Good Idea?

[morqthana]

Not that much. What do you think you would have to limit a typical EV to, in order to get 600 miles of range out of (say) an 80 kWh battery?

That I don't know.

But I do know that if you were to take two identical EVs with the same charge to the Nordschleife, drive one around it sedately and the hammer the other one round on the ragged edge you'd cover the same distance but the 2nd one would have used more charge.

Ergo there is the potential to extend the range of a car by limiting its performance.

 

[morqthana]

PS, and apology for my poor wording.

... you sought to compare me to a drunken driver ...

I did write this:

I've seen exactly the same logic used by people arguing that they are OK to drive after a few drinks, possible even safer, as they know to concentrate harder.

You are as disgraceful as them.

The comparison was not between you and drunk drivers, it was between the attitudes expressed by denials of well established safety rules on the grounds that you're special, you're not like other people, you aren't affected by <whatever> like they are.

 

[Avocet]

That I don't know.

But I do know that if you were to take two identical EVs with the same charge to the Nordschleife, drive one around it sedately and the hammer the other one round on the ragged edge you'd cover the same distance but the 2nd one would have used more charge.

Ergo there is the potential to extend the range of a car by limiting its performance.

Yes, of course it would - as would an ICE, given the same treatment. But when you look at more "real world" usage, there's very little in it. My car is a good example, because BMW tried exactly that. Mine (which was bottom-of-the-range at the time), has an 80 kWh battery, 335 horsepower and an (official) energy consumption of 3.57 miles to the kWh. Kerb weight of 2125 kg

BMW then brought out a lower spec one, with a smaller battery and less power. Otherwise, an identical car. It had a 70 kWh battery, 280 horsepower, official energy consumption of 3.63 miles to the kWh and a kerb weight of 2075 kg.

So as you can see, the average energy consumption is hardly any different. That's because in everyday usage, they're not getting pasted round "the Ring" all day. That's one of the things it was hardest to get my head round with EVs at first. A very powerful ICE car, is likely to be pretty thirsty - even when driven gently. This is particularly true of petrol cars, whose volumetric efficiency goes down the toilet at small throttle openings. With an EV, the drivetrain efficiency is incredibly high, and doesn't really alter much with throttle position, so you can have a really powerful one with little downside in "real life" energy consumption where they're not being thrashed.

Of course, both are still "thirstier" (in EV terms) than (say) a Citroen Ami or a Dacia Spring, and I agree that nobody really "needs" 300 horse, but for as long as the motor car has existed, people have wanted a choice of power outputs and performance envelopes. EVs aren't going to change that.

 

[Brigadier]

Thanks @Avocet

In simple terms, it makes little range difference to build a 0-60 in 8 secs EV, as it does a 3 secs one.
Which was the original question posed.

 

[morqthana]

I take, and have always taken my driving on the public road, very, very seriously.

Really.

which means that it is safer to stay in one lane (any lane), rather than dart backwards and forwards between them all of the time.

Which causes endless frustration to other drivers, often leaving them little choice, except to undertake, as I risked doing yesterday....

Untrue - they also have the choice of obeying the law.

Little red car, pulls off the roundabout, into L2 of a 40 limit, doing a steady 30. nothing ahead of her at all, just me behind in L1. I followed her for well over a mile, leaving her plenty of space to move to L1 ahead of me, finally flashed my headlights a few times, then eventually giving up I sounded my horns and resorted to under-taking.

So that's two offences.

Sounding your horn like that.

Overtaking on the left.

You followed her for "well over a mile". Let's assume, reasonably, that if it had been 2 miles you'd have said that.

So - split the difference? 1½ miles?

1½ miles at 30mph is 3 minutes, at 40mph it would have been 2¼ minutes. 45 seconds less.

So after 45 seconds of "endless frustration" you had to resort to overtaking on the left.

And you consider yourself a good driver.

My record, is totally impeccable, despite the miles, and many hours I have spent on the road,

I guess that means you haven't yet been caught contravening the Road Traffic Act(s)?

Please don't go on about "frustration" - that is NOT a legal justification for committing the offences you did.

Nor would be an offence by another driver of inconsiderate driving.

You had the gall to have a go at me because I suggested that your attitude to safe driving was lacking - you went on about how very, very, seriously you take it, and how your record is impeccable, and how dare I suggest otherwise.


45 seconds for you, the impeccable driver who takes it so very, very, seriously, to launch into an illegal overtake because of your endless frustration.


And please don't start accusing me of being a troll because you don't like your hypocrisy pointed out. I wrote this not to wind you up, but to set the record straight.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Some posters, don't even know their posts are blocked here, and might never be seen..

 

[JohnD]

Individuals, and their ability to concentrate, varies quite considerably. I've never had an issue staying alert behind the wheel, probably why I have a clean licence, and never been involved in an accident, despite probably driving millions of miles, in a wide variety of vehicles during my working career and privately.

Individuals, and their ability to reject good sense, vary considerably.

 

[Avocet]

Some posters, don't even know their posts are blocked here, and might never be seen..

Only by you though... everyone else sees them...