Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
I'd be here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9nRll4c_A
if it was open.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
I'd be here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9nRll4c_A
if it was open.
Paddon tells about their Hyundai Kona EV rally car:
- Battery can be changed in 5 mins
- Battery can be charged in 10-40 mins
- Car is faster already than R5 and AP4
- Risk of fire is smaller than in combustion engine cars
- There will be a sound
https://moottori.fi/ajoneuvot/jutut/...alin-ratkaisu/
Useless information without knowing the battery capacity. Anyway fast charging can't charge more than 80% of the battery capacity of the existing battery designs, i.e. in that case full battery capacity can't be used (or the charging takes a lot more time).Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
Sorry but that is technicaly nonsense. The first problem is that nobody has any hard data for EV used in rallying, therefore nobody can compare the probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
The second thing with battery fires is that they carry their own oxygen and therefore don't need air to burn, hence why it is impossible to extinguish the fire before it burns all. In other words if the car catches fire in a forest it will burn for an hour or so not for five minutes as with the combustion-engine powered car and the fire brigade can basically only localize the scene and wait - that is extremely hazardeous in windy and dry conditions and you need tons and tons of water for that.
The third and not smaller problem is that the fire is very very difficult to anticipate because the fire can start basically anytime after a battery-damaging incident over a very long period of time. The first issue here is that it's often impossible to recognize what is "battery-damaging" incident. It can be a hit on the vehicle floor which causes no visible structural damage. That is something which happens pretty often in rallying. How to prevent that? Will the batteries go to a quarantine after every service stop and stay there for couple of weeks? IMHO that is hardly possible.
There are also numerous incidents known where the batteries started fire repeatedly again and again, especially if they were well-charged in time of the incident.
He also completely omits the hazards connected with the high voltage and accessability of the vehicle for untrained personel in case of incidents on rally roads (fans, common stage marshals etc.). These people will reach the vehicles before any specialist can reach the spot because it's not a circuit closed from public.
The risks may be "low" but first someone needs to hard define what "low" means. The probability of a spectator being involved in an accident is also low, yet we do everything we can to prevent it.
Hayden seems to be replying to questions on twitter so maybe worth asking there instead of here
10 minutes was quick charging, 40 minutes normal charging.
On fire issue:
https://twitter.com/HaydenPaddon/sta...47998424846336
https://twitter.com/HaydenPaddon/sta...47571759271937
https://twitter.com/HaydenPaddon/sta...42870103871491
i really can't understand how you know this better than who built the car!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Mirek is an engineer with experience in the automotive industry, I'm sure that if he takes time to write something down, it's because he knows about it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
Mirek is fully right.
I did some ERX past year and there are plenty of small things I didn't imagine before.
not questioning mirek's knowledge on his own work. other thing is speculating on others without knowing the technicalities used.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommeke_B
i think that if someone actually built a car in this specs, and used, surely he came across this kind of problem and found a viable solution.
i find it hard to think they build it and claim things without any consciousness to the point of being "technical nonsense".
btw, as written below the comment, some of the question were already answered by paddon in other media...
the dismissing tone of mirek post just startled me!
Regarding the Kona. We have to keep in mind that Paddon is wearing the same suit as Wilson now. And we all know what's Wilson's public stance on his car's potential.
I have named only issues for which there is no known solution at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
I stated that the claim of lower fire probability than with CE cars is nonsense because it is. There are simply no statistical data existing to support such claim and a probability is a statistical function. That is a fact.
I agree with Mirek in his previous post, the small amount of experience I have had with Lithium batteries, is just what he said, unpredictable and uncontrollable once they go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
Obviously F1 & WEC have been using them for years, and I must admit that I am surprised that I don’t think I have seen a full battery meltdown/failure, although I may be mistaken there despite some massive accidents. But as he says, the remoteness and possibility for fire spread in WRC makes the consequences of that happening, potentially far greater.
another fact: if there's no statistic for claiming a thing, there's the same no statistic to claim the opposite. older way sometime is not the best way, despite our habits. so let's wait for the statistic before take a part. i get there's a strong bias going on, but time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
paddon stated that they come up with a device that flood and destroy batteries in case of a fire menace: "The batteries you are now seeing in Motorsport cars like ours have a flooding system, so worse case scenario we pump water into the battery which destroys the battery, but saves the car."Quote:
Originally Posted by doubled1978
We do have some recent statistics of WRC cars burning out completely at WRC ralies, only those that I rememeber immediately- Lappi Fiesta Mexico 2020, Breen C3 Turkey 2018, Paddon/Tanak Portugal 2016?Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
(In neither of these the crew or other with extinguishers managed to stop the fire)
That's only completely burned out, parts or vegetation catching fire from hot exhaust is relatively common, though usually put out.
There was off course the large number of Polos (and Fabias) burned, even though that was a fuel tank design issue.
I'm not claiming the otherwise. I'm calling the claim factually false.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
Ae we sure F1 & WEC are using lithium batteries and not supercapacitors, which would be more suitable for short term storage and high charge/discharge rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by doubled1978
Where does the water come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
I'd also like to know what happens if the water comes into contact with hot lithium. Doessn't that release hydrogen which in itself is a fire/explosion hazard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
Yeah they do use Lithium.
In WEC initially Toyota used supercapcitors, and Audi a flywheel energy store, but both moved to lithium to compete with the Porsche which was lithium from the off.
Technically I don’t know why their initial solutions weren’t as good as lithium batteries, but I do know Porsche was able to reach the 8MJ sub class straight away, while the others could not.
F1 is definitely lithium as it’s controlled in the rules.
Amongst Mikkelsen's interview with Dirtfish: “I think we know there are not likely to be any new manufacturers coming in for 2022".
Steve, F1 sacrifice a bit of energy density in order to obtain huge power densities - as I have mentioned previously the F1 battery cells can be safely charged/discharged in less than a minute. Cooling plays significant part in the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
if there are no statistics, how can you call it factually false? There's no fact.
so your statement is as true (or false) as theirs. no actual data to compare. u can base your claim on your competence -i don't doubt is high-, they can base it on their experience in actually build that car. u can say they can't prove it true, they can say u can't prove it wrong. it can be either true or false in both cases until we get data. time will tell.
anyway, didn't want to fire up an argument! : )
don't know, just reporting paddon's answer! you can try to ask him on twitter, he's responding to a lot of question on the project!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
The battery is already water cooled like an road car i guess so probably just an valve to lett the water into the cells, it also heats the battery up on cold days extending the range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
The fact is that there are no data to support the claim. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim however we know (that is the fact) that his claim is unfounded because no relevant data for electric rallycars exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
Without data it's possible to talk about prognosis or calculated probability but that is most likely going to be very different than the reality and therefore it can not be compared with statistical probability coming from hard data of the tough life of rallycars. Simply said you can't take known number of incident among existing CE rallycars and compare it with pure theory. Those are uncomparable values.
AFAIK (and I may be wrong) no vehicle battery at the moment uses water-flooding system (maybe some motorsport ones do) but in theory it shall work - however since the system was never used in rallying before, it is not possible to speak about probabilty comparison with CE cars. If the thermal runaway is detected early the flooding probably is able to stop the thermal runaway from spreading over multiple cells. It would help if the water was de-ionised (but it will gradually become electrically conductive anyway with polution from the fire).Quote:
Originally Posted by SubaruNorway
i do understand. it's just rethoric...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
it's like the existence of god. there's no data. you can't prove is there. you also cannot prove isn't there.
and both can ask the others to give proof:
"It's up to the one who claims something to support his claim" is valid both ways: you can't support your claim on EV either, for the same reason. no data! you can't use CE data to speak about EV behaviour. you can have data from CE experience, but that's not the point, don't mix it up! The point is the claim on EV! As u said first, u cannot compare it with pure speculation. so both positions on EV are speculation!
Anyway, I don't care so much to argue more! I'm ok with the blind trust of the petrolheads! discussion on rethoric is a bit off topic!
No, you don't understand at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
Last attempt - you read what I never wrote. In that my sentence I didn't claim anything about CE fire probability being better - not at all. I only said the Paddon's claim was false because it was unsupported. It doesn't mean it can't turn out to be true but at this very monent it's just unsupported claim and nothing else.
last attempt here too: lack of support doesn't make it false. just... unsupported.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirek
to make it false it has to be proven false, as much as to be proven true. at this very moment is not true nor false. it's just speculation based on each other theoretical knowledge.
paddon can ask you to prove him to be wrong as much as you are asking him to prove to be right. again: "no data" is a valid support for both.
he is running the car to prove the point.
You make it sound like both Paddon and Mirek claimed something that is not supported and not yet proven and they're on equal ground, when in reality Mirek said that Paddon's statement is not yet proven because we lack statistics, simple as that. Nobody is treating what Paddon said as if it's an absolute wrong 1+1=3 statement. It's up to Paddon to prove himself right either by datas or facts, it's not up to anybody to prove that their doubts about an unsupported statement are legitimate. Even because, if it's not legitimate to have doubts on an unsupported statement, it would mean we should just believe what everybody says without asking for datas/proofs? We could believe in Paddon's good faith and wait for him to show us, but it's not a mandatory law.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
@doubled1978
@NickRally
@SubaruNorway
Thanks for the replies.
sorry, nope! It's not me making Mirek sound like. Just taking what he said. Just check!Quote:
Originally Posted by focus206
Mirek didn't just said that claim was unsupported. he claimed it's false: "I only said the Paddon's claim was false because it was unsupported".
I'm not questioning anyone's legitimate doubt for sure! on that, I completely agree with you, I'm not taking it for granted me too, I've said a lot of time "time will tell".
I'm questioning the incorrect association no proof=false.
just this, not trying to diminish Mirek's knowledge or anything. a claim not proven can be controversial as you want and generate any kind of doubt, but doesn't mean it is false.
on this basis, nothing new can be achieved. I claim I can do something, then I go experimenting. doubt are normal and logical, but it's not that is automatically wrong (false) just because it was not done before (lack of data). when they set up for the moon, no claim on going there could be proven that moment, right?
anyway: a far too long "phylosofic" discourse for a rally forum. and way off topic. let's move on, shall we?
"The car has multiple fail safes which mean it’s safe for the public to touch. We service the car as normal. If something was to go wrong (which is very unlikely), our external emergency lights (very clear) will flash red as a warning."
https://twitter.com/HaydenPaddon/sta...31579644911616
There are people who basically stand right next to the racing line, while there's a car coming towards them at full tilt. If flirting with death doesn't scare them, then I doubt some red flashing light would make any difference. Of course not all are like that but we can't forget that kind of people.
The red flashing light is standard feature for many circuit EV series but as you said it has basically zero safety function in relation to general untrained (and sometimes drunk) public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
If Hyundai say no in June, WRC have a real Challenge on their hand.
4 top factory drivers is not good.
And had I been sitting in the board knowing what is coming, I would have said no.
Hyundai have a 800v Ionic 5 coming, that is a quick charger, and they would need a charging truck btw stages.
https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car...formance-cars/
So to push all the needed money into Hybrid now, is too late.
As said by others: FIA missed an option not going ahead with the all electric WRX series a few years back. They would have been much more of a suitable testbed. Lets see what the Extreme E series get out of its first season
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMsfLJB5S9E
For me the most exciting title race and championship in the last decade was in 2011, with just two manufacteurs entries (Citroen and Ford).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Also, when someone mentions the need for full electric cars to guarantee the survival of a series, why does everyone fail the mention the complete failure of WRX when the full electric cars were announced?!
What? WRX collapsed after electric cars were delayed... manus (mostly VW with two brands - VW and Audi, followed by Peugeot) said it was too long to wait two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis44
And why were they delayed?! Because manus were not ready to commit and build the cars. If the electric proposition was so interesting for them by now we would have them back running electric cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
Also, funnily enough, no relevant manufacteur has shown interested or have commited to re-enter the series under the 2022 electric regulations, yet. And Audi has commited after that to two series with combustion engines (Dakar and WEC).
They were delayed cause FIA and "teams" (not VW/Peugeot etc leadership but actuall rallycross team leadership) were too slow making new rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis44
Corporate leadership might want something but making the rules work is the job of FIA in talks with team bosses. Who often have competing interests and argue about everything. The corporate leadership just looks at results of their work.
Sounds familiar eh?
Extremely funny that you mention Dakar when it's marketed as "EV with a generator", not "hybrid". It's more like wanting to do an EV but having to keep engine as a generator as pure EV wouldn't work in that setting.
Francis, Audi’s Dakar racer is marketed as an electric car (as mknight pointed) with combustion engine range extender, though I agree there is a strong indication it is a thinly disguised combustion powered vehicle – this will become clearer once we know what battery capacity they run versus engine power. As I have mentioned previously this is a very cunning move on the part of Audi as they can claim the heart of the racer is electric and the combustion engine’s role will gradually be reduced as batteries develop. It satisfies the electric community while providing as much range as the engineers care to design in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis44
Going beyond the rally raids and although this series hybrid type arrangement is probably not efficient enough for a road car travelling at relatively constant speed, it might just fit in nicely in a rally car with large variation in engine operating range and strong acceleration and braking events. If I was to design an electrically powered rally car with today’s technology and given sufficient technical freedom, that would be my solution of choice.
To emphasize, the electrical portion of such drivetrain and its development is very much applicable to the development of modern battery powered electric road cars.