My rule of thumb when it comes to all breathless headlines around battery technology is that "I'll believe it when I see it". It's one thing to achieve these specs for batteries when n = (small number), but can they be affordably built at scale?
2021 starts in less than 5 months. I think a lot of people are still so used to seeing 202x dates as "far future" that it's really easy right now to lose perspective that that future is already here.
All technology cost and performance forecasts should be indexed by their TRL.
This should also be applied to all stories about new fission reactor technologies. Comparing a cost that's been validated across many units over decades with the "should cost" for a design that hasn't even had gone critical in a prototype is almost meaningless.
Lucid's led by the Lead Engineer from the Tesla Model S. The range is from official EPA testing (pre-production). They have already produced a fleet of ~40.
There is nothing to indicate that they won't be able to achieve this in production of their low volume luxury vehicle.
The Lucid Air is an expensive luxury car. It's affordable in the same way that all luxury cars are affordable: not very. It's not a high volume vehicle.
They will be selling a smaller battery version eventually which will be cheaper but still at luxury car prices.
The sheer storage capacity of the battery is less interesting than the cost. Getting below $100/KWh will reduce EV price to FAR below ICE vehicles; while BEV's are already at parity with ICE on total cost of ownership, BEV's are going to continue the long descent to MUCH cheaper, and $100 is going to be an important milestone.
I think new ICE vehicles are going to be banned in most major economies by 2030, so really, ICE is having its last decade of relevance in new vehicles. Given vehicle replacement cycle is around ~20 years, by 2050 the ICE vehicle stock will be reduced to 99% specialty machines like classic cars, motorcycles, and various heavy equipment for industry.
2035 in the UK. That's when the current (conservative) government wants to ban sales of ICE cars. I'd say the economic value proposition of ICE is going to collapse long before that. And few companies will be buying ICE vehicles if they can avoid it long before then.
100$/kwh probably has already happened. It's hard to confirm this but I suspect that Tesla is making a nice profit on their cars at this point mainly due to them pushing hard to get production cost down. At this point, they are supply limited so they have little reasons to eat up their profit margins. Competition will fix that.
I'd say the next benchmarks here are going to be 400wh/kg (3-4 years out according to Musk) and energy prices for clean energy bids dropping below 1 $ cent per kwh. Basically, we are talking about reductions in sales price and operational cost for most vehicles. At some point the math stops being interesting because we're merely debating by how many of orders of magnitude ICE is more expensive. The cross over point for some forms of commercial transport was probably a few years go; judging from how hot the market for e.g. electrical deliver vans or city buses are.
I have been a TSLA investor for a few years, I believe in electric vehicles. At 100$/KWh we're talking 5000$ for a 50KWh battery back, which is plenty enough for most people. This could allow us to see $15K-20K electric cars in just a few years, maybe before 2025, which is awesome. Very soon buying a gasoline vehicle, in a modern economy, will have people giving you weird looks.
What does have me a little worried though is that most of the world doesn't live in a wealthy city. As electric cars rise, gasoline prices will come down, which will keep gasoline attractive for a while, particularly in poorer countries. Failing ICE vehicle companies will try to sell their gas vehicles to these poor countries as well, and our used cars might end up there too. In other words, poorer countries could keep gasoline cars going for another 30 years after they've been banned here. What are we going to do about that? We're all breathing the same air.
The title should be updated as it is misleading in a critical way.
The word "big" suggests the size and weight of the battery is bigger, which is not the case. That would be entirely unremarkable. Their quote directly states this: "It's relatively easy to achieve more range by adding progressively more batteries, but gaining 'dumb range' that way increases weight and cost, and reduces interior space." He continued, "Lucid Air has achieved its remarkable range whilst also reducing battery size"
A better title: "Lucid Air's EV 113.0 KWh Battery Is More Powerful, Efficient, and Lighter-weight Than Tesla's"
The battery is not more efficient - TFA doesn't mention anything about charging efficiency at all. TFA also doesn't mention anything about the weight of the battery.
The vehicle has a coefficient of drag of 0.21 (versus the Model S Cd of 0.24). Curb weight of the vehicle is apprarently 4630 lbs, lower than Tesla Model S (4,880) perhaps due to reduced weight of the drive-train or other components.
The right way to describe the battery is that it is higher capacity. It may also have a higher charge/discharge rate, or a higher energy density, but they have not made any specific claims here, just rather generic boasting.
Let’s not jump the gun though. We still don’t know enough about Tesla’s 2021 and later batteries. Your suggested headline is built around a comparison to missing information.
Also Tesla’s best battery will be 200kw, not 113kw... I guess they missed that. And Cybrtrk may be higher than that.
But yes reducing size and weight and improving efficiency are all great things! Kudos to them if they can get it into a shipping car at volume.
> The vehicle is more efficient than the Model S Long Range Plus, which has a 100.0-kWh capacity and 402 miles of range.
It always makes me cringe when I see headlines which compare potential products to a shipping product. It shouldn't be surprising that a future product is better than a currently shipping one.
A year ago Lucid was bragging that they would have a 400 mile range. Now Telsa is shipping a car with a 400 mile range. So Lucid has to up their game.
Whats interesting is that they are focusing on the current Model S and zero mention of the 3, which has a significantly better efficiency due (in addition to the smaller size, admit-ably) to the fact that the newer 3 design, powertrain, and chassis was a rework that is far superior to the, basically, 9 year old, Startup-developed, Model S. Next-Gen Model S will bring not just larger packs but Model 3 lessons in weight and their claims probably wont pan out, even if true.
>After surprising many with the Air's 517 miles of EPA-estimated range...
A few paragraphs later in the article:
>During a real-world ride along with Lucid in one of the company's prototypes traveling at 70 miles per hour on the highway, the Air achieved 458 miles before depleting its battery. The automaker still needs to deliver a production vehicle to the EPA before it has an official EPA number. It expects to do so in early 2021 when the Air goes into production.
Isn't that opening incredibly misleading? The car does in fact not have 517 miles of EPA-estimated range. The company is projecting 517 miles of range once the EPA tests it, which has not happened yet. So why are they calling the 517 number "EPA-estimated"?
Even 458 miles (737 kms) of highway EV driving at 70mph (112 km/h) is phenomenal. If this is coupled with a relatively fast charger infrastructure (150KW+) this means game over for fossil cars. When you can drive for 6 hours or more on a single charge there is absolutely no inconvenience factor in owning an EV at that point.
Does the 70mph have an effect? In ICE, there is an MPH window where the engine is most efficient. Driving outside of that window will lower the miles per gallon and the total miles per tank. Is there a similar sweet spot for EVs?
The number of kWh of a pack is kind of a meaningless number for comparisons. A larger pack may actually be worse as it adds weight.
They key numbers I want to see are volumetric density (wh/l), gravimetric density (wh/kg), and cost ($/kwh) at the pack level and the cell level. Other key numbers are operating temperature ranges, max charge rate, maximum charging curves, idle energy loss or leakage, and overall efficiency of the vehicle (wh/mi) in many specific testing regimens (different speeds/air resistance, temperatures, and weather conditions.
At a constant 70mph, that is over 7 hours continuous driving (...although I wonder how much range decreases at that speed?)
I do wonder what the magic numbe needs to be before people stop complaining that x00 miles is not enough and that they reguarly drive 19000 mile a day etc.
A brand new Model 3 will do 310 miles of range. Only you're not supposed to use the top 10% or bottom 10% unless you absolutely have to, to avoid damaging the battery. So now it's 248 miles of range. Unless it's extremely cold or hot, or you have a heavy foot, or you have a roof rack, or it's uphill... Where 200 miles might be more accurate.
My 18-month old Model 3 will do 301 miles, which means best-case 240 miles reality unless I want to damage the pack (more).
I actually love my Tesla, and the pack degradation is fine, and there are lots of other benefits....
But when someone says "500 miles range" I'm going to read that as "probably ~350 miles real range after a year of ownership and if it's cold or something".
IME, 300 miles is enough. The problem is charging infrastructure. Tesla got it right building out their own as everything else is a crapshoot.
At least 50% of the time i've tried to DC fast charge, stations just don't work. In fact, there is a station near me that has 2 of 4 chargers not working for the past 2 months. (I've called and used the phone app to report problems)
I wish we had a standardized test for range at continuous 70/80/90 mph instead of the EPA and WLTP tests. Those are designed for overall efficiency testing when what people really want to know about EV range is how long they can go on road trips. For everything else charging at home every night makes pretty much any EV range enough for the commute and the efficiency is always great compared to gas.
That would be enough range for me if it weren't for the temperature sensitivity of current batteries. I live in the northern US and pre-COVID I regularly drove trips ~300 miles to visit family. 500 miles range would work great for most of the year, but at least in my current vehicle, battery capacity drops quickly in the cold. This is the main reason why I drive a PHEV and haven't gone fully electric. (That and the fact that my family lives in rural Ontario where public charging infrastructure is very limited.)
I wonder if this will become the new high end luxury EV, at least until Tesla does a refresh of the S. My impression is that right now the current Model S isn't really that popular because the 3 is functionally similar at a much lower price point, but clearly that segment of the market willing to pay 120k+ for a top tier vehicle exists because they paid it when the S was the only game in town.
I have a Model S and a Model 3, and I actually prefer the 3 (though I generally prefer sportier cars to luxury cars). The smaller size makes it more nimble, the lack of air suspension gives better road feel, the horizontal orientation of the central screen seems more effective, and I don't miss the dash at all. The only things I do miss from the Model S are the much more comfortable steering wheel, AM radio (weirdly missing on the Model 3), and a hatchback. If I were looking for a new EV today, I'd probably be looking at a Model Y.
I'll just run the math for an electric car with a 95% efficient electric motor, assuming 0% driveline losses with direct drive and no transmission, with no standby losses:
City:
Engine + driveline + standby: 5%
Aero: 3%
Rolling: 4%
Braking: 2%
Accessories: 2%
---
16% (already 6.25 times more efficient by going electric)
Highway:
Engine + driveline + standby: 5%
Aero: 11%
Rolling: 7%
Braking: 1%
Accessories: 2%
---
26% (already 3.85 times more efficient by going electric)
Rescaled to 100% by multiplying each term by (100/total):
City:
Engine + driveline + standby: 31%
Aero: 19%
Rolling: 25%
Braking: 13%
Accessories: 12% (rounded down to make 100% total)
---
100%
So we can see that city driving is dominated by engine efficiency and highway driving is dominated by aerodynamic efficiency. But both lose about 25% (1/4 of the energy!) to rolling resistance.
Googling "mileage loss percentage due to drag coefficient" and "mileage loss percentage due to rolling resistance":
For passenger cars this means that aerodynamics is responsible for a much higher proportion of the fuel used in the highway cycle than the city cycle: 50% for highway; versus 20% for city. This means that if you make a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag your highway fuel economy will improve by approximately 5%, and your city fuel economy by approximately 2%.
A 10 percent decrease in tire rolling resistance resulted in an approximately 1.1-percent increase in fuel economy for the vehicle. This result was within the range predicted by technical literature.
Converting these for electric in city and highway by multiplying by 6.25 and 3.85 respectively:
City:
Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 13%
Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 7%
Highway:
Each 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag increases mileage by 31%
Each 10% reduction in rolling resistance increases mileage by 4%
Lucid Air: 0.21
Tesla Roadster: 0.35
Tesla Model S: 0.24
Tesla Model 3: 0.23
Tesla Model X: 0.25
So the Lucid Air has about a 10% better drag coefficient than the Tesla model 3, which gives it (at most) 13-31% better range city-highway. I think this is a liberal estimate, and that drag coefficients will never be below about 0.20, so improvements here will probably be marginal from here on out.
It seems to me that a better return on investment might be to fix tires. Someone needs to think outside the box on this and create a tire that acts stiff at high speed, but still grips while cornering and braking. Eliminating this resistance would add 100 miles to electric car range.
I ran this math from a first order perspective, to give an idea of relative costs. I'm sure it's off (since drag is nonlinear), but it helps visualize where the energy goes. Seeing that accessories use as much or more energy than regenerative braking was eye-opening for me.
Oh and you don't even want to know about bicycles. The upright position is the worst possible, and wastes most of the rider's energy. I wish recumbants were safer and more affordable, although this matters less each year with improvements in electric assist, mostly from reduced cost and better batteries.
I do remember reading an interview with a guy in charge of the electric Clio development, and he basically said something along the lines of "we could have easily put 2x as large battery in the Clio, but then your average driver would need to drive it for at least 10 years before the car became a net benefit for the environment". These massive batteries have an environmental cost is what he was saying.
I agree that massive batteries have an environmental cost that has nowhere near been researched thoroughly. I too think that they are not advanced enough to be easily be called a "green" option.
That said, Lucid is not improving range through battery pack addition, but rather through increased efficiency which reduces the size of the pack, which is promising.
From their press release: "Lucid’s (efficiency) breakthrough is not merely just a few percent; we are talking about a significant improvement, which I shall cover further on September 9th."
And yet the Zoe (the electric Clio) has gained battery size instead of going lower in price over the years. I wish they'd actually go all in on the ~150km range city focused EVs. Cheaper lower-range cars would fit well a lot of second cars at least in Europe and I suspect in a lot of other places.
Given the number of job openings (491) for the company, who actually works there now? By that I mean, how can they already have a car, or know these kinds of specs, when there are that many positions to be filled...
Because they aren’t necessary for electric motors at anything other than the most extreme applications. They add weight, complexity and expense for no good reason.
(A dual motor design could simulate the benefits of two gears by having different final drive ratios for each axle.)
To be pedantic, EV do use gears. Most of them have differentials and some gears with a fixed ratio.
What most don't have is gearboxes to change the ratio. The exception is the Porsche Taycan with 2 gears in gearboxes, the second gear slightly improves the acceleration at high speeds and improves the efficiency at high speeds. Accelerating super fast when you are already above the speed limit is not very useful for most people so most electric cars have no gearboxes, despite the slightly better efficiency. It's too complex and expensive. An electric engine has a lot of torque, you need a really good and expensive gearbox to handle it. It makes sense on a Porsche, but not on a Zoé.
Tesla has another alternative on the cars with two motors. They don't have the same gear ratios. The rear motor is used more at low speeds and the front one is used more at high speeds. It's a bit less fast than the Porsche solution but much simpler and cheaper.
In both cases, having different gears indeed improve the efficiency. I think the Tesla solution is very clever but requires two motors, so it's not perfect either. Most eletric cars have a single motor.
[+] [-] dgritsko|5 years ago|reply
My rule of thumb when it comes to all breathless headlines around battery technology is that "I'll believe it when I see it". It's one thing to achieve these specs for batteries when n = (small number), but can they be affordably built at scale?
[+] [-] WorldMaker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|5 years ago|reply
This should also be applied to all stories about new fission reactor technologies. Comparing a cost that's been validated across many units over decades with the "should cost" for a design that hasn't even had gone critical in a prototype is almost meaningless.
[+] [-] gibolt|5 years ago|reply
There is nothing to indicate that they won't be able to achieve this in production of their low volume luxury vehicle.
[+] [-] clouddrover|5 years ago|reply
See it: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lucid/air/2021/2021-lucid-ai...
> can they be affordably built at scale?
The Lucid Air is an expensive luxury car. It's affordable in the same way that all luxury cars are affordable: not very. It's not a high volume vehicle.
They will be selling a smaller battery version eventually which will be cheaper but still at luxury car prices.
[+] [-] i_am_proteus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|5 years ago|reply
I think new ICE vehicles are going to be banned in most major economies by 2030, so really, ICE is having its last decade of relevance in new vehicles. Given vehicle replacement cycle is around ~20 years, by 2050 the ICE vehicle stock will be reduced to 99% specialty machines like classic cars, motorcycles, and various heavy equipment for industry.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|5 years ago|reply
100$/kwh probably has already happened. It's hard to confirm this but I suspect that Tesla is making a nice profit on their cars at this point mainly due to them pushing hard to get production cost down. At this point, they are supply limited so they have little reasons to eat up their profit margins. Competition will fix that.
I'd say the next benchmarks here are going to be 400wh/kg (3-4 years out according to Musk) and energy prices for clean energy bids dropping below 1 $ cent per kwh. Basically, we are talking about reductions in sales price and operational cost for most vehicles. At some point the math stops being interesting because we're merely debating by how many of orders of magnitude ICE is more expensive. The cross over point for some forms of commercial transport was probably a few years go; judging from how hot the market for e.g. electrical deliver vans or city buses are.
[+] [-] tachyonbeam|5 years ago|reply
What does have me a little worried though is that most of the world doesn't live in a wealthy city. As electric cars rise, gasoline prices will come down, which will keep gasoline attractive for a while, particularly in poorer countries. Failing ICE vehicle companies will try to sell their gas vehicles to these poor countries as well, and our used cars might end up there too. In other words, poorer countries could keep gasoline cars going for another 30 years after they've been banned here. What are we going to do about that? We're all breathing the same air.
[+] [-] agumonkey|5 years ago|reply
Just a tiny reminder
[+] [-] baybal2|5 years ago|reply
LFP cells with volume discounts were already sold for less than $100/KWh for a few years. Not much changed.
Cheapest EVs in developed countries have passed the $20k barrier, but I don't see everybody falling for EVs.
The type of people who are happy to have just anything to drive buy into something like https://runhorse2020.en.made-in-china.com/product/uwcniFmDXJ...
But even they switch to cheapest, crappiest IC sedans starting at $7k in China (say thanks to $500 per ton steel)
[+] [-] gok|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanmgreen|5 years ago|reply
The word "big" suggests the size and weight of the battery is bigger, which is not the case. That would be entirely unremarkable. Their quote directly states this: "It's relatively easy to achieve more range by adding progressively more batteries, but gaining 'dumb range' that way increases weight and cost, and reduces interior space." He continued, "Lucid Air has achieved its remarkable range whilst also reducing battery size"
A better title: "Lucid Air's EV 113.0 KWh Battery Is More Powerful, Efficient, and Lighter-weight Than Tesla's"
[+] [-] speedgoose|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|5 years ago|reply
The vehicle has a coefficient of drag of 0.21 (versus the Model S Cd of 0.24). Curb weight of the vehicle is apprarently 4630 lbs, lower than Tesla Model S (4,880) perhaps due to reduced weight of the drive-train or other components.
The right way to describe the battery is that it is higher capacity. It may also have a higher charge/discharge rate, or a higher energy density, but they have not made any specific claims here, just rather generic boasting.
[+] [-] electriclove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|5 years ago|reply
Also Tesla’s best battery will be 200kw, not 113kw... I guess they missed that. And Cybrtrk may be higher than that.
But yes reducing size and weight and improving efficiency are all great things! Kudos to them if they can get it into a shipping car at volume.
[+] [-] ogre_codes|5 years ago|reply
It always makes me cringe when I see headlines which compare potential products to a shipping product. It shouldn't be surprising that a future product is better than a currently shipping one.
A year ago Lucid was bragging that they would have a 400 mile range. Now Telsa is shipping a car with a 400 mile range. So Lucid has to up their game.
[+] [-] AgloeDreams|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|5 years ago|reply
>After surprising many with the Air's 517 miles of EPA-estimated range...
A few paragraphs later in the article:
>During a real-world ride along with Lucid in one of the company's prototypes traveling at 70 miles per hour on the highway, the Air achieved 458 miles before depleting its battery. The automaker still needs to deliver a production vehicle to the EPA before it has an official EPA number. It expects to do so in early 2021 when the Air goes into production.
Isn't that opening incredibly misleading? The car does in fact not have 517 miles of EPA-estimated range. The company is projecting 517 miles of range once the EPA tests it, which has not happened yet. So why are they calling the 517 number "EPA-estimated"?
[+] [-] abraxas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conception|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcot2|5 years ago|reply
They key numbers I want to see are volumetric density (wh/l), gravimetric density (wh/kg), and cost ($/kwh) at the pack level and the cell level. Other key numbers are operating temperature ranges, max charge rate, maximum charging curves, idle energy loss or leakage, and overall efficiency of the vehicle (wh/mi) in many specific testing regimens (different speeds/air resistance, temperatures, and weather conditions.
[+] [-] mattlondon|5 years ago|reply
At a constant 70mph, that is over 7 hours continuous driving (...although I wonder how much range decreases at that speed?)
I do wonder what the magic numbe needs to be before people stop complaining that x00 miles is not enough and that they reguarly drive 19000 mile a day etc.
[+] [-] bfieidhbrjr|5 years ago|reply
A brand new Model 3 will do 310 miles of range. Only you're not supposed to use the top 10% or bottom 10% unless you absolutely have to, to avoid damaging the battery. So now it's 248 miles of range. Unless it's extremely cold or hot, or you have a heavy foot, or you have a roof rack, or it's uphill... Where 200 miles might be more accurate.
My 18-month old Model 3 will do 301 miles, which means best-case 240 miles reality unless I want to damage the pack (more).
I actually love my Tesla, and the pack degradation is fine, and there are lots of other benefits....
But when someone says "500 miles range" I'm going to read that as "probably ~350 miles real range after a year of ownership and if it's cold or something".
[+] [-] turtlebits|5 years ago|reply
At least 50% of the time i've tried to DC fast charge, stations just don't work. In fact, there is a station near me that has 2 of 4 chargers not working for the past 2 months. (I've called and used the phone app to report problems)
[+] [-] pedrocr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelmior|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndaugherty18|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nharada|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zanni|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackmorris|5 years ago|reply
https://www.nap.edu/read/11620/chapter/5#39
Specifically a) city (top) and b) highway (bottom):
https://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309094216/xhtml/images/p2000f6...
For an internal combustion, midsize passenger car, including standby, here are the losses:
City:
Highway: Looks like Tesla motors are 93-97% efficient:https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-tesla-model-sx-upgrading-t...
And regenerative braking is 80% * 80% = 64% efficient, or 36% costly (about 1/3 as much energy wasted):
https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative...
I'll just run the math for an electric car with a 95% efficient electric motor, assuming 0% driveline losses with direct drive and no transmission, with no standby losses:
City:
Highway: Rescaled to 100% by multiplying each term by (100/total):City:
Highway: So we can see that city driving is dominated by engine efficiency and highway driving is dominated by aerodynamic efficiency. But both lose about 25% (1/4 of the energy!) to rolling resistance.Googling "mileage loss percentage due to drag coefficient" and "mileage loss percentage due to rolling resistance":
http://www.arcindy.com/effect-of-aerodynamic-drag-on-fuel-ec...
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Vehicle%20Research%20&%2... Converting these for electric in city and highway by multiplying by 6.25 and 3.85 respectively:City:
Highway: Comparing drag coeficents:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Ty...
So the Lucid Air has about a 10% better drag coefficient than the Tesla model 3, which gives it (at most) 13-31% better range city-highway. I think this is a liberal estimate, and that drag coefficients will never be below about 0.20, so improvements here will probably be marginal from here on out.It seems to me that a better return on investment might be to fix tires. Someone needs to think outside the box on this and create a tire that acts stiff at high speed, but still grips while cornering and braking. Eliminating this resistance would add 100 miles to electric car range.
I ran this math from a first order perspective, to give an idea of relative costs. I'm sure it's off (since drag is nonlinear), but it helps visualize where the energy goes. Seeing that accessories use as much or more energy than regenerative braking was eye-opening for me.
Oh and you don't even want to know about bicycles. The upright position is the worst possible, and wastes most of the rider's energy. I wish recumbants were safer and more affordable, although this matters less each year with improvements in electric assist, mostly from reduced cost and better batteries.
[+] [-] ebg13|5 years ago|reply
Having a higher PSI rating and an air pump + brake-controlled deflate valve could do this.
[+] [-] gambiting|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanmgreen|5 years ago|reply
That said, Lucid is not improving range through battery pack addition, but rather through increased efficiency which reduces the size of the pack, which is promising.
From their press release: "Lucid’s (efficiency) breakthrough is not merely just a few percent; we are talking about a significant improvement, which I shall cover further on September 9th."
[+] [-] pedrocr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaysea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abledon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modzu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmrdporcupine|5 years ago|reply
That said, there usually is some kind of gearing as I understand it, but a static reduction, not in the way a combustion engine car is.
[+] [-] sjwright|5 years ago|reply
(A dual motor design could simulate the benefits of two gears by having different final drive ratios for each axle.)
[+] [-] mamon|5 years ago|reply
Combustion engines have some limitations that require gearbox to mitigate them:
https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/drivetrain/tra...
Electric engines have none of those limitations, so no need for gearbox.
[+] [-] clouddrover|5 years ago|reply
Although the Porsche Taycan does have a two speed gear box which gives it more top end performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItCGU7BTBv8
[+] [-] speedgoose|5 years ago|reply
What most don't have is gearboxes to change the ratio. The exception is the Porsche Taycan with 2 gears in gearboxes, the second gear slightly improves the acceleration at high speeds and improves the efficiency at high speeds. Accelerating super fast when you are already above the speed limit is not very useful for most people so most electric cars have no gearboxes, despite the slightly better efficiency. It's too complex and expensive. An electric engine has a lot of torque, you need a really good and expensive gearbox to handle it. It makes sense on a Porsche, but not on a Zoé.
Tesla has another alternative on the cars with two motors. They don't have the same gear ratios. The rear motor is used more at low speeds and the front one is used more at high speeds. It's a bit less fast than the Porsche solution but much simpler and cheaper.
In both cases, having different gears indeed improve the efficiency. I think the Tesla solution is very clever but requires two motors, so it's not perfect either. Most eletric cars have a single motor.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sjwright|5 years ago|reply