RE: 2024 Polestar 4 | PH Review
Discussion
GT9 said:
Nik Gnashers said:
I'd happily trade lower power with a greater range, in a family car, and would appreciate better handling with less weight, over ultimate straight line performance and 500+ bhp in an average family car.
Why are you ignoring the fact that the single motor version only has only 5% more range than the dual motor version?It's been pointed out multiple times on this thread, and I'm pretty sure I've described it to you previously.
You cannot, carte blanche, use ICE design rules to judge electric powertrains.
A 600 bhp ICE has a much higher fuel consumption under normal driving conditions than the same car with 300 bhp.
A 600 bhp EV has a very similar energy consumption to a 300 bhp EV under normal driving conditions.
Different powertrains, different rules.
Extra power in an EV doesn't harm the range permanently, only if you absolutely thrash it everywhere.
Where's the downside?
Drivers always had a big impact on MPG with ICE cars, but it's amplified many times more with BEV i think. I've gotten quickly over the party trick of 0-60 times close to starting with a 3, and take more pleasure nerdily trying to max efficiency without driving slow... and being smooth, and maintaining momentum makes a massive difference to miles per KWh.
cidered77 said:
I do think maybe EV manufactuers could calm down a lot of real world vs WLTP noise by holding back on the power - even if it's literally the software stopping you accessing majority of the power that would otherwise be there. I know it doesn't make much difference to efficiency in theory, but in practice if you have 600bhp you're more likely to drive quickly and inefficiently than if you have 200bhp, surely. And i'm talking about boring transport here - i couldn't personally ever really conceive of EV driving "for pleasure".
Drivers always had a big impact on MPG with ICE cars, but it's amplified many times more with BEV i think. I've gotten quickly over the party trick of 0-60 times close to starting with a 3, and take more pleasure nerdily trying to max efficiency without driving slow... and being smooth, and maintaining momentum makes a massive difference to miles per KWh.
Are we not constantly hearing about the importance of choice though in this whole debate?Drivers always had a big impact on MPG with ICE cars, but it's amplified many times more with BEV i think. I've gotten quickly over the party trick of 0-60 times close to starting with a 3, and take more pleasure nerdily trying to max efficiency without driving slow... and being smooth, and maintaining momentum makes a massive difference to miles per KWh.
I'm not convinced that the single motor version will be driven any differently to the dual motor on a motorway stint.
It certainly won't be using much more energy at a constant speed.
I'm also not convinced the dual motor versions will get driven harder off the motorway either.
In my experience, low powered variants get thrashed just as often if not more often, because the drivers seem to have more to prove. Possibly their age and experience is in line with what they can afford, so the younger drivers are in the least powerful cars but driving them as hard as they can.
When you have 600 bhp underfoot is it not the case that you are likely to be more circumspect than in a 300 bhp car?
DoctorX said:
Looks ok but I’d like the black roof extended down the tailgate, maybe it would look a little less odd.
Interior looks a bit miserable though. I blame Tesla for normalising these stripped out cabins. Everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon and saved a load of cash.
Second that. From the pics it looks super cheap - such bland architecture and clearly a step up from the lowest bar possible (Tesla) but still nothing on, say, the Macan EV.Interior looks a bit miserable though. I blame Tesla for normalising these stripped out cabins. Everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon and saved a load of cash.
Whether this is dynamically compromised or not, seems a moot question, given it's never going to be a track monster given its weight. Cars seem to be getting bigger and heavier, and more powerful to compensate for the weight, and this seems no exception.
I'm not a fan of the IDEA of this solution, and not a fan of this particular car, because it seems like a lot of money for an unresolved final product. While people are saying the updates might fix things, lets actually wait to see that, before accepting it as a solution, given that right now those updates havent even happened yet.
And finally, no rear screen?? This really peeves me. As a person that has to share the road with other road users, anything that blocks line of sight is a pain. And yes, I dont like following trucks, buses, etc either.
I'm not a fan of the IDEA of this solution, and not a fan of this particular car, because it seems like a lot of money for an unresolved final product. While people are saying the updates might fix things, lets actually wait to see that, before accepting it as a solution, given that right now those updates havent even happened yet.
And finally, no rear screen?? This really peeves me. As a person that has to share the road with other road users, anything that blocks line of sight is a pain. And yes, I dont like following trucks, buses, etc either.
Is Polestar really Swedish when it's owned by Geely and manufactured in China? Seems a bit of a stretch - particularly as it would have been wound up by now without massive Geely cash injections. My first EV will be a small local runabout, but if I was in the market for something this large I think i would choose one of the many alternatives from a brand that isn't as close to the financial precipice. Maybe a Kia or Hyundai?
Bernt Tuakrisp said:
Is Polestar really Swedish when it's owned by Geely and manufactured in China? Seems a bit of a stretch - particularly as it would have been wound up by now without massive Geely cash injections. My first EV will be a small local runabout, but if I was in the market for something this large I think i would choose one of the many alternatives from a brand that isn't as close to the financial precipice. Maybe a Kia or Hyundai?
News: it takes a fair bit more for a car to materialize than Ownership & Manufacturing.Stuff such as Designing, Testing, Engineering etc, which are done in Sweden.
(see: iphone)
The alleged "financial issues" between brands with 1 single owner (especially chinese) can also happen to come down to political shuffling of red/black figures (see: GM).
My bet's they gonna put a rear window in soon and these 1st "glassless" cars are collectables, in 2050.
(just kiddin)
Edited by Pereldh on Tuesday 2nd July 08:29
We're still not 'there' with EV are we though.
The older Taycan's et al have shown horrific depreciation as the public have picked up on the fact that the speed in development is pretty significant... like most other products...today's phone has lots of speed, gimmicks and efficiencies over last year's one...so you wait and wait for the right time to buy your chosen product.
Same with the current car.
Firstly its a product, the emotion of what it represents has gone. Now its a tool, a tool that may or may not have statusy badge on it.
The interior format still needs work. The manufacturers see the almost absolute fascination in phone screens now and decide it will work well and be attractive in a car, and to some extent they're right, but not in absolute terms. You can't have laws preventing you from operating a smart phone in your car and then fit a large smartphone to the dash and expect a smooth transition. And that's aside from the absolute risk to everyone, whilst these pilots are looking at the screen to check they've selected what they want, instead of the road.
It's one of the tech developments that will have future generations looking back at in shock and bemusement.... a bit like they'll look back at the idea of zooming about with a tank of highly combustible liquid in the back...
And I also am obsessed with weight.
I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
I have zero interest in anything over 2 tonnes, regardless of powertrain or the ECU power to make it stay in it's lane.
The only time the ever increasing weight becomes a thing for me, is when I think about being hit by these things.... you need a 3 tonne vehicle with it's relevant crash structures to survive being hit by another 3 tonne product.
And don't tell me it's 'progress'.
It's not
It's simply 'development' in a chosen direction aided and abetted by legislation, technology and profit.
It's a bit high end but Bugatti and Aston are starting to (or have) shown in their interiors that you can roll back on some of these developments and re-instate a method of operation that works and doesn't need buggering about with....
The older Taycan's et al have shown horrific depreciation as the public have picked up on the fact that the speed in development is pretty significant... like most other products...today's phone has lots of speed, gimmicks and efficiencies over last year's one...so you wait and wait for the right time to buy your chosen product.
Same with the current car.
Firstly its a product, the emotion of what it represents has gone. Now its a tool, a tool that may or may not have statusy badge on it.
The interior format still needs work. The manufacturers see the almost absolute fascination in phone screens now and decide it will work well and be attractive in a car, and to some extent they're right, but not in absolute terms. You can't have laws preventing you from operating a smart phone in your car and then fit a large smartphone to the dash and expect a smooth transition. And that's aside from the absolute risk to everyone, whilst these pilots are looking at the screen to check they've selected what they want, instead of the road.
It's one of the tech developments that will have future generations looking back at in shock and bemusement.... a bit like they'll look back at the idea of zooming about with a tank of highly combustible liquid in the back...
And I also am obsessed with weight.
I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
I have zero interest in anything over 2 tonnes, regardless of powertrain or the ECU power to make it stay in it's lane.
The only time the ever increasing weight becomes a thing for me, is when I think about being hit by these things.... you need a 3 tonne vehicle with it's relevant crash structures to survive being hit by another 3 tonne product.
And don't tell me it's 'progress'.
It's not
It's simply 'development' in a chosen direction aided and abetted by legislation, technology and profit.
It's a bit high end but Bugatti and Aston are starting to (or have) shown in their interiors that you can roll back on some of these developments and re-instate a method of operation that works and doesn't need buggering about with....
Edited by Quickmoose on Tuesday 2nd July 09:08
As an unpopular opinion - the "big iPad" cliche is starting to run its course now, and i'm personally close to being over it...
The Polestar system assuming it carries over into this, has physical buttons on the steering wheel for stereo and cruise/pilot mode, plus proper stalks from the Volvo parts bin, and physical controls for mirrors and electric windows. It has a volume dial, a mute button, and front and rear screen demist. Oh - and seat controls physical too.
Everything else is on the screen, which really only means AC and seat/wheel heaters being more commonly used controls. And then nav of course through a touch screen, as it has been for a decade or so. Plus whatever you need from Carplay/Android Play if you don't trust the native system, which works very well.
You don't really need to fiddle with climate control - leave it at 22, and let the system sort it out in winter or summer. Heated seats fair enough are regulary used, but the Polestar uses Google for voice control so it actually works ... so i just use voice to do it.
I think this system has the balance about right - i don't think i need more buttons. And for the stuff on screen, yes i want that as large and clear as it can be, please.
The Polestar system assuming it carries over into this, has physical buttons on the steering wheel for stereo and cruise/pilot mode, plus proper stalks from the Volvo parts bin, and physical controls for mirrors and electric windows. It has a volume dial, a mute button, and front and rear screen demist. Oh - and seat controls physical too.
Everything else is on the screen, which really only means AC and seat/wheel heaters being more commonly used controls. And then nav of course through a touch screen, as it has been for a decade or so. Plus whatever you need from Carplay/Android Play if you don't trust the native system, which works very well.
You don't really need to fiddle with climate control - leave it at 22, and let the system sort it out in winter or summer. Heated seats fair enough are regulary used, but the Polestar uses Google for voice control so it actually works ... so i just use voice to do it.
I think this system has the balance about right - i don't think i need more buttons. And for the stuff on screen, yes i want that as large and clear as it can be, please.
Quickmoose said:
And I also am obsessed with weight.
I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
Objecting to kerb mass on the principle of 'resources' is a crock, sorry.I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
Your physics is off.
The Polestar 4 has a lifetime carbon footprint of 22 tons for the single motor version when renewably powered.
And here's the killer, the dual motor version, the one with twice the power (how disgusting!) pushes that to an absolutely disgusting 23 tons.
No matter how it is driven.
1 measly ton over its life regardless of how far, or how fast, you drive it.
1 measly ton.
Disgusting.
For reference any comparable petrol or diesel car will be over 50 tons lifetime footprint, heading towards 100 tons for a hard driven 600 bhp variant.
You might not consider that as progress, the problem you've got is that anyone controlling the future direction of passenger cars in the UK or elsewhere comprehensively does.
It's all here:
https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1699610...
Cue the backtracking on Volvo being the gospel truth on carbon footprint breakevens...
P.S.
You can check the ICE lifetime carbon footprint yourself by taking the real-world tailpipe CO2 value (in g/km) for your ICE of choice and multiplying by 200,000 km.
Then add another 25% to account for fuel production.
Then add about 10 tons for manufacturing the car.
Edited by GT9 on Tuesday 2nd July 09:43
GT9 said:
cidered77 said:
I do think maybe EV manufactuers could calm down a lot of real world vs WLTP noise by holding back on the power - even if it's literally the software stopping you accessing majority of the power that would otherwise be there. I know it doesn't make much difference to efficiency in theory, but in practice if you have 600bhp you're more likely to drive quickly and inefficiently than if you have 200bhp, surely. And i'm talking about boring transport here - i couldn't personally ever really conceive of EV driving "for pleasure".
Drivers always had a big impact on MPG with ICE cars, but it's amplified many times more with BEV i think. I've gotten quickly over the party trick of 0-60 times close to starting with a 3, and take more pleasure nerdily trying to max efficiency without driving slow... and being smooth, and maintaining momentum makes a massive difference to miles per KWh.
Are we not constantly hearing about the importance of choice though in this whole debate?Drivers always had a big impact on MPG with ICE cars, but it's amplified many times more with BEV i think. I've gotten quickly over the party trick of 0-60 times close to starting with a 3, and take more pleasure nerdily trying to max efficiency without driving slow... and being smooth, and maintaining momentum makes a massive difference to miles per KWh.
I'm not convinced that the single motor version will be driven any differently to the dual motor on a motorway stint.
It certainly won't be using much more energy at a constant speed.
I'm also not convinced the dual motor versions will get driven harder off the motorway either.
In my experience, low powered variants get thrashed just as often if not more often, because the drivers seem to have more to prove. Possibly their age and experience is in line with what they can afford, so the younger drivers are in the least powerful cars but driving them as hard as they can.
When you have 600 bhp underfoot is it not the case that you are likely to be more circumspect than in a 300 bhp car?
A family car for me needs to be comfortable, above all else. Because most driving is objectively s**t, so you might as well be wafted there. I just don't care about a family car being 600bhp quick. It also needs to be well packaged, but fit a reasonable footprint - i reckon 4.6m long is about right, these 5m long 2m wide cars are a proper pain in normal parking spaces.
EVs are wonderfully comfortable in traffic - right until you start moving, and then every EV i've driven just rides so poorly. I'm no chassis engineer, but my assumption is if you want to combine mass over 2 tons, with enormous accelerative potential, big fancy wheels, and avoid spending money on trick dampers that cost a lot to procure, and to maintain - then you're left with making cars ride like that and assuming/hoping Joe Public thinks that is just how cars are now.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
cidered77 said:
Yeah choice is important - but (shifting topic a bit.) i don't think my preferences and choices for a family wagon are being met by the market.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I love my current Polestar 2 but like you, really I want a wagon (rather than an SUV)I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I get to choose next company car soon and I’m hoping the new EV Audi A4 and A6 Avant meet my needs. Prior to the Polestar I was a big fan of fast Audi estates and have had several, company cars and personal.
Quickmoose said:
We're still not 'there' with EV are we though.
The older Taycan's et al have shown horrific depreciation as the public have picked up on the fact that the speed in development is pretty significant... like most other products...today's phone has lots of speed, gimmicks and efficiencies over last year's one...so you wait and wait for the right time to buy your chosen product.
Same with the current car.
Firstly its a product, the emotion of what it represents has gone. Now its a tool, a tool that may or may not have statusy badge on it.
The interior format still needs work. The manufacturers see the almost absolute fascination in phone screens now and decide it will work well and be attractive in a car, and to some extent they're right, but not in absolute terms. You can't have laws preventing you from operating a smart phone in your car and then fit a large smartphone to the dash and expect a smooth transition. And that's aside from the absolute risk to everyone, whilst these pilots are looking at the screen to check they've selected what they want, instead of the road.
It's one of the tech developments that will have future generations looking back at in shock and bemusement.... a bit like they'll look back at the idea of zooming about with a tank of highly combustible liquid in the back...
And I also am obsessed with weight.
I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
I have zero interest in anything over 2 tonnes, regardless of powertrain or the ECU power to make it stay in it's lane.
The only time the ever increasing weight becomes a thing for me, is when I think about being hit by these things.... you need a 3 tonne vehicle with it's relevant crash structures to survive being hit by another 3 tonne product.
And don't tell me it's 'progress'.
It's not
It's simply 'development' in a chosen direction aided and abetted by legislation, technology and profit.
It's a bit high end but Bugatti and Aston are starting to (or have) shown in their interiors that you can roll back on some of these developments and re-instate a method of operation that works and doesn't need buggering about with....
"And don't tell me it's 'progress'."The older Taycan's et al have shown horrific depreciation as the public have picked up on the fact that the speed in development is pretty significant... like most other products...today's phone has lots of speed, gimmicks and efficiencies over last year's one...so you wait and wait for the right time to buy your chosen product.
Same with the current car.
Firstly its a product, the emotion of what it represents has gone. Now its a tool, a tool that may or may not have statusy badge on it.
The interior format still needs work. The manufacturers see the almost absolute fascination in phone screens now and decide it will work well and be attractive in a car, and to some extent they're right, but not in absolute terms. You can't have laws preventing you from operating a smart phone in your car and then fit a large smartphone to the dash and expect a smooth transition. And that's aside from the absolute risk to everyone, whilst these pilots are looking at the screen to check they've selected what they want, instead of the road.
It's one of the tech developments that will have future generations looking back at in shock and bemusement.... a bit like they'll look back at the idea of zooming about with a tank of highly combustible liquid in the back...
And I also am obsessed with weight.
I don't care whether its ICE or EV. It's physics, it's the resources required.
I have zero interest in anything over 2 tonnes, regardless of powertrain or the ECU power to make it stay in it's lane.
The only time the ever increasing weight becomes a thing for me, is when I think about being hit by these things.... you need a 3 tonne vehicle with it's relevant crash structures to survive being hit by another 3 tonne product.
And don't tell me it's 'progress'.
It's not
It's simply 'development' in a chosen direction aided and abetted by legislation, technology and profit.
It's a bit high end but Bugatti and Aston are starting to (or have) shown in their interiors that you can roll back on some of these developments and re-instate a method of operation that works and doesn't need buggering about with....
Edited by Quickmoose on Tuesday 2nd July 09:08
The problem is......it is......... You can of course have opinions, and many people don't like the idea of heavy battery cars with iPads stuck to the dashboard. BUT.......when electric windows came out I suspect many thought what's the point of the extra electronics and weight when I can just wind a window down with my hand....It is absolutely progress....I find it utterly amazing that I can plug my car in over night and drive my car to work at a cost of almost nothing. At the same time, in the real world of normal roads and not race tracks its quicker than my old fossil fuel.
Its most certainly not for everyone though...if you cant charge at home, then I most certainly would not own an EV, and that I will agree is one of the main issues with this technology.....But, being heavy, and having too many screens is just not an issue unless you really want it to be.
Wickedbad said:
cidered77 said:
Yeah choice is important - but (shifting topic a bit.) i don't think my preferences and choices for a family wagon are being met by the market.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I love my current Polestar 2 but like you, really I want a wagon (rather than an SUV)I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I get to choose next company car soon and I’m hoping the new EV Audi A4 and A6 Avant meet my needs. Prior to the Polestar I was a big fan of fast Audi estates and have had several, company cars and personal.
cidered77 said:
Wickedbad said:
cidered77 said:
Yeah choice is important - but (shifting topic a bit.) i don't think my preferences and choices for a family wagon are being met by the market.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I love my current Polestar 2 but like you, really I want a wagon (rather than an SUV)I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
I get to choose next company car soon and I’m hoping the new EV Audi A4 and A6 Avant meet my needs. Prior to the Polestar I was a big fan of fast Audi estates and have had several, company cars and personal.
Maybe that’s because we came into it from a ‘sport’ suspension A6 Avant that was WAY more harsh, and my personal car was a lowered B7 RS4 Avant ??
My current ‘weekend’ car is 40 years old and also lowered on hard coilovers.
So we feel spoilt wafting along in the Polestar every day. It’s all relative
cidered77 said:
Yeah choice is important - but (shifting topic a bit.) i don't think my preferences and choices for a family wagon are being met by the market.
A family car for me needs to be comfortable, above all else. Because most driving is objectively s**t, so you might as well be wafted there. I just don't care about a family car being 600bhp quick. It also needs to be well packaged, but fit a reasonable footprint - i reckon 4.6m long is about right, these 5m long 2m wide cars are a proper pain in normal parking spaces.
