go lightweight and different!

Though these designs certainly have possibilities for the future, 2025 and beyond, they would be considered 'weirdmobiles' today. It is better than the Lit Motors and other converticycles that abound, though.

I really want those kind of perfect commuter cars. Light, aerodynamic (tandem seats) and cheap electric cars. Being light and aerodynamic allow these kind of cars to be very efficient and don't require expensive/large/heavy batteries that take too long to charge in a simple 230v socket.


Opel Rak-e




Volkswagen Nils




Nissan Land Glider




Put a 10KWh battery in those and they would get real 100 miles range. With an option for 20KWh they would get 200 mile range. A small solar roof would help recover some range while being parked in our work hours.

These are my favourites. Hope to see Tesla build one of those kind soon. These are cheap to build and don't require a lot of resources to design and manufacture. They would take a lot of big cars out of roads that are now used for commuting. For 10.000€ in Europe they would be a success.

I think anything like those would destroy Tesla Motor's reputation as a serious manufacturer of automobiles.

BE-COOL said:

I really want those kind of perfect commuter cars. Light, aerodynamic (tandem seats) and cheap electric cars. Being light and aerodynamic allow these kind of cars to be very efficient and don't require expensive/large/heavy batteries that take too long to charge in a simple 230v socket.

Put a 10KWh battery in those and they would get real 100 miles range. With an option for 20KWh they would get 200 mile range. A small solar roof would help recover some range while being parked in our work hours.

These are my favourites. Hope to see Tesla build one of those kind soon. These are cheap to build and don't require a lot of resources to design and manufacture. They would take a lot of big cars out of roads that are now used for commuting. For 10.000€ in Europe they would be a success.

Click to expand...

Where is the existence proof for a vehicle that is slippery and free-rolling enough to do 100 Wh/mile in a size that is relevant? Weight is secondary if not totally irrelevant, given regenerative braking (as proven by the Model S). There are eight to ten 80-100 mile EVs already on the market, and economically priced. We aren't going to see better market penetration by trying to outdo the existing smaller and lightweight set of cars.

Musk has put 200+ miles as the rock bottom minimum for widespread adoption, with fast DC charging, and I believe he is correct about that. So, the Model 3 needs to demonstrate 225-250 miles range in a four door sedan or hatchback that can hold four adults and lots of other stuff, with a roof or hitch rack. It would be nice if that could be done with 20 kWh, but I don't believe it can without magnetic levitation or other extreme departure from current automotive practice (hyperloop highways?). Tesla is not touting efficiency improvements, but rather its ability to build a 50 kWh battery for <$10k, instead of $20k+.

Maybe the BMW Vision EfficientDynamics was the beginning of these types of futuristic looking cars. In many ways, today's i8 retains a lot of the Vision's characteristics.



I interviewed Benoit Jacobs at length a few years ago and walked away with a different outlook on the manufacturer. He wanted to achieve passive aerodynamics and nothing electric that could go wrong. It's impressive considering we are talking about a traditional carmaker.

Aptera were trying to build cars like this, and they came pretty close until they hired a hatchet man from Detroit

Don't be too quick to dismiss 'the weird'. One might say that the only thing that differs Tesla from other automakers is its emphasis on electric drive. There's still a lot to do when it comes to personal transportation, as opposed (?) to public transport, and car travel in general. For one thing, the less a car weighs, the less energy it'll need to propel itself. The sleeker it is, the less space it requires... 'Auto-mobility' is a subject that's being studied in numerous cities, that battle with shortage of space and air pollution, all over the planet.

The best selling weirdmobile of all time was the Volkswagen Beetle. It took something like sixty or seventy-five years to move around 17 million of them worldwide. It took less than thirty five years for the Toyota Corolla to catch and surpass the Beetle, though with a much more conservative approach to design. In 2014 there were 339,498 buyers for the Corolla in the US. Only 29,182 buyers got the New Beetle instead. So, even an homage to a long cherished classic design of lore can't manage better than an 11.6:1 ratio in sales against a more conservative design. Today, a weirdmobile is fine if your intent is to sell in low volume. That is not to suggest a boremobile, with limited performance is desirable either.

ThosEM said:

Weight is secondary if not totally irrelevant, given regenerative braking (as proven by the Model S).

Click to expand...

While I agree there is no market for these odd extreme cars, but at the same time, there is lots of room for improvement on the efficiency side. The Model S is out of all EVs the most inefficient in the EPA city test due to it's massive weight. For example the BMW i3 uses about 1/3 less energy which mostly due to it's much lower weight.

Red Sage said:

The best selling weirdmobile of all time was the Volkswagen Beetle. It took something like sixty or seventy-five years to move around 17 million of them worldwide. It took less than thirty five years for the Toyota Corolla to catch and surpass the Beetle, though with a much more conservative approach to design. In 2014 there were 339,498 buyers for the Corolla in the US. Only 29,182 buyers got the New Beetle instead. So, even an homage to a long cherished classic design of lore can't manage better than an 11.6:1 ratio in sales against a more conservative design. Today, a weirdmobile is fine if your intent is to sell in low volume. That is not to suggest a boremobile, with limited performance is desirable either.

Click to expand...

1. The New Beetle is an ugly reminiscence of the original icon. BMW proved that it can do a better job in bringing back an iconic car with the New Mini. 2. In those 75 years car ownership grew steadily. Sales volumes in different periods can't be compared just like that. The original VW Beetle sold enough not to be considered a weird choice. 3. Then again, if a 'weird car' can sell a 100,000 annually it can still be a success.

David99 said:

While I agree there is no market for these odd extreme cars, but at the same time, there is lots of room for improvement on the efficiency side. The Model S is out of all EVs the most inefficient in the EPA city test due to it's massive weight. For example the BMW i3 uses about 1/3 less energy which mostly due to it's much lower weight.

Click to expand...

I would have a lot more respect for the i3 (looks notwithstanding) if it had a longer range. I know part of its lightness is probably from having a smaller battery, but it's just not very compelling to me right now, even though I acknowledge some of the technology and materials used in it are very impressive.

ThosEM said:

Weight is secondary if not totally irrelevant, given regenerative braking (as proven by the Model S). There are eight to ten 80-100 mile EVs already on the market, and economically priced. We aren't going to see better market penetration by trying to outdo the existing smaller and lightweight set of cars.

Click to expand...

The kinetic energy stored in a moving vehicle is related to the mass and speed of the vehicle. All else being equal, if your car is twice as heavy, it has twice the kinetic energy and if it is moving twice as fast it has four times the kinetic energy. Any time your car slows down the kinetic energy stored in the vehicle has to go somewhere. Let’s take a look at where this energy goes. There is always some kinetic energy consumed by the rolling resistance, mechanical friction, and aerodynamics of your car. These bits of energy go into heating the road, the surrounding air, and various spinning parts in your car. But the vast majority of the kinetic energy is converted into heat by your brake pads when you stomp on the brakes. How much energy does regenerative braking recover?

The amount of energy you can recover depends on how and where you drive. From the power train point of view it looks pretty good. The energy conversion efficiencies from chemical to electrical (battery), DC current to AC current (inverter), electrical to mechanical (motor), and torque to force (transmission and wheels) are all quite high and work just as efficiently returning energy into the battery. The bigger problem is aerodynamic losses at higher speeds and rolling friction of the tires. These both act to slow the car, but the energy dissipated cannot be recovered. We must also remember that, even though the battery-to-wheel conversion efficiency is pretty good (up to 80% or so), the energy makes a full circle back into the battery and it gets converted twice for a net efficiency of at most 80% x 80% = 64%.

So, weight does pose a problem. The lighter a car, the less frictional losses. Low-rolling resistance tires can be applied without compromising handling, etc. Model S' tires are 245/45R19. BMW i3's are 155/70 R19.

voyager said:

So, weight does pose a problem. The lighter a car, the less frictional losses. Low-rolling resistance tires can be applied without compromising handling, etc. Model S' tires are 245/45R19. BMW i3's are 155/70 R19.

Click to expand...

To suggest the BMW i3's tires do not compromise handling is far from the truth. Here's a typical review of the i3: "Because of its skinny tires and higher than average ride height, the i3 can't match BMW's traditional models in terms of handling prowess."

gregincal said:

To suggest the BMW i3's tires do not compromise handling is far from the truth. Here's a typical review of the i3: "Because of its skinny tires and higher than average ride height, the i3 can't match BMW's traditional models in terms of handling prowess."

Click to expand...

You're obviously right. Bad wording. It is compromised... to the point that it no longer qualifies as a sporty BMW. Yet still safe.

Actually, CNET had an interesting article on how the i3 compensates for its narrow tires with a larger overall circumference, and consequently, a larger relative contact patch: http://www.cnet.com/news/tire-tech-the-bmw-i3s-bridgestone-ecopia-ep500s/

Most people are already aware of the quadrant that makes visible two of the car industry's major challenges: driverless and car sharing.



Interesting thing is that it more or less overlaps the quadrant in which 'carbon footprint' and the yes-or-no ambitions towards replacing chunks of public transport (which Google obviously has) are made visible. With Tesla's attention to detail and road presence its cars are very much private vehicles, not meant to be shared with just anyone. It also shows what formidable power, theoretically for now perhaps, Google is...

That efficiency will improve with time. Both Elon and JB seem convinced that 85 kWh is 'enough'. So, if energy density were to double, the battery pack could weigh half as much, thereby achieving more range with the same capacity.

have they said that 85 kWh is enough, I do remember Musk say once that more than 400 miles was kind of pointless once you have superchargers

most people assume we will see 100 kWh packs in the Model S soon enough

I believe they have both said it was enough. Most consider it to be similar to Bill Gates presuming that "640 KB is enough. No one will ever need more than that!" though... But if, for instance, 85 kWh of energy could be stored in a space that took up far less volume and weighed considerably less... Say, a 75 lbs module that was the size of a ten gallon fuel tank... Then a Tesla Model S P85D might only weigh ~3,700 lbs. So the range of the car would be rather dramatically improved without adding more capacity.

I also believe that people who claim to want more range, by having more capacity, don't really intend to use it. Elon and JB understand this as well. People want to bring the same bad habits from the ICE realm to their daily use of EVs. That is, if they had a 400 mile range, they would stop every 300 miles to fill up. If that is the case, that they would leave 100 miles if range 'in the tank' typically, and 'just in case'... Then the car might as well only have a 330 mile range.

Since EVs are more efficient, and the range is more accurate, you don't need a 25%-30% buffer. You should become used to driving to around the 10%-12.5% mark instead. Some want to only fill an EV to 90%, but never run below 20%, while still driving 350 miles. Do the math: 350 ÷ 0.70 = 500. What's the point of having a potential 500 miles of range on hand if you will not be driving at least 450 miles per charge?