[HN Gopher] The largest open-source dataset of car designs, incl...
___________________________________________________________________
The largest open-source dataset of car designs, including their
aerodynamics
Author : toss1
Score : 295 points
Date : 2024-12-06 18:07 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
| WhatsName wrote:
| I recently wanted to design a flying wing/rc plane. Is there any
| FOSS to get reasonable results for aerodynamics?
| jpb0104 wrote:
| This guy seems to have a good handle on diy aero. Both air and
| water.
|
| https://youtube.com/@rctestflight
| nickmcc wrote:
| Check out: https://ecalc.ch/wingdesigner.htm
| BoostandEthanol wrote:
| OpenFOAM I think is the go to for open source CFD, although
| I've never tried it myself. There's also XFOIL which, since
| you're talking about a flying wing, might be enough for your
| use case.
|
| Even for a finicky flying wing, I think if you keep an eye on
| the way the pitching moment shifts with pitch, I don't see why
| picking an airfoil shape for the frame and hand calcs couldn't
| get you to a design that flies reasonably.
| Stevvo wrote:
| The usual way is to use a wing with known aerodynamics. Choose
| one on airfoiltools.com
| SonicScrub wrote:
| Using a computational fluids model like OpenFOAM is overkill
| for reasonable estimates of aerodynamic performance and
| stability, provided you stick to normal-ish designs. The term
| you want to Google is "vortex lattice" and/or "potential flow"
| solvers, of which there are many open source softwares
| available specifically geared towards typical aircraft
| configurations, with simple, easy to use interfaces.
|
| Some good ones to look at to get started with nice guis
|
| - VSP Aero
|
| - XFOIL (for 2D airfoil analysis only, also generates inputs
| for 3D VLM solvers)
|
| - AVL
|
| And some others if you want perhaps a little higher fidelity,
| and don't mind text/code interfaces:
|
| -FreeWake
|
| - Datcom (not technically a potential flow models, but a
| database)
|
| To get the most value out of these softwares, you will need
| some background in aeronautics. You need to have an
| understanding of what a potential flow models can and cannot
| accurately model. It also helps to have knowledge about what
| forms aircraft stability/control and performance data is
| typically communicated in, as these softwares will use that
| terminology.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| I used xfoil in my aerodynamics masters degree, it absolutely
| good enough for hobby applications
| SonicScrub wrote:
| The 2D model alone maybe be sufficient for OPs needs, but
| I'd advocate for going at least a little further with some
| form of 3D model. The wing tip effects are significant
| enough to warrant some form of "next step" after the
| initial 2D analysis. Although simple algebraic
| relationships are likely good enough to satisfy this end.
|
| However, the 3D tools above give you a little bit more,
| that I feel warrant their consideration by the op. These
| models can yield performance of wing-tail-body
| configurations that include wake effects. They also can
| give stability analysis in both longitudinal/lateral axes.
| The stability effects being especially important if OP
| wants to design a flying-wing, which are a tad more
| challenging to get right than just slapping a "good-enough"
| sized tail on a classic config plane.
| addaon wrote:
| For this type of problem, unless you are trying to set range or
| climb rate records, understanding lift and moment (and control
| derivatives) is more important than accurately modeling drag.
| Panel methods shine at this, and are both easier to use and
| much much faster than CFD -- enough that wrapping them in
| optimizers is trivial. I personally prefer AVL, but there are
| other open source alternatives as well.
| jbay808 wrote:
| This project might be exactly what you're looking for:
|
| https://github.com/peterdsharpe/AeroSandbox
| roeles wrote:
| Xflr5? OpenFOAM?
|
| I've used neither but I hear others in the gliding and model
| airplane scene talk about those.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Datafiles available at:
| https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/DrivAerNet
|
| Issue tracking at: https://github.com/Mohamedelrefaie/DrivAerNet
| qwertox wrote:
| Paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09624 ( _" DrivAerNet++: A
| Large-Scale Multimodal Car Dataset with Computational Fluid
| Dynamics Simulations and Deep Learning Benchmarks"_)
| morphle wrote:
| Its a few hundred gigabyte. You can only login with an
| institutional account. My research institute is very small, can I
| borrow someone's login credentials? (email in profile).
| hackernewds wrote:
| It is not meant for non credentialed individuals?
| gus_massa wrote:
| From the repo
|
| > _Please note the (CC BY-NC 4.0) license terms, as outlined
| in the License section._
|
| In spite of the title and the article says "open souce" many
| times, it's free as in "source abailable".
| Intermernet wrote:
| Being licensed as it is, it needs to be publicly available.
| This availability can be on request, but that request can be
| made by anyone.
|
| The watering down of the legal definitions of Open Source and
| Creative Commons is a death of a thousand cuts. Every single
| misrepresentation and false claim needs to be called out and
| shut down. It's hard to stress how important these concepts
| are to the current state of the world. Many people say "stop
| being pedantic" or "the source can be read, therefore it's
| open source". The reason you currently have a secure server
| operating system that can use state of the art encryption on
| affordable commodity hardware is that "Open Source" has a
| legal definition. Please, let's not break it.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Not trying to be pedantic, but you literally asked for
| false claims to be called out and shut down.
|
| There is no open source license (that I know of) which
| requires public availability. If there is a requirement of
| providing sources, it's always a requirement of providing
| sources with a derived work. If you are not releasing
| derived works to anyone you don't need to release any
| source to anyone either. So called permissive licenses
| don't even have any requirement on providing sources
| whatsoever.
| foolswisdom wrote:
| That's because license requirements are on _other_ users
| (who are being licensed to use it) to follow, not the
| owner (who _owns_ it and doesn't need to follow the
| license terms the owner requires of others).
|
| Nevertheless, not every license is open source, open
| source does have a definition, and it's not about whether
| the owner is following their own license.
| MichaelTheGeek wrote:
| Very nice.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| O great. More cars that look identical.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Isn't this more efficient? Cheaper parts, everyone benefits
| from improvements to it.
|
| I wouldn't mind if there were only a handful of designs around
| with some tweaks depending on performance/comfort. Also,
| nowadays many different models share parts, like lights or
| rearview mirrors, showing there's a need for efficiency and
| scale bigger than the made-up need for fashionable cars.
| grecy wrote:
| I've always been shocked there are not way more common parts
| between vehicles and brands.
|
| Alternators, starters, ac compressors and so much more could
| just be small, medium, large, extra large.
|
| The price would drop dramatically.
| psychlops wrote:
| > The price would drop dramatically.
|
| Aaaaand, that's why they aren't modular. Take a look at
| something with obvious common parts like a side mirror.
| They are all intentionally designed adding special shapes
| to make them as unique as possible to the car. Never a
| simple square or rectangle.
| cwayon wrote:
| Good design is emotional. It adds spark to most of our
| everyday sightseeing, inspires and is too often overlooked-
| at least in recent times. Regarding the recent trends among
| car design... We are in a dark age.
|
| I agree that many parts can be interchangeable but modularity
| can be done in a way that doesn't result in every car looking
| like the blobs we see about today. I wouldn't mind if there
| were only a handful of designs around with slight variations
| in trim and specs -so long as I like those designs of course!
| I know that is subjective so lets keep things interesting and
| focus on making things that get the job done but also in
| varying styles. Both can be achieved.
|
| The need for fashion is made up, yes- but so is everything
| else. There's a balance between overly individualistic cars
| and the most cost efficient, reliable and uninspiring 4 door.
| Lately we have been leaning too far into the latter.
| spookie wrote:
| No one wants that. Neither consumer nor business.
|
| Think about every GPU having 8GB VRAM. Nobody wants that.
| EasyMark wrote:
| It is. I would prefer the advantages of a "cheap as possible
| but robust" basic car design. I want a car that is air gapped
| and not phoning home, that is electric (or good hybrid), and
| gets me from A to B. I want it to be reasonably comfortable
| and inexpensive to replace the parts, which comes about via
| mass production and minimized labor costs. Unfortunately
| almost all of those go against what car manufacturers want to
| do. That's why I drive a 2010 corolla for now and until it
| blows up.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Aerodynamics is aerodynamics, but we should embrace wild paint
| jobs.
| billfor wrote:
| Just give me something that looks like a Buick Grand National
| or a '92 Camaro..... I'll pay the extra money for gas. Why
| can't they be creative and reduce the efficiency just a tad.
| dotancohen wrote:
| That was actually the design goal of Saturn - Ferrari style
| with Chevrolet price tag.
|
| A few cars have got it right after Saturn. I would say the
| Hyundai Veloster and Tesla Model 3 top that list.
| dunwaldo wrote:
| in shift to electric we need to hit reset on design and just
| build the best car not one that is an iteration of design from
| our older gas cars
| dotancohen wrote:
| I believe that l the Tesla Models S and 3, and the Hyundai
| Ionic 5 and 6, are the only vehicles designed from the ground
| up as electric.
