Lotus Evija - weird specs and speed claim..?

[TheDeuce]

This car has nearly 2000hp, weights less than 2 tonnes and Lotus are claiming that it's 0-60 time will be... less than 3 seconds. That seems insanely conservative to me, given that other lesser powered and heavier EV's are under 2 seconds. It feels like Lotus are hugely downplaying this cars pace, which is odd as they've focussed so much on weight saving to ensure it feels nimble and light, which requires brutal acceleration in addition to gnat like agility.

I'm aware I'm expecting a lot, but it is a £2m+ car and they seem to be pitching it's on paper performance miles below other EV hypercars for the same sort of (insane) £££.


Lotus have said they're not focussing on 0-60 times, which is fair enough and I would far rather they focussed on actual driver engagement and handling etc, but given the ptw ratio and the fact it has an optimum motor per wheel (four motors) layout, it should be as quick 0-60 as any other EV with a similar ptw, even allowing for the likes of Rimac having a second gear ratio - which is more about top speed than increasing 0-60 times. Both cars should be as fast to 60 as current tyre technology makes possible.

Here's Jenson Button 'testing' one, and he seems desperate to reinforce the point that 0-60 doesn't matter and it's more about higher speed acceleration... So he's doing the corporate shill bit for Lotus no doubt! But if a single gear EV is fast 60-200mph then it should also be bonkers fast 0-60mph... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=off6Q-a4ZQc

[cliffords]

I think the difference between 2 seconds and 3 seconds is just not relevant or important to many potential buyers .
For use on anything but a race track it's an irrelevance.

Cars will move more towards restricted speeds via external controls anyway . Speed limiters linked to road speeds. National speed limit will get reduced . More 30 and 20 zones.

I don't say it with any pleasure, I have motorcycles and some powerful cars myself, however the industry is changing. Look at Jaguar and the concept car they have just shown.

[TheDeuce]

cliffords said:

I think the difference between 2 seconds and 3 seconds is just not relevant or important to many potential buyers .
For use on anything but a race track it's an irrelevance.

Cars will move more towards restricted speeds via external controls anyway . Speed limiters linked to road speeds. National speed limit will get reduced . More 30 and 20 zones.

I don't say it with any pleasure, I have motorcycles and some powerful cars myself, however the industry is changing. Look at Jaguar and the concept car they have just shown.

Sub 3 seconds wouldn't matter to me either. My point/question was more about how it can be that a car with that much power,grip and relatively lightweight can not by default - even if not by desire, be a chunk faster than lotus are suggesting to 60.

Also if it's not more like 2 seconds to 60, it would have to be considerably slower than it's competitors in the 50-150 stakes too, which does matter in a car of this type and price point from a track drivers pov.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 3rd December 08:25

[PetrolHeadInRecovery]

TheDeuce said:

cliffords said:

I think the difference between 2 seconds and 3 seconds is just not relevant or important to many potential buyers .
For use on anything but a race track it's an irrelevance.

Cars will move more towards restricted speeds via external controls anyway . Speed limiters linked to road speeds. National speed limit will get reduced . More 30 and 20 zones.

I don't say it with any pleasure, I have motorcycles and some powerful cars myself, however the industry is changing. Look at Jaguar and the concept car they have just shown.

Sub 3 seconds wouldn't matter to me either. My point/question was more about how it can be that a car with that much power,grip and relatively lightweight can not by default - even if not by desire, be a chunk faster than lotus are suggesting to 60.

Also if it's not more like 2 seconds to 60, it would have to be considerably slower than it's competitors in the 50-150 stakes too, which does matter in a car of this type and price point from a track drivers pov.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 3rd December 08:25

Rimac seems to have 40% more torque than the Lotus. So, lighter motors (higher rpm, lower torque), thinner driveshafts and daintier reduction gears? Added (relative) lightness.

[TheDeuce]

PetrolHeadInRecovery said:

TheDeuce said:

cliffords said:

I think the difference between 2 seconds and 3 seconds is just not relevant or important to many potential buyers .
For use on anything but a race track it's an irrelevance.

Cars will move more towards restricted speeds via external controls anyway . Speed limiters linked to road speeds. National speed limit will get reduced . More 30 and 20 zones.

I don't say it with any pleasure, I have motorcycles and some powerful cars myself, however the industry is changing. Look at Jaguar and the concept car they have just shown.

Sub 3 seconds wouldn't matter to me either. My point/question was more about how it can be that a car with that much power,grip and relatively lightweight can not by default - even if not by desire, be a chunk faster than lotus are suggesting to 60.

Also if it's not more like 2 seconds to 60, it would have to be considerably slower than it's competitors in the 50-150 stakes too, which does matter in a car of this type and price point from a track drivers pov.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 3rd December 08:25

Rimac seems to have 40% more torque than the Lotus. So, lighter motors (higher rpm, lower torque), thinner driveshafts and daintier reduction gears? Added (relative) lightness.

Both cars have more than enough power, torque and torque control to more than achieve the 0-60 limit of the best tyres available - which is a hard limit if around 2 seconds with current tyre tech. The only cars that exceed that time to 60 are either cheating with a one foot rollout or on a well rubbered warm drag strip, or have a fan... So either car could and should be around 2 seconds given the paper stats.

I do wonder if you're right that they're protecting gearing and other transmission elements for the sake of making them lighter though.. that's potentially a great theory and would explain Lotus being keen to keep outright acceleration levels out of the equation in their marketing this far.

[Puzzles]

Are they in the publics hands yet?

[kambites]

Puzzles said:

Are they in the publics hands yet?

Yeah, the first cars were delivered in 2023 (I've a vague feeling the first went to Jenson Button). They're trickling out very, very slowly, though.

[GT9]

PetrolHeadInRecovery said:

Rimac seems to have 40% more torque than the Lotus. So, lighter motors (higher rpm, lower torque), thinner driveshafts and daintier reduction gears? Added (relative) lightness.

The drive shafts are after the final drive, which probably has a higher ratio in the Lotus to reduce the torque rating of the motor/s as you've said.
This won't necessarily change anything downstream of the final drive though.
Comparison of motor torque is a bit meaningless without being able to compare both the ratio in the final drive and the relative outer diameter of the driven wheels.
The instantaneous rate of acceleration is pretty much all about the mass of the car, the torque at the wheels and their diameter, well at least until significant drag kicks in.

[kambites]

Yeah the peak motor torque figures of EVs really are completely irrelevant.

[PetrolHeadInRecovery]

kambites said:

Yeah the peak motor torque figures of EVs really are completely irrelevant.

I realise I was talking partially rubbish (four motors, so a "driveshaft" is probably quite different thing from your grocery-getter etc). Looking at the image from the Lotus site, it looks like the motors are mounted quite centrally in the chassis, though (so driveshafts are presumably somewhere there):



But I'd imagine there's some kind of reduction gear somewhere. There was a thread a thread about reduction gear oils, with suggestions that implementing torque limiting before the system is up to temperature might make sense. "Under 3 seconds", meaning straight from the parking spot, after being parked overnight in subzero temperatures?

[kambites]

Yes, there's four motors, attached to each motor is a separate single-speed gearbox, then attached to each gearbox is a half-shaft which runs to the upright.

I' be amazed if the gearboxes aren't strong enough to take the maximum amount of torque the tyres can transfer to the road. Realistically once you get to this sort of power to weight ratio in a 4WD car, especially a 4WD four-motor EV, initial acceleration is purely a function of tyre grip.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 3rd December 14:36

[TheDeuce]

kambites said:

Yes, there's four motors, attached to each motor is a separate single-speed gearbox, then attached to each gearbox is a half-shaft which runs to the upright.

I' be amazed if the gearboxes aren't strong enough to take the maximum amount of torque the tyres can transfer to the road. Realistically once you get to this sort of power to weight ratio in a 4WD car, especially a 4WD four-motor EV, initial acceleration is purely a function of tyre grip.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 3rd December 14:36

Which was why I initially questioned their relatively slow predicted acceleration. Whatever the finer details, the weight and excessive power levels and perfect motor per wheel distribution should normally mean that the tyre is the limiting factor.

It should be rimac rapid, easily.