RE: British firm launches 'innovative' EV Defender
Discussion
Wonderman said:
Vintage Voltage TV have done a couple LRs the EV seemed to suit it (old Defender in TV Series 1 and a 2A in TV Series 2)
No doubt they will have retained the standard axles and drive train; it does mean it's compromised as an EV, but then they're compromised as ICEV too. 
pheonix478 said:
By any modern standard the ride and handling is still absolutely terrible. It's the worst thing about them IMO. Everything else can be improved but with live axles you're fvcked on that front. It's kind of funny that they have chosen an EV solution with what I strongly suspect is the worst possible ride and handling! As for wading, it should be a sealed system and should be able to wade in any depth if you can hold your breath but I doubt it has the wheel articulation with IWM to allow it to do any serious offroading..
I suspect the vehicle was chosen as the best means for PR for the business as a Defender will get the most press coverage in the right sort of places? It's more about marketing their axial motor retrofit solution for other vehicles. You can also dial out a lot of the driving issues on Defenders if desired. Don't forget how much better the Disco 1/2 was on road by comparison and all the parts can be fitted.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 19th April 15:38
Think electric land rovers have been quite a successful thing in Australia for a while already... https://fellten.com/defender/
And edited to add that I've just read it properly and apparently the conversion kit is from the UK!
And edited to add that I've just read it properly and apparently the conversion kit is from the UK!
hidetheelephants said:
No doubt they will have retained the standard axles and drive train; it does mean it's compromised as an EV, but then they're compromised as ICEV too.
That’s the only sensible way to turn a defender into an EV. By retaining the thing that makes it a Defender in the first place. An EV as a concept is a huge compromise anyway in many areas, at least they are trying to convert things that actually have a bit of character. philrs03 said:
hidetheelephants said:
No doubt they will have retained the standard axles and drive train; it does mean it's compromised as an EV, but then they're compromised as ICEV too.
That’s the only sensible way to turn a defender into an EV. By retaining the thing that makes it a Defender in the first place. An EV as a concept is a huge compromise anyway in many areas, at least they are trying to convert things that actually have a bit of character. That looks really down on its suspension if you look carefully.
Which reminded me of yesterday on the M40 i was behind a "Prototype Vehicle" Range Rover and it had small stickers above each wheel arch saying "500mm". It went past me in a queue with no engine noise so must have been a full electric RR that are due out soon.
Which reminded me of yesterday on the M40 i was behind a "Prototype Vehicle" Range Rover and it had small stickers above each wheel arch saying "500mm". It went past me in a queue with no engine noise so must have been a full electric RR that are due out soon.
hidetheelephants said:
I agree, but my main objection is that it can't be described as green throwing away serviceable axles and building new ones that are just as dynamically compromised.
Absolutely. Hopefully (and if they’ve got any business sense) they are refurbing the old driveline, axles, transfer boxes etc or at least flogging them to someone like Ashcfrofts, so there is at least 1. An element of recycling going on and 2. Making parts available for the enthusiasts who want to keep Old land rovers on the road for as long as possible! The in-wheel motors really point to the intentions of the vehicle (or one would think it should) and give it the ability to scale up with regards to its offroad potential. No need for portal axles or extreme angles going through uni joints on your drive shafts. But yeah, unsprung weight and a limit on wheel revs, which you'd say would be a problem for more road-oriented vehicles but which is not really an issue for true offroad vehicles. I think they should have made the car a bit more "offroad" to illustrate this.
rodericb said:
The in-wheel motors really point to the intentions of the vehicle (or one would think it should) and give it the ability to scale up with regards to its offroad potential. No need for portal axles or extreme angles going through uni joints on your drive shafts. But yeah, unsprung weight and a limit on wheel revs, which you'd say would be a problem for more road-oriented vehicles but which is not really an issue for true offroad vehicles. I think they should have made the car a bit more "offroad" to illustrate this.
Unless each motor has some incredibly effective torque vectoring ability that isn’t touched on in the article, I’m struggling to see why a motor on each wheel is and advantage. A lot of off road situations require a human-mechanical input, and I’m not sure that dexterity could be achieved (in this instance) by a computer and the IWM’s.. philrs03 said:
Unless each motor has some incredibly effective torque vectoring ability that isn’t touched on in the article, I’m struggling to see why a motor on each wheel is and advantage. A lot of off road situations require a human-mechanical input, and I’m not sure that dexterity could be achieved (in this instance) by a computer and the IWM’s..
that's more due to the electic motor, not that they're in the wheels or are inboard and attached to the wheels with driveshafts I'd imagine. The human-machine-interface needs to cover all requirements of the scenario. If you were to look at the requirement to increase current to the motors you'd probably need a very long accelerator pedal travel to cover those time you need to meter it in very small increments (i.e. when traction is nearly non-existent) and the times when you need to feed it all in quickly (pulling out of a junction). Or you start to get creative with the HMI. And that's before you go down the path of automating those inputs like in hill descent control and those sorts of things.......But I think you've illustrated one thing where this vehicle possibly doesn't deliver and that's the computing and driver aids. A low powered engine, a clutch, locking diffs and a careful right foot work pretty well offroad. An electric motor that dollops on the torque, and max torque too, the moment it turns? Maybe not so handy...
Somewhatfoolish said:
How can it have those power and torque figures and take 10 seconds to do 60 and top out at 80? I learned to drive on the road in a 2002ish 1.6litre fiesta with better (just!) performance than that. A defender isn't 5 tonnes is it?
Peak torque and power, and acceleration can all be managed through software configuration. It could be it's rapid 0-X and then X-60 it plods. Not unusual on many EVs.
rodericb said:
that's more due to the electic motor, not that they're in the wheels or are inboard and attached to the wheels with driveshafts I'd imagine. The human-machine-interface needs to cover all requirements of the scenario. If you were to look at the requirement to increase current to the motors you'd probably need a very long accelerator pedal travel to cover those time you need to meter it in very small increments (i.e. when traction is nearly non-existent) and the times when you need to feed it all in quickly (pulling out of a junction). Or you start to get creative with the HMI. And that's before you go down the path of automating those inputs like in hill descent control and those sorts of things.......
But I think you've illustrated one thing where this vehicle possibly doesn't deliver and that's the computing and driver aids. A low powered engine, a clutch, locking diffs and a careful right foot work pretty well offroad. An electric motor that dollops on the torque, and max torque too, the moment it turns? Maybe not so handy...
That’s what I was trying to get at, I’m sure there would be a way to get somewhere close to the performance of mechanical locking diffs, transfer boxes etc. but industry seems a very long way off that. Having driven an electric bike off road, and done a fair chunk of off-roading in different environments, I just can’t think of a single instance where an electric power train would be useful. Outside of work, even my new defender (which is absolutely epic in all the situations I’ve put it in) there has been a couple of situations (slippery wet mud) where I’ve felt the electronic aids, even in that, have been a hinderance! For me, the minimum viable standard for off road electronic aids is the new defender. That’s a very, very high bar to meet. In my tiny mind, the only way to lure people into an old shape electric defender (for people like me that are happy to put up with vehicular austerity for the sake of performance!) it has to perform identically or better than its high tech little brother. I can’t see this achieving that. But I think you've illustrated one thing where this vehicle possibly doesn't deliver and that's the computing and driver aids. A low powered engine, a clutch, locking diffs and a careful right foot work pretty well offroad. An electric motor that dollops on the torque, and max torque too, the moment it turns? Maybe not so handy...
Edited by philrs03 on Saturday 20th April 10:07
Evanivitch said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
How can it have those power and torque figures and take 10 seconds to do 60 and top out at 80? I learned to drive on the road in a 2002ish 1.6litre fiesta with better (just!) performance than that. A defender isn't 5 tonnes is it?
Peak torque and power, and acceleration can all be managed through software configuration. It could be it's rapid 0-X and then X-60 it plods. Not unusual on many EVs.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff