Toyota to make some EV's. Why are they so ass-ugly?

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

...and as I continually complain, our current design fad is to emphasize the thing that represents inefficiency, the grill. We're so enamored with them that nearly every car has a portion of fake grill to make it look bigger.

I feel like taking my fake grill out right now (2013 Toyota Avalon) and making a fiberglass non-grill. Then take and redo the rear into a station-wagon/coupe/boat-tail. 4 wheel skirts and I'm good to go.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Once electric drive trains are 95% efficient, then what? Is that going to be the end of efficiency gains? Is 300KW charging the future, just because we won't ever be able to make cars more efficient because we will never break out of the utilitarian vehicle fad?

Once everyone is driving 95% efficient EVs getting more than 100 MPGe does it really matter? For reference that is 4 x better than the new car average in 2019.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Once everyone is driving 95% efficient EVs getting more than 100 MPGe does it really matter? For reference that is 4 x better than the new car average in 2019.

In some utopian future it might not. But right now it does if governments and car manufacturers really want to push EV sales like they say they do. Because:

1. The electric grid isn't ready for the entire world population to jump into EV's, especially with EV's that use more electricity per mile to move around the same people and their stuff. Any reduction in electricity used to move each person will allow more people to be moved by EV's before building out the electric grid. It also means less electric grid will need to be built out in the long run if people and manufacturers would commit to more efficient body designs.
2. EV's would be cheaper to buy and operate. For one, they could be made with smaller batteries and still go just as far as they do now. And two, you'd need to buy less electricity to drive them. And then we wouldn't need faster and faster DC quick charging stations, since smaller batteries can suffice with less powerful, and less expensive, charging stations and EVSE's overall. More people would be able to get by with just an ordanary 120V outlet.
3. More EV's could be made more quickly since there'd be less of a chance of a battery shortage with smaller batteries being used.
4. More efficient vehicle designs would also makes long distance EV travel, as in commercial transportation, more viable sooner.

Or we could just keep sitting around getting excited every time another gas powered CUV owner breaks the 30mpg barrier.

[redpoint5]

Tangentially, if EVs could be recharged more rapidly, it would reduce the requirement for very long range. If I could only go 200 miles, but could replenish 200 miles of range in 10 minutes from widely available chargers, maybe there would be little reason to have a bigger battery.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Tangentially, if EVs could be recharged more rapidly, it would reduce the requirement for very long range. If I could only go 200 miles, but could replenish 200 miles of range in 10 minutes from widely available chargers, maybe there would be little reason to have a bigger battery.

That's why ultra efficient EV's make sense for the masses.

Big batteries are expensive. But ultra fast DC charging stations are also expensive. One way or another those costs will be passed down to the consumers. Three only way to bring the costs of both down immediately is to increase efficiency.

Let's say you made an EV that can go twice as far per kWh than your average EV. The same battery used in you average EV will now take you twice as far. And every charging station that's already out there will now be able to charge your car "twice as fast."

[Piotrsko]

The difficulty as I see it is increasing the efficiency of the vehicle to get that 200 miles from a small battery. In the case of the Ranger, it means I have to halve the weight and quarter the drag and move somewhere there are no 6% grades to climb.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

That's why ultra efficient EV's make sense for the masses.

Big batteries are expensive. But ultra fast DC charging stations are also expensive. One way or another those costs will be passed down to the consumers. Three only way to bring the costs of both down immediately is to increase efficiency.

Let's say you made an EV that can go twice as far per kWh than your average EV. The same battery used in you average EV will now take you twice as far. And every charging station that's already out there will now be able to charge your car "twice as fast."

Big batteries are getting cheaper and cheaper but they aren't really needed. The push for EVs with giant batteries and super long ranges is a marketing and physiological problem not really a technical problem. Automakers made EVs for use cases were they make a lot of sense - urban commuting - and nobody bought them. People aren't happy with a car that can make 95% of their trips they want 100% with zero compromise. So automakers have focused on adding range.

People also want to buy crossovers so automakers are making their new EVs crossovers. It doesn't matter how great you make your super efficient EV if it isn't in a body style that people want to buy.

Doubling EV efficiency based on vehicle shape is a pipe dream while staying with shapes that are useful as a vehicle. Look at Hyundia. They have the Ioniq and Kona. The Ioniq is rated at 25 kWh / 100 miles while Kona is 28 kWh / 100 miles. Going from a popular crossover shape to an unpopular aero hatchback shape saves 11%. (Not even that because the Kona has a heavier and larger battery to increase range) Saving 11% of the Kona's 64 kWh battery would save a buyer about $700. Is that enough for them to chose sedan instead of a crossover?

The key to making EVs viable for long distance travel is access to DC fast charging. We have to built out the network. Level 2 charging isn't viable for long distance travel even with 200 mile EVs. The Ioniq has 170 miles of range and takes 36 hours to charge on 110V, 6 hours on 220V, and 1 hour on 440V. Nobody is going to buy an Ioniq over a Kona because they can charge 11% faster or 11% farther on the rare times they do a road trip and need to fast charge.


I don't know if we should celebrate when someone buys a 30 mpg crossover but we certainly should when they buy a 120 mpge electric crossover.

[Isaac Zachary]

What's the most efficient vehicle design that's still "practical"? I know a lot of people think short range EV's aren't practical even if they live in urban environments that fulfill 95% of their distance needs. The same goes for a design like an Aptera. Even if it meets 95% of your hauling capacity needs, it isn't enough.

For reference, the Kona EV has a Cd of 0.29 the Ioniq has a Cd of 0.25, the Aptera has a Cd of 0.13 and the most aerodynamic vehicles ever built have a Cd of around .045.

But in the end, the whole build out of DC quick charging stations and new EV's only being available to the upper few percent of the population who prefer big and boxy, not to mention lack of home charging capability for the masses, all means that the EV revolution is still a long way away.

And personally, I'm not hyped about my next vehicle 10 or 15 years or so from now being a used crossover EV that by then I still probably won't have a place to charge it at our apartment faster than some 25 or 30 miles per night off of 120V.

[JSH]

What is the most efficient vehicle design that is still practical? For most people that is a car that seats at least 4 with some room for luggage. The smaller it gets the boxier it needs to be.

2 seat commuter cars have never been anything but a small minority of sales. Even in Europe were fuel is very expensive relative to the USA people are still buying practical cars not one or two seater commuter pods like the Aptera.

Last month you could buy a new Chevy Bolt for $23,000 before any local tax incentives. That is a car that seats 5 and goes 259 miles on a charge. The price was very similar in March and Chevy sold 3249 Bolts. That is not a car reserved only for the upper 5% and yet it doesn't sell.

Toyota sold 40K RAV4s in March.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

What is the most efficient vehicle design that is still practical? For most people that is a car that seats at least 4 with some room for luggage. The smaller it gets the boxier it needs to be.

2 seat commuter cars have never been anything but a small minority of sales. Even in Europe were fuel is very expensive relative to the USA people are still buying practical cars not one or two seater commuter pods like the Aptera.

Last month you could buy a new Chevy Bolt for $23,000 before any local tax incentives. That is a car that seats 5 and goes 259 miles on a charge. The price was very similar in March and Chevy sold 3249 Bolts. That is not a car reserved only for the upper 5% and yet it doesn't sell.

Toyota sold 40K RAV4s in March.

The thing about a very aerodynamic vehicle is that it doesn't have to be a small two seater. You can take the an aerodynamic shape and increase it's size to whatever the customer needs. Aerodynamics are better with smaller vehicles, but the main things are the shape and the crossectional area. This is why a station wagon with the same interior space is more aerodynamic than a CUV with a similar shape.

Of course that leads to the problem of length due to the need for a long aerodynamic tail. A four seat Aptera like vehicle would be quite long. But there's got to be a way of making the tail retract for slow driving and/or parking, I would think.