RE: Porsche Taycan 4S launched with 288-mile range
Discussion
Dale487 said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
now release a 2S for 65k and im in 
Would it be too much to hope that if the Taycan S is £65K, the "standard"/"plain"/"entry level" Taycan might be c£50k?kambites said:
Dale487 said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
now release a 2S for 65k and im in
Would it be too much to hope that if the Taycan S is £65K, the "standard"/"plain"/"entry level" Taycan might be c£50k?ntiz said:
Since moving away from my Tesla I’m a little out of the loop. Can you actually buy a Raven yet? I have seen it referenced to a fair bit but haven’t seen any reviews etc.
Yes, Raven models of the S and X have been delivered since around July. More of an evolution than a revolution - more efficient motors that have increased range, plus adaptive suspension. Pricing is a lot more competitive than it once was; good that Porsche are bringing competition to the segment - though if you need the space for a larger family the S or X probably work better for now.When will EV makers learn that range (and affordability) is way more important than top speed or sporty handling. EV's will inherently be quick off the line but once the novelty of a launch start has worn off, it's about range and comfort. If you want a sports car - buy a sports car (or make a sports car EV like the Tesla Roadster). Don't compromise what is a family car at this stage.
hu8742 said:
When will EV makers learn that range (and affordability) is way more important than top speed or sporty handling.
Seems a slightly odd comment to make on a thread about a Porsche? There are plenty of mainstream manufacturers/brands concentrating on making mainstream EVs, with varying degrees of success.
Numeric said:
I always feel a little miffed that it seems that range is the sacrifice they make you have rather than performamce which is of massivley less importance to me, sub 6 being really fine in my real world!
As mentioned by others, unlike with an ICE powertrain, there is no direct positive correlation between power and efficiency for an Electric motor and control inverter. In fact, the opposite is generally true, in that a system optimised for high power can have lower loses that a low powered system. With an ICE powertrain, friction and heat loss scales with engine capacity and number of cylinders.The biggest effector on range for an EV is the vehicles total road load, rather than its powertrain. Here, "performance" does have an effect, with wide grippy tyres having more drag, and aggressive suspension geometry for sharp handling resulting in more drag than a setup for low loss "straightlineing" etc
Total vehicle mass also isn't as important as you would think, because with regenerative capability from a bi-directional powertrain, around 70% of the energy stored in the vehicles mass at speed can be recovered
Something like a BMW i3 gets good range from any given amount of energy because the whole car is optimised for low consumption, ie a low average road load.
We tend to see powerful EVs initially for a couple of reasons:
1) EVs are currently more expensive to make than ICEs, simply because the production volumes are very much lower. People instinctively attribute expensive cars with being fast cars, so to release a £100k EV that is 'slow' (whatever you call that) would be unacceptable
2) Long range = big battery. A big battery means high power capability, so there is the ability to fit high power motors etc
3) The cost of the powertrain, battery excepted really doesn't scale with its power capability. A 200kW motor only costs a few $ more than a 100kW motor, so again, it's natural to start with high powered EVs as the first market entry point,
kambites said:
Seems a slightly odd comment to make on a thread about a Porsche?
There are plenty of mainstream manufacturers/brands concentrating on making mainstream EVs, with varying degrees of success.
It would be an odd comment if porsche were making a electric 911 or Boxster. But the Taycan is a family saloon with a sportscar badge. All I'm saying is I'd rather have range over sporty handling/performance stats, especially in this country. I bet if the option on this car or Model S/X was 'loose a couple of seconds in 0-60pmh and top end and have a further 25-50 miles', most folks would take that. There are plenty of mainstream manufacturers/brands concentrating on making mainstream EVs, with varying degrees of success.
Henry Catchpole seemed to think the Taycan is a bit boring...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qT5d3NhOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qT5d3NhOo
ntiz said:
Since moving away from my Tesla I’m a little out of the loop. Can you actually buy a Raven yet? I have seen it referenced to a fair bit but haven’t seen any reviews etc.
As someone else has mentioned the Raven powertrain is available. When the naming convention moved away from P100 & P100D to Long Range & Performance that was at the same time as the swap to the Raven powertrain. I believe that the only obvious change externally is that the P100 badge has a red underline on it - but that's only what I have read online elsewhere.As an aside, the Porsche Australia website quotes the Taycan as having a 93.4kWh battery but only 83.7kWh is usable so they seem to hold back 10% which is about the same as the E-Tron. I would imagine that they have done that to protect battery life and ensure that the performance is consistent across the whole battery pack.
It would also appear that the car is pretty spec sensitive to range. The Aus website quotes the "Turbo" (shudder) to have a range of 381 - 450km WLTP. My guess that's the delta between the best and worst cars from a weight / aero / rolling resistance perspective so gotta be careful with what you want!
Max_Torque said:
Numeric said:
I always feel a little miffed that it seems that range is the sacrifice they make you have rather than performamce which is of massivley less importance to me, sub 6 being really fine in my real world!
As mentioned by others, unlike with an ICE powertrain, there is no direct positive correlation between power and efficiency for an Electric motor and control inverter. In fact, the opposite is generally true, in that a system optimised for high power can have lower loses that a low powered system. With an ICE powertrain, friction and heat loss scales with engine capacity and number of cylinders.The biggest effector on range for an EV is the vehicles total road load, rather than its powertrain. Here, "performance" does have an effect, with wide grippy tyres having more drag, and aggressive suspension geometry for sharp handling resulting in more drag than a setup for low loss "straightlineing" etc
Total vehicle mass also isn't as important as you would think, because with regenerative capability from a bi-directional powertrain, around 70% of the energy stored in the vehicles mass at speed can be recovered
Something like a BMW i3 gets good range from any given amount of energy because the whole car is optimised for low consumption, ie a low average road load.
We tend to see powerful EVs initially for a couple of reasons:
1) EVs are currently more expensive to make than ICEs, simply because the production volumes are very much lower. People instinctively attribute expensive cars with being fast cars, so to release a £100k EV that is 'slow' (whatever you call that) would be unacceptable
2) Long range = big battery. A big battery means high power capability, so there is the ability to fit high power motors etc
3) The cost of the powertrain, battery excepted really doesn't scale with its power capability. A 200kW motor only costs a few $ more than a 100kW motor, so again, it's natural to start with high powered EVs as the first market entry point,
Scottie - NW said:
Dear PH, can you please stop repeating the word "Turbo" when there are none present and stop supporting this marketing BS.
Thanks.
P.S. If you have to use the word can you please either use "imaginary turbo" or "pretend turbo" instead
As said before...presumably it comes as a great shock to you that a Gillet Mach 3 Turbo razor doesn't have a turbo in it and neither did every 486 PC in the late 90s that had a 'Turbo' button on the front.Thanks.
P.S. If you have to use the word can you please either use "imaginary turbo" or "pretend turbo" instead
And also...strictly speaking a Turbofan jet engine isn't actually a turbo charged jet engine.
kambites said:
I'm not convinced we're going to see many EV models with a realistical worst-case range of 350 miles (which will probably mean a WLTP range of 450+) though; I just don't think the demand is there.
That seems like a brave comment.Battery evolution is still in relatively early stages. If you look at some of the advances that are floating around in labs, they already have plenty of possibilities ahead. It remains for commercialisation. We will see steady advances for a long time to come. Whereas the ICE has really peaked, and is now seeing hybridisation to get much more.
Just imagine if we get power density increases that wind up halving the size of batteries; do you then actually halve the size of the battery, or, do you double the range? That's a nice problem to have, but quite different to an ICE, where the size of the tank has no real impact on performance for road car applications.
big_rob_sydney said:
kambites said:
I'm not convinced we're going to see many EV models with a realistical worst-case range of 350 miles (which will probably mean a WLTP range of 450+) though; I just don't think the demand is there.
That seems like a brave comment.Battery evolution is still in relatively early stages. If you look at some of the advances that are floating around in labs, they already have plenty of possibilities ahead. It remains for commercialisation. We will see steady advances for a long time to come. Whereas the ICE has really peaked, and is now seeing hybridisation to get much more.
Just imagine if we get power density increases that wind up halving the size of batteries; do you then actually halve the size of the battery, or, do you double the range? That's a nice problem to have, but quite different to an ICE, where the size of the tank has no real impact on performance for road car applications.
RacerMike said:
Scottie - NW said:
Dear PH, can you please stop repeating the word "Turbo" when there are none present and stop supporting this marketing BS.
Thanks.
P.S. If you have to use the word can you please either use "imaginary turbo" or "pretend turbo" instead
As said before...presumably it comes as a great shock to you that a Gillet Mach 3 Turbo razor doesn't have a turbo in it and neither did every 486 PC in the late 90s that had a 'Turbo' button on the front.Thanks.
P.S. If you have to use the word can you please either use "imaginary turbo" or "pretend turbo" instead
And also...strictly speaking a Turbofan jet engine isn't actually a turbo charged jet engine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff