|
Hermsgervørden posted:I'm curious about different power train configurations in EVs. It seems like there is so much potential in something like an active wheel in terms of simplicity of vehicle layout and construction, not to mention amazing all-wheel drive awesomeness. Why haven't we seen this on a production car yet? Extra useful on a small car, I would think. The typical problem with motor-in-wheel designs is unsprung mass. Basically it's anything in the suspension or drivetrain that moves with the tire when going over a bump rather than moving with the chassis. Greater unsprung mass means the tire and suspension assembly can not react as quickly to changes in the road, so not only are more bumps transferred to the vehicle but the tire is also not kept in as firm of contact with the road while going over bumpy surfaces resulting in reduced traction and negative handling effects. This design seems like it might be a little bit better in that way with its internal suspension, but I don't really have the knowledge to make a worthwhile judgement. The one motor per wheel idea overall is pretty awesome though and I'm in favor of anything that brings us closer to it becoming a reality. I'm more in favor of an inboard motor design with the motors where the differentials are on normal vehicles just to avoid the whole unsprung mass problem, but the advantages of complete control of power distribution to all four corners are the same no matter where the motors are.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Boten Anna posted:The 240V plug I have in my garage is a NEMA 6-30, and apparently the EVSE upgrade plug is a NEMA L6-30. I'm having a hard time finding an appropriate adapter; does anyone have any suggestions? Replace the socket? It should be a direct replacement, no harder than changing any other electrical socket, and at least here a L6-30 socket is under $25 out the door. I'd probably take more time prodding with my multimeter to be absolutely sure I had the right circuit turned off than it would actually take to change the outlet. Two screws to remove the cover, two more to release the outlet from the box, and three wires. Installation is the reverse of removal (I wince a bit saying those words after many bad Haynes experiences, but it's true in this case). The reason you're having a hard time finding adapters is that the L in L6-30 is for locking. It's the style that twists in to the outlet so it can't be pulled out inadvertently. An adapter to make something the manufacturer thinks should lock to the outlet not do so would probably be a liability concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Madurai posted:Lesson learned the hard way: NEMA 14-50 isn't actually the standard RV plug, after all. Need to pick up one of these. It's the standard large RV plug, but pretty much every park will have 120v 30A from a TT-30 connector where 240v 50A from a 14-50 is generally available at nicer parks but may not be in all spaces. And occasionally you find the real shithole parks that only have standard 15/20A, but those tend to be the middle of nowhere places.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Trisk posted:I think maybe this is just a Nissan thing... my 350Z does the exact same "---" thing when miles remaining gets very low. Don't know about other models though. My Kia does this as well. Gas light goes on at 50 miles, miles remaining hits 30 and then goes to "---".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Voltage posted:I think the space shuttle tanks were intentionally gapped to prevent failures due to thermal expansion/compression. BMW's Hydrogen 7 would lose a full tank in less than two weeks of sitting. It's that hard to store. edit: how the hell'd the "to" disappear? Stupid Awful app... wolrah fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Between two different FirstEnergy subsidiaries and a rural co-op I haven't ever seen variable rates here in Ohio.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Also the original Tesla roadster was supposed to have multiple drive gears, but they got rid of it when they downrated a bunch of other stuff to make it easier to make. I thought they got rid of it because they kept breaking gearboxes in the prototypes. It's a lot easier to make a simple reduction box sturdy compared to a shiftable transmission.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Linedance posted:If it helps, think of a reciprocating engine, and ask yourself why you can't just vary the timing to start spinning crankshaft in the opposite direction instead of having a reverse gear. Same basic problem to overcome; what the gently caress to do with all that energy. It's just *easier* to deal with the physics with electromagnetism. Funny thing, some snowmobiles (and possibly other similar vehicles) do exactly this for reverse, they literally run the engine backwards. It's only practical with two stroke motors currently (though presumably an independent valve control technology like Koenigsegg's prototype could make it workable with four strokes) but it does work. IIRC Ski-Doo turned what had previously been a quirk of two strokes that happened accidentally from time to time in to an actual controllable thing in the late '90s. I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics about it when I was a kid but I have no idea what terms to search to find it now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Anyone know anything about EV conversions? I realised my budget and desires match up with a converted ICE car better than what's out there right now (especially budget). Are lithium batteries getting more readily available and affordable? At one point (before apparently refocusing entirely on their charger line) eMotorWerks used to offer a kit for converting E46 BMWs to electric. I can't find the product page anymore for specifics, but based on press releases and old forum posts it looks like it was around $15,000 to start for a 30kWh setup offering a claimed range of 100 miles and compatible with J1772 chargers up to level 2. I'd imagine in a homebrew type environment you would probably be able to save money on the parts but you'll be putting a lot more of someone's time (be it your own or someone you're paying to do the job) in to fabrication and integration.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Details on the Model X released/leaked. The $132k base price is for "Signature" models, the first run units, which are all well-equipped 90Ds. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/639170376186990592 quote:With same options, Model X is $5k more than an S due to greater size & body complexity. Sig Series is fully loaded, hence high price. If they offer it with the same drivetrain choices as Model S that means $75k base for a 70kWh RWD.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
ijustam posted:I like that car a lot. Is there a consensus on plug-in hybrids? Is the extra weight and loss of space worth the extra EV time? As Clarkson put it in the "can I afford it?" bit of his Fiesta review: quote:If you have 11,000 pounds to spend on a car then yes, you can. If you've only got 40p then no, you can't. For the C-Max you lose about 20% of your cargo space and gain 250 pounds in exchange for the ability to drive around 20 miles without burning a drop of gas. Whether that makes sense for your needs only you know. It's a C-Max, not a performance car, so you probably won't even notice the weight. If you feel you'll be filling it up close to maxed out regularly or if your regular driving needs per day significantly exceed 20 miles it's probably not worth it. If you'll rarely need the cargo capacity and have a short enough commute to stay in EV mode most of the time it might be worth it depending on the price difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Let's be real Microsoft has a billion programming man hours available annually and can't produce a cell phone, how can Nissan compete with that level of failure. Microsoft's also (partially) responsible for MyFordTouch. It's just as stupid and somehow can't use the GPS or any of the three different ways it can get online to set the clock.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think it is so much we need less computers, but we need less CONNECTED computers. You really can't get around computers with an Electric Vehicle, or at least basic Engine Management computers for managing batteries and regulators. Nah, connected computers are a good thing as a whole, the tricky thing is convincing the vendors to actually spend time on security rather than rushing features out the door as fast as possible. For that we basically need industry standards and enforcement that actually has teeth. If the stockholders feel it when a security issue comes up you can bet that the company will care next time around. wolrah fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
duz posted:Yeah, that's one thing that's really impressed me with Tesla, their carputer is basically designed from an computer engineer view point, not an auto engineer view point. I know it's better than most, but I recall when people first found the hidden ethernet port it was quickly discovered that the displays were open X11 servers that anything else on the network could communicate with. I'm pretty sure that's been considered a bad idea for a very long time. To their credit I think that got locked down pretty quickly after it was made public, plus they definitely had some kind of intrusion detection going on because they contacted the owner involved and let him know they knew he was poking around with things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'm not too worried about attacks that require someone to get inside my car, honestly. There are lots of unsavory things that an attacker can do with access to the engine compartment of any car, really. Completely agreed, that particular thing just stood out as odd since I'm pretty sure they had to go out of their way to put X11 in to an insecure configuration like that. There may not be any way to exploit possible X11 bugs directly over a remote connection, but if something else allows remote access to another part of the car any internal vulnerabilities might have just become external vulnerabilities by proxy, so you can't entirely discount them. Basically the same logic behind why its a good idea to keep up internal security on a business network even if your firewall is locked down.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Yep, there's a part of the market to whom the fact that a vehicle's design screams "I'm electric!" is a positive. They want people to know its something different. There's another part that really doesn't like that Prius/Leaf/Insight style and just wants electric cars to look like normal cars (myself included). Then there are some in the middle who really couldn't care less.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
GM has trademarked "Corvette E-Ray" http://blog.caranddriver.com/corvette-e-ray-trademarked-is-an-electrified-vette-coming-plus-our-don-sherman-weighs-in/ I'm thinking if it goes anywhere we're talking about a R8 E-Tron type concept that might become a limited production reality rather than anything they actually plan on building a lot of. Another somewhat reasonable possibility would be a mild plug-in hybrid similar to the latest hypercars where the EV-only range is barely enough to meet whatever minimal standard they're targeting and it's otherwise used to boost acceleration and slightly help city mileage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:While I don't think this incident is a very big deal in itself, it has, along with reading some owner experiences in the winter season, brought forward my pet hate about Teslas: the "clever" doors. The windows freeze up, which happens on all cars, but on this car it means you can do damage to the window then you open the door since it has to slide down a little bit. quote:Then there's the issue with a fire. The door openings are electrical, driven by the 12 volt circuit. That circuit can (or does so automatically) cut out in a fire. This means people can be trapped inside. There are emergency levers inside, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a realistic fatal scenario which would end well if they just had regular drat door handles. Hope they drop this crap on the Model 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Aside from the BRZ, Subaru hasn't sold a vehicle with frameless windows in almost 10 years. I'm sure it does make getting in and out in a narrow space with the windows down easier, but how often are you really doing that? Do you leave your windows down when parked in a tight lot or where some random person is likely to pull in close to you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Well, my garage actually. quote:Subaru also apparently did it for A and B pillar strength. It's hard to argue that when the GD Impreza caused EMTs to publish a writeup on how to do a proper roof removal since it was impossible for the jaws of life to cut the B pillar. Throatwarbler posted:On many cars you can hold down the unlock button on the remote and it will roll down the windows. I forget if Subarus did this. I guess they're less bad than I previously thought, but dealing with Ohio winters where windows often get stuck I still can't get behind the ones where the window actually has to come down for the door to operate properly. I used to have a Probe that just used an inner seal and that of course didn't have the same problem, but instead just didn't seal all that well at all. wolrah fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Huh, I was not expecting to actually be interested in the Bolt. IMO it looks better than the i3 both inside and out, it's nothing special but it's not trying to be either. It looks normal for its size. It has good range and the price tag (not counting any tax incentives that may apply) is in the same range as a CPO Model S with the same battery capacity. If the lease rates are decent I might consider getting one a year or two in to do my local running around in and only use my Fiesta ST for fooling around on weekends or the occasional long trip.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Wow... I had no idea those were that bad. Why even have a hatchback at that point? There's a guy around my town who got one when they were brand new and seemed to use it as a commuter car. Seeing that cargo area makes me wonder if it would actually be good for anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Oooh, if this were only a 2 seater: I think it is, at least in theory. The gasoline 3 wheeler has two seats and this one still looks to have the driver's seat offset to one side. It has a cover installed over the passenger spot, but that looks to be removable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Ola posted:This is alleged to be a leaked picture: One of the car blogs had a good image showing how that's just a photoshop of a Model X press image. The most obvious thing to note is the shadow, which whoever shopped it forgot to shorten.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Your reservation number probably isn't going to have a great deal to do with your actual build number, anyway. Haven't the first batches of both the S and X been the "Signature" models that only come loaded? Hell, the X still doesn't have a configurator, are there any non-Signature models even out there yet? I'd expect the same here. First batch is all loaded models, then they start to phase in other configurations. Your reservation number could probably impact your order within a batch of similar cars, but I'd be willing to bet that those who want a more stripped down configuration are going to be waiting the longest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Do Teslas' connection use 4G? Or are they only on 3G? Model S was 3G-only initially but has supported LTE in hardware since some time in early 2015, the software was updated to enable it some time later. Apparently there's an upgrade program for older vehicles. It's a safe bet that all future vehicles will be LTE-capable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Turn on the heater to draw some current? I'm pretty sure this is basically how dynamic braking in diesel-electric trains works, they have huge resistor grids on the roof that let them run the motors as generators and then dissipate that massive amount of energy as heat. Assuming the electric heater in a Tesla is just a resistor setup (no reason it wouldn't be, they're incredibly efficient) it's sort of the same thing on a hugely different scale. It's also funny to think about, in an old gasoline car you might have to turn the heater on going uphill in an attempt to stave off overheating while you worked the engine. In an electric car you might have to turn on the heater going downhill to burn power and make room for regenerative braking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:But I find it curious that you would call it efficient. Sure, a resistor turns 100% of the electricity it draws in to heat, but that's still far less than the 300% a heat pump could achieve. On an electric vehicle we would have better uses than heating for that electricity. I wouldn't call near 100% efficiency not efficient though. Don't heat pumps have issues with heating in really low temperatures? I know they're used for home heating in some regions with moderate winters, but here in Ohio it's pretty much all electric or combustion. I'm not really that familiar with them but I'm pretty sure the core concept is roughly a reversible air conditioner and you're effectively heating your house by cooling the outside. Since Tesla uses a liquid cooling system for the motors and batteries I wouldn't be surprised to find there's also a roughly standard heater core setup like most other cars that handles normal heating needs once the car's warmed up and the resistor pack only fires up when it's needed, sort of like an auxiliary heater on a diesel. wolrah fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
The Sicilian posted:Lol at e-golf man, but the S actually does have some frightening acceleration. Relevant and doesn't seem to have been posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4lXthHJUw4&t=31s "This thing will leave everything for dust" about a drat i3. Apparently to a London car thief the same basic acceleration as a 2.0L Kia Soul is amazing. It is funny how he doesn't seem to understand the electric part and thinks the car's off.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Have you actually driven an i3? It's a very nice car to drive, very few cars apart from other electrics will beat it from the traffic light, because no one actually likes to rev out their Kia Souls, whereas with an electric, you have all the power instantly and silently. The Kia Soul+ 2.0 does 0-60 in 7 seconds on paper, but will anyone ever actually do that? As for people liking to rev out their Kia Souls, I am that idiot.  I kept cooking one tire off the line so my best was 16.7@85, where magazines have them in to the low 16s and there are claims of high 15s on the internets that don't seem unreasonable with better tires. I wrung every rev out of that hamster for 30,000 miles and probably would have traded up to a second-gen model if they still offered the manual with the 2.0, or if the EV had about 50% more range. Obviously I acknowledge your point though, I'm the oddball.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:Regular flooding would show poorly on the builder and the captain. Boats are for the most part only flooded with salt water once in their operating life.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Ola posted:This is what they should be doing:  A face only a mother could love.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
kill me now posted:The Soul EV has its batteries not in the trunk or anywhere that causes it to have less interior space then the gas model. It was also not designed from the ground up as an EV. According to Car and Driver the second row floor is raised a few inches compared to a gas model, and Kia's own specs indicate 3 inches less legroom.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:These days, how crazy impractical is it to convert an ICE car to electric? My dream car is an early 2000s Toyota Spyder, and Toyota has shown off prototype e-variants for years with no sign of production, plus I prefer the older body style anyway. Would converting a Spyder be an eccentric monocled Zeppelin-flying rich guy project, or something that would come in as cheap as or cheaper than buying a new e-car? http://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=219 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmDyK4Dyu-E Having read a lot of EV conversion build logs from what I've seen it's sort of a mixed bag compared to combustion engine swaps. The physical placement of the drive components is usually easier because they tend to be smaller and less parts have to mount in specific places in relation to the rest. Any electronic integration you choose to do is going to be similar to any other engine swap. Belt-driven accessories like A/C and power steering will obviously require some thought if you want to keep them (though with a small convertible you probably could ditch both without losing much). You'll also be operating in less charted territory too, ICE swaps on popular sporty cars are relatively common by comparison, so the community knowledgebase to pull from is smaller. Effectively you'd be DIYing the same basic concept as a Tesla Roadster. Think about how rough those were as low-volume production vehicles, then realize your homebrew creation will likely be worse. That said in no way am I saying you shouldn't do this, as long as you know what you're getting in to it sounds like a fun and interesting project.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Ola posted:So before you've bought a donor Toyota, you're already on par with the budget for two cars. I feel bad nay-saying such a fun project idea, but having seen my share of build logs as well, it does usually end up pretty terrible. Stuff that's still viable to DIY, IMO: Tractors, ATVs, small boats.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Pff get back to me when they make an electric version of this:  ?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:SO it didn't see the truck because it was white? Doesn't the autopilot use radar or FLIR or some poo poo too? I can't imagine it's just one of those Playstation camera things. I believe it does have a radar. but I'm pretty sure it's bumper-mounted. Depending on the beam pattern it might have gone right under the trailer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Yes it's obvious the trucks fault, and not the guy who's taking his hands off the steering wheel. Here's the intersection where it happened: https://www.google.com/maps/place/W...7!4d-82.4467705 According to the police report quoted in a few of these articles the truck was coming from westbound 27A and making a left turn on to southbound NE 140th. The victim was going east on 27A and T-boned the semi trailer as it crossed his path. There's no stop light there, so through traffic on 27A always has right-of-way. Visibility is definitely not as good as it could be to the west because of a hill, but eyeballing it on Google Maps it looks like around 800 feet. Even if the Tesla was driving at its maximum speed of 155 MPH (which I'm not sure Autopilot would even allow?) both parties would have been visible to each other for at least three seconds before impact, and I'm sure had the speed been even close to that high Tesla would have mentioned it. Basically the truck driver is definitely at fault at the core, he made a left across traffic when it was not clear for him to do so. Getting hit when making a left across traffic is sort of like rear-ending someone. It's pretty much always your fault. That certainly does not absolve the person who was supposed to be driving from responsibility for the fact that he was paying so little attention to the road as to basically crash in to the broad side of a barn. He clearly understood the limitations of the system well, yet chose to trust it beyond its abilities.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Have we established the speed of the vehicle? Uncle Jam posted:Nope, but getting hit while making a left across traffic is not an automatic damnation either. Florida 316.122 posted:The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, or vehicles lawfully passing on the left of the turning vehicle, which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard. Florida 316.123 posted:If such a driver is involved in a collision with a pedestrian in a crosswalk or a vehicle in the intersection, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the driver’s failure to yield the right-of-way. In all likelihood both parties share the fault. The trucker probably should have seen the oncoming traffic and thus shouldn't have pulled out in front of it, but the victim was probably speeding and definitely was not paying attention to the road like he should have been. If he was he should have had no trouble avoiding the truck. It's not really relevant though, with one party dead no one other than the insurance companies and their lawyers should really care how much fault swings one way or another. quote:The design of that intersection is real dumb tho
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
pun pundit posted:I'd think the truck driver would care a lot. Or is it not punishable in the USA when you kill someone in traffic and the accident is your fault?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 20:17
|
|