Printable View
yes, I know You know a lot about everything.
I said ,,to me''.
No need to explain that production, workers, softwares etc take money.
Your random number calculation doesn't say anything much..
Let's make 1mil units and the price goes down to 3.5 euros? Doesn't work that way..
If I said that it sounds quite cheap, then would You have agreed? Or said opposite and that it is a huge amount of money for teams and their budgets..
Sorry but it looks like you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by TypeR
It's not the price to go down to 3,5 Euro. It's solely the R&D cost which has to be paid within the price of the product. With a thing produced in low dozens the R&D price may create half of the product price or even more. In mass-produced product such as the stock systems the R&D expense creates negligible percentage of the product price. The other expenses such as materials, production, delivery etc. there is never such a huge dependence on the production volume.
Let's say that to produce the system costs 20 thousand Euro (material, production manhours, subdeliveries, production facility, quality control etc.). In my example with 50 parts the total expense is 90000 per piece. In a case of 100000 products the total expense is 20035 Euro per piece.
In other words, if WRC low-production system costs 100 thousand Euro it was definitely developed with lower expenses than in my example and I'm quite sure that gigantic and hugely bureaucratic companies such as Toyota won't develop it cheaper (after spending 10 years in a global automotive company I dare to say that). What makes their final products cheap is the quantity and the optimization of mass production. I'm willing to bet the R&D cost alone is higher for these companies than for the small specialized ones.
The hybrid systems used in single seaters, are they bought from a sole source, or are they developed by teams or engine manufacturers?
I am guessing it differs from series to series.
Can or are Rally as a sport using lessons learned from single seater series in this prosess?
wrc_tv_italy
Jari-Matti Latvala, Toyota WRC team principal, told 'Ralli.fi' that the team will soon begin testing the new Rally1 car.
Latvala claims that Toyota is lagging behind on the hybrid car in fact they will mount the hybrid component on the current Yaris WRC , as the GR Yaris model, the model on which Rally1 will be based, is not yet ready.
Latvala believes the GR Yaris Rally1 will only be ready for testing in the summer:
“We will probably test with a mixed package this spring. There is some of the old, namely the chassis of the current WRC car, and there will be new components and other parts added.
With this car that will host parts of the new one we will start testing in the spring. In the summer, we should therefore have a hybrid car ready for road tests. But surely we will have to wait until the summer before this machine is ready. "
Who is the new manu coming into WRC next?
Good question - they're hardly queuing up to join, are they?
One would rather leave than join.
Ford!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Can't see it!
Audi, no...? WRC.com told me they're coming!
That is a good question my guess is Subaru as there seem to be some rumours about a joint project with Toyota.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulland
Not sure where to discuss the electric evolution of rallying, but rallye-magazin just posted an update on the Corsa-e. What is interesting is that Opel development team worked on the sound.
https://www.rallye-magazin.de/drm/ar...e-rally-46309/
The rules apparently dictate that a different (lower) sound level in required on the road section.
The sound system they build not only depends on the speed of the car, but also the rpm, so wheelspin will be hearable. They did not want to reproduce the sound of a combustion car, but create a specific sound for electric car. They use 2 speakers of 400W.
The video is not so good, switching from angles the whole time, but you get an idea:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=953716362078204
Paddon was also mentioning that sound would come on his eWRC, I'm very curious about that as well.
I'm not against electrifying of rallying at all, I just hope a elegant solution can be found for the lack of sound, at least they are working on it :-)
It reminds me this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvfQU3Ewtso&t=66s
Sound is the only "real" issue that prevents electric rallying. Not only due to the security aspect but also due to the "excitement" aspect and "sporting" aspect (knowing what the driver is doing with throttle and whether the car is spinning).Quote:
Originally Posted by HaCo
Agree that "copying" combustion car sound is not a good idea in the longer term. Doesn't mean it has to sound like a startrek spaceship though....
Hard to tell how the Adam actually sounds live from a youtube vid and PC speakers, just remember that this should be compared with combustion Adam which isnt exactly an awesomely sounding car in the first place.
In the end I guess it will have to be mandated by the rules in some way, min./max sound level at given speed/throttle setting.
