Electric cars, does everyone really think they are amazing.
Discussion
Garybee said:
Max_Torque said:
(the day an accident occurs, and someone is killed by a human driver when an autonomous one would not have crashed is the day we will see a huge sea change in social attitudes to passenger cars imo)
That day has already passed probably thousands of times and no huge sea change seems to have occurred. The most likely sea change in attitudes will be when an autonomous vehicle kills someone.Edited by Garybee on Tuesday 24th October 13:52
At some point within the next 25 years, chances are you will be able to buy a car with an "full autonomy" mode switch on the dash. When one of these is crashed by it's human driver with the switch in "manual" and someone is killed, the inevitable knee jerk reaction will be to force those cars to always run in autonomous mode.....
Tony427 said:
.
The only EV owner I know sent his back as the range was pathetic, and he's a retired guy well past 70. I would have thought it was perfect for him, but the attraction of a free coffee and paper at Waitrose as he charged up soon paled.
He then went for a small diesel, which he has since px'ed and has just taken delivery of the same model of EV although it has double the range of the previous.
In other news, an EV 5 seater family saloon does a drag race against some rather expensive 2 seater combustion cars....am sure you can guess the which car crossed the finish line first The only EV owner I know sent his back as the range was pathetic, and he's a retired guy well past 70. I would have thought it was perfect for him, but the attraction of a free coffee and paper at Waitrose as he charged up soon paled.
He then went for a small diesel, which he has since px'ed and has just taken delivery of the same model of EV although it has double the range of the previous.
.
There are also videos of cars beating the P100D up the 1/4 mile.
Unfortunately when these are shown - the Tesla fans begin to say how their car is a 4 door saloon blah blah. not designed for racing etc. Yet will happily post videos of Tesla P100D's like the video above and use the speed arguement when it suits them.
That's not a personal attack on essayer by the way.
Unfortunately when these are shown - the Tesla fans begin to say how their car is a 4 door saloon blah blah. not designed for racing etc. Yet will happily post videos of Tesla P100D's like the video above and use the speed arguement when it suits them.
That's not a personal attack on essayer by the way.
Edited by Stu08 on Tuesday 24th October 15:54
gangzoom said:
In other news, an EV 5 seater family saloon does a drag race against some rather expensive 2 seater combustion cars....am sure you can guess the which car crossed the finish line first .
The moral of the story seems to be if you only ever want to go 1/4 of a mile choose a Tesla. .Any more or longer than that and " performance soon peter's out" to quote the people running the drag race. Thats when the other cars romp into the sunset and the Tesla owner starts eyeing the range meter with quiet concern.
Hence, even in the non drag racing UK, we see the EV inside lane huggers.
Oh and at 155 mph, The Tesla's limited top speed, you only get 62 miles, or 24 minutes. That is unless the software limits the drain on the battery. And it also stops regenerative braking as the battery gets too hot at that rate of discharge it seems. Even a few repeated 1/4mile drag race damages the battery so much so that the software steps in to limit them.
Cheers,
Tony
nbetts said:
What do you actually think the ICE gets more economical when it is doing more work...? Funnily enough when I drive my GT3 across Germany I found it guzzled fuel at 150mph - it did not all of a sudden in a break the rules of physics kind of way - fall into an optimal sweet spot and became more efficient.
I'm not disputing cars use more fuel the faster they go regardless of what engine is fitted (above a certain low speed anyway), but you misunderstood my point... Of course all cars use more fuel the faster you drive them, this is because of drag, mostly aerodynamic.
Look at figure 7 in this link http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis5...
To push this car at 20mph it takes about 2.5kw of power, to push this car at 100mph it takes about 50kw of power.
At 20mph 100miles will be covered in 5 hours, 2.5 x 5 = 12.5kwh.
At 100mph 100miles will be covered in 1 hour, 1 x 50 = 50kwh
To travel at 100mph this vehicle will use 50/12.5 = 4 times as much power per mile than to travel at 20mph.
