[HN Gopher] How Lotus is going to build lightweight electric spo...
___________________________________________________________________
How Lotus is going to build lightweight electric sports cars
Author : rbanffy
Score : 82 points
Date : 2021-09-24 08:47 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| black_13 wrote:
| Who needs this? I road electric trams in Germany god they were
| great got me to school and many others on there way. It seems
| like we only ask a question if applies to an individual an
| individual with a great deal of money.
| dafoex wrote:
| Honestly I don't like that everyone is so concerned about
| electric sports cars. I don't agree with a lot of things Elon
| does, but one thing that got me really excited was the electric
| lorries - finally someone is trying to make electric commercial
| vehicles look sexy - and yes, maybe they won't outperform diesel
| engined lorries for some time, but they won't ever outperform
| them if we don't develop them.
| mft_ wrote:
| The article should be called "How Lotus is going to build
| electric sports cars" - as there's absolutely no detail given on
| how they're going to make them more lightweight than current
| concepts?
|
| The options discussed are batteries under the floor vs. mid-rear
| batteries behind the driver in a two-seater... but these still
| require lots of cells, and in the absence of other innovation,
| still therefore presumably carry a major weight penalty vs. ICE,
| as with all current EVs?
|
| The direct comment from Lotus comes closest to providing some
| details ( _"...significant weight savings have been achieved
| throughout... for example, by utilizing the vehicle structure as
| the battery enclosure, having an integrated EDU, eliminating
| subframes and optimizing the multi-link suspension components.
| "_) - but this is essentially fairly standard vehicle
| engineering, and doesn't innovate around the weight of the
| battery at all.
|
| (I'm not being contrary here - FWIW I own both a Lotus and an EV
| - but this just seems like weak journalism from a PR release.)
| poniko wrote:
| It might be lightweight compared to the Teslas of the world,
| Evija is only a smidge over 1600kg .. heavy compared to the
| Elises but light compared to the other ev-players .. who knows,
| I'm going to buy one anyhow :). Want to order the Emira but
| Sweden is quickly going down the path of taxing the hell out of
| all new ICE cars.
| speedgoose wrote:
| 1600kg is not very lightweight in the EV world. It's 100kg
| more than an old Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe, which are very
| common in Europe. The old first gen BMW i3 weighs 1200kg. For
| sure it's not the same performances but weight didn't seem to
| be the main focus for this Lotus.
| poniko wrote:
| So a Zoe is 1570kg and has a tiny engine and 50kw battery
| :) not sure it's comparable with something that's has 4
| motors, 2000hp and a 70kw battery :) The battery alone on
| the evija is 680kg and probably very different just to be
| able to get the amp up enough to power the massive engines
| and spike output when needed.
| speedgoose wrote:
| An old Lotus Elise was all about the weight, not power.
| They didn't follow this concept with the Evija, with so
| much power requiring a huge and heavy battery pack.
| poniko wrote:
| Agree, owned an Lotus Elise, truly amazing driving car
| but bad at everything else. Creating an electric car at
| 900kg is just not possible today even with just 250hk.
| With all new regulatory requirements like all cars need
| autobreak and other active safety features I'm not sure a
| new Elise would be possible, I think that's why the new
| Emira focus on beings a good all around sports car
| instead of weight.
| nabilhat wrote:
| At least it's not "How Lotus is going to build electric sports
| cars lightweight"? Seriously though, it's a little
| disappointing to see 66.4 kWh for a minimal two-seater that's
| supposed to represent the Lotus philosophy. Any 2-seater that
| passes for Lotus can easily expect 4 miles / 6.5 km per kWh in
| normal driving. That's a lotta range to be lugging around.
|
| It would be nice to see a track focused version with half the
| battery capacity. Take advantage of the reduced pack volume and
| shorten the wheelbase for additional weight loss, now the
| weight can be on par with an ICE Lotus. RWD with CoG behind
| centerline and tighter polar moment than an Elise on top of EV
| torque sounds like an absolute handful; call it a Evropa and
| have some fun at the local autocross!
| zrm wrote:
| The problem is you need the extra capacity on the track
| because you use it more there.
|
| In normal driving you accelerate to highway speeds and then
| coast, or you're in city traffic and benefit from
| regenerative braking.
|
| On a track, you brake late on purpose because it's faster,
| but to stop that fast you have to rely more on traditional
| braking and can't recover the energy. Then you immediately
| want to accelerate back to high speeds again.
|
| If you put a small battery in an electric track car, it would
| be flat in ten minutes.
| nabilhat wrote:
| If 28 kWh is enough for an entire Formula E race, I think
| 33.2 kWh in a Lotus would work out okay.
| ggreer wrote:
| 28kWh isn't enough for a Formula E race. They swapped
| cars in the middle of the race back when they used those
| smaller batteries. They now use 54 kWh batteries[1],
| though power output is limited to less than a Tesla Model
| 3.
|
| Next year they're supposed to increase power output to
| 350kW, which is comparable to a Model 3 Performance. Of
| course Formula E cars are much lighter, so acceleration
| and handling are far better than the Tesla sedan.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_SRT05e
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Why can't you brake aggressively with regenerative braking?
| toss1 wrote:
| Agree that this article really didn't deliver on its headline,
| as we're still in the dark about how the measures mentioned
| will lead to lightweighting (not that they won't do it, just
| the article doesn't deliver).
|
| The first thing that concerns me about this layout is that it
| looks like the "Chest Layout" with the batteries mid-mounted in
| that tall trapezoidal shape will significantly raise the center
| of mass. I've found that this almost inevitably results in
| worse handling performance, unless offset. Of course, if this
| somehow achieves far lighter overall weight than a "Skateboard"
| layout, it could still be a winning design (but we don't know
| that yet).
| giantg2 wrote:
| Agree. The thing you sort of hint at but don't specifically
| call out is that using the chest configuration gives it a
| shorter wheelbase, which means less chassis, body, etc weight
| than the skateboard design. It's still going to weigh a lot,
| but it will be less than many other EVs (of similar battery/
| motor size).
| mannykannot wrote:
| It is not clear to me how putting the batteries behind the
| riders rather than under them makes for a shorter wheelbase.
| The article mentions a lower height, which presumably reduces
| aerodynamic drag, all else being equal.
|
| Maybe it is a matter of getting a good compromise between
| wheelbase, drag and center of gravity height?
|
| Update - more on that here:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/heres-how-lotus-is-
| goin...
| rbanffy wrote:
| > The article mentions a lower height
|
| There's also an emotional component in the difference in
| perception of driving at 250 Km/h on a BMW 750 or in a
| Lotus where your seat is hugging the road under you.
| poniko wrote:
| You want a low center of gravity but also weight in the
| center of the 4 wheels of car, that's why most sports cars
| nowadays are 'mid-engine'. Weight in the center helps in
| turns since the car wants to rotate around itself.
| hinkley wrote:
| Smaller moment of inertia at the same weight.
| tromp wrote:
| "utilizing the vehicle structure as the battery enclosure" is
| more commonly described (by Tesla at least) as a structural
| battery, i.e. utilizing the battery enclosure as an integral
| part of the chassis.
| niblettc wrote:
| This is what scares me about electric cars. This type of
| design seems more likely to mean disposable cars. This is the
| automotive equivalent of a glued in non serviceable battery
| in a phone.
|
| From an environmental standpoint this seems like a step
| backwards. It can be cost effective to replace entire damaged
| engines and transmissions even in older vehicles. People are
| keeping cars for longer, currently the average is over 8
| years.
| varjag wrote:
| An average EV will last longer than 8 years. Early fears of
| battery longevity proved to be unfounded.
| ArchStanton wrote:
| Ideally the whole car collapses simultaneously.
| VLM wrote:
| There's a big wikipedia article on the various vehicle
| frame technologies thru the ages.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_frame
|
| So my commuter car is a cheapie Yaris ICE not EV. Its lead
| acid battery lives on a shelf attached to the frame, kind
| like a body on frame by analogy, except instead of bolting
| a car body to the frame they're bolting a battery shelf to
| the frame. If they ripped out the battery shelf and
| embedded a shelf directly into the front quarter panel of
| the body, then theoretically the car would be a little
| lighter. Its probably not worth it for a small lightweight
| lead acid battery. Giant EV battery, on the other hand 5%
| lighter might be a lot of weight...
|
| Maybe a more intuitive way to understand the difference
| between a unibody type design and a body on frame design,
| is to look at old pickup trucks and you can rip the pickup
| bed off the frame and the truck works fine because the
| wheels and brakes and all the parts attach to a frame, so a
| bed-less pickup truck is just a pickup truck without a bed.
| Now if you rip off the back of a unibody car the entire
| back of the car would literally disappear because there is
| no frame, the frame is the body. Like the suspension parts
| attach to the body. There is no separate body and frame,
| there's just "the back of the car".
|
| So one way to build a EV is to convert an existing chassis
| by bolting big battery pack "boxes" onto the frame. There
| exists a frame of a car and you bolted boxes of batteries
| to it as an addon. But a lighter way, which takes a lot
| more engineering, is building the battery "boxes" into the
| frame itself; there is no separate battery box there's a
| compartment in the frame that holds the batteries. You
| can't replace the battery "box" or the frame separately
| because they are not separate they are the same piece of
| metal. Much more engineering, much lighter.
|
| I would imagine you can replace the batteries just as
| easily in a unibody EV as a body-on-frame EV. But you can't
| replace the rusted out battery box on a unibody EV because
| there is no separate battery box, its engineered into the
| frame.
|
| The biggest disadvantage of unibody designs is everything
| is embedded in everything else so in a body on frame car a
| minor fender bender you remove and replace part of the
| body. But with a unibody the whole suspension and drive
| train gotta go too. To replace EV battery in a body on
| frame design you simply remove the battery from the frame.
| In a unibody system there might be a lot more labor hours
| maybe you gotta remove all the wheels and doors and seats
| to yank out a substantial chunk of the middle of the car.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| There are many motorcycles with the motor as a structural
| component. It does not mean you throw away the bike instead
| of repairing or replacing the motor.
| usrusr wrote:
| Perhaps battery sized for a reasonably long joyride and nothing
| more? I'd say that's how you'd build a lightweight electric
| sports car.
| clouddrover wrote:
| Yes, a small, fast charging lithium-carbon battery is how you
| build a lightweight scooter so why not a sports car:
|
| https://www.mahle-powertrain.com/en/news-and-press/press-
| rel...
|
| Or lithium-sulfur batteries for a battery pack that weighs
| less:
|
| https://lyten.com/lyten-launches-lithium-sulfur-battery-
| plat...
|
| Or just go for battery swaps:
|
| https://www.gogoro.com/news/400k-gogoro-network-subscribers/
| simondotau wrote:
| I was under the impression that smaller batteries had a limit
| to peak power draw. Perhaps not important if you have an
| ultra-light vehicle and you're not attempting to build a
| competitor to the Plaid.
| HPsquared wrote:
| That's in line with the Lotus philosophy of light weight. A
| lighter battery doesn't need as much superstructure (the
| rest of the car) and doesn't need as much raw power to
| accelerate itself around.
|
| Perhaps thermal management could be somewhat opened up to
| the driver with short "sprints" possible, to add some more
| driver involvement to the experience.
| elihu wrote:
| It depends on the batteries. It's true that larger packs
| generally draw less current per cell; whether you can get
| away with a small pack depends on whether the cells are
| designed to handle high discharge rates without damage.
|
| Tesla's approach seems to be to optimize their cells for
| energy density rather than power density. They can do that
| because the packs they use are huge. On the other hand you
| have relatively small batteries that go in hybrids that are
| optimized for power density.
| jagger27 wrote:
| There must be a balance. The lighter the car, the more
| acceleration you get per watt.
|
| I'd be very happy with a light weight EV Miata that went 0
| to 100km/h in under or around 4 seconds. Not Model S Plaid
| or high end 911 fast, but still by far the fastest
| production Miata.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| You'll love this then: https://youtu.be/VZws7kE3U5k (EV
| swapped Mazda Miata MX5).
|
| There's a full build series too by the company that made
| it. I think PS20k was mentioned as the cost of the
| conversion kit if they were to sell one. 120 miles range.
| ArchStanton wrote:
| Cool, thanks. I'll check it out.
|
| I've mostly been keeping an eye out on the aircooled VW
| conversions (or that EV 1968 Mustang on youtube).
|
| It'll really get interesting when you see more from-
| scratch cars that don't have the ICE history built in.
| There are a lot of changes that could be made in design.
| If the government didn't love to get in your business so
| much, maybe there could be a world of street-legal EV
| karts.
| fragmede wrote:
| There are - golf carts. They don't have the same sex
| appeal as a sports car, but in the many communities in
| the US where those are considered street legal, they are
| flourishing! They usually don't have doors and have a low
| top speed, but make for great third or fourth cars. Their
| top speed is low and limited by the law, though the laws
| that I've seen only specify what the top speed (often
| 35mph) but not how long (or how quickly) it takes to get
| there.
|
| Many are still on lead-acid batteries (36V or 48V) but
| you didn't specify battery chemistry. :)
| ArchStanton wrote:
| That makes sense.
|
| I keep wondering why we haven't seen an EV Miata, but you'd
| probably end up with a small, 4000lb car.
|
| Lacking significant battery improvements, I'm thinking the
| electric F150 is going to be the game changer in all this.
| rowing wrote:
| I don't understand why you'd buy an automatic miata, let
| alone an electric one. Is there even a market for this?
| rbanffy wrote:
| I'd buy a small electric sports car because of the high
| acceleration. I drove manual transmissions all my life
| and, while it's fun in a race course, it's far less
| entertaining in traffic.
| elihu wrote:
| Gas-powered cars are annoying to drive in traffic because
| the engine has a minimum RPM. EVs don't have that, so in
| stop-and-go traffic you'd be able to just leave it in 2nd
| gear the whole time and never touch the clutch.
| fragmede wrote:
| Because it fits other parameters of practicality.
| Gatekeeping what's a _real_ sports car might fly on car
| enthusiast forums, but it just isn 't a good look outside
| of them (it's not a good look there either, tbh).
|
| Mazda sells a decent number of automatic Mazdas each year
| (24% of softtops, 48% of hardtops in 2018-2019 according
| to auto blog), so people are buying them. The reason to
| buy a hypothetical electric Miata? Same as for any sports
| car - it's faster than yours, or at least as fast I can
| afford.
|
| Whether there's a market for them, I can't say, but if
| someone doesn't understand the existing market for an
| existing car, I'm extremely doubtful of their predictions
| about a hypothetical new car in that niche.
| rowing wrote:
| Miatas are completely impractical cars. Have you actually
| driven one?
|
| Of course it comes down to personal taste, but I can't
| understand why you'd buy a "fun car" but strip away all
| the things that make it fun. There are much better
| alternatives at that point.
| elihu wrote:
| Technically there's no reason an EV Miata couldn't have a
| manual transmission, it's just that auto manufacturers so
| far have largely decided they'd rather just opt for a
| more powerful motor than deal with the drive train
| complexity, weight, and friction losses of a
| transmission.
|
| I don't expect Mazda to make a manual transmission EV
| Miata but it's something they could do if they really
| wanted to.
| ArchStanton wrote:
| Fine. We'll design a control system for EVs where you can
| feel that a fake clutch actually does something. We can
| supply speakers and a simulated tach to give the full
| sports car experience.
|
| Really my own guess is that the manual trans will
| continue on the way out due to emissions law if nothing
| else (and lack of interest). Modern cars have little
| visceral interest in any case, probably better to buy a
| hemicuda with a stick or a Cobra kit.
