"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:12:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/16 10:58, charles wrote:
In article , tim...

wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 08:40:52 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
I expect all those in the eu who live neer a pwoer station which is
where the increase in pollution will go, to take action if this
goes
on.

Its a bit like taking all your awkward to dispose of waste to Africa
to keep it out of your own back yard. Brian

Most electric cars will be charged at home, by night. It's the only
way
the system could stand it.

As I have pointed out to various people several times, that would
require
a complete change in house building policy to work

This preference of developers to build estate with communal parking
(to
get better land utilisation), and for people to convert their integral
garages into living rooms would have to stop.

all houses would have to be supplied with a proper garage and planning
rules would have to forbid conversion, otherwise people wont have the
facilities to charge up at home - Charging up on the street,
unguarded,
overnight just isn't going to work.

Communal car parks with charging points would work fine. They already
exist in parts of Norway/Sweden to provide power for engine heaters.
There
is no basic reason why roadside parking meters could be conveted into
power
outlets. There's the underlying infrastructure, of course, but it could
be
done.

for decent charge rates - e.g, a 1 hour charge on a 50Kwh battery you
need some hefty infrastructure.

Not saying its not possible, over a period of time, but its not cheap
and it isn't that simple.

Will rollout similar to broadband I'd say - 20 years or so.

I think that with nuclear power we are on the cusp. 1 hour fast charge
means that you can use e.g supermarkets equipped with power points.

If we could get a real 100 mile range and fast charge - under an hour -
then its not ideal, but a lot of people would say that that is an
acceptable performance for the vast majority of urban/suburban trips
which are indeed school run supermarket etc.

Of course it would have to be cost effective too. And the loss of tax
income from falling fuel sales would be a problem.






Why do you drivel on about your theories?
The facts are right here.

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.

Experience of users in the real world is that quoted ranges are up to 50%
overestimates when used in real conditions

FTAOD, the same is true for liquid fuelled cars, of course.

tim

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:25:56 +0100, harry wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7197136.html

All cars to be electric.

Why would the Netherlands ban music in cars? ICE = In Car Entertainment.

--
You are The One. But not The One. The One who is not The One, but is Another One. But you are that One who is The One who is The Other One who is, in fact, The One. All is lost.

On Monday, 22 August 2016 12:02:47 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 11:12:53 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/08/16 10:58, charles wrote:
In article , tim...

wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 08:40:52 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
I expect all those in the eu who live neer a pwoer station which is
where the increase in pollution will go, to take action if this
goes
on.

Its a bit like taking all your awkward to dispose of waste to Africa
to keep it out of your own back yard. Brian

Most electric cars will be charged at home, by night. It's the only
way
the system could stand it.

As I have pointed out to various people several times, that would
require
a complete change in house building policy to work

This preference of developers to build estate with communal parking
(to
get better land utilisation), and for people to convert their integral
garages into living rooms would have to stop.

all houses would have to be supplied with a proper garage and planning
rules would have to forbid conversion, otherwise people wont have the
facilities to charge up at home - Charging up on the street,
unguarded,
overnight just isn't going to work.

Communal car parks with charging points would work fine. They already
exist in parts of Norway/Sweden to provide power for engine heaters.
There
is no basic reason why roadside parking meters could be conveted into
power
outlets. There's the underlying infrastructure, of course, but it could
be
done.

for decent charge rates - e.g, a 1 hour charge on a 50Kwh battery you
need some hefty infrastructure.

Not saying its not possible, over a period of time, but its not cheap
and it isn't that simple.

Will rollout similar to broadband I'd say - 20 years or so.

I think that with nuclear power we are on the cusp. 1 hour fast charge
means that you can use e.g supermarkets equipped with power points.

If we could get a real 100 mile range and fast charge - under an hour -
then its not ideal, but a lot of people would say that that is an
acceptable performance for the vast majority of urban/suburban trips
which are indeed school run supermarket etc.

Of course it would have to be cost effective too. And the loss of tax
income from falling fuel sales would be a problem.






Why do you drivel on about your theories?
The facts are right here.

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.

Experience of users in the real world is that quoted ranges are up to 50%
overestimates when used in real conditions

FTAOD, the same is true for liquid fuelled cars, of course.

