The powers of EV's

[robinessex]

SpeckledJim said:

robinessex said:

smn159 said:

robinessex said:

GT9 said:

SDK said:

So a rich person buying a powerful ICE supercar is fine and will not crash it.
But a rich person buying an EV will crash it

The desperation to find flaws in the 'EVil masterplan' is getting a bit tragic now.

This is the second thread this year started by someone claiming electric acceleration is very dangerous.

Sorry Rob

As I've said, I've enjoyed 1g acceleration, if you're prepared, it's ok, but if it hits you when you're not, big oops!I Don't know the power it had, but an Ultima with a 7ltr tuned V8 up its arse gets pretty near to that. That's what I was told.

You think that road cars should be limited in some way?

What power level is acceptable to you?

Assuming we're talking about cars for the average punter, who just wants point-to-point mobility, guess the norm before EVs came along was between 100-200bhp. Didn't hear any complaints about that. Cars of a sporting nature, it's always been an HP race, so carry on guys.

Is an M5 a ‘car of a sporting nature’?

How about an X5M?

Probaly

[Undercover McNoName]

Puzzles said:

The average EV probably wont be that much quicker than similar ICE cars, the very quick ones are still expensive, similar to ICE cars.

Quicker yes, faster no.

[SpeckledJim]

robinessex said:

SpeckledJim said:

robinessex said:

smn159 said:

robinessex said:

GT9 said:

SDK said:

So a rich person buying a powerful ICE supercar is fine and will not crash it.
But a rich person buying an EV will crash it

The desperation to find flaws in the 'EVil masterplan' is getting a bit tragic now.

This is the second thread this year started by someone claiming electric acceleration is very dangerous.

Sorry Rob

As I've said, I've enjoyed 1g acceleration, if you're prepared, it's ok, but if it hits you when you're not, big oops!I Don't know the power it had, but an Ultima with a 7ltr tuned V8 up its arse gets pretty near to that. That's what I was told.

You think that road cars should be limited in some way?

What power level is acceptable to you?

Assuming we're talking about cars for the average punter, who just wants point-to-point mobility, guess the norm before EVs came along was between 100-200bhp. Didn't hear any complaints about that. Cars of a sporting nature, it's always been an HP race, so carry on guys.

Is an M5 a ‘car of a sporting nature’?

How about an X5M?

Probaly

So a Model S and Model X are too then?

[plfrench]

There's something quite incredible about how EVs can get the power down. It's clearly as a result of the constant torque that GT9 explained earlier, but it is quite spooky.

Just been out for a spin in my wife's new Cupra Born she got yesterday. It's only 204ps, but the way it gets the power down instantly and without a hint of wheelspin on a wet road is bizarre when you've been used to ICE. My E350d is quicker on paper, but it would not be able to get the power down to accelerate at anywhere near the same rate as the born below 40mph. Witchcraft

[smn159]

robinessex said:

smn159 said:

robinessex said:

GT9 said:

SDK said:

So a rich person buying a powerful ICE supercar is fine and will not crash it.
But a rich person buying an EV will crash it

The desperation to find flaws in the 'EVil masterplan' is getting a bit tragic now.

This is the second thread this year started by someone claiming electric acceleration is very dangerous.

Sorry Rob

As I've said, I've enjoyed 1g acceleration, if you're prepared, it's ok, but if it hits you when you're not, big oops!I Don't know the power it had, but an Ultima with a 7ltr tuned V8 up its arse gets pretty near to that. That's what I was told.

You think that road cars should be limited in some way?

What power level is acceptable to you?

Assuming we're talking about cars for the average punter, who just wants point-to-point mobility, guess the norm before EVs came along was between 100-200bhp. Didn't hear any complaints about that. Cars of a sporting nature, it's always been an HP race, so carry on guys.

Some interesting psychology going on with your apparent belief that women and 'average punters' can't be trusted to drive powerful cars

How do you decide who does get to drive them? Is an 'average punter' who saves up and buys one OK? At what point does he or she qualify?

[GT9]

plfrench said:

There's something quite incredible about how EVs can get the power down. It's clearly as a result of the constant torque that GT9 explained earlier, but it is quite spooky.

Just been out for a spin in my wife's new Cupra Born she got yesterday. It's only 204ps, but the way it gets the power down instantly and without a hint of wheelspin on a wet road is bizarre when you've been used to ICE. My E350d is quicker on paper, but it would not be able to get the power down to accelerate at anywhere near the same rate as the born below 40mph. Witchcraft

I extracted this plot some time ago, i think the EV is actually the Born, I can't remember for sure.
The ICE is probably a Golf GTI.
The chart shows what you are experiencing, which is essentially the addition of kinetic energy in the most efficient way possible.

[Dave Hedgehog]

ChocolateFrog said:

RizzoTheRat said:

I suspect the number of people who can pop in to to a Tesla showroom and buy a £150,000 car may be lower than you think

But a Model 3 performance is easily accessible and still pretty quick, not that I agree with the sentiment at all.

up to 100 not a lot in it between a M3P and a lambo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ue1ZzaWgM

[SWoll]

Dave Hedgehog said:

ChocolateFrog said:

RizzoTheRat said:

I suspect the number of people who can pop in to to a Tesla showroom and buy a £150,000 car may be lower than you think

But a Model 3 performance is easily accessible and still pretty quick, not that I agree with the sentiment at all.

up to 100 not a lot in it between a M3P and a lambo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ue1ZzaWgM

A standard Aventador takes 11.2 seconds to cover the 1/4 mile, the Model 3 Performance 11.5. Having owned the latter "pretty quick" is a serious understatement.

I will add though that it was an incredibly easy car to drive slowly if you've got any control over your right foot. I can't say the same about any number of lower performance ICE cars I've had over the years.

[robinessex]

smn159 said:

How do you decide who does get to drive them? Is an 'average punter' who saves up and buys one OK? At what point does he or she qualify?

By average, I'm referring to those who have no intrinsic interest in cars, and treat them as another commodity purchase, just like a washing machine. It has been mooted in the past that graded driving licenses been introduced, but a bit too late for that now, the horse has bolted.

[SpeckledJim]

robinessex said:

smn159 said:

How do you decide who does get to drive them? Is an 'average punter' who saves up and buys one OK? At what point does he or she qualify?

By average, I'm referring to those who have no intrinsic interest in cars, and treat them as another commodity purchase, just like a washing machine. It has been mooted in the past that graded driving licenses been introduced, but a bit too late for that now, the horse has bolted.

Heavy cars with 4 wheel drive and all the modern stability and traction controls are bloody tough to crash. Even if they're also fast. You have to positively decide to drive like a loon.

A granny or grandad jumping into a M3P and stamping on the throttle may indeed have a problem. But they don't generally stamp on throttles. As we can see from the way they drive their i10s.

Are you worried about a granny or grandad jumping into an X5M and stamping on the throttle? Or just an EV?

[robinessex]

SWoll said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

ChocolateFrog said:

RizzoTheRat said:

I suspect the number of people who can pop in to to a Tesla showroom and buy a £150,000 car may be lower than you think

But a Model 3 performance is easily accessible and still pretty quick, not that I agree with the sentiment at all.

up to 100 not a lot in it between a M3P and a lambo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ue1ZzaWgM

A standard Aventador takes 11.2 seconds to cover the 1/4 mile, the Model 3 Performance 11.5. Having owned the latter "pretty quick" is a serious understatement.

I will add though that it was an incredibly easy car to drive slowly if you've got any control over your right foot. I can't say the same about any number of lower performance ICE cars I've had over the years.

Neighbour has just acquired one of those, he's promised a ride in it. Admits he hasn't got his head around how bloody quick it is. Confesses to giving the right foot a good push with the wife onboard, his ears are still recovering from the scream she let out.