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| I thought a valuable experience in driving a fun car
| would go missing when going to an electric. Not so.
| Driving a fast, well handling electric is pure joy to me.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28653942
| fragmede wrote:
| Have you forgotten the original Tesla Roadster? The Miata
| occupies a very specific niche (there are other sports
| cars, but none with the same balance of affordability and
| performance and availability as the Mazda Miata), but there
| are quite a few EV sports cars. They're just not remotely
| humanly affordable.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Interestingly enough, the Roadster is based on a Lotus
| Elise, so we've come a full circle here..
| ArchStanton wrote:
| >Have you forgotten the original Tesla Roadster?
|
| Not mass market, which is the main (only?) charm of the
| Miata I think.
|
| They're all filled with road-hugging weight in any case.
| A Triumph Spitfire is 1000 lbs lighter. That's the
| equivalent of three Americans.
| elihu wrote:
| A lot of people want electric Miatas. I think the main
| reasons they aren't being made is that Mazda would have to
| invest a lot of R&D into designing it and they're a
| relatively small car company that can't do everything and
| they're probably not convinced that they can make an EV
| that feels like a Miata.
|
| The main issue is batteries. They could either make a light
| EV without much range, or make a long-range EV that's quite
| heavy. Placement's an issue too. If they put the batteries
| in back under the trunk, they'll have too much weight in
| the rear causing it to spin out on corners. If they put it
| under the middle of the car like in most modern EVs, it'll
| make the car taller and look very un-Miata like. Best case
| is probably to put most of the battery in the front where
| the engine was, but I suppose that might be a safety issue
| (it could be crushed in a collision).
|
| I think an electric Miata will happen eventually, but
| probably not until Mazda can buy cells that are in the
| 250-300 watt hours per kg range.
|
| (Personally I would love to see an EV Miata with a manual
| transmission, but that's probably not going to happen.)
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Lotus has a history of producing extremely lightweight sport
| cars, see Lotus Seven [1], famously featured in the opening
| sequence of "The Prisoner" TV series.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Seven
| technothrasher wrote:
| > famously featured in the opening sequence of "The Prisoner"
| TV series.
|
| Not just featuring in the opening sequence, but indeed
| symbolic of the entire show. A quirky, agile stand-out from
| the crowd that represents freedom and individuality, yet in
| the end is still imprisoned to follow the same roads as
| everybody else.
| [deleted]
| fragmede wrote:
| Don't forget their involvement with the original Tesla
| Roadster. Lotus was Teslas original contract manufacturer for
| their cars, back in the day, and helped out Tesla with some
| engineering and design resources.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position
| Torwald wrote:
| Yes, the founder of Lotus, Colin Chapmann, had this
| egineering philosophy regarding racing cars: "Every part's
| weight is something I have to carry. If a part doesn't even
| exist, it doesn't have any weight." (Paraphrased by me.)
|
| The biography "Colin Chapman The man and his cars" by Jerry
| Crombac is the got to read for this topic. BTW., Crombac is a
| legend in sports journalism in his own right.
| artiszt wrote:
| and at a time nobody even did care for aerodynamics of a
| cars underbelly [its ventro-basal anatomy, so to speak]
| Chapman aimed to optimize on a level known only from
| constructing air-planes. shark-skin'ish foils, if not
| mistaken, they too were among the first testing on racing
| cars
| aboel3z wrote:
| I'm wouldn't bet the house on this ever seeing the light of day.
| Geely is carrying a lot of debt and most of it's IP is outside of
| China. The Chinese government is imposing debt ratio limits
| mostly in the house building sector but it's across the Chinese
| economy. When dealing with Chinese companies the real debt levels
| are always higher than the published figures. In addition the
| Chinese government is pressurising Chinese companies to bring
| it's IP into China where the government has full control. The
| risk/reward proflie changes dramatically when you no longer have
| independent courts.
| geogra4 wrote:
| They should call it the lotus 123
| the-dude wrote:
| Note that Tesla started out retrofitting Lotus Elise bodies.
| phreeza wrote:
| Much like a certain PID is retrofitted into Rancilio Silvia
| Espresso machines :D
| tejohnso wrote:
| A decision that was made before Elon got seriously involved,
| when the plan was to focus on the electric drivetrain while
| farming out the full body / handling aspects. Seemed like a
| good strategy to me. Elon ended up calling it a stupid idea.
| the-dude wrote:
| > Elon ended up calling it a stupid idea.
|
| I didn't know that! Thnx.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| He was wrong IMO. Teslas are just meh in styling. They look
| OK, certainly better than the clown-car EVs that preceeded
| them (and are still produced by some manufacturers), but
| they don't stand out compared to the styling and interior
| quality of Mercedes, BMW, to say nothing of exotics like
| Lotus.
| ArchStanton wrote:
| This seems like a pretty obvious thing to do for some small-run
| auto maker.
|
| Thinking out loud. At what point are legislative controls ever
| put on car performance, if ever? They've kind of hit the limits
| on ICE engines with the Hellcat Dodges (for example) but there's
| no reason an EV couldn't have power to weight ratios that are
| actually dangerous.
|
| So what happens when you can buy a street-legal F1 car?
| dumb_throw wrote:
| >They've kind of hit the limits on ICE engines with the Hellcat
| Dodges (for example) but there's no reason an EV couldn't have
| power to weight ratios that are actually dangerous.
|
| Yes there is - the vastly more energy-dense fuel used by ICE
| cars.
|
| The Hellcat Dodge's power to weight of 318 hp per tonne puts it
| more in the soccer mom category.
|
| The Caterham 7 620, with a 2-liter engine, gets 500hp per
| tonne, and that's half of what some of the exotic supercars
| have.
|
| For reference, a Tesla has around 350 hp/tonne.
|
| I think your perception of what qualifies as motoring
| performance is sadly lacking.
| ArchStanton wrote:
| >I think your perception of what qualifies as motoring
| performance is sadly lacking.
|
| lol. I think you'd be surprised.
|
| Mostly I'm referring to the mass-produced engine itself here,
| not the car. After all, we live in a world of 1000 BHP turbo
| LS engines stuffed into old Ford Fairmonts turning single
| digit quarter miles.
|
| Having said that, at what point is there legislative pressure
| to limit new cars. JDM is an existing model.
| dumb_throw wrote:
| If you're going to look only at the power-to-weight of the
| engine itself and ignore everything else needed to make a
| car, I look forward to the superior hydraulic engined-cars!
| ArchStanton wrote:
| Thank you for your valuable input.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| I guess Lotus have had some time to think about it given the
| Elise chassis was used for the original Tesla Roaster.
|
| I got to spend some time at the Lotus factory in Hethel when I
| was 16 doing work experience. Was definitely an interesting thing
| to see and experience. I apologise to anyone who ended up buying
| an Elise with a pedal box that I assembled.
| amelius wrote:
| Note that these sports car companies will probably be forced by
| regulators to go fully electric.
|
| https://driving.ca/auto-news/industry/italy-wants-an-excepti...
| jagger27 wrote:
| I would be okay with a modest battery pack with 250km to 300km of
| range in a Miata or Lotus in exchange for some lightness.
|
| I can't remember the last time I drove more than 200km in a
| single trip in my Miata, and it's my daily driver.
| VLM wrote:
| I suspect if EVs ever get cheap enough for "regular joes" to
| drive, there will be hot rodders ripping out batteries to make
| them go faster.
