MB EQXX Cd=0,1716 1000km in one charge

[aerohead]

Yes! It's the 'elongation' Wolf H. Hucho spoke of in 1987. ' when vehicles developed for the lowest drag coefficient are evaluated for Cd vs length, the correlation is discerned and expected trend is in fact confirmed.' 2nd-Ed page-202.
' the drag reduction from an elongated tail varies almost linearly with the reduction in cross section area.
'PhD Jeff Howell et al, SAE Paper 2020-01-0673.

[aerohead]

Pages 70,71, August 2022, MOTOR TREND, 'MERCEDES' MEGAMETEREV', by Frank Marcus provides some specifics for the M-B Vision EQXX.
100 kWh, ( 2.9669-gallons-e )
713-miles range at average 56-mph ( Tesla's 'sweet-spot' ) 140.2 Wh/mi.
240.3 mpg-e
Cd 'sub- 0.17 '
Frontal projected area, 2.10-meters-squared ( 22. 6042-sq-ft )
Curb weight- 3870- pounds ( approx. 4160-lb test weight ).
Aerodynamic forces = 62% of Road Load.
Mass and rolling resistance = 20% of Road Load.
Drivetrain losses = 18% of Road Load.
10.528-bhp-e.
10.002-hp Road Load.
5.57-hp aero.
2.00-hp RR.
Coefficient of Rolling Force= Cfrr- 0.00312355.
The nearly 8- inch ( 203.2mm ) diffuser extension = delta- Cd 0.010 ( ten counts )
Upon extension, the diffuser extension drops down 3-degrees.
In plan-view, the greenhouse is boat-tailed.
Propulsion efficiency = 95%.
Solar PV array provides up to 16-miles range/ day.( my daily commute is presently 14-miles/day )
The ECU interrogates sun angle, wind direction, aerodynamic load, road grade, and traffic to calculate instantaneous range.
Smooth wheel covers are unvented.
Rear tires are inset by 2-inches ( 50.8mm ).
Overall, the EQXX has 29% lower aerodynamic drag than the M-B EQ EQS sedan.
The EQXX side mirrors do not comply with existing 'size' and 'rain-shedding' requirements.
Marcus comments that the rear seating is unreasonable as well as ingress/egress.
The A-pillars would need rain gutters.
Roof would require raising.
Rear track would need widening.
Eroding some of the aerodynamic efficiency.

[Phase]

Lol too bad shrek was made by dream works

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

Considering this thing weighs about 4,000 lbs, the efficiency it gets is damn impressive. If it had half the mass and cut drag another 20%, 100 Wh/mile would be possible. Then they'd be able to strip all the luxury electronics crap and make an affordable sub $25,000 200+ mile range EV sedan that the lower middle class could comfortably afford.

Mercedes could have done something like this during the 1970s fuel crisis and used a 5-cylinder 3L turbodiesel to get 70+ mpg highway, but they kept this knowledge shelved and away from production cars all these decades. The C111-III proves it.

I see where you are coming from, I'm not sure who takes responsibility for the way things are, western culture?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26278324

https://group-media.mercedes-benz.co...ml?oid=9913283


Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/n...al-626-mile-ev

[The Toecutter]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I see where you are coming from, I'm not sure who takes responsibility for the way things are, western culture?

More like those at the top of the socio-economic hierarchy directing and manipulating Western culture to their own profitable ends. The unholy alliance between the mainstream automobile manufactures, the oil industry, and government and the people at the top of those institutions for the past century would be a good place to start. They've forced a paradigm of planned obsolescence with the purpose of deliberately wasting resources in order to keep people spending more money than necessary for a given level of living standard.

If consumers had the option of a minimal or no-sacrifices 70+ mpg diesel sports car or 4/5-cylinder economy car or even a 35+ mpg V8 gasoline land-yacht of a musclecar during the 70s fuel crisis, with minimal or no cost penalty, they'd have been on it like flies on crap. When the cost is split over tens of thousands of units, aerodynamics is cheap. The performance benefits from a focused emphasis on streamlining would have been so obvious that the vehicles afterwards of the 80s and 90s and later would thus no longer have been in a position to ignore streamlining and would have had to retain it and improve upon it to remain competitive, even if the vehicles got larger. Many billions of barrels of oil and many gigatonnes of CO2 would never have been released as a result. The 1st world consumer class would have given up NOTHING, and in fact benefitted greatly by having more disposable income from not spending it on fuel. And those who can't afford to buy new cars would have benefitted the most, as these depreciated vehicles would have trickled into the 2nd hand market, which would have made any fuel crisis not nearly so devastating to their pocketbook. It would also make EV conversions a lot less expensive and more viable a proposition(less battery per mile of range needed).

Instead, we have people sacrificing their grocery money at the gas pump so they can make the commute to work in the crappy 15 year old 25-30 mpg 4-cylinder sedans they could afford to buy used, as they live paycheck to paycheck, and can't even dream of affording a Tesla.

Speaking of Tesla, without them, we probably wouldn't have EVs available at all. They rode on the coattails of technology that was developed in the 1990s and was "good enough" then, except the mainstream automakers dragged their feet and didn't want people to have access to it. The mainstream automakers claimed people didn't want EVs, which was false. Tesla came onto the market and production has constantly lagged behind demand, and now all the other automakers are trying to catch up lest they lose their marketshare. The mainstream automakers could have been doing in the 1990s something akin to what Tesla started doing in the 2010s.

This current situation is not accidental. It's the result of deliberate policy decisions engineered to keep people spending as much money as possible. Those who caused this are not the ones suffering the consequences of it, but have benefitted immensely.

[sheepdog 44]

Review and solid real world efficiency figures. I will say This car is super impressive. Compared to the Lightyear Zero it's so much better, better looking, and would justify a ridiculous price compared to the Zero. It blows it out of the water. For all they did on the Lightyear, i'm dissapointed it's numbers aren't nearly as good.

The Aptera still trumps both of them in every aspect except being a 4 seater. The Eqxx also verifies that passive bellypan cooling like the Aptera will have is functional on such an efficient car.

Second video is the Lightyear Zero review by the same game 24 hours earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS1SBhBjAHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM6BHvgvrVc

[The Toecutter]

It would be trivial for a large car company to make a body of the level of efficiency found in the EQXX, and build a cheap < $25k 4-cylinder car that gets 80+ mpg highway and seats 5. Or as an alternative, a 200+ mile range EV in the same price point, with the added benefit of supercar performance being possible at that price point. Mass production does wonderful things for per-unit costs.

Once Tesla gets their production capacity high enough, they ARE going to make a sub-$25k long-range EV. It's only a matter of time. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and their ilk, could have had such a thing on the market 25 years ago, but there was no will for it among those running these companies and they were hostile to the very idea of it because of what it represented.

The Lightyear Zero is a very interesting car. It's almost a production version of the Stella concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3FPK0KNZuc

Solar panels are getting more efficient and cheaper. I've since re-evaluated my position that the best usage case for them is to be on a garage charging a home battery bank to plug into. With today's tech, a sufficiently-aerodynamic and light car could travel the vast majority of its miles on solar power alone, and if one lives in the right area and never drives long distances away from home, solar power could account for 100% of their energy consumption.

I plan to use solar for my electric velomobile when I get the next body on it. I want as many usable power sources as possible, given that the intent is to build an off-grid vehicle that would be usable if civilization collapsed. Solar, grid electricity, generator electricity, pedaling and pedaling up hills just to go back down them recapturing energy via regen are all possibilities to keep it fueled and moving, and could run the vehicle either by themselves or in any combination thereof. If there were gasoline, ethanol, or diesel fuel cells on the market to generate electricity, and the size/price/mass was right I'd certainty have a system of a few hundred watts as well just so I could run a liquid fuel if needed, but I'm unaware of such systems being available. A 2 lb fuel cell stack that could recharge my battery from a liquid fuel would be awesome, and I'd get > 2000 mpg in that usage case. That sort of versatility would result in a vehicle that could be fueled regardless of how scarce or inaccessible energy ever became. I even sized the wheels so that I can use 20" tires stripped from a child's BMX bike in a pinch, even though my design calls for using 16x2.25" Mitas MC2 low rolling resistance motorcycle tires, as those 20" bicycle tires are the most common tire of any sort around. That sort of versatility is key to what I want in a vehicle: as much self-sufficiency as possible.

[freebeard]

I've since re-evaluated my position that the best usage case for them is to be on a garage charging a home battery bank to plug into.

The approach I like is to cover the whole hose with solar cells, and then put wheels under it.



electrek.co: Electric car with extension and expandable solar offers a glimpse of future RV life/

The velomobile is a different use case. I am content to wait on Arcimoto's development process for the Mean Lean Machine. They have more resources than I. I stood next to prototype #4 yesterday.

[sheepdog 44]

I don't think Tesla will ever build a Hyper efficient Halo car. And that's probably what's needed for a cheap long range EV. I think they're too narrow mindedly focused on Batteries. It's a good business model, but it's gonna take a long while to get there that way when it can be done now with Aero.

[freebeard]

Tesla will become a robot company that does cars and batteries.