Well, that’s overkill for Hyundais, 20-50kW max is all you need per wheel. You can produce >100kW with some high end racing hub motors [1]. You can also scale it up to generate more torque. Gear it down, etc.
Most BEVs also have low center of gravity and even mass distribution, so they’re not as bad as a heavy ICE car.
On public roads, 0-30mph acceleration is probably most fun you can have within realm of legal and sensible driving. Handling is not an issue at speed limits of public roads.
Limiting EV torque off the line is probably one of the lowest-hanging emissions reduction fruits out there, given that (by estimates I've seen) tire wear for current EVs is in aggregate 20-50% faster than ICE vehicles.
The tire thing you've heard has been started by one article that misleadingly bundled tire and breakpad particles with all other emissions summed up by weight.
This was extremely misleading breakdown, because it discounted all of the ICE gases that are toxic, but weigh almost nothing, and lighter combustion particles that stay in the air, versus tire particles that are typically heavier and stay on the ground.
Of course worn tires aren't environmentally neutral, but that framing was used as a regressive "gotcha" in EVs vs ICE, without daring to mention any real solutions like reversing heavy macho-pickup-truck and SUV fashion created by a workaround for emissions regulation, or moving freight from trucks to rail.
Is it or is it not true that EVs shed tire rubber particles at a significantly higher rate than like-for-like ICE vehicles?
I said it was low-hanging fruit because it's my understanding that it is: since EVs (again, correct me if I'm wrong) generate more tire rubber particles because of their comparatively high torque output, it's literally a software fix (limiting torque) to cut those emissions to ICE levels or, potentially, even lower. The only reason not to do it is that many people view their personal vehicles as large, expensive toys, and they will be less fun toys if their acceleration performance is curtailed.
I don't see this as a "gotcha" for EV technology, because it has such a trivial solution, and it was not my intent to suggest that ICE cars are less (or more, for that matter) damaging to the environment. I'm honestly not sure why you would read my comment that way.
---
As for the harm done by microplastics like tire rubber particles, it's my understanding that they don't simply stay on the ground, but rather that drainage carries them into the ground, waterways, and ultimately oceans, where they remain intact for some indefinite period and cause largely unquantified disruptions to local organisms and ecologies. It's not obvious to me that they won't ultimately be more of a problem than airborne pollutants, since they may be much more persistent and difficult to remove.
There's the perfect solution in an ideal world, and there's what actually works given people's actual behavior. For the latter, you have to consider that if you make EVs less compelling, more people might just stick with their ICE vehicles, which are worse overall when you take all pollutants into account.
After the EV transition is complete, though, that'd be a good time to start limiting torque. Unless most people are just riding self-driving taxis by then, which probably won't be doing fast acceleration anyway.
Alternatively: the time to limit torque is now, while consumers are still getting to know EVs and the other substantial benefits they present. Those other benefits ought to be enough to drive adoption, and the longer we indulge the most harmful excesses, the harder it will be to reverse them in the future when the trap has sprung.
I don't really think either of these arguments is obviously correct, so I lean toward the option that immediately limits harm. But I'm also under no illusion that anything other than short to medium term profits are driving automakers' decisions, so in practice we will surely get the worst of both worlds.
Handling is nice for freeway merges but it’s definitely not at high speed. Where I used to live in San Diego there were a couple of ramps where I’d see the SUV drivers wallowing around the curves, tires squealing, visibly struggling to stay in the lane, and it was just like “you do this every day, why?”
This. Who cares about top end speed when I can reliably pull ahead of any other vehicle on the road in my Model Y? I use that capability regularly. I'd literally never go 100+mph - that's a novelty.
What are you even talking about? Maybe if you're driving around the grid of a city. Most driving enthusiasts know where to find roads that are fun at legal speeds.
I actually suspect part of the reason people keep buying larger cars is because larger cars are safer and sometimes get better safety scores because in a two vehicle collision a heavier vehicle will experience less acceleration in the crash. Also more space to absorb the impact, increasing the time over which the acceleration happens. This genuinely makes heavier and larger cars safer if they are designed properly and maintain the same braking performance, which is totally possible.
However the issue is that a larger car is only a safety advantage if your car is large compared to other cars on the road, so if everyone else also buys heavier cars no one wins and pedestrians, the environment and so on all lose.
Also they’re worse for everything else: the poor handling, especially with overpowering, means you’re more likely to get in a crash, etc. Manufacturers have spent billions making them less likely to lose control, roll over, etc. but the physics are unforgiving.
Drivers discount that because they like to think that those are things they control and just won’t do, but every year some fraction of people will hit ice, be distracted or angry, etc.
This is a fantastic unit, because it normalizes charging speed and vehicle efficiency.
It’s directly proportional to time you’ll have to wait to drive X distance.
If they reported time to fill up the battery, it would vary between battery sizes, and overall time spent charging would be different due to different number of charging stops.
If they reported charging power (kW), it would mean different range depending on vehicle efficiency.
This is the best unit. You know how far you travel, you can easily calculate how long you will charge.
For eGMP cars the temperature makes a lot of difference.
I regularly hit the advertised 18 minutes/230kW charging when it’s >20C outside, but in colder weather it’s stuck at 80kW until it the battery heats up.
Everyone's worried about the range, but the reality is that the range doesn't matter at all in city driving, and OTOH no BEV will have range long enough for a serious road trip, and it will have to recharge multiple times. And then the difference is whether the charging stops will be quick coffee breaks, or add frustrating hours to the trip time.
Here's another data source of 1000km trips in various BEVs with charging time:
- With a fast-charging EV, a 1000km trip can be only half an hour slower than a cannonball run in an ICE car, or can be 5 hours slower in a Nissan Leaf, or 3 hours slower in a Toyota bz4x.
These tests are interesting to me as someone in the traffic congested Northeast US.
You can see cars with varying battery size x efficiencies competing similarly on the list. A variance of 40min on an 8-9hour trip isn't really that much considering I hit a 30min variance in a 90min trip around here due to traffic.
However in the US the problem you have is a much less mature charging network, especially for non-Tesla. An ideal future state is that EV fast chargers are as plentiful, well located, and closely spaced as gas stations.
Actual 150kW vs 350kW charge rates have never in practice been a problem for me versus fumbling with broken charging network apps, inoperable credit card readers, broken chargers, de-rated chargers, congested chargers, veering 10miles off the highway to find a charger, etc. Another factor is chargers being too far apart such that I need to take bathroom breaks in between rest stops that have chargers, and therefore double-stop. This would not happen with an ICE vehicle.
Ideal charging curves, conditioned battery, and max charge rates will be dividing factors in performance once the above is sorted out in US..
Long range EV’s are already at 5+ hours of driving at highway speeds, adding a single 60% charge (20% to 80%) and your talking well over 8 hours or ~1,000km which is longer than what most people do in a single day.
As such battery capacity is a huge deal on road trips assuming you can charge to full overnight and don’t excessively speed.
Not sure where you get these numbers, bjt a 600km range is 480km when charging to 80%, and you don't wait until 0 range to try to find a working fast charger.
That means 600km becomes 400km or less at 80% charges, and when you drove 140km/hr or more, the acceptable speed in many US states, that means less than 3hrs, and 600km isn't rated at 140km/hr speeds!
In other words, EVs don't work for long range driving.
Some may drive slow, or not count the 10 minutes to get on/off road and find a charger, and the 20 minutes to hook up and charge, and the potential to not find a free charger.. but I did.
And when I used these sensible, real world values, a trip from Quebec to California, which I take from time to time, changed from 3 days, to 8.
Lots of people drive like this. Lots. Especially Canucks wanting to escape snow, darkness, and wolves.
I've seen all the replies before, and all of them take some random thing, which I base on reality, averages, and fact, and try to pretend that ot doesn't matter.
But it does.
As others have said, if you are city driving only? Great! And many families have two cars, and that's another great place for an EV. One EV, on gas.
And we will get there range wise. We're just not even close yet, for long drives.
My personal experience (model y lr) is 4 hour trips are the sweet spot and anything over 6 hours becomes a drag. I can reliably go over 200 miles @ 80mph without charging but after the first charge you have to stop every 100 miles or less. When we do long cross country trips (8+ hours per day) we take the gas car.
140km/h is automatically reckless driving in many states like VA. In only 15 out of 50 states can you hit 140kph without doing 17+ mph over the speed limit.
Also, if all you’re doing is speeding down interstates all day what’s the point? Might as well just fly.
I've seen all the replies before, and all of them take some random thing,
See, this is the problem.
Two random things this time, which are not based upon reality.
1) Driving distance
You missed the part about being a Canuck, and escaping the winter.
This means I, and more than a million other Canadians, typically take our cars. Why? Well if you're gone for 3 or 4 months, a car rental is far more expensive than just taking your own car.
And this applies for even shorter timed trips too. Not to mention, the amount of luggage you can haul.
And no, you don't have a better way. And no, renting a car doesn't make sense. I know. We know. We're the ones doing it, and we're not dumb.
It's an enormous cost savings to drive.
(Love how you tried to invalidate my statement that electric cars have no legs, by instead saying it's just silly to drive long distance(just fly!))
2) Speed limit
It may be reckless driving in your state, and perhaps others, but it sure isn't everywhere. Otherwise, 25% of the cars I drive with on my trips are all looking for that same charge. And by that I mean, I'm barely speeding.
But it doesn't really matter, now does it? Because a) everyone is doing at least 10 mph over, and b) I do 140km/hr.
And you still hit extra wind drag, and therefore reduced range specs as a result. And yes, moving from 100 to 140km/hr makes a massive time distance on long trips.
Always, people with random points that really aren't relevant.
There is no need to defend electric cars. They have their place, people are buying them, and range is slowly extending.
If you really want to do those distances in an EV you can get about a 30% range boost from drafting. But for a trip you’re making twice a year an extra hour is hardly that big a deal. If you have both then sure use an ICE, but over 6 months you’ll save more time charging at home and avoiding gas stations than you spend on that road trip.
> Love how you tried to invalidate my statement that electric cars have no legs, by instead saying it's just silly to drive long distance
I was saying doing a road trip for well past 1,000km is an odd choice. It seems odd that 1 million Canadians can be gone from home for 3-4 months and what have second houses?
But for a trip you’re making twice a year an extra hour is hardly that big a deal.
That's not your call, for it's my deal. And 3 days to 8 days, as I said, is indeed a big deal.
And here we are again, with you hand-waving away my needs and requirements.
No, your way isn't better. It's worse. For me.
But that's not the point. The point is, electric cars have no legs.
And at a 40% estimate, that's 1/2 a million Canucks driving. And you try to wave away this number, by arguing as if this the only reason anyone ever drives long distances!
It's rare you claim. Well, no it isn't.
It's very common to drive more than 1000km, for many many people, although I realize you're not used to it.
Here's the thing, when people say they need the range, and that electric cars currently don't make sense for them?
They're absolutely, unarguably correct. They're correct, because requirements aren't met, and that's that.
8 days is silly, stock EV’s can do 2,800 miles in 2 days at the limit with multiple people doing so. I say 1,000 km per day as the edge of comfortable cruising because I know people that break up 700km trips over 2 days and I that’s roughly the point where most people I know fly.
Anyway, US electric cannonball run using a stock Tesla 3 stands 2,835 miles in 48 hours 10 minutes set in 2019. It’s easily beatable, but people have generally swapped to other models.
Using a stock and in fact rented Tesla Model S Long Range on October 22, 2021, Manhattan to Portifino Inn in Redondo Beach, CA 42 hours, 17 minutes. Lucid air was 44 hours 32 minutes, but they ran into issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_challenge
Of course modified cars can beat this, lowering the model 3 shaved 3 hours and there’s plenty of options to push things further. But that’s well outside of what a normal road trip represents.
I said Quebec to California. That's farther that US coast to coast.
And how on Earth can you compare a cannonball run, with meticulously chosen routes?
Have you ever driven 3 days at 14 hours, at 130 to 140km/hr, each day? While eating, staying in hotels, refueling and so on? Yes, that turns in 8 days in an EV.
>I said Quebec to California. That's farther that US coast to coast.
Ontario Quebec to Sacramento California is 2,809 miles just under the cannonball run distance. So your specific trip might be longer, but Quebec to California isn’t necessarily that far.
> Have you ever driven 3 days at 14 hours, at 130 to 140km/hr, each day? While eating, staying in hotels, refueling and so on? Yes, that turns in 8 days in an EV.
I’ve done 35 hours of driving out of 36 hours in a row only leaving the car at gas stations and even using a piss bottle.
As to EV’s over 3 days it might increase your trip by 3-6 hours depending on what stops you normally make and force you to pice a hotel with charging, perhaps pushing you to 4 days but that’s about it. There’s simply no way you’re seeing 8 days while driving an EV 130kph vs 130-140kph for an ICE.
Not sure I have a long range EV with the Ioniq 5. But in the winter with precoditioning I basically only get 2 1/2 hours. You can't run the battery to 0, precoditioning sucks up a ton of energy, and you need to get to a fast charger.
IMO long range starts at 400+ EPA meanwhile the Lucid air is over 500. But 2.5 hours vs a 303 EPA EV is low. Resistive heaters at 32f can cost you 25% range vs 6% with a heat pump so that could be your issue.
Two tips that may help is preheating your car while still plugged in and doing a partial preconditioning before charging on your road trip. That or your driving habits, speeding has diminishing returns when it costs you range.
Most people I know do 12 hour days when they roadtrips. They often pull into a drive through for lunch and then right back down the road.
Some will do 30+ hours straight, only stopping when they get gas. That is your baldder better make it to the next gas station and once there you need to not only use the restroom, but also find whatever you are going to eat - when the gas tank is full the car leaves. This is not safe, but it is done often.
Time to add 100 miles is probably the best gauge of road trips. That is a good number to stop at for a break (cars are 200-300 - but this is too long). 15-20 minutes every 100 miles is a good amount of time to force someone to walk around to charge - this time is about health. However if your times to much above that people have places to be and EVs are getting in the way. (I'm assuming that charging infrastructure supports that - it isn't quite there everywhere but that is coming fast)
Car are cheap once you have one (most of the costs are fixed so even if it sits in the driveway you still pay the cost), and so where I live in the mid west long road trips like the above are common - flying ends up being very expensive and doesn't save a lot of time at best, and at worst you miss a transfer and end up someplace you don't want to be for a few days. Trains are in theory possible, but also expensive and doesn't run great schedules.
When you start talking 10+ hour road trips flying or even taking the is more competitive as you need to include maintenance on your car. And really would you drive that long for such low pay as a job? It’s just not worth it in my social circle.
On the other hand spending a day casually driving back roads is kind of fun, and you’re going to spend time traveling either way so more reasonable road trips still exist.
Flying my family out visit my inlaws over christmas this year would cost $5000. I'd like to avoid the time driving, and if it was me I probably would, but the additional costs of the whole family make it not affordable. Car maintenance doesn't cost that much. While flying is a day faster in the best case, I've been stuck in a city I didn't want to be at because weather caused a missed connection (the airline wouldn't have 5 empty seats on a plane for a week - lots of last minute headache trying to find a different option to get to the funeral on time - driving puts me much more in control of this)
When I'm at work my company paid for flights, but even then many will tell you if it is only 12 hours to drive, just rent a car: flying is a headache and doesn't really save enough time to be worth it. (if you are going to/from a major hub then flying is great, but we often go between minor cities, which means several hours at various airports)
Ouch, 5,000$ for a family of 5 to travel ~1,000 miles x 2 with lots of notice seems crazy to me, but I live near a major airport.
So for me it’s generally fly to whatever the closest major airport is then rent a car and drive the last leg. That shaves most of the driving and avoids layovers etc while adding 3-4 hours for the flight + airport.
I can see you driving up to say 15h, but even then for a 20+ hour drive you might as well drive to a major airport fly and then drive the last leg.
In a few 7 or so hour drives in our ev, charging stops added probably an hour total. For how we drive it actually wasn’t bad at all and the chargers were (almost) all in nice spots where we could grab a coffee and use the restroom. I wish I could squeeze a bit more range out at interstate cruising speed though.
Has anyone done the math for how much "coffee" EV drivers consume vs ICE drivers? Wonder what the extra costs are for EV drivers while waiting for a charge.
haha I'd be surprised if I'm drinking more coffee than usual during those drives.... but any road trip I am definitely consuming more snacks and candy due to very poor self control.
This doesn’t account for going on a road trip during a popular time. During the holidays my socials are full of people queuing up to an hour to get a spot at a Tesla charger to then start charging.
I'm not surprised at all. MG4 is the best bang-for-the-buck BEV you can buy in Europe.
To me more surprising is that Fiat 500e was higher in the ranking, despite costing more and having smaller battery.
MG4 also has Xpower model, which costs the same as a base model of VW ID.3, but does 0-60 in 3.5s (it's not a real sports car, but it's still ridiculous).
> To me more surprising is that Fiat 500e was higher in the ranking, despite costing more and having smaller battery.
The buy Price tag is not the only thing that people are looking when buying a car.
People do care about maintenance and after sell service. In France, you can be pretty sure that anywhere you are, you are almost sure to have a Stellantis garage within 25km of your home. For MG... probably within 150km.
People care (maybe too much?) about that. This is especially true for an EV under warranty that your random neighbour garage will refuse to touch because he miss the know-how on it.
Software is eating all cars. It just happens that there weren't many good BEVs 20 years ago, so the touchscreen-takeover looks correlated with EVs.
Old Leaf and Renault Zoe have barely any tech in them (by modern standards). There was a niche Coda EV that was as "dumb" as any car from its era. EVs only need software for battery management.
Conversely, overuse of software, touchscreens and faux buttons made its way to contemporary ICE cars too. The crappy UI that VW has created for ID.3 has been "backported" to their ICE hatchbacks. Every car you buy with a 2024 model-year is going to be an iPad on wheels.
Yeah, but my phone on a vent mount works fine for that.
Usually on any trip that brushes up against usable range, I do the math kind of backwards. I know the distance for the trip, and know how much buffer I have. Then I just look at the trip distance elapsed, compared to the GOM, and if they are roughly 1:1 I know I’m trending well.
I'm so fucking glad I ride a push bike about 95% of the time. Not even an e-Bike, just a simple bike I can fix myself. It's good for me as well. I love the freedom of it so much.
AMD's implementation of `rep movsb` instruction is surprisingly slow when addresses are page aligned. Python's allocator happens to add a 16-byte offset that avoids the hardware quirk/bug.
