... the only possible means to achieve any higher level of performance can be done by only 1 and/or 2 possible objectives:
1. Improved efficiencies.
2. Lowered resistance.
How wrong am I with this and why?
... the only possible means to achieve any higher level of performance can be done by only 1 and/or 2 possible objectives:
1. Improved efficiencies.
2. Lowered resistance.
How wrong am I with this and why?
Efficiency of what? Why would it matter? Maybe the least efficient is best. With enough power efficiency is irrelevant. It's about preferance and sometimes the pocketbook.
... the only possible means to achieve any higher level of performance can be done by only 1 and/or 2 possible objectives:
1. Improved efficiencies.
2. Lowered resistance.
How wrong am I with this and why?
..ok I give up? What's the punch line?
Interesting, Steno. My answer is: It depends.
Let’s take the Tesla Model S.
It’s estimated it has a battery-to-wheel efficiency of about 68%. That’s versus a tank-to-wheel efficiency for a conventional combustion engine of about 16%. And in terms of performance (acceleration and emissions), it’s clear the Tesla is a ‘better’ performing car.
But, it doesn’t take into account the medium needed to store the energy. Because while the Tesla uses 320 Wh/mile of energy (85kWh for a total range of 265 miles) and a gasoline-powered car (averaging 35mpg) uses 940 Wh/mile of energy (33kWh for a total range of 35 miles for one gallon of fuel) - the efficiency advantage clearly in the Tesla’s favour - the weight/size penalty the batteries comprise limits the distance one can travel significantly in real-world terms. That is, you can fill up the Tesla’s battery all you want, but you’re only ever going to get 265 miles out of it compared to what can be done if one fills a conventional combustion-powered car’s tank all the way to the top.
So if ‘performance’ relative to efficiency is judged solely in terms of acceleration and emissions, we have a clear winner. If we include real-world range, it becomes slightly more amorphous.
There’s no doubt an electric motor is more ‘efficient’ than a car (maximum efficiency for a diesel-engined car can approach 20%), a high performance vehicle like an F1 car (up to 50%), or indeed a rocket engine (around 70%), but there’s a reason long-haul commercial airliners aren’t outfitting their airframes with electric engines just yet.
So, y’know, efficiency is one thing, performance another. Like I say, it depends.
Interesting perspective, 853guy. So I assume you're conditionally in agreement with my OP?
Assuming your stats are accurate, you go on to say, "the weight/size penalty the batteries compromise the distance one can travel." However, you neglected to mention a few other things such as drag coefficient, aerodynamics, passenger load, etc, all of which influence the Tesla's total range of approximately 265 miles.
So applying my improved efficiencies and lowered resistance philosophies, what might happen to the Tesla's total mileage range if Tesla:
1. improves the Model S' aerodynamics by 15%?
2. swaps in all wiring and armatures with superior cryogenically-treated wiring?
3. reduces the Model S' GVW by 15%?
4. designs a new battery of same power potential but reduces size by 15% and weight by 15%?
5. swaps out the current model tires with a new tire tread design that reduces drag coefficient by 15%?
Given the Tesla Model S' current performance state verses these hypothetical (but potentially real) improved efficiencies and reduced resistances what do you suppose would happen to the Model S' total driving range per charge? Also, what might these hypothetical changes do to car's 0-60 performance, lateral acceleration, and stopping abilities?
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |