So, EV performance cars are coming soon, right?
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
3 series is what 1mm lower than the model 3?
Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
Don't forget the lower polar moment of inertia of putting much of the weight mid car, thus reducing the understeer that is often a dominant aspect of positioning an engine at the front of a car.Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
JonnyVTEC said:
RobDickinson said:
3 series is what 1mm lower than the model 3?
Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
I’m pretty sure the 3 series has a more accommodating rear cabin space, not only a more comfortable posture, headliner above you head, easier ingress and vision as the roof structure isn’t ajacent to your head (hence the mental looking lack of tumble home on the side glass) and space for your feet under the driver. Don’t pretend the battery is invisible in a TM3Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
This whole sitting on top of the car feeling in an EV isn’t ideal but I don’t know if solving that magically makes EVs more interesting to drive. This is obviously what Porsche and Lotus are thinking of doing with the chest battery idea which should give the car a more mid-engined feel with the driver down low and an overall lower car, which has some promise. They are not exactly idiots when it comes to handling and enjoyment but I think their 2025/2026 plans are also timed with big battery tech improvements in mind to enable more agile cars. Until then I think the format will continue to be samey heavy cross-overs and heavy large saloons occasionally marketed as GTs. 2,000kg is the new light…
delta0 said:
JonnyVTEC said:
RobDickinson said:
3 series is what 1mm lower than the model 3?
Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
I’m pretty sure the 3 series has a more accommodating rear cabin space, not only a more comfortable posture, headliner above you head, easier ingress and vision as the roof structure isn’t ajacent to your head (hence the mental looking lack of tumble home on the side glass) and space for your feet under the driver. Don’t pretend the battery is invisible in a TM3Current EVs are packaged in a way to take advantage of not having a large smelly lump of moving metal up front.
Their weight distribution and centre of gravity, and linear power delivery with the almost zero VNH they have has been the holy grail of car makers for decades.
In the Model 3 specifically the lack of a transmission tunnel does help a lot if carrying 3 in the back also, and the large front boot and well in the rear boot make it very practical for carrying stuff. We've done a few long trips 5 up with 3 adults in the rear with no complaints in ours.
IME 'very compromised' is far from true.
So a couple of interesting things coming up
Esprit like EV from Lotus (already posted)
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a38924369/lotus-...
Possible MR2 EV successor
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/toyota-p...
Next Supra might be all electric
https://uk.motor1.com/news/352574/next-supra-elect...
Esprit like EV from Lotus (already posted)
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a38924369/lotus-...
Possible MR2 EV successor
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/toyota-p...
Next Supra might be all electric
https://uk.motor1.com/news/352574/next-supra-elect...
Edited by SeeNoWeevil on Saturday 29th January 12:50
Edited by SeeNoWeevil on Saturday 29th January 12:53
GT9 said:
The actual power-to-weight ratio curves of the Regera and the Ultima are straightened using a high stall speed torque converter which allows the engine revs flare at low road speeds. This is apparent in any Regera acceleration run videos, where the engine goes straight to 5000 rpm and waits for the wheels to catch up. For the Ultima, I've set it at 4000 rpm.
And yes, I know this is a form of a 'gearbox' but it's not the same as trying to deliver full engine POWER at low road speeds through several lower gears.
It's a means of allowing close to the full engine TORQUE to be available at low road speeds.
The Regera clearly uses it's torque converter just like a gearbox, because a torque converter has a torque multiplication ratio directly proportional to the slip ratio across it! If the engine is making 1000 bhp at 5krpm, then there is (not including losses) 1000 bhp at the drive wheels! At true zero road speed where the slip ratio is infinite then yes a stalled converter is simply turning that engine power into heat in its oil, but once the slip ratio has fallen to withing the effective converter operating region then it simply multiplies the engine torque by the inverse of the slip ratio!
This actually makes the "no gearbox" Regera effectively a CVT, which as it can keep the engine at or close to peak power across the widest speed range means the work done over ANY time period is a maximum, and hence for ANY vehicle mass or drag, that vehicle accelerates at a maximal rate......
It's also worth noting that whilst a single gear EV cannot aindeed get to maximum tractive power at any speed below its motor's base speed (the point where the backemf reaches it's maximum value, ~60mph for the Plaid in the graphs shown), but this doesn't actually matter in practice for a very high performance EV because the "lower" torque available is already in excess of the tractive limit (ie it is tyre limited at those speeds anyway). More power here is simply un-useable, so having a gear box is no net benefit. Where it WOULD be a benefit is at high speed, where the motor could actually be rewound for lower base speed, and hence make MORE torque per unit current. The Tesla is clearly runing with a CPSR (Constant Power Speed Region) of a little over 3 (60mph base speed, 200 flat out, 3.3 ratio) which is actually really pretty sporty in terms of motor control and thermal management (at 200mph, any loss of field control would result in the motor putting out 3.3 times the backEMF reached at it's base speed, which is obviously very close to the battery voltage, which would be a very bad thing.....)
Max_Torque said:
GT9 said:
The actual power-to-weight ratio curves of the Regera and the Ultima are straightened using a high stall speed torque converter which allows the engine revs flare at low road speeds. This is apparent in any Regera acceleration run videos, where the engine goes straight to 5000 rpm and waits for the wheels to catch up. For the Ultima, I've set it at 4000 rpm.
And yes, I know this is a form of a 'gearbox' but it's not the same as trying to deliver full engine POWER at low road speeds through several lower gears.
It's a means of allowing close to the full engine TORQUE to be available at low road speeds.
The Regera clearly uses it's torque converter just like a gearbox, because a torque converter has a torque multiplication ratio directly proportional to the slip ratio across it! If the engine is making 1000 bhp at 5krpm, then there is (not including losses) 1000 bhp at the drive wheels! At true zero road speed where the slip ratio is infinite then yes a stalled converter is simply turning that engine power into heat in its oil, but once the slip ratio has fallen to withing the effective converter operating region then it simply multiplies the engine torque by the inverse of the slip ratio!
This actually makes the "no gearbox" Regera effectively a CVT, which as it can keep the engine at or close to peak power across the widest speed range means the work done over ANY time period is a maximum, and hence for ANY vehicle mass or drag, that vehicle accelerates at a maximal rate......
It's also worth noting that whilst a single gear EV cannot aindeed get to maximum tractive power at any speed below its motor's base speed (the point where the backemf reaches it's maximum value, ~60mph for the Plaid in the graphs shown), but this doesn't actually matter in practice for a very high performance EV because the "lower" torque available is already in excess of the tractive limit (ie it is tyre limited at those speeds anyway). More power here is simply un-useable, so having a gear box is no net benefit. Where it WOULD be a benefit is at high speed, where the motor could actually be rewound for lower base speed, and hence make MORE torque per unit current. The Tesla is clearly runing with a CPSR (Constant Power Speed Region) of a little over 3 (60mph base speed, 200 flat out, 3.3 ratio) which is actually really pretty sporty in terms of motor control and thermal management (at 200mph, any loss of field control would result in the motor putting out 3.3 times the backEMF reached at it's base speed, which is obviously very close to the battery voltage, which would be a very bad thing.....)
The Regera peak power comes a couple of thousand revs higher than during the first part of the acceleration run. The engine is not reaching peak power at low road speeds and neither are the traction motors on the rear axles. It’s a bit like short shifting through the lower gears in a conventional box but without the gear changes.
What I’m saying is that delivering peak power at 30 mph is unnecessary and usually breaks traction and then you have a torque discontinuity when you grab for second, and so on. You of all people will know that it can be counterproductive to try to deliver full power at very low road speeds.
Or more accurately what I’m saying is that if you have more than about 250 BHP per tonne AVAILABLE at 30 mph, it’s going to go to waste.
And at 60 mph the number is 500 BHP per tonne. Obviously that’s becoming a small cross section of cars, but when you have a car like the REGERA with the potential to deliver 1000 BHP per tonne, there is absolutely no benefit of making it available to the driver at low road speeds.
These are rough numbers and yes you can push them up with specialist tyres.
And at 60 mph the number is 500 BHP per tonne. Obviously that’s becoming a small cross section of cars, but when you have a car like the REGERA with the potential to deliver 1000 BHP per tonne, there is absolutely no benefit of making it available to the driver at low road speeds.
These are rough numbers and yes you can push them up with specialist tyres.
SWoll said:
It's the instant power and torque along with an incredibly linear delivery that makes them so quick. They aren't setup for high speed as of little use in most cases but of course could be.
Look at the Model S Plaid. 0-60 in 2 seconds, 0-100 in 3.5, 1/4 mile in 9 seconds at 155mph and 200 mph top speed, all with a single gear.
Look at the power curve.
for how many runs until it overheats and goes into limp mode?Look at the Model S Plaid. 0-60 in 2 seconds, 0-100 in 3.5, 1/4 mile in 9 seconds at 155mph and 200 mph top speed, all with a single gear.
Look at the power curve.
So this thread essentially challenges EV to come up with a traditional 2 seater sportscar at an affordable price. But, why? Modern sub £60k EV's might all have 4+ seats but they're also faster in most circumstances than ICE sports cars at the same price point. True, they lose out a little due to weight if you're really pushing (basically only going to push that hard on a track), but then they tend to have the extra power to make up for whatever pace might have been lost in the twisty bits.
Personally I love the satisfaction of a well sorted chassis, that's real fun. But instant torque and massive power is also real fun.
My suggestion to the OP is he buys an i4 M50 and removes the rear seats if they piss him off so much
He then has a 'Super Leggera' 2 seater coupe with 530bhp and a level of traction that a traditional two seater could only dream of.
These comparisons grow tiresome tbh. Why should future EV's mirror ICE's of the past? It's a different technology with different characteristics. It's already matched and exceeded ICE on many levels and many car sectors - but of course it won't ever develop along a path that sees there being an EV equivalent for every example of ICE. Why would it? It'll develop along the path that is practical and sells - and that path is currently somewhat defined by the minimum size and weight of the cars, but that is offset in unique EV fashion with their inherent benefits: Speed, power delivery, refinement, smoothness, convenience.
Anyway... When is ICE going to come up with a car smoother, faster and quieter than a Rolls Royce Phantom that does the equivalent of 70mpg for less than £60k!? I'm bored of waiting
Personally I love the satisfaction of a well sorted chassis, that's real fun. But instant torque and massive power is also real fun.
My suggestion to the OP is he buys an i4 M50 and removes the rear seats if they piss him off so much
He then has a 'Super Leggera' 2 seater coupe with 530bhp and a level of traction that a traditional two seater could only dream of.
These comparisons grow tiresome tbh. Why should future EV's mirror ICE's of the past? It's a different technology with different characteristics. It's already matched and exceeded ICE on many levels and many car sectors - but of course it won't ever develop along a path that sees there being an EV equivalent for every example of ICE. Why would it? It'll develop along the path that is practical and sells - and that path is currently somewhat defined by the minimum size and weight of the cars, but that is offset in unique EV fashion with their inherent benefits: Speed, power delivery, refinement, smoothness, convenience.
Anyway... When is ICE going to come up with a car smoother, faster and quieter than a Rolls Royce Phantom that does the equivalent of 70mpg for less than £60k!? I'm bored of waiting
Porsche is supposed to be coming out with the EV only Boxster in 2025!
I know, I know, promises promises - a certain person and manufacturer has a bad reputation on this. But the Mission R is rumored to be a significant part of the development for the EV Boxster, and knowing what they have done in the past, likely to be a glimpse into the design of it too. Macan EV comes first, but could be interesting - though have to say, although Porsche say that the Boxster will always be the 2 seater roadster model, lets see what happens.
I know, I know, promises promises - a certain person and manufacturer has a bad reputation on this. But the Mission R is rumored to be a significant part of the development for the EV Boxster, and knowing what they have done in the past, likely to be a glimpse into the design of it too. Macan EV comes first, but could be interesting - though have to say, although Porsche say that the Boxster will always be the 2 seater roadster model, lets see what happens.
The Deuce, we have ended up here because Tesla decided (cleverly no doubt) to market their cars on performance. They have distilled their cars down to two numbers prominently shown on their web site. And then strangely some mumbo jumbo about self driving computers, which maybe a cynic would say is a bit of a contradiction but maybe a self driving performance car is what every kid wants. I would have thought self-driving diesels would make more sense but anyhow. So somehow EVs became synonymous with performance which of course means you can justify the higher price point and here we are with a bunch of cars that silently reach a certain speed very quickly.
Hopefully enough cars will switch to electricity that the authorities will get bored with ICE and will leave them in peace and focus on taxing EVs and limiting them in various ways. Because like you say, why try to outdo ICE? There are after all people who don’t buy cars based on size of fuel tank and how quickly they can reach the speed limit from standstill as exciting as those metrics no doubt are.
Hopefully enough cars will switch to electricity that the authorities will get bored with ICE and will leave them in peace and focus on taxing EVs and limiting them in various ways. Because like you say, why try to outdo ICE? There are after all people who don’t buy cars based on size of fuel tank and how quickly they can reach the speed limit from standstill as exciting as those metrics no doubt are.
Edited by DMZ on Tuesday 1st February 07:44
I like the idea.
I would love something like a Vanderhall but they are expensive for what they are.
Planning a test drive now in one of these.
Neither are "cars" and esp the carver is far removed from "performance".
But I like the Twizy even though it's slow by almost every measure. It has a sense of involvement that many modern cars are lacking.
I would love something like a Vanderhall but they are expensive for what they are.
Planning a test drive now in one of these.
Neither are "cars" and esp the carver is far removed from "performance".
But I like the Twizy even though it's slow by almost every measure. It has a sense of involvement that many modern cars are lacking.
hiccy18 said:
That last one just makes me think "Buy a motorbike".
EV MX5 with a 250 mile range would keep a lot of people happy, and must be doable for sensible money now.
Maybe not quite 250 mile range to keep the weight down... Other than that, yes - I expect it's totally doable and would be great fun. It would be a slightly heavier mx5 but also a far lower COG and perfect weight distribution. Also .. who has an MX5 as their main car if they're in the habit of 200 mile+ journeys? I'm guessing you could release the car today with 200 mile range at a stretch, and 95% of its target buyer wouldn't have an issue at all.EV MX5 with a 250 mile range would keep a lot of people happy, and must be doable for sensible money now.
The MX5 is such a success story we're very likely to see an EV version eventually as they have to cease production of ICE anyway. I suspect it might not be all that soon though. The MX5 is actually a fairly efficient vehicle so not a problem in terms of emissions fines, so there's no rush to electrify it ahead of time.
hiccy18 said:
That last one just makes me think "Buy a motorbike".
I'm covered in that aspect, but this could easily be driven by the wife and carry a young one. So much more practical in that aspect (much like a Twizy we have every now and then).TheDeuce said:
The MX5 is such a success story we're very likely to see an EV version eventually as they have to cease production of ICE anyway. I suspect it might not be all that soon though. The MX5 is actually a fairly efficient vehicle so not a problem in terms of emissions fines, so there's no rush to electrify it ahead of time.
Although I think they shouldn't call it an MX5, but a very similar car must be feasible. No fantastic gearbox, but capitalize on that instant torque, with a responsiveness that a light roadster like that could deliver.
In the end, the dacia spring managed to stay under 1t, with a 25kwh battery.
Doing some napkin maths, an ND engine and gearbox weigh well over 100kg iirc. Which makes the car <900kg.
A well-tuned 40kWh battery should be plenty to deliver >150hp. A battery like that should be around 250kg, and a decent motor plus electronics another 100kg.
So I think 1200kg with >150hp and (or, more accurately) >300km WLTP should be very achievable at this moment in time.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff