RE: Nissan BladeGlider: Review

[HardMiles]

I for one, would stick to my 45 year old car. Firstly because I imagine it is 1000x more exciting. Secondly due to the fact that the new car probably isn't more efficient (won't be) when it's 45 years old, as it'll have been scrapped and replaced 15 times over. Modern cars predominantly are utter soulless chod.

[Kawasicki]

fblm said:

Kawasicki said:

How does the narrow front track and the wide rear give an aero advantage?

https://youtu.be/c_INdbXMqsw?t=398

Doesn't really talk about aero design in that video, thanks anyway?

[Kawasicki]

Krikkit said:

Kawasicki said:

How does the narrow front track and the wide rear give an aero advantage?

Because it lets you have more room to smooth and shape the airflow before going to the full cross-section.

Isn't managing the airflow after the full cross section more important for reducing drag?

[boxerTen]

Looks like a small light-weight sports car - until you realise it weighs 1300kg!

Reads as being quite powerful (260bhp) but its the usual grossly misleading electric power output quote - it has a top speed of just 115 mph which given its sleek shape suggest it develops perhaps at most 80 or 90 bhp at top speed.

And how long will the battery last when driven hard? The Nissan leaf has a 30 kWh battery - if we assume similar and noting full throttle consumes 200kW then we get just 9 minutes wide open throttle before its flat.

A sports car is probably the last place a full electric vehicle makes sense.

[Farmboy UK]

boxerTen said:

And how long will the battery last when driven hard? The Nissan leaf has a 30 kWh battery - if we assume similar and noting full throttle consumes 200kW then we get just 9 minutes wide open throttle before its flat.

That's a strange metric to use. A veyron will run out of fuel in 12 minutes if driven with a wide open throttle. I guess that makes it an nonviable car?

And in the real world, an EV reclaims a fair bit of power when it brakes which an ICE does not

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

How does the narrow front track and the wide rear give an aero advantage?

I presume you only get that aero advantage when in reverse! But being a fixed gear EV, i guess it can go as fast backwards as forwards.....

(Hint: Downstream pressure recovery is significantly more important than upstream form (for non critical subsonic objects like cars:

[modeller]

"regenerative braking, although even in its maximum setting, we're not talking Tesla-style retardation, which is a good thing: the driver remains fully in control of braking, as is only proper in a sports car."

utter claptrap.

[405dogvan]

I'm assuming 200kw should be 200kwH but Kw is a measurement of power and it's used in some countries (Australia leaps to mind) as the measure of power for an engine (Evos have over 200Kw - I know this from MCM!) so - erm - not sure?

Hardly matters anyway - I don't see you using it for long trips ;0

[boxerTen]

Farmboy UK said:

boxerTen said:

And how long will the battery last when driven hard? The Nissan leaf has a 30 kWh battery - if we assume similar and noting full throttle consumes 200kW then we get just 9 minutes wide open throttle before its flat.

That's a strange metric to use. A veyron will run out of fuel in 12 minutes if driven with a wide open throttle. I guess that makes it an nonviable car?

And in the real world, an EV reclaims a fair bit of power when it brakes which an ICE does not

Nothing strange about it at all - it merely illustrates that driving this EV hard in the real world will have it with a flat battery long before any comparable ICE sports car empties its fuel tank. The Veyron is a wild outlier among performance cars so comparisons with it are likely to be misleading.

[amstrange1]

405dogvan said:

I'm assuming 200kw should be 200kwH but Kw is a measurement of power and it's used in some countries (Australia leaps to mind) as the measure of power for an engine (Evos have over 200Kw - I know this from MCM!) so - erm - not sure?

Batteries are rated for both power (kW) and capacity (kWh).

According to Nissan, the battery is 220kW (electrical power):
http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/ni...

...which makes sense, as they're claiming 268bhp = 200kW mechanical power from the powertrain, so with the conversion losses through battery; inverter and motor that's about right. You'll never get 2x130kW from the motors, as you're limited by the battery power.

[DUMBO100]

I like this a lot, I think there will be a new type of motoring enjoyment from electric sports cars and bikes silently carving round corners. It'll take a bit of getting used to but I'm looking forward to it

[JD]

boxerTen said:

The Veyron is a wild outlier among performance cars so comparisons with it are likely to be misleading.

Not really sure about that.

If the info is correct (I'm sure Max torque can provide the BSFC info required for 350bhp/260kW) then if you scale it down (if indeed it works this way), 1000bhp burns 100litres in 12 minutes, so 500bhp burns 50 litres in 12 minutes.

A fuel tank has a finite amount of energy in it, so does a battery pack.

BUT the battery car returns a % of that under braking.

So I am pretty sure you could say that for the given energy in the tank/battery that the electric car would actually fair better.

[boxerTen]

JD said:

boxerTen said:

The Veyron is a wild outlier among performance cars so comparisons with it are likely to be misleading.

Not really sure about that.

If the info is correct (I'm sure Max torque can provide the BSFC info required for 350bhp/260kW) then if you scale it down (if indeed it works this way), 1000bhp burns 100litres in 12 minutes, so 500bhp burns 50 litres in 12 minutes.

A fuel tank has a finite amount of energy in it, so does a battery pack.

BUT the battery car returns a % of that under braking.

So I am pretty sure you could say that for the given energy in the tank/battery that the electric car would actually fair better.

Well your last statement is where the crux lies. Petrol contains almost 10 kWh of energy per litre - so an 80 litre tank has 800 kWh. The battery in a Nissan Leaf has just 30 kWh, plus lets say we recover another 10 kWh from braking. The ICE car can burn fuel at 25% efficiency and it still has a 5-fold advantage.

[Terminator X]

Seen it before haven't we?



TX.

[LordGrover]

HardMiles said:

I for one, would stick to my 45 year old car. Firstly because I imagine it is 1000x more exciting. Secondly due to the fact that the new car probably isn't more efficient (won't be) when it's 45 years old, as it'll have been scrapped and replaced 15 times over. Modern cars predominantly are utter soulless chod.

The number of 45 year old cars being used daily is testament to that.

[V8 FOU]

Love it.
Where do I sign?

[tr3a]

"I think I missed gear changes more than anything."


Gearboxes are a primitive, mechanical kludge to compensate for the ridiculously peaky torque curve of internal combustion engines. How can you miss having that?

[Mr2Mike]

tr3a said:

"I think I missed gear changes more than anything."


Gearboxes are a primitive, mechanical kludge to compensate for the ridiculously peaky torque curve of internal combustion engines. How can you miss having that?

Wrong. Decent engines are not ridiculously peaky, in fact they can provide a flatter torque curve than an electric motor which naturally has a torque curve that constantly falls with increasing RPM, though a range of constant torque can be created by electronic torque limiting at lower speeds.

Gearboxes are needed because ICE have a much more restricted speed range, and they can't provide any torque at all at 0 RPM.

EV's can also benefit from gearboxes BTW.

[huckster6]

Nissan's saying they won't make 'em sounds like the more irritating politician's claims "we have no plans to..."

[Debaser]

giveitfish said:

Debaser said:

Looks like it needs a much wider front track.

See endless debate about the Deltawing at Le Mans years ago. In short, it works.

Imagine how much better it would be with a wider front track though.