why the focus in electric cars being so powerful and or fast
Discussion
And I don't mean the cars that are supposed to be fast!
Watching the carwow review of the smart #1 (stupid name)
Why does it have 270bhp
I had a eqb the other week when my car was in the dealers and honestly for what it was it felt needlessly quick due to the availability of the torque combined with no engine noise (it isn't any more torque than my 220d e class)
Surly they should just reduce the output of the motors and increase range
People we know are getting a ix1 they have never had more than about 140bhp now they are going to 312bhp and 494nm and 60 is done in 5.6seconds
Surely 10.5 seconds is fine for something like that as that's what the 1.5litre engine can do it in
Watching the carwow review of the smart #1 (stupid name)
Why does it have 270bhp
I had a eqb the other week when my car was in the dealers and honestly for what it was it felt needlessly quick due to the availability of the torque combined with no engine noise (it isn't any more torque than my 220d e class)
Surly they should just reduce the output of the motors and increase range
People we know are getting a ix1 they have never had more than about 140bhp now they are going to 312bhp and 494nm and 60 is done in 5.6seconds
Surely 10.5 seconds is fine for something like that as that's what the 1.5litre engine can do it in
ICE cars were always a compromise. you couldn't build a powerful one that was economic, or an economic one that was powerful.
Electric cars are pretty much a software switch which limits the power. You could put the worlds most powerful electric motor in a car, and on a quiet run to the shops probably wouldn't be much less efficient than a very small one. I don't think the cost of building them would be much different either. Certainly not compared to the differences required in ICE
But between you and reality is a bunch of salespeople designed to function in the last century and buyers for that matter.
They are selling a consumer product and they are pretty much telling the producers what performance figure to put on the packaging that will sell the product but not destroy the future sales of incrementally faster cars.
There are currently massive downsides to electric cars, and the power figures need to balance that. Which is why to convince joe public to buy them they are all coming out a bit faster than the previous iteration of ICE, plus an extra power figure on top to make joe forget about the problems of charging, range anxiety and general blandness.
Electric cars are pretty much a software switch which limits the power. You could put the worlds most powerful electric motor in a car, and on a quiet run to the shops probably wouldn't be much less efficient than a very small one. I don't think the cost of building them would be much different either. Certainly not compared to the differences required in ICE
But between you and reality is a bunch of salespeople designed to function in the last century and buyers for that matter.
They are selling a consumer product and they are pretty much telling the producers what performance figure to put on the packaging that will sell the product but not destroy the future sales of incrementally faster cars.
There are currently massive downsides to electric cars, and the power figures need to balance that. Which is why to convince joe public to buy them they are all coming out a bit faster than the previous iteration of ICE, plus an extra power figure on top to make joe forget about the problems of charging, range anxiety and general blandness.
Trustmeimadoctor said:
Surly they should just reduce the output of the motors and increase range
People we know are getting a ix1 they have never had more than about 140bhp now they are going to 312bhp and 494nm and 60 is done in 5.6seconds
Surely 10.5 seconds is fine for something like that as that's what the 1.5litre engine can do it in
Yep. For my daily, I wouldn't give a sPeople we know are getting a ix1 they have never had more than about 140bhp now they are going to 312bhp and 494nm and 60 is done in 5.6seconds
Surely 10.5 seconds is fine for something like that as that's what the 1.5litre engine can do it in
t that it could do 5s to 60. What I do give a st about is that I could plug it in once a week and do a commute everyday.I guess they're trying to make EVs cool by being Porsche-beating (insert your own brand).
I'd rather have an EV that did 8s to 60 but had a 1000 mile range. The range needs to be much bigger than a diesel to take into account the moronic time it takes to charge up even the best EV. 20 minutes is stupidly long. A boring diesel can get a 600 mile range in 5 minutes... including the time it takes to pay.
Add the fact that it now costs the same to charge an EV in a public charging bay as it does a family hatchback or you have to put up with an 8 hour home charge overnight. Let's pause to think how many times you've set off for work and realised you forgot to plug your phone in overnight so it has 10% charge when you pick it up in the morning.
Edited by Hoofy on Wednesday 16th August 12:32
It's a selling point. Especially in the early days of EVs when Teslas were marketing their cars. They had to have a selling point over ICE cars and acceleration was an easy selling point to make. Over in the states with lower gas prices, I guess there was less of a difference in cost per mile when comparing petrol and electric so I guess they went with acceleration as the main selling point.
Carwow seem to just do drag races as filler between car reviews. I used to watch them but got tired of it after awhile.
Now other manufacturers and review channels also give airtime to other more practical aspects of EV ownership which is probably more important to the general buying public.
Carwow seem to just do drag races as filler between car reviews. I used to watch them but got tired of it after awhile.
Now other manufacturers and review channels also give airtime to other more practical aspects of EV ownership which is probably more important to the general buying public.
The performance also appears to have been a way of justifying the price.
A GLC starts at £53k for a 220hp hybrid with 17kw battery, whereas an EQC starts at £74k but has 400hp.
An 80kw battery pack and motors may well cost £20k more than the 220 diesel engine & 17kw battery, but if the performance was also the same would anyone buy one?
A GLC starts at £53k for a 220hp hybrid with 17kw battery, whereas an EQC starts at £74k but has 400hp.
An 80kw battery pack and motors may well cost £20k more than the 220 diesel engine & 17kw battery, but if the performance was also the same would anyone buy one?
My understanding is that the difference in electricity consumption per mile at cruising speed between a large motor and a small one is miniscule. A powerful electric car, therefore, doesn't lose range by virtue of simply being powerful with the corollary that a weedy electric car doesn't gain range simply by being weedy. There isn't anything in particular to be gained by making electric cars less powerful, so companies generally don't. A better motor might cost a grand or two more, per car, but that's not really a problem when consumers are prepared to pay that. People will either want the additional performance or will be ambivalent to its presence. A much harder sell would be a very slow electric car that doesn't go any further than a fast one and costs almost the same. Vauxhall's appear to have had that problem with the electric hatchbacks.
So much lack of understanding surrounding this issue.
They're not fast because they need to be or because it's the only way to sell them - although it definitely helps in some potential buyers eyes of course.
They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range. The downsides of all that power are so minimal that you might as well 'let em ave it', for any drivers that happen to like it. for most drivers, it's just bloody useful to be able to dart rapidly into a gap on a busy roundabout etc.
Bigger batteries equal more range. The size of the motors fitted only determine the speed at which that battery can be depleted. Drive a 500hp 2 tonne EV in the exact manner you would drive a 200hp 2 tonne EV, and the range will be about the same - allowing for aerodynamic and rolling resistance differences of course.
There IS a weight and cost penalty when you get to a dual motor EV's, because you're dragging around the weight and cost of an extra motor. But such cars are performance models and are supposed to appeal in terms of speed and power. Even then, the actual range impact of the extra motor weight is very little if driven gently. IE a TM3 single motor might cost £6.5 to do 200 miles, a TM3LR dual motor might cost £7.50..
They're not fast because they need to be or because it's the only way to sell them - although it definitely helps in some potential buyers eyes of course.
They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range. The downsides of all that power are so minimal that you might as well 'let em ave it', for any drivers that happen to like it. for most drivers, it's just bloody useful to be able to dart rapidly into a gap on a busy roundabout etc.
Bigger batteries equal more range. The size of the motors fitted only determine the speed at which that battery can be depleted. Drive a 500hp 2 tonne EV in the exact manner you would drive a 200hp 2 tonne EV, and the range will be about the same - allowing for aerodynamic and rolling resistance differences of course.
There IS a weight and cost penalty when you get to a dual motor EV's, because you're dragging around the weight and cost of an extra motor. But such cars are performance models and are supposed to appeal in terms of speed and power. Even then, the actual range impact of the extra motor weight is very little if driven gently. IE a TM3 single motor might cost £6.5 to do 200 miles, a TM3LR dual motor might cost £7.50..
TheDeuce said:
So much lack of understanding surrounding this issue.
They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
Apart from the extra weight and cost of the wheels, tyres, brakes and anything else that needs upgrading to cope with the extra BHP. They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
TheDeuce said:
There IS a weight and cost penalty when you get to a dual motor EV's, because you're dragging around the weight and cost of an extra motor. But such cars are performance models and are supposed to appeal in terms of speed and power. Even then, the actual range impact of the extra motor weight is very little if driven gently. IE a TM3 single motor might cost £6.5 to do 200 miles, a TM3LR dual motor might cost £7.50..
Or to put it another way, you can increase the range by about 15% by avoiding the dual motor 4WD version. I'm fed up with reading "the new fandangomobile has a skateboard battery, and the option of either one motor and 2WD or 2 motors and 4WD, with the top model having 500bhp and a 0-62 time of 3 seconds". How much cheaper, lighter, more spacious and more economical would it be if it wasn't designed and developed to cope with the demands of the top model?
ChocolateFrog said:
It's much, much easier to make a 1000hp EV than it is to make a 10 miles per kwh EV.
With EV powertrain typically having over 85% efficiency, miles per kWh is dominated by vehicle losses.Aero drag is the big one. Significant improvement requires even lower drag coefficient, smaller frontal area and slower speeds.
Or in other words, very slippery small cars going slowly. With these fundamental changes, 10 miles per kwh EV is definitely achievable. But you wouldn't like the product or using it. Better to go by train instead.
andyalan10 said:
TheDeuce said:
So much lack of understanding surrounding this issue.
They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
Apart from the extra weight and cost of the wheels, tyres, brakes and anything else that needs upgrading to cope with the extra BHP. They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
SWoll said:
Plenty of smaller lower powered EV's out there, and with larger models with bigger batteries and motors when it's so easy to offer extra performance with no downside to efficiency then why wouldn't they?
Just the safety aspect of putting too much performance in the wrong hands.andyalan10 said:
TheDeuce said:
So much lack of understanding surrounding this issue.
They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
Apart from the extra weight and cost of the wheels, tyres, brakes and anything else that needs upgrading to cope with the extra BHP. They're fast because they can be, it costs the manufacturer and driver next to nothing in terms of upfront or running costs, or range.
TheDeuce said:
There IS a weight and cost penalty when you get to a dual motor EV's, because you're dragging around the weight and cost of an extra motor. But such cars are performance models and are supposed to appeal in terms of speed and power. Even then, the actual range impact of the extra motor weight is very little if driven gently. IE a TM3 single motor might cost £6.5 to do 200 miles, a TM3LR dual motor might cost £7.50..
Or to put it another way, you can increase the range by about 15% by avoiding the dual motor 4WD version. I'm fed up with reading "the new fandangomobile has a skateboard battery, and the option of either one motor and 2WD or 2 motors and 4WD, with the top model having 500bhp and a 0-62 time of 3 seconds". How much cheaper, lighter, more spacious and more economical would it be if it wasn't designed and developed to cope with the demands of the top model?
There's nothing to be fed up about. Whatever EV you might buy, isn't going to cost you more because it's quite a bit nippier than the ICE equivalent. All EV's have invested more than enough in the suspension in order to handle the cars weight, the extra power doesn't add any additional burden - unless it's a performance orientated car, in which case of course you can pay more for a better setup.
You don't need to upgrade the wheels or brakes (on an ICE you need to upgrade the brakes, but on an EV the brakes receive so much support via regen it's not required - unless the car is crazy fast or designed for track use). Tyres are normally the same across the range of power outputs for a model of EV, other than on the top models which sometimes have performance tyres - even then it's typically an option.
If you buy a new EV and it has 250hp instead of the 160hp ICE equivalent, you really won't be paying a premium for that additional power, it's just a by-product of EV design.
SWoll said:
Plenty of smaller lower powered EV's out there, and with larger models with bigger batteries and motors when it's so easy to offer extra performance with no downside to efficiency then why wouldn't they?
Is there? What's the lowest power EV from an established player (not one of the new Chinese EV brands that have just popped up)bigothunter said:
SWoll said:
Plenty of smaller lower powered EV's out there, and with larger models with bigger batteries and motors when it's so easy to offer extra performance with no downside to efficiency then why wouldn't they?
Just the safety aspect of putting too much performance in the wrong hands.IME performance EV's are incredibly easy to drive slowly, far more so than ICE. You just need some control over your right foot and a modicum of self control.
Trustmeimadoctor said:
SWoll said:
Plenty of smaller lower powered EV's out there, and with larger models with bigger batteries and motors when it's so easy to offer extra performance with no downside to efficiency then why wouldn't they?
Is there? What's the lowest power EV from an established player (not one of the new Chinese EV brands that have just popped up)I don't know how powerful either are, I just know it's not enough to cause anyone an issue - and I also know that reducing the power wouldn't have made either car any cheaper or more efficient.
Trustmeimadoctor said:
SWoll said:
Plenty of smaller lower powered EV's out there, and with larger models with bigger batteries and motors when it's so easy to offer extra performance with no downside to efficiency then why wouldn't they?
Is there? What's the lowest power EV from an established player (not one of the new Chinese EV brands that have just popped up)Fiat 500e
Mini E
BMW i3
Nissan Leaf
Hyundai Ioniq
Citroen DS3
Peugeot e208, 2008
Hyundai Kona
Kia eniro
All 200hp or less and at best offer performance comparable to a warm ICE hatchback.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff