"Why do EV's need to accelerate like "supercars", with only a 300 mile range, when 50% of that power would double their range ?

[jderimig]

We have a 2021 Explorer ST. Twin turbo. 400hp. 416flbs torque. 4 wheel drive. It has different driving modes to. Eco, normal, tow/haul. And my favorite, Sport. It is a rocket. Faster than my 300hp Mustang GT. Quicker too. We think it's the best car we have ever owned. Oh, And it sounds great. Down shift growl. Snarl at launch.

I love my Volvo S60. 5 cyl turbo with "extra boost" switch when the pedal is floored. Also has a sport mode which keeps the revs above 3K all the time and the turbo spooled. I am guessing sport mode or the yahoo switch was never activated during the EPA driving cycle certification.

 

[bjphoenix]

I think there is some middle ground here, between supercar-like acceleration and being a total dud.

Judging by the number of Hyundai/Kia/Toyota on our freeways the general buying public doesn't seem to mind a car with high "dud" rating.

 

[FredA]

the general buying public doesn't seem to mind a car with high "dud" rating.

The general buying public are not really well educated consumers - don't know sh*t about cars or how to drive...."what's an apex?"
The general buying public has never had an awesome driving experience - wouldn't know one if they tripped over it.
The general buying public views cars as "ugly" transportation that's "required" and worry more about distracting themselves with loud music or with their phones from actually driving.
The general public are really sh*tty drivers which is unfortunately the average perceived "exceptional" level.

 

[teepot]

There aren't any roads around here that are curvy. But the road from Susanville California to I 5 is a great road. Curvy, up and down and through the trees. I can set the cruise control on the Mustang at 70 and take all but a few corners that way. Even if they say 45. Love that road. Sometimes I'll drive up to Eugene Oregon just to drive some fun roads. Windows down listening to the exhaust notes. I used to drive all the time. Now I save a day and fly.

 

[jderimig]

Judging by the number of Hyundai/Kia/Toyota on our freeways the general buying public doesn't seem to mind a car with high "dud" rating.

My daughter's Tuscon is a really nice car. In the case of Toyota the general buying public doesn't seem to mind a car with a power train that lasts forever and a car with high resale value.

 

[boatgeek]

Answer THIS question :

"Why do EV's need to accelerate like "supercars", while having only a 300 mile +/- range, when having only 50% of that power would DOUBLE their driving range ?"

Can you provide a source for this assertion? Recommend against using the one you posted in the other thread to avoid embarrassment.

 

[SolarYellow]

I have a sub-3-mile commute and live about 20 miles from the downtown of my local metropolis. I should totally have an electric car with my SUV for longer trips or when I need to carry more people/stuff. But the premium for most electrics over a similar ICE car makes them a non-solution.

 

[boatgeek]

I have a sub-3-mile commute and live about 20 miles from the downtown of my local metropolis. I should totally have an electric car with my SUV for longer trips or when I need to carry more people/stuff. But the premium for most electrics over a similar ICE car makes them a non-solution.

You might look at a used Nissan Leaf or Kia Soul. Both of these are noticeably cheaper than other electric cars because of their shorter range (~60-80 miles, plenty for your application). The Leafs are pretty comparable to Nissan's equivalent ICE hatchbacks. We use our Leaf for exactly the purpose you describe and love it.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I’m kind of thinking maybe an e-bike might be my first electric vehicle. That would be perfect for small errands around town, maybe kind of fun, and a lot less expensive than an EV car.

 

[rfjustin]

I’m kind of thinking maybe an e-bike might be my first electric vehicle. That would be perfect for small errands around town, maybe kind of fun, and a lot less expensive than an EV car.

Throw a Ruger logo on said e-bike and watch some heads explode...

 

[Ez2cDave]

Can you provide a source for this assertion? Recommend against using the one you posted in the other thread to avoid embarrassment.

I recommend that you provide links to data that supports your claims, for the same reasons .

OKAY . . .

Simple . . . Smaller motors have less current draw, because they have less power . . . Therefor, the same size battery, with less draw equals longer range.

( 100% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 100% Range / 50% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 200% Range )

This is HYPOTHETICAL, as I have no data on motor power consumption . . .

********************************************************************************************************************************

If you have an EV with 1000 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) consume .3 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 333 miles.

If you have a IDENTICAL EV with 500 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) draw .15 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 666 miles.

https://www.sensorsone.com/energy-and-ev-consumption-to-distance-calculator

1000 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery




500 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I recommend that you provide links to data that supports your claims, for the same reasons .

OKAY . . .

Simple . . . Smaller motors have less current draw, because they have less power . . . Therefor, the same size battery, with less draw equals longer range.

( 100% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 100% Range / 50% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 200% Range )

This is HYPOTHETICAL, as I have no data on motor power consumption . . .

********************************************************************************************************************************

If you have an EV with 1000 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) consume .3 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 333 miles.

If you have a IDENTICAL EV with 500 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) draw .15 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 666 miles.

https://www.sensorsone.com/energy-and-ev-consumption-to-distance-calculator

1000 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery

View attachment 587291


500 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery

View attachment 587292

I don’t think that’s really how it works, though.

 

[SolarYellow]

Generally, ICEs and electric motors both consume enough energy to meet their requested output. There will be variations in efficiency with matching of the machine size to the output requirements, but that's generally a moderate, second-order effect.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Throw a Ruger logo on said e-bike and watch some heads explode...

Oh, that? That’s not a gun thing. That’s the Phoenix Squadron symbol from Star Wars Rebels.

 

[bjphoenix]

My daughter's Tuscon is a really nice car. In the case of Toyota the general buying public doesn't seem to mind a car with a power train that lasts forever and a car with high resale value.

My father owned a garage for over 60 years. His experience is different regarding Toyota, Hyundai, etc. I guess if it works then you keep driving it, if it breaks you call my father or you buy another one.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Why do EV's "need" so much more HP than ICE's ?

If 1000 HP gives "supercar performance", why is 300 - 500 HP, or less, not sufficient for everyday EV's, currently with a range of 300 miles +/-, excluding the "puddle-jumpers", like the Nissan Leaf ( 80 mile range +/- ) ?

The batteries could either be smaller, making the car lighter and less expensive, OR the batteries could remain the same size, yet yield greatly extended driving range.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Why do EV's "need" so much more HP than ICE's ?

If 1000 HP gives "supercar performance", why is 300 - 500 HP, or less, not sufficient for everyday EV's, currently with a range of 300 miles +/-, excluding the "puddle-jumpers", like the Nissan Leaf ( 80 mile range +/- ) ?

The batteries could either be smaller, making the car lighter and less expensive, OR the batteries could remain the same size, yet yield greatly extended driving range.

Isn’t the only “super car” class EV Tesla? I don’t really know, but I don’t think other EV manufacturers are making them that fast.

Tesla was not conceived as an everyday practical car. It’s a luxury brand, and high performance was part of that. If Tesla had started out with a focus on economy and practicality, they would probably already be out of business. Selling luxury and performance vehicles at a high price point is what made them a success and also created a real EV market. They proved you can make money with EVs.

Now you see a lot more practical EVs on the market too, and those don’t have the super acceleration or insane speed. I don’t think the Chevy Bolt has a “ludicrous speed“ setting. Want a high-performance EV? Go with Tesla. Want a more affordable practical EV? Go with Chevy or something similar.

It seems like this whole thread is premised on a fallacy. It’s like pointing at a Ferrari and asking, “Why do all car manufacturers make super cars with performance that ruins the gas mileage?” So one part of the fallacy is that they aren’t ALL doing that. Most cars are not Ferraris. And the other part of the fallacy is that EVs don’t come with the range penalties for building in the performance the same way ICE cars do. Build a big gasoline motor, and it uses more gas than a smaller motor, even if it’s just idling. That’s not true with electric motors. An EV with a powerful electric motor will get about the same range as the same car with a less powerful motor if they are driven the same way at the same acceleration and speed. The big electric motor does not draw significantly more electricity to do the same thing as the small motor.

 

[vcp]

You might look at a used Nissan Leaf or Kia Soul. Both of these are noticeably cheaper than other electric cars because of their shorter range (~60-80 miles, plenty for your application). The Leafs are pretty comparable to Nissan's equivalent ICE hatchbacks. We use our Leaf for exactly the purpose you describe and love it.

Mine too. An 8-year-old Leaf with only 8k miles, for less than $8k, like new, with a decent battery. It's all I've driven for almost three years. 3 cents a mile and practically zero maintenance. I'd be surprised if the battery doesn't last another 5-8 years or more.

 

[boatgeek]

I’m kind of thinking maybe an e-bike might be my first electric vehicle. That would be perfect for small errands around town, maybe kind of fun, and a lot less expensive than an EV car.

Works great if you have reasonably safe roads for bicycling. It's definitely fun--my analogy is that it's like riding tandem with an Olympic athlete who doesn't complain about you slacking off. My kids said it was like how riding a bike is portrayed in movies.

 

[boatgeek]

Isn’t the only “super car” class EV Tesla? I don’t really know, but I don’t think other EV manufacturers are making them that fast.

Tesla was not conceived as an everyday practical car. It’s a luxury brand, and high performance was part of that. If Tesla had started out with a focus on economy and practicality, they would probably already be out of business. Selling luxury and performance vehicles at a high price point is what made them a success and also created a real EV market. They proved you can make money with EVs.

Now you see a lot more practical EVs on the market too, and those don’t have the super acceleration or insane speed. I don’t think the Chevy Bolt has a “ludicrous speed“ setting. Want a high-performance EV? Go with Tesla. Want a more affordable practical EV? Go with Chevy or something similar.

It seems like this whole thread is premised on a fallacy. It’s like pointing at a Ferrari and asking, “Why do all car manufacturers make super cars with performance that ruins the gas mileage?” So one part of the fallacy is that they aren’t ALL doing that. Most cars are not Ferraris. And the other part of the fallacy is that EVs don’t come with the range penalties for building in the performance the same way ICE cars do. Build a big gasoline motor, and it uses more gas than a smaller motor, even if it’s just idling. That’s not true with electric motors. An EV with a powerful electric motor will get about the same range as the same car with a less powerful motor if they are driven the same way at the same acceleration and speed. The big electric motor does not draw significantly more electricity to do the same thing as the small motor.

To be fair, Tesla has the vast majority of EV market share. And there are other supercar-performance EVs out there at similar price points to the higher end Teslas.

 

[boatgeek]

I recommend that you provide links to data that supports your claims, for the same reasons .

OKAY . . .

Simple . . . Smaller motors have less current draw, because they have less power . . . Therefor, the same size battery, with less draw equals longer range.

( 100% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 100% Range / 50% Draw & 100% Battery Capacity = 200% Range )

This is HYPOTHETICAL, as I have no data on motor power consumption . . .

********************************************************************************************************************************

If you have an EV with 1000 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) consume .3 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 333 miles.

If you have a IDENTICAL EV with 500 HP and a 100 KWH battery, assuming that the motor(s) draw .15 KWH / MILE . . . Range = 666 miles.

https://www.sensorsone.com/energy-and-ev-consumption-to-distance-calculator

1000 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery

View attachment 587291


500 HP EV / 100 KWH Battery

View attachment 587292

By "this is hypothetical, because I have no data on motor power consumption" you mean "I'm making up data," right? Because the data on power consumption and energy use is out there if you choose to look. Also, it's generally the person making a claim who is required to generate the data to back up their claim. But just to save a bit of time, here's a few data points from the page I linked, all 2023 model year. All horsepower data is from Car & Driver since it wasn't listed at EPA.

Hyundai Ioniq6: 24 kWh/100 miles, 149 hp
Lucid Air Touring: 24 kWh/100 miles, 620 hp
Tesla Model 3 Long Range AWD: 26 kWh/100 miles, 184 hp
Chevy Bolt: 28 kWh/100 miles, 200 hp
Kia EV6 Long Range: 28 kWh/100 miles, 167 hp

There is little to no relationship between motor horsepower and energy usage while driving. If there was, the Lucid would have 4x the energy consumption of the Hyundai. You ready to admit defeat yet?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

To be fair, Tesla has the vast majority of EV market share. And there are other supercar-performance EVs out there at similar price points to the higher end Teslas.

I feel like the high-end performance market will probably top out soon. Teslas are expensive. I see a ton of them on the road around here, and I’m not sure how people afford them, other than this area has a lot of high-paying tech jobs. Eventually they are going to run out of people who can afford them or are willing to pay that much. The luxury and performance market is only so big. I think the EV growth market is probably in the lower to mid range.

 

[Peartree]

I think there is some middle ground here, between supercar-like acceleration and being a total dud.

But, if there is no efficiency penalty for high performance, then the only advantage to having smaller motors is cost. While that's significant, if you're already selling as many as you can make, there isn't a lot of incentive to make something different.

 

[techrat]

I feel like the high-end performance market will probably top out soon. Teslas are expensive. I see a ton of them on the road around here, and I’m not sure how people afford them, other than this area has a lot of high-paying tech jobs. Eventually they are going to run out of people who can afford them or are willing to pay that much. The luxury and performance market is only so big. I think the EV growth market is probably in the lower to mid range.

I think Tesla is aware of that as well. They are supposedly working on an expected $25k pricetag, smaller EV made for the everyday man.

 

[jderimig]

But, if there is no efficiency penalty for high performance, then the only advantage to having smaller motors is cost. While that's significant, if you're already selling as many as you can make, there isn't a lot of incentive to make something different.

I am not sure motors are oversized for head snapping torque. DC-ish motors all have similiar speed-torque curves. Torque is max at stall torque, very high in-fact. But you don't operate there very long. Motor are sized for the load when they are spinning not stalling. The supercar acceleration off the line is near the stall (low speed operation) when there is no or very low back EMF. However the motor needs to have sufficient power and drivability at speed. To get that you are going to have very high stall torque.

 

[boatgeek]

I am not sure motors are oversized for head snapping torque. DC-ish motors all have similiar speed-torque curves. Torque is max at stall torque, very high in-fact. But you don't operate there very long. Motor are sized for the load when they are spinning not stalling. The supercar acceleration off the line is near the stall (low speed operation) when there is no or very low back EMF. However the motor needs to have sufficient power and drivability at speed. To get that you are going to have very high stall torque.

FWIW, this study shows a Leaf's motor torque curve:

You would want to stay in the red for best efficiency.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I feel like the high-end performance market will probably top out soon. Teslas are expensive. I see a ton of them on the road around here, and I’m not sure how people afford them, other than this area has a lot of high-paying tech jobs. Eventually they are going to run out of people who can afford them or are willing to pay that much. The luxury and performance market is only so big. I think the EV growth market is probably in the lower to mid range.

I suspect that a lot of the Tesla's and other high-dollar EV's we are seeing on the street may be LEASED. That is a lot cheaper than buying one.

 

[bjphoenix]

But, if there is no efficiency penalty for high performance, then the only advantage to having smaller motors is cost.

I'm not believing that, and I don't think other people believe it if they think about it, but the big unanswered question is how much difference is there?
It stands to reason that if you have an electric blender it will take a certain amount of electricity for a certain task. I've worked on some water pump systems that use 3000 hp electric motors, lets put one of those on a stand and put the blender mechanism on the end of it. Will it make the same milkshake with the same amount of electricity as the original blender? I don't think it will, I'm not sure if the amount of electricity used by the original blender would even rotate the 3000hp motor.

 

[CalebJ]

I'm not believing that, and I don't think other people believe it if they think about it, but the big unanswered question is how much difference is there?
It stands to reason that if you have an electric blender it will take a certain amount of electricity for a certain task. I've worked on some water pump systems that use 3000 hp electric motors, lets put one of those on a stand and put the blender mechanism on the end of it. Will it make the same milkshake with the same amount of electricity as the original blender? I don't think it will, I'm not sure if the amount of electricity used by the original blender would even rotate the 3000hp motor.

There is certainly -some- increase in losses as a motor is scaled up, so if your comparison is between a motor designed for a constant 3000hp load with a countertop blender there would be quite a bit more energy used for a milkshake.

But it's nothing whatsoever like the statement in the OP of doubling efficiency while cutting maximum power in half. That is borne out by repeated illustrations in this thread and the one where this discussion began (EPA data for example on multiple vehicle types).

The important criteria is power used rather than power available. Two cars of the same size and shape will require approximately the same energy to cruise at the same speed. Just because one could theoretically produce 1000hp doesn't mean it's consuming four times the energy of the car next to it with a maximum output of 250hp when they're both only using the same tiny fraction of that to cruise at 70mph.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I'm not believing that, and I don't think other people believe it if they think about it, but the big unanswered question is how much difference is there?
It stands to reason that if you have an electric blender it will take a certain amount of electricity for a certain task. I've worked on some water pump systems that use 3000 hp electric motors, lets put one of those on a stand and put the blender mechanism on the end of it. Will it make the same milkshake with the same amount of electricity as the original blender? I don't think it will, I'm not sure if the amount of electricity used by the original blender would even rotate the 3000hp motor.

That’s probably true if you are comparing a 3000 hp electric water pump motor to a 1 hp (or whatever it is) blender motor. That’s a huge difference in scale. But the reality of the car motor scenarios we are talking about are nowhere near that kind of difference.

I absolutely believe that if you jam on the accelerator in a performance EV and go 0-60 in 2 seconds, that takes more electricity than jamming on the accelerator in a non-performance EV and go 0-60 in 7 seconds. But if you aren’t drag racing from one intersection to another all day long and just cruising along down the highway at 65mph, I don’t think it makes much difference what the motor is. I’m sure there’s a difference but I just don’t think it’s that big.