D&J RailRoad
Professor of HO
The amount of charge from deceleration or going down a hill is very minimal at best. Actually, the cost of the equipment to make that happen is more than the car will ever recover in use over its lifetime.
They do. As others have said they use regenerative breaking using the motors as generators when braking, slowing down, etc.I know nothing about EV cars and trucks. But let me ask you all a question. Instead of putting solar on the roof of your vehicle (which is a good idea) why not install a alternator or generator in the car (just as they do now and did years ago) to recharge the battery. I know if you don't have a alternator or a generator (older cars) install properly or if there is something wrong with them you will not be going very far before your battery run down.
Anyway, just wondering why they don't put some sort of charging device in the EVs now so when you're driving down the road, you're charging your batteries. I think I know why, cause you can't profit on something that you can't control.
Almost totally agree with your writing. I am on my 10th VW and my 4th Jetta. We have had 3 Audis, 2 TT’s and a RS8. My older VW were my better built with nicer interiors than the current model.SNIP
The nice thing is we're all different. I much prefer a sedan or station wagon or hatchback. I have no use, myself, personally, for an SUV. Others prefer an SUV. That's the nice thing, we still have the options for all of these, though sedans and wagons are limited now to mostly the imports.
BTW, being glorified VWs doesn't mean I think they are bad. I love my Audi A3 hatchback (e-tron sportback PHEV). But it really is like driving one of my VWs but with EV capability and fancy leather inside. Older VWs were just as nice as my Audi. Newer VWs -- especially the American made models have been cheapened a lot -- our 2019 Jetta is nice inside [we have SEL Premium trim] but doesn't have the feel of my older VWs. Cheaper seats, dash, etc. But I wouldn't buy the Audi now as you pay a huge premium over the VW for not a lot of value besides the slightly better visual design. To me (personal opinion) the Audi is much nicer design than Mercedes or BMW -- more understated and cleaner. But you lose value on them quickly and they probably don't drive any better.
I've had VW almost exclusively in cars since 1988. All new except one. nnew 89 Golf in 1988. Used 88 Jetta in 93. (My Golf I took to Germany when I moved there and it was totaled in an autobahn pileup -- my last year I was there I drove a way old used Mazda GLC I bought for 750$ -- the 88 Jetta was when I returned to the US). 89 Jetta GT. 2006 Passat. Twin 2013 Jetta Sportwagen TDI. (Wife drove the automatic I drove the manual -- bought the same night). Buyout for dieselgate and we bough the Audi and a Volvo V60. Volvo was totaled in 2019 by an idiot not paying attention and we replaced with the 2019 Jetta. So, except for the short lived used Mazda in Germany, because it was cheap, and the Volvo, and two Dodge RAM trucks in parallel with the VWs its been all VW / VW Group (Audi)).
If you want an SUV you may want to check out the smaller Porsche SUV. Whatever they are called. Despite having the same underpinnings as the Audis I've heard they're much better, nicer, etc driving and handling. Of course they cost $$$. The Volvos are well regarded based on comments from friends or co-workers who have them.
On the truck side, I am excited by the Scout truck supposedly coming in 2027. I have the EREV version on "pre-reservation" -- we'll see what is finally released and at what price point but the announced price point is nice and the EReV version looks to be a great vehicle, It is an EV with a shorter range battery (175 miles supposedly) and a small engine that acts as a generator so that it will recharge your battery as you drive so that ou can get a 500+ mile range out of it and can extend that further with just a quick fill up. But most of us don't need that range except on occasional road trips so you get the advantage of almost all your daily driving with cheap EV power and still have the performance etc but have the long range. My Audi is 8.333 years old now and by then will be 11 and I will be looking for a new vehicle, most likely. So we'll see what actually happens and if they screw up teh Scout or not. They have an SUV and a truck version planned in both pure EV and EREV versions. Hopefully they don't screw it up with forced one pedal driving, subscription based features that should be normal features, and cloud based features that are important and normal features (no need for an Ocean debacle).
For me it's European, Asian, and then American. Scout is an American company but is owned by Volkswagen parent company. But it's US based and inspired by the IH Scout legacy so is probably more American than not. I'd never buy a GM, personally, and none of the other American makes has anything interesting or appealing to me. Especially now that they've more or less abandoned sedands and hatchbacks and wagons except for their sports car/muscle car lines. I really don't have much interest in Asian either but would buy a Mazda before any American car. My dad was a Honda man since the late 80s and I have his Fit he drove until he stopped driving (he has since passed on). My kids use it and its fine for that.
soapbox off
Almost everything needed is software, and a voltage regulator. The regenerative braking system is more so you aren't constantly using the brakes to decelerate or hold speed on a hill.The amount of charge from deceleration or going down a hill is very minimal at best. Actually, the cost of the equipment to make that happen is more than the car will ever recover in use over its lifetime.
Oh so they do basically recharge themselves but not really enough to replace what was used? Correct? I would think otherwise you wouldn't need to plug it in when you get home. It'll charge how ever much you use it. I guess it may come to that (don't know) but it would be neat if the distance you drove actually recharged your vehicle by that much. (hope that made since). For now, I'll take my gas guzzling 2500 chevy.
Good input from someone who owns an EV.The amount of charge from deceleration or going down a hill is very minimal at best. Actually, the cost of the equipment to make that happen is more than the car will ever recover in use over its lifetime.
This is not true. The equipment to do this is basically the same equipment used to propel the vehicle. In a nutshell it runs the motors "backwards" to use tem as a generator. There is some additional pieces added on and some extra software but its comparatively low cost compared to the whole thing and especially compared to the cost to feed power to the car across it's life and with the range component I mentioned above that is a large amount. And some cars get up to 30% of their range through their regenerative braking.The amount of charge from deceleration or going down a hill is very minimal at best. Actually, the cost of the equipment to make that happen is more than the car will ever recover in use over its lifetime.
Some cars get up to 30% of their range through regeneration. They could never get all their power back as the system is not 100% efficient. Plus people tend to drive forward a lot more than they brake.
While I often make comments some people take as anti-EV, I'm not opposed to the technology at all. I am opposed to the mandates and govt interventions in the market promoting it, but since that gets political that's all I'll directly say on the matter. I don't care about the "carbon neuralness" but do like the less pollution in general. Even if the electrical generation is dirty, it will be more efficient and less polluting to generate a metric crap-ton of electricity in one place through industrial size processes, often outside of the more populated areas, than a lot of individual engines running and creating pollution in the middle of civilization. So while I don't think EV will be the long term next generation transportation energy source (next 80-100 years) I do think it will be very heavily used and perhaps dominate in the next 20-25 years while the new technologies are being developed.
I do drive a PHEV since mid 2016 and like the EV mode, It's quick, and cheap cheap cheap to drive even without solar (I live in a state with relatively low electric rates -- and have solar in the new house we don't yet live in but where I occasionally do charge up). I have the Scout Terra truck on pre-reservation in its EREV mode (the smaller battery with ICE engine generator for longer range).
Morning all,
12° and clear in Doo Dah this morning. 39° later for the high.
Karl: I gotta an additional 14 days, but going to try to stick it out to 70. But my plans and what life plans rarely match and I'll be lucky to get to 67.
BBL
The use of brakes and avoiding physical brakes is a big thing. After more than 90k miles in my PHEV since mid 2016, and the car using regenerative braking a lot -- I specifically try and use it to stop or slow down -- my brakes have very little wear on them based on inspections they do when I've had other work done and they do that "multi point inspection report" to try and sell you new services.The regenerative braking system is more so you aren't constantly using the brakes to decelerate or hold speed on a hill.
Because we don't have perpetual motion. You're USING battery power to propel yourself. Running that use of the battery back through a less than 100% efficient recovery system and putting it back into the battery makes no sense.Why not have something recharge the batteries as the wheels are turning. You can't tell me someone has not thought of this before.
Even the AI monsters cannot agree.I asked Microsoft's AI and the answer was 54.55%
I am not a picture taker of food in restaurants but I told my wife when the food came out I needed pictures. We forgot till the burgers were eaten@TLOC show us some burger pictures! i love Burgers!
The problem with that is that if you attach an alternator or generator to a drive axle or wheel hub is two fold. #1 is drag. turning an alternator or generator created drag, so you would need to expend more energy to turn the wheels, plus secondly it is not 100% efficient, even with decent generator output you still eventually run out of power.You said people drive forward more than braking. Why not have something recharge the batteries as the wheels are turning.
I have a display in my car that shows when it is charging through regen and when not and the magnitude. I've also noticed when the range is increased some when I do a lot of regen (like down a hill). It's enough that you can gain a couple miles of range over a whole session of driving for a given battery charge. Ie, you have X range from the battery but that increases (or is used more slowly since the range estimators in the cars computer take into account the regen when estimating the range) when you use a lot of regen. I've gone down mountain passes with regen on basically full for miles and seen it add a mile or two to my range from the regen. The problem is that each car's display is telling you something different than another brands car in terms of what factors they use and how they estimate. And its some sort of heuristic they use which uses model they make over lots of experimentation. In my car I don't get more than crude segmented line of actual battery charge. They show a range but it is an estimate based on the previous X miles of driving and the current battery state. It is dumbed down.From my observation while driving my Tesla Y Model.
The car had a power use line on the screen that would grow to the right under acceleration or just cruising. Much like a gas pedal, the more you depressed the pedal the more the line would extend to the right. When sitting still, there is no line but just a little red dot at the center of the line. When slowing down, that line would extend to the left of its center point on the screen. The amount of time that line would extend to the left when slowing down from, say 55mph, might be about 10 seconds. Now, considering the amount of time it takes to charge the car battery for 1 mile of travel on a level two charger as I have in my garage. I would take about 1:20 of charge time or about 45 miles per hour of charge. I don't know what the charge output of the drive motor on the car is, but I think with a bit of math that could be figured out. Now, compare the known charge rate of the charger to the charge rate off the electric motors from the 10 seconds of slowing down and it doesn't amount to much at all.