I would say more like 20%.
And the battery deteriorates with use.

On Monday, 22 August 2016 09:16:06 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Aug-16 8:59 PM, harry wrote:
...
The facts are right here.

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.


Provided, according to the information given, you are willing to forego
effective air conditioning, accept a mediocre acceleration and drive
relatively slowly.

Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.
Who needs aircon in the UK?
Open a window.

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 09:16:06 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Aug-16 8:59 PM, harry wrote:
...
The facts are right here.

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.


Provided, according to the information given, you are willing to forego
effective air conditioning, accept a mediocre acceleration and drive
relatively slowly.

Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.
Who needs aircon in the UK?

most people. the main benefit of aircon is drying the incoming air so you
don't get misted up windows. and the UK weather is ideal for creating them.

Open a window.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 22-Aug-16 6:51 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 09:16:06 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Aug-16 8:59 PM, harry wrote:
...
The facts are right here.

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.


Provided, according to the information given, you are willing to forego
effective air conditioning, accept a mediocre acceleration and drive
relatively slowly.

Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

According to the manufacturer's specifications, those cars have a 0-60
that is about the same as the Mk2 Triumph Vitesse. That might have been
excellent in the 1960s but today it is mediocre.

Who needs aircon in the UK?

It also heats the car in winter.

Open a window.

Which won't get the car any cooler than the outside air. Last week, that
would have been around 24C.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?

Andy

On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

On 23-Aug-16 6:50 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

If you look at the data sheets your link leads to, the Leaf has a
0-62mph of 11.5 seconds. I haven't driven a car that slow since the
1960s. You might start rolling a bit quicker, but it is still quite
mediocre performance.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
charles wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Odd then all the ones I come across creep round like the battery is flat.

Who needs aircon in the UK?

most people. the main benefit of aircon is drying the incoming air so
you don't get misted up windows. and the UK weather is ideal for
creating them.

I'd be more concerned with decent heating in the winter. And in cold
weather, all batteries perform worse.

Open a window.

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Huge
writes
On 2016-08-22, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 09:16:06 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Aug-16 8:59 PM, harry wrote:
...
The facts are right here.






https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf/charging-range.html?&cid=psmeXItRlaP_dc|U

Electric cars are beyond this point already.


Provided, according to the information given, you are willing to forego
effective air conditioning, accept a mediocre acceleration and drive
relatively slowly.

Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.
Who needs aircon in the UK?

Me. I wouldn't buy a car without it.


+1
--
bert

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

According to the manufacturer's specifications, those cars have a 0-60
that is about the same as the Mk2 Triumph Vitesse. That might have been
excellent in the 1960s but today it is mediocre.

It would be fine in average traffic if the electric car driver actually
used some of that performance. But the majority - like Pious drivers -
seem to be out to conserve as much energy as possible.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)
Cyclists are usually ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights - for the
first 10 yards or so.
Autos are quicker than most manuals initially.
My DAF44 was brilliant.
--
bert

On 23/08/2016 06:50, harry wrote:
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

My ICE car is traction limited up to about 30MPH. I suspect yours isn't,
and I'm damn sure you have less traction.

(I tend not to do this, it's bad for tyres and clutch. The latter is of
course not an issue for an Electric or traditional automatic cars)

Andy

On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 09:33:34 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23-Aug-16 6:50 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

If you look at the data sheets your link leads to, the Leaf has a
0-62mph of 11.5 seconds. I haven't driven a car that slow since the
1960s. You might start rolling a bit quicker, but it is still quite
mediocre performance.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Tch.
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most have a 30mph speed limit.

If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 21:04:47 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/08/2016 06:50, harry wrote:
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

My ICE car is traction limited up to about 30MPH. I suspect yours isn't,
and I'm damn sure you have less traction.

(I tend not to do this, it's bad for tyres and clutch. The latter is of
course not an issue for an Electric or traditional automatic cars)

Andy

My electric car is fitted with ABS and traction control. There is no clutch, the rear (driven) wheels are very wide and have most battery weight on them.
Acceleration is seamless, there are no gear changes.
The elctric motor is ideal for traction.
ICE is the exact opposite.

Why do you ramble on about stuff you have no knowledge about?

On 24-Aug-16 8:04 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 09:33:34 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23-Aug-16 6:50 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

If you look at the data sheets your link leads to, the Leaf has a
0-62mph of 11.5 seconds. I haven't driven a car that slow since the
1960s. You might start rolling a bit quicker, but it is still quite
mediocre performance.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Tch.
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.

The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most have a 30mph speed limit.

If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 24/08/16 09:46, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The batteries on electric cars are nowhere near 100Kwh.
My own is 16Kwh.

But their capacities are going up and 100KWh may be commonplace very
soon, if what Musk says is true: "Mr Musk claimed that the new
100-kilowatt hour battery pack means high-end versions of the Model S
sedan, called the P100D, will be the world's fastest accelerating car
in production. It will do 0-60mph in 2.5 seconds".
http://tinyurl.com/zvb2byy

So harry bought a cheap pile of crap.

100Kwh is as good as it gets these days, but even that is way short of
what you need.

70 litres of diesel is about 700kwh. OK a diesel engine is about 30%
efficient, so that could equate to around 280Kwh, and of course if you
need heat, that doesn't come 'free' as it does with an ICE.

The problem is that 280Kwh is obviously possible, but the weight starts
to impact on the range.

And the cost, on the sales ! :-)


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 24/08/16 09:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 24-Aug-16 8:04 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 09:33:34 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23-Aug-16 6:50 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

If you look at the data sheets your link leads to, the Leaf has a
0-62mph of 11.5 seconds. I haven't driven a car that slow since the
1960s. You might start rolling a bit quicker, but it is still quite
mediocre performance.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Tch.
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.





The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.







--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.

The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.

If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the E
Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive sports
cars, is now commonplace.


It's interesting to see how different types of engine in the same car make
such as difference to the acceleration profile. I used to have a Peugeot 306
with a 1.9 turbo diesel. It was fairly brisk but when I was loaned a 1.8
petrol version of the car while mine was being serviced, I noticed how the
petrol one was much better at accelerating away from rest. No surprise
there. However, on the motorway it was ****-poor: whereas my diesel had
phenomenal 50-80 acceleration (good for overtaking) the petrol one had a
much higher-revving engine (it screamed away at about 3500 rpm at 70,
compared with about 2100 for the diesel) and ran out of puff if you tried to
accelerate from 50-70 (either in 6th, 5th or 4th gear).

So the petrol was good at some things but lousy at others. Everyone talks
about 0-60 time, but some times it's 40-70 time that is important in
real-world driving, when you need to accelerate rapidly to get past a slow
lorry on a country lane where there are only limited overtaking
opportunities.

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Very good reason they made a lightweight E-Type for racing. ;-)

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The batteries on electric cars are nowhere near 100Kwh.
My own is 16Kwh.

But their capacities are going up and 100KWh may be commonplace very
soon, if what Musk says is true: "Mr Musk claimed that the new
100-kilowatt hour battery pack means high-end versions of the Model S
sedan, called the P100D, will be the world's fastest accelerating car
in production. It will do 0-60mph in 2.5 seconds".
http://tinyurl.com/zvb2byy

Does the capacity of the battery determine acceleration?

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
NY wrote:
It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without
pauses in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes
gear.

No reason to have a pause in acceleration while an auto changes gear.

--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without
pauses in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes
gear.

No reason to have a pause in acceleration while an auto changes gear.

All the automatics I've driven have given a noticeable lurch (due to
momentary disruption of power to wheels) when they change gear under hard
acceleration, even if the change is undetectable under gentle acceleration.

There is also the problem that the rate of acceleration decreases with each
upward change of gear (lower mechanical advantage of higher gear lead to
lower torque at wheels). In a manual car you adjust for this: as you change
up you apply slightly more accelerator pressure than you would in the lower
gear, even allowing for the accelerator not needing to be pressed as far
because the engine speed is lower - when you are learning to drive you learn
to make the adjustment sub-consciously. But in an automatic further pressure
on the accelerator to maintain the same acceleration can occasionally cause
the gearbox to shift back down to the gear it used to be in: I always have
this problem as I accelerate out of a roundabout and end up "see-sawing"
between high acceleration in lower gear or less acceleration in next gear
up. I end up thinking "you've changed up into third, now *stay* in third and
let me accelerate in that gear".

On 24/08/16 10:41, NY wrote:
Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the
E Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive
sports cars, is now commonplace.

I am daily impressed by the fact that my freelander can out accelerate
out brake and out corner, and has a higher top speed and better fuel
consumption, than the Midgets of my youth.

All that, a stereo and aircon too.




--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 24/08/16 11:26, NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without
pauses in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes
gear.

No reason to have a pause in acceleration while an auto changes gear.

All the automatics I've driven have given a noticeable lurch (due to
momentary disruption of power to wheels) when they change gear under
hard acceleration, even if the change is undetectable under gentle
acceleration.

There is also the problem that the rate of acceleration decreases with
each upward change of gear (lower mechanical advantage of higher gear
lead to lower torque at wheels). In a manual car you adjust for this: as
you change up you apply slightly more accelerator pressure than you
would in the lower gear, even allowing for the accelerator not needing
to be pressed as far because the engine speed is lower - when you are
learning to drive you learn to make the adjustment sub-consciously. But
in an automatic further pressure on the accelerator to maintain the same
acceleration can occasionally cause the gearbox to shift back down to
the gear it used to be in: I always have this problem as I accelerate
out of a roundabout and end up "see-sawing" between high acceleration in
lower gear or less acceleration in next gear up. I end up thinking
"you've changed up into third, now *stay* in third and let me accelerate
in that gear".

Spend more time working out the box's algorithms.



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:
It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without
pauses in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes
gear.

No reason to have a pause in acceleration while an auto changes gear.

All the automatics I've driven have given a noticeable lurch (due to
momentary disruption of power to wheels) when they change gear under
hard acceleration, even if the change is undetectable under gentle
acceleration.

But that lurch isn't due to power being interrupted. Quite the reverse.
Many sophisticated autos will reduce the engine power (retard the ignition
etc) on the actual gearchange to smooth things out. But if going for
maximum acceleration, would just hammer through the gear changes. But of
course they don't actually change gear as in a manual box. Each different
gear ratio is selected by a clutch or clutches. If correctly timed any
interruption in power flow is negligible.

There is also the problem that the rate of acceleration decreases with
each upward change of gear (lower mechanical advantage of higher gear
lead to lower torque at wheels).

Of course. But then I'm not sure any electric motor will have an
absolutely linear torque output from rest to maximum speed either. My
guess is not. There are always compromises.

In a manual car you adjust for this: as
you change up you apply slightly more accelerator pressure than you
would in the lower gear, even allowing for the accelerator not needing
to be pressed as far because the engine speed is lower - when you are
learning to drive you learn to make the adjustment sub-consciously.

That will only work when accelerating fairly gently. Decent gearing for
economy says you'll not get much acceleration in the highest gear.


But in an automatic further pressure on the accelerator to maintain the
same acceleration can occasionally cause the gearbox to shift back down
to the gear it used to be in: I always have this problem as I accelerate
out of a roundabout and end up "see-sawing" between high acceleration in
lower gear or less acceleration in next gear up. I end up thinking
"you've changed up into third, now *stay* in third and let me accelerate
in that gear".

Obviously if you call for more acceleration than it can give in that gear
it will change down.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:41:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.

The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.

If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the E
Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive sports
cars, is now commonplace.


It's interesting to see how different types of engine in the same car make
such as difference to the acceleration profile. I used to have a Peugeot 306
with a 1.9 turbo diesel. It was fairly brisk but when I was loaned a 1.8
petrol version of the car while mine was being serviced, I noticed how the
petrol one was much better at accelerating away from rest. No surprise
there. However, on the motorway it was ****-poor: whereas my diesel had
phenomenal 50-80 acceleration (good for overtaking) the petrol one had a
much higher-revving engine (it screamed away at about 3500 rpm at 70,
compared with about 2100 for the diesel) and ran out of puff if you tried to
accelerate from 50-70 (either in 6th, 5th or 4th gear).

So the petrol was good at some things but lousy at others. Everyone talks
about 0-60 time, but some times it's 40-70 time that is important in
real-world driving, when you need to accelerate rapidly to get past a slow
lorry on a country lane where there are only limited overtaking
opportunities.

Electric cars have a control for different performances.
Available power and regeneration can be preset.
There is never any jerkiness.
And the important acceleration times are 0-10 mph in traffic.
Why do you conjecture about stuff you have no knowledge of?
Go and test drivean electric car instead of futile babbling here.

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:09:58 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/08/16 09:28, Nightjar wrote:
On 24-Aug-16 8:04 AM, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 09:33:34 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 23-Aug-16 6:50 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 21:28:49 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/08/2016 18:51, harry wrote:
Acceleration in electric cars is excellent.

Well, that's true of a Tesla. But they're kind of expensive. What does
yours do?


Dunno.
But it's ahead of ICE cars from the traffic lights.
(Max accelaration is from rest unlike ICE cars)

If you look at the data sheets your link leads to, the Leaf has a
0-62mph of 11.5 seconds. I haven't driven a car that slow since the
1960s. You might start rolling a bit quicker, but it is still quite
mediocre performance.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Tch.
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

The motor is water cooled, melting is unlikely.
All traction electric motors have independent cooling.

https://sia.org.au/downloads/Divisio...esentation.pdf

Page 5

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:41:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.

The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.

Well you guess wrong.
https://sia.org.au/downloads/Divisio...esentation.pdf

Page 5.

harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:41:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:

"The Natural wrote in message
...

The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.


The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.


If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the E
Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive sports
cars, is now commonplace.


It's interesting to see how different types of engine in the same car make
such as difference to the acceleration profile. I used to have a Peugeot 306
with a 1.9 turbo diesel. It was fairly brisk but when I was loaned a 1.8
petrol version of the car while mine was being serviced, I noticed how the
petrol one was much better at accelerating away from rest. No surprise
there. However, on the motorway it was ****-poor: whereas my diesel had
phenomenal 50-80 acceleration (good for overtaking) the petrol one had a
much higher-revving engine (it screamed away at about 3500 rpm at 70,
compared with about 2100 for the diesel) and ran out of puff if you tried to
accelerate from 50-70 (either in 6th, 5th or 4th gear).

So the petrol was good at some things but lousy at others. Everyone talks
about 0-60 time, but some times it's 40-70 time that is important in
real-world driving, when you need to accelerate rapidly to get past a slow
lorry on a country lane where there are only limited overtaking
opportunities.

Electric cars have a control for different performances.
Available power and regeneration can be preset.
There is never any jerkiness.
And the important acceleration times are 0-10 mph in traffic.
Why do you conjecture about stuff you have no knowledge of?
Go and test drivean electric car instead of futile babbling here.


In heavy traffic, acceleration times are unimportant. Rapid
acceleration just increases fuel consumption for any fuel system.

harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:41:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:

"The Natural wrote in message
...

The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.


The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.

Well you guess wrong.
https://sia.org.au/downloads/Divisio...esentation.pdf

Page 5.

My auto Cresta did.

On 24-Aug-16 10:41 AM, NY wrote:
....
Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the
E Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive
sports cars, is now commonplace...

Plus, of course, very much better fuel consumption. The claimed figure
for the 4.2 litre E type was 17 mpg. My car tells me it has averaged
37.3 mpg since new and I am not a particularly economical driver.



--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

[Snip]

In heavy traffic, acceleration times are unimportant.

not when you are trying to get past cyclists on a busy road.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 24-Aug-16 4:46 PM, harry wrote:
....
Electric cars have a control for different performances....

So does my diesel automatic - economy or sport.

And the important acceleration times are 0-10 mph in traffic....

Why? Who, in their right mind floors the accelerator if they are in
traffic so heavy that they won't be going faster than 10mph? The lowest
relevant range for maximum acceleration would be 0-30, but I regularly
use junctions and lights where I go to 40, 50, 60 and 70 from stop.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 24-Aug-16 11:06 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Very good reason they made a lightweight E-Type for racing. ;-)


I would need to have the 3.5 litre diesel engine to get comparable
acceleration to that.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 24/08/16 18:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 24-Aug-16 10:41 AM, NY wrote:
....
Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the
E Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive
sports cars, is now commonplace...

Plus, of course, very much better fuel consumption. The claimed figure
for the 4.2 litre E type was 17 mpg. My car tells me it has averaged
37.3 mpg since new and I am not a particularly economical driver.



Someone did a number on an E-type. Electronic ignition,. fuel injection
electric water pumps and fans...IIRC got around 37mpg...



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 24-Aug-16 10:41 AM, NY wrote:
...
Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of
the E Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an
expensive sports cars, is now commonplace...

Plus, of course, very much better fuel consumption. The claimed figure
for the 4.2 litre E type was 17 mpg. My car tells me it has averaged
37.3 mpg since new and I am not a particularly economical driver.

But difficult to put a price on the fun of driving an E-Type. ;-)

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 18:14:01 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 10:41:35 UTC+1, NY wrote:

"The Natural wrote in message
...

The electric motor has maximum torque at zero rpm unlike an ICE.

Unlike an electric car, my car doesn't start from zero RPM. I get
maximum torque in the range 1,600 - 2,800 rpm and it will very quickly
be doing that if I am trying for maximum acceleration from rest.


Actually of course an electric motor does not necessarily have maximum
torque at zero RPM. Not if you want to keep it from melting.

I imagine that electric cars have a control unit which gradually applies
power over a short period of time, following a well-defined profile, even if
you suddenly floor the accelerator, so you don't spin the wheels and give
the occupants of the car a tremendous kick in the back. You could even allow
the driver to select from a number of different limiting accelerations,
depending on whether he wanted smooth, sedate acceleration or brisk sporty
acceleration (with the risk that takeup of power may be a bit more jerky if
you accidentally press the accelerator slightly further than you intended).

It must be good to feel smooth, fairly constant acceleration, without pauses
in acceleration while the transmission (auto or manual) changes gear.


The 0-60 time is neither here nor there in urban situations. As most
have a 30mph speed limit.

No but I'm guessing that *in general* a car with a faster 0-60 time will
also have faster times for accelerating from 0 to 10 or 20 mph.


If you looked at 0-10mph or 0-20 mph, that would have some bearing.

Figures that are not published, so we can only look at 0-62mph. However,
to give a practical example, do you think you could out-accelerate a 4.2
litre E type Jaguar? That is a car that is only a few tenths of a second
faster to 60mph than my 2 litre diesel estate car.

Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of the E
Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an expensive sports
cars, is now commonplace.


It's interesting to see how different types of engine in the same car make
such as difference to the acceleration profile. I used to have a Peugeot 306
with a 1.9 turbo diesel. It was fairly brisk but when I was loaned a 1.8
petrol version of the car while mine was being serviced, I noticed how the
petrol one was much better at accelerating away from rest. No surprise
there. However, on the motorway it was ****-poor: whereas my diesel had
phenomenal 50-80 acceleration (good for overtaking) the petrol one had a
much higher-revving engine (it screamed away at about 3500 rpm at 70,
compared with about 2100 for the diesel) and ran out of puff if you tried to
accelerate from 50-70 (either in 6th, 5th or 4th gear).

So the petrol was good at some things but lousy at others. Everyone talks
about 0-60 time, but some times it's 40-70 time that is important in
real-world driving, when you need to accelerate rapidly to get past a slow
lorry on a country lane where there are only limited overtaking
opportunities.

Electric cars have a control for different performances.
Available power and regeneration can be preset.
There is never any jerkiness.
And the important acceleration times are 0-10 mph in traffic.
Why do you conjecture about stuff you have no knowledge of?
Go and test drivean electric car instead of futile babbling here.


In heavy traffic, acceleration times are unimportant. Rapid
acceleration just increases fuel consumption for any fuel system.

Far less in electric cars.
The fuel is "put back".

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 18:51:41 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 24-Aug-16 10:41 AM, NY wrote:
...
Really? Gosh, it shows how technology has advanced since the days of
the E Type Jag - what was once a rarity, only available on an
expensive sports cars, is now commonplace...

Plus, of course, very much better fuel consumption. The claimed figure
for the 4.2 litre E type was 17 mpg. My car tells me it has averaged
37.3 mpg since new and I am not a particularly economical driver.

But difficult to put a price on the fun of driving an E-Type. ;-)

And the status/wow factor.
One of my neighbours has the V!2 E-type