|
| A Tesla model S battery is something like 1200 pounds. The
| entire car weighs something like 4500 pounds. If the range is
| 370 miles but I personally never drive more than 40 miles round
| trip to work, I could rip out 90% of the battery while
| maintaining 100% of the car's functionality to me, so I could
| drop the 0 to 60 time to possibly under 1.5 seconds due to
| lower weight. Should see a similar boost in handling
| performance. Out at the track I could trivially outperform any
| stock unmodified Tesla S with the simple mod of ripping out 90%
| of the useless-to-me batteries. Its not like I ever voluntarily
| sit in a car for 370 miles at a time, LOL.
|
| I wouldn't be into the likely staggering effort to rip out the
| batteries, but I know hot rodder car mod type people who would
| be all into shaving off 25% of your 0-60 time.
|
| Maybe, if "Everyone" had EVs, and I bought a second hand used
| car with a dead worn out battery, I would intentionally replace
| the giant 400 mile battery with a mere 40 mile battery just so
| I can gain incredible performance, AND the battery would be 90%
| cheaper than a full size battery, a win-win for me...
|
| I know its a stereotype of boomers that they have severe range
| anxiety and can't buy a car unless it can drive more than 20
| hours continuously between "refuelings" but by the time
| "everyone" drives EVs the boomers will be gone, most likely.
| I'm not going to miss "range anxiety" complaints about EVs.
| jagger27 wrote:
| > so I could drop the 0 to 60 time to possibly under 1.5
| seconds due to lower weight. Should see a similar boost in
| handling performance.
|
| If only this were the case. 2 seconds is pretty much the hard
| limit for a street car with the best tires you can get.
| Anything beyond that requires those giant funnycar tires that
| deform on acceleration to add grip. Or a rocket.
|
| > Maybe, if "Everyone" had EVs, and I bought a second hand
| used car with a dead worn out battery, I would intentionally
| replace the giant 400 mile battery with a mere 40 mile
| battery just so I can gain incredible performance, AND the
| battery would be 90% cheaper than a full size battery, a win-
| win for me...
|
| I think, as other commenters have mentioned in this thread,
| that having a lot of cells isn't really negotiable. You need
| both voltage (cells wired in series) and amperage (cells
| wired in parallel) to push the car forward. If only it were
| so simple. The trade off with fewer cells is pretty much
| necessarily performance and range.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Pretty good comment except for the last paragraph.
| costcopizza wrote:
| IMO EV sports cars will be mainly for style, as many of the fun
| parts will be gone: Feel of transmission shifting, actual engine
| sound, engine character (do you have to rev it out? Or is power
| instant?), and for the foreseeable future ICE will be lighter.
| snek_case wrote:
| You can put a gearbox on an electric car (the Porsche Taycan
| has one). If it's fun and not reliability or peak efficiency
| you're concerned about, why not? You could also hook the motor
| to a high-rpm ducted cooling fan so that it makes a jet-like
| sound.
| yowlingcat wrote:
| I find this a little bit of an odd statement -- what about the
| whole experience of simply driving a car fast, and the thrill
| of being able to take straight lines and curves as fast as
| possible? Surely the better power curve and eventually better
| weight distribution will result in a more track ready car
| that's simply more fun to drive because it's just plain faster.
|
| Of course, I can understand the complaint that such a machine,
| superior in performance as it may be, may lack character...
| rowing wrote:
| Faster doesn't necessarily mean more fun. That's the entire
| miata philosophy. It's an underpowered slow fun car.
| flyingfences wrote:
| > the thrill of being able to take straight lines and curves
| as fast as possible
|
| I'm trying to enjoy myself, not go to jail.
| rasz wrote:
| You have a Stockholm syndrome. Those arent fun parts, those are
| the drawbacks of contemporary technology.
| kehrin wrote:
| Maybe for a commuter car. Those are definitely fun parts of
| fun cars (e.g MX-5, 911 GT3, anything Lotus, S2000).
| costcopizza wrote:
| Hahah! For enthusiasts they absolutely are the fun parts. And
| I say this with plenty of seat time in EVs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-25 23:02 UTC)