Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
The amount of energy required to accelerate to a given speed is the same regardless of how quickly you get there. There's practically no difference in efficiency (especially in an EV) getting up to 60 MPH in 3s vs 10s.
There's a reason why EVs are tilted towards being quick; and that's because the only downside is a marginal increase in cost, size, and weight for a more powerful motor. It hardly affects range at all.
In fact, Tesla's first performance version of the Model S was more efficient than the slower single motor version because it utilized a highly efficient "cruise" motor, and only used the inefficient "acceleration" motor when the extra power was needed.
|
I agree it takes a specific amount of energy to accelerate a specific mass to a specific speed, but wouldn't doing it slowly be covering a greater distance using the same amount of energy? Also the longer you are at the higher speed the longer you have greater aero drag?
Lets say I have to go 3000 feet in between starts and stops and get up to 40 MPH. I could get up to 40 MPH in a couple seconds and in 100 feet, then travel 2900 feet at 40 mph, or take 5 times the distance to accelerate, 500 feet, and then go 2500 feet at 40 mph. Actually you should start coasting for that stop probably a good 500 feet before the stop but that is the same for either car. Also the lights in our town seem timed better for the slower acceleration. Going like a bat outta hell just buys you a complete stop at the next light, where the Geo metro pace lets you roll 3-4 in a row. The problem is everyone finds the acceleration of an EV fun, so they blow a bunch of energy and wear their tires out very quickly.
Low power EVs don't sell because they are still expensive. If you are spending $40,000 you want to accelerate like a $40,000 455 hp Camaro. If they were $15,000 you wouldn't care if they accelerated like a $15,000 Versa.