EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

1 | ... | 462 | 463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | ... | 728

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904642 21-Apr-2022 08:24

Dingbatt:

So with the run the EQXX did, it started at Sindelfingen, Germany which has an elevation of 429m, and finished at Cassis, France on the Mediterranean coast, with an elevation of 40m (being generous). So maybe they needed to unseal the charge port, top the battery up and do the run back up to Sindelfingen? Then average out the scores.

Otherwise you could do 2 hours at the autobahn speed of 140 going slightly downhill and then 10 hours at 70ish (at lower drag) to complete the journey. Isn’t this why speed records require a reciprocal run?

Fair point.

The reciprocal run bit that is, not the 2 hrs @ 140 kph ... !😀

To put a few numbers on it though:

Net descent = 425 m
Car weight 1755kg + a couple of drivers & equipment = say 2000 kgf * 9.81 = ~20,000 Nm
Giving total PE = 425 * 20,000 = 8.5e6 Nm
Which equates to 8.5e6/3.6e6 = 2.36 kWh (assuming my math is still up to scratch)

ie. less than 3% of the battery capacity vs 15% charge still in the tank at the end.

But yes, doing the run both ways (a day or two apart) would have made more sense.

SaltyNZ

8234 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2904649 21-Apr-2022 08:37

DS248:

I think we can safely assume the battery will be a relatively minor contributor to the cost difference between your M3 and any EQXX production variant (perhaps initial development costs aside).

If it's the car I'm thinking of - I saw a video about it a couple of months ago - the battery is the least unlikely part of it to end up in a production car. All the parts are designed for the minimum weight - and I don't mean that in the conventional sense, I mean the guy on the video held up a chunk of metal that looks like something spilled on the floor and said it was the windscreen wiper bracket. They've saved absolute maximum space & weight by using gamers to solve the problem of making parts that fit into the smallest gaps, but the result is that if you wanted to replace your windscreen wipers you'd have a about a ten hour job dismantling half the car to get to it. Other important parts in the drive train and suspension are not quite as mad but also are obviously constructed with minimum weight & space in mind rather than long term practicality.

In other words, it's a really interesting concept (and hey, it's a concept car) but not a machine that someone who doesn't have a butler to drive the car to the mechanic - let alone ask how much the job cost - could drive and maintain.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dingbatt

6757 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904669 21-Apr-2022 09:14

DS248:
Fair point.

The reciprocal run bit that is, not the 2 hrs @ 140 kph ... !😀

--

My point about the 140km/h part of the run is that it woud need to be on the same stretch of road as the southbound journey. Because the drag from going twice as fast is four times as much, it matters how long the vehicle spent at "Autobahn Speeds" vs urban speeds. 12 hours @ 90km/h is not the same as the scenario I described in terms of drag energy.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904718 21-Apr-2022 09:25

Dingbatt:

So with the run the EQXX did, it started at Sindelfingen, Germany which has an elevation of 429m, and finished at Cassis, France on the Mediterranean coast, with an elevation of 40m (being generous).

wow if that's true then i don't know why they even bothered. a tank would have done just as well.

Dingbatt

6757 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904722 21-Apr-2022 09:38

Batman:

Dingbatt:

So with the run the EQXX did, it started at Sindelfingen, Germany which has an elevation of 429m, and finished at Cassis, France on the Mediterranean coast, with an elevation of 40m (being generous).

wow if that's true then i don't know why they even bothered. a tank would have done just as well.

Or to take your sarcasm and turn it on its head. If you hang glide from the top of a hill with a battery in your pocket, is that the most efficient electric aircraft ever?

So the “tank” would need to do the reciprocal journey to validate the results as well.

I’m not saying 1000km isn’t impressive, just that mindless, unscientific parroting of the PR, is.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904725 21-Apr-2022 09:45

Dingbatt:

...

I’m not saying 1000km isn’t impressive, just that mindless, unscientific parroting of the PR, is.

The point about it being a concept car is valid but the ~425m elevation difference equates to only 2.4 kWh. They should have been about to make the return trip with ~10% charge still in reserve.

HarmLessSolutions

975 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2904732 21-Apr-2022 09:58

Considering that the elevation difference of 389m / 1008km = an effective overall gradient of about 1 in 2,600 the 'downhill' advantage would be miniscule.

https://www.harmlesssolutions.co.nz/

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904784 21-Apr-2022 11:22

SaltyNZ:

DS248:

I think we can safely assume the battery will be a relatively minor contributor to the cost difference between your M3 and any EQXX production variant (perhaps initial development costs aside).

...

In other words, it's a really interesting concept (and hey, it's a concept car) but not a machine that someone who doesn't have a butler to drive the car to the mechanic - let alone ask how much the job cost - could drive and maintain.

Yes, as I noted in my initial post

"Just one problem ... $$$$$$$$$ 😒. And of course, still only a concept car."

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904823 21-Apr-2022 12:33

In the (almost) here and now, and slightly more 'affordable' world, the new EQE 350+ is 'coming soon' in NZ

https://www.mercedes-benz.co.nz/passengercars/mercedes-benz-cars/models/eqe/saloon-v295/pad.html

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-2023-Mercedes-Benz-EQE-is-now-available-to-buy-in-Europe.608828.0.html

90.6 kWh battery (usable)
660 km range WLTP (500 - 550 real world?). So only about half the efficiency of the EQXX!
And max of only 170 kW fast charging
2023 model on sale now in Europe (in dealers from end of April)
€70,626 for the base 350+ model (= NZ ~$113,000)

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904856 21-Apr-2022 14:12

interesting EPA : 'Real World' Range comparisons (though now 2 years old). https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-range-tested/

Odd that all four Teslas tested standout as the only cars with large margins between the EPA and 'Real World' ranges?

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904865 21-Apr-2022 14:51

OK, updated data. Tesla still in the upper half, but not alone.

Tycan stands out with RWR well above EPA ...?

SaltyNZ

8234 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2904874 21-Apr-2022 15:12

I think that says as much about the EPA test not being very realistic as anything else, which may be why everyone - including the US - is switching to WLTP. That said, the nominal WLTP range of the 2022 M3 RWD is 491km. I've gotten 375km out of it 100%-5%, and the Norwegian guy (Bjorn??) got 400km from it 100-1%. The car itself, after several cycles of letting it sleep at various percentages, now tells me full charge range is 434km (up from 431km on day 1) so even the car knows the standard test range is BS.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dingbatt

6757 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904886 21-Apr-2022 15:45

SaltyNZ:

I think that says as much about the EPA test not being very realistic as anything else, which may be why everyone - including the US - is switching to WLTP. That said, the nominal WLTP range of the 2022 M3 RWD is 491km. I've gotten 375km out of it 100%-5%, and the Norwegian guy (Bjorn??) got 400km from it 100-1%. The car itself, after several cycles of letting it sleep at various percentages, now tells me full charge range is 434km (up from 431km on day 1) so even the car knows the standard test range is BS.

You must be good! (To make it go up)

Mine has gone from 444 on the first day to 439 and settled down at that.

And in reality, the difference between tested and real world is no different for ICEs.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

DS248

1697 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2904900 21-Apr-2022 16:24

SaltyNZ:

DS248:

I think we can safely assume the battery will be a relatively minor contributor to the cost difference between your M3 and any EQXX production variant (perhaps initial development costs aside).

If it's the car I'm thinking of - I saw a video about it a couple of months ago - the battery is the least unlikely part of it to end up in a production car. ...

"... least unlikely ..."! Agreed (after deciphering the double negative).

Indeed they have already indicated that "its passively air-cooled battery and unique battery chemistry" will appear in production cars "as early as 2024 when the next-generation A- and B-Class arrive" (so is that Apr 2023 for the 2024 models?)

The ultra lightweight construction details ... yes, much less likely any time soon.

RunningMan

8961 posts

Uber Geek

#2904958 21-Apr-2022 16:48

SaltyNZ:

[snip]That said, the nominal WLTP range of the 2022 M3 RWD is 491km. I've gotten 375km out of it 100%-5%, and the Norwegian guy (Bjorn??) got 400km from it 100-1%.

Bjørn Nyland

404km at 90 km/h in -3 degrees temp.

1 | ... | 462 | 463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | ... | 728