EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: u666sa on November 29, 2025, 03:08:07 pm
-
Danger lies in:
A) battery operated, none manual, door locks
B) highly toxic smoke from batteries
C) self-spontaneous-combustion
Video number 1, we have a girl in tesla unable to open door after minor crash, in which secondary battery began smoking. She succumbed to smoke within a minute. Police on scene were unable to open door and free her. There is a manual door release in tesla, you'd have to unbuckle yourself, climb to the rear, remove back seat, and pull a cable. But frankly, within half a minute in highly toxic smoke you'd have hard time breaking glass and climbing out even if glass-breaker was in your hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCJHu1NDhx4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCJHu1NDhx4)
Second video shows hybrid Jeep spontaneously-self-