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 20mph would be (50/2.5)x20 = 400 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/400 = 125wh
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 100mph would be (50/50)x100 = 100 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/100 = 500wh
We can look at the graph and calculate range for any speed we want.
50kwh, 50mph at an energy use rate of 10kw, (50/10)x50 = 250 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/250 = 200wh.
You don't get nearly the same effect on range with an ice - A petrol/ice engine will make power most efficiently when used at a higher proportion of it's capability than at a lower portion of it's capability. This isn't to say that range is better at higher speeds in an ice, of course it isn't, it is just that the effect of speed on range isn't as great as with EVs. Unlike petrol engines, EV motors are efficient even when producing a small fraction of their total power rating. If you want a car to deliver the best mpg possible at 20mph you're only going to need a very small engine, but this small engine won't be capable of pushing the car to 100mph, maybe not even 50mph. If you want the car to produce the best possible mpg at 100mph you're going to need a bigger engine, which won't be nearly as efficient at making the small amount of power necessary to push the car at only 20mph as the very small engine.
In the case of the EV above, travelling at 20mph uses 125wh per mile, travelling at 50mph uses 200wh per mile, travelling at 100mph uses 500wh per mile. If the big engine'd ice car in the above example could achieve 30mpg at 50mph we would expect it do better than (200/500)x30 = 12mpg at 100mph and we would not expect it to be capable of (200/125)x30 = 48 mpg at 20mph. If a car can do 30mpg at 50mph we'd probably expect it to do 17mpg at 100mph, not 12mpg. Yet If we fitted a small engine we could definitely expect 48mpg at 20mph, we could expect slightly better than 30mpg at 50mph with an engine slightly bigger than the small 20mph engine and we might expect slightly better than 17mpg at 100 mph with a slightly bigger engine still than the 50mph engine (still smaller than the cars original engine). But by fitting the smaller engine the biggest savings would be at 20mph, to a lesser extent at 50mph, and to an even lesser extent at 100mph, because of engine efficiency.
The implication is that if you have an ice car with a 12 gallon tank that can be refuelled in 2mins at any forecourt and the car does 30mpg at 50mph, the driver isn't going to sweat driving to a destination 200 miles away at any speed. But an EV driver with a 30kwh battery that takes an hour to charge from empty to full who is on the same journey may find themselves restricting speed to balance speed/range/charge time.
Suppose some bloke switched from some ice car like the one in the example above that did 30mpg at 50mph with a 12 gallon tank, to the Tesla in the link. The ice car wouldn't have been capable of 50mpg or even 30mpg at 20mph, it might only have managed 25mpg at 20mph so at 20mph would only have a 300 mile range, the Tesla can do 400 miles at 20mph so this would be like the ice car having a 16 gallon tank at 20mph. The ice did 30mpg at 50mph and had range of 360 miles at 50mph, the Tesla can do 250 miles at 50mph so this would be like the ice car having a 8.3 gallon tank at 50mph. The ice car did 17mpg at 100mph so would have a range of 204 miles at 100mph, the Tesla has a range of only 100miles at 100mph so this would be like the ice car had only a 5.9 gallon fuel tank. The Tesla has a bigger capacity battery and better range than most current and near future EVs at any speed, it does use a bit more power than other current and near future EVs at any speed but nevertheless the size of it's battery more than makes up for that. In comparison to the ice that only had the 12 gallon fuel tank current EVs and near future EVs have the equivalent of only something like a 3 gallon fuel tank at low to medium motorway speeds, and then they take an hour to charge up the equivalent of 3 gallons. This is like an ice fuel pump taking twenty minutes to put one gallon of petrol in a petrol tank and this is what they consider a supercharger! Filling at home is not using a supercharger, filling at home is on a charger that is 16 times slower than the supercharger. so would take the equivalent of over 5 hours to put one gallons worth of fuel in.
Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 24th October 16:27
SimonYorkshire said:
You don't get nearly the same effect on range with an ice - A petrol/ice engine will make power most efficiently when used at a higher proportion of it's capability than at a lower portion of it's capability.
B**locks.Go look up a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Table, and consider where lines of constant power sit across that table
'#simonsays
Max_Torque said:
SimonYorkshire said:
You don't get nearly the same effect on range with an ice - A petrol/ice engine will make power most efficiently when used at a higher proportion of it's capability than at a lower portion of it's capability.
B**locks.Go look up a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption Table.
'#simonsays
Let's say we have an ice car that can do 30mpg at 50mph and has a top speed of 120mph. What would we expect the car's mpg to be at 20mph?
If we fitted a smaller engine that was only capable of pushing the same car to 50mph we would expect the car with this smaller engine to be capable of better than previous mpg at 20mph eh? The engine capable of pushing the car at 120mph isn't going to be as fuel efficient at 20mph as the engine that is only capable of pushing the car at 50mph is at 20mph is it? You don't get nearly the same effect as this with EVs eh?
Just to remind the LPG addict that ICE vehicles suffer badly with speed too (from http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ )
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
Shakermaker said:
How often is anyone doing 155mph in the UK able to do so for 62 miles?
The point, which I am sure you got, was that the Tesla was being compared to Supercars, which are supposed to be able to do stupid, crazy, illegal speeds for mile after mile after mile. Something that the the Tesla cannot do.
It could appear that its a 1/4 mile one trick pony.
Cheers,
Tony
SimonYorkshire said:
I'm not disputing cars use more fuel the faster they go regardless of what engine is fitted (above a certain low speed anyway), but you misunderstood my point...
Of course all cars use more fuel the faster you drive them, this is because of drag, mostly aerodynamic.
Look at figure 7 in this link http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis5...
To push this car at 20mph it takes about 2.5kw of power, to push this car at 100mph it takes about 50kw of power.
At 20mph 100miles will be covered in 5 hours, 2.5 x 5 = 12.5kwh.
At 100mph 100miles will be covered in 1 hour, 1 x 50 = 50kwh
To travel at 100mph this vehicle will use 50/12.5 = 4 times as much power per mile than to travel at 20mph.
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 20mph would be (50/2.5)x20 = 400 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/400 = 125wh
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 100mph would be (50/50)x100 = 100 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/100 = 500wh
We can look at the graph and calculate range for any speed we want.
50kwh, 50mph at an energy use rate of 10kw, (50/10)x50 = 250 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/250 = 200wh.
You don't get nearly the same effect on range with an ice - A petrol/ice engine will make power most efficiently when used at a higher proportion of it's capability than at a lower portion of it's capability. This isn't to say that range is better at higher speeds in an ice, of course it isn't, it is just that the effect of speed on range isn't as great as with EVs. Unlike petrol engines, EV motors are efficient even when producing a small fraction of their total power rating. If you want a car to deliver the best mpg possible at 20mph you're only going to need a very small engine, but this small engine won't be capable of pushing the car to 100mph, maybe not even 50mph. If you want the car to produce the best possible mpg at 100mph you're going to need a bigger engine, which won't be nearly as efficient at making the small amount of power necessary to push the car at only 20mph as the very small engine.
In the case of the EV above, travelling at 20mph uses 125wh per mile, travelling at 50mph uses 200wh per mile, travelling at 100mph uses 500wh per mile. If the big engine'd ice car in the above example could achieve 30mpg at 50mph we would expect it do better than (200/500)x30 = 12mpg at 100mph and we would not expect it to be capable of (200/125)x30 = 48 mpg at 20mph. If a car can do 30mpg at 50mph we'd probably expect it to do 17mpg at 100mph, not 12mpg. Yet If we fitted a small engine we could definitely expect 48mpg at 20mph, we could expect slightly better than 30mpg at 50mph with an engine slightly bigger than the small 20mph engine and we might expect slightly better than 17mpg at 100 mph with a slightly bigger engine still than the 50mph engine (still smaller than the cars original engine). But by fitting the smaller engine the biggest savings would be at 20mph, to a lesser extent at 50mph, and to an even lesser extent at 100mph, because of engine efficiency.
The implication is that if you have an ice car with a 12 gallon tank that can be refuelled in 2mins at any forecourt and the car does 30mpg at 50mph, the driver isn't going to sweat driving to a destination 200 miles away at any speed. But an EV driver with a 30kwh battery that takes an hour to charge from empty to full who is on the same journey may find themselves restricting speed to balance speed/range/charge time.
Suppose some bloke switched from some ice car like the one in the example above that did 30mpg at 50mph with a 12 gallon tank, to the Tesla in the link. The ice car wouldn't have been capable of 50mpg or even 30mpg at 20mph, it might only have managed 25mpg at 20mph so at 20mph would only have a 300 mile range, the Tesla can do 400 miles at 20mph so this would be like the ice car having a 16 gallon tank at 20mph. The ice did 30mpg at 50mph and had range of 360 miles at 50mph, the Tesla can do 250 miles at 50mph so this would be like the ice car having a 8.3 gallon tank at 50mph. The ice car did 17mpg at 100mph so would have a range of 204 miles at 100mph, the Tesla has a range of only 100miles at 100mph so this would be like the ice car had only a 5.9 gallon fuel tank. The Tesla has a bigger capacity battery and better range than most current and near future EVs at any speed, it does use a bit more power than other current and near future EVs at any speed but nevertheless the size of it's battery more than makes up for that. In comparison to the ice that only had the 12 gallon fuel tank current EVs and near future EVs have the equivalent of only something like a 3 gallon fuel tank at low to medium motorway speeds, and then they take an hour to charge up the equivalent of 3 gallons. This is like an ice fuel pump taking twenty minutes to put one gallon of petrol in a petrol tank and this is what they consider a supercharger! Filling at home is not using a supercharger, filling at home is on a charger that is 16 times slower than the supercharger. so would take the equivalent of over 5 hours to put one gallons worth of fuel in.
Nearly everything you have written is wrong.Of course all cars use more fuel the faster you drive them, this is because of drag, mostly aerodynamic.
Look at figure 7 in this link http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis5...
To push this car at 20mph it takes about 2.5kw of power, to push this car at 100mph it takes about 50kw of power.
At 20mph 100miles will be covered in 5 hours, 2.5 x 5 = 12.5kwh.
At 100mph 100miles will be covered in 1 hour, 1 x 50 = 50kwh
To travel at 100mph this vehicle will use 50/12.5 = 4 times as much power per mile than to travel at 20mph.
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 20mph would be (50/2.5)x20 = 400 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/400 = 125wh
If this were an EV with a 50kwh battery it's range at 100mph would be (50/50)x100 = 100 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/100 = 500wh
We can look at the graph and calculate range for any speed we want.
50kwh, 50mph at an energy use rate of 10kw, (50/10)x50 = 250 miles, it's energy use per mile would be 50000/250 = 200wh.
You don't get nearly the same effect on range with an ice - A petrol/ice engine will make power most efficiently when used at a higher proportion of it's capability than at a lower portion of it's capability. This isn't to say that range is better at higher speeds in an ice, of course it isn't, it is just that the effect of speed on range isn't as great as with EVs. Unlike petrol engines, EV motors are efficient even when producing a small fraction of their total power rating. If you want a car to deliver the best mpg possible at 20mph you're only going to need a very small engine, but this small engine won't be capable of pushing the car to 100mph, maybe not even 50mph. If you want the car to produce the best possible mpg at 100mph you're going to need a bigger engine, which won't be nearly as efficient at making the small amount of power necessary to push the car at only 20mph as the very small engine.
In the case of the EV above, travelling at 20mph uses 125wh per mile, travelling at 50mph uses 200wh per mile, travelling at 100mph uses 500wh per mile. If the big engine'd ice car in the above example could achieve 30mpg at 50mph we would expect it do better than (200/500)x30 = 12mpg at 100mph and we would not expect it to be capable of (200/125)x30 = 48 mpg at 20mph. If a car can do 30mpg at 50mph we'd probably expect it to do 17mpg at 100mph, not 12mpg. Yet If we fitted a small engine we could definitely expect 48mpg at 20mph, we could expect slightly better than 30mpg at 50mph with an engine slightly bigger than the small 20mph engine and we might expect slightly better than 17mpg at 100 mph with a slightly bigger engine still than the 50mph engine (still smaller than the cars original engine). But by fitting the smaller engine the biggest savings would be at 20mph, to a lesser extent at 50mph, and to an even lesser extent at 100mph, because of engine efficiency.
The implication is that if you have an ice car with a 12 gallon tank that can be refuelled in 2mins at any forecourt and the car does 30mpg at 50mph, the driver isn't going to sweat driving to a destination 200 miles away at any speed. But an EV driver with a 30kwh battery that takes an hour to charge from empty to full who is on the same journey may find themselves restricting speed to balance speed/range/charge time.
Suppose some bloke switched from some ice car like the one in the example above that did 30mpg at 50mph with a 12 gallon tank, to the Tesla in the link. The ice car wouldn't have been capable of 50mpg or even 30mpg at 20mph, it might only have managed 25mpg at 20mph so at 20mph would only have a 300 mile range, the Tesla can do 400 miles at 20mph so this would be like the ice car having a 16 gallon tank at 20mph. The ice did 30mpg at 50mph and had range of 360 miles at 50mph, the Tesla can do 250 miles at 50mph so this would be like the ice car having a 8.3 gallon tank at 50mph. The ice car did 17mpg at 100mph so would have a range of 204 miles at 100mph, the Tesla has a range of only 100miles at 100mph so this would be like the ice car had only a 5.9 gallon fuel tank. The Tesla has a bigger capacity battery and better range than most current and near future EVs at any speed, it does use a bit more power than other current and near future EVs at any speed but nevertheless the size of it's battery more than makes up for that. In comparison to the ice that only had the 12 gallon fuel tank current EVs and near future EVs have the equivalent of only something like a 3 gallon fuel tank at low to medium motorway speeds, and then they take an hour to charge up the equivalent of 3 gallons. This is like an ice fuel pump taking twenty minutes to put one gallon of petrol in a petrol tank and this is what they consider a supercharger! Filling at home is not using a supercharger, filling at home is on a charger that is 16 times slower than the supercharger. so would take the equivalent of over 5 hours to put one gallons worth of fuel in.
Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 24th October 16:27
The energy density of liquid fuels is much higher than energy stored in a Li-Ion cell. And yes it is far quicker to refill an ICE car than an electric one. That much is very true. It is like you are obsessed with refueling?
I charge once a week. When I am asleep. Without going to a garage. Oh, and the car is heated/defrosted/chilled to a temperature of my choosing on my scheduled departure time.
You keep going on about I cant go anywhere as I constantly worry about range - it just is not true - OR I have to drive at 40mph cos my watts are running out... again it is b
ksBut anyway, you have your view, you seem to like your ICE cars - and why not I love my ICE cars too.
EV's are amazing right now - and I reckon they will be fantastic in the future.
I am not sure there is anything 'fantastic' on the horizon for Internal Combustion cars if i am honest - and trust me I am a massive petrolhead when I say that.
rscott said:
Just to remind the LPG addict that ICE vehicles suffer badly with speed too (from http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ )
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
Agreed - lets just take a higher level view of this.According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
We have two machines One is 90% efficient one is 35% efficient
Which one do you think is more efficient as it works harder....?
It is not rocket science is it.
SimonYorkshire said:
In a sentence or two try to address some of my points
OK1) explain how, in your world, an ICE has a lower sensitivity in terms of Fuel Consumption penalty vs vehicle velocity than an EV
Hint: You'll be looking for words like BSFC, Throttling Losses, Over Fuelling for Component Protection, Drag, Parastic losses, and rolling friction. You also be wanting to include the significant effect of the gearbox too, because i'm sure you are aware that engine speed is not directly linked to road speed, but actually segmented by the available gear ratios (notice how many gears a modern ICE has btw....)
rscott said:
Just to remind the LPG addict that ICE vehicles suffer badly with speed too (from http://www.mpgforspeed.com/ )
According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
Thanks for that Rscot. If we extended your list down to 10mph and up to 100moh you'd be helping me make my point. According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:
- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
They claim an ICE vehicle which gives 40mpg at 55mph only returns 28 mpg at 80mph. So a typical hatchback with an 11 gallon tank goes from a 440 mile range to only 308 miles.
Of course, that's ignoring the massive drop in ICE economy for the first few minutes of use, until it has warmed up fully.
Tony427 said:
The point, which I am sure you got, was that the Tesla was being compared to Supercars, which are supposed to be able to do stupid, crazy, illegal speeds for mile after mile after mile.
Something that the the Tesla cannot do.
It could appear that its a 1/4 mile one trick pony.
Cheers,
Tony
I am not a fan of the Tesla Model S - it is too expensive and the interior is too low rent for a car of its price tag.Something that the the Tesla cannot do.
It could appear that its a 1/4 mile one trick pony.
Cheers,
Tony
It is not, however, a one trick pony. I would wager the Tesla model S would not be far behind some of those lovely ICE cars pictured when it comes to range at high speeds - some of those ICE cars are not shy of a bit of petroleum.
Also, the Tesla has the ability to change velocities with consummate ease - making it a very pleasant place to be whilst making progress...
Just a thought.
Max_Torque said:
SimonYorkshire said:
In a sentence or two try to address some of my points
OK1) explain how, in your world, an ICE has a lower sensitivity in terms of Fuel Consumption penalty vs vehicle velocity than an EV
Hint: You'll be looking for words like BSFC, Throttling Losses, Over Fuelling for Component Protection, Drag, Parastic losses, and rolling friction. You also be wanting to include the significant effect of the gearbox too, because i'm sure you are aware that engine speed is not directly linked to road speed, but actually segmented by the available gear ratios (notice how many gears a modern ICE has btw....)
You could try persuading ice drivers about how speed effects their mpg but even if you write a report and include all of the terms you mentioned above ice drivers are going to remember the figures they returned in their pwn experiences, and they're going to compare speed/range/refuelling time against EVs whatever you say. The EV limitations will suit some people but likely not as many as EV enthusiasts would like to think. We can expect situations like people who own a hybrid but rarely need to run the engine because they rarely do a trip of enough miles to consider switching to a pure EV but then thinking not to go for it because on the rare occasion they need the engine it is better to have the engine than to have to wait somewhere for a long time while an EV charges. Every advance in batteries for pure EVs will also mean an advance in batteries for hybrids. If I had the choice of a pure EV that had 300 mile range or a hybrid with 100 mile range on electric and 300 miles range range on ice fuel which do you think I'd opt for? Don't forget I know I can refuel the ice component in the hybrid in 2 minutes for 300 mile range and I know recharging the EV for 300 mile range will take hours. And you tell me I won't often need to exceed 100 mile range, so I won't need the EV's 300 mile range.. But I know that on occassion where I do more than 100 miles I'll probably do more than 300 miles. Thanks, you helped me make my decision! And when others consider the same points they're also likely to arrive at the same decision.
Edited by SimonYorkshire on Tuesday 24th October 17:53
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff