As an experiment, I let vBulletin handle the enumeration:
Quote:
- The aerodynamics hasn't changed.
- Between all three driving cycles, aerodynamics plays a subservient role.
- Overall efficiency is weighted towards urban driving. It's biased.
- The BSFC-e of the BEV is 311% more efficient than the ICE stablemate. The inertia loss associated with accelerating the increased mass is meaningless with this 311% advantage compared to the ICE variant. The electric motor just laughs at it.
- 81.1% of braking energy is recovered by regeneration. There is no energy lost to braking. Mass is your friend.
- A 10% increase in mass costs only a 1-2 % penalty in rolling resistance.
- Even with a 20% mass increase, the energy gain from regen is 14.6% net overall, after allowing for the increase in inertia and R-R losses.
- Again, aerodynamics remains the same.
- It's a net OVERALL efficiency gain for the small Volvo.
- Your zero-mass analogy is not germane to the Thesis.
- I agree
completely with your premise about reduced drag and R-R, however they're not germane to the Thesis.
- Electric motors with powertrain are typically rated at 95% efficiency, with no stipulation as to 'curves.'
- 'Power' to weight is not germane with BEVs, as 100% torque is always available from zero-to- full rpm.
|
That said it looks like you're going for an evidentiary chain, but premises and rebuttal have equal weight.
That makes it harder to follow.