Youtube comments of geemy (@geemy9675).
-
276
-
158
-
112
-
.36 sounds hard to achieve with a standard trailer..I think the rear is as important as the front and I found: "Generally, CD values for a semi-trailer truck are ranges from 0.5 to 0.9 depending on the aerodynamic design of the truck." base line is actually 0.8 and 0.5 is achieved only with side fairings hiding all the wheels area and trailer flush with the tractor.
otherwise, numbers are not too far off. its still probably going to have slightly less range than they announced, a bit less payload, more expensive charging (thanks "inflation/wars...").
average maintenance cost should be way better though, as long as the battery's good. but having your truck immobilized for weeks or months because of back ordered part, etc...is not good for businesses. Tesla needs to be on a whole other level regarding repair times, or provide replacement semi during those repairs at least under warranty.
Anyway, it makes way more sense to use batteries for delivery vehicles that travel less miles, at slower speeds, and spend a lot of time accelerating, braking, stopping, idling...they also don't have the same penalty that heavier means less payload, they come in all sorts of sizes and weight so if the truck's 20% heavier, it's not such a big deal. tesla should definitely consider making delivery vans or even people transportation. they don't need megacharger network they'll just charge overnight and will run all day long on a charge
85
-
66
-
42
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
31
-
29
-
25
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
electric is not boring. people just compare apple to oranges. of course a model Y is not a gt3s RS. the average gas car is boring (crossover with automatic transmission) the average electric car is less boring than the average gas car.
you can also add more fun in an electric car like adding motors/horsepower without compromises found in gas cars like maintenance, cost and efficiency.
Most of the "advantages" of gas performance cars (lightness, manually shifting your gears, beautifully exhaust and induction noises, tuning potential), don't apply to 90+% of actual cars on the roads that are heavy, with automatic transmission that gets between you and the engine, bone stock and sound so boring you just wish they wouldn't make any sound. practical cars should be electric, cars that combine comfort, practicality and performance should be electric too, and gas cars should be for gear heads/tinkerers and people actually pushing their cars. nothing's more sad, ridiculous, laughable than big AMG/BMW M SUVs used like monovans for soccer practice and mall crawling.
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
clever design, but also shows how much simpler is a 4 motor electric powertrain. only 4 moving part, the rotors/half axles, no driveshaft, no differential/LSD, no clutch. wheels can turn at any speed and apply traction control and torque independently. you can do off road, software locked differentials, drift mode, torque vectoring, stability controls, FWD/RWD bias, more precisely and without using the brakes. only downside is you can only apply the power of one motor to any wheel, but thats not really an issue save maybe for extreme drifting where you would want 100% of your peak power directed to the rear
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
so if you're driving on cruise control at 80mph on the highway, wheel rpm is about 1000rpm, so the shaft is about 4000 rpm so the clutch will slip at around 4000*0.7%~30rpm and at low load, but it doesn't make sense that the clutch doesn't completely disengage, to reduce wear and fuel consumption? obviously mileage os not concern #1 on a corolla GR, but reliability under heavy use?
I understand it's not going to heat up or wear as fast as a clutch launching the car at 3000+ rpm but still a very odd design to have a clutch slipping 100% of the time. plus a manual transmission only has a big speed difference when starting from a dead stop, when changing gear, speed difference is either minimal (perfect shift) or the clutch slips and the engine speed matches the gearbox after a few tenths of a second. the clutch spends less than 0.7% of the time slipping from a stop to first gear, and it has thermal mass to take the heat, and then cool down when its not used, whereas this will lose power and generate heat continuously. If you hammer a clutch several time in short intervals its going to overheat for sure.
my concern is not only that there's a clutch slipping all the time, but that its also responsible for continuously transferring ~50% of the torque to the rear wheels so not.
Of course if it makes the AWD/handling better, the part is easily serviceable, then OK why not! people who are lucky enough to put their hands on this car wont mind low mpg
6
-
6
-
some mentioned the delay that is visible between in the initial footage where the car is stopped and both the steering wheel and the wheel are visible. is it noticeable/annoying when driving? Also you failed to mention variable gear ratio steering has been implemented and abandoned by both Honda (Honda S2000 VGS) and Toyota (Land Cruiser VGRS) in the 2000s ... it would be interesting to see a comparison, to see if they improved the technology, or if it's just making a comeback because it makes more sense in EV's with large screens, yokes, and self driving around the corner. Personally I think it makes sense because:
1 it allows the driver to have a more consistent range of motion at low and high speeds
2 forcing the driver to do 3 full rotations of the steering wheel for three point turns is not great if you can have power steering that allows you to do it without taking your hands off the steering wheel
3 having less sensitive/slower steering at high speeds can be a good thing
but they are concerns though, like
1 the learning curve, is it more dangerous when you're not used to it or someone borrows your car? it could be fixed with settings though
2 how to handle switching frequently between cars with fixed and variable steering.
3 how is muscle memory affected for emergencies, like quick steering adjustments to avoid a car that tries to merge into you, or oversteer/loss of traction
4 how it feels in a long corner with a radius that tightens or widens, to have the ratio change as your speed increases or decreases, and have the steering change with a constant steering wheel input....
6
-
obviously hub motors have disadvantages since 99.9% of EV's don't use them
There is a number of EV's designed with 4 non hub motors and they are targeted at high end cars, 2000hp hypercars, 800+HP trucks but I think hub motors are interesting how much simplicity they bring.
I'm also not sure hub motors are less efficient in real world, should be quite the opposite. gear reduction can reduce motor size but also add losses and complexity. it's hard to compare since there is only one EV using hub motors to my knowledge (aptera) and it's not even in production yet. plus it's not anywhere comparable to Cybertruck, rivian R1T, lotus evija, or rimac Nevera. but it's also the lightest, most efficient EV by a long shot. time will tell real world concerns about unsprung mass, handling, reliability or actual range.
also Koenigsegg is using super compact and lightweight 445lb.ft 335hp 63lbs direct drive radial flux "quark" motors in the General, which could be the missing link between hub motors and traditional axial flux motors using gear reduction. hopefully with so many manufacturers heavily investing in electrification, we'll soon see a bunch of innovative solutions and not only attempts to clone Teslas.
I don't know how far we could be of 4 hub or reduction gear motors EV without any form of friction braking. with super capacitors, plus very strong resistive heating capable of disipating Regen energy to a large thermal mass like battery or chassis in case of battery or capacitor failure, and very high peak power Regen available for a few seconds for emergency braking, we could have Regen powerful enough to lock the 4 wheels,and also able to apply much more efficient(with quicker feedback loop) ABS than electro pneumatic abs, while removing the weight, complexity and wear associated with rotors,pads, brake fluid pump, brake lines, abs,redundant brake by wire + hydraulic. FYI TC on the Tesla plaid is capable of accelerating quicker than it brakes thanks to advanced TC. Of course it sounds scary to drive a car downhill at highway speeds without mechanical brakes, but so did driving a car at 60mph less a century ago.
middle ground solution could be to have undersized, lightweight mechanical brakes to use as parking brake and emergency brakes, that could be designed to have just enough thermal mass to withstand one emergency braking from top speed to a stop before needing a cool down. obviously main brakes failure would mean you could only drive in limp mode at lower speed to the next exit/service center or wait for a tow truck
I'm also eager to see affordable EV's using 4 compact lightweight motors with the benefits for Regen, cabin/cargo size, torque vectoring, and different gearing/torque curves front/rear instead of always offering 2wd single motor in the cheaper trims (specially fwd)
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@thatoneguy6692 it's not strange. just apple refusing to implement standard messaging to lock in their user. it doesn't make sense like if they were not implementing standard call, sms or MMS, but it seems to be working for them, at least in the US. outside th US they don't have the critical mass to be a successful strategy. hopefully apple eventually realises north America sales, although being probably strategic for them, is "only" 35-40% of their global sales. but having worked in mobile app I know for a fact that north America is the biggest market for app and in-app purchases, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Also if only google hadn't fucked up that much their messaging strategy launching and discontinuing products on a yearly basis, and fragmenting market and confusing users with ever changing branding.
Had they fully committed to one product with long term support, backward compatibility with sms,MMS and RCS, link to Gmail account and even desktop/web version with interoperability with SMS through cloud connection to your phone, we probably wouldn't be where we are now
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@needmoreboost6369 yes tires is a complicated science even though there are some pretty simple physic rules, when you start considering all the performance aspects like drag racing (acceleration from dead stop) track racing(acceleration out of corners, corner speed, stability, braking, endurance, ability to maintain optimal temperature throughout multiple laps), different type of cars light/heavy, 2wd/awd, high/low power, road/drag/track everything gets more complicated.
eventually everyone I'll come with different answers about what's best tire size/type but if you break it down into different subjects it's much easier to make educational video
it would probably just require several videos if you want to be cover most topics.
by the way, I think high performance drag racing is almost a complete different subject on its own because you are pushing so much the limits of traction that some of the physics models that try to simplify the reality and give convenient formulas just don't apply anymore and because you are taking away all the other factors of driving, even the smallest deviation regarding models can be the difference between winning and losing. I'm talking about top fuel/funny cars of course but also to a lesser extent about highly modded 1000/2000hp 2WD road cars that also have plenty more wheel torque available than what tires can put out
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
that's why free valve is the pinnacle of combustion engine design (for road cars. not talking about drag racing, F1). almost perfectly flat torque curve from 1500 to 7500rpm. 300hp/l , 43.5 psi bmep. no throttle bodies/pumping loss, independent valve lift/timimg/duration controls how much air goes in, how many valves are used, and how hard the turbo is spooled up, acting both as anti lag, waste gate, you can theoretically do cylinder deactivation(not very likely to happen on a 3cyl though?) , skip revolutions at low loads, you can also do air brakes like on semis.
you can do different cycles to like Atkinson, or heck you could even run a 2 strokes cycle, although probably not very efficiently, considering its not designed for scavenging like a 2 stroke cylinder with ports, and has no expansion pipe. also who would do that to a 2M car 🤣🤣
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm more shocked that adding passengers makes the 0-60 quicker even though the car is AWD...the only explanation I can see is the AWD system is not properly tuned and doesn't know how to take advantage of the front grip as well as the rear grip. more weight cant improve acceleration unless it's more weight on driven wheels. let's say on a RWD , you add 10% of the total weight, but in the back m, resulting in 15% more weight on the rear wheels m, 15% more grip/wheel torque actually transfered to the road. but if AWD is properly implemented, AWD should always be quicker with less weight. I don't know how the torque is actually split, I've read that the torque split is continuously adjusted but even weirder, I'd expect the launch control to be more optimized for 2 people than 4. how often are you likely to drive your turbo S with 4 adults inside, and use launch control?? good thing is that it means there are still small improvements/performance gains to be made on the next gen. otherwise it's getting so close to perfect supercar+daily driver. it feels like hybridization/electrification will come at a good time when they have almost exhausted what they can do with the traditional design gas 911. pdk is already close to as good as it gets. straight line performance is insane. how far can you go with wheel size before it stops looking like a 911 or even a sports car
I would have loved to see a lightweight non hybrid 911 with a boxer free valve engine. of you put 2 Koenigsegg TFG 2l inline 3 together, you have a stock 4l flat 6 1200hp engine, up to 1200Nm from 2000rpm or a even 600hp NA GT3 RS with turbos they could still donwsize to 3.0l ...and also WAY better mileage/emissions
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@damncritics it's not 100% incorrect. the coefficient starts decreasing when load reaches a certain threshold, under which it car be considered constant. meaning for same car, increasing tire contact patch only helps up to a certain point, which will also depend on your tire, and will be your optimal tire size.
after that point you are mostly increasing weight, inertia, friction loss and aquaplanning. the only thing that can help with oversized contact patch is helping with tire overheating if you are doing track especially on a hot day and your tire cant dissipate all the heat. more surface means less load/surface, lower temperature and more cooling capacity.
bit it also means on the road usually lower temperature and less grip!
of course usually what we see is more power > bigger tires, because more powerful cars are more likely to be driven hard, but if you are going to drive on a track and have the highest corner speed possible, and brake as hard as possible, even a relatively low power car will want to have the optimal tire size, which is dependent on the weight, not the power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dhruvakhera5011 electric turbo hybrid like in the F1, 911 gts hybrid or the AMG one make more sense in terms of efficiency, emissions and power.
bugatti chose more cylinders, more rpm for the sound, pedigree and uniqueness. it's not a revolution to make a NA hybrid most hybrids are. more cylinders is unique because it brings no technical advantage and plenty of downsides. but Bugatti performance being driven by top speed more than anything else, they have to make a very long two seater and decided they could live with the super long engine and also hybrid probably means they were confident enough to manage to pass emissions for the lifespan if this engine.
the interesting thing is if (or should I say when) then wanna make some higher powered limited version (going for those 500kph), they wont have the "easy" option to increase boost. it's going to be either more ICE power through higher rpm, or a battery with higher output, able to unlock the full 991hpthat the three motors are capable of. that's 202hp that are just waiting to be unlocked.
they might also increase displacement but it's quite unlikely, I guess they didn't leave a lot of bore left in the block, and longer stroke would limit rpms....
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think it is possible to analyze the problem in a simpler way by breaking it down.
1/ pumping fluid quickly inside a simple tube with an entry and exit generates strong pushing thrust at the exit, and weak pulling thrust at the entry. this can probably be measured independently using load cells. the thrust can be converted into movement/rotation or a stationary force/torque, it doesnt matter. this is highlighted by jet ski having the jet exit direction controling the thrust, while the intake is directed forward and downward (not straight forward) and doesnt change direction for forward or reverse operation
2/ if you now have several exits, and several entries, the overall thrust will be approximately the sum of the exit thrusts
3/ if exit thrusts cancel each others approximately, then the intake thrusts can become prevalent
4/ if exits streams point at each or at fixed objects other weird turbulence and vortices will happen and create additional secondary effects way more complicated to study and probably cant be predicted without numeric simulation and understood through experimentation
5/ even it the main exit thrusts cancel each other, those secondary effect could still outweight intake thrusts. THIS IS probably the ONLY CONCLUSIION of this experiment?
6/ the rotating part of a sprinkler should be analyzed like a freely rotating system with entries and exits for fluid to be pumped through
7/ the traditional sprinkler has several exits which combined generate a clear torque, stronger than any effec onthe sucking side, the intakes don't matter
8/ the generic sucking sprinkler achieved using any sprinkler, with reversed pumping action, is designed wihout any attention to the blowing side , and because of this, has undetermined behavior
8/ the sprinkler shown in this experiment is seemingly designed to cancel the effects of the blowing side to show the effect of the sucking side (by using symetrical exits, pointing at the center, but failed to do so because asymetrical flows and resulting asymetrical vortices
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Cerberus984 ebike hub motors are mostly cheap chinese manufacturing and have a lot of known issues. poor cooling with heat building up in enclosed casing, non geared hubs are heavy (for a bike) and low torque. most geared hub are noisy and have plastic gears that melt when overheating. they dont have Regen either although that's a minor inconvenience for e-bikes.
but they are still quite useful for cheaper utility bikes and people who are not very good at using gears. mid drive require more skills to keep the grouper healthy and switching gears smoothly (see Micah toll:s recent video).
JohnyNerdOut also is a king of troll who has an interesting but rather biased opinion on hub/mid drive motors.
more importantly, hub motors are quite different on ebikes and Eva, the idea behind having 4 hub motors in an EV is to split the total power by 4, have more smaller/lighter/cheaper motors with less material that will have less unsprung mass while providing good torque and power. it should also allow to downsize the mechanical brakes thanks to efficient 4 wheel Regen. then you have added benefits of 4wd, independent traction control/torque vectoring, abs Regen on each wheel, high steering angles (possibly 4 wheel steering) reduced mechanical complexity (no diffs or axles) better efficiency and reduced mechanical losses, better packaging. like said before it's not without downsides (unsprung mass, reliability) but I think with mass manufacturing it coukd become cost effective. it will probably be niche product for the years to come, for ultra efficient EVs like aptera, maybe one day for 4wd rock crawler with extreme articulation/ground clearance and 4 independent wheel suspension
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
yes conventional EV's use lower torque /higher rpms to achieve better power density but electric motors can be designed to provide the appropriate torque/power/rpm needed by tuning voltage , Amps, windings
there always some unsprung weight penalty though, since an in wheel motor cannot be lighter than just a regular wheel. maybe one day with brakes delete and more advanced electric motor tech
aptera paradigm performs 3.5s 0-60, 110mph top speed with three 50kw hub motors (200hp) and 800kg, showing very good performance considering the power to weight ratio. Tesla model Y performance has the same 0-60 with similar or higher power/weight and two rear wheels AWD vs 3WD, so I would say torque is no slouch in the aptera. I don't know if the in wheel motor could scale up to power a 4-5000lbs EV with the same sportiness though. Seems like direct drive in wheel motors are better suited to lighter electric mobility using less power and smaller wheels like electric scooters and skateboard's, small wheel ebikes, light electric motorcycles or light ev. geared hub motors are the most common type in regular sized wheels ebikes, providing better torque than direct drive, but they have their share of issues. plastic gears that wear or even melt when overheating, or heavier metal gears, heat mangement issues, noise, and additional complexity to implement regen
2
-
2
-
@techno1561 yes in emergency situation in your daily driving abs should perform better because you don't know the exact grip, your tires are most probably not up to optimal temperature, and there's also a high chance that you have slightly different grip on every tire/patch of road, and also that your brake front/rear bias is not perfectly calibrated for the current conditions, so abs will extract the most braking power from each tire. on a track threshold braking makes more sense than on the road because you are doing laps around the same track, you get to test the grip before every corner, the grip is more consistent than on the road, you know exactly were you are going to brake and you can push the limits further and further on every lap, and of course because you are trying to improve your skills in a controlled environment
for emergency braking I'd rather rely on abs giving consistent results, than trying to improving the braking distance marginally in the best case, but risking a longer distance because you didn't get it perfectly right. you don't get the chance to do another lap and try again
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PistonAvatarGuy yes longer stroke doesn't automatically give you more torque, and what really determines torque is displacement. but shorter stroke allows higher rpms, bigger valves, more airflow, so more high rpm power, so usually an engine that is also tuned to make power higher including cam profile, intake geometry.
modern engines with variable intake timing, duration, and lift, variable intake, can rev fast, make a lot power, but also be efficient and have low torque. but still, over square still has s disadvantage for the shape of the combustion chamber because it is very wide and flat, flame front takes longer to reach the whole cylinder. this is why over square fast revving engines have sometimes experimented twin spark
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, bose suspension was insane and the result of decades of research. Renault Formula 1 came with insane active suspension too in 1992 that won championship and was promptly banned. imagine how much better active suspension could be today with computing power, camera & sensors, actuators and motors.. you can bring down the ground clearance close to zero, corner perfectly flat, and continuously adjust the pitch angle/ground effect. meaning also the camber can also be controlled indirectly and stay consistent. the problem is then if you rely on huge ground effect down force, if the active suspension fails, car gets further from the ground because of a curb taken too hard, you have a car suddenly losing grip, I think it was the reason behind the ban (remember the flying mercedes)
I thik its going to progressively come back into road cars . The purosangue has a TRUE active suspension but Ferrari is too conservative...they were afraid to create a flat cornering mode so they let the car have a some roll, to not disturb the drivers. But the tech is going in the right direction. small independent motors with worm gear, means its not hydraulic based like mercedes class S active suspension from 10 yeas ago or even older citroen active suspension
according to ferrari active suspension increased the lateral grip by 10% and the car is not even cornering flat
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@KennethCherisol yes once your remove the engine and the steering column from the hood, you have a big crumple zone and you can shorten the hod, bring the cab forward, so its big changes
I agree Variable steering is needed for yokes, but could be beneficial to steering wheels too ?
today's steering wheels quite different form those 100years ago there was no power steering, steering wheels where huge and very thin and you needed several full turns to steer , , and cars where more like horse cariage
, steer by wire and variable steering is just another evolution
Future is different, Tesla is rumored to have 4 wheel independent steering in the cybertruck, so yes steer by wire means you can have just one motor on each wheel, no rack, pinon etc. you can have big storage in the frunk and/or shorten the hood. EVs are slowly moving moving to 4 independent motors/suspensions/brakes. everything by wire. it will have a lot of advantages
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
interesting question and interesting approach with the simulation. unfortunately, bad execution leads to wrong conclusion.
Horsepower is faster than torque, with a couple asterisks
*as long as the gearing and ratios are properly designed
*power and torque don't matter if you don't have traction
everything is f***d up from the beginning starting with a 1800lbs FWD car with 500/1000hp and 6in wide regular street tires. takes no genius to know its not gonna work properly
then you add transmission that are so badly setup that they either slip the clutch or spin the tires all the way through the quarter mile , and return meaningless results
the simulation that's "closest" to reality is the one with manual transmission, where hp engine wins but even there, it spins the tires all the way through 1st and 2nd gear
6000lbs simulation is dumb too because if a car has a certain payload/tow rating, it will be geared to carry or pull that weight correctly. here we have a 1st gear geared for 110mph in the 1000hp engine...
in direct drive simulation its geared for 270+ mph...
also 6:19 shows that the 500hp engine generated by the simulation is actually a 671hp engine, not 500hp. it has a wide powerband so it works better in extreme conditions where the gearing is completely off
in the first simulattion with no final drive ratio, it runs at 1500rpm so only 221hp, 1/3 of its power. the 1000hp engine is running a 3700rpm (~350hp) but it's slipping the clutch very badly because the gearing is for 800+mph so even with 1000hp its not able to lock the clutch without stalling, so it would slip the clutch all the way to 320 mph...
the easy hp beats torque example is
superbike ~200mph/200hp/100Nm/15krpm
VS
top pro sprinter cyclist ~50mph/3hp/200Nm/120rpm
2
-
2
-
2
-
@needmoreboost6369 of course, weight is not the only parameter in performance, so if it wasn't clear enough, more weight is never gonna be quicker/faster with ALL other parameters being equal, including weight distribution: let's say you have 40%/60% weight, if you add 40 pounds/60 pounds you are not going to improve anything. only thing you can do is make it EASIER to launch so quicker with a bad driver or bad traction/launch control, and make tiles more consistent, but your best possible time is never gonna be quicker. of course there could be some small side effect that could help a bit, like if you suspension is setup for wrong (higher) weight, or making the car a bit lower but it won't offset the weight and lighter car will be even quicker if it's properly setup. the only category where weight can help is land speed record if you reach speeds where you don't have enough traction to put out the power you need, and it's because at very high speed, top speed is not affected by weight, although you'll need more distance to reach top speed. weight affects acceleration but has very little effect on top speed
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mgoblagulkablong yes also the point was also to make completely false statements like a prius creating more emissions over its life than a land rover discovery.
I wouldnt be suprised if the mpg were fake too. 17 mpg with the prius on a track sounds about right, considering its supposed to do 48mpg in the city but this is using regen to brake smoothly, and reuse the energy put back in the batttery to accelerate again, slamming the brake on the track, regen gets maybe only 5-10% of the kinetic energy, so the ICE has to do almost all the work on accelerations, plus to carry the weight of the batteries.
19mpg on the M3 ? the numbers just dont add up. the 2008 M3 is rated at 14 city/20 highway so I'd say driven even at reasonable pace on a track, I'd be very surprised you get more than 10mpg..19mpg is way off, its what you are supposed to get at constant highway speed, not lapping a circuit.
but also the dirver in the prius in front was trying to go as fast as possible on the track, meaning breaking hard(as hard as he could with a prius), accelerating as hard as he could too, and take corners at the very limit of the tires, so basically getting the worst mpg possible. following the pris with a M3 with much more grip in the turns, he could very well have had a higher curve speeds, meaning braking less, and accelerating less in the straight. basically driving as smoothly as possible (more efficiently) while just keeping up with the prius. so the test could have been quite biased. however even if Clarkson drive very smoothly theres no way he could get 19mpg on the track
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andljoy inline 6 or any 6 cylinder configuration with 1.5L displacement would be a bad choice for a road car, which is the reason literally no manufacturer has or will ever choose this configuration except for legal reasons like avoiding a tax based on displacement.
the optimal cylinder size is more in the 500-700cc per cylinder and ~square cylinders which brings the best compromise for power, efficiency, torque, cost, size. smaller cylinders have more heat loss through the cylinder walls, head and piston. larger cylinders means pistons become too heavy, limiting rpm. highly over square cylinders can compensate but then the combustion chamber shape becomes worse. the more refined the knowledge about engine has become, the closer to this golden 500-700cc square cylinders engines have become.
2-2.4l i4, 3-3.6l i6/V6 , 4-5.5l V8, ~6L v12
GT3/Z06/and most of the best engines in recent history are within those ranges.
there are of course a few outliers like extremely high revving /NA engines with small cylinders like GM t50 or Bugatti tourbillon but the engine configuration is not the best for a road car in terms of engineering. it's more a case of money/efficiency/drivability/reliability/size is no object, and using a "unique" engine configuration becomes a selling point even more important than the actual characteristics of the engine. of course the 500-700cc rule doesn't apply to other vehicles like race cars (depends on regulations), motorcycles (~250cc), or heavy duty vehicles (using diesel / large displacement/ slower revving large cylinders)
6 cylinders is good for SUVs/trucks/sport sedan/sports cars. for affordable/small displacement hatchback/econobox or even subcompact SUVs..it just doesn't make sense, i4 is good enough. But I do agree thiugh i3 do run rough which isn't nice for a road car , it's ok for a motorcycle, but for a road car it should be only used to make the absolute cheapest econobox possible when money and mpg is the most important. I drove a 72hp Toyota Aygo cross with a 1l i3 and CVT on a pretty long trip and it was the worst highway car I've ever driven. the sound, the transmission, the power delivery, everything sucks in this car.
I would rather take the 55hp 1l i4 manual Peugeot I learnt to drive on in the late 90s, anyday of the week. so IMO the 500cc rule is only for 2L upwards. under 2l it should still use 4 cylinders
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johntheux9238 YES disappointing that it's 2000lbs heavier than the plaid , 200hp less powerful, while having battery powered output to spare (could output 1200-1300hp from the plaid motors). It's the cyberbeast so it should get the beast powertrain.
-But NO, they probably made the right choice because
1/ it's limited to 130mph because of handling, stability, braking, and tire rating, so being geared much shorter it gets more wheel torque (10000+ lb.ft) and it doesn't need the 20krpm of the plaid.
2/ it does 2.6s 0-60 so it probably maxxes out the grip of the all terrain tires from 0-60 anyway. there is no way al terrain truck tires are going to do 2s 0-60, even if the truck had 2000hp it's wouldnt accelerate quicker, same with shorter gearing would just do more wheel spin, lower top speed, and less efficient for cruising. it looks like the nailed the optimal torque/power/gearing like they did with the plaid, but for different top speed requirement
3/ its less powerful because the two rear motors are induction motors vs plaid permanent magnets, meaning it can freewheel the rear motors for cruising efficiency with (almost) no drag. the front permanent magnet motor can cruise at 80mph much more efficiently at 3x higher load compared to each motor doing 1/3 of the job. electric motors are most efficient around half of max rpm and half load. it's the electric (even better) equivalent of cylinder deactivation. similar to the Tesla Semi that can disconnect 2 of the 3 motors when cruising (even with 82000lbs), but cheaper/simpler/more reliable without the clutches
having more peak power with the plaid would reduce 60-130mph time and maybe quarter mile in ~10.5 but it would lose a lot of range when cruising. they would have to put more batteries to maintain 300+ miles, make the truck heavier, even more expensive
4/ being a truck range is just as important as acceleration so the cyber. beast is still the crazy insane acceleration truck, but that only compromises slightly with 200lbs weight penalty and 20miles range drop.
2
-
@soly-dp-colo6388 I know I'm french 😂
Citroen should make a lightweight (under a ton), efficient 2cv EV that's a legal 4 seat that can fit 4 adults, focused on city/suburban/villages/country roads but can drive on highways when it needs to. decent ground clearance for gravel roads
~80mph top speed, just enough range for daily driving and quick enough DC fast charging that it can realistically drive long distance with charging stops. like 2hours range at highway driving speed.
a bit like a more efficient dacia spring Dacia spring is less efficient than a model S Plaid that's more than 2x heavier.... it should be more efficient than a model 3 RWD
the electric ami is interesting but too limited.
Also they should focus on the characteristics, cheap, light, efficient and roomy inside, rather than design, like trying to make a neo retro 2CV. I think 2cv EV would be a good pick to try new solutions, like 4 in wheel hub motors. strong 4 wheel Regen ABS braking, no mechanical brakes in the rear. 2 disc brakes in the front for emergency braking and backup for Regen. if a formula E can make fast laps without rear brakes, a road car could too. 4 motors means you can make each of them light. a 45hp/33kW Dacia spring equivalent would need only 4x 8kW motors. lower power hub motors are easier to make. less magnets, very little weight penalty, no driveshafts, very simple (soft...it's a 2cv) suspension. the efficiency could be very high if the hub motors are working in the sweet spot at 80mph wheel hub motors can be over 96% efficient.. it's also very easy to manufacture, skateboard chassis with structural underfloor battery, lightweight body on top and finally bolt 4 hub motor wheels.
from there it's easy to make a short range version and a longer range version that's more expensive and heavier but more suitable for long trips.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mirlov it's funny how people suddenly become very concerned where/howare sourced every material when it's batteries. but not when it's gas cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. mining has been a dirty industry for centuries, unfortunately often in poo and corrupted countries.
the solution is not to keep making gas cars and think it's solving the slavery/forced labor/kids labor etc. electric is the future and the battery industry has to improve in a lot of ways, using less rare materials, less energy, improving reconditioning, refurbishing, recycling of batteries, ensuring cleaner mining, etc
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tosix98 small but powerful! Bugatti did their homework , picking very powerful cells and sizing the battery to be just big enough to achieve the power they wanted, with virtually no impact on weight compared to the chiron and managed to make a NA plugin hybrid with same or even lower weight and 15-20% more power. this is very unique in the hybrid world I can't name a single hybrid, let alone a plugin, that weighs less than it's gas counterpart/predecessor. also smart aero engineering with the massive diffuser, eAWD/driveshaft delete, lower roof/narrower cabin
designing the battery, they did not care about energy but power and weight. this is the only way for a very high performance hybrid or even EV. performance car are not about ramge. the battery density is low but 29C discharge rate is extreme. for comparison, the plaid powertrain is limited by battery output at 7.6C. it's a 5x smaller battery that m achieves 80% of the power. of course, there has to be compromises..
-energy density is 2x lower so the power/weight gain is about x2. that's still a 200kg weight saving. electric range is compromised but who cares.
-the second compromise is like for any hybrid with powerful electric motors, the sustained power output once the battery is drained you have lost 45% power. if 250 is about the speed that can be achieved on gas alone with 1000hp, driving any speed over 250 will start draining the battery. the faster you drive the faster battery drains. this is probably one of the reason why the limited the top speed. 1000hp @250moh means 1350hp at 276mph/445kph
this means about a capacity of a little under 5 min of top speed if the battery was full and depleted to 0%. this is actually not so bad when you consider a chiron would drains it's tank in 10- 15 min at that speed anyway.
realistically, no road or track exist to achieve this anyway.
they have gone to a (base) chiron that can go 260 for 10 min at best to a tourbillon that can go ~280 for 5 min then 250 for another. this doesn't even have an impact on a cannonball race, even the most reckless driver won't be able to drain the battery
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinbocchino5141 yeah the most efficient launch on a fan car would be turn on the fan at full speed before the launch and shut it down as soon as the car has enough speed/traction to put down all the power without the fan. or even better, progressively slow it to provide just enough downforce at any time, but it would probably have to be preprogrammed for different surfaces because with a feedback loop the fan would take too much time to spool up or down, unlike a traction control system that can throttle the power almost "instantly".
about compromise between weight/grip/acceleration, again there are 2 completely different scenarios. let's assume you have a lot of power, enough to spin the wheels all the way in first gear.
- with 2wd, 2 wheels can't put down all the power. adding some weight can help, for instance let's say you have 500kg on the front wheels and 500kg on the back, and RWD. when you launch, it becomes 250/750. if you add 250 kg only on the back axle, it becomes 250/1000, you are increasing traction by almost 33% , and weight by 25% so you can get slightly better launch off the line.
if it's FWD and you put the weight in the front, you can go from 250/750 to 500/750, doubling the weight in the front, and only adding 25% weight, so the gain can be even bigger. but as soon as the lighter car hooks up 100%, it will start catching up with the heavier one
-If , like the turbo s, you have AWD, with launch control that splits power on demand between the back and the front, then the car is already able to put down as much power as possible. until the car fully hooks up all tires, you are limited only by the traction. the tires and road surface determine the coefficient of friction and how hard you can accelerate. if you add more weight, you are just reducing the coefficient of friction, and reducing acceleration, because you increase the pressure on the tires. this is why heavier/more powerful car need larger tires
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dennisyoung4631 ebikes are very specific. -mid drives are meant to be pedalled like a regular bike, no throttle or no ghost pedalling which automatically in teases range.
-ebikes are regulated which leads to manufacturers listing only nominal power and omitting peak power which can be much stronger, especially for European mid drives that are listed 250W. also limited power means it's harder to design a single speed motor with enough torque to handle steep hills and quick start of the line, and good top speed, without compromises.
-legs have pretty limited rpm range especially for casual cyclist. meaning mid drives can be designed to be most efficient at the same rpms and rarely operate out of their sweet spot
-mid drives are more expensive, more likely to outperform their specs whereas how B's motors are usually cheaper and more likely to underperform their listed specs, wether it's motor or batteries
-hub motors are more often fitted with fat tires and/or small wheels that have more rolling resistance. also mid drives are more likely to be sporty (MTB or road bike) and have less aero drag, compared to upright standing position found on lot of hub motor ebikes
-hub motors are geared in large majority meaning added losses compared to mid drives. although not more losses than chain drive. geared hub will perform better and more efficiently at low speed/high torque, whereas direct drive are more suited to cruise close to top speed on flat ground or going downhill with Regen.
-because of all the previous reasons it is very hard to compare hub motors and mid drives with every other factors being equal so it's almost always apples to oranges.
-ebikes can't have active cooling except exotic prototypes/diy, effectively limiting the amps/torque. long uphill rides can easily overheat hub motors and trigger limp mode, although mid drives are not immune to this issue.
although I would say that mid drives being 3x as efficient as hubs is a very wild claim which is not backed up with any scientific testing. ebike motors are most likely to be 80/90% efficient wether they are mid drives or hub. a 30% efficient enclosed electric motor without any form of cooling would likely overheat/melt under any significant load.
ev's have different constraints and single speed perform better overall if you consider added complexity, weight, and reliability issues of a multi speed transmission. taycan had an edge against pre plaid model s when going over 100/110 mph thanks to it's 2 speeds, but since, Tesla plaid and rimac nevera have showed that single speed EV's have almost "unlimited" performance. daily driving EVs at legal speeds has no use for gearbox. plus one gearbox can only work on one axle and prevents having 3 or 4 motor configurations. taycan has one gearbox in the back, none in the front. plaid motor with almost constant power from 60 to 200mph means that gears don't even make sense. a plaid with two gears could not accelerate more, actually transmission losses means it would be less powerful at any speeds that are not traction limited...RIP ev gearboxes
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who will be the first to strip a cyberbeast to the bone, repalce air suspension with low coilovers , put lightweight wheels and sticky semi slicks or slicks rubbers, and see how it races. removing the stainless steel panels, doors, tailgate, bed, 4 wheel steering, air suspension, heavy sound proofed glass
e roy is 900lbs lighter than a standard S Plaid, I'm wondering hwo much weight could be removed on a CT. 1500, 2000lbs possibly even more?
1st option is the go cart with no body and no windows
2nd option with an aero fiberglass body and polycarbonate windows would be slightly heavier but faster at higher speeds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinchadwick8993 torque at the wheel falls away in a gas car with every gear shift....torque is reduced in EV at highway speed, which is a consequence of power being pretty constant(torque = power/rpm) power tapers off when you get closer to top speed, which people usually don't do on public roads.
the difference is torque reduces smoothly whereas gas cars get sudden drop when switching gear
the thing is for comparable vehicles, EV simply have more power, at any speeds that people actually do (lets say under speeds that will get your license removed instantly or get you to court like 30mph over limits / 100+mph), because its easy to add more power in an AWD EV, with little to no effect on range. in gas cars, power is always a compromise between performance, gas mileage, reliability, engine size/weight
bolt is almost the cheapest ev you can buy and 200hp 6.5s, compared to lets say a honda fit 130hp 10s
every EV in AWD version is like 300/400hp + and sporty versions like inoiq 5 N/kia GT6, the new tesla M3P, or even a f150 lightning, silverado EV are in 600hp territory
if you compare them at highway speeds, they will still have a ton more power than gas equivalents
1
-
1
-
1
-
the question is how much room is there for improvement given the maximum acceleration drivers can sustain for a 2 hours race, plus heat/physical exhaustion, while still maintaining incredible levels of focusing, reflexes, and lucidity. if braking & cornering are already pushing the limits of human body and the grip of the tires, the only place of (comparatively) lower acceleration and where tires are not at the limit of traction where they could apply much more acceleration is fast straights with more power/less drag. but then it would mean much higher top speed, and longer breaking distances/durations. not good for safety, and maybe the body also needs those kind of recovery phases where the driver is not slammed into the harness or into the sides of the cockpit. ultimately, I guess times will keep slowly decreasing except if new radical changes stop it. F1 will have to go through electrification of road cars (especially brands that compet, luxury German brands which are already committed on electrification and dropping R&D on ICE, and Italian performance brands which are still mostly 100% gas but will have to evolve with the next crazy crop of super high performance EV's that are going to hurt traditional sports cars/supercars legacy manufacturers. deciding if they stick to gas (carbon neutral synthetic gas?) or switch to electricity to keep a minimum connection with technology in road cars and keep trickling down it's best technologies to the mass market cars.
Formula E with F1 budgets could give a great boost in high performance lightweight batteries and electric drivetrains.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aussie2uGA true, it's not going to fit everyone's driving habit. some will accept the trade off because of the benefits you get in return. Personally I never drive over 500 miles a day anymore for the same reason you mentioned (passengers: wife kid, dog) and we like to spend some quality time along the trip, meaning not being burned at the end of the drive and having a few hours of free time. I still haven't jumped on the long range EV wagon, but I'm enjoying most of the EV benefits, gas savings, no gas station, and better driving experience, in a cheap short range EV daily driver. the tech and prices are still changing a bit too fast and I like to keep a car for at least 5 years. also I don't like to buy new cars and take depreciation hit, but used market for long range EVs is just starting to get interesting. right now Tesla is the only one to offer the range/charging speed/performance for the price but cost of car and insurance still sounds like a waste to me, and I don't like the way they are evolving, plus some of the choices like pure touch screen/capacitive buttons, lack of shifter
1
-
the biggest danger in AI is not robots destroying humanity, which isn't possible unless we give them the power. it's more robot/AI doing more an snore things for us, becoming better than us at it, and us becoming more and more dependent.
but closer to us, AI already helps make us more dependent on our smartphones. right now, AI only takes away less important things for us like vacuuming, or perform basic tasks, but as soon as it starts deciding for you, like suggesting what you should listen/read/watch like suggestions algorithms, you are giving away some of your freewill. when AI starts replacing doctors, teachers, etc we start being less and less useful. at some point we all become useless. I think the problem would come from political decision for instance giving AI power to decide over justice (AI judges), police/army, or making laws.
a human leader could decide that robots are more useful and reducing population and letting robots do things for us would make our lives better and solve our energy/water/resources problems
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
💯 phev with range extender make a lot of sense as soon as you have a very wide range of use like most personal cars that can drive as low as 10-30 miles on a typical day (90+%) and sometimes covering up to 1000miles in a day. this is a huge gap, and if you design for daily driving (100 miles forbinstance) your ev sucks for long trips (low range and slow charging speed) but if you design for long range (400-500 miles) and lets say you drive 12k per year your ev is expensive, heavy, less efficient, and you are carrying a huge dead weight all rhe time, and your battery is designed to last at least 500k miles but because its only used only used 5% of its capacity everyday, will eventually age and will never reach the number of cycles it's designed for..
pure battery evs are very hard to beat if you drive consistent mileage beetween charges, like transportation busses, dump trucks, delivery vans, most work trucks etc...if you know the most miles you are going to drive on one day, and you will drive relatively consistent mileage you can design the battery to cover that range and stay within the optimal battery range lik 20-80% for li ion or or 20-100% for LFP. this way you can get away with fast charging, and use cheap lvl 2 chargers, cheap electricity, and maintain very long battery life and using all the cycles of the battery. also if you have a fleet with different range requirements you can recycle a vehicle with 30% battery degradation to do less miles per day.
when battery is dead you replace/reconditiob/recycle it and you know the battery has been used at its fullest, savingbyou the most gallons of gas pzer kWh of batteries.
I fully agree EV are the future but right now long range EVs dont make a lot of sense. the first vehicles that should be converted should be professional vehicles trucks/vans/semis, and short range city cars. long range evs for people who drive at least 100miles every day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingLuis1985 I don't think the cars will be cheap but they will be made to last with low maintenance. and easy replacement from the wear part. the important factor is the cost per mile to create the market/demand. uber is already progressively replacing car ownership for younger generations and it's only got faster with remote work. now halve the cost, and make it available everywhere anywhere with short wait times, and the customer base is not limited anymore. of course it will start in large cities first. because they can have very high occupancy rates. but from there the business can grow to people selling the second or third family car. to replace car ownership robotaxis have to provide long distance, confortables recliningnseqts, two / three rows vehicles up to 9 passengers, . at the other side of the spectrum it can also compete with passenger buses, trains, and short haul domestic flights
the average distance of domestic flights is 1000 miles, 500miled for regional airline
lets say for a 700miles trip, I'd rather have a car that picks me up at home at the time I asked in the evening, drives me all night long with a reclining seat and drops me in the morning to my destination vs leaving home 3h before flight, driving or taking Uber to the airport, pass security , wait, fly 1h30, take another Uber, you have done almost in your day and now you have to pay for a hotel night. I would definitely pay more for a robotaxi than the flight ticket for it, that would be maybe 4*200 round trip for a family of four so in this case about $0.6 per mile for the flight. a robotaxi could achieve same price with confortable margins. add business class level reclining seats that wouldn't increase the cost per mile significantly and now you have a very competitive solution for premium, private transportation that offers you a way better experience, more comparable to having first class or private jet flights
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheRealDr.Mabuse although bmw makes most of their sales in China, M3 and M4 are sold 40%/30% in the US, than Germany, then UK, then China, far behind 6%/10%
I don't have numbers for the X3M/X5M...but I literally see a bunch of them on the roads every day, seems like M performance versions are considered the base model, and anyone with too much money in the bank seems to opt for the M. In Europe, M are considered flashy cars, with a strong "drug dealer" connotation or for car enthusiasts who really broke the bank. You also see more older models, whereas in the US its usually the last gen
well maybe I'm generalizing but at least in DC area.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bzdtemp I think there is much opportunity right now in the small/light/hot hatch EV with a small battery, AWD, high power to weight ratio good handling. from there you can make lower powered base trims with RWD base version, longer range. its kind of a niche, but no one has really filled it yet. the abarth 500 is underpowered, FWD, and too heavy for the size of the car. mini cooper SE is just an EV conversion of the gas mini, FWD, too heavy considering the battery size. ioniq 5 N looks like a hot hatch but too big too heavy too expensive. the new upcoming fully eletctric platform mini cooper E/SE is even heavier than the previous gen
Once again they make the same mistakes. FWD, single motor, too heavy. sure FWD works for an EV city car appliance. I know I daily drive a 500e and I love it, but it peels the front tires, understeers, and torque steer like crazy. on wet roads its sliding all over the place.
there is NO need to make FWD performance EVs. its doesnt make sense and there is not enough weight on the front wheels. the flagship performance version should have AWD, a small battery, and higher power to weight ratio than any existing gas hot hatch. Just figure out the cooling so that it can have lot of power from a small battery and fast charging. People who want performance have always learned t ollive with compromises. Comfort, practicality, gas consumption, maintenance and insurance costs. In a performance EV manufacturers have to be willing to sacrifice range for a lighter battery. make a hot hatch that will blow away the competition, then it can be offered in a whole array of trims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
this is a way more important vehicle for Tesla than cyber truck at global level.
it won't be 25k though because people will be ok to pay more, I don't see less than 30k, actually not likely less than 35k until they can make literally millionS of them per year. if they can sell model Y starting at 66k and 3 RWD starting at 57k like hotcake. Corolla hatchback/Camry/RAV4 in similar SE trim msrp are 23/27.5/33k so following the same kind of pricing structure it would even be around 45k. could be less if they really cut down on features and range but it's not going to happen until they cover all the demand for higher trims but I don't see why they wouldn't want to keep premium prices and premium features that make them both profitable and desirable.
Cyber truck is strategic in the US because it will compete with the best selling vehicle, F150 & 150 lightning, it's more the manufacturing technique. if they can figure out the way to make them cheaply and massively, it could enable a whole line of value crossover/SUVs spin offs cheaper than Y/X using similar manufacturing that could sell like crazy too. if Tesla can keep going against the automotive trend of facelifts/restylings every 3/6 years and planned obsolescence which involves redesigning and leads to over styling the designs to differentiate vs previous gens, and keep rolling out incremental improvements/adjustments without stopping production, plus software updates to the existing cars, it's win/win, people want the cars, Tesla doesn't need to be continuously risking to reinvent existing designs. they can make long lasting cars that people will want to keep for a while, and that will still hold a good value after year.
their biggest risk of losing the.EV grow are
1 if China manages to produce way more cars and to export them.
2 if disruptive battery tech like solid state leaves them with expensive investments in battery factories, and they fall behind the curve on parents, R & D etc. if/when self driving is widely accepted, having the edge on software and infotainment could continue to maintain their headstart but I think they will have more competition on software by big software companies who already have the app stores and the experience
1
-
1
-
eCVT is 100% gear based and has no reciprocating parts, no friction, no shifting mechanism and is simpler, more efficient and reliable than a manual/dct/automatic and can handle high torque. its perfectly balanced, doesnt need ratcheting, and also eliminates/replaces clutch, starter and alternator. it is just a single planetary gearset as found in most modern automatic transmissions (except they use 3/4 of them) that has one input shaft connected to an engine (or pedals im case of an ebike) , a second input shaft connnected to an electric motor, and an output shaft connected to the driveshaft/axle. it can be driven by either the engine/pedals , or the electric motor, or combination of both, and the electric motor controls the gear ratio. there is no slippage and the ecvt runs in transmision oil that requires virtually no maintenance. its used by toyota and ford hybrids and toyota has made their patent free of charge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
they promised the plaid powetrain , that was supposedly linited by the battery, so possibly even more poweful with the bigger battery.
Then promised quad motor, and eventually delivered "ONLY" 845hp / 130 mph non plaid tri motor with 50% price increase, 35% range loss, less payload, less towing, smaller bed, and a "range extender" reducing bed size and payload even more.
I mean if you are going to make a cyberbeast that doesnt really make sense except for drag racing or making fun of TRX/ Raptors, why even reduce the power ? of course you can't make it go 200mph so I understand they didnt need the high rpm horsepower but why not just put the plaid motors with even more gear reduction ? Probably they didnt want the truck to be cruising at 13krpm at 85mph , not effficient and too hard on the motors ? or maybe the all terrain tires simply couldnt put the power down with lower gearing and the truck is just ad fast to 60mph tas the tires can provide..
The consistency in quarter mile performance compared to lets say a tesla model S/X plaid meight be explained with just (lower) power and (bigger) battery size. by unit of power the cyber truck has 50% more battery capacity, meaning the batteries do discharge 35% slower, meaning less overheating (considering there is adequate cooling of course) and more sustained performance at low SOC.
for instance if plaid loses 35% peak power at 30%, then at same SoC, considering the cells have identical characteristics, the cyberbeast should still have 100% power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ctbrahmstedt a smaller , forced induction engine with wide powerband and similar power to a larger diesel engine doesn't need 50 gears to haul. actually it doesn't even need more gears if it has similarly shaped torque curve. what's important is the ability to make high power (let's say > 70% of peak power for instance) at low rpms (ex 50% of redline) . the actual torque value and roms don't matter it's the ratios that do. with a wide power band you can do with 5 or 6 speeds no problem. the reason why modern cars, even turbocharged, have more and more gears is EPA emissions/mpg ratings and the need to have super tall gearing for highway cruising, and be able to run at the most efficient rpm at any speed. super tall gears are pointless for towing anyway.
when you start factoring in towing reliability, you also need your engine that can put out high loads for long periods without overheating or high wear. this can be done on smaller engine. just look at some small japanese engines that are built with such high reliability standards they can run at high loads reliably even after being tuned (properly). but then you also need to consider transmission cooling, so I'm the end you just can't find a complete off the shelf package with smaller gas engine truck that can tow heavy loads for hundreds thousand miles reliably and if you need it you just go for a dedicated big diesel hauler
but let's say you haul once year, you can use any engine that will maintain safe speeds within safe operating condition of the engine
the miles will generate maybe double or triple the wear compared to just cruising, but that's what engines are meant to do
on the end, it's power, not torque, that says if you can accelerate and move a heavy load at a certain speed.
you can generate lot of torque with your arms using a big wrench, or legs on a bicycle, but it doesn't mean you can tow anything
1
-
@madangel71 yes two engines with same power are able to push the same vehicle to same top speed with appropriate gearing.
top speed = speed where drag equals power.
except if one engine is so much bigger than the other that it has to stick out of the hood., increasing the drag. or so much heavier it increases friction drag considerably. but top speed on a flat road doesn't really depend on weight. its almost 99% aero drag vs power (talking about cars with top speeds at least above legal speeds)
acceleration is impacted by weight though so heavier engine with same power = less acceleration. then you have other factor coming in, number of gears, powerband, close ratio gearbox or not, shift delay, etc
but at any given moment, beetween two cars of same weight and aero, going the same speed, it's the one putting more power that is going to accelerate more. not the one with more engine torque. because more engine power translate translate to more wheel torque. but usually, everything else being equal, same peak power and higher peak torque value is still correlated with wider power curve, and thus better performance (especially daily / road driving, not at full throttle/peak power)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Formula one has reliable engines with 50% thermal efficiency, more than 500hp per liter, thanks to smart electric assisted turbochargers with separated turnine and compressor and electric motor in the middle that can recover excess boost at high rpm/load working as a generator , or increase boost at lower rpm working as a motor.
this energy could be sent to or taken from the crankshaft with another rmotor/generator. 520hp /liter is also limited by regulation to the fuel flow... engines make all their power at 10k, and can rev up to 15k, but without providing more power because of fuel flow limitation, so we are talking about maybe close to 700/750hp per liter potential without regulation
I dont see a reason why it couldnt be translatwd into a 4 cylinder architecture, with lower state of tune (less boost, less rpms, slower piston speeds, more displacement) to stay at reasonable 2-2.4L seen on most high performance inline-4, and achieve a similar 600-650hp, with around 300hpper liter
we already have 400+ horsepower 2l inline 4 engines in production cars. its also easier in boats to have massive amount of cooling for intercoolers and watercooling using the virtually unlimited amount of cool sea water
I simply dont see how getting rid if swcondary imbalance could bring even clos eto the benefits they are claiming.
they are claiming near Formula 1 power amd efficiency, but with an emgine configuration that tmakes no sense for performance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
your logic only works if you're buying new. the guy that buys your 70k miles truck at new price makes a pretty shitty deal. the 4 yo cross over at 80% depreciation makes a pretty sweet one. also why buy a truck if you dont need the bed or the towing, and get crappy fuel economy, handling, suspensions and wind noise. also you seem to be pretty sure that crossovers are leaving dealer's lot at MSRP, which is not necessarily true.
"The average five-year depreciation rate for an SUV is 50.8% according to iSeeCars. So this is higher than the average five-year depreciation rate of a pickup truck (44.1%)" so yeah that is a 1%/year difference that explains by the fact trucks are usually built to last longer, but it's hardly relevant. of course this is an average, and some deals are better than the others, also you cant always predict the depreciation, except a few models that hold up their value pretty consistently across the years. you have to be pretty biased if you think owning a used lamborghini is the same cost as owning a (new) crossover...I guess you are not comparing the same mileage either, forgetting about maintenance, gas price, insurance, and garage space. BTW all used cars are overpriced nowadays, so it doesnt mean much, I could also sell my crossover today with 50k at the same price I bought it with 15k
to finish, lot or trucks buyer are spending a tons of money on options and aftermarket parts that have very low resale value. so in the end just buy what you want/need, if you're really worried about value, just try to be smart about buying/selling at the right time so your not the one taking the most depreciation
1
-
1
-
at 1.4g, first foot is done in 0.21s
Also....you're comparing 0-60 on a drag strip, vs 60-0 on road surface...I'm pretty sure with similar grip, the braking distance would be significantly shorter, because air resistance slows down acceleration, and helps braking, and sticky drag strip want to "hold you back" too. it would be interesting to see improvement in ABS technology (meaning ABS that doesnt suck), using direct electric motors brakes actuation, instead of hydraulics, very fast 1ms feedback, and some improved algorithm inspired by threshold braking, to keep wheel lock as low as possible while still constantly hunting down for additional grip
The crazy thing about the mcmurtry speirling is how quickly it comes to a stop when it spins out with the fans working.
of course you need to put an insane amount of G's to do it, but even then, it stops on a dime even going completely sideways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would bet a healthy amount of money that the roadster will NOT have 600miles of range in any version. not because it's physically impossible but because if it did it would just be a totally inferior product. the only use would be Autobahn or cannon ball 120 -150mph cruising but this would . 600 miles of range isn't even that desirable for a family car but it. would just make more sense in a model s "GT" plaid+ powertrain, no track package/aero, active suspension. no focus on track performance, just power, range, comfort, like AMG S class.
you don't sacrifice hundreds of pounds in an electric super/hypercar for range. the biggest single performance bottleneck in current high performance EV like S plaid, Rimac nevera, taycan turbo GT is weight and how weight impacts tires performance. no current road tire technology is able to withstand sustained acceleration, braking and cornering at high speeds, which is what super/hypercard are meant for. owners of these lmkind of car spend a lot on options to save weight
Making an EV that can beat any gas car on any performance metric is a great objective, and range is not one of those metrics. I don't know. if it can be achieved with 2025/2026 battery tech, not with current tesla energy density focused battery tech, and not with upcoming iterations of 4680 cells
also not without full carbon tub and body
the trend in very high performance EV/PHEV (nevera, Evijah, Gemera, future Bugatti hybrid) is very high electric output with a smallish battery optimized for power density. if Tesla keeps prioritizing range the roadster will be a failure
regarding the spacex package ability to to 0-60mph in 1s I think it's possible but with a huge compromise on range, weight and efficiency, also impact on performance when the thrusters are not used. I don't think they want to enter a mass production process for these thrusters/compressors/big pressure lines/tank. what makes sense is to just make enough spaceX roadster for influencers and high profile personalities like they did with the first deliveries of the founders cybertruck. it's a car for exotic cars drag racing channels, jay leno, etc. I'm pretty sure they won't be able to meet the demand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fake shifter and clutch doesn't work from a pure performance point of vue but if you are a human driver, not an AI and maybe can't control the accelerator pedal with 1% precision, shifts are useful also on a track as a way to limit your torque below the point you would be losing traction, or precisely adjust your engine braking. discreet gears give you reference points like downshifting in a breaking zone, knowing in what gear you are in a corner gives you a better sense of speed, shifting/short shifting out of a corner with low grip, where a classic EV control with a single speed gives you only one way to control power with your right foot. but considering those EV's with lot of advanced electronics/traction control/torque vectoring can probably do it better than you.
but if you are considering a more analog experience with esp disabled, it can make some sense. same for dirt bike riders who say that on electric dirt bikes they are missing their clutch lever that gives them an additional way to control power out of a corner or in technical Enduro/trial, less sensitive to shocks/vibration than twisting a throttle. from a more daily driving perspective, gears are also an additional input that allow you to control the sportiness/ smoothness compromise as well as the amount of engine braking/Regen. like an instant chill/normal/sport switch . by limiting the max power or Max Regen, you also give more precise control to the driver. but then in this scenario you don't really need to fake a redline.
another situation where I like to use a manual mode wether it's on a stick(duh)/dct/auto/CVT in mountains when you have long down hills as an easy way to control your speed without the need to be always on the brake pedal. you can always find a gear in the straight that will maintain a speed close to your desired speed with no foot on the pedals while still letting you break/accelerate. strong one foot Regen like on Tesla's will slow you down, cruise control will deactivate when you accelerate or brake.
So basically even though cars are becoming smarter and smarter, taking over more and more of your work, controls are getting simpler too, sometimes "too" simple (one foot driving) and at the same time remove some of your control. for instance one pedal controlling -75kW to +760kW is not something you always want to have when you are just driving in traffic. less controls is ok if you want to give away driving to a self driving car.
that being said, my 500e which has only 111hp, strong Regen braking linked to the brake pedal, and zero driving mode/Regen setting, and a single speed, works perfectly for me a daily driver that can easily be driven smoothly or hard. single speed direct drive is for me the closest to a manual transmission in the sense that it gives a direct connection between the accelerator pedal and the motor. as much as I don't like auto transmissions, I don't miss my clutch pedal at all
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shawncooper8131 not really that big of a problem considering the actual number of battery replacements.
"the average time a person owns their first car is 4.2 years. The average number of miles driven in a first car is 43,000"
meaning most will sell long before 8y/100k miles
if you wanna keep your EV until it dies, just follow recommandations, charging daily to 80%, your battery can last much longer.
hopefully by the time all those EVs get close to the end of warranty, dealerships will be able to make accurate diagnostics of battery health, not only through recurrent but also their own diagnostic tools,and to offer relatively affordable battery warranty extensions
yes battery replacement are expensive, but engine/transmissions are expensive too, and people still buy high mileage gas cars. the big advantage is that determining a battery health is easier, less labor intensive than an engine. I can. see EV battery diagnostics becoming very common, whereas compression tests, lab analysis of used oil, or full engine disassembly are very rare and only for niche car markets. if a used EV loses most of its value because of uncertainty about the battery health, the brighter side is that a. lot of money can be made by restoring customers trust and/or offering warranties
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
chillfluencer nope, most manufacturers already waste capacity on the batteries by implementing buffers below 0% and above 100% to make the batteries fool proof. when your manufacturer says your engine is good for lets say 200hp or top speed is 130mph, do you think you can drive for hours at top speed/full throttle/near the redline and you will always get the max horsepower at any temperature/elevation? no unless it's a race car
Could they limit the rpm and horsepower to half their maximum? yes
Would you want it? no
Battery is the same, you can trickle charge between 20-80% most of the time which would be the equivalent of cruising at legal speed in top gear for an engine (will last hundreds thousands of miles with proper oil changes) and you can charge it to 100% before a long trip, empty it to 0%, fast charge it etc when needed like you would take an engine at full throttle through the gears, to the redline. It's designed to do it, just not all the time. You know it's wearing quicker when you do it so it's up to you, and most importantly you don't NEED to do it. On the other hand, you can floor your EV most of the time with little effect on its lifespan, except on the tires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@8alakai8 en you're talking about power and, wider = better. means less shifting and better average power when shifting through the gears.
it doesn't matter how high/low the Rona are, the important thing is the ratio for instance the R10 tdi made 650hop between 3000 and 5000rpm so you can enter a corner at 100mph, slow down to 60mph at the apex, accelerate again to 100mph, without shifting and you have 100% of the power available at the tip of your right foot. of course you can't stay at 100% throttle in most corners, so you can actually enter the corner one gear or two up and /or shorshift, roll on the torque. if your power and is 5000-7000 (28%), it's not as good as 3000-5000 (40%) but NA petrol engine would only be a few percents with peak power. having power and higher or lower doesn't really matter in a race because your gearing is adjusted to your top speed/slowest corner, and to your powerband
the disadvantage of lower power band is you need more torque for the same power, so stronger gearbox.
petrol direct injection doesn't mean you have a lot of low rpm torque, it's mostly a slight efficiency/emissions gain. gasoliine direct injection is very different from diesel direct injection anyway. gdi is injected during intake stroke then pressurized, then ignited by the sparkplug. diesel is injected during the combustion stroke into the super hot air inside the cylinder and burns instantly
for high torque you need turbo/super charging wether it's diesel or petrol. turbo/supercharge petrol engines can have boost at low rpm in road cars for usable torque, but in race cars you usially want more power so a turbo that spools at higher rpm but keeps working at higher rpm too.
most a lot of things are possible and usually in racecars it depends on the regulations
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tesla semi makes sense but tesla postal/delivery vans, public/school busses, work trucks would make more sense because they have consistent daily routes, spend way more time accelerating/ braking, stopping, idling, etc and also drive at lower average speed, so for these reasons they are very well suited to BEVs, and its pretty easy to make them in different ranges, and order a vehicle that will be able to do its typical daily route within 20-80% SOC, and only charge slowly at night. with this pattern you can extend the battery lifetime considerably.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fjalics Roadster is probably quite far down the line, they'll make it one day, but every key strategic vehicles/project like cybertruck, 25k Model Y mini, new factory constructions, in house 4680 batteries manufacturing, will be prioritized.
If tesla want to draw attention on the performance side, they can also more easily make a Plaid+ that would be just a Plaid with
-higher discharge/power density cells, beefed up cooling capacity j, plaid track package including a decent sized wing or at least a bigger spoiler, and splitter like the aero kit from unplugged performance and like the other sub 7:30 sedans , additionnal suspension hardware upgrade, you have a car that will very easily improve on the plaid
Plaid+ was supposed to be a bigger 500+ miles battery, but if they want track performance more weight is not good
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wongcw08 you also always have the funny comments about EV "taking 3 hours to charge/ taking 10 hours to do a 3 hours drive", being "quick but not fast", "always slower than gas car in roll race", "run out of power at highway speeds", "spontaneously catch fire", or and get bricked when they go down to 0%, Oh I forgot they are so heavy that they destroy the roads and are more dangerous because of all the rubber particles they produce
0% facts but somehow people think repeating something wrong makes them look smart 🤓🤓
Which is funny because evs still have a few disadvantages compared to ICE, they are simply not nearly as serious as they used to be.
EVs with NACS connectors, superchargers opening up , new competitive models priced right like volvo EX30, kia EV9, going to trigger another wave of EVs
The next wave will be tesla 25k car, end other EV really competing with mainstream affordable cars like corolla, civic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@acsmars yeah I agree redefining weight/efficiency/cost/even performance.
they are not the first ones to make 3 wheelers to avoid car legislation
about the cost I think they just sell at a loss.
the problem is what people want safety comfort, practicality, biggest sellers are trucks and SUVs, aptera is a 3 wheeler not subject to car safety, with the interior of a sports car, but the footprint of a truck/SUV I'm still questioning their ability to make a car that is half as heavy, cheaper than as the competition, and safe. light and safe exist but its expensive for instance a Formula 1 cockpit.
if they live up to the announcements about submitting to independent safety ranking, safe handling is confimed, then all they have to do is make a car more inline with public expectation, but keep as much lightness/efficiency as possible
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the torque curve on electric motors doesn't start dropping suddenly because of back emf, because back emf is proportional to the rpm.
power is limited for a variety of reasons. battery power output is limited, controller power output is limited too, and finally the motor is also rated for maximum power. sending more power will generate more heat and eventually overheat or even melt the motor. whichever of these limits is reached the first, caps the motor power. then back emf is the reason why dyno chart of electric motors will not have perfectly flat horsepower plateau. even if controller keeps sending the same amount of electrical power, back emf will reduce the mechanical power produced, with more and more losses as rpm rise. tesla plaid seems to be almost an exception with very little power drop. maybe they just artificially limited the power at midrange rpms to allow this almost flat power curve?
BTW motors can have different nominal and peak power. you may have automatic fallback to lower power - limp mode- when its overheating, like on most EVS. on cheaper powertrains though, like ebikes, especially DIY ebikes, its often up to the rider to avoid putting out peak power or amps for too long, and you can damage or even destroy the motor on long climbs, or with too much payload with combinations of climbs/cargo/passenger
1
-
@bendriver1127 it's changing though. automatics are getting more popular even in Europe, its not only for old people anymore like it used to be. they went from slower, less efficient, more expensive, to in many cases quicker, more efficient, and with DCT being the only option on all the most track focused sports cars, automatics being usable in manual mode.
3 pedal is now more question of personal preference but also German manufacturer are transitioning towards 100% automatic, Toyota is selling 75% hybrids in Europe which are all automatics eCVTs, without even a manual mode, and all supercars are now automatics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
modern battery and electric motor technology have removed most of the inefficiencies in powertrains (gears/clitches/transmission tunnels/transfer cases) and optimized almost evrey aspect. when you look at a model s plaid powertrain seems to have been tuned to provide exactly the maximum torque that can be transfered to the wheels when accelerating, with 33% front/66% back maximising grip during the strong weight transfer happenning from 0-60mph. past 60mph its pretty much flat power curve that maximises the power that can be delivered by the batttery, and handled by the motors/controllers. rpm/gearing optimized to achieves fastest top speed that can be safely handled by tires considering the weight, with a comfortable safety margin. Even if you tried to improve it , you would hardly be able to do better. in drag racing, more torque/power and very sticky tires would help, but on a track, more power would get very minimal gains by overheating the battery, and tires, on the road under speed limits more power would be cut by traction controls.
Now almost who's ready to spend a bit more for performance can have access to a family car with massive amount of power in a reliable and cheap to operate daily driver car (model 3/Y performance, ioniq N, EV6 GT, Mach E GT, upcoming volvo EX30...) We are slowly getting to point (or already at the point) where most people can have way more power that they can/want to use.
I think the next big thing in cars will be (active) suspension technology..."active" suspensions with different presets for damping and ride height is just beginning and 1/10 of the equation. truly active/predictive suspensions with cameras/radars that soak up every imperfection, corner perfectly flat or even lean into the corners( think bose suspension), maintain perfect wheel geometry and tire contact patch throughout corners (new 992 GT2 RS active camber), and gives you better grip and better comfort over any road and at any speed, its potentially the ride comfort superior to luxury car, and handling/cornering similar to the best sports cars. Even if theres a weight penalty, the potential real life benefits way overcome the weight penalty I would happily trade 10% acceleration for a suspensions that would completely cancel potholes and speed bumps, corner/accelerate/brake flat like a go kart. There's a problem though, it could lead to people losing sensation of speed and speeding in residential areas/cities, not slowing down for speed bumps, and progressively going faster and faster over speed bumps, potentially reaching a point where they go passed the limits of the system and losing control at very high speeds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the volvo ex30 awd version is supposed to be 422hp/AWD/3.4s (vs 3.8 for this MG4 XPower).. also starting at $35k for the 268hp/RWD/5.1s version
It think with electric motors we're about to see a horsepower war, because electric motors are fairly cheap, small, light and reliable,, and adding motors/horsepower doesnt reduce range or increase maintenance...every EV can easily get a performance version that is properly quick in a straight line. now if they only increase power but dont touch the suspensions, it's not going to be proper performance vehicles, but still...quick in a straight line. I mean its already somehow here with the model 3/Y performance, EV6 GT, ioniq 5 N, mach-e GT,
ITs probably what's going to kill performance gas car, even though car enthusiast complain about lack of noise, when you highly tuned/screaming/fuming/rattling/tire melting muscle/exotic/super car is going to get properly smoked in a straight line by a cheap Chinese compact/midsize family crossover driven by the 18yo baby sittter with three kids and a dog in the back,windows opened and cheesy music blasting through the stereo 😀you are going to close down the valves in your exhaust and wanna go hide somewhere
I think at some point, like the top speed war it will wear out because everyone will have "enough" acceleration for the road
Although there will probably still always be underpowered single motor/power restricted entry level EVs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PHEVs are great when they're done right. RAV4 prime is quicker than any suv in its class, has good electric range, good ev mode , and good fuel economy on gas alone..even old Chevy volt has a healthy 6.3s 0-60. it's doesn't have a very good fuel economy once the battery is depleted and the the engine revs a bit weirdly but since you have more than 50 miles of range and once you're driving on cruise control the engine revving issue is not that bad. the new 2023 Prius prime is also a very good phev surprisingly good to drive and it seems like Toyota is preparing a grmn version...phev can be good they just need a powerful electric drivetrain that doesn't need ICE to kick in to get good acceleration, just enough battery to get you through your typical day if driving with no gas, hopefully we'll see more heat pumps in the future to avoid using the engine just for heat..it's stupid that every phev has AC but almost none has a reversible one to allow preheating the car in winter while it's plugged in.so you're either losing a lot of electric range for heating or usually just burning gas in the engine as a very inefficient heater (most heat goes out from the exhaust). the last thing that needs to be improved is efficiency to march the best EVs and make best use of whatever battery capacity is available.
you carrying a combustion engine when driving on electricity but you're not carrying a huge 80-100kWh battery, yet you have easily 600 miles of range. you carrying electric motors ,hen cruising on gas but they're helping to improve torque for acceleration or driving uphill, they're saving your brakes and recharging the battery when braking or driving downhill. also if you charge daily and drive in ev mode you can put as little as 10-15% of the miles on the gas engine so your Prius or RAV4 prime engine will probably last for 300-400k miles easily with little maintenance.
also Toyota eCVT transmission is super reliable, simple, efficient and very low maintenance. power is always available, it's more responsive than any automatic transmission and lets the engine either cruise at most efficient rpm or accelerate at peak power. but you have to get used to the engine rpm climbing as soon as you press the throttle ,which I admit is a but weird. I wish the 'y added paddle shifter and manual mode like Subaru cvts when you want to enjoy a nice twisty road and feel more connected
you're also avoiding putting wear on the ICE when doing short trips on a cold engine. so you can see the half empty glass and say they have the worse of ev and gas vars or see the half full glass and say they are the best of both worlds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think lots of your beeps and car not wanting to slide are related to not being in the appropriate mode. tesla are designed for safety first so if your trying to push it to its limits in default mode it wont even let you get there.
Of you want to drive it like that you probably need to put it in track mode and play with front/rear power split. that car wont beep in that mode. if you're not ready to take a little time looking for options the car is not going to give the driving pleasure you're looking for.
then there is the problem that a M3P with summer tires with its awd will need a lot lf speed to break traction. this is actually not that different to a. 911 that has loads of grip and will just keep cornering as fast as you want without getting playful intil you take it to insane speeds.I'm not compqring the cars but the amount of grip and how it can get in the way of fun unless you are ready to take it to the limits, Hich can get dangerous on this kind of roads. what you actually want to drive is maybe a M3P with driving aids disabled as much as possible, and slighlty LESS gripy tires to make it more playful ar less insane speeds. the car is not going to beep in track mode and will let you have a pretty good amount of drift angle. its also probably quite different from cars you are used to drive. a bmw m3 xdrive that weighs the same will probably give you the same issues. the biggest difference in terms of how easily it will let you play with rhe car is it it will let you go in sport mode more easily and in a lore traditional way, and disable esp with a couple knobs/buttons.
Also with the way most evs report range, you cant just drive calmly in city or highway for 100km read the reported range, then go on a twisty road and trash the car for 10km, reqd the reported range, and deduct that range went down 5-6x as fast, because range will go back up once you start driving it "normally" the range drop is not the range you loat but the projected range loss if you keep driving it the same intil battery is depleted. you should look at battery percentage lost per mile, or look at tesla efficiency graph with accurate Wh/mile or Wh/km. the range meter is just a hint about projected range assuming conditions stay the same. my experience with daily driving a small ev is that wven though trashing the car does impact range, it does way less than it does in a gas car.
Also my ev being. a 111hp fiat 500e with small 15in/185 wheels, only 50% weight on the front, and all weather tires, it will spin the tires anytime you apply more than 50% throttle, it'a alao very easy to reach the limit of the grip in corners. plus the fact you can turn the key and floor it right away makes it a very fun car for short drives
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
double the number of 4680 in a model Y is not gonna cut it for the 500miles cybertruck. the 67kWh 4680 Model Y has 828 cells double the cells would be only so about 81Wh per cell.
If the Cybertruck was as efficient as a model X Plaid on 22in wheels, it would need 160kWh to drive 500miles.
It doesnt take a genius to know that a CT with a drag coeff somewhere beetween 0.3 and 0.4 at best vs 0.24 , one more motor, at least 60kWh more, 4 wheeel steering, 35 in off road tires, 3x the tow rating, 3.5x the payload, powered tailgat, ramp and tonneau cover, armored glass etc will be way heavier and way less efficient than the model X. I think 200kWh is a pretty conservative estimate of the battery capcacity the will need to achieve 500 miles epa range. So actually more like 3x the model Y 4680 capacity or about 2500 cells. Of course they might not make ONLY 500miles versions at launch, but its still very likely that they will first try to deliver the highest trims..
~140kWh / 1600+ 4680 cells seems more reasonable for the 350 miles dual motor version
The RWD '250miles version...who knows if they will ever make one. I don't see any manufacturer making 2WD electric trucks, so...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wrong maths about emissions.
"The residential sector accounts for about 21% of total U.S. energy consumption." so even if you increase residential electricity consumption by 33%, the increase in global emissions is only 25% x 21% x 33% = 1.7%.BTW, the 25% also accounts for heating, and most of the heating is not electric, so the actual number for the increased emissions due to charging EV's would be actually smaller, like 1-1.5%. this just confirms the fact that any power plant is WAY more efficient than ANY combustion engine in real life (driving in traffic)
But of course, converting all cars to electricity only makes sense if you simultaneously increase renewables in electricity production and progressively plan to phase out coal, fuel, gas. So yeah, we actually need both to happen, not just one or the other
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll give you another sleeper, fiat 500e
it's not sporty looking like the Abarth. but 0-30 in 3 secs, 0-60 in 8s. it might sounds unimpressive, but it will do it in relative silence (except tires chirping and the whine from the motor), so repeatably, effortlessly, smoothly and easily, wether it's 100° or you just turned on the car and it's 3°. I drive city/ suburban roads with it and it and just casually applying half throttle it will put several car length behind 99% of the cars including Tesla's. not pretending to be seriously racing anyone but it's just a very fun and zippy commuter/daily driver, much quicker in real life than my 6.9s sorento and won't overheat after one or two launches. and you can use most of the performance without it being brutal, jerky, loud, and without dumping loads of CO2 or worrying about gas price.onlu car that completely left me in the dust though was an i8, but I live in a very calm neighborhood, very few shenanigans out there even if most people have expensive/quick cars.
1
-
1
-
cvt makes sense in purely performance perspective. like launching the car from 0-60 or through quarter miles being always at top power rpm, and no power drop through the whole acceleration. reliability is a concern though for a car meant to be driven hard.
lack of rev changes and constant droning sound really don't go with what we expect from performance car. you could tune software to simulate a 10+ speed transmission by changing gear ratio by small increments instead of continuously. this would have minimal effect on performance if mated to a turbo engine with a very flat power curve and sound much more sporty.
although I've always driven manual until recently, where I've been driving an automatic suv and single speed EV, I still love manual but I can see why it's slowly disappearing. automatic are now better at both pure performance or efficiency, I like how I can put a manual in the correct gear before even accelerating or braking,but with regen available on hybrids and evs, instant torque of evs or wide power curve of turbo engines, and also average cars being much more powerful than a few decades ago, advantages of manuals are getting thinner, and drawbacks are increasing.
from a pure performance/track perspective, I'm even wondering if there is really a single advantage of manual, other than making it easier to know in which gear you are at anytime
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you didn't watch the video till the end right? 110ft is already crazy high, but a 10x bigger, 1000x heavier version, way taller than a human, although much more complicated to make would only (theoretically) jump 15-20% higher thanks to less air resistance/mass.
even if they can hypothetically make it and not break at every landing,if you expected it to jump ~10x higher, no luck, for that it would need to have initial speed x sqrt(10) and total energy x10000 or 10x more energy/mass which is limited by the spring material energy/mass.
lighter motor /battery could only allow 20% higher jump, and scaling the robot only 25%
so hard limit if you optimized every paramater is maybe somewhere ~170ft
from there, any incremental improvement would face difficulties to increase the size and air resistance limiting the gains
whatever the size and whatever the motor/battery weight until we find materials that can store much more energy than carbon fiber/rubber.
Although a completely different problem, it's a bit like wheel driven streamliners even packing 5000hp, super efficient aero, kinda hit a wall around 500mph because they can't send more power to the ground without losing too much speed because of the drag
you'd need different tire compound , or to run it on a track instead of salt flats.
by the way, the moon/mars version could have a different design because air resistance wouldn't count
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
maybe tesla semi will be able to gain significant time thanks to better performance and regen ? easier to pass slow vehicles, quicker to accelerate in stop and go traffic, and better brakes thanks to regen, so you dont have to keep as much distance with the vehicles in front, so it could maintain a similar average speed while cruising a few mph slower. it seems tesla went full on efficiency with the two disconnectable motors. they probably also have different gearing to allow always sending torque to the motor(s) in the best rpm range ? I wouldn't be surprised if the hummer EV with a (max rated) large 7500 pounds trailer is barely more efficient (if any) than an 82k lbs loaded semi...it only got .9kWh/mile with a 5000lbs trailer and 1.52kWh at 75mph with a 6000lbs camper...
I am sure tesla semi driver will quickly learn how to optimize the cruising speed/ charging stops to get as quickly as possible to their destination. most probably they will go faster whenever they have partial load or a drive shorter than 500miles, and otherwise will findn out the quickest way to travel long distance. provided you have v4/megacharger on your route, probably drive according to speed limits/ flow of traffic, drain the battery below 5-10% and make use of the fastest charging that happens at low SoC (at least on all current) tesla models, and leave as soon as the have enough range or as soon as charging slows down significantly
BTW lot of semis don't always follow speed limits, if you drive the speed limit you'll have a fair amount of semis passing you, which is a good reason not to follow the speed limits....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
one of the least documented and discussed subject about battery longevity is age. because how recently have EV become mainstream, studies focus on degradation after 100k, 200k miles. but average EV is driven 10k per year meaning these would be only reached after 10-20 years.
interestingly this means also the average EV who's has 270 miles range and driven only 27 miles a day is used only 10% charge daily meaning there's a strong disconnect between what people is the range they need (often around 400-600 miles in polls) and what they are actually driving. very long trips are more about miles charge per minute than range, and most EVs are underused
there is little info on degradation coming from age, although it depends a lot on what SoC the battery is stored, temperature, a common number is 15 years, meaning no matter how those EVs are going to get charged, the actual number of cycles will likely be around 500 cycles, way below the theoretical limit, because of how little they get driven and the fact the people buy EVs with TOO MUCH range will impact degradation way more than fast charging. it would be nice to see a video about that 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MaxCaud nope the eCVT found in toyota (and Ford that has similar technology) is extremely simple, way simpler than a 10 speed automatic transmission actually. its also more reliable and way lower maintenance. complexity is subjective..as long as its cheaper and more reliable than most long range EV long term. complexity is mostly in the software but that's fine, electronics are cheap compared to gas, combustion engines or big li ion batteries
with ev mode you also put way less wear on the combustion engine. with gas on long trips you also don't need fast charging so less wear on the battery.
EV will rule when battery tech is more advanced, cheaper, lighte, fully recyclable, and available in numbers to equip every single new car. also when electricity is clean. Make no mistake I love EV, actually daily driving a fiat 500e. but long range EV for everyone is currently impossible, so PHEV or even hybrids are really good solutions for mass production, today. if you take all the batteries used to build evs evs and split them into many hybrids, would would reduce emissions way more effectively.
Toyta fixed the performance issue of the prius
1
-
@chriswilbur212 EV's are not really supposed to be a practical solution if you have no home charging, or at least charging at work.
I've owned an EV since 6 month before covid. charging for free at work was great
Then worked from home and used public charging for about a year which was OK for a while, I was walking to and from the nearest public charger, which was only a 10 min walk and my pup was always happy to come along, but I could only charge 50% on a 2h session and I had to come pug to unplug/plug, or leave with a partial charge. eventually the chargers got more and more busy, I found notes on my car saying I was staying too long
So I eventually discovered a suitable, kinda hidden outdoor plug on my house, bought a 100ft extension cord and went against the recommendations of not using them. I now charge lvl 1 curbside which is fine and actually more convenient than going to a gas station, but if I lived in a condo with no charging, I wouldn't consider an EV. Also on trips, still using the gas crossover not only because its bigger but also because I don't want to be limited to hotels or vacation stays with ev charging. I know some people do, but for me charging my car should simply not dictate the way I'm living..
Also the short range fiat 500e cost me not even 1/5 of a long range EV, is dirt cheap to drive, insure and maintain, plus it's just as fun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
they use only one permanent magnet motor in the front for cruising more efficiently. induction motor dont have a lot of drag when they are not excited, so its ok to let them engaged but not require a clutch( or clutches).
For the Semi its a bit different because it has a giant, super expensive 900kWh battery. even if the clutch only saves 5% when cruising, boecause semis spend most of the time cruising, thats potentially a 50kWh saving, thats a significant cost and weigh to be saved.
I thought the cybertruck might use clutches too, but I think with induction motor(s) its probably not worth it. its a compromise beetween cost, weight, complexity, reliability, etc.
If you add a clutch, you might as well add another gear ratio and a secon clutch and make a 2 speed DCT like on the taycan, but again, it's usually not worth it on an EV because of the torque transmission and clutches have to be overbuilt. remeber the first gen roadster that was breaking gearboxes like crazy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
so short answer is the m3p is the better handling/cornering car, m3 competition xdrive is the more powerul cat in a straight line that can lap quicker without overheating the tires, thanks to straight line performance..not what you'd expect if you believe the narrative ev = heavy cars that cant brake, corner, 0-60 one trick ponies
also means there's a huge potential for improvements in the Tesla if you extrapolate the improvements vs the previous generations
3rd gen tesla m3p : more power, similar weight, better cooling, improved software, repeatable performance without degradation
-1st gen M3 Neue Klasse electric M3 1300hp monster weighing way more than tesla M3P and costs 2x as much, struggling to offer consistent performance on the track
-7 gen M3 inline 6 mild hybrid version with incremental performance improvements, heavier weight, wont be able to keep up with newt gen tesla M3P.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
some inverters are necessary like those powering an ac motor from a battery. but the best inverter is no inverter.....
all electronics use dc voltage
appliances that use resistors like the heating elements in a kettlle, toaster, coffee machine, washing machine, electric dryer do not car about AC or DC
aolar panels. residential and ev batteries are dc. solar panels powering inverters semding ac to your electrical panel converting it to ac to charge a battery then back to to ac, and then back to DC again through an adapter is 4 conversions. isnt it time to rethink the way electricity is distributed.
dc power rransmission is more efficient.
USBC PD is a great example you have a single plug that carries dc power, offers a wide range of power 5-240W and voltages 5-48V. a house equipped with redidential batteries with similar voltage to evs 400v for instance could in theory provide any voltage multiple of the base celll voltage, couldn dc fast charge an EV, charge straight from solar panels and power an yelectronic device without voltage conversion.
it would need a bunch of switches amd a smart software managing the battery modules voltages. with each battetry module being cells in paraller always kept balanced and battery modules being wired in series amd kept at various soc/voltages, the swirchingnlogic could select the modules to continously provide the most accurate and stable voltage nd some dc-dc conversion could happen for the devices requiring very accurate voltage. for instance providing 5v cannot be done with li ion cells. the device could ask a certain voltage range and the electrical panel could select the best strategy depending on the solar output, battery level etc, either outputting N battery modules in series, straight to the plug or converting it with dc/dc. of course stamdardization would stilll make things easier, allowing to semd one identical voltage to several devices allowing power strips amd using multiples would keep things simpler. 120V dc for standard appliamces, 240V for high power, 60V for ebikes, laptops etc also battery powered devices could require the battery voltage when charging, and whatever voltage is used internally whem charging stops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it looks like there are great opportunities to improve batteries life through software.
- battery run in/break in period
- optimization of fast charging
- fixing/repairing/healing spreading dendrites with ultra low current charging/high temp
-detecting ev stored for extensive time soent at low or high SoC. battery could self discharge into a two way charger, if impossible ,slowly drain rhe battery through heating/ac to a safe level, send you notifications about low SoC, or use solar panels to trickle charge out of danger zone(0-5%)
-smart charger storing battery at 50% for long periods of inactivity
a lot of these improvements could be done automatically/transparently , when plugged in, or no, to a ac or dc charger, and your planned yearly battery maintenance could be just keeping your car plugged to your home charger for 12 or 24 hours, or maybe go to a special self service diagnostic and maintenance fast charger for an hour while youre having lunch. I would definitely do it if it was possible. battery dont REQUIRE maintenance but if you can extend life, why not do it. makes a lot of sense wether you're owning rhe car for 200-300k miles, want to increase resale value, or you could even get a bonus for lease returns upon achieving above average battery health.
Ive been trying smartphone charging to 80% for 5 years, still gets me about a day of use on a 80% charge, battery degradation after a year and over 250 cycles is negligible around 0-1%
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ideally, you'd want free valves like Koenigsegg technology, operated purely from electricity, and no spring. then you can accelerate the valve as quickly as possible during half of the valve travel, using electric energy, and. slow down the valve the second half of the valve travel so it seals the cylinder with no hard impact and recuperating energy at the same time. then keep applying just enough force to keep it sealed shut. keep the valve as light as possible with no spring, no hydraulic. the question is how to achieve this very fast moving of the valve efficiently. I don't think the solenoids/linear motors are good enough so the other option is electric motors and a worm gear to add leverage/increase the motor rpm. improvements in small electric motors or linear motors density/efficiency/cost could create a bunch of new applications for valves, electric brakes etc
you also get instantly a huge advantage for variable valve timing/lift/duration, cylinder deactivation, variable compression, Atkinson cycle, compression ignition, 2 stroke/4 stroke modes, and lightning fast throttle response/traction control. instead of retarding ignition to reduce power, you have complete control over the amount of air/fuel that each stroke ingests, no more throttle body
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
as evs become more and nore mainstream people will have to understand them better. I know some just don't want to for various reasons but ev transition will happen sooner or later wether you like it or not. its up to you if you want to stay on the side of people who dont have a clue, and will wear their batteries quicker from bad usage, or have a decent understanding of how they work at least at a surface level, and how too make an EV last 2-3x longer. Many people fear EVs for expensive battery repairs which is totally understandable but what if you can extend the battery life by a big factor by just following some common sense rules. same people who say they dont want to worry about a battery and just drive their car will also take their car for regular maintenance, oil changes, brake pads or even DIY it, do emissions testing, warm up their engine longer in winter, put quality gas, etc
taking proper care of an EV is actually easier than of an ICE and also better BMS software and ev computer could easily give people who dont have the knowledge some guidance. like highlight when you keeo ev at 100% without using it, when you're fast charging over 80%/in hot weather without a need gor it (like not using the fast charge right away). you could have reminders inn your car or phone and progressively learn these rules so that later you dont zven have to think about it
1
-
1
-
depends if you're talking about emergency braking, for your safety, or braking that you can plan like for a corner, on the road or on a track. on the road, braking distance should only matter for emergncy braking, there is no reason to brake with 100% power before a corner. Unless you have some carbon ceramic brakes that need to get up to temperature, you always want to stay within a certain safety margin (lets say20-50% depending on people/cars) and keep that margin for emergencies. Emergency, by definition, doesn't warn you before hand so you have to take into account the time to ramp up the braking power, and weight transfer. Interessingly Fortnine did a vide oabout ABS on motorcycle, and how slamming the brakes with ABS does get longer braking distance not only because of the wheels locking up, but because also because weight transfer takes time to settle. its not only about weight, but suspension tuning
On a track, you want to have fade resistant brakes and use close to 100%, but you can anticipate and setup the weight transfer before slamming the brakes. here weight naes a difference in the long run because after dozens of high speed braking, the heavier car is way more likely to overheat the brakes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sky active-X great on paper: 56% thermal efficiency, more power and torque, but disappointing in reality (modest mpg gains), has some knocking sound and still only in few Mazda models. It's also kinda weird to design a new engine tech for efficiency and not make it fully hybrid from the start. hybrid improves efficiency in many ways, with Regen, ability to offload some work to the electric motor(s) and keep the combustion engine in more efficient rpm/load sweet spot. eCVT helps a lot too with better control of the engine. A phev with sky active X could also use the engine as a range extender running always with compression ignition. patents make it complicated or impossible to combine all the best technologies in the same engine...and.clock is ticking when parents are free it will be already game over for combustion engine. it would be nice to see combustion engine manufacturers who still believe in combustion engine group their efforts and create some ultimate combustion engine with hybridization, compression ignition, F1 style electric turbos, variable valve timing and lift. even better, free valves with cylinder deactivation, 2 stroke operation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TBH you can drop pretty much any bike using front brake with the wrong combination of low speed, slippery surface like gravel, mud, snow, an the bike being not perfectly straight and upright. happened to me twice, with my first 2 stroke 50cc scooter maneuvering at walking pace on a gravel driveway, and second time with my first actual motorcycle , super moto XR 600 commuting to work after it snowed at night (!) and and I was coming to a stop at an intersection on a street that hadn't been plowed, used the back brake very gently and eventually feathered the front brake right over a patch of ice covered by a very thin layer of snow, and next thing I know, I was on the ground with the foot peg that had removed 4 inch long worth of flesh on my shin
both could have been easily avoided and very predictable with all conditions to drop the bike. low speed crashes are great lessons as long as they are low consequences on you and the bike and can help put you in the mindset of "never drop the bike at high speed/collide with cars" without scaring you to the point of not getting back on the bike.
congrats, ride safe and good bike choice, singles are very fun and you can enjoy them at legal speeds. that's all 've ever ridden (owned 3 of them) save for a 500cc Piaggio X9 scooter (don't recommend big scooters cause you get too fast without noticing with the CVT) which was still technically a big single.
just remember riding a low power motorcycle doesn't make it safe, it's the way you ride that can make you safe or not, still plenty of ways to put you into very bad situations.
I have very good memories of riding the 650 dominator and XR 600 swapped to dominator engine.
you can consider moving up to 600-650cc single when you feel you are comfortable with the 250cc and it feels too slow or you wanna do longer highway rides, although vibrations and riding position make them bad choice for very long rides
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DarkStarDetailing well if it makes a better engine vs in house and the engine is still unique...Bugatti veyron bespoke engine, tires, etc was a commercial disaster because of R&D costs, losing millions PER CAR. chiron was more an evolution, limiting costs and they made production more efficient, trying to get some return on the veyron investissement
Right now creating an all new engine architecture, that will likely be thrown away in about 10 years for pure electric drive would be a very risky move.(yes it's coming...even the new hybrid powertrain is a "transition" bugatti which is already 50% gas 50% electric. add 10 years of battery improvements and gas bans in Europe, 9 east and west coast states,Japan China etc, the following gen WILL be electric)
Bugatti can't afford to lose as much money as they did with the veyron, VW's not throwing money down the drain anymore, Porsche is probably not going to do same mistake as VW and rimac doesn't have the cash to do it, so they asked Cosworth for help, fair enough. Knowing your limits is a quality too. I'm pretty sure they figured out a simple evolution of the W16 wouldn't cut it in terms of perforlance and emissions to keep up with the hypercars market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
then the super villain takes the experience to next level and releases the super evolved bacteria crafted for 33 years to kill 99% of humanity and help human race evolve from the 1% survivors.
by the way, this experiment helps understand how aging, dying is a desirable characteristic for any species. your "goal" from a DNA perspective is
1/ multiply and have an offspring to let your race survive
2/ mutate, be the living experiment to test these mutations positive or negative effect you and your offspring survival
this means once you have given life to your offspring and raised it, you are not useful anymore except your ability to help the next generations, and you are using resources that could be used by them. this aging, eating less and eventually dying..
we evolve much slower than bacterias but we have added culture/knowledge/science to the legacy we leave to the next generations and we are progressively freeing ourselves from the environment pressure by reducing infant/youth mortality to a very low rate, wether it's from disease, starvation, predation, so our DNA evolution is probably going slow down a lot, but the amount of knowledge/information we leave to the next generation gross exponentially..the only mutations that are selected are those that make individuals have more children, which has always been the case. are we eventually.
humanity has to reinvent itself regarding what's ou goal besides surviving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UltimateTViptv yes the plaid with track package will set new records on every track. it seems like even the software part makes a big difference. they took their sweet time, but came with an (almost) complete package. the problem is the weak link is now suspensions and seats. they came just short of offering a complete track package with everything balanced together. Of course its not easy to settle for a "perfect" track package, there is always something you can improve, a bit here, a bit there, some weight to remove, additional welds, a roll cage, 5 point harness, seats delete, you start stripping everything related to comfort and eventually you end up with something that's too expensive, that's not a road car at all anymore...they had to stop somewhere, but seems like a suspension upgrade would make sense
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sethh8892 Chevy says "PARTS INTENDED FOR COMPETITION USE ONLY" and show pictures of camaro drag racing, so not really meant for daily driving/cruising.
but regardless if you wanna drag race it or cruise it my point is that by today's standards it's a bit of an odd match to offer a NA engine with peak torque at 5600rpm and peak power at 6600rpm, redlines at 7000rpm, with a 4 speed.
on the street you're not going to spend a lot of time over 5600rpm, on drag strip, you're gonna lose to cars with lighter engine, wider (supercharged) torque, and more speeds that will stay in the power band during shifts. the transmission ratios: 1st: 3.06, 2nd: 1.62, 3rd: 1.00, 4th: 0.70 so your gonna drop half the rpms between 1st and 2nd, 40% 2nd to 3rd, 30% 3rd to 4th
modern transmissions can now shift quickly and fit many gears.
But it all makes sense if you want lot of reliable power with a warranty and an old school vibe
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogerstarkey5390 more efficient, yes, Id put my money on it. lightning has the worst electric truck dag coefficient, and model Y more efficient than mach E. much lighter no, at least not in the 500 miles version because even if its it will require a battery close to 200kWh and will be heavier than the R1T.
based on the most efficient electric truck on the marker , 43kWh/100miles means 215kWh/500miles
considering it will have to lug a giant battery around and a less than stellar drag coefficient (way higher than R1T), 200kWh 40kWh/100 miles 84 mpge would actually be an excellent result. hummer EV only does 300miles on same battery size
170kWh would be the same efficiency as the Model X plaid, which absoluely CAN NOT happen with more weight, ground clearance, MUCH higher aero drag, way bigger truck tires
The hopes for cybertruck relatively light weight were based on structural 4680 battery pack which turns out much heavier /kWh than LR 21700 battery in the model Y
And revolutionary Exoskeleton which will be actually on top of a traditional unibody castings, plus all the heavy equipments (4 motors, 4 wheel steering, heavy glass and panels)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisheath2637 batteries need to be 1/reconditioned 2/recycled if you recycle a whole battery pack because only a heandful of cells have gone bad, its very energy inefficient , Same for the price, if you have the choice between whole new battery for 20k or fixing it be replacing a few cells. Even if it doesnt last quite as long, its about
Also, when tela charges you 20k for a battery replacement, they are selling you reconditionned batteries anyway.
Tesla is very optimistic with their batteries, but the warranty is still 8 years/100k miles ? you shouldn't reasonably expect much more than that except if you take special care about your battery, always stay between 20/80, always store for extended periods at 50%, few fast charging sessions, and always between 20/80.
You will prolongate battery life but also have only used only 60% of the battery.
I think the best strategy is stay within 20/80 as long as you can do it with no impact and fast charge -80% on long trips
BTW Tesla didn't deliver anything at all on 4680 battery density improvements. I would take the "million mile battery" with a grain of salt.
battery will degrade over time on top of the wear from the cycles. 15 years /200kmiles sounds more like it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the biggest ground breaking change of freevalve would be for me if you have access to the ECUor an aftermarket one, being able to program different camshaft profiles maps, experiment with two stroke cycle, completely modify sound, jake/Air brakes, etc
Lots of cool stuff if you are into programming or messing with software possibilities
if you redirect half the exhaust valve to an air tank, you can make pneumatical regen braking, using air brake to slow down the car and store compressed exhaust gas in a tank, and release the pressurized gas into the cylinder during acceleration for "free" energy
The fact that fiat multiair egines does maybe 50% of what a true freevalve engine can do....well I think its more a proof that more can be achieved, than a sign that freevalve is dead.
If freevalve tech dies, or just never goes mainstream, stays within koenigsegg, it will probably be for cost/mass production/reliability issue ? OR by lack of ICE R&D investments , being redirected to EVs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, am I crazy, or in the end, the reversed sucking sprinkler is actually just an inside out blowing sprinkler, pointed towards the inside, with poorly designed arms that point at each other (center), canceling each other, instead of having a clearly defined directions, and relying on secondary turbulences to generate rotation. someone needs to 3d print a better version that probably wouldn't even need advanced bearings, or complex design to avoid vibrations. the traditional sprinkler works without these.
I can imagine 3 designs, with inner arms bent in the same or opposite side as the outer ones, and one with arms bended upwards and a long straght vertical tube to let the flow settle after the last bend, and try to isolate the effect of the outer arms
1
-
1
-
the simulation is assuming that 1% size gives you force / mass ratio that is 100x stronger, giving you 100x stronger acceleration (300G), extending your legs 100x quicker (velocity when leaving rhe ground 2.86m/s, duration of the impulse, 1ms) and jumping about 100x higher relative to your size, but it doesnt say whether your muscles are able to achieve that extension that fast.
would your neurons be able to mobilize 100% of your strength from 0% within such a short time frame(1ms)?
would you rupture your ligaments or rip them from your bones? would your brain get permanent damage?
would you be able to perfectly time your landing and absorb most of the energy with your muscles during the ~1ms that you have. landing with you legs straight or without dampening
I can see the scaling work for maybe 2-3x reduction, but 100x there is a lot of things that could go wrong. we are the result of millions of year of evolution and natural selection/optimization relative to our size, nature doenst like waste. so I would assume our body, bone/muscle structure is not designed to work optimally at 1/100 scale.
obviously scaling down is way easier than scaling up. tallest human ever was only ~1.5x taller than an average male and barely viable. a 180m human would crush under his own weight, wouldnt be able to pump blood to his head etc. smallest human recorded was 1/3 of the average size and lived 70+ years. I think our body would work fine at 1/100 scale, I just think we wouldnt see quite 100x improvements in performance . maybe in static strength, but not speed/acceleration. like forninstance running 10x faster (cadence) would be impossible to control our muscle accurately at that speed.
Probably if you were born and grown up that size, and your brain had same nulber of neurons/connections, your brain could adapt to take advantage of an important part of those performance improvements, like for instance imagine you grow up on moon planet with 1/6 the gravity, you might be able to train to jump 6x higher but I didnt see neil amstrong jump 3m vertical on the moon
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I dont understand why the tesla performance is degrading that much, purely due to tire degradation, when bith car weights are within 2% of each other, and the tesla also has much less drag, meaning it needs less energy to be sent to the tires to reach similar speed, and the bmw is lapping already 2 s quicker in the first lap. the drag should at least compensate for the 2% weight difference, and the bms being quicker should be harder in the tires.
-first explanation is the bmw tires simply have better endurance
-second explanation may have to do with the power delivery, ie tesla track endurance mode gives all the torque at lower speeds when exiting a corner, giving the tires a hard time to handle all that torque on top of the cornering force but reduces power at high speeds.
while the bmw goes easier on the tires exiting the corners, but gains time in the straights at high speeds when the tires arent as much stressed.
funny that the bmw/driver's car/track car, vs the tesla "one trick pony"/"straight line car"/cant handle/overheats etc....actually brakes, corners, accerates out of corners just as well - if not better - than rhe bmw, all the way through the 15 min, but the bmw wins because of straight line performance. the "ludicrous" Model 3 performance highland does increase the high speed power output compared to previous gen, but nowhere near rhe wildest rumors (tri motor or plaid motors). either of these improvements would have set the tesla one around 700hp, one big step above ANY high performance mid size sports sedan...and it could still be way cheaper than the bmw.
the other funny thing is more peak power endurance can lead to faster lap times with lower tire degradation.
the obvious upgrades for the M3P for someone who would like to go consistently fast on the track during long track sessions would be:
- wider wheels
- more endurant performance tires
-cooling upgrades larger radiator/additional ducts
it seems like tesla didnt go all out on track endurance from the hardware persoective and rather pulled out a smart software hack but withsteonger cooling the car could keep the peak performance track mode power in a straight line and instead dial down the torque out of corners for a more sustainable performance from the tires. of course dont forget we are comparing a 55k MSRP (before tax credit) second gen tesla model 3 performance with a 85k MSRP 6th gen bmw M3 competition xDrive...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the funny thing is all this reinventing the wheel sounds both smart and very difficult to achieve but all to bring features that no one asked on an electric truck? like bullet proof body that's more durable but cant be fixed
Tesla could have made an aluminum unibody truck with mix of aluminum gigacastings, steel and even stainless steel, with similar or better weight and strength, lightweight and replacable stamped aluminum body panels, with a much better drag coefficient, freedom to design the truck, all at a cheaper cost and with better range/efficiency.
Rivian reached 0.3 with a blocky long hood truck, even a ford ranger has longer more sloped windshields and a softer transition beetween hood and windshield. tesla could probably have gotten close to 0.25, and made the roof a bit lower, without the stainless steel.
But I guess its a bet on the future if they ever manage to improve the processes, lower cost and enable more complex shapes with also thinner SS for cheap lightweight vehicles? The cybertruck itself is clearly not worth all the development that has gone into it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erickotapish7842 I think one motor per wheel is the future of EV's. takes away a lot of the complexity of drivetrains, no shafts, no differentials, you can do everything in software (LSD, locked diffs, torque vectoring, driving, traction control) also I'd like to see Regen based ABS with quicker reaction time, no mechanical parts, that could outperform abs breaking based on hydraulics/disc brakes, in a similar fashion as electric motors launch control beating ICE launch control. if a plaid can accelerate in shorter time/distance than it brakes, I'm sure there's room for improvement there. direct drive with no gear reduction could takes it one sep further towards simplicity like the Koenigsegg genera axial flux motors that work without gear reduction. then hub motors is the last step of connecting wheels and motors but comes with drawbacks
1
-
@sudeeptaghosh I can see it being a deal breaker for high performance applications that would need big powerful motors and high speed damping, or if you have very bad roads. But probably not for low powered commuter/daily driver. You can also adapt your speed, like people with sporty cars with very low ground clearance, very hard springs and very low profile tires already go very slowly over bumps, pot holes, so it could be a compromise between slightly less comfortable ride and maybe some reliability issues, and better efficiency, better traction stability control. the electric motor in my fiat 500e is fwd 111hp/60lbs and provides way enough power for the car. if it could be split into 4 15lbs 28hp hub motors with way better traction, and longer range, I think I would be pretty happy about that. I know the math is not that simple and hub motors have different characteristics, but considering the stock wheels +tires can be as heavy as 39lbs each, it sounds like a hub motor paired up with some weight saving could might have an acceptable or even little weight penalty. it's hard to tell the actual weight difference with the rim acting as the rotor, maybe you could also balance it with slightly smaller/lighter mechanical brakes.
Sounds complicated, but not impossible.
the aptera will be interesting to follow, because even though being so light it doesn't require too much power, it also means that unsprung/sprung weight ratio will be really bad.
BTW if unsprung weight is important but also always a compromise. car keep getting bigger and heavier wheels with bigger and heavier brakes and no signs of the trend slowing down. brakes could also be applied on the axles and make the wheels MUCH lighter but that would raise a whole lot of other issues, which explains why it's not done on any car to my knowledge, so who knows what the future will bring
1
-
1
-
@Johnsmith-zi9pu well all things being equal, less unsprung weight will always be better. but if you actually look at recent cars, wheels are getting bigger, wider, brakes rotors getting bigger too, so unsprung weight is definitely not going down. if you look at fast cars it's even worse.
I know unsprung/sprung ratio is important too for the ride quality. But hey if hub motors can be more efficient/cheaper and get rid of many parts, who knows when they might become a good alternative.
definitely following the aptera because it's so radically different from all other road cars. it will bring interesting feedback. So far, aptera engineers seem to spend a lot of time fine tuning the handling and suspension , and to be on the right path.
ultimately, it'not physically impossible that a hub motor with no mechanical brake could be lighter than a regular wheel. instead of needing a big rotor with lot of thermal mass to store and dissipate heat, you're just sending more than 90% of that energy to a battery, and you don't have the thermal problem anymore. electric motors are becoming incredibly compact. I have a fwd 111hp 3000lbs ev (fiat 500e) and I hardly ever use the disc brakes even when driving it hard. you can go down a long steep downhill road without any risk of overheating the tires. with powerful AWD Regen, brakes are becoming irrelevant except for redundancy and emergency braking.
who knows one day we could even have shorter 60-0 braking distance without using mechanical brakes. FYI the Tesla Model S Plaid accelerates faster from 0-60 than it brakes from 60-0. courtesy of the traction control of the electric motors performing better than the ABS on the mechanical brakes. so yeah maybe one day cars without brakes will brake better than cars with brakes. also hub motors could be for low speed robotaxis /small city cars . they are already powering majority of e-bikes/scooters/skateboards/light motorcycles
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
there is one big flaw in this argument. for 90+% of people daily driving is already easily performed with any ev using battery technology from 10 years ago. lvl 1 or even lvl 2 charging stations can be extremely cheap if mass produced, even just a charger plugged into a good old regular socket. ok lets say a weather proof one if its outdoor.
charger can be in the car or even built in the car to prevent theft and the "charging station" can be just a regular socket...of course if you are not charging in your own private garage, you may need some authentication/billing system but there is no big road block for that either. it can be just some standard cheap wireless solution BT/Wifi/NFC, or an additional wire in the cable. you can even do the communication over the power wires. so now you plain socket becomes a 20 dollar mass produced charging socket which is nothing compared to construction cost anyway. Then you can also make profit from the charger to finance its construction. you can charge a monthly fee, or a small fee per kWh. When you're building new construction. integrating some charging capability becomes almost negligible. So yes of course it's not alll happening overnight, but as new gas car bans get closer and closer, apartment buildings will HAVE to provide solutions. they don't need to do it all at once, but it's cheaper to equip all parking spaces with charging at once than to add a charger every time someone needs one. maybe in the more distant future electricity could be transported to houses/reisdential buildings in DC or dual DC/AC and could charge electric cars with zero conversion. the short term solution without changing the whole power grid is having a big AC to DC converter for a building, then wiring DC power to every DC station/plug, which become very cheap to manufacture. you can DC charge at slow rates for overnight charging and you dont need very high amps on every charging station, just lvl 1/2 charging although you can easily provide a few fast paying charging station for convenience.
the charging network is not the problem and doesn't require rare materials, just some planning, the big challenge in ev conversion is building the batteries for hundred millions of cars
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superfluous9726 even 20hp which is about the power on a highly tuned sur Ron, on a bike would be impossible to use without wheeling, riping the chain, destroying the wheel, etc
basically the whole bike/motorcycle has to be designed around the power/torque/speed and wouldn't be very different than current evikes or electric motorcycles.then once you account for the battery weight that is maybe at least 60/70% of the power rain weight, the gain is not that big.
