Chevy Bolt concept - 200 mile range, $30,000

[dannyf]

Come on, mojo. Don't you like to travel in your el cheapo overpriced Leaf in comfort and style, all bundled up head to toe?

[zapta]

Come on, mojo. Don't you like to travel in your el cheapo overpriced Leaf in comfort and style, all bundled up head to toe?

32k GBP for a Leaf. That's almost 50k USD. Wow!  No surprise the government need to bribe people to buy them.

[tom66]

Well, no, it's about £21,000  for the most basic model and after grant about £16,500 on the road price. That's cash price to get the car. (Since VAT is 20% on car sales, this is essentially eliminating VAT and giving you about £1,000 on top.)

For a fairer comparison, you can buy a basic VW Golf for about £17,000, and VW sell the e-Golf £26,145 with the £5,000 grant. So going electric costs about £14,000 more.

Is it worth it? Probably not right now. You'd have to keep the car for at least 8-10 years to recover the extra cost. Of course, driving electric is nicer, for a city car. Lower road tax, and you can drive in London free of charge. And many businesses offer free charging. IKEA do free Chademo ~50kW.

[tom66]

The Ikea in Leeds near me regularly has a LEAF charging. Two spots available. Waiting for the Tesla supercharger outside Leeds too. Massive build out of infrastructure (funded by private parties, I might add -- the government installed 3kW ones are completely useless for anything more than an electric scooter.)

[dannyf]

after grant about £16,500 on the road price.

That's half of what mojo-chan paid for its Leaf. Well, I guess he wanted to project an image of wealth and luxury through his el cheapo overpriced Leaf.

No wonder mojo-chan was resisting calls to do the math, No mojo after all.

The £16K figure is quite consistent with the US prices as well.

[dannyf]

Lower road tax

That's just so wrong, those EV free-riders.

Gasoline taxes are a great and fair way to raise user fees for road construction, in a world where gasoline uses in cars are universal. With the proliferation of EV (or non-gas powered vehicles), that's no longer the case.

We should figure out other ways to collect user fees for roads, bridges, highways, etc. Maybe taxing via tires is the new way to go.

[SeanB]

Electric cars would be nice here in S Africa ( providing of course there is actually electricity, as Eishkom is doing it's best to keep power somewhat available), and with our low electricity prices charging would be cheap.

I do know of a guy who did the race against a Mirage F1 in a VW Gof GTI, he was ahead for the first km, then the jet came past at about 2m off the ground. If he had used more than takeoff power ( like put on the reheat and double engine output) he would have passed at the 500m mark. I did see a pair of light to light racers one day going through town, and a truck tractor pulled up at the light sans trailers, and proceeded to smoke them to the next 3 lights. He was not full taps, as he needed to keep the front wheels on the road and the torque was tending to lift the one rear wheel set.

Here the leaf will be classed as a luxury vehicle, and as the standard luxury car has to be all wheel drive ( and bigger is better, bugger the fuel consumption) and has to tower over all other vehicles I doubt it will sell well. Best selling hybrid id the Ls350H, which is pretty common. Not sold as a hybrid, but more as a luxury vehicle, with the low fuel consumption being merely a bonus. Road licensing costs for electric and fuel vehicles here are only determined by kerb mass and vehicle size, not fuel. Electric pays the same as diesel or petrol, you just save on the cost of the fuel tax but pay electricity taxes instead.

[dannyf]

Most of the hybrid vehicles are luxury vehicles - I live in a 3rd world country.

I did see a Nissan Versa (Note?) that has some kind of hybrid badge, and some Hyundais too. So they are definitely going down market now.

How about those electric bikes? Delivery guys love them.

Too bad that delivery guys don't have sufficient political pulls / bribes to get some tax credits for those things, in spite of the fact that they are equally green as the luxury EVs.

Talk about crony capitalism.

[coppice]

For the first vew millimeters, you can outrun a Saturn rocket too,

Actually any car will outrun a rocket or a jet fighter for quite a while. They really take time to crank up.

[electr_peter]

Actually torque doesn't matter at all. ...

Are you being serious here?

Physics 101: ideal engine would have maximum power at all possible RPM range (from zero to max) with accompanying torque level equal ~max_power/RPM. Also, with ideal engine you would be able to choose both power level (from 0% to 100%) and required RPM.
Thus, in some sense, torque and RPM are not that interesting/unique for perfect engine as these quantities are directly calculated from power level.

However, there is no such thing as a perfect engine. All engines have a power and torque curves w.r.t. to RPM. These parameters are important as they allow to judge engine characteristics and compare engines over RPM range. Generally, electric motor has an advantage over ICE in terms of better torque curve through RPM range, especially on 0 and very low RPM. ICE torque curve is essentially zero in low RPM range where ideal engine produces almost infinite torque.

You can try to offset torque vs RPM for a specific engine with a specific gearbox, but there are physical and mechanical limitations (for example, you cannot efficiently use very high revving engine with narrow power band for a tractor).

Actually most ICE cars nowadays have an engine with a flat torque graph.

Are you sure about this?

ICE does not have flat torque curve (by construction and physics) unless one really tries to define what flat means. Ideal engine has decreasing torque curve w.r.t. to RPM.
In principle you can take electronically controlled engine with arbitrary torque curve and flatten this curve (simply by "cutting off" all excess torque). However, this is not desirable as engine will not too efficient or powerful. There are other ways of doing this flattening, of course.

[dannyf]

Physics 101: ideal engine would have maximum power at all possible RPM range (from zero to max) with accompanying torque level equal ~max_power/RPM.

An ideal reciprocal ICE would have flat (maximum) torque curve, with its maximum power happening at the maximum rpm for that engine.

Torque essentially comes from the explosion inside the cylinder, so if you ignore the inefficiencies associated with engine breathing and mechanism limitations, the (max) torque is the same as all engine rpm.

Torque determines work done by the engine per revolution so the more revolution you can put inside a given time frame (ie. high rpm), the more output you get out of an engine -> HP is linear to rpm, assuming flat torque.

Obviously, the torque curve isn't flat: it is low at low rpm, and at high rpm too. Because of that, EVs have a considerable advantage over ICE at low rpm.

You can point to lots of dyno charts for support.

Obviously, we are making a significant simplification: (brushed) DC motors have its maximum torque at zero rpm and minimum torque at its highest rpm -> you can point to lots of dyno charts for support as well.

However, motors in EVs are not your traditional DC motors so that doesn't quite hold*. But in general, EVs tend to have a flat (and maximum) torque at low rpm and then it starts to decline. So great take-off in a EV (I think something like THINK achieved sub 6s in 0-60mph, quite impressive for a shoebox), tough luck at highway passings.

*for example, brushless DC motors have terrible torque (practically none) until a certain rpm is reached.

[dannyf]

Here is a Leaf dyno chart.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzXtOK1CkFKsYmExZmI1N2EtYzRlYi00MzhlLWJhMzYtMzA3YmE3M2NjNTE0/edit?ddrp=1&hl=en_US#

You can infer from it the following:

1) flat torque until 25mph: the HP output is linear to rpm/vehicle speed;
2) torque declining inversely with rpm/vehicle speed after that: constant HP output after 25mph. Those would suggest progressively limited acceleration at higher speed -> tough passing at high speed.

[tom66]

Gasoline taxes are a great and fair way to raise user fees for road construction, in a world where gasoline uses in cars are universal. With the proliferation of EV (or non-gas powered vehicles), that's no longer the case.

We should figure out other ways to collect user fees for roads, bridges, highways, etc. Maybe taxing via tires is the new way to go.

You didn't answer me last time when you brought this up. How is it fair that a Prius driver, using gasoline engine, pays less gasoline tax than a Camry/Corolla driver, which will have a lower average MPG? Neither causes particularly more damage to the road -- arguably the Prius actually causes more, as it's a heavier car, with the battery and two drivetrains.

At least road tax takes emissions into account. EVs are zero-tailpipe and low-plant emissions (+ transport for coal or natgas), compared to ICEs, which have tailpipe, transport, production and extraction emissions. (A full W2W analysis of most petrol cars puts them in the 600gCO2/km range.)

[dannyf]

A Honda, with its VTEC valve breathing, would have flat torque well into the 6000rpm+ range, producing lots of power there.

However, its low-end torque is limited. The same for the rotary engines from Mazda.

That's where a supercharger or a diesel engine or a large placement engine has a significant advantage: you don't have to rev-up the engine to get torque off the line.

[electr_peter]

Physics 101: ideal engine would have maximum power at all possible RPM range (from zero to max) with accompanying torque level equal ~max_power/RPM.

An ideal reciprocal ICE would have flat (maximum) torque curve, with its maximum power happening at the maximum rpm for that engine.

I was talking about general engine (with rotating action) with a fixed power. ICE engines are a bit different and more restrictive (you cannot choose any arbitrary RPM to get wanted power).

With constant power (and very high low end torque) you get very good low speed/RPM acceleration which decreases as speed goes up. High acceleration at low speed is nice, but for some people it is annoying because acceleration reduces too quickly with speed. Some drivers say that it is a bit depressing to know that "when you press throttle 100%, you know you have experienced maximum acceleration already and it will reduce immediately".
With constant torque (and linearly increasing power) you get constant acceleration independent of speed. Some drivers prefer constant torque as it is very intuitive - throttle linearly controls amount of torque/acceleration you experience.
Historically, diesel engines were more like constant power devices and petrol engines were more like constant torque devices (very loosely speaking).

Given the above, if you have two engines with same max power output, one with higher low-end torque will win a drag race (because it has more torque-> more output power at lower RPM) unless you use very fancy gearbox which forces engine to run at max RPM (and at max power) independent of speed.

As electric motors have very high low end torque in comparison with typical ICE, it is not surprising that electric car manufacturers use low speed drag racing type marketing campaigns (for example, BMW i3 drag race)

[dannyf]

With constant power (and very high low end torque) you get very good low speed/RPM acceleration which decreases as speed goes up.

If you had constant power, torque is necessarily inversely proportional to rpm -> an (brushed dc) motor for example.

(regular) ICEs have a torque curve that's flat in the middle and dipped on both ends -> that means their power output is proportional to rpm until a point -> ie. not constant power.

[nctnico]

Given the above, if you have two engines with same max power output, one with higher low-end torque will win a drag race

Right answer but wrong explaination. The engine with more power at low RPM wins the drag race because it can put more energy in an object in less time. Accelleration is about energy. Not torque. Torque is defined as N/m. There is no energy and/or time relation in those units and therefore it cannot be used to compare time related performance.

And yes, many IC engines used in cars have flat (relatively speaking) torque curves. Just look up some dyno charts.

[dannyf]

if you have two engines with same max power output, one with higher low-end torque will win a drag race (because it has more torque-> more output power at lower RPM) unless you use very fancy gearbox which forces engine to run at max RPM (and at max power) independent of speed.

Acceleration is dependent on the force on the tires (F), which is proportional to the Torque on the wheel (Tw), assuming the same wheel diamters (D. Tw = F*D).

So everything else being equal (they are not), a car with bigger torque on the (driving) wheels will win the race.

Tw, however, is a function of drive ratio (dx) and torque from the engine (Te): Tw = Te * dx.

So, yes, end of the day, a car with bigger engine torque output is going to win.

That discussion, unfortunately, assumes that the gearing ratio is the same. Most often, a engine with a smaller engine (thus lower Te) is geared more aggressive (high dx). Worse yet, such a car is more likely lighter. So the end result is hard to predict.

Another factor working against an ICE (vs. EV) is that aggressive gearing means that engine has to revolve at high rpm (from low rpm), which takes time.

The torque in an electric motor is almost instant on, in comparison.

So there are multitude of factors working against an ICE in a standing still launch (drag race).

[dannyf]

Torque is defined as N/m.

Probably not.

There is no energy and/or time relation in those units and therefore it cannot be used to compare time related performance.

That's because your math is wrong.

[dannyf]

So there are multitude of factors working against an ICE in a standing still launch (drag race).

Let me state it differently:

If you have two engines with identical HP ratings but different torque curves, they will accelerate the same IF you can continuously vary the gearing.

If you have two engines with identical HP ratings but different torque curve, the engine with the highest torque (at any rpm) will out-accelerate under the same gearing.

[Rick Law]

...
Well in the spirit of presenting actual factual data. Here's something to explain:

In 2005 the US collected $35.8 billion in motor fuel tax revenue. But in that same year according to this study by the National Research Council, gas and diesel burning motor vehicles cost the public $56 billion in health and other nonclimate-related damages.
...

So, what is new about government and semi-government entities just kept on singing the official tune?  Just like China's record grain production that everyone "know" it is true, while 20 million people died of hunger in the 60's.

I believe in that as much as I believe in our "economic recovery"... 30 year low in labor participation rate, record low in average income, 92 million working age adults not working...   Sure we are recovering... Sure...

While I agree with you about false economic statistics, that really has nothing to do with the national research council which is composed of the national academy of sciences, national academy of engineering, and institute of medicine.

It's a completely false comparison. Economics is not a true science and economic statistics reported by government entities are a completely different thing than science or something quite black and white like tax receipts.

Of course if your one of those anti-science nutters then, well, good luck to ya...

I am not one of those anti-science nuts.  I am trained in Physics with graduate degree, so I know what qualifies as science and how science should be done.  Just because some people consider science doesn't make it so.

To borrow "A scientist's code of conduct" from UC Berkeley article: "Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior"  [my insertion: and how money changes "scientist behavior"]
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_03
  - 1. Pay attention to what other people have already done
  - 2. Expose your ideas to testing
  - 3. Assimilate the evidence
  - 4. Openly communicate ideas and tests to others
  - 5. Play fair: Act with scientific integrity
Environmental Science and Global warming failed all 5 criteria.  When was the last time the data was critically discussed?  etc. etc.  I am not saying it won't pass.  I am saying it has not yet pass.

Thus, Environmental Science is not one I would call science.  It totally lack the vigor required by science be it in collected data or proposed hypothesis or peers verification.  Consequently, "Environmental Science" like "creation science" and many other "sciences" are on a par in substance.    One wants to spend your money saving the planet, the other wants to spend your money saving the soul of the world...  Bottom line is, like many other "sciences", they just want your money.

That is why I would not trust anything said by the environmental groups unless and until government, tax, and government funding is taken out of the picture.

Rick

[mtdoc]

"The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal."

Come on dude, reading comprehension... The change of fuel was not the driver, it was as a result of the development of the steam engine that started the revolution. With steam power it was possible to mechanize labour that was previously done manually. Instead of a horse dragging a cart full of goods a steam engine could drag a wagon down a track. Instead of weaving fabric by hand a steam powered loom could do it. Obviously wood could have been used as a fuel for the steam engines, but coal was more efficient (but also unfortunately a lot dirtier).

I think you're missing the distinction between necessary versus sufficient.  No one is arguing that coal was by itself sufficient - only that it was necessary. Steam engines were no doubt a key ingredient - but they alone would not have led to the industrial revolution without coal. England was already largely deforested by the late 18th century. While wood can be used to generate steam, it does not have nearly the energy density of coal.  It cannot be transported in bulk as easily as coal and you need large tracts of mature forests close to where the wood is needed.  That coal was a necessary driver of the industrial revolution is not even remotely controversial among historians.  Human history is punctuated by sudden advances in technology and population growth only when a new external energy source becomes available.  We function as part of a dissipative system that can only grow at a rate commensurate with external energy inputs.

The story of ever increasing external energy inputs so far has been this: Wood -->Draft animals ---> Coal --> Oil/gas --> ?? (unfortunately Nucs and RE cannot fully replace Oil/gas)

As far as the relationship between various energy inputs and the industrial revolution the chart below is useful (from this book courtesy of Gail Tverberg).

[zapta]

Too bad that delivery guys don't have sufficient political pulls / bribes to get some tax credits for those things, in spite of the fact that they are equally green as the luxury EVs.

...not to mention us couch dwellers. Significantly smaller environmental footprint than those Earth abusers Leaf owners. Other people should recognize it and give us some of their money.

[SeanB]

Steel smelting needs high quality coking coal to make in large amounts. You can use charcoal, but this needs nearly double the volume, as it is not as dense or energy rich in a blast furnace. Thus coal was the driving force in the industrial revolution, as the one basic part ( aside from rich haematite and plentiful chalk limestone) needed to make all the steel that machinery was being made from. That the UK had the coal seams that were both good quality and easy to mine with hand equipment and ponies was a leading force in the rise of industry.

Only later did steel making start to use electricity for remelting scrap, after the electric industry got to the point where it could deliver the required power level using low grade coal that was not usable in steel making.

[tom66]

...nNot to mention us couch dwellers. Significantly smaller environmental footprint than those Earth abusers Leaf owners. Other people should recognize it and give us some of their money.

Not having a car is considerably cheaper than having one. No road tax, for example. So, you're getting a £200 a year government grant for not owning a car. (That's if you look at a £5k grant as the same as actually giving someone £5k, which it patently isn't.)