Jaguar I-PACE BESUV available 2018

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
edatoakrun said:
Glad to see Jaguar gets it, that it is stupid to limit BEVs to a single axle for drive and regen.

Within a few years, I expect 2WD will be limited to only the cheapest of entry-level BEVs.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Unless you're pushing a car to its limits, there's simply no need for that level of traction and accel, and that means you can do without the added cost, weight, space* and added maintenance of two motors. Even a Bolt has far more acceleration than is needed for regular driving, and being FWD you're getting most of the regen. I expect any worries about efficiency will be handled more simply, by bigger batteries as they become cheaper, and cars will be a mix of FWD, RWD or AWD, as now.

*Barring wheel or hub motors.
 
Correct. It is actually stupid to have two motors instead of one. If the second one is never actually necessary for anything.
Of course having motor in the rear is the correct placement as front axle has excessive loads when steering (and accelerating/regen).

Second motor is only and only for performance in excessive scenarios. Not anything that should ever be used in tight city traffic.
 
I agree with a little less performance would be OK. Especially if it gave more range. Although if just a single motor I would definitely want rear drive after having the RAV4-EV. Maybe never for Jaguar but for some family sedans I could see 2WD as a popular choice.
 
240 mile range
No fast charging network to speak of

= a fancy GM Bolt for the well to do;
a nice car to place in that 3rd or 4rth garage space
 
Jaguar promo video showing some of the convenience features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6usAIJm9weg

GRA said:
edatoakrun said:
Glad to see Jaguar gets it, that it is stupid to limit BEVs to a single axle for drive and regen.

Within a few years, I expect 2WD will be limited to only the cheapest of entry-level BEVs.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Unless you're pushing a car to its limits, there's simply no need for that level of traction and accel, and that means you can do without the added cost, weight, space* and added maintenance of two motors...
BEV motors require virtually no maintenance (TSLA designs to date, excepted).

The added cost, weight and space of manufacturing an AWD BEV is minor in comparison to that required for ICEVs, yet if you look around the mix of private vehicles sold in a region like yours, where the average benefits of AWD are very slight, a huge proportion of buyer (including yourself, IIRC) opt for AWD.

In terms of total operating cost, AWD BEVs may actually be lower than 2WD versions, due to the added efficiency of higher fraction of deceleration energy recovery through regenerative braking, and the efficiency gains from having two gear ratios available, from using different final drive ratios on each wheel pair.

As electricity prices rise in the future as we phase out cheap fossil-fuel generation, and the AWD hardware costs decline, the cost/benefit ratio should increasingly improve for AWD BEVs, moving further and further down the price range for private vehicle sales.

Now we may see emerging classes of very low cost vehicles and/or fleet vehicles which replace private vehicles that, immune from buyers irrational preferences for AWD, that will be largely 2WD.

From suburban/urban cabs to long-distance BEVs limited to relatively constant high speeds on well-maintained highways, there may eventually be many new types of BEVs using only one pair of drive wheels.
 
arnis said:
Correct. It is actually stupid to have two motors instead of one. If the second one is never actually necessary for anything.
Of course having motor in the rear is the correct placement as front axle has excessive loads when steering (and accelerating/regen).

Second motor is only and only for performance in excessive scenarios. Not anything that should ever be used in tight city traffic.

Unless you live in an area with snow or poor roads. It also provides better handling, superior traction on wet roads, etc. There is a reason Audi AWD was so popular. I have never slipped a wheel in my S, not once. I have driven on roads where I never could and it has kept me from getting stuck on more than one occasion. I would never buy a 2WD car again as the benefits of AWD are great. In hilly areas turning up a hill all my cars would loose traction on the rear wheel on the S it's impossible, the difference is night and day.
 
EVDRIVER said:
arnis said:
Correct. It is actually stupid to have two motors instead of one. If the second one is never actually necessary for anything.
Of course having motor in the rear is the correct placement as front axle has excessive loads when steering (and accelerating/regen).

Second motor is only and only for performance in excessive scenarios. Not anything that should ever be used in tight city traffic.

Unless you live in an area with snow or poor roads. It also provides better handling, superior traction on wet roads, etc. There is a reason Audi AWD was so popular. I have never slipped a wheel in my S, not once. I have driven on roads where I never could and it has kept me from getting stuck on more than one occasion. I would never buy a 2WD car again as the benefits of AWD are great. In hilly areas turning up a hill all my cars would loose traction on the rear wheel on the S it's impossible, the difference is night and day.
Are your comments with winter tyres ?

Factory tires.
 
As electricity prices rise in the future as we phase out cheap fossil-fuel generation, and the AWD hardware costs decline, the cost/benefit ratio should increasingly improve for AWD BEVs, moving further and further down the price range for private vehicle sales.

Now we may see emerging classes of very low cost vehicles and/or fleet vehicles which replace private vehicles that, immune from buyers irrational preferences for AWD, that will be largely 2WD.

You're dreaming. I've never seen the price of anything come down due to hardware costs declining let alone any other drop in manufacturing. If that were the case, my 2011 leaf battery would not be increasing in price even though the KWH cost to manufacture has decreased. Prices only rise on everything.
 
The LEAF battery cost will go up becase it will be legacy and it will cost more to produce.
 
edatoakrun said:
Jaguar promo video showing some of the convenience features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6usAIJm9weg

GRA said:
edatoakrun said:
Glad to see Jaguar gets it, that it is stupid to limit BEVs to a single axle for drive and regen.

Within a few years, I expect 2WD will be limited to only the cheapest of entry-level BEVs.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Unless you're pushing a car to its limits, there's simply no need for that level of traction and accel, and that means you can do without the added cost, weight, space* and added maintenance of two motors...
BEV motors require virtually no maintenance (TSLA designs to date, excepted).

The added cost, weight and space of manufacturing an AWD BEV is minor in comparison to that required for ICEVs, yet if you look around the mix of private vehicles sold in a region like yours, where the average benefits of AWD are very slight, a huge proportion of buyer (including yourself, IIRC) opt for AWD.
Yes, I have AWD but that's due to the fact that I'm a skier combined with California's typical implementation of chain requirements, skipping R-1: "Chains, traction devices or snow tires are required on the drive axle of all vehicles except four wheel/ all wheel drive vehicles", and going direct to R-2: "Chains or traction devices are required on all vehicles except four wheel/ all wheel drive vehicles with snow-tread tires on all four wheels". As there's often lots of elevation gain and loss going up and driving around say Tahoe, you may find yourself going from bare pavement to snow and back to bare several times during a trip, and having to install and remove chains each time quickly gets old. Only on rare occasions do they raise it to R-3, (Chains/traction devices, no exceptions) and that's usually during a blizzard or ice, and you'll have chains on the entire time then, and usually want them (while they're legal, for me I don't mean cable chains). I've yet to have to put them on my now 15-year old Forester, but I tend to cherry pick my trips more than I used to, and of course I always carry them when there's a possibility of needing them.

There's no question that lots of people buy 4/AWD vehicles that they have no need for, but plenty of people don't. I'd love to see a sales breakdown of CUVs that are offered in both 2WD and 4/AWD, but here's a discussion on the RAV4 forum about why to choose one or the other, which discusses the same reason I mentioned, among others: http://www.rav4world.com/forums/99-4-3-mechanical/59227-2wd-vs-4wd.html

While the market is definitely shifting (at the moment) to CUVs, there are still plenty of sedans being sold, and the average Civic/Corolla/Camry/Accord/Altima driver outside of snow country has zero need for it.

Extra weight's just that, not counting any knock-on effect, and as for volume, typically with AWD BEVs there's no room for a spare tire, rare as that's becoming.

As to maintenance, sure, an electric motor should be low maintenance compared to an ICE, but as my dad used to say, any optional equipment you don't have will never need any maintenance or replacement.

edatoakrun said:
In terms of total operating cost, AWD BEVs may actually be lower than 2WD versions, due to the added efficiency of higher fraction of deceleration energy recovery through regenerative braking, and the efficiency gains from having two gear ratios available, from using different final drive ratios on each wheel pair.
May or may not be true, but for most people that's irrelevant. After all, if efficiency were most people's priority they wouldn't be buying big CUVs/SUVs when they have no need of them. In the U.S., the major sales barrier to BEVs remains their high initial cost.

edatoakrun said:
As electricity prices rise in the future as we phase out cheap fossil-fuel generation, and the AWD hardware costs decline, the cost/benefit ratio should increasingly improve for AWD BEVs, moving further and further down the price range for private vehicle sales.

Now we may see emerging classes of very low cost vehicles and/or fleet vehicles which replace private vehicles that, immune from buyers irrational preferences for AWD, that will be largely 2WD.

From suburban/urban cabs to long-distance BEVs limited to relatively constant high speeds on well-maintained highways, there may eventually be many new types of BEVs using only one pair of drive wheels.
Perhaps, if electricity prices do rise, but that assumes that the cost of wind/solar et al don't continue to decrease, and that we stay on what's primarily a central grid. I think there's a definite price cap for electricity due to home solar once storage becomes cheap enough.

The price of AWD will decline, but so will 2WD, and at the same time I think it likely we'll see a large shift to autonomous car-sharing. The companies that own those fleets will be the ones who will determine when or whether AWD is cost-effective, and if such fleets make up the majority of vehicles, as you say there will be a much more rational distribution of types, with special purpose vehicles being used only when they are really needed. As the typical vehicle only carries one or two people, with car-sharing it becomes unnecessary to own one designed to carry five or more just for the edge cases, and the energy savings of much smaller 2WD vehicles should far outweigh any efficiency gains of AWD in a larger one. An AWD Model S is efficient compared to a comparable ICE, but it's not as efficient as a Smart ED for the typical commute, where weight's more critical than drag. Once nearly everything's autonomous, removing crash-worthy structure and equipment will save even more weight.
 
GRA said:
Mostly off-topic mega-mess comment, including a quote improperly attributed to me. (Thank you for the correction)

But at least you didn't post entirely off topic, as some have recently on this thread, repeatedly.

Too bad we have MNL moderators that make a habit of violating the most basic rules of conduct, rather than enforcing them...
 
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
Mostly off-topic mega-mess comment, including a quote improperly attributed to me. (Thank you for the correction)

But at least you didn't post entirely off topic, as some have recently on this thread, repeatedly.

Too bad we have MNL moderators that make a habit of violating the most basic rules of conduct, rather than enforcing them...
As to whether or not most of the post was off-topic, I was replying to specific points you raised, so . . .
 
Should be great charging on all those 100kw CCS around huh? :roll:

But on a serious note, I really do like the car and the more competition the better! At least they used CCS instead of CHAdeMO (there needs to be 1 unified connector to make this all work)..

Not bad at all!
 
GRA said:
JasonA said:
Should be great charging on all those 100kw CCS around huh? :roll: <snip>
Just as it was great for Model S owners to use all those 90kW SCs around back in 2012-2013. Things change.

Not quite as great, the early Model Ss got free charging.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
JasonA said:
Should be great charging on all those 100kw CCS around huh? :roll: <snip>
Just as it was great for Model S owners to use all those 90kW SCs around back in 2012-2013. Things change.

Not quite as great, the early Model Ss got free charging.
Sure, but that was for marketing, not a sustainable business proposition. What remains to be seen is how high will the electricity price be for the 150/350kW QCs now being built by EA and others. To be successful for the long term, they need to be equal or less expensive than gas.
 
GRA said:
What remains to be seen is how high will the electricity price be for the 150/350kW QCs now being built by EA and others. To be successful for the long term, they need to be equal or less expensive than gas.

I disagree.

Most charging is at home. For the rare road trip, the price could be somewhat higher than gasoline, as long as the total cost of ownership is lower.

Horses still have some advantages over cars. Their "self driving" capabilities, at least when headed home to a warm barn and a feedbag, are still to be matched by today's cars.

Likewise, BEVs don't have to win every comparison.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
What remains to be seen is how high will the electricity price be for the 150/350kW QCs now being built by EA and others. To be successful for the long term, they need to be equal or less expensive than gas.

I disagree.

Most charging is at home. For the rare road trip, the price could be somewhat higher than gasoline, as long as the total cost of ownership is lower.

Horses still have some advantages over cars. Their "self driving" capabilities, at least when headed home to a warm barn and a feedbag, are still to be matched by today's cars.

Likewise, BEVs don't have to win every comparison.
I considered whether that might be the case but ultimately rejected it, as very few people make car decisions based on TCO. The people routinely taking long-distance BEV trips now also tend to have higher income (and education) levels, are more able to absorb higher electricity costs on road trips than mass-market consumers, and are also more likely to be amenable to the TCO argument. We'll have to wait and see which of us is correct.
 
Back
Top