I was discussing the merits of different EVs, but the real issue is reducing total energy consumption. I’m with Amory Lovins on that one. Do what you can to improve the built environment.

“Autos could also be used more productively.”

“proven innovations could get Americans to their destinations with HALF the driving (or less) and $0.4 trillion less cost.”

When it comes to energy consumption, you can’t get more efficient than zero, and many urban journeys are quite short. The difference between Copenhagen and London is cultural, but if London were more bike-friendly people would cycle. I bet the EV markets will differ quite significantly.

50 years ago, nobody talked about climate change or peak oil, and most kids went to school by bike or public transport. Commuting wasn’t much different. The ‘school run’ by car was the exception.

Aside from the practical considerations and health benefits, I didn’t like the stuff that came out the exhaust. This was the era of sulfurous pea-soup smog. Much of that came from coal fires, but I wasn’t going to add to it. Habits of a lifetime.

Yes, if you use standard suspension then it’s desirable to keep wheel weight to a minimum.

But if you use a system of “electric shocks” like the Michelin in hub motor wheel you’re using the weight of the wheel as it drops into the hole and as it comes back out of the hole to generate power. Not that you’re going to create more energy than you use, but you minimize the loss.

And the ride is adjustable. In fact, with adjustable shocks and suspension along with a few sensors/CPU smarts an EV should be able to adjust to speed and terrain.

I’d like to see a qualified engineer discuss in hub wheels.
—

4wd is what I need. It doesn’t matter if I loose a bit of traction when I steer, what I need is as many wheels as possible grabbing the gravel when I’m going up steep inclines. I don’t want to carry around a couple of extra wheels just for those times. Those of us who live off the pavement need the ability to move when it’s muddy or snowy, not the ability to win races. The people I know with ABS and who live like I do wish they have 4wd.

—

I suspect there’s a role for body on frame EVs. It would allow one company to concentrate on turning out high quality sub-sleds and let other companies develop and manufacture the bodies. We could have the cost savings of high volume battery/motor/running gear manufacturing along with lots more “style” choices.

—

I wish people would stop inserting the EV vs. bike/bus/used car comparisons in EV discussions. Yes, it is cheaper to stay home or walk, but that’s not the issue at hand.

The real discussion is about a new EV vs. a new gasmobile.

For a family that can get by with one car, I don’t suppose buying another just for the daily commute would make any sense. First, it would be nice to see better lifestyle choices. If it’s practical, use a bike. My first car, up to my mid twenties, sat in the garage all week, so it hardly mattered that it only did 15 mpg! (1959 4,000cc Armstrong – 100 mph)

I paid £100 for it in ’66. First thing I did, despite opposition from family ‘elders’, was to fit seatbelts all round. A teenager blessed with a little common sense? They thought it was ‘safe’, because it weighed 1,778kg – rather a woolly grasp of the physics. The springs got tired carrying all that weight, but I was a DIY mechanic in those days.

I had a Citroen BX in the ‘90s – good suspension, but it cost £1k to repair when it got old.

There’s an amusing item in the 50th. edition of Audi Magazine – “Reinventing the wheel”. In short, it says that in 1927 a wheel weighed 18kg and now it weighs 12. Wow!

It pictures a huge disc brake. So guys, if minimizing unsuspended weight is good (I agree); better to mount your brakes inboard then, if you can.

It continues: “Lighter wheels are an advantage because they allow the suspension to react faster.” True in theory, but if you design the suspension too stiff (sporty), which Audi do, it means sod all in practice. My old A2 is all-aluminium, nearly 200kg lighter than the new A1. (taking out the back seats saves a further 35kg) But it had to have an anti-roll bar and a broken coil spring replaced.

Smart design doesn’t use the suspension medium for chassis levelling, so compliant, lightly-damped springs do not unleash roll and pitch – simple really. Ralph Nader would never have written “Unsafe at Any Speed”, if auto makers had got it right in the first place.

New Citroens can still adjust ride height, but the high and low settings are speed restricted. The way I do it, compliance remains the same. I’m sure sports car drivers would love to negotiate speed bumps without grounding.

I think a 6×4 would suit you Bob. That’s not as niche as it might sound, nor as heavy. The two motors and brakes should be inboard, for the reasons given above, so you have half the kit driving the 4 wheels. The steered wheels aren’t powered, because they lose grip if you do that. This is essentially the same configuration I would use to design any all-terrain or emergency services vehicle, any rally or race car.

Vehicle dynamics become so stable, ABS alone is sufficient. ESC would probably never be activated during the life of the car. Sure, this stuff may not become mainstream. Who can say? There’s always huge resistance to radical change in mature industries and the public may take some persuading, even over the desirability of the rear seats facing back!

Gordon Murray advocates separate frame and body. I agree and I’d take standardization of a modular chassis, powertrain and running gear as far as it could go. He likes carbon fibre, as does Amory, but I’m not so sure about that. BMW say their “2013 electric car will pay for its carbon fiber by needing fewer batteries.” Maybe so, but that could equally apply to aluminium components, and they would be more readily recycled, as I understand it.

There are probably a few million retired individuals who no longer need a 4 or 5 passenger vehicles to get around town. Those buyers also might be more interested in function rather than style or 300 hp. I am waiting for a vehicle that looks something like the “MIT City Car”. It doesn’t need to have 4 wheel motors or 4 wheel steering – just something practical that would meet 95% of my driving needs. Just something for around town for me and mine. If I want to go pick up the grand kids I have a 4 passenger vehicle for that purpose.

An enclosed four wheel “motorcycle”.

However, if we look at what Amory has to say about cars, it’s aerodynamics and weight, not length, that determine efficiency. A longer car that seats four is likely to not be much more to build than a two-seater and manufacturing volume would likely make them about the same price.

—

Charge plate. The car doesn’t need to squat. A small hinged panel containing the pickup coil can swing down an sit on the charge point. Self-parking (which we already have) can put the EV in the correct position.

—

My ideal EV, because I’ve got 3.5 miles of steep, unpaved road, would be 4WD with hub motors and the ability to change its road height like some old Citroens would let it rise for good road clearance when needed and then settle back down for better aerodynamics on the highway.

That’s such a niche machine that I doubt that I’ll ever own one.
—

An EV with German styling. I think the Prius and Leaf are hurt by their exterior skins. The prototype of the Volt was danged nice, but it changed in production.

Going to be interesting to see what Damlier/BYD produce….

Audi’s Urban Concept has clumsy styling and makes no concessions to aerodynamics – open-wheel designs can’t give you a low CD. Conventional suspension can never eliminate the ride/handling compromise and ride-height control is an expensive extra.

If you follow the Franco Sbarro link and click on ‘All the cars’ – on that list there’s a 1997 concept that did a better job – the Ellipsis Charbonneaux. CD 0.17

As the site says – “automatic translation (so be indulgent!)”

I think Sbarro has only flirted with the ‘diamond’ wheel plan on one other occasion and that was a retrograde design, both in style and content – the 2007 Assystem City Car. The potential of the earlier concept was never realised. The Ellipsis represents a better basis for tilt-steer than the wheel plan used for the Pendocar. Sadly, the dynamic behavior of the Pendocar is compromised by its orthodoxy!

A fundamental shift in chassis dynamics and packaging would make a car fit for the 21st. century, and I figure it should be a compact four-seater to have mass appeal. Still sleek, still lightweight, and when it parks over the induction plate it would squat down low, to give optimal charging efficiency. Low ride height saves energy at freeway speeds too.