Criteria for your Next EV?

[HuntingPudel]

Not necessarily.
Those things can be possible as we increase efficiencies in batteries, cabling, motors, etc.
None of these things are close to the efficiency that will be possible with further innovation and development in material sciences, chemistry, etc.

Yeah, the problem is 3 miles/KWh while traveling at 75mph. That's just aero vs. power. With a car that's shaped like a needle, sure it's possible. If you want a practical SUV that has cosmetic character, it's going to be pretty hard. It's going to have to be low and long in order to pull off the aerodynamics needed for both of those to happen at once, which pretty much rules out an SUV (tall box). ?‍?

Sponsored

 

[buzznwood]

Man, physics is just the worst amirite? There will never be an advance in battery tech that would allow a car shaped like the Mach E to do 350mi at 75mph with at least 3mi/kWh and <15min recharge. Drag is such a drag, ya know? I wish I had studied physics more, or I would have realized this earlier.

In time battery energy density will improve but there is only so much you can do with the shape, the mustagification probably took a hit to the cd compared to the original design.

If you want to stick with the SUV / Crossover shape then you are going to need one with air suspension or equivalent as you need an adaptive ride height as you want it to hunker down when on the highway for improved efficiency.

The problem is the most efficient shapes are not exactly utility friendly and if you don't like wagons then you just going to have to make do with needing 100+kwh battery packs and lots of charging stops for the foreseeable future unless of course one of the endless 'next big thing in battery tech' moves beyond the lab into being something that is commercially viable.

 

[Mirak]

In time battery energy density will improve but there is only so much you can do with the shape, the mustagification probably took a hit to the cd compared to the original design.

If you want to stick with the SUV / Crossover shape then you are going to need one with air suspension or equivalent as you need an adaptive ride height as you want it to hunker down when on the highway for improved efficiency.

The problem is the most efficient shapes are not exactly utility friendly and if you don't like wagons then you just going to have to make do with needing 100+kwh battery packs and lots of charging stops for the foreseeable future unless of course one of the endless 'next big thing in battery tech' moves beyond the lab into being something that is commercially viable.

 

[ArthurDOB]

Technically yes, we're very close to reaching the 1 stop requirement. But realistically it's not there yet. If I start at 100% charge, preconditioned, and I drive with a loaded car, with climate control on, and at 75-80 on I-5 I can make it to Kettleman City with ~17% charge. If I charge up to 80% from there, then I can make it to Santa Clarita with 10% charge. But I need to make it to Pomona. (This is assuming I average at least 2.9mi/Kw.

Two things fighting against me on that trip. Pacheko Pass, speeds on I-5, and the climb through Grapevine.

Yes, that makes sense. I’m a Bay Area ex-pat and made that drive from Foster City to Glendale for years to visit my Mom. I had forgotten about those climbs. You can do something about your speed though.

 

[Mach1E]

But isn’t that the goal? Make the standards so high that you have to electrify at least a large portion of your lineup.

Not sure that was the goal in 2007.

But I also think that’s “cheating.”

We won’t have 50 mpg average vehicles in the next couple years. Or maybe ever.

Electric cars get zero miles per gallon. They shouldn’t even count in the formula.

And electric car companies shouldn’t be able to sell unused “carbon credits” either. Also cheating.

 

[DustyShades]

Not sure that was the goal in 2007.

But I also think that’s “cheating.”

We won’t have 50 mpg average vehicles in the next couple years. Or maybe ever.

Electric cars get zero miles per gallon. They shouldn’t even count in the formula.

And electric car companies shouldn’t be able to sell unused “carbon credits” either. Also cheating.

Idk, I’m not sure I disagree with you. The point isn’t to have super efficient gas cars. The point is to have cars that don’t use gas at all. What you’re pointing to are all just incentives that push manufacturers in the right direction

 

[Mach1E]

Idk, I’m not sure I disagree with you. The point isn’t to have super efficient gas cars. The point is to have cars that don’t use gas at all. What you’re pointing to are all just incentives that push manufacturers in the right direction

Well, if that’s the point of CAFE, they certainly didn’t know it when it started in the early 70s.

And when the unrealistic standards came out in 2007 for 2025, I don’t think that was the point then either.

But to the point I’m making now-

The ideas of this thread that “of course future technology will hit these unrealistic goals…….” Isn’t a new idea.

I think people are too optimistic about future technology. Just like they were with the 2025 CAFE standard (which originally were 54.5 MPG.

In 2007, the government thought we could hit that by 2025. They were wrong………way wrong.

Another similar ridiculous standard is the 2030 deadline on the west coast for “all electric new car sales.” Just ridiculous. Zero chance we can ramp up supply chains and infrastructure by then.

 

[DustyShades]

Well, if that’s the point of CAFE, they certainly didn’t know it when it started in the early 70s.

And when the unrealistic standards came out in 2007 for 2025, I don’t think that was the point then either.

But to the point I’m making now-

The ideas of this thread that “of course future technology will hit these unrealistic goals…….” Isn’t a new idea.

I think people are too optimistic about future technology. Just like they were with the 2025 CAFE standard (which originally were 54.5 MPG.

In 2007, the government thought we could hit that by 2025. They were wrong………way wrong.

Another similar ridiculous standard is the 2030 deadline on the west coast for “all electric new car sales.” Just ridiculous. Zero chance we can ramp up supply chains and infrastructure by then.

I’m pretty sure the standards for the 2025 model year weren’t set until 2011 under the Obama administration and they 100% had electrification / green alternatives in mind when they did it. I’m not going to do a whole deep dive, but a quick review of Wikipedia on CAFE standards supports this.

 

[Mach1E]

I’m pretty sure the standards for the 2025 model year weren’t set until 2011 under the Obama administration and they 100% had electrification / green alternatives in mind when they did it. I’m not going to do a whole deep dive, but a quick review of Wikipedia on CAFE standards supports this.

Sorry, yes, 2011.

But no, they definitely weren’t talking electrification at the time:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...s-per-gallon-for-all-cars-by-2025-not-exactly

It was all about “fuel efficiency” for ICE vehicles. Not cheating with electric cars.

Either way, a 4-6% adoption rate of EVs in 2023 doesn’t get us to a 54 mpg average in 2025.

The standard was ridiculous in 2011 and is still ridiculous in 2023. We can’t just mandate absurd standards hoping “future tech” will save the day.

 

[DustyShades]

Sorry, yes, 2011.

But no, they definitely weren’t talking electrification at the time:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...s-per-gallon-for-all-cars-by-2025-not-exactly

It was all about “fuel efficiency” for ICE vehicles. Not cheating with electric cars.

Either way, a 4-6% adoption rate of EVs in 2023 doesn’t get us to a 54 mpg average in 2025.

The standard was ridiculous in 2011 and is still ridiculous in 2023. We can’t just mandate absurd standards hoping “future tech” will save the day.

Disagree, but it was for sure about carbon footprint. Regardless of if the goal is achievable or not, I still think it’s good. You’re looking at this the wrong way. Manufacturers either meet the goal by shifting to greener alternatives (good) or they bare the cost of the negative externalities they create (also good, albeit not as good). Manufacturers who build only green options / EVs and create a positive externality in the process receive a benefit in the form of credits that they can sell (also good).

I mean you can continue to argue whether it was intentional or not, but it’s a pretty good system that uses a marketplace to efficiently address a major problem. I would actually suggest that if anything, the goals should be more aggressive.

 

[DYohn]

How about a front camera and related systems including cruise control that does not fail every time I drive the car - or at least that the manufacturer will FIX?

 

[MacherAWD]

The standard was ridiculous in 2011 and is still ridiculous in 2023. We can’t just mandate absurd standards hoping “future tech” will save the day.

I think that standard is attainable but people need to get off their butt and make a change. Does everyone need an SUV or a truck? I am sure 90% of cars in use could be replaced with a used Toyota prius. Americans need to loose weight, buy less crap, and not be so concerned with image. If we all shifted our mindsets to that of 3rd world countries we could make these standards in no time.

Now having said that I realize that I have a Mach-E and not a chevy Bolt anymore so I am also part of the problem.

 

[superdave80]

Not necessarily.
Those things can be possible as we increase efficiencies in batteries, cabling, motors, etc.
None of these things are close to the efficiency that will be possible with further innovation and development in material sciences, chemistry, etc.

Again, better batteries won't help as this is an aerodynamic issue, and the cabling, motor, etc. are already pushing 85-90% efficiencies. There just ain't much meat left on that bone.

 

[superdave80]

Shoot. I guess physics dictates that there’ll never be battery tech which enables 350mi range and 3mi/kWh at 75mph without a dorkmobile shape, and <15min 10-90% recharge. Might as well have asked for a perpetual motion machine. I guess it’s time to give up hope on EV mass adoption. Darn you, physics!

The range and recharge times targets are well within reach. You just have to decide if you want your car to look like a dork or for you to drive at a speed that makes you look like a dork

FYI, I drive at dork miles-per-hour...

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Again, better batteries won't help as this is an aerodynamic issue, and the cabling, motor, etc. are already pushing 85-90% efficiencies. There just ain't much meat left on that bone.

A back of the envelope calculation shows that it's not just aerodynamics. Even the Lucid Air isn't achieving its highest range possible with its 118 kWh battery. If all of the rest of the energy transfer were 85% efficient, the Lucid Air (coefficient of drag of 0.2, 2.75 square meter front surface area) should still be able to achieve ~680 miles at 70 mph and more than 2700 miles at 35 mph average speed. The insideevs 70 mph test achieved 500 miles with the Lucid Air Grand Touring. That suggests the rest of the vehicle's "efficiency factor" is down around 60-65%, not 85-90%.

The question is whether there's any systems engineering that can be applied to improve overall efficiency while not making for an absolutely awful ride.

Sponsored