I guess EVs have the acceleration and top speed crowns now, but it'll take a while for them beat any 24 hours of Le Mans records.
2kA was pretty standard for a high end DC motor controller back 20 years ago when people were doing EV conversions with Optima Yellow Top batteries and Warp9 DC motors. Doing it at 1200V is new, though.
It's not unexpected for a record-attempt car to have severely decreased range at top speed, they're pushing up against all the limiting factors at once, hard. I seem to recall reading something about the Bugatti Veyron only having 15 minutes of tyre life at full throttle, but this not being an issue because it only carried 12 minutes worth of fuel. :)
Yeah man, this is obviously a lie ... *yawns*
video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9v1WyAgLA
same car doing Nürburgring Lap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td_c1zeEn2Q
> The U9 was developed by German car designer Wolfgang Egger, who previously served as a head designer for Alfa Romeo, Audi and Lamborghini, and began working for BYD in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangwang_U9
Seven minutes for the Nordschleife? Sabine Schmitz could have done that with a van.
But honestly, ther are a Lot of production cars that went considerably faster. And the non-production Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO did it in 5:19, which is an entirely different league.
Here's Sabine Schmitz falling to break 10 mins in a van https://youtu.be/5KiC03_wVjc Although with a slightly quicker van maybe.
This is why the Ring is the absolute benchmark of how well rounded a car is.
>of how well rounded a car is.
For performance applications. None of these cars are great daily drivers.
The Taycan is
… to quote James May!
That's not the point of the Nordschleife :-)
A lot of the cars for which lap times are an marketable feature are at least decent daily drivers.
These are not those cars though.
and here we learn that fast and a straight line does not necessarily mean fastest round the track.
There is a “car” in my hometown in Coventry that goes (I think) 700 mph, but I can only do it in a straight line because it’s powered by two turbo jet engines
It broke the sound barrier too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC
Oh, it's still the fastest car in the world!
That's really cool, I thought it was surpassed :D
And it is very difficult to fine a straight road that is long enough to reach the top speed. At the Volkswagen test track the Bugatti had to leave the oval with 200km/h to reach top speed on the connected 9km straight track.
> Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO did it in 5:19
If anyone hasn't seen this, I highly recommend it, even if you're not a car fan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQmSUHhP3ug
Insane. 368 top speed, I can't even watch it without flinching. The first time it hit seventh gear I was like: "what, one more?".
That just looks unreal. I wonder if this is reaching the point where a driver can't keep up anymore.
They study the cars and the track in and out for years beforehand - this isn't top power level of even most Nordschleife specialists
https://what-if.xkcd.com/116/
They can do better
what is "boost"? my car does not have that
It's the KERS (kinetic energy recovery system). It's battery power that's collected from braking (perhaps some other additional sources) that can be released by the driver when they choose. Similar to F1 car systems in the early 2010s.
Intake pressure provided by the turbo or supercharger - basically exhaust gasses spin one side of the turbine that causes the other side to pump air in to the engine at higher-than-atmospheric pressure.
This allows for more fuel to be added for more bang per engine stroke!
It's not that. You only see the "BOOST" indicator when coming out of curves; if this were a turbocharger you'd see it all along the straightaways.
Someone else mentioned KERS (kinetic energy recovery system); that seems a lot more likely.
It’s the amount of boost provided by the turbocharger. Your car very well may have that.
It's the fastest EV lap currently.
On the one hand this is quite an achievement, but on the other hand it shows that EVs are not (yet) superior to ICEs in every aspect except range.
They'll perhaps never be faster due to weight limitations from the battery. Gasoline is just so light compared to batteries, and the car becomes lighter as the lap goes further and gasoline is used.
> Seven minutes for the Nordschleife? Sabine Schmitz could have done that with a van.
Sabine Shmitz did the 19,100m length in 10:08.49 using the ford transit van.
That's a far cry from 7:14
I did not expect that anyone would take the first part of my comment seriously, but here we go.
However, this year a Ford SuperVan 4.2 made the Nordschleife in 6:48.393, so even without Sabine Schmitz a van was faster than the BYD.
There’s no point comparing apples to deep fried oreos for caloric density. The 919 Evo is a fully de-restricted prototype based off a legendary homologated race car, not remotely in the same category. The BYD U9 is a road-legal EV, comparing the two doesn’t mean much.
Funny you mention the Ford SuperVan because that’s much closer to the 919 Evo in the "no homologation no limits" category than anything you could register and drive off a lot. A fairer and much more impressive benchmark is the road-legal Ford Mustang GTD running a 6:52. That's still far quicker than the BYD, with roughly two thousand less horsepower.
Its a Van shell on a racecar. Real unofficial Van record was beat this year by DannyDC2 in a VW Caddy https://dannydc2.com/blogs/news/we-unofficially-beat-a-nurbu...
> I did not expect that anyone would take the first part of my comment seriously, but here we go.
> However, this year a Ford SuperVan 4.2 made the Nordschleife in 6:48.393, so even without Sabine Schmitz a van was faster than the BYD.
You are spouting such absurdities, that is a van in name only:
https://carbuzz.com/nurburgring-ford-supervan-42-lap-record-...
And it was driven by Romain Dumas someone far more qualified to set such a record than Sabine Shmitz - despite your "even without Sabine Shmitz" disingenuous wording. Sabine is half television personality half racing driver...
Meanwhile, the Tesla Roadster is nowhere to be seen. China really has arrived.
You need to enter a K hole to see it.
It's wild that after a hundred years there is still exponential progress in the power output of cars. The most unusual part to me is how EVs are fundamentally a consumer technology, so it all rapidly falls into mass production territory; eg. Xiaomi sells a 1527hp car for $73k. Horsepower is rapidly reaching 'solved' territory; even at its record speed, BYD's car wasn't even power limited.
> It's wild that after a hundred years there is still exponential progress in the power output of cars.
We hit a wall there for a while. Cars were actually becoming less powerful and slower on average for a couple of decades as governments tightened emissions and safety requirements. It took Tesla to blow the walls off EV production and consumer acceptance. It's a good reminder that progress doesn't happen in a straight line.
I was thinking more wrt. the top end, which did stall out for 30 years from WWII but has otherwise been on fairly smooth exponentials since the beginning.
Power for power’s sake is not necessarily a good thing.
There is some indication that putting rapidly accelerating cars on streets is leading to a proliferation of accidents.
A car with a 4 second 0-60 time can reach 40mph, a speed lethal to 80% of pedestrians, in under 80 feet from a standstill. That's the distance from the limit line to the far crosswalk when crossing a 5 lane road.
Putting this level of performance (and better) into boring suburban SUVs bought by ambivalent consumers is negligence.
For sure; the US kills literally hundreds of thousands of people in ways other countries have solved, and bigger faster vehicles seems at odds with the lack of driver and infrastructure responsibility here. I don't want to make light of that.
I just had the numbers run to check this. About 650,000 fewer people would have died over my short life so far, if the US had the vehicle fatality rate of my home country.
The power isn't much use for driving down the road but maybe we can hook it to fans and have flying cars at last.
From the official site: https://www.yangwangauto.com/en/car/u9-xtreme
- 6:59.127 Lap Time - The first lap record on the Nürburgring
- 496.22 km/h - The Fastest Car on the Planet
- 1200v - World's first series-production model with ultra-high-voltage platform
- Over 3000 HP - Global horsepower record for production cars
- 30000 rpm - Global fastest motor rpm - 4 motors
The Citizen Caliber 0100 is the most accurate wristwatch ever made, except for http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/ but I'd still take the Patek.
In case you're curious about the driver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Basseng
Is it common for race car drivers to start in kart racing?
Pretty much all Formula 1 drivers have started in kart. An F1 car is just a big kart that costs a few hundred million $.
At the higher level, pretty much all of them did. They've usually been racing since they were four or five.
Very common, at least, I'd say.
Yes, pretty much every modern F1 driver started in karting.
Funny that it packs 3000hp while the Chiron « only » needs 1600hp to achieve mostly the same speed.
At that speed the limiting factor likely moves from raw power output to things like cornering ability on the track, grip of the tires, aerodynamics, downforce, driver skill, mechanical linkages, etc.
There's a reason why all the world's land speed records since the 1930s [1] get set at the Bonneville Salt Flats or similar flat desert terrain. FWIW, the speed listed in this article was exceeded in 1937. The hard part is not necessarily going fast, it's going fast in a street-legal vehicle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land_speed_records
For a top speed run, cornering ability is next to useless. You need grip to put down the power and be stable at speed, the corners taken for top speed runs are fairly wide. The bigger issue here is for how long can a BEV sustain max power output - it can deplete its battery in 2 minutes. EVs also can only produce top power whilst battery is at top voltage, since draining it drops voltage, max power drops with charge levels. The tyre grip itself is fine, the issue is tyre durability - they can usually last less than 20 minutes at top speed.
It is an impressive feat of engineering to get to a vmax record in a BEV.
I'll need evidence of "Top power at Top Voltage." Since so little capacity is at that part of the curve, It'd make sense to design around (as in avoid, not feature) it rather than use it.
I suspect theres inductance and capacitance enough that even if the motors can't handle the voltage, it can be "clipped" until the pack comes down. (Especially since fmu these are 3phase AC motors, the motor driver is already regulating voltage and current to produce whatever the optimal waveform is)
You don't need to design around it - it is not like you can use top power for 100% of the time in most EVs anyway, and there's no good reason to restrict it such that the vehicle can operate at a limited max power for longer. ICE cars also reach top power only in a given RPM range, so it still is a curve, albeit turbo cars can flatten the curve quite a bit.
Well you can see reports of people drag stripping teslas, and comparing speeds at 100 vs 90 vs 50% charge. Whatever the reason, you do slow down.
Apples to broccoli comparison. Besides what I mentioned being optional (I'm sure it has downsides, probably cost), comparing road legal cars with a supercar is... interesting.
You don't need a Tesla to figure this out, my toy RC monster truck does the same thing.
There was quite an interesting youtube from Engineering Explained speculating it had enough power to do 400 mph. There may have been other constraints limiting things like the tyres being safe and apparently the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power, plus bits may overheat and the like.
(https://youtu.be/z6q7du1q2U8)
It's also interesting that the fastest time on the Nürburgring at 5 min 19 was from a Porsche hybrid with 900 hp, a fair bit quicker than the BYD which took 6:59 I think. The Porsche had a lot more downforce than the BYD.
>the battery only has capacity for 2 mins at full power
"The tires on the Veyron can only last 15 minutes at top speed, but that's ok because the fuel tank only has capacity for 7 minutes at top speed." (From memory, IIRC, Top Gear on the Veyron)
https://youtu.be/jk1t6S737Cs?t=393
> the tires will only last for about 15 minutes but it's okay because the fuel runs out in 12 minutes
> 5 min 19 was from a Porsche hybrid with 900 hp
You're talking about the non-production Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo race car. A Corvette ZR1X did 6:49 with a third of the HP
Yeah, the weight and battery are the limiting factors. Their battery tech is impressive though.
I watched a video of the speed test a few days ago and it looked like the BYD car was still accelerating when the top speed was reached, such that it could have gone faster than the record they were aiming for—there was a speed curve and it wasn't plateauing. Of course there are lots of possible reasons why the car couldn't have managed a higher speed, but I wonder if it's like incredibly tall skyscrapers having secretly validated a taller version in the wind tunnel so they can change plans if competition catches up during construction.
Tyres are almost certainly the limiting factor here; also I forget how close to the (admittedly banked) turn it was when it hit its top speed.
The best batteries have like 40 times less energy density than engines running on oil derivatives. Even considering that electrical engines are 90% efficient while combustion engines get like 25% efficiency, that still leaves the factor of 10 for energy density. That implies much bigger weight. And to compensate the engines must be more powerful.
Head to head, the Chiron SS would probably smoke this car at the top end, heat is a way more difficult problem to deal with for EVs than ICEs.
Well, power at top speed will probably be similar, they don't seem to be too different aerodynamically (maybe the Bugatti has got the edge there, but still, won't be a 2x difference).
The question is also how much power the battery can continuously output, if it's the 3000hp for 15 seconds that won't be of much use for a max speed test.
It seems to me like building the fastest EV has nowhere near the complexity of building the fastest ICE car. Way too many moving parts and fine tuning required to get an engine to 440Kmh (Chiron SS) than an EV with 4 big motors.
I recommend you watch this video (the channel's pretty good in general):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6DiHOidcg
While I agree with your statement in broad strokes - I'd reframe it as the same amount of engineering takes you much further in an EV than an ICE car. Considering this, the Chinese really swung for the fences, and what they made here is quite impressive
People have been putting engines that powerful in cars since Campbell's blue bird in the 1930s. I'm not going to say it's easy, but it's doable in custom vehicles.
The hard bits are connecting that power with the ground long enough to reach speed safely, and storing enough energy to do so. EVs don't solve that.
Chiron still has that Piëch handwriting on it. It's driveable enough to take your wife to the opera. Full regulatory compliance, low wind noise at high speeds, all that. I don't want to say it is compromised, but it's not as extreme as it could be.
The closer ICE comparison would be Koenigsegg (447 kph/278 mph), Hennessy Venom GT (435/270) and SSC Tuatara (455/283, no shenanigans). SSC have reached 295, they were clearly aiming for 300. It's no 308 but it's reasonably close.
All these are also relatively small companies with relatively low budgets -- none of the big manufacturers seem interested in top speeds anymore.
Yet none of the other mainstream automakers has done so.
Are they even trying? It seems like the only reason to do this is for publicity. Maybe a manufacturer that's known for their ICE vehicles would want an opportunity to show off their electric vehicle engineering but I don't know any it would make a difference for. US manufacturers even sell electric trucks. It's not like any mainstream manufacturer needs to rebrand to sell electric vehicles.
> Are they even trying?
Nope, probably too busy faking emission results, lobbying at the EU parliament , or designing overpriced mid tier cars in the US
Research also might trickle down to production cars. Maybe research for some extreme project has more opportunity to find unexpected improvements compared to more tightly budgeted production research
This comment has the same vibe at "football is easy, because the rules are simple". Something is only easy if you don't have to compete with others. If it's "easy" for you, then it is easy for others. So being the best/fastest is hard.
Isn't the complexity in storing and and moving the electrons rapidly? Stringing a bunch of 18650s with a copper wire harness won't cut it. You've got to invent some novel chemistries and new materials to pull it off.
At a battery level it’s very doable — and certainly not as extreme as in most racing applications — it’s just a bunch of trade-offs.
Well, while impressive I would like to see them do a second lap right after or try the Nürburgring (seems they have, way off pace versus ICE cars).
One thing many car channels are pointing out is that the car could've reached even better numbers looking at how easily it reached its record pace. I wonder if the bottleneck is the battery. Hell, it supposedly discharges at full power in 2 minutes.
(Edit: noting they did the ring)
The second fastest lap at the ring, and at least another five records in the top ten, are all EVs:
#1 is the Porsche 919 Hybrid.Cars built for straight line speed are rarely fast in a track – you won’t find the Bugattis breaking any fastest lap records either.
It might indeed be more difficult to push obsolete technology ever further.
Which shows that ICEs are a ridiculous choice for performance cars?
No, EV are too heavy. On an actual track they loose to lighter ICE cars since they corner better. Plus for a prolonged race EV might run out of battery.
are we bound to see a huge increase in speed limits as EVs start to dominate?
The reason we have speed limits isn't because cars can't go any faster, but because they can.
no
True, if your goal is "the fastest car, period" then you're going to pick the best technology for that. And as of now onwards, that's not Internal Combustion Engines. As you say, there are way too many moving parts in a legacy tech ICE engine.
It is a nice looking car, pleasently surprised.
Is it a production car if they have made one and have sold zero?
The Yangwang U9 is a production car. This is a boosted version, the 9X Track Edition.
The regular 9X costs about US$236,000 before Trump tariffs. About half of a Ferrari. Also jumps potholes, can do tank turns, and has some autonomous capability.[1]
There's also the Yangwang U8, which is an hybrid off-road SUV. Does tank turns, and floats.
It's really a promotion for their other cars, but these things are sold in the UAE, Kuwait, and China, at least.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYXGrt5qAuo
AMG One did it in 6:29.xxx
Any chance F1 could move to electric ever?
Actually there is already an electric version of F1 called Formula E
I didn't know that. Thanks. It would be more interesting though if electric and fossil fuel cars could compete against one another in some circuit.
It's a regulations driven race. It would be hard or impossible to make any kind of fair rules and it would still end up a race about which manufacturer and driver(s) can find the best spots in the rules to focus on.
Outside of Formula or Nascar or other monocultures, that would be interesting, though.
Given the data and research that goes into these sorts of high dollar races, I suspect it wouldn't be very interesting. It would be a relatively simple calculation (that I cannot do and do not know all the variables for) to determine when the benefits of batteries clearly outweigh the benefits of combustion engines with quick and simple refuels. These teams know exactly how many laps they need to complete and the speed they need to do it in order to be competitive. They track the fuel and refuels and other pit stops very closely, so as soon as they can see they would benefit from batteries I'd expect almost the entire fleet to switch over. There will be almost no overlap between electric and combustion cars in races.
The only benefit combustion engines have is the current faster refuel and run time. Everything else about electric motors is far superior to combustion. If and when F1 can hot-swap battery packs efficiently, combustion engines will be dead in that sport.
Combustion engines have in general benefit of energy capacity. F1 has not had refuelling since 2010. Pit stops are for in essence forced for tire changes and have something to actually happen in races. As tires could be designed to last entire race as well.
There's formula E for that.
Probably not because of the batteries being too heavy and not having enough juice for a race, but more importantly because it would be terrible.
Soviet Union builds largest space shuttle.
In case you don't speak mph, https://www.byd.com/mea/news-list/yangwang-u9-xtreme-is-the-... has converted it: 496.22km/h
Well, Autotrader is the one that converted it.
But will it have full self driving by the end of the year?
Even if they did they still won't have caught up, because Tesla has had full self driving at the end of every year for the past 8 years.
Their new hope is to have the Optimus humanoid take the driver seat and finally drive the car. Of course, we'll have to wait until this December.
BYD made their Autonomous Driving Features free (1).
But they don't make false claims about them.
(1)
https://insidechinaauto.com/2025/02/11/byd-rolls-out-autonom...
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/11/cars/china-byd-smart-driv...
That's only to cars with lidar, right? My Seal isn't getting that.
I find it interesting that Chinese brands copy Western brands, then Western brands copy Chinese brands and so on. Result is that new cohort of cars look like characterless AI slop.
Most cars have looked like that long before AI.
The kind of things that's going to put the last nail in the coffin of the german industry (in terms of brand image).
Worlds fastest car has never really been a German thing. See for example https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/lists/fastest-cars-in-the...
It will be far more interesting to see how:
https://electriclemans.com/
plays out.
Look at the partners section. There's Palantir in there.
It'll be a battery swap. There was that video of emergency battery pack ejection for battery fires, then you need a loading mechanism.
I haven't tracked LeMans much, I know the Toyota hybrids have been dominating it, but is it unrestricted hybrid drivetrains? Can builders make any kind of hybrid / regen / battery size / recharge drivetrain?
If not, I'd love to see what builders can do with go-nuts hybrids: wankel compact recharging, max-solid-state chems, etc.
It was designed by a German
That's probably one of the least interesting records. Besides the tires, what's the problem reaching that speed? Need a big engine and some downforce. This is much easier than building a car that cam set a record on the track.
I guess it's interesting that you can do it in a street legal production car.
> This is much easier than building a car that cam set a record on the track.
Why ? You "just" need a car that can steer and brake, what's the problem with steering and braking ? Need a steering wheel, good brake pads and tires
Tracks are much more different than straight line speed.
TBH the complexities are not even comparable, track engineering for a car is probably a few orders of magnitude more complex than straight line speed.
On the track you need a good setup which has a lot of factors and can be very hard to achieve. Way more complex than going straight as fast as possible