Even assuming that the speed, acceleration, and range numbers are correct you won't get three digit range if you use the speed and acceleration.
27th April, 2012 @ 8:42 p.m. (California Time)
Another practical car for the masses.
27th April, 2012 @ 9:39 p.m. (California Time)
I would love to see this one come out, it does kind of remind me ( specification wise) of the Lighting GT that's been talked about here on Gizmag as well, it also seems to be in a continual state of almost "ready to be released" as well? But I must admit this is the best looking one I've seen yet! :-)
27th April, 2012 @ 9:42 p.m. (California Time)
again,proof that it can be done,and again,potentially putting the big players to shame. it's as if they,the big players,don't want it to happen....but,what's staring them in the face?
28th April, 2012 @ 8:08 a.m. (California Time)
Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Pagani, Bugatti et al. go to extreme lengths to reduce unsprung weight, all the way from lightweight composite rims and ceramic brake discs to pushrod actuated suspension designs. For a performance car maker to use hub motors seems to me to be a poor choice. I would imagine that mounting the motors inboard would make far more sense from a handling perspective. I seem to remember that the Lightning GT also used hub motors. I would be curious to hear the engineer's reasoning. This is supposed to be a hyper car, not a Haulpak.
28th April, 2012 @ 10:05 a.m. (California Time)
How much will it cost to replace the lithium Ion battery pack after 2 years of life?, and will you be able to if they only making 88 of them?.
28th April, 2012 @ 12:28 p.m. (California Time)
Mat, you contradicted yourself in your comment. the fact that the motors are in the wheels makes them unsprung. so how did you come to the conclusion that this was a poor choice?
28th April, 2012 @ 5:37 p.m. (California Time)
I really love the way this car looks but people with fast cars hardly ever drive them fast so this car will probably go more then 200 miles on a charge.
28th April, 2012 @ 6:35 p.m. (California Time)
I thinking those who are able to afford one of these could possibly afford to also put together a team of appropriate skilled people to actually build something similar? If back yard 'tinkerers' can build their own electric vehicles then surely a privately funded team could make one hell of an 'electric beast'...press 'like' if you agree :-)
28th April, 2012 @ 8:40 p.m. (California Time)
Awesome! Unfortunately, that kind of acceleration will likely destroy the batteries prematurely.
28th April, 2012 @ 9:11 p.m. (California Time)
its all numbers:
with a 92 kwh battery you can drive exactly 1 hour spending 92 KW ≈ 123hp.
achieving the 600km range max speed has to be 600km/h.
if you drive using only 15 kw per hour, you have got 6 hours to reach your 600km destination with the speed of 100km/h.
29th April, 2012 @ 12:48 a.m. (California Time)
Denis, I didn't see any contradiction in what Mat Said. I have always thought the same as what he said. A car handles better if the unsprung weight is less, i.e. the wheels/tyres/hubs/brakes are lighter. This is why Porsche makes hollow spoke wheels and you get carbon brakes. Less weight (actually mass) means less inertia which means the wheels can move up and down and turn left/right far easier, which means the car will ride better and turn in better too. Putting the motors in the wheels is a great idea for low performance vehicles but not so good for performance vehicles
29th April, 2012 @ 10:18 p.m. (California Time)
Why make a car like that? Way over expensive car is not for the masses who now wait for years to buy an affordable electric car?
Affordable, beautiful, good range and cheap driving, the only way to succeed!!!
30th April, 2012 @ 12:08 a.m. (California Time)
Lithium batteries ain't gonna cut it, it's not clean (where do you think that electricity comes from?), not practical, not sustainable. It's just not for the masses.
Fretting Freddy the Ferret pressing the Fret
30th April, 2012 @ 6:27 a.m. (California Time)
In round numbers, that's 750 kilowatts.
Assuming the motors run at 750 volts, that's going to draw a current of 1000 amps.
But that's unlikely, so let's drop that to 250 volts, giving 3000 amps.
That's a LOT of energy.
Now, as I have observed the mess that is caused when industrial quantities of electricity of that magnitude get out of hand, there is no way I would want to be confined in a car with it if - let's say - it blew a power transistor!
30th April, 2012 @ 7:05 a.m. (California Time)
Denis, when we speak of unsprung weight we are talking about all of the suspension components that are outboard from the chassis, as well as the brakes, rims and tyres. Hub motors are mounted in the rims, and do contribute to the unsprung mass, which does adversely affect handling for the reasons that Aaron has mentioned. This is not a concern with commercial vehicles, hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to Haulpaks.
30th April, 2012 @ 9:16 a.m. (California Time)
@Aaron: If the weight is in the center of the wheels, it doesn't make as much impact on angular momentum and so doesn't change performance much (the amount of mass you have to move to turn the wheels isn't a big deal even in performance cars). Built right, you could even use your motor to reduce friction, and you can absolutely use it to subtract parts. Of course, if this thing is outputting 800 kilowatts, and it has a realistic efficiency (or even if it doesn't) that's a lot of power. Even if you assume that comes from several (12? 50?) independently powered magnets, that's well into the territory of industrial power supplies.
30th April, 2012 @ 11:44 a.m. (California Time)
@Charles Bosse: When designing performance orientated suspension systems, engineers always strive to reduce unsprung weight, or mass as Aaron has correctly pointed out. Utilising hub motors significantly increases unsprung mass, which will negatively impact wheel control and therefore handling. It's not a question of turning the front wheels as virtually all new vehicles have some form of power assisted steering, it's a question of all the wheels maintaining contact with the road surface. Incorporating hub motors may well be an appealing solution from a packaging and marketing point of view, but it is sub-optimal for a performance vehicle. I take your point about regenerative braking, but there is no reason that inboard mounted motors cannot deliver the same results. Also, the design of an inboard motor could be optimised for efficiency, rather than compromised by the need to package it within the limited space in a vehicles hub.
30th April, 2012 @ 5:06 p.m. (California Time)
Since when was 88 "for the masses". The company clearly states only 88 models will be built not 88,000,000,00. That said, the masses do need something better than the fuel guzzlers that we have, and the lithium ion that is currently being used as the next possible generation.
Great looking car though.
1st May, 2012 @ 4:46 a.m. (California Time)
Ok, so I'm struggling to understand the constant references to this being a "car for the masses". If you want a car for the masses go buy a Ford Mundano or a Nissan Disappointment. Clearly Rimac are not looking to create a car for any more than a mass of 88 people.
To clarify the unsprung weight issue, this is weight that is NOT suspended by the springs, i.e. the hubs (and hub motor), wheels and tyres. The problem with higher unsprung weight is one of inertia. When a car goes over a bump a heavier wheel will take longer to rebound back to its original position. This is why a small baton is used to conduct an orchestra instead of a sledgehammer....
1st May, 2012 @ 2:58 p.m. (California Time)
@Mat, read Gizmag's previous article, "Rimac Concept_One electric supercar revealed", or, go to Rimac's website and you will clearly see that although there is one electric motor for each wheel, the electric motors are NOT in-wheel motors (hub motors). Or, just watch their YT video of the design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BV1FCMGgps
1st May, 2012 @ 6:11 p.m. (California Time)
@ETcelerate - thanks for the correction, this makes a lot more sense from a suspension viewpoint. I was however commenting on the information that was provided in this article. Hopefully this car will see production, it will be interesting to see the real world performance figures.
2nd May, 2012 @ 2 a.m. (California Time)
yes right,and lets see the revised range,my guess is less than 120,maybe because its so expensive,so light and so high tech and maxi battery capacity it might be marginally better ,lets see,its an awfull amount of money to waste running out of ergs on your way back from the supermarket.
9th May, 2012 @ 3:32 p.m. (California Time)
The differences between the the weight distrbution of I/C and electric drives make 'apples and oranges' comparisons of unsprung weight irrelevant. That would change when someone can produce an I/C engine that can be not only be wheel-mounted, but does not require the use of gearboxes, transfer cases, transmissions, clutches or torque converters.
Do that and te we can have a real apples and oranges comparison.
27th August, 2012 @ 10:02 a.m. (California Time)
anything that pushes electric/or alternative gets my vote...
26th December, 2012 @ 1:26 p.m. (California Time)