EVs... no one wants them!

[djc206]

Wills2 said:

All depends what you're used too, pulling back for D and pushing forwards to R is intuitive for me but I'm used to it, but as an example BMW changed the direction of the zoom function on the idrive controller on idrive7 and even after 2 years I still sometimes zoom out when I want to zoom in. (although in my defence I don't use the function that often and was used to using the the previous functionality for 13 years).

I was at my friends used car showroom the other day and I sat in a Model 3 I just kept saying to myself don't press the throttle as you've no idea if the car is on or not.

Same for me.

Arguably pulling back for drive is intuitive if you’re used to automatics of old as P was the forward most selection with D/S subsequent options, skipping through R to get to those is a bit odd and could see you accidentally selecting the wrong option that way, a few times in my Mustang I did exactly that but aware of the risk made sure to confirm before gunning it

[GT9]

BricktopST205 said:

CVT solves that issue but it was never popular because shock horror to drive a car like that is incredibly dull. A CVT makes an ICE perform exactly the same as an EV in that regard as you are always in the peak power band all the time.

Yep, exactly like an EV.
Apart from the noise, vibration and harshness and increased maintenance burden of having a tiny engine screaming itself to bits.
Oh, and apart from the fact that a CVT can't change the maximum thermal efficiency that a small engine can achieve.
We all know efficiency means boring.
Probably why mundane ICE runabouts are all blessed with a 9000 rpm redline, individual throttle bodies, natural aspiration and 12 cylinders.
If you are going to do the whole efficiency thing to reduce running costs and emissions, then why not just do it properly and ditch the engine?
Imagine being able to go for ultimate efficiency yet have instant thrust on tap whenever you want it...

[Merry]

Wills2 said:

I was at my friends used car showroom the other day and I sat in a Model 3 I just kept saying to myself don't press the throttle as you've no idea if the car is on or not.

It won't do anything unless it's in Drive. It won't go into drive unless your foot is on the brake.

Much like any other automatic. Whether it's off or on is largely academic.

[tamore]

that MG4 story stinks. so you're on the driveway, 'accidentally' engage drive instead of reverse, then mash the pedal so hard you fk your house up! yeah, ok. I always do a full launch in reverse coming off my driveway.

[KingGary]

GT9 said:

Yep, exactly like an EV.
Apart from the noise, vibration and harshness and increased maintenance burden of having a tiny engine screaming itself to bits.
Oh, and apart from the fact that a CVT can't change the maximum thermal efficiency that a small engine can achieve.
We all know efficiency means boring.
Probably why mundane ICE runabouts are all blessed with a 9000 rpm redline, individual throttle bodies, natural aspiration and 12 cylinders.
If you are going to do the whole efficiency thing to reduce running costs and emissions, then why not just do it properly and ditch the engine?
Imagine being able to go for ultimate efficiency yet have instant thrust on tap whenever you want it...

So I think you’re saying electric motors are fabulous in every way? A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

[confused_buyer]

KingGary said:

So I think you’re saying electric motors are fabulous in every way? A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

Are they though? I honestly don't know. How many Kwh of power does it take to make a petrol/diesel do, say, 200 miles? What's the energy capacity of a litre of diesel once it has been through a ICE engine to the road?

[tamore]

KingGary said:

So I think you’re saying electric motors are fabulous in every way? A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

so if an EV could churn out 600 miles on a charge taking 10-15 mins, would you accept that as parity?

[ChocolateFrog]

tamore said:

that MG4 story stinks. so you're on the driveway, 'accidentally' engage drive instead of reverse, then mash the pedal so hard you fk your house up! yeah, ok. I always do a full launch in reverse coming off my driveway.

Second one in about a month. First one they reckoned it did it on its own.

I'm convinced there's a moment of panic and a mix up of pedals. Would only take a second and your atleast 20mph into the nearest object.

My incredulity was at an all time high.

Edited by ChocolateFrog on Saturday 11th May 15:20

[tamore]

i remember talking to the guys at fernhursts about 20 years ago when I took one of my TVRs for a service. They regaled me with a tale of someone who blew a chunk of their bonus on a cerbera having never driven anything like it before, and stacking it 50 yards down the road from the forecourt.

some of the EVs have performance way beyond the capability of a chunk of the driving public. that's why i'm glad mine is about s quick as my 12.5 year old labrador

[ChocolateFrog]

It's the total lack of accountability that gets me.

Of course the car just took off completely of its own accord.

[DickP]

Just remember, they drive amongst us.

[smn159]

KingGary said:

A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

Not true, EVs are much more efficient that petrol or diesel cars

[M4cruiser]

Big Nanas said:

Do you honestly not think the response is leagues ahead of an ICE auto box? As ive said, ive had auto boxes from '92 and this is night and day difference.

Well, the "night and day" difference I'm currently experiencing is when I swap from a lethargic slow-response high-tech 150bhp new VW DSG (where you press the gas pedal and nothing happens for ages), back to a 15 year-old, old-school, torque-converter auto with instant response, laugh a minute, and in line with a Leaf24 I've also driven.

[GT9]

KingGary said:

So I think you’re saying electric motors are fabulous in every way? A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

Efficiency is a measure of energy lost (mainly to heat).
Batteries are extremely energy efficient.
What you are referring to is energy density, and yes they are significantly inferior to liquid fuels.
The thing is, you have to multiply both together to get the effective energy density.
There are two types of energy density, gravimetric (weight) and volumetric.
Volumetric is where hydrogen, for example, falls down badly.
Multiply a poor volumetric energy density by a poor energy efficiency and the effective value is shockingly bad, which is why hydrogen ICE is a non-starter.
In any case, environmental impact and carbon footprint are intrinsically linked to energy efficiency, not energy density.
The obsession with the weight stems from a total lack of understanding of the critical role energy efficiency plays in this whole equation.
It also stems from simply ignoring the role aerodynamic drag plays.
A petrol car holds about 500 to 700 kWh of energy in its tank.
Compare that to an average EV battery, that holds about 50 to 70 kWh.
Can you now see what the role energy efficiency plays?
The EV uses 10 times less energy to go say a third or more of the distance of the petrol car.
Making it 3 to 4 times more energy efficient.
Funnily enough, the EV's lifetime carbon footprint is also about 3 to 4 times lower when charged from renewable electricity.
The low energy density of batteries, in isolation, might look like a problem.
When viewed at a system level, and bearing in mind that battery energy density it's not a permanently-fixed-in-time thing like it is for liquids and gases, the value of the energy efficiency that it buys if far more important than fixating on what it does to the kerb mass of the car.
Unless you are just measuring the car in 'soul' units.

Edited by GT9 on Saturday 11th May 16:11

[M4cruiser]

djc206 said:

Same for me.

Arguably pulling back for drive is intuitive if you’re used to automatics of old as P was the forward most selection with D/S subsequent options, skipping through R to get to those is a bit odd and could see you accidentally selecting the wrong option that way, a few times in my Mustang I did exactly that but aware of the risk made sure to confirm before gunning it

Yes, the ergonomics are very important (is it just me?).
Having a rotary or sideways selector is just wrong.
Similar thing, the Puma auto has a dash display of the PRND but it's horizontal, when you're moving the lever forwards or back. Utterly stupid.

[M4cruiser]

M4cruiser said:

Well, the "night and day" difference I'm currently experiencing is when I swap from a lethargic slow-response high-tech 150bhp new VW DSG (where you press the gas pedal and nothing happens for ages), back to a 15 year-old, old-school, torque-converter auto with instant response, laugh a minute, and in line with a Leaf24 I've also driven.

I can well imagine someone changing from a Golf mk8 DSG into an ID.3 and instantly going "wow" when they first press the gas.
But
try going back from a Golf mk8 DSG to a mk3 GTi. That's another wow.

[BricktopST205]

GT9 said:

Yep, exactly like an EV.
Apart from the noise, vibration and harshness and increased maintenance burden of having a tiny engine screaming itself to bits.
Oh, and apart from the fact that a CVT can't change the maximum thermal efficiency that a small engine can achieve.
We all know efficiency means boring.
Probably why mundane ICE runabouts are all blessed with a 9000 rpm redline, individual throttle bodies, natural aspiration and 12 cylinders.
If you are going to do the whole efficiency thing to reduce running costs and emissions, then why not just do it properly and ditch the engine?
Imagine being able to go for ultimate efficiency yet have instant thrust on tap whenever you want it...

What is the energy density of the fuel that powers them?

[CheesecakeRunner]

djc206 said:

Wills2 said:

All depends what you're used too, pulling back for D and pushing forwards to R is intuitive for me but I'm used to it

Same for me.

Arguably pulling back for drive is intuitive if you’re used to automatics of old as P was the forward most selection with D/S subsequent options, skipping through R to get to those is a bit odd and could see you accidentally selecting the wrong option that way, a few times in my Mustang I did exactly that but aware of the risk made sure to confirm before gunning it

This doesn’t mean it’s intuitive, it means you’re trained to use it.

Intuitive means you can use it without needing to learn it. Therefore pushing something forward to go forward, and backwards to go backwards is intuitive. The car goes where you’re moving the thing to. The traditional opposite setup is counter-intuitive.

[KingGary]

GT9 said:

KingGary said:

So I think you’re saying electric motors are fabulous in every way? A shame then that battery efficiency is so inferior to petrol or diesel.

Efficiency is a measure of energy lost (mainly to heat).
Batteries are extremely energy efficient.
What you are referring to is energy density, and yes they are significantly inferior to liquid fuels.
The thing is, you have to multiply both together to get the effective energy density.
There are two types of energy density, gravimetric (weight) and volumetric.
Volumetric is where hydrogen, for example, falls down badly.
Multiply a poor volumetric energy density by a poor energy efficiency and the effective value is shockingly bad, which is why hydrogen ICE is a non-starter.
In any case, environmental impact and carbon footprint are intrinsically linked to energy efficiency, not energy density.
The obsession with the weight stems from a total lack of understanding of the critical role energy efficiency plays in this whole equation.
It also stems from simply ignoring the role aerodynamic drag plays.
A petrol car holds about 500 to 700 kWh of energy in its tank.
Compare that to an average EV battery, that holds about 50 to 70 kWh.
Can you now see what the role energy efficiency plays?
The EV uses 10 times less energy to go say a third or more of the distance of the petrol car.
Making it 3 to 4 times more energy efficient.
Funnily enough, the EV's lifetime carbon footprint is also about 3 to 4 times lower when charged from renewable electricity.
The low energy density of batteries, in isolation, might look like a problem.
When viewed at a system level, and bearing in mind that battery energy density it's not a permanently-fixed-in-time thing like it is for liquids and gases, the value of the energy efficiency that it buys if far more important than fixating on what it does to the kerb mass of the car.
Unless you are just measuring the car in 'soul' units.

Edited by GT9 on Saturday 11th May 16:11

Yes, that’s what I meant. Batteries are less efficient in terms of energy density by weight or volume. I’d argue the creation of heat as a measure of efficiency is flawed though, that’s just what happens when things are burned. If you’re burning it to get warm, it’s not inefficient at all.

[Tindersticks]

This should be fun.