Hybrids and the like - why?
Hybrids and the like - why?
Author
Discussion

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

41,030 posts

220 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
What's the rational and reason for so many hyper and supercar makers to be exploiting/developing this technology, or rather wasting money on it?


Thinking about it, most hyper cars are hugely expensive to buy. Thus they are for the large part only toys, however any person who can spend £120,000-1,000,000 on a toy evidently doesn't need to worry about mpg or fuel costs, or even road tax for such a car, as these costs are tiny compared to purchase and maintenance costs.

It's also reasonable to assume that due to the inherent nature of a super/hyper car and the fact many are toys, few will actually do many miles per year. This means any potential fuel savings there might be are too tiny to even bother working out and any emissions reduction on a National or global scale are infinitesimal to be of any concern to anyone.


I'm not sure I can even thing of any real R&D reasons either. As many hypercar makers are not large multinational corporations, but much smaller organisations with likely much smaller R&D budgets than Ford spend on developing the next gen hatchback. So I don't see that this is a cheaper way of delveloping hybrid technology. Not overall.

Ok I can sort of see a marketing angle from maybe Fiat or VAG to have their hypercar brands spearheading new tech to make a statement about the entire group. But even this would seem tentative.


Surely a hypercar is about speed, fun, styling and ludicrous compromises? Anyone else know the reason why some hypercar makers seem to be ploughing money into something that is really pretty pointless for their actual product and chosen market segment?

Horse Pop

685 posts

174 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Because the car is supposed to be a technological showcase?

simoid

19,774 posts

188 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Remember that time humans went to the moon?

That was pretty pointless too.

mnkiboy

4,409 posts

196 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
So rich people can buy a fast car AND tell everyone they're saving the planet.

They're having their cake, and eating it.

Dr Z

3,396 posts

201 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Horse Pop said:
Because the car is supposed to be a technological showcase?
This.

[/thread]

ETA: I always thought the term Hyper-car implies novel technologies brought to the car world. Moving the game on, so to speak.

Edited by Dr Z on Thursday 21st February 12:38

GTIR

24,741 posts

296 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Mercedes do an E class hybrid.

It's very clever but personally I don't think it's worth the extra money and certainly won't achieve the MPG Merc state. It's supposed to cruise on battery whilst on the motorway but when I drove it it only came on once. We were four up but that's what I wanted to test it as a chauffeur car.

The technology is interesting though.

simoid

19,774 posts

188 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
GTIR said:
Mercedes do an E class hybrid.

...certainly won't achieve the MPG Merc state.
It'll surely do the claimed MPG on the urban and extra-urban tests though, like any other car...?

Krikkit

27,938 posts

211 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Horse Pop said:
Because the car is supposed to be a technological showcase?
This - it's about the manufacturers flexing their engineering muscles to say "We're the bks".

As the perennial example look at the McLaren F1 - first production car with a carbon-monocoque chassis, an engine with so much trickery for the time (VVT, 12 throttle bodies, magnesium bits etc etc), innovative and lightweight design etc. A tour-de-force for its time that firmly established them as a giant of engineering skill.


CurvaParabolica

7,018 posts

214 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
People were making the same argument against mainstream diesel cars around 15 years ago, look where we are with them now.

JREwing

17,551 posts

209 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
For Londoners it makes sense in any car, surely?

JD

3,149 posts

258 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Who says the hybrid part of the new generation of hyper cars is for fuel efficiency?

192 lb/ft instantly deploy-able at any part of the rev range, seems a feat that no IC engine could ever hope to achieve

Mattygooner

5,304 posts

234 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Tech Showcase, MPG and emission targets.

Doesn't mean they are the right place for a hyper car, but that is the way of the current agenda.

Dave200

5,671 posts

250 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Horse Pop said:
Because the car is supposed to be a technological showcase?
This.

Flatinfourth

591 posts

168 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
Surely using a coal fired power station to power an electric car is bordering on insanity at worst, a great big green lie at best?

If the elecricity generating mechanism is on board, then unless the battery is weightless, an IC engine will always outperform it?

If the hybrid were to generate direct power without a battery, then the elecrtic motors and driveline need to be lighter than a conventional drivetrain?

Just how renewable or recyclable is the battery and drivetrain of a hybrid?

For a vehicle to be truly efficient, it needs to cost a minimal amount to make, be entirely recyclable, and involve no dirty processes in it's construction?


Johnnytheboy

24,499 posts

216 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
What's the rational and reason for so many hyper and supercar makers to be exploiting/developing this technology, or rather wasting money on it?
There was an article about this in Autocar the other week saying the hybrid supercars are either being canned or postoned (example: the order book for the Porsche 918 is not encouraging), while traditional supercars are doing well. Example given was the Aventador, which is selling like hot cakes.

Which doesn't answer your question...

CraigyMc

18,371 posts

266 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
JD said:
192 lb/ft instantly deploy-able at any part of the rev range, seems a feat that no IC engine could ever hope to achieve
The electric motor will only make its peak torque at 0 rpm. That's how they work.

C

conkerman

3,519 posts

165 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
CO2 test cycle dodging.

95 €/car/gramme CO2 over fleet limits.

Pretty convincing case for the oems to pursue these avenues.

JD

3,149 posts

258 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
CraigyMc said:
The electric motor will only make its peak torque at 0 rpm. That's how they work.

C
Yep, but in the P1 it gives that when its spinning at 4896 rpm if my maths are right

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

41,030 posts

220 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
CurvaParabolica said:
People were making the same argument against mainstream diesel cars around 15 years ago, look where we are with them now.
Where they?? Don't recall that at all tbh, nothing even close. And since when has any mass produced diesel car such as a hatchback, been bought as a millionaires play thing?

kambites

71,599 posts

251 months

Thursday 21st February 2013
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
What's the rational and reason for so many hyper and supercar makers to be exploiting/developing this technology, or rather wasting money on it?
What rational reason is there for the existence for hyper- and super-cars at all?