EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
M4cruiser said:
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.
I had an ID.3 on demo for a few days and I don’t recall thinking ‘wow’ at any point, apart from how much it was.
KingGary said:
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.
Relevance to passenger cars?When you buy 50 litres of petrol, 40 of those go out of the car as waste heat, mostly through the radiator.
Another 15 litres was burnt to refine it before it even got to the car.
You are only making use of about 10 litres out of 65 litres.
The efficiency, objectively, is woeful.
Waste heat is entirely front and centre when it comes to talking about cars and energy.
BTW, using the word efficiency to describe energy density is not something you would ever hear in an engineering environment, specifically because of the confusion it would cause.
FiF said:
Tbh it doesn't matter about propulsion method, it always amuses me when some go on about out accelerating other vehicles as some sort of oooh whatever, especially as 99.999% of the other drivers have no idea they're in a race, nor care.
I think it’s funny that for decades people used to brag about how fast their cars were. When EV’s came along and easily stole that crown, they now worry about cobalt mining or energy densities. NDA said:
FiF said:
Tbh it doesn't matter about propulsion method, it always amuses me when some go on about out accelerating other vehicles as some sort of oooh whatever, especially as 99.999% of the other drivers have no idea they're in a race, nor care.
I think it’s funny that for decades people used to brag about how fast their cars were. When EV’s came along and easily stole that crown, they now worry about cobalt mining or energy densities. And yes for decades the brag was just as stupid and funny and childish.
Bugger all to do with ICE vs EV except in your mind. Stealing a crown? Grow up child.
GT9 said:
Relevance to passenger cars?
When you buy 50 litres of petrol, 40 of those go out of the car as waste heat, mostly through the radiator.
Another 15 litres was burnt to refine it before it even got to the car.
You are only making use of about 10 litres out of 65 litres.
The efficiency, objectively, is woeful.
Waste heat is entirely front and centre when it comes to talking about cars and energy.
BTW, using the word efficiency to describe energy density is not something you would ever hear in an engineering environment, specifically because of the confusion it would cause.
Then it is a good job that a KG of fuel has about 158 times the energy compared to a KG of battery. When you buy 50 litres of petrol, 40 of those go out of the car as waste heat, mostly through the radiator.
Another 15 litres was burnt to refine it before it even got to the car.
You are only making use of about 10 litres out of 65 litres.
The efficiency, objectively, is woeful.
Waste heat is entirely front and centre when it comes to talking about cars and energy.
BTW, using the word efficiency to describe energy density is not something you would ever hear in an engineering environment, specifically because of the confusion it would cause.
.Modern combustion engine are more in the 40% effeciency range so would be more around 26 litres used out of 65 litres.
NDA said:
I think it’s funny that for decades people used to brag about how fast their cars were. When EV’s came along and easily stole that crown, they now worry about cobalt mining or energy densities.
Stole what crown? Sure, 0-60 is quick for some, but they’re done by 100mph and if you use the performance, you’ll struggle to get back home. That’s why you’ll find them always doing 60mph in lane 1. Besides, they are so dull, nobody cares.BricktopST205 said:
Then it is a good job that a KG of fuel has about 158 times the energy compared to a KG of battery. .
Modern combustion engine are more in the 40% effeciency range so would be more around 26 litres used out of 65 litres.
.Modern combustion engine are more in the 40% effeciency range so would be more around 26 litres used out of 65 litres.
40% efficiency is a dyno value at the best point you can get the engine to at low rpm and high torque, and for a modern engine.
You know, the point you can't actually reach 99% of the time in a typical drive cycle.
Add in transmission losses, idling and whatnot and it slips into the 20% region for petrol.
You've also multiplied 40% by 65 litres where 15 of that 65 went up in smoke before it even got to the engine...
That's cheating, sport.
You are never going to come up with a valid argument why ICE engine are inherently suited to passenger car drive cycles.
You'd have a better shot at it if you were talking about HGVs or marine applications.
GT9 said:
40% efficiency is a dyno value at the best point you can get the engine to at low rpm and high torque, and for a modern engine.
You know, the point you can't actually reach 99% of the time in a typical drive cycle.
Add in transmission losses, idling and whatnot and it slips into the 20% region for petrol.
You've also multiplied 40% by 65 litres where 15 of that 65 went up in smoke before it even got to the engine...
That's cheating, sport.
You are never going to come up with a valid argument why ICE engine are inherently suited to passenger car drive cycles.
You'd have a better shot at it if you were talking about HGVs or marine applications.
https://jalopnik.com/mazdas-skyactiv-3-engine-coul...
Yes we know electric motors are very efficient but when add together the fuel that power thems the EV falls flat on its face. Pound for pound it cannot compete.
All the EV has in its favour is "climate change" but that is an entirely different debate.
Sheepshanks said:
I had an ID.3 on demo for a few days and I don’t recall thinking ‘wow’ at any point, apart from how much it was.
Yes, but that's because your Skoda is set up like the ID.3, for reasons I can't understand. The Golf isn't "faulty" as far as I can make out, I've Googled and asked, and get similar responses. It's painful to drive.
The prices are another thing! The same ID.3 can be £42K for a new "Pro" to £28K for the same thing pre-reg with 10 miles on the clock. Nissan Leafs are doing similar, with £39K new being sold as £20K pre-reg.
BricktopST205 said:
You are comparing about engine alone yet totally ignoring the fuel that powers them because it fits your argument so yes we all know that ICE are incredibly inefficient although not as bad as you make out. Check out Mazda's Skyactiv engine for example.
https://jalopnik.com/mazdas-skyactiv-3-engine-coul...
Yes we know electric motors are very efficient but when add together the fuel that power thems the EV falls flat on its face. Pound for pound it cannot compete.
All the EV has in its favour is "climate change" but that is an entirely different debate.
What do you mean 'the fuel that power them'?https://jalopnik.com/mazdas-skyactiv-3-engine-coul...
Yes we know electric motors are very efficient but when add together the fuel that power thems the EV falls flat on its face. Pound for pound it cannot compete.
All the EV has in its favour is "climate change" but that is an entirely different debate.
That doesn't make sense.
Batteries are charged by electricity, obviously, some of that (about 1/3 right now) comes from natural gas but most of it comes from non-fossil fuelled sources.
Energy also as a financial cost, why would you burn it it needlessly?
An EV allows you to massively reduce your energy footprint and (mostly) source your energy renewably.
I'm a petrolhead that just happened to have spent my career designing powertrains and energy systems of all types, not just electric.
I'm also not making anything up, just telling it like it is.
That doesn't mean I'm immune to error, so if you think I've got something wrong, by all means point it out.
If it's because you don't like to hear it, then sorry, but that's just tough I'm afraid.
ChocolateFrog said:
This sort of thing seems more common. Wondering if it's because of the dial selector for Fwd/Rev. Its possible if you're a bit impatient for it not to reverse direction so when you step on it it carries on in the same direction.
I've done it myself but luckily I'm not completely inept so I just brake and do it properly.
Can see how some people panic and stand on the go pedal though.
Yes user error.I've done it myself but luckily I'm not completely inept so I just brake and do it properly.
Can see how some people panic and stand on the go pedal though.
A couple of times I’ve reversed off the drive turned the dial to go into drive and it’s still in reverse.
Luckily I was far enough away from the cars behind not to cause an issue.
However the way we park close to the wall on our drive because we have a short drive if the gear selector was in the wrong gear there would be a crash
KingGary said:
It’s like you wheel out GT9 any time something important needs to be said.
Probably because he knows what he's talking about from an engineering perspective and that is a good thing in my mind. Just got back from enjoying a sunny roof down spin in the TVR - perfect weather for it - wasting some energy as heat and noise
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff