And you claim to be the guy that can do it!
OK now your just butthurt.And you claim to be the guy that can do it!
Because you: "have actual hands-on experience in ecomodding and custom fabrication."
So, lead by example! Post some examples!
I'm worn out with ideas.
Someone even said it was a "Big Joke".
But, if you were to incorporate even half of my ideas, you sir, would have so much extra range that.... I'm out of ideas....
. ( I know I was!)Accelerating a given mass to a given speed requires a given energy. Time is not in the equation.
Isn’t that assuming completely efficient conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy? (Actually asking, not trying to look smart). I was always under the impression that mashing the go pedal in a combustion car would result in more wasted energy. Anecdotally I have heard variable acceleration has less impact on EV efficiency, but have no personal data to back that up.
There are some very small losses to heat at a higher current, so mashing the Go pedal will use a tiny bit more energy than pressing lightly on it. But the slightly less but still tiny impact to energy consumption is probably from having a higher average speed over the same distance when you accelerate quickly vs slowly.
ICEs are most efficient in a very narrow range around the torque peak. Fast acceleration which revs the engine to the max shift point does use more fuel. That's why many Japanese cars today are equipped with Continuously Variable Transmissions. These are very good at holding an ICE at torque peak over a wide range of speeds. Many 'muricans don't like CVTs because, "it makes the engine sound different" so the engineers have been ordered to screw up an efficient design by making their CVTs feel as if they're shifting gears.
jack vines
I have some ideas I can make a 3D render of.
2 minutes would use less energy if for no other reason than you're spending a greater percentage of your journey at slower speeds where the air resistance doesn't play as big a role.
I really don't think that is the answer.
No. You are not thinking. Get some coffee.
I lean towards @Sean Nelson on this one. I don't think accelerating for a longer period of time uses more energy, because accelerating slowly uses less power. Power is Energy / Time (or Energy = Power x Time).
An EV is much less inefficient accelerating than an ICEV. There is a bit more energy lost, to heat, at high power rates, but you are talking a few percent for seconds out of, say, and hour drive. The totally separate effect on efficiency to the effect acceleration has on average speed from point A to point B. Again, if you take 2 minutes to get to your cruise speed vs 30 seconds, it is still a small part of an hour drive, so would only lower your average speed by a fraction of a mph.
Absolutely correct. Imagine driving 100 miles from point A to point B. If you take 50 miles to steadily get to 50 mph, you first 50 miles is at an average of 25 mph.
Reductio ad absurdum, accelerate so gradually it takes 49 miles to reach 50 MPH and the last mile coasting to a stop. The average speed and energy use is lower than if one accelerated as quickly as possible to 50 MPH and held that for 100 miles. However, the time use is such it will remain theoretical.
Right, it's a very low percent lost to heat in the whole system, from battery to motor.
The enjoyable part of driving is the visceral experience of acceleration caused by changes in speed or direction. This is felt when taking off, stopping, and cornering. Traveling at insanely high speed, on a straight, boring interstate, surrounded by hundreds of other drivers, most of who are incompetent at best, and increasingly actively hostile, offers no feeling of acceleration...except in dangerous situations. This, along with the waste of energy, is why I avoid them whenever possible. Driving on scenic, secondary roads at the speed limit, with moments of hard regen and acceleration at stop signs, and cornering without reducing speed, gives maximum pleasure, and still gives higher mi/kWh than the EPA cycle for the Bolt.