|
| It's funny, this is the second comment that I mention Tesla
| and Hyundai together. Two very different companies -
| entertaining to find this overlap.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
|
| Non-commercial licenses are not open source.
| csours wrote:
| I wonder if you might say something more substantial? This
| seems like a low effort nitpick as written.
| spookie wrote:
| Fails at criteria 6.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Pointing out a material misrepresentation is hardly a
| nitpick. I'm quite surprised to see an MIT affiliated
| publication making such an error.
|
| That said since it isn't source code I think the end result
| is probably a bit different. Unless I misunderstand something
| you could still use the data to further a commercial venture.
| You just can't directly commercialize the dataset itself.
| Conceptually similar to using a GPL'd software tool as an end
| user while performing work on a proprietary project.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I don't know how you can use this for a comercial task. For
| example CC explains you can't use a CC-NC song in a
| comercial video. I expect that if you use the data to
| design a car and sell it the authors will have a similar
| interpretation.
| fooker wrote:
| The idea is you look at the source and if you want to make
| money from it you negotiate a license that allows you to do
| that.
| bmitc wrote:
| For what use is this?
| aquafox wrote:
| Somewhat related: Can someone tell me why all those new electric
| cars are so poorly designed in terms of size and weight? Most of
| them weight over 2t and have a large frontal area (VW ID.4 is the
| prime example). I just want an economical family vehicle
| (lightweight, hatchback design) and there aren't that many
| options. Isn't that something loads of people want or am I the
| exotic one?
| bagels wrote:
| People are not buying as many compact cars.
|
| Electric cars need large, massive batteries to have a useful
| range.
|
| It's as simple as those two things.
| wyager wrote:
| > I just want an economical family vehicle
|
| Then buy an ICE vehicle. It's a more mature, cost-effective,
| and power/energy-dense technology
| aquafox wrote:
| But the efficiency factor of an EV is 60% as opposed to 20%
| for an ICE, which means you can get a similar range with much
| lower energy density.
| sedatk wrote:
| ...at the expense of door handles and good looking tires.
| bgnn wrote:
| Gasoline has 100x more energy density per kg than Lithium
| batteries. As you said EVs are 3x more efficient so per kg
| dofference is 33x. Electic motors are much more compact and
| lighter than ICEs but not enough to close the 33x gap for
| the same weight. Thus for a similar range EVs need to be
| heavier.
|
| My ICE car is 1300kg and it can drive ~1000km with a full
| tank of 62 liters.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| That sounds like a VW Passat B5...
| adolph wrote:
| > Gasoline has 100x more energy density per kg than
| Lithium batteries.
|
| This is true and also misleading since much more of the
| energy stored in gasoline is unavailable for conversion
| to work relative to an electrical battery. Additionally,
| an electrical battery can absorb some of the vehicle's
| kinetic energy, which a vehicle with only an ICE cannot
| do.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
| DannyBee wrote:
| That table says that 122kwh is only 4 gallons of
| gasoline. Most ICE cars that compare to an ev with a 122
| kWh battery size hold 20 gallons of more. So still 5x
| energy density in the ICE vehicle Or am missing
| something?
| tadfisher wrote:
| Yes, 5x is more favorable than 33x as quoted by the GP.
| bgnn wrote:
| Sorry for unclarity. I wasn't comparing the weight if the
| total car in EV or ICE scenario. It's more like 2x for a
| similar range I would think, because EV drivetrain is so
| much lighter than ICE one.
| adolph wrote:
| That's not "unclarity." That's "moving the goalposts."
| adolph wrote:
| 5x is not 100x. Or am I missing something?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Pretty sure the Model Y is more cost effective than any ICEV
| now. There are still valid reasons to prefer an ICE but it's
| more expensive to do so.
| carabiner wrote:
| Now you're seeing why electric aircraft are struggling.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| I think the reason electric aircraft are struggling is
| because of physics. Gasoline has far more gravimetric energy
| density than lithium ion batteries. And weight matters a lot
| more for flying than driving. One of the benefits of gasoline
| is you burn it off while flying, which makes the plane
| lighter, which increases the range. This is not a negligible
| effect - pilots are taught to take this into effect when
| planning flights. It's calculated by all commercial airlines.
|
| Now on top of that add that it costs significantly more and
| you have what is, by at least the metric above, an
| objectively worse product for a higher price. Yes, there are
| other advantages but limited range is a much bigger deal for
| flying than it is for driving.
| tadfisher wrote:
| There's also safety. Planes can take off at a higher
| maximum weight than that at which they can safely land. In
| an emergency shortly after takeoff (when most emergencies
| occur), fuel may have to be dumped to reduce landing
| weight. So that's a double-whammy for battery-electric
| planes; they can't safely take off over their landing
| weight, which limits their already-short range.
| lnsru wrote:
| I am pretty sure, that "lightweight" and "family" are not easy
| to combine unless you're family of three without the need for a
| luggage.
|
| Those new electric cars need big batteries just to be somehow
| usable. Recently consumed 35 kWh for 65 miles ride on model Y
| with trailer in cold weather. That makes <150 miles total
| winter range with trailer with fully charged battery.
| bgnn wrote:
| Most petrol family cars are less than 1500 kg in Europe.
| Americans are used to overweight cars and that's spreading to
| here too. Though it's often a problem since most city parking
| spots are smaller than huge cars like Tesla model Y.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| People don't use a Golf VII as a family car, they use SUVs.
| And most of those are closer to 2 tons than 1.5.
| trallnag wrote:
| Based on your experience? My parents use their Golf 7 to
| drive down south to Italy from Germany every other year.
| Two adults, two teenagers, and one small dog fit in
| better than into my dad's late 2000s Mercedes S class
| lnsru wrote:
| Half of Germany drove to Italy with their VW Beetles back
| then. It's a traditional thing. However there are some
| neighborhoods where with second child family buys their
| Mercedes V class or VW T6. I prefer those over the ones
| having Ford Fiesta as a family car.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Plenty use golf sized cars as family cars. Fairly normal
| in the EU and UK
| bgnn wrote:
| Golf is THE family car. SUVs are not as common and often
| driven by boomers who don't live with their children
| anymore.
| jcd000 wrote:
| My family (of 4) car is a Kia Rio :). We live in an EU
| city and do 300km trips every other weekend. Frequently
| it is a tight fit, but one can manage.
| bigtones wrote:
| EV Battery packs are very heavy and dense. The ID4 has an
| aerodynamic Cd score of 0.28 - Mach-E has a Cd of 0.29 and
| Model Y has a Cd of 0.23, so its in the middle of the pack.
| matt-p wrote:
| So are 'most' petrol cars, people want space for a family plus
| fair amount of luggage and end up at Model 3 size minimum to
| cover that spec.
|
| If you want a small EV what about;
|
| Dacia Spring Electric
|
| Leapmotor T03
|
| Citroen e-C3
|
| Vauxhall Frontera
|
| Vauxhall Corsa
|
| The list goes on. Renault 5 E-Tech
| bcraven wrote:
| Honda-e
|
| VW id.2 all
| tromp wrote:
| The latter is not on the market yet, but planned to be in
| 2025. Looking forward to that materializing.
| lmz wrote:
| The former is also discontinued.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Had it for just over a year, but so far happy with the Renault
| Megane e-Tech[1]. It has a kerb weight of around 1700kg, of
| which 400kg is the battery[2].
|
| It's smaller than the ID.4 so fits in our small garage, great
| turning radius which is nice in the city, and physical buttons
| for the most important stuff like climate and media. It can tow
| up to 900kg and supports a roof rack.
|
| YMMV and such.
|
| [1]: https://ev-database.org/car/1521/Renault-Megane-E-Tech-
| EV60-...
|
| [2]: https://cdn.group.renault.com/ren/gb/transversal-
| assets/broc...
| Intermernet wrote:
| Honestly sounds like it's near the sweet spot. Seems to be
| available in Australia as well. I'm not sure why I haven't
| seen any on the road!
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Here in Norway they haven't been very aggressive with the
| advertisements, which I guess "helps".
|
| Unlike the Kia Nero EV and Hyundai Kona, two similar
| competitors, the Megane e-Tech was designed to be 100% BEV
| from the start, which I think is advantageous for an EV.
|
| I'd say worth a look.
| mulmen wrote:
| Nissan Leaf?
| atrettel wrote:
| Carmakers have been tending towards SUV and crossover designs
| because they make more money on them. The ID.4 is a crossover,
| basically an SUV on a car frame rather than a truck frame. I
| too wish they made more compact cars, but it seems that they
| would rather produce what is more profitable for them rather
| than what customers want.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Crossovers in that zone are a pretty reasonable compromise of
| cost, handling, safety, and ergonomics. They have essentially
| replaced station wagons and are mostly built the same way,
| just a little taller.
| atrettel wrote:
| I don't disagree, but I just prefer compact cars. If I had
| to buy a new vehicle and there were no compacts available,
| I'd go for a crossover, but I won't like it.
| hedgehog wrote:
| I prefer to drive smaller cars but with stroller, kids'
| car seats, etc there are some physical constraints on
| getting everything to fit in a reasonable way.
| freddie_mercury wrote:
| I agree that they have replaced station wagons but as a
| station wagon owner they aren't really even close to
| interchangeable. I don't know why they replaced them.
|
| Compare my Mazda 6 wagon to the Mazda CX-9 crossover. My
| wagon is almost 25% more fuel efficient (7L/100km vs
| 9L/100km) but also has MUCH more space. Minimum cargo space
| of 506L vs 230L. Maximum cargo space of 1648L vs 810L. It
| has a shorter wheelbase and smaller turning radius. It does
| have worse towing 550kg vs 750kg but I almost never see
| anyone towing anything.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Looking at the current Mazda lineup the replacement for
| the Mazda6 (29 mpg) is the CX-50 which adds AWD and gets
| 28 mpg or 38 mpg for the hybrid. I was suprised the
| Mazda6 would have so much more cargo area but in the spec
| sheet it lists 22 ft vs 31 for the CX-50. So to me the
| CX-50 looks like more capacity in about the same physical
| and carbon footprint, what am I missing here?
|
| In Toyota's lineup the RAV4 is basically a tall Camry,
| and in Subaru's lineup the Outback kind of just got a bit
| taller and reclassified as a crossover alternative to the
| Legacy. Of course these companies all have larger and
| smaller options, but in general it seems like the
| adoption of larger vehicles is not because smaller ones
| aren't available, it's because for various reasons
| customers want to buy them. In any case worrying about
| exactly what vehicle mix is selling to me feels like
| rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
| nativeit wrote:
| I'm not really disagreeing with your broader point, but
| consumer demand has been tracking toward trucks and SUVs for
| quite a while now. I would imagine there is a bit of a "tail
| wagging the dog" situation there, and it's also probably
| relevant that the average age of a new car buyer has been
| rising as wealth distribution has skewed further upward.
|
| But that's great news, if there's truly a gap in the famously
| difficult automotive market, maybe a scrappy new player can
| break through with a simple, small sedan--one that can be
| made cheaply, and sold affordably--and then their supply
| chain can be forced into a series of buy outs and hostile
| takeovers, creating the next generation of wealthy donors to
| political action groups. _It's the ciiiirrcle of liiiife_
| etc..
| robotelvis wrote:
| I think part of the issue is that the people who want simple
| non-SUVs are the people who mostly buy used cars.
|
| The majority of people buy their cars used, but the car
| makers make the cars they can sell to the minority who buy
| new cars - and they have very different tastes. New car
| buyers like gadgets and they like SUVs.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > Can someone tell me why all those new electric cars are so
| poorly designed in terms of size and weight? Most of them
| weight over 2t and have a large frontal area (VW ID.4 is the
| prime example). I just want an economical family vehicle
| (lightweight, hatchback design) and there aren't that many
| options.
|
| If you don't need anything right now, don't feel any pressure
| to go out and buy something new. If you do, get whatever works
| for you, even if that is an ICE vehicle. Don't feel bad; you're
| doing what is best for your family.
|
| But know that the "future" in EVs is likely closer than you
| think. Look at the Canoo vehicles - I'm not saying buy one,
| just look at it and think about the design. Look at the VW
| ID.Buzz. Again, don't buy one (it's an overpriced usability
| mess), just look at it and think about the design. You know
| what is most interesting about it? The length is a foot to a
| foot and a half less than the existing minivans on the market,
| but it has more interior room. That _is_ interesting, isn 't
| it?
|
| Well, the Ford CEO said this in the Q2 2024 investor call [1]:
|
| > ...Now when people hear about affordability and they think
| about small and unaffordable, I'd like to address that now. We
| are designing a super-efficient platform, leveraging innovation
| across our product development, supply chain, and manufacturing
| teams. With no engine or drivetrain, a smaller vehicle can have
| a much roomier package, actually the interior package of a
| class above with a small silhouette. That's a big advantage for
| customers versus ICE. And we're focusing on very differentiated
| vehicles priced under $40,000 or even $30,000.
|
| And then in the Q3 2024 investor call [2]:
|
| > we're deep into the design and engineering of our next-
| generation vehicles. Boy! are we excited about these coming out
| in the next few years. In 40 years in the industry, I've seen a
| lot of game-changer products, but the mid-sized electric pickup
| designed by our California team has got to be one of the most
| exciting. It's incredible package and consumer technology for a
| segment we know well. It matches the cost structure of any
| Chinese auto manufacturer building in Mexico in the future. How
| do we know that? Because 60% of the [BOM] (ph) has already been
| quoted.
|
| So, this pickup is the first one to come out, and that's not
| what you are looking for. But the EVs that come after it may be
| exactly what you are looking for. And of course Ford is not
| going to be alone. All the car companies are going to be
| working from this point of view. So, can you wait 4-5 years for
| the EV that actually works for what you need? Perhaps your next
| ICE car is your last ICE car?
|
| [1] https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-
| transcripts/2024/07/24/fo...
|
| [2] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4730242-ford-motor-
| company-...
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think the flat front is mostly design language to make the
| car seem more "masculine" or SUVish, and is even more
| noticeable because of the shorter hood on EVs.
|
| The weight is just a consequence of current battery technology-
| no way to get that down much without hurting the range.
|
| Look at Aptera motors for an ultralight efficient EV.
| mapt wrote:
| * Crash testing & crumple zones. Going up against a "half ton"
| MRAP in a electric velomobile is suicidal.
|
| * Styling & consumer preferences. The SUV reigns supreme.
| Partly because of CAFE's perverse incentives.
|
| * CAFE isn't directly forcing anyone to optimize EVs, and "watt
| hours per mile" is not widely demanded by consumers, because EV
| charging is ~40% the cost of gas per mile and because EVs are
| still exclusively a mid to upmarket thing. Everybody penny
| pinching is driving a 2003 Toyota with >100k miles which has
| appreciated in value over the past five years.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The trend to SUVs also exists in countries where SUVs aren't
| exempt from stuff similar to CAFE. Consumers _overwhelmingly_
| prefer SUVs and large, heavy vehicles. They 're the single
| most popular segment of cars in essentially any market that
| can afford them.
|
| I wish it weren't so, but the revealed preference of the
| median car buyer is to simply buy as much car by the ton as
| they can afford.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| I believe the reason is that batteries to make up the 200 mile
| range people expect are just very heavy. I think older electric
| vehicles with ~70mi range would have been substantially
| lighter. I would wager the car you want was actually the
| 2017-2019 E-Golf.
|
| Modern highway safety standards also tend to increase the hight
| of windows which tend to also make cars taller to not kill
| visibility. Look at the 2019 Mazda 3 AWD redesign, especially
| the hatchback. It looks squished compared to the previous years
| because they didn't raise the vehicle height, but all the
| windows start higher in the car body. That trend is true of ICE
| vehicles as well though.
| stahorn wrote:
| E-golf had an updated battery in 2017, that increased the
| capacity by 50%. The 2014 version was sold with 200km (125mi)
| range, but the real range was closer to 125km (75mi). The
| 2017 version was sold with a 300km (185mi) range, but 190km
| (115mi) real range.
|
| The range of both depend on if you drive in cold weather and
| if you drive on a highway. I bought and E-golf in 2017 that I
| drove long distance once on the highway when it was -20C
| (-4F). I then got around one hour of driving and one hour of
| charging... Do not recommend!
|
| If you want more stats about the cars, this webpage is great:
|
| 2014 version: https://ev-database.org/car/1040/Volkswagen-e-
| Golf
|
| 2017 version: https://ev-database.org/car/1087/Volkswagen-e-
| Golf
| froh wrote:
| in a nutshell...
|
| weight is somewhat compensated by recuperation and a
| consequence of necessary battery weight for desired capacity /
| travel reach.
|
| and while wind resistance depends on shape and "front area",
| front area actually is the cross section surface, the
| silhouette if you wish, as seen from back or front.
|
| thus a teardrop like shape has a large flat part at the front
| but still it has near perfect, lowest resistance.
|
| EVs reduce their front silhouette ("area") with a narrower
| cabin, low overall height, cameras as mirrors on vans.
|
| thats how you reduce "front area" silhouette.
|
| the shape of these is aerodynamic AF
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/http://www.yanfa...
| 3abiton wrote:
| Can't wait to see this in GTA6 mod.
| tromp wrote:
| Can someone show what the most aerodynamic cars in the dataset
| look like? Does it specify the drag coefficient? Curious to know
| how many of the 8000 shapes reach < 2.0, should be at most a
| handful.
| Koala_ice wrote:
| This is also available at https://caemldatasets.org/ with no
| access restrictions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:01 UTC)