Why are electric cars so ugly?
Discussion
harmeetjohal said:
Was just talking to the wife, was saying an small electric car would be a great shout for us but she asked why do they all look like disable vehicles?
She makes a good point why are they always so ugly, even the BMW i3 looks like a toaster...
it baffles me why manufacturers feel the need to make their electric cars look like something noddy would drive, and then wonder why they dont sellShe makes a good point why are they always so ugly, even the BMW i3 looks like a toaster...
but then Musk made the tesla 3 look decent and was rewarded with 400k pre-sales in a few weeks
BuzzBravado said:
Aerodynamics are crucial in electric cars, and rarely do true aerodynamics go with visually appealing lines.
Is the i3 aerodynamically optimal though?(Both articles below look to quote the same sort of info, so one may borrow from the other or maybe both used the same source.)
From http://www.mybmwi3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&am...
forum poster said:
First off, I like the i3. As a city car (say London within the M25) it makes a lot of sense. However, having driven both REx and BEV models both on 24h test drives using same commute I have come to the conclusion that it is not quite as efficient as it might be.
Around town, at or below 40 mph, aerodynamics have little impact on a vehicle's range.
This post is about basic aerodynamic drag so I'm not including the complexities of interference drag (e.g: between mirrors and bodywork or turbulence created by wheels) nor surface friction concerns or Lift induced vortices.
We'll stick to good old Bernoulli's principles and Frontal Area.
BMW claim the i3 BEV has a Cd (non dimensional drag coefficient - basically describes how the car's shape affects drag) of 0.29 and Rex has 0.3Cd - doesn't sound too bad until you multiply that by the frontal area: CdA
This makes a lot of sense as now you can compare a huge variety of cars side by side.
OK so that makes the CdAs for the i3:
BEV: 0.690 m2
REX: 0.710 m2
Now compare this with other cars like:
1990s Honda Insight (2 seater hybrid): Cd = 0.25 but CdA = 0.474
1999 - 2005 Audi A2 1.2 TDI: Cd = 0.25, CdA = 0.544
1980s Toyota MR2 (2 seater) : CdA = 0.539
So the i3 is about as aerodynamic as a 1990s Toyota Camry or Subaru Impreza!
Even the 1995 BMW M3 is better: CdA = 0.629 m2 and possibly my least favorite car (the 2004 Prius) is 0.580 m2
And from http://bmwi3.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/an-aerospace-e...Around town, at or below 40 mph, aerodynamics have little impact on a vehicle's range.
This post is about basic aerodynamic drag so I'm not including the complexities of interference drag (e.g: between mirrors and bodywork or turbulence created by wheels) nor surface friction concerns or Lift induced vortices.
We'll stick to good old Bernoulli's principles and Frontal Area.
BMW claim the i3 BEV has a Cd (non dimensional drag coefficient - basically describes how the car's shape affects drag) of 0.29 and Rex has 0.3Cd - doesn't sound too bad until you multiply that by the frontal area: CdA
This makes a lot of sense as now you can compare a huge variety of cars side by side.
OK so that makes the CdAs for the i3:
BEV: 0.690 m2
REX: 0.710 m2
Now compare this with other cars like:
1990s Honda Insight (2 seater hybrid): Cd = 0.25 but CdA = 0.474
1999 - 2005 Audi A2 1.2 TDI: Cd = 0.25, CdA = 0.544
1980s Toyota MR2 (2 seater) : CdA = 0.539
So the i3 is about as aerodynamic as a 1990s Toyota Camry or Subaru Impreza!
Even the 1995 BMW M3 is better: CdA = 0.629 m2 and possibly my least favorite car (the 2004 Prius) is 0.580 m2
article said:
The i3 has a closed front grill / kidney emblem and commendably flat under tray free of the usual incursions. But for an ECO minded car it is somewhat surprising that BMW did not strive to improve the Drag Coefficient or reduce the frontal area of the i3.
If you never go over 40 mph (London UK inside the M25) this isn't going to affect you. But most London workers live outside due to ever spiralling house prices and will likely need to use the Motorway (Freeway) network. Greater aerodynamic efficiency (and hence lower battery consumption) could have been achieved by replacing the BMW X5 like wing mirrors with VW XL1 rear view cameras or at least more compact examples. The Cd is 0.3 (about as bad as a 1992 Toyota Camry or 1993 Subaru Impreza). The i3 is much wider than most pure 4 seaters and the MPV styling and battery floor makes it quite tall. Frontal Area of 2.38 m2 x 0.3 results in a CdA of 0.714.
Compare this to a 2001 Audi A2 1.2 TDI : CdA 0.544 or 2013 VW XL1: CdA 0.279.
At 100km/h (62mph) the i3 BEV creates 326 Newtons of drag. The REX model a little more at 336 Newtons. The A2 a mere 257 Newtons.
More meaningful to the average punter is BHP absorbed by drag. Here we are not considering the drag from the drive-train / single gear or tyre friction and this is for a flat road with nil wind.
At 40 mph the i3 consumes a minimum of 3.33 BHP (2.5kW) in drag alone. Not a lot! But accelerate to 60 mph and it goes up a factor of 4 to 12.5BHP (9.317kW). Get on the freeway in Montana or de-restricted Autobahn and at 93 mph the i3 requires 42.14 BHP (31.44 kW)!
It is no wonder that i3 test drivers have noticed a massive reduction in range when driving on faster roads. If you add in tyre resistance, wheel well turbulence, and a less than optimal gear ratio (optimised for acceleration rather than cruising then expect about 60 mile range from a BEV and a bit less all electric from the REX).
If you never go over 40 mph (London UK inside the M25) this isn't going to affect you. But most London workers live outside due to ever spiralling house prices and will likely need to use the Motorway (Freeway) network. Greater aerodynamic efficiency (and hence lower battery consumption) could have been achieved by replacing the BMW X5 like wing mirrors with VW XL1 rear view cameras or at least more compact examples. The Cd is 0.3 (about as bad as a 1992 Toyota Camry or 1993 Subaru Impreza). The i3 is much wider than most pure 4 seaters and the MPV styling and battery floor makes it quite tall. Frontal Area of 2.38 m2 x 0.3 results in a CdA of 0.714.
Compare this to a 2001 Audi A2 1.2 TDI : CdA 0.544 or 2013 VW XL1: CdA 0.279.
At 100km/h (62mph) the i3 BEV creates 326 Newtons of drag. The REX model a little more at 336 Newtons. The A2 a mere 257 Newtons.
More meaningful to the average punter is BHP absorbed by drag. Here we are not considering the drag from the drive-train / single gear or tyre friction and this is for a flat road with nil wind.
At 40 mph the i3 consumes a minimum of 3.33 BHP (2.5kW) in drag alone. Not a lot! But accelerate to 60 mph and it goes up a factor of 4 to 12.5BHP (9.317kW). Get on the freeway in Montana or de-restricted Autobahn and at 93 mph the i3 requires 42.14 BHP (31.44 kW)!
It is no wonder that i3 test drivers have noticed a massive reduction in range when driving on faster roads. If you add in tyre resistance, wheel well turbulence, and a less than optimal gear ratio (optimised for acceleration rather than cruising then expect about 60 mile range from a BEV and a bit less all electric from the REX).
Edited by xRIEx on Wednesday 1st June 15:42
Edited by xRIEx on Wednesday 1st June 15:42
This also baffles me. It's almost like they think EV owners want to look like tree-huggers with their spatted wheel arches and flush-fitting hub-caps.
EV cars should be covered with solar panels and wind turbines to make the most of the energy available to them. Maybe have cycle pedals too, so that the driver can keep fit and help recharge the batteries at the same time. What are these graduate design engineers doing with themselves all day?
EV cars should be covered with solar panels and wind turbines to make the most of the energy available to them. Maybe have cycle pedals too, so that the driver can keep fit and help recharge the batteries at the same time. What are these graduate design engineers doing with themselves all day?
SPD14 said:
I've currently got a LEAF on a four day test drive. Wouldn't say it's particularly ugly, maybe just a bit 'different' 
Had a sit in an i3 at the weekend and really didn't like it... the i8 on the other hand was lovely
You must be crazy, I sat in a both and the Leaf just felt and looked cheap and plasticky. The i3 was great I loved the interior! it looks good from the outside too unlike the leaf which makes me want to be sick. The i8 is lovely yes, until you try and get in or out of it.Had a sit in an i3 at the weekend and really didn't like it... the i8 on the other hand was lovely
Dave Hedgehog said:
harmeetjohal said:
Was just talking to the wife, was saying an small electric car would be a great shout for us but she asked why do they all look like disable vehicles?
She makes a good point why are they always so ugly, even the BMW i3 looks like a toaster...
it baffles me why manufacturers feel the need to make their electric cars look like something noddy would drive, and then wonder why they dont sellShe makes a good point why are they always so ugly, even the BMW i3 looks like a toaster...
but then Musk made the tesla 3 look decent and was rewarded with 400k pre-sales in a few weeks
Denaris said:
You must be crazy, I sat in a both and the Leaf just felt and looked cheap and plasticky. The i3 was great I loved the interior! it looks good from the outside too unlike the leaf which makes me want to be sick. The i8 is lovely yes, until you try and get in or out of it.
I preferred the leaf over the i3 as did the wife and kids.Yes it's a BMW and fast but the ride was harsh and the interior is marmite.
Downward said:
Denaris said:
You must be crazy, I sat in a both and the Leaf just felt and looked cheap and plasticky. The i3 was great I loved the interior! it looks good from the outside too unlike the leaf which makes me want to be sick. The i8 is lovely yes, until you try and get in or out of it.
I preferred the leaf over the i3 as did the wife and kids.Yes it's a BMW and fast but the ride was harsh and the interior is marmite.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff