Some E xciting developments coming 18/19

The place to discuss everything else..
Post Reply
Dandock
Posts: 4096
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:29 pm

Post by Dandock »

Peteski wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:49 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm
Peteski wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:56 pm

I know Mark personally (I used to be his race engineer in F1) so I'll ask him about it. I've spoken to him before about EVs (a good few years ago) and their potential to become "game-changers". Now we are finally seeing it all unfold. I have no doubt the Mission-E will be amazing and probably blow their own Panamera into touch in terms of powertrain performance and refinement. The only question mark is the increased weight, which is the real achilles heel of performance EVs.
I would not totally agree with you:-

Lower CoG.

A more controllable position of the CoG since no heavy engine/gearbox/diff to apcater for in the design.

Less rotating masses.

Less torque steer.

Superior performance of electric motor v ICE.

More efficient internal, boot and space under the hood as no intrusive drive tunnel.

Greater design flexibility in the placement of cabin equipment.

Greater flexibility in A/C equipment placement.

Great flexibility in body design
As I said, increased total weight is the ONLY downside regarding performance and handling. Literally everything else is a positive and hence it ought to blow the Panamera away. But having studied vehicle dynamics and engineered high level racing cars for several decades you can't help but notice that mass is a fundamental parameter in any vehicle dynamics model. If you have to make the car say 2-300 kg heavier than an equivalent ICE car then that's quite a disadvantage to overcome. I think Porsche are estimating 2200 kg for the Mission-E vs around 2000 kg for the slightly larger Panamera. Porsche themselves have stated that they chose to build the Mission-E as a large touring car rather than a smaller sportscar due to the battery weight being less of a penalty in that size and class of car. The same applies to the Tesla Model S and X.
I’m presuming AWD and 4 wheel steering etc (whatever the etc might be?) are all big pluses in management of the extra mass?

Ed. If you should speak with MW please can you ask him to say ‘hi’ to Judy? :shock: (Mrs D!)
Last edited by Dandock on Sun May 20, 2018 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
VG Petrol S http://www.porsche-code.com/PHIVCQU7           And a GT3 RS... by Lego! Not crash-tested! 😀

Col Lamb
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by Col Lamb »

Peteski wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:49 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm
Peteski wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:56 pm

I know Mark personally (I used to be his race engineer in F1) so I'll ask him about it. I've spoken to him before about EVs (a good few years ago) and their potential to become "game-changers". Now we are finally seeing it all unfold. I have no doubt the Mission-E will be amazing and probably blow their own Panamera into touch in terms of powertrain performance and refinement. The only question mark is the increased weight, which is the real achilles heel of performance EVs.
I would not totally agree with you:-

Lower CoG.

A more controllable position of the CoG since no heavy engine/gearbox/diff to apcater for in the design.

Less rotating masses.

Less torque steer.

Superior performance of electric motor v ICE.

More efficient internal, boot and space under the hood as no intrusive drive tunnel.

Greater design flexibility in the placement of cabin equipment.

Greater flexibility in A/C equipment placement.

Great flexibility in body design
As I said, increased total weight is the ONLY downside regarding performance and handling. Literally everything else is a positive and hence it ought to blow the Panamera away. But having studied vehicle dynamics and engineered high level racing cars for several decades you can't help but notice that mass is a fundamental parameter in any vehicle dynamics model. If you have to make the car say 2-300 kg heavier than an equivalent ICE car then that's quite a disadvantage to overcome. I think Porsche are estimating 2200 kg for the Mission-E vs around 2000 kg for the slightly larger Panamera. Porsche themselves have stated that they chose to build the Mission-E as a large touring car rather than a smaller sportscar due to the battery weight being less of a penalty in that size and class of car. The same applies to the Tesla Model S and X.
Good grief, 2200 kg, which on reflection is not bad for a car the size of a banana republic.

Cannot help but think mass = energy, so much mass so much energy to even get it on the move, bigger motors, bigger batteries, more inefficient electric power to charge said barges.

Colin Chapman sort of had the right idea, lightweight cars. Surely today the motor industry can design safe yet lightweight vehicles.
Col
Macan Turbo
Air, 20” wheels, ACC, Pano, SurCam, 14w, LEDs, PS+, Int Light Pack, Heated seats and Steering, spare wheel, SC, Privacy glass, PDK gear, SD mirrors, Met Black, rear airbags
Dandock
Posts: 4096
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:29 pm

Post by Dandock »

Col Lamb wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 10:13 pm
Peteski wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:49 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm

I would not totally agree with you:-

Lower CoG.

A more controllable position of the CoG since no heavy engine/gearbox/diff to apcater for in the design.

Less rotating masses.

Less torque steer.

Superior performance of electric motor v ICE.

More efficient internal, boot and space under the hood as no intrusive drive tunnel.

Greater design flexibility in the placement of cabin equipment.

Greater flexibility in A/C equipment placement.

Great flexibility in body design
As I said, increased total weight is the ONLY downside regarding performance and handling. Literally everything else is a positive and hence it ought to blow the Panamera away. But having studied vehicle dynamics and engineered high level racing cars for several decades you can't help but notice that mass is a fundamental parameter in any vehicle dynamics model. If you have to make the car say 2-300 kg heavier than an equivalent ICE car then that's quite a disadvantage to overcome. I think Porsche are estimating 2200 kg for the Mission-E vs around 2000 kg for the slightly larger Panamera. Porsche themselves have stated that they chose to build the Mission-E as a large touring car rather than a smaller sportscar due to the battery weight being less of a penalty in that size and class of car. The same applies to the Tesla Model S and X.
Good grief, 2200 kg, which on reflection is not bad for a car the size of a banana republic.

Cannot help but think mass = energy, so much mass so much energy to even get it on the move, bigger motors, bigger batteries, more inefficient electric power to charge said barges.

Colin Chapman sort of had the right idea, lightweight cars. Surely today the motor industry can design safe yet lightweight vehicles.
Chassis and bodies yes, but currently not safe yet lightweight batteries.
VG Petrol S http://www.porsche-code.com/PHIVCQU7           And a GT3 RS... by Lego! Not crash-tested! 😀
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Col Lamb wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 10:13 pm
Good grief, 2200 kg, which on reflection is not bad for a car the size of a banana republic.

Cannot help but think mass = energy, so much mass so much energy to even get it on the move, bigger motors, bigger batteries, more inefficient electric power to charge said barges.

Colin Chapman sort of had the right idea, lightweight cars. Surely today the motor industry can design safe yet lightweight vehicles.
Historically ICE cars have been eating too many pies for many years, partly for good reasons e.g. crash safety, torsional rigidity, more spacious interiors etc. and partly out of consumer demand for ever more luxurious interiors with all the motorised gadgets, bells and whistles etc. Just look at the evolution of the 911 as a great example!

Now we have BEVs with their inherently heavy batteries, which has actually focused the industry on making lighter bodyshells and more efficient aerodynamics to compensate for the battery weight as best they can. But all that weight saving without compromise is very expensive and many consumers are simply not prepared to pay for it. Nor are they prepared to compromise on their interior luxury. You can literally throw hundreds of kgs of "stuff" out of your typical luxury car without affecting anything other than cabin "ambience". So obviously there are compromises to be made if we are serious about more sustainable personal transport.

It's one thing shoving big heavy battery packs into 2 tonne plus large GT cars and large SUVs with 500+ hp, but you simply can't do that in smaller cars, which is why they all currently have much smaller packs with limited range and performance. This is also why the Tesla Model 3 is a game-changer. With its extreme minimalism it weighs within 100 kg of a current 3-series BMW and has a Cd of 0.23 therefore setting a totally new benchmark. It's actually the same weight as an e-Golf with over double the battery capacity and a much lower drag coefficient.

Finally we can all kiss goodbye to oversized, heavy, draggy ultra-low profile wheels and their housings, which can typically add around 25% extra drag. At least ride and handling should improve!. All these concept EVs with massive wheels show that they've actually totally missed the point here. Or at least their marketing side has!

So there you go, that's my take on it as a professional automotive engineer!
User avatar
SAC1
Posts: 3784
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 8:24 pm
Location: near BATH

Post by SAC1 »

Capture.PNG

"The near-silent car can hit 60mph in just 5.5 seconds and boasts a specially made 220kW engine.

Royal officials specially leased the £350,000 motor from Jaguar for the day - and even kitted it out with a bespoke numberplate that spells out the date of the wedding."

At last! a great looking EV.
Steve

2020 GTS in Sapphire Blue
(sold) 2017 SD in Rhodium Silver
johnd
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Post by johnd »

So the key improvement that EVs are looking for now is an increase in specific energy (Wh/kg) and/or energy density (Wh/l). (NB Actually I don't like either of those terms and not sure they're being used accurately. I think I'd call the first energy density and the second volumetric energy density, but that's just me being picky.)

NB One other factoid I came across is: 'It was even demonstrated that a Tesla S with a 100 kWh pack could last for 669.8 miles/charge if driven continuously at 29 miles/hour.'** Not sure how true that is, especially the '.8' (though impressive if it is), but it obviously underlines that driving style might be just as important with EVs as with ICE cars.

** http://www.influitenergy.com/comparing- ... batteries/
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

johnd wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 11:48 am
NB One other factoid I came across is: 'It was even demonstrated that a Tesla S with a 100 kWh pack could last for 669.8 miles/charge if driven continuously at 29 miles/hour.'** Not sure how true that is, especially the '.8' (though impressive if it is), but it obviously underlines that driving style might be just as important with EVs as with ICE cars.
Driving style is very much a key factor in range for all cars. The NEDC range for a Tesla Model S 100D is 393 miles, but in real world driving around 300 miles is more realistic and considerably less if really pressing on or very cold weather etc. As a comparison I've seen the Mission-E quoted at 373 miles NEDC and 280 miles real world range, which seems a little optimistic from a 90 kWh pack. Drive this thing as intended and the range will drop way below that!

From my own experience of a 75 kWh Model X, for reference NEDC range is 259 miles, my own range around 150 miles winter, 200 miles summer. No compromise in driving style! On short trips with a heavy right foot I'm seeing well over 400 Wh/mile and more like 500 Wh/miles in freezing conditions. On longer trips (when range actually matters) I do see a fair reduction in average consumption, maybe as much as 50 Wh/mile less. Again without deliberately driving slower, which makes a huge difference to consumption. One thing you don't get penalised for with EVs is stop/start traffic jams, where they are very efficient compared to ICE cars. You guys crawling around the M25 and/or in town should all be in EVs, lol!
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Wing Commander wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:02 pm Hi Pete. Look for the video on YouTube. It's only a couple of minutes, and Mark seems impressed with the car overall. :)
Found the video, looks like he enjoyed it! I know it's a marketing video, but I expect it's a fairly genuine response. What's not to like about 600 hp with instant torque? Comments on the weight are interesting too. Again I expect it carries it pretty well in this size of car, but it's going to be more of a challenge in a smaller car like the Cayman or even the 911. Weight reduction is where the focus needs to be on these performance EVs and without a major breakthrough in battery tech that means expensive construction (composites etc), perhaps some compromise in "luxury" and modest battery size. Certainly all achievable though.
Dandock
Posts: 4096
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:29 pm

Post by Dandock »

SAC1 wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 11:35 am Capture.PNG

"The near-silent car can hit 60mph in just 5.5 seconds and boasts a specially made 220kW engine.

Royal officials specially leased the £350,000 motor from Jaguar for the day - and even kitted it out with a bespoke numberplate that spells out the date of the wedding."

At last! a great looking EV.
I wonder why a left-hooker?
VG Petrol S http://www.porsche-code.com/PHIVCQU7           And a GT3 RS... by Lego! Not crash-tested! 😀
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Dandock wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 1:21 pm
SAC1 wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 11:35 am Capture.PNG

"The near-silent car can hit 60mph in just 5.5 seconds and boasts a specially made 220kW engine.

Royal officials specially leased the £350,000 motor from Jaguar for the day - and even kitted it out with a bespoke numberplate that spells out the date of the wedding."

At last! a great looking EV.
I wonder why a left-hooker?
Very observant! Probably because it's a much bigger market for LHD. I'm guessing they didn't have a RHD available, lol.
Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post