Adam ?Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
it´s Corsa ;)
I've been thinking that WRC should try making a *massive* deal of the fact they will be switching to sustainable fuel next year. With the images of these cars going through natural environments, WRC has the chance to exploit the "feel good" environmental marketing that Extreme E is starting to find: "green" cars racing through extreme nature.
That would surely attract manufacturers.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
But electric cars are not green....Quote:
Originally Posted by steve.mandzij
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
I think what matters is that they are "green".Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
Yes, the perception of greenQuote:
Originally Posted by Googol
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
Stand on a busy city corner during cold winter morning and tell me cars without exhaust are just a perception of green.Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
It's a very narrow view about electric cars. Just a food for a thought. How are batteries made? How much resources are needed? At some point you need to utilize this toxic waste. Where and how? In Norway and in Finland i guess too you get more "green" electricity, but the rest of the world still burns something to get electricity. And now I even don't need to touch the real issue when more cars go electric you need to rebuild all the infrastucture (very very thick cabling, more substations etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
Still green? I read a recent study where it's not so green anymore. Actually they state that petrol cars are now more "green".
Until we go hydrogen don't blabber about "green" electric cars. If you don't see a smoke from the cars tailpipe, it necessary doesn't mean that this vehicle is green.
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
- For local polution electric cars are green, no perception there
- For CO2 as you write, it depends entirely on how the electricity is made. I also like reading studies on the matter, some are well made ( usually those where you can see all inputs and calculations), quite a few are just clickbait-level
All the serious studies show that on current european/EU energy mix electric cars are greener than petrol already now (given they drive at least 150k ish km over their life). Doesn't mean they are automatically greener elsewhere.
Just wait when electric cars are more popluar. More issues will rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
In this country they are. (Continously over 50% of new car sales for last two years, 350 000+ cars on the road).Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
Still waiting for the issues that people from countries where there are close to no electric cars talk about...
Get back to me if you have most of the cars electric, not just new car sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
This thing is discussed so many times with an engineer who works for ABB. Complete revamp of electrical infrastructure is needed.
EDIT: sales in NO are heavily subsidied by govt if I'm not mistaken
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
Nobody is saying that you don't need charging stations etc. But even with over 50% electric sales it takes many years for most cars on the road to be electric. (here it's some 12% atm).
This gives the time to build infrastructure to cope. If the buildup is too slow, electric car sales slow down (for the benefit of hybrids) and then increase again.
The idea shared by some people (mostly from countries with no electric cars around) that "suddenly" everyone will realize that electric cars are wrong and go back to petrol-only is like believing in Santa.
No no you just didn't understand. As more power is required and drawed from system you need way more thicker cabling. More substations to meet the demands. Today as it is it's fine, but sooner or later more and bigger is needed everywhere. Also this can cause energy crisis. Solar and wind is not enough. Burning gas, coal or smth else is not an option. More nuclear? &Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
I'm not saying we should return to petrol but we need more sustainable as hydrogen or smth similar.
With electric we will cause more problems for the future. They are just different kind of problems as compared to petrol (battery dumping, Ni and Cobalt mining etc). Both are not smart. Not green or sustainable for the future. That's what I'm saying. We just eliminate one problem so we can have more problems in the future.
Calling electric cars green is just so wrong and hypocrite.
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
Now you are starting to mix things together and even contradict yourself:
- primary power source is an issue. I guess most people agree that pumping dead dinosaurs is not sustainable in the long term.
Electricity in a battery, hydrogen or synthetic fuel is just a transport medium. Out of these batteries are at the moment most efficient and I don't see that changing in near future (15-20 years), but off course it's possible it will change at some point.
- "cabling" is an issue that can be slowly compensated for, as the demand grows. Load balancing is in many ways the fastest solution (no charging when energy demand is highest in the evening or early morning). To compare with hydrogen you would need to include distribution (by lorries?), production is already handled in previous point. Thing is, there is an existing electric grid that you can use and upgrade... there is no "hydrogen grid".
- battery production and end of life, that is the area that experiences most changes. Some problematic minerals are less and less used in battery production already. On the other end of the line old batteries are not thrown to trash after few years but often used for many years for other uses (for example for solar/wind power balancing) after they are taken out from the car. In the end you have a concentrated "brick of pollution" of some 200kg in 4x2x0,2 m instead of "tiny" pollution distributed all over the atmosphere (CO2, NOX...) and inside people's lungs (particles).
Read my post again and try to unferstand it better, not just the way it suits you better.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
My last answer to you, had enough of your out of context hypocrisy. There's real issues out there with electric cars and you are just trying to win an arguement. Go ahead, I'm not competing with your fantasies.
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
No you are competing with reality. When it doesn't follow your dreams you keep hoping a miracle happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
I was skeptical to electric cars for whole lots of reason, but I am not blind to the reality right outside of my window (literally, parking spot with 40 cars, 18 are electric right now + 7 hybrids).
You have some serious reading or understanding disabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
Where did say that electric car sales isn't a reality? Oh it's very real. As it is very real that soon we have a huge ecological footprint from electric cars.
They are not green, just electric and doesn't solve any existing problems but generating new ones. That's where you're fantasizing. Capiche?
Now don't twist my words anymore (I know your'e very good at that)
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
The only reasonable thing to do would be building many new nuclear power plants and use the excess power to produce hydrogen.
Combined with wind and solar power that would be the most "green" solution.
Agreed completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
About the grid throughput - an expert from the grid company here in Estonia said that each car in our capital Tallinn could be changed to EV and have sufficient electricity available (even with electricity surplus) for charging just by changing the street lightning to LED-s. Average distance driven in a day is just 40 km.
Also, does anyone here have real world long-term experience with an EV? I have had an EV for nearly 3 years now and it has driven 70 000 km so far. Still 100% of the battery capacity that was useable when it was new is useable now because the top buffer is large enough so degradation is not noticeable to the user for quite some time. I will probably see some degradation in the coming years, but the battery easily outlives the car as does the electric motor. And when it finally reaches its end it can be recycled at about 95% efficiency. And as mknight said the battery tech will keep evolving and less and less problematic minerals are being used. Hydrogen seems sexy from a far (I can actually understand it - it is relatable to the people that are used to put petrol in the cars) thats why some politicians also seem to like it, but in reality it is a very inefficient way and only has point when there is electricity surplus.
Finally cali has a fair point that EV-s or any other type of cars can not not save the planet, we generally need less cars on the road, that's the ultimate solution.
This last point is the most important of all - we, as a humanity, can make a larger positive impact on environment by changing our habits than any switch to electric or other propulsion using existing technology. As I like saying, even the most polluting car is cleaner than the most environmentally friendly one, if the former is just left on the drive and the latter is driven for millions of miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanelv
I am not saying everyone should suddenly stop driving, simply that we should avoid driving whenever we can.
For people to drive less, there needs to be another reasonable, reliable and fast transport option.
When people talk about being green and renewable, i always like to remind them that the global population grows by 80 million each year and the number or cars in the world by 70 million.
Every 4 year an entire EU worth of vehicles extra appears on the planet.
But hey, why should we worry about the reality when we can just pretend we will save the world by making ourself poor.
TBH I thought the idea behind this "green" thing was not to simply head into "selling electric suvs" but to make "transportation" a completely different thing. Like fully Shared and possibly Autonomous mobilty. Like electric-autonomous "buses" and shared ride - like 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 seat "vans" that are owned by the "manufactures", running away from the idea of "individual's cars". (So we could have WAY less cars on road and the ones that are out there would be always being used by people, so you can erase the concept of "parking" from out daily lives) And with more room for bikes and e-motos, e-scooters and things like that.
Just selling a billion electric suvs will not change a thing in this planet so I agree with the idea of "Its just a lie" when "they" say we need to have only electric cars in the streets.
Humans will never restore the environment by PRODUCING more and more things. This is what took us to "this". Humans cannot save the environment because we are the ones ruinning it.
Hi Tanel,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanelv
By no means my intention is to start a pissing contest with you as your answer was quite reasonable.
- I have an engineer (ABB, EstLink as a reference) who says quite the opposite, that current infrastructure has to be revamped in order to avoid nightmare with EV's and their draw from the system. Keep in mind that this guy has been designing substations tens of years by now. Also keep in mind as electricity available is only one small factor. Current infrastructure is not designed for EV's and needs big investments. That alone is costly and certainly not green.
- I have only experience with EV's as a passenger in taxi's. Nice cars and certainly a nice power delivery. Nothing bad to say about that.
- as you know yourself, we currently in our banana republic are unable to recycle plastic or any other waste properly. Adding EV batteries to that list makes me feel very uncomfortable knowing how stupid human race can be what concerns making up ideas how to "go around the system".
- at some point we need to utilize this waste. If 10 or 15 years is OK with you I say it's quite naive thinking. Even if it would be in 50 years, we still have to do it. And the more EV's being sold we will pile up a completely new issue which needs again new resources to be partially recycled and partially dumped. That alone needs completely new ways of thinking, I would even say a completely new industry. So we the human race on top of all of our problems are creating a new complex problem on top of it.
- my avg yearly distance is approx 45 - 50 000 kms. I would be in deep-deep trouble with EV's. Also I do not feel comfortable paying charging fees for my car which I use 80% for work. No, I'm not a truck nor a taxi driver, currently own Merc V-klasse. Need the space for my family and work. How much would currently cost me to buy a electric van like that? And I'm not even going to touch long distance driving. All is doable but inconvenient and time consuming.
- we currently burn (or best to say burned) oil shale to get electricity. That's about the longest way from green if you also keep in mind that most of the resources goes to mining oil shale.
- as what goes to battery tech do you honestly believe that energy storage doesn't need minerals like Li, Ni or Co in the future? My experience has shown that all new stuff keeps exploiting even more rare minerals. History has shown on that end things tend to go worse and not for the better. I would not be that naive to hope that we will suddenly have some magic mineral for energy source or as a energy storage, probably it will be the opposite.
This all in all not even close to green as some other folks wrote, only if we are able to find a different ways of transportation we can mention it being green. Today's options are going to be million miles away from sustainable and green.
PS! If read carefully I mentioned hydrogen or smth similar. I have no illusions about hydrogen either but it currently feels more of an option than EV's. But still we need to come up with something more radical and different to reduce ecological footprint. And by no means I'm anti EV, but I don't like the current propaganda image of them as it isn't even remotely close to environment friendly.
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
So what's your solution? Keep burning oil and drive 50k/year or build up hydrogen infrastructure from absolute zero?
Electric infrastructure is there in every country already, even without without any upgrade it can support sizable number of EVs (10%+). This is confirmed by facts here right now
not "someone said".
Electric cars, battery production and above all renewable electricity generation have seen huge development last 10 years. Sure that rate won't last forever, but it's still going the right direction compared with very little developments in combustion engine efficiency (thumbs up for Toyota, though they also use batteries in their hybrids) and mostly more and more energy-hungry oil extraction.
Driving electric battery car doesn't automatically make it ecologic, but it's right now the only near-future (10-20 years) way to reduce car emissions of all kind. Obviously even in the most dramatic scenarions there won't be more than some 20% electric cars on the road in 10 years in Europe.
Going back to the very start here and my starting point , people totally ignore the "local" pollution effects you get from combustion engines everywhere they go. Yes latest Euro6++ cars have little coming out of their exhaust....once they get warm and when it's not below zero (6 months here), and when the "chemical factory" in the back works fine and in case of trucks when the driver doesn't cheat with AdBlue. That chemical factory now uses similar ammounts of rare metals like batteries.
You have valid questions and points.Quote:
Originally Posted by mknight
My idea from start has been not to treat EV's as THE Solution or people to actually think that now we suddenly have "green" vehicles.
As long as we acknowledge the shortcomings I think it's the way forward to the right direction. Currently we do not have a good solution to it.
My sole problem has been the image of EV's that has been painted to the general public. Like after Dieselgate VW went "green". It's laughable. It's business. It's naive to think businesses really care for the environment.
I think the end goal for both of us is the same, we just look at it from different angles.