150
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
150 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38579 readers
353 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I found the specs a bit interesting. 52.7 kWh battery and a curb weight of 3,600 lbs is nearly identical to the Chevy Bolt, but this only has a range of 150 miles instead of 240. Is it really that much less efficient? The only thing I can think of is the aerodynamics, but that's a 40% difference.
EV truck vs. car? 40% difference sounds about right, even an aerodynamic truck isn't much better than an aerodynamic brick
Also, the "(after federal incentives)" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The basic option for the 2023 Bolt comes out to about $20K after federal incentives, but you get way more range and a bunch of those "luxury" features this is missing. Considering how cheap low-end smart phones are, I have a hard time imagining that infotainment systems actually add more than 1-2% of the cost of the vehicle. Feels more like a type of virtue signal than a real cost-saving measure.
Your vehicle not being yet another surveillance vector can be a selling point.
I mean, I guess, but that's only a selling point to the small number of people without smartphones, which isn't a large enough group to make it a sound business strategy.
As I understand it, the aerodynamics can be no joke on EVs. The acceleration is very efficient, there's very efficient regenerative braking, and an object in motion just continues in motion until there's a force. That means drag is pretty much where your whole battery charge goes. (I'm not sure how much tire flexing accounts for exactly)
For an example off the top of my head, the Arrow concept car manages 500km by not having side mirrors. Compare that to an ICE engine which wastes most of the fuel energy as heat, but to a widely varying degree depending on design and implemented energy recovery features.
This is generally in line with ice, the drivetrain efficiencies anymore are in the high 90%s (applies to ev too), so from engine out you are losing basically everything to drag.
On ICE vehicles you lose a lot more to braking
depends entirely on the kind of drive.
Yeah, friction losses scale with angular velocity and not torque, and moving a ton of metal takes torque. Don't forget the braking losses, though, unless it's a hybrid of some kind. There's no turning movement back into petrol the way you can turn it back into electricity.
The point is if you're looking good range, there's several dials that can be adjusted on an ICE car, related to the prime mover. On an EV, drag is the start and finish of the considerations (unless you're going to move it onto rails, maybe). And of course range is a huge deal, because a liter of secondary cell can't come close to the energy density of a liter of petrol and 38 liters of ambient air.
This is one thing I don't get for the complaints about EV's: Drag and towing. You have the same losses in ICE, just that the ICE powerplant is so much worse 'before' the drive