[robinessex]

GT9 said:

plfrench said:

There's something quite incredible about how EVs can get the power down. It's clearly as a result of the constant torque that GT9 explained earlier, but it is quite spooky.

Just been out for a spin in my wife's new Cupra Born she got yesterday. It's only 204ps, but the way it gets the power down instantly and without a hint of wheelspin on a wet road is bizarre when you've been used to ICE. My E350d is quicker on paper, but it would not be able to get the power down to accelerate at anywhere near the same rate as the born below 40mph. Witchcraft

I extracted this plot some time ago, i think the EV is actually the Born, I can't remember for sure.
The ICE is probably a Golf GTI.
The chart shows what you are experiencing, which is essentially the addition of kinetic energy in the most efficient way possible.

Just what you'd expect with a feedback control system. Just the maximum amount of power all the time, something no human could achieve. Now you know why F1 wants to keep such away from the cars, otherwise, they'd just circulate with driver right foot in fully down mode all the time.

[stumpage]

The instant torque of EV plays havoc with my gravel drive.

[P675]

I actually find on the whole I drive slower in a faster car as I know a stopping for a minor inconvenience is remedied by quick acceleration when the road is clear. I've been more impatient in slower cars where having to slow down and go through all the gears again to get to cruising speed feels like a hassle.

[NorthernUproar]

robinessex said:

I have diddly squat interest in EVs, but the power outputs 'worry' me. Any PH knows a Lambo Aventador with circa 700bhp is bloody fast, and even with TC, needs some respect, caution, and I dare I say, skill. Yet anyone can pop into a Tesla showroom, and come out with a model X with 1000bhp, with a 0-60 time of 2.5 secs (1g). I hope its got some bloody impressive CT preventing Sharon, in a late dash take taking kids to school, doesn't floor it on a wet greasy road, and ends up inverted somewhere. Why not limit the power output to extend the range? I'm also puzzled about how the insurance companies are handling this. Henry is lurking in my garage with 400 supercharged bhp, he can be a bit naughty if you get a bit too enthusiastic. Don't ask me how I know.

Preventing some “Sharon”, where are you from mate… 1994?

[TheDeuce]

robinessex said:

By average, I'm referring to those who have no intrinsic interest in cars, and treat them as another commodity purchase, just like a washing machine. It has been mooted in the past that graded driving licenses been introduced, but a bit too late for that now, the horse has bolted.

Those people aren't going to buy an EV with 1000+hp though

In anycase, whatever your fears, the reality is they're not actually leading to more incidents/crashes in the real world. EV insurance costs have been reducing over the years relative to ICE as the underwriters have gained more data. Many EV's are now cheaper in terms of insurance than their ICE equivalents - probably because of the supreme levels of traction they can deliver and maintain making them slightly safer in some situations.

It strikes me as odd that you should be worried about a something that has already been proven to not be the case.

[raspy]

ReformedPistonhead said:

Every time I wanted to do 0-60 in 2.3s in my Tesla Model S, I had to select Ludicrous+ and then wait 45 minutes for the battery to warm up. Plenty of time to consider the consequences of my actions and prepare for the g-forces. I think once in 3.5 years I had the patience.

In my RS6 Performance I had before that, you just floored it and off it went, regardless of when. Throw in gear changes which could cost you grip and stability and I would argue the RS6 was more dangerous and the performance was more accessible. Albeit 1s slower or something to 60.

The Model S is gone now and I am back to petrol until they build more chargers...

I didn't have to wait for the battery to warm up when I did 0-60 in sub 3 seconds in a Lucid Air. You just floor it and off it went, and it goes round bends better than any Tesla, imho. I would argue that EVs inherently feel more stable and planted when accelerating than ICE vehicles due to lower CoG.

The Lucid Air Sapphire they had in the showroom but not available for test drives has 1,200bhp and does 0-100mph in less than 4 seconds (allegedly)

If a 1,000 bhp Tesla has got the OP worried and sitting there ruminating on anxious thoughts about hypothetical scenarios, I suspect the Lucid Air Sapphire might make him worried enough to start a new thread somewhere.

[robinessex]

TheDeuce said:

robinessex said:

By average, I'm referring to those who have no intrinsic interest in cars, and treat them as another commodity purchase, just like a washing machine. It has been mooted in the past that graded driving licenses been introduced, but a bit too late for that now, the horse has bolted.

Those people aren't going to buy an EV with 1000+hp though

In anycase, whatever your fears, the reality is they're not actually leading to more incidents/crashes in the real world. EV insurance costs have been reducing over the years relative to ICE as the underwriters have gained more data. Many EV's are now cheaper in terms of insurance than their ICE equivalents - probably because of the supreme levels of traction they can deliver and maintain making them slightly safer in some situations.

It strikes me as odd that you should be worried about a something that has already been proven to not be the case.

A look at the accident statistics of AXA Switzerland shows that drivers of electric cars cause 50 percent more collisions with damage to their own vehicles than those of conventional combustion engines,” the insurance giant said in a German-language statement titled, ominously, “AXA Crash Tests 2022 — More collisions and new risks from e-cars.”

The company attributed the higher damage from crashes to what it called “the overtapping effect” that causes electric cars to accelerate far faster than their conventional counterparts using the same amount of force on the acceleration pedal. The “overtapping effect” is “likely to be the reason for the increased claims frequency for high-performance electric cars,” the company added.

“Most electric cars, especially the powerful ones, have a very high torque, which is immediately noticeable when you tap the power pedal. This can result in unwanted, jerky acceleration, which the driver can no longer control,” said Michael Pfäffli, HEAD OF ACCIDENT RESEARCH at AXA Switzerland.

[OutInTheShed]

What's it like for a young person, getting insurance on a mid-range EV?

Given that quotes can be pretty high for a 22 year old in a 2 litre Mondeo, am I right in guessing a 150BHP EV could be pricy?

[TheDeuce]

raspy said:

ReformedPistonhead said:

Every time I wanted to do 0-60 in 2.3s in my Tesla Model S, I had to select Ludicrous+ and then wait 45 minutes for the battery to warm up. Plenty of time to consider the consequences of my actions and prepare for the g-forces. I think once in 3.5 years I had the patience.

In my RS6 Performance I had before that, you just floored it and off it went, regardless of when. Throw in gear changes which could cost you grip and stability and I would argue the RS6 was more dangerous and the performance was more accessible. Albeit 1s slower or something to 60.

The Model S is gone now and I am back to petrol until they build more chargers...

I didn't have to wait for the battery to warm up when I did 0-60 in sub 3 seconds in a Lucid Air. You just floor it and off it went, and it goes round bends better than any Tesla, imho. I would argue that EVs inherently feel more stable and planted when accelerating than ICE vehicles due to lower CoG.

The Lucid Air Sapphire they had in the showroom but not available for test drives has 1,200bhp and does 0-100mph in less than 4 seconds (allegedly)

If a 1,000 bhp Tesla has got the OP worried and sitting there ruminating on anxious thoughts about hypothetical scenarios, I suspect the Lucid Air Sapphire might make him worried enough to start a new thread somewhere.

The rapidly growing ~2000hp club might really upset him


Lotus Evija 1500 kW (2011 hp)
Aspark Owl 1480 kW (1984 hp)
Pininfarina Battista 1417 kW (1899 hp)
Rimac Nevera 1408 kW 1408 kW (1887 hp)

It's easy to see why this is happening too. Power is extremely cheap in EV terms, on several levels: Larger more powerful motors are only fractionally less efficient, and not a huge weight penalty either, also not particularly expensive vs a smaller motor. There is very little efficiency lost by giving an EV 1000hp vs giving the same EV 200hp, driven the same way, the two will offer roughly the same efficiency - that's obviously very different in an ICE car with 1000hp, which would be inefficient however you drive it.

Even the brakes on a fast EV don't need uprating to the same extent as they do on fast ICE cars because the regen is providing such a large chunk of the braking effect.