Auto Execs Are Coming Clean, EVs Are Just Not Working...

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

Modern subcompacts aka B-segment vehicles can stretch well over 170 inches like a Nissan Versa

Versa is a good example as reference to ask a question, and so is Toyota Corolla which is only 1-inch wider at 70 inches.  A lot of speculation about the new smaller Tesla Model 2 is that it may be shaped much like the Model Y to preserve aerodynamics but smaller in size.  The model Y doesn’t have the best Tesla Cd, but it’s pretty good for an SUV, so my question is what would prevent Tesla from scaling down the Model Y proportionally to roughly 172” L X 70” W X 59” H.

 

Numbers above are based on Corolla width to make it practical, and would end up being 2 inches higher and almost a foot shorter than Corolla.  Obviously BEV space packaging is more efficient.   If Tesla could maintain the Model Y’s Cd of 0.24 but with smaller frontal area and much lighter vehicle weight/mass, speculated performance numbers of up to 250 miles range with only 53 kWh battery may be possible.  My question is if there is a reason the basic tallish Model Y shape can’t be reduced in size?  Other than it would still look a little bloated.  ? 

[AM222]

50 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Versa is a good example as reference to ask a question, and so is Toyota Corolla which is only 1-inch wider at 70 inches.  A lot of speculation about the new smaller Tesla Model 2 is that it may be shaped much like the Model Y to preserve aerodynamics but smaller in size.  The model Y doesn’t have the best Tesla Cd, but it’s pretty good for an SUV, so my question is what would prevent Tesla from scaling down the Model Y proportionally to roughly 172” L X 70” W X 59” H.

 

Numbers above are based on Corolla width to make it practical, and would end up being 2 inches higher and almost a foot shorter than Corolla.  Obviously BEV space packaging is more efficient.   If Tesla could maintain the Model Y’s Cd of 0.24 but with smaller frontal area and much lighter vehicle weight/mass, speculated performance numbers of up to 250 miles range with only 53 kWh battery may be possible.  My question is if there is a reason the basic tallish Model Y shape can’t be reduced in size?  Other than it would still look a little bloated.  ? 

A vehicle that short would probably have a hatchback-like rear end, something usually less aerodynamic than a longer body with a trunk or fastback design.

For example, the Focus Mk4 sedan with its longer 183in.body has a drag coefficient of 0.25, while its 5-door hatchback counterpart (172.4in. long) has a drag coefficient of 0.273.



Cars are more efficient than their less aerodynamic SUV counterparts.

Edited November 1, 2023 by AM222

[Rick73]

58 minutes ago, AM222 said:

A vehicle that short would probably have a hatchback-like rear end, something usually less aerodynamic than a longer body with a trunk or fastback design.

Thanks.  After Tesla showed a silhouette of a vehicle during their live presentation earlier this year, many assumed it represented the upcoming Model 2.  For me it’s hard to tell much because without scale, if I see a picture of a sphere, it could be the size of a baseball or a basketball for all I know.  Anyway, it didn’t prevent renderings of potential vehicles from appearing.  The one below from a video actually looks similar to the Tesla image, which also looks like Model Y.  It’s probably just an insignificant rendering from Russia, but shows that a smaller and shorter Y without 3rd row capability may be possible.

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Thanks.  After Tesla showed a silhouette of a vehicle during their live presentation earlier this year, many assumed it represented the upcoming Model 2.  For me it’s hard to tell much because without scale, if I see a picture of a sphere, it could be the size of a baseball or a basketball for all I know.  Anyway, it didn’t prevent renderings of potential vehicles from appearing.  The one below from a video actually looks similar to the Tesla image, which also looks like Model Y.  It’s probably just an insignificant rendering from Russia, but shows that a smaller and shorter Y without 3rd row capability may be possible.

 

The MSG Sphere in Las Vegas!

 

[Rick73]

53 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

The MSG Sphere in Las Vegas!

Definitely larger than a basketball.  I normally avoid Vegas, but want to see that sphere when I get a chance.  Seems much larger than Epcot’s. 

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, AM222 said:

"Subcompact vehicles are by nature bulbous little things in order to carry four humans in an incredibly small short vehicle" That description sounds more like an A-segment city car. Examples that would be familiar to North Americans would be the Fiat 500 and Chevy Spark. They're usually shorter than 150 inches

 

Modern subcompacts aka B-segment vehicles can stretch over 170 inches like the Kia Seltos crossover SUV and Nissan Versa sedan for example.
 

Understand the vehicle classification systems in use in North America, anything smaller that a compact car/utility/crossover is a subcompact. The expectations of those North American customers are different to people in other parts of the world and that’s why “subcompacts” don’t sell well in the USA. In comparison to larger more aero vehicles, getting a subcompact to those same levels is not that easy if you want to keep the short proportions of a recognisable subcompact - that is jist of my back and forth with Rick73, what he is comfortable with may not be representative of most North American buyers.
 

Tesla will be releasing a subcompact 2 but it’s clear that product is mostly aimed at China and Europe but sure, some will probably sold in North America. I don’t know if that’s a good idea when the 3 and Y serve American customers so well.

Edited November 1, 2023 by jpd80

[ice-capades]

19 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Definitely larger than a basketball.  I normally avoid Vegas, but want to see that sphere when I get a chance.  Seems much larger than Epcot’s. 

 

Some fun facts about MSG Sphere:

 The Sphere will be 366 feet tall and 516 feet wide at its widest point.

 The fourth largest crawler crane in the world, the DEMAG CC-8800, was used to build the Sphere. The crane took 18 days to assemble.

 The Sphere will have 17,500 seats.

 It will have the highest resolution screen in the world at 19,000 by 13,500 pixels. That’s 100 times clearer than today’s best HD TVs.

 The screen covers an area larger than three football fields.

 The outside of the Sphere will have about 600,000 square feet of programmable lighting.

 The venue will use an acoustic system utilizing “beamforming” technology, with 157,000 ultra-directional speakers.

 The Sphere will also feature an infrasound haptic system enabling audiences to feel the sound.

 The Sphere’s dome alone weighs 13,000 tons and has a surface area of 220,000 square feet.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Thanks.  After Tesla showed a silhouette of a vehicle during their live presentation earlier this year, many assumed it represented the upcoming Model 2.  For me it’s hard to tell much because without scale, if I see a picture of a sphere, it could be the size of a baseball or a basketball for all I know.  Anyway, it didn’t prevent renderings of potential vehicles from appearing.  The one below from a video actually looks similar to the Tesla image, which also looks like Model Y.  It’s probably just an insignificant rendering from Russia, but shows that a smaller and shorter Y without 3rd row capability may be possible.

 

Knowing that Tesla already sell the X and Y helps, the logical new product will be smaller than the Y

especially of that teaser silhouette is linked to confirmation of the 2 coming in 2025.

 

For a smaller vehicle the silhouette is a great confirmation of the direction Tesla is taking and I see why

Musk is saying that its sales will probably dwarf the combined sales of Tesla’s other vehicles.

As a subcompact, the 2 could be the exception that gets American buyers into small BEVs.

 

 

 

[ice-capades]

With all this talk about aerodynamics and drag coefficient, here's the simplest description I could find to explain it all!

 

[SoonerLS]

 

[ZanatWork]

As a Gen-Xer who was in the parts/service industry forever, this reminds me of the early emissions years.

Some of you may remember opening the hoods on the late-70s, early-80s nightmares, with miles of incomprehensible vacuum lines and rotting cannisters...extra valves and solenoids...vapor locking and a great deal of stuff that would mysteriously get "blocked" or simply taken offline by shadetree DIYers that got tired of crap that both choked their cars and broke regularly.

I don't miss those days one bit.

Now, I look around in traffic, and read auto news sites, and I see the Tesla wannabes (any electric car that the maker quit styling with the job half done) looking like impersonal blobs...while more stories come out about the fragile/failing business cases, how other approaches could have worked better/faster...

...and I can't help but remember opening a great big hood on an LTD II and knowing that somewhere, under all the hoses, cannisters, and valves, was a perfectly mediocre 351M.

[Rick73]

5 hours ago, ice-capades said:

With all this talk about aerodynamics and drag coefficient, here's the simplest description I could find to explain it all!

 

 

Yeah, putting an aero body over a Ford Model T wouldn’t make it fast.  On the other hand, have you noticed how most commercial airliners are shaped similarly whether 100 or 400 passengers?  There are some differences of course, but humor aside, what works to improve range, speed, and fuel economy to allow transporting passengers most efficiently gives airplane buyers a competitive edge in a tough business.  Autos are not the same but similar principle applies.

 

I get and accept the “it must look good or nobody will buy it” argument, but if not functionally competitive, buyers will buy other brands.  Key is to make efficient “and” aesthetically pleasing vehicles.

[mackinaw]

41 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yeah, putting an aero body over a Ford Model T wouldn’t make it fast.....  

 

Actually it could.  Back in the 1930's some guy put a custom-made aero body on his Model T.  Stock engine, but with a different transmission.  Top speed increased from 42 mph to 70 mph.

 

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/amazing-1930s-home-built-aero-bodied-model-t.504960/

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Yeah, putting an aero body over a Ford Model T wouldn’t make it fast.  On the other hand, have you noticed how most commercial airliners are shaped similarly whether 100 or 400 passengers?  There are some differences of course, but humor aside, what works to improve range, speed, and fuel economy to allow transporting passengers most efficiently gives airplane buyers a competitive edge in a tough business.  Autos are not the same but similar principle applies.

 

I get and accept the “it must look good or nobody will buy it” argument, but if not functionally competitive, buyers will buy other brands.  Key is to make efficient “and” aesthetically pleasing vehicles.

And  also understand that the actual drag is more important than the CD factor.

 

So if the frontal area of a subcompact is significantly less  than a compact then its actual drag could be a lot less even if the CD figure doesn’t impress versus the other vehicle’s CD values.

 

The big issue with subcompact vehicles is that they are mostly commodity vehicles, made to sell at much lower and highly competitive prices. Look at Tesla talking $25k for the 2 versus $40k for a compact, talk all you like about efficiency but to get to that price means eliminating a ton of cost, that normally comes at the cost of energy efficiency where range and power usage are the main give back. So will be interesting to see the give ant take with the 2.

Edited November 2, 2023 by jpd80

[Deanh]

8 hours ago, ice-capades said:

With all this talk about aerodynamics and drag coefficient, here's the simplest description I could find to explain it all!

 

wasnt the Flex considered good aerodynamically?....

[akirby]

16 minutes ago, Deanh said:

wasnt the Flex considered good aerodynamically?....

Edited November 2, 2023 by akirby

[jpd80]

49 minutes ago, Deanh said:

wasnt the Flex considered good aerodynamically?....

this from around 2008:
 

https://stevemarshallfordnanaimo.com/blog/ford-flex-aerodynamics/#:~:text=Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient,the competitors are at 0.375.

Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient of drag while the competitors are at 0.375.

 

At 55 mph, the Flex needs only 8.90 horsepower while the nearest competitors in the full-size crossover segment – the GMC Acadia and Toyota Highlander – require more than 9.30 horsepower. Moreover, the Flex’s coefficient of drag is significantly better than all of its Asian competitors.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by jpd80

[rmc523]

27 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

this from around 2008:
 

https://stevemarshallfordnanaimo.com/blog/ford-flex-aerodynamics/#:~:text=Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient,the competitors are at 0.375.

Flex tests at 0.355 coefficient of drag while the competitors are at 0.375.

 

At 55 mph, the Flex needs only 8.90 horsepower while the nearest competitors in the full-size crossover segment – the GMC Acadia and Toyota Highlander – require more than 9.30 horsepower. Moreover, the Flex’s coefficient of drag is significantly better than all of its Asian competitors.

 

 

 

I think its lower height helped offset some of the affects of a boxy shape.

[jpd80]

11 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think its lower height helped offset some of the affects of a boxy shape.

Yes, that’s stated in the link I provided,  compared to the other big boxy vehicles of the time, it was quite aero.

[Schpark]

I still love my Flex.  Currently at 100K miles after 10 years and looking forward to the next 100K.  Great vehicle. Thanks OAC.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, that’s stated in the link I provided,  compared to the other big boxy vehicles of the time, it was quite aero.

But still a brick compared to a Porsche 911.

[SoonerLS]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think its lower height helped offset some of the affects of a boxy shape.

It's not really as boxy as it looks. It has lots of sloping surfaces and smooth, gradual transitions between planes, and what would traditionally be called rocker panels are part of the door skins that wrap underneath the chassis. It's surprisingly quiet at speed on our 80mph turnpikes due, in part, to those aerodynamics. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

But still a brick compared to a Porsche 911.

LOL, yeah it’s the smoothest brick you’ll ever see 

massive frontal area with a CD in the 3s

Edited November 2, 2023 by jpd80

[AM222]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

LOL, yeah it’s the smoothest brick you’ll ever see 

massive frontal area with a CD in the 3s

The Flex's drag coefficient of 0.335 was good at the time, I guess. 


Nowadays there are aerodynamic bricks like the Explorer-sized Kia EV9 which has a drag coefficient of 0.28, about the same as the Mach E, and slightly better than the new Range Rover Sport (0.29).

Edited November 3, 2023 by AM222

[Oac98]

13 hours ago, Schpark said:

I still love my Flex.  Currently at 100K miles after 10 years and looking forward to the next 100K.  Great vehicle. Thanks OAC.

Thanks for your purchase although I’m not a corporate rep lol. I was sorry to see them go but they were always low volume although Mr Farley projected 100000 units a year which was way off. I enjoyed driving them when we did OT at the end of the line.