then you also have to consider the gear reduction fora 10krpm motor going for instance 50mph top speed, you need around 1:20 gear reduction and the gearing starts to be heavier than the motor itself.
there is still potential for high power density motor in ebikes, because if you have "too much" power, you can limit it electronically and have a nice wide flat powerband so that your bike can handle super steep hills with high torque or go flat out 50mph with high rpm, all on a single gear, with a mid drive motor and a heavy duty chain and you are left with a few options for the pedal drive, either a classic wide ratio bicycle chain + derailleur or a more simple generator to do torque sensing and force feedback, and no mechanical link, or no pedal at all and just an electric motorcycle
1
-
@Factory400 ideally yes but have you ever seen an engine weight being measured with all it's accessories including ECU wire harness, fuel pump, fuel tank filled with gas, fuel lines, radiator,fan, cooling lines, air box, exhaust, cat etc....
electric wipes the floor of combustion with power density, but gas still wins hands down energy density so overall as long as you need long range/fast charging electric is heavier but electric power density makes it much easier to make muscle/performance versions of road EVs, while maintaining efficiency, weight and reliability constant, at a cheap cost. just slap more motors. this means we are actually going to get properly quick EVs (in the 3-4s) with 500+HP that are also good daily drivers and people can afford like model 3/Y Performance, EV6 GT Ioniq 5 N, Volvo EX30. these are not cheap but still ownership cost is way lower than any AMG/M Power/or even american hellcat/mustang GT
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cerberus984 "April 20, 2023, the Honda Civic Type R holds the record for a front-wheel drive car's lap time at the Nürburgring Nordschleife in Germany. The record time is 7 minutes and 44.881 seconds." (MSRP $45,890)
The latest Audi RS3 has just blitzed the 12.9-mile (20.8km) Nordschleife track in 7 minutes 40.75 seconds, which is over 4.5 seconds quicker than the Megane’s official 7:45.39 time (MSRP $62,300)
"As of June 3, 2023, the Tesla Model S Plaid with the Track Pack has a record-setting lap time of 7:25.231 seconds on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. This is 10 seconds faster than the Model S Plaid's previous record for EV production cars." MSRP $86,090
The 2021 Mercedes-AMG GT 63 S claims a new record around the Nürburgring Nordschleife with a time of 7 minutes and 23.009 seconds or 7:27.800 depending on how the company times things (MSRP $171k)
"As of January 2024, the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT has set a lap time of 7:07.55 minutes around the Nürburgring Nordschleife. This is 26 seconds faster than the Turbo S and 18 seconds faster than the Tesla Model S Plaid." $194,900 (turbo s) estimated $240,000 (turbo gt)
So yes, a civic type r is cheaper, but not quicker, by a good margin, neither is a RS3
they are also both much smaller than a model S so it makes sense that they are less expensive.
any 4 door any close to 7:35 or 7:45 is just as expensive as the plaid if not much more
BTW the natural alternative to a civic type R would be a Model 3 performance. old M3P cheaper than type R with tax credit and faster than type R on 99% of the tracks
next gen ludicrous M3P will blow it out of the water
Prev gen model 3 nurbirgring time was nerfed by the insufficient cooling the new one will definitely be in 2:30-2:40 territory
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the problem is the base version jumped +50%
maybe they should make the single motor a real base version with non air suspension, metal roof 2 wheel steering, manual door handles, a classic lightweight optional & removable tonneau, manual frunk, regular rer view mirror, regular steering rack, etc..
it would be way cheaper, llighter amd reliable, more like a real fleet/work truck that could do any work that the 2x more expensive cyberbeast does, except heavy long distance towing, and really affordable with the tax credit. it could easily be 50k and close to 40k after tax credit. mabe even way thinner stainless steel or aluminum panels that you could easily replace with flush screws, and a shorter windshield that stops at the sun shades
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinito77 Google Toyota Prius GRMN
there is no official information but serious rumors for a Prius GRMN being worked on. also Supra GRMN and Yaris GRMN in the works. GRMN stands above GR which stands above GR Sport. it's only GR sport which more aesthetics like VW R-Line, bmw M sport, MB AMG line. so expect significantly more power, suspension & brakes upgrades, more rigidity/chassis welds, probably a wide body, and bunch of more agressive visual / aero
In short, the tumor says Prius GRMN is based on the more powerful but FWD only 220hp Prius prime, maintains the 2.0L engine but with higher tune, I hope they add the eAWD option from the non plugin Prius, and some tweaking of the electrical power train. if they really full GRMN mode, why not get also the first solid state batteries with lower weight/more power
1
-
@chinito77 GR sport < GR < GRMN (Gazoo Racing Master of Nurburgring)
GR sport can be cosmetic, but GR is definitely a big step up in performance, and if Toyota doesnt want to dilute it's racing heritage, GRMN has to be pretty special. more power, improved suspensions, brake, cooling, increased rigidity (additional welds), plus aggressive bodywork (wide body and aero), lots of carbon parts. in theory everything a GR version has, turned up to 11.
Prius GRMN is not official but it's a serious leak from insiders. Google Prius GRMN and make up your mind. Toyota also working on supra and Yaris GRMN. I don't see a reason to use the GRMN name if it's not an all in attempt at transforming the car character. the rumour says based on the Prius Prime (PHEV) 220hp FWD. tuned version of the engine (beefed up internals? higher rpm? increased compression and premium gas?). I suspect the choice of the Prime which adds ~250lbs is because it's has a much higher electric power potential with a 15x bigger battery. it would also make sense to include the eAWD from the non plugin version if they can package it with the PHEV battery
4 wheel Regen braking, better traction.
if they really go crazy it could be the first electrified Toyota to get a solid state battery, lighter and more powerful, because it's going to be small production numbers, and GRMN version. it could be less risky and easier to maintain profit than putting huge solid state batteries pack in a long range EV. the 13.6kWh should be able to put out ~150hp if it's tuned for performance, which is also the power rating of the front + rear motors. if the 150hp engine gets the most powerful iteration of the M20 family (176hp).
the maximum power output just using the existing Toyota parts catalog, and an high discharge rate battery, would be around 325hp. I would estimate 4.4-4.6s. 0-60 considering the 4300lbs 300hp RAV4 prime is 5.4-5.7s
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aec007 There are advantages on both sides. the only advantage I see for the drones is quick deployment and easy scalability, but you are always going to need to bring materials anyway, so bringing heavy equipment is only part of the problem. battery powered drones lifting millions of pounds hundreds of feet in the air? when you compare the payload of a drone and dthe amount of material required for construction ??? also drones needs to use high power density batteries otherwise they dont have usable payload, maning they have short battery life, and aare hard on the battteries. 200-300 cycles ? drones loaded with max payload plus printing equipement will maybe rune for 10-15 minutes. then they have to charge for 30-60 minutes ? and after a week of operation you need a new battery ? multiplied by the thousands of drones required to do any useful work.
tethererd drones fixes the battery aspect but still a lot of energy wasted and now you also have wires hanging everywhere? I dont see cranes disapearing, they could just evolve into large scale 3d printers, which could be more lightweight, and instead of carrying very heavy pieces, have large tanks of printing materials on the ground, with pumps pushing them to the top through lightweight tubes and multiple arms depositiog the nin layers, exactly like a very large scale 3d printer actually
Also you cant make buildings without foundations, and drones wont be making them
1
-
"if you think about what is ideal with the torque curve basically you just want it to be as wide as possible and as flat as possible" (just like your mom?)
this is only thinking with combustion engine mindset.
from a perfocmance point of view and for similar peak power, the perfect POWER curve would be a flat one, so torque curve would be a hyperbola 😉
of course your torque cannot be infinite, and below a certain speed, increasing torque above a certain level gives zero performance advantage and will only break parts more quickly or require to overbuild them, so you have to limit to a max value.
this is pretty much the tesla Plaid perfect power/torque curve.
as much constant torque as tires cam manage from 0-60, then as much constant power as the battery can deliver and the cooling system handle, from 60 to 200mph
..but even with a combustion engine, flat power curve means you don't need gears, or only a few of them, to maintain maximum sustained acceleration. Now if you introduce another parameter which is cruising efficiency, you're going back to transmissions with a lot of speeds (8-10), just for the sake of being able to run the engine with optimal gearing for efficiency, at any cruising speed.
of course in real world you have rpm limited by piston/valves/conrod/camshaft, and torque limited by displacement and max boost, and engine/gearbox internals, so you want to combine both with maintaining max torque as much as possible across the rpm range, and because the power is only limited by fuel pump/injectors, you can always increase them to get rid of the power cap, which is easier than increasing displacement, boost, or rpms
But you think outside the box and consider CVTs....the best torque curve is ANY torque curve ^^ as long as you have good efficiency at medium/low load/rpm and good power at high rpm/load
1
-
1
-
1
-
active suspension is the next revolution in cars. recuperating energy from the suspension is only a small part of the equation, the bigggest gain in terms of engineering besides all the comfort, and handling advantage is NOT LOSING energy. when you hit a pothole or speed bump all the energy that gets dissipated in the suspension is also removed from the kinetic energy of the vehicle.
have you ever riden a skatboard or roller blades on a very bumpy surface? it sends a LOT of vibrations into your legs and its is slow AF. all vibrations get transmitted by rigid elements to your muscles and they are dampened.
A perfect predictive and active suspension that reads the road surface ahaead and reacts very quickly to variations in force applied to the suspension, and move the wheels up and down accordingly while maintaining the suspended parts of the cars perfexlctly level means the amount of energy transferred to/from the road is greatly reduced. instead of moving the whole car only the unsuspended components do, and the 4 tires keep pushing almost comstantly on the ground. this also means vreatly reduced mechanical fatigue and vibrations on all the componemts like suspension arms, axles etc.
recuparating energy whenever the suspension is traveling up is the cherry on top, that will reduce the active suspension energy consumption, but overall its important to realize energy spent on active suspension is NOT lost.. people who argue that active suspension use too much enery are missing the point
if you wanna think about it differently its same as pumping with a rigid bmx on a pump track. you are the car and the bike is the wheels/suspension. It takes energy (you'll be tired after doing many laps) but moves you in a much more efficient way than if you are sitting straight on the saddle and pedalling on a full suspension mountian bike on the same track suspension robs a lot of energy. now if the same pumping action is done through electric motors its even more efficient. Again, adding recuperation is even better but its cherry on top. By the way, its possible to combine active suspension with traditional springs or even air shocks, which are able to store energy and release it, an can reduce the strenght requirement on the electrical components. air suspension advantage is you can keep the car/truck level whatever the weight distribution is, in a passive way (you just adjust air pressure initially). the only part that absolutely needs to go away in active suspension is dampers, which are converting energy into heat, pretty much like friction brakes
1
-
for me the mistery is
-how much exhaust gas can escape the cylinder duringn the few degrees of crankshaft rotation wherr the scavenging ports are open. I guess the gasses start exiting the cylinder initially with highest pressure/ speed , from the remaining energy in the exhaust gases. lets say about 30%. remember this very short scavenging is only a fraction of a full exhaust stroke.
-second question is can the low pressure wave created by opening the exhaust valve reach the scavenging port at the correct moment to pull any significant amount of fresh air..remember the bottom of the cylinder is still filled with hot amd pressurized exhaust gas so the fresh air has to come with higher pressure to enter the cylinder other wise exhaust gas are going to exit from there too, in going thr wrong way. this is where 2 strokes have reed valves to prevent the exhaust gasses from going backwards into the intake
-as a result, how much fresh air can enter the cylinders compared to the full intake stroke...sounds like it would be even lesstham thr amount of exhaust gas that left the cylinder lets say 20%
-so when the second compression shroke starts you would have still 70% hot exhaust gas plus only 20% fresh air. meaning only about 20% of the full power stroke energy..so you are adding 360°/+50% of crankshaft rotation with only +20% energy. of course reap numbers will vary, but its hard to imagine more than 50 % of the cylinder being filled with fresh air.
-aboit the benefit of being able to run very high boost with very rich mixture that doesnt burn fully during rhe first power stroke, then it would stilll mean that maybe half of thes unbunt fuel would still exit the cylinder during scavenging....there is no way you can selectively expell the burnt gas, but keep the unburnt one,so if you want a cleaner running engine this is not the way? unless your trying to just trick emission testing when running nominal load and you start "rolling coal" at full throttle...remember dieselgate
-if the scavenging is so effective that it can get more tham 50% of burnt gas and more tham 50% of fresh air in the cylinder....why not just run a pure two stroke cycle and do it every 360°. you wouldnget more power, better balance of the engine, lower stress/lighter parts (2 weaker power strokes twice as often, instead of one stronger the uniflow 2 stroke engine like 2 stroke diesel is a great design which is much more advanced than traditional port 2 strokes, compatible with variable exhaust timing/lift, direct injection, forced induction proper lubrication of the cylinder/piston without mixing oil wirh gas and without burning oil.
overall its very exciting to see new cycles amd proper ICE R&D but it looks like it might bring downside of 4 strokes +two strokes combined...
of course Im sure Porsche somehow know what they're doing and wouldnt go this route if it wasnt bringing significant benefits, but it's not that obvious how they could pull this out
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fake transmission, fake clutch, fake noises, it all sounds dumb especially because this is just adding weight, complexity, cost, possible failure points without really adding anything. shifting in a gas car has a purpose but here its just limiting the power of the motor, because you have engaged an imaginary gear.
The only few use cases I can Imagine are:
-training on using a manual to learn or improve your skills (or maybe just not lose the skill), without the risk of damaging engine/clutch/transmission
-controlling regen downhill so you can lift the throttle without having the car come to a stop?
-driving on a track with traction control disabled but using gears to control regen and power exiting corners
I think its just a gimmick just make lightweight and powerful hybrids and/or EVs with good electric range and better perfomance and lower weight than their gas equivalent, and charge nearly as quick as a fuel stop, that's alll people are asking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vl3005 there are a few parameters that can impact the acceleration curve.
- the demon uses a clutch which can be both a disadvantage because it's harder to do consistent perfect launches even with launch control, and clutch will overheat after a very hard launch, but it also means the engine and flywheel are storing rotational energy that can be released almost instantly at launch. usually more an advantage for EV with AWD and good launch control but it seems here with perfect conditions the demon 170 launched even harder than anything else
-the demon can hit 60 in first gear so there is no gear shift delay or power loss in the 0-60. with proper tire temperature and surface, and good launch control, it can be constantly at the very limit of tire grip from 0 to 60 hence the amazing 0-60. during the quarter mile it will need to shift 4 times to reach ~150 so each time you have interruption in power, qnd power loss after the shift with lower rpm (demon doesn't have a flat power and) so the plaid could gain maybe around 0.1s for each shift
-demon has higher power to weight ratio so when it's right at peak power, and putting down all the power to the ground it has higher peak Gs than the plaid.but in average very slightly lower.
- as speed increases above 60mph, and the demon shifts gears, and the plaid loses torque, acceleration slows down, and air resistance increases. the weight becomes less and less important, and air drag becomes more important. this is why the plaid wins at higher speeds because much better coefficient 0.208 vs 0.37, the demon has almost 90% more drag !
1/2 mile would probably be won by the plaid (only if unlocked to 200mph)
so the plaid with same horsepower has the potential to have 23% higher top speed.
a 840hp demon did 211,1025hp could do at least 225 and an Tesla plaid could do 277... so a demon getting close to 200 Would be accelerating very slowly (70% pushing air, 30% accelerating) whereas a plaid doing 200 Would would be doing more like 30% pushing air , 70% accelerating.
1
-
1
-
1