EVs are wonderfully comfortable in traffic - right until you start moving, and then every EV i've driven just rides so poorly. I'm no chassis engineer, but my assumption is if you want to combine mass over 2 tons, with enormous accelerative potential, big fancy wheels, and avoid spending money on trick dampers that cost a lot to procure, and to maintain - then you're left with making cars ride like that and assuming/hoping Joe Public thinks that is just how cars are now.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
The question is whether the Polstar 4 single motor would be any different a car if the dual motor didn't exist.A family car for me needs to be comfortable, above all else. Because most driving is objectively s**t, so you might as well be wafted there. I just don't care about a family car being 600bhp quick. It also needs to be well packaged, but fit a reasonable footprint - i reckon 4.6m long is about right, these 5m long 2m wide cars are a proper pain in normal parking spaces.
EVs are wonderfully comfortable in traffic - right until you start moving, and then every EV i've driven just rides so poorly. I'm no chassis engineer, but my assumption is if you want to combine mass over 2 tons, with enormous accelerative potential, big fancy wheels, and avoid spending money on trick dampers that cost a lot to procure, and to maintain - then you're left with making cars ride like that and assuming/hoping Joe Public thinks that is just how cars are now.
I want an EV estate or an SUV-ish shape with a big boot, that has a decent range through efficiency not massive batteries and more mass and size (so, not the i5 then); comfortable, can get me to 60 in less than 8 seconds so i can keep up with most stuff, and rides well.... the market isn't engineering cars like that. It's getting range through larger batteries, and enormous cars you can't park at Sainsbury's. That shake your teeth out.
Presumably you've read my previous post using Polestar's own footprint numbers.
Adding the second motor increases lifetime footprint by 5% if the car is renewably powered, that's it, just 5%.
And it makes no difference at all who is driving, and how it is driven.
That's the absolute killer hold that EVs will always have over any other form of propulsion, the carbon/resource footprint is entirely controlled by the production of the car and the production of the energy to power it.
From a legislative and policy making perspective, that's Christmas Day 365 days a year.
Th extreme power version is a total irrelevance environmentally.
What confuses the hell out of me is why enthusiasts and people who like to 'make progress' are so unwilling to even acknowledge or, god forbid, embrace that.
GT9 said:
The question is whether the Polstar 4 single motor would be any different a car if the dual motor didn't exist.
Presumably you've read my previous post using Polestar's own footprint numbers.
Adding the second motor increases lifetime footprint by 5% if the car is renewably powered, that's it, just 5%.
And it makes no difference at all who is driving, and how it is driven.
That's the absolute killer hold that EVs will always have over any other form of propulsion, the carbon/resource footprint is entirely controlled by the production of the car and the production of the energy to power it.
From a legislative and policy making perspective, that's Christmas Day 365 days a year.
Th extreme power version is a total irrelevance environmentally.
What confuses the hell out of me is why enthusiasts and people who like to 'make progress' are so unwilling to even acknowledge or, god forbid, embrace that.
We are having two conversations that are closely related, but probably making different points...Presumably you've read my previous post using Polestar's own footprint numbers.
Adding the second motor increases lifetime footprint by 5% if the car is renewably powered, that's it, just 5%.
And it makes no difference at all who is driving, and how it is driven.
That's the absolute killer hold that EVs will always have over any other form of propulsion, the carbon/resource footprint is entirely controlled by the production of the car and the production of the energy to power it.
From a legislative and policy making perspective, that's Christmas Day 365 days a year.
Th extreme power version is a total irrelevance environmentally.
What confuses the hell out of me is why enthusiasts and people who like to 'make progress' are so unwilling to even acknowledge or, god forbid, embrace that.
But -on the '2 there is a pretty material 10% difference in WLTP with the single vs. dual motor car, and I've seen that in practice with extended test drives and ownership experiences as well.
As well as increased inefficiency of two driven axles vs. one, i do think a faster car inevitably encourages a less efficient drivign stylie - but agree it's much much less pronounced than with ICE. And - it's not really important in the general scale of things... how the thing rides (or doesn't) and how physically large it is relative to cabin and luggage space matter way more to me.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff