Has nothing to do with suspension. Tesla is heavy as fuck. More mass takes more time to stop. Most of the time tires were on the ground, meaning suspension worked fine. Bakes seemingly worked fine as well, but ABS may not have. Besides driver being an idiot, it seems that tires were the weakest link there.
Why does the squealing come "in-and-out"? Listen carefully, if the tires were in full contact on the ground, you'd hear a singular squeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllll.
Suspension is
very important to ensuring those wheels in fact have "Weight" on them. If there's no "weight" on a tire, it has no traction. Traction = weight * Mu after all, in physics, the less weight, the less traction. That's why downforce airfoils exist on fancy cars, so that at these speeds the "weight" goes higher and provides more traction.
In short, what transpired in that video exceeds the expectations of Tesla engineers and the driver. This is why high-speed driving should only be done on the track.
Your explanation is an interesting counter-point and I didn't consider that. Aerodynamics is certainly a thing and you're right that the car seems to be missing a spoiler. In either case, my point is that this is a zero-to-sixty car in 4-seconds without the proper design elements to actually handle that speed.
I'm still leaning towards my suspension theory, but I'll have to more carefully think about your airfoil / downforce theory as well. Either way, I agree it should be done at a track.
-------
In either case, listen carefully when the car goes over this stormdrain right here.
This is why I think its a suspension issue. The very **second** the car runs over that minor bump, the whole thing loses control. (
Listen to the audio. The car is bouncing). Fortunately, they didn't need to turn the car anywhere, but the car no longer has traction with the ground, so even if they slammed on the brakes, nothing would happen. But your theory that this is an air-bubble (or similar) forming under the car also sounds legitimate, especially since the tail-end of that car is also an obviously crap shape.
So instead of "bouncing on the springs" (my theory), the car could be "bouncing on an air-bubble" (in your theory??)
More mass also means more friction the tires can deliver
Not if the car is "bouncing". When the car is on the "upswing" of a bounce, there's literally zero traction in the wheels.
That's why suspension systems are incredibly important, you need to minimize bouncing. The heavier the car, the more complicated it is to suspend correctly and apply consistent force to the wheels. Really, listen again. The driver almost certainly is "holding the brakes" very strongly throughout this clip, why would the brakes be "squeee-squeee-squeee-squeeee", instead of "squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" ??
Answer: the car is bouncing. Now whether that's a suspension issue or an airfoil issue, well that's another story that goes beyond my personal abilities to diagnose. But the car is definitely
bouncing, and therefore losing traction in a periodic fashion.
I'm no car engineer, but a lot of serious racers keep Unsprung Mass / design in mind with their cars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass , among many other suspension issues that they optimize. All that acceleration and speed, without a good suspension system and rear spoiler, is just a danger to everybody.
IMO: the "fun" cars are the ones that are lightweight and easier to drive at higher speeds. "Hot Hatches" for example. And of course, on a track where little bumps / storm-drains don't exist to throw you off course. Heavier-and-heavier cars have their own dangers, due to the shear mass involved that makes suspension and other issues harder (even if you do have an air-foil, its "combating more weight", and airfoils will have less of an effect)
