Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Fossil Fuel Free
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-28-2015, 04:57 PM   #11 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,739

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
They use a slightly different definition of "endurance" than I do... I'm thinking this will be on the frail end of the spectrum as in, a big pothole might take this out vs a more heavily built conventional car. That's not saying I don't like it.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
e*clipse (08-28-2015), Fat Charlie (08-31-2015)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-28-2015, 05:49 PM   #12 (permalink)
Permanent Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: norcal oosae
Posts: 523
Thanks: 351
Thanked 296 Times in 213 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
The XL1 sits in at 795. I'll believe it when I see it.
Frank Lee:
Quote:
They use a slightly different definition of "endurance" than I do... I'm thinking this will be on the frail end of the spectrum as in, a big pothole might take this out
Exactly the point I was attempting to make.

Even though it's a mid engine rear drive carbon-fiber car, VW has the sense not to infer that the XL1 is a sports car. However, the Immortus is being sold with the words "The advanced aerodynamics and chassis design allow to to feel and drive like a truly nimble and balanced sports car. "

However, to achieve it's "immortality" goals, they use tires even smaller than those on the XL1. (according to the Gizmag link) Tires are kind of critical if you want "nimble" performance. Also, they are building the motors into the "uprights" - struts in normal lingo - so they aren't really "wheel motors," they're just small motor/gearboxes with a poor location choice. In this case, they have all the disadvantages of wheel motors (unsprung mass) with none of the advantages (simplicity).

Not to say a light car is impossible - Lotus came awfully close to that weight with the 1st generation Elise - 725kg. Now there is a truly nimble and balanced sports car. Oh yeah, didn't someone make an electric version. . . hmmm Oh yea . . Tesla or ... The problem is, that with most current technology, that the EV battery/drivetrain weighs more than the gas drivetrain. It's getting close to even, but I think it would be unrealistic to claim a weight reduction due to the electric drive train. I guess you could lower the weight by severely underpowering it, but then you could also put a scooter motor in the Elise...
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2015, 07:19 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon, canada
Posts: 1,456

ChargE (not yet running) - '92 Mazda MX6 LX
90 day: 33.89 mpg (US)

Ford Prefect - '18 Ford F150 XLT XTR
Thanks: 740
Thanked 535 Times in 430 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by e*clipse View Post
Also, they are building the motors into the "uprights" - struts in normal lingo - so they aren't really "wheel motors," they're just small motor/gearboxes with a poor location choice. In this case, they have all the disadvantages of wheel motors (unsprung mass) with none of the advantages (simplicity).
I would agree that these motors have *most* of the disadvantages of wheel motors. A large concern with wheel motors is the pounding that they take, and the mechanical slop in the bearings. The wheel motor designs that have been discussed (I read about them but I've never seen one) have tight tolerances between stator and rotor. A bit of wear on the bearing and the rotor rubs on the stator, wiping out the magnets, or coils, or both. As it is a catastrophic failure - that is, the wheel stops turning and metal is shed - even one or two failures during the life of a large number of cars .. that cause personal injury or death .. is too much!

A longer, narrower motor with more standard dimensions and no side load coupled with a gearbox designed to take the pounding is a step in the right direction. Will it work? I'm not sure, but it has a decent chance of working .. IMHO
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thingstodo For This Useful Post:
e*clipse (08-28-2015), niky (08-28-2015)
Old 08-28-2015, 07:59 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
IamIan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RI
Posts: 667
Thanks: 367
Thanked 214 Times in 131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by e*clipse View Post
The problem is, that with most current technology, that the EV battery/drivetrain weighs more than the gas drivetrain.
I think your including vehicle components in the term 'drivetrain' that most people do not traditionally include with that term... ie (battery or gas tank)

Traditional usage neither term (drivetrain or powertrain) includes the gas tank itself part of the system .. nor the gasoline itself in the gas tank.

- - - -

That having been said .. I'll agree [Gas Tank] > [Battery] in terms of energy per weight or volume.

That 10kwh of battery is the energy equivalent of about ~1/3 of a gallon of gasoline.

- - - -

I agree with the other sentiment .. I think they are exaggerating the performance description .. and I think they will have a hard time even with 100 for $300k each.

It might be 'sporty' for a economy car .. but I don't expect true 'sportcar' performance .. not if they want to keep the other goals of weight and such.

Given there are already tons of other 'sportcars' out there .. the only real market segment open for them at all .. even if a long shot .. is getting the most performance/comfort they can from a road going 2 seat commuter solar car .. one that might collect as much as ~2MWH of solar electricity per year from it's own solar panels.
__________________
Life Long Energy Efficiency Enthusiast
2000 Honda Insight - PHEV - Solar
Electric Unicycle - Solo Wheel Glide3
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to IamIan For This Useful Post:
e*clipse (08-28-2015)
Old 08-28-2015, 09:16 PM   #15 (permalink)
toc
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 177

Sonata97 - '97 Hyundai Sonata GL
90 day: 25.96 mpg (US)

Pulsar - '03 Nissan Pulsar ST
Team Nissan
90 day: 36.09 mpg (US)

Lancer - '04 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 31.11 mpg (US)

Lancer 2.0 - '09 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 27.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
Good luck to them, they'll need it..
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2015, 09:25 PM   #16 (permalink)
Permanent Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: norcal oosae
Posts: 523
Thanks: 351
Thanked 296 Times in 213 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamIan View Post
I think your including vehicle components in the term 'drivetrain' that most people do not traditionally include with that term... ie (battery or gas tank)

Traditional usage neither term (drivetrain or powertrain) includes the gas tank itself part of the system .. nor the gasoline itself in the gas tank.
Yes; I am including those because it seems to me all components involved in an system need to be included. A gas car won't go very far w/o a gas tank and gas, just as an EV won't get very far w/o a battery.

The traditional usage was predicated on the assumption that all vehicles will use a gas tank, exhaust system, etc. I'm merely extending the concept for a fair comparison.

Saying a small battery is adequate for "infinite" travel is ok as long as you're ok w/ going 37mph - neighborhood electric vehicle speed during the peak solar hours from 11:00 > 3:00. This won't be very useful on US highways, or even many back roads. Personally I would gladly swap the solar panels for more batteries, and put more solar panels into my grid-tied home system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2015, 10:18 PM   #17 (permalink)
Hydrogen > EV
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NW Ohio, United States
Posts: 2,017

Snow White and the 6.2 Dwarfs - '11 Chevrolet Corvette LT2
Last 3: 26.46 mpg (US)

Silver Flea - '05 Honda Insight
90 day: 58.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 981
Thanked 383 Times in 279 Posts
Well, traditionally we don't calculate the weight of fuel to get a "dry" weight- I'm sure you all know that, but I think that concept muddies the water a little. And it is interesting how much ISN'T needed if there is no fuel being burnt.
__________________





Best Tanks:
Mustang - 54.83 mpg (US) at the Green Grand Prix
Insight - 82.91966 mpg (US) over 818.5 miles.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2015, 01:30 PM   #18 (permalink)
EcoModding Jack
 
nimblemotors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 335
Thanks: 12
Thanked 58 Times in 40 Posts
So can I put a little solar panel on the Indy One, and then call it a 'Solar Powered Car'?
What freekin bull****, these people should be run out of town, or just pull the plug on their computer and the car will disappear.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to nimblemotors For This Useful Post:
Fat Charlie (08-31-2015)
Old 08-29-2015, 03:22 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 17,504
Thanks: 4,722
Thanked 5,834 Times in 4,654 Posts
Quote:
You can charge its battery off the mains if you have to, but if conditions are sunny, the inbuilt solar panels alone will let you drive at more than 60 km/h (37 mph) for an unlimited distance.
With a generous 8 hours of sunlight and an un-refracting atmosphere, you might get 8x37 (296) miles. And while they may meet their goals for nimbleness and pot-hole eating, I'll bet it would have a loud rumbling sound in the interior the whole way.

No wind whistling, though, so they've got that going for them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2015, 07:50 PM   #20 (permalink)
toc
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 177

Sonata97 - '97 Hyundai Sonata GL
90 day: 25.96 mpg (US)

Pulsar - '03 Nissan Pulsar ST
Team Nissan
90 day: 36.09 mpg (US)

Lancer - '04 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 31.11 mpg (US)

Lancer 2.0 - '09 Mitsubishi Lancer
90 day: 27.1 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 16 Times in 13 Posts
Yeh, I caught their use of unlimited - it's a bit misleading in that respect.

The website shows they are still looking for investors though, so the finances have to be there to get it off the ground, once the first one comes and the quirks are sorted (yep, pot holes), the next should be the one they get right.

The thought does occur - why try and rival the Holden / Chev. Volt?
They might find a quicker start buying those and reducing weight - a customs shop as it were.

The good news is they are based out of Melbourne here in Australia.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
bev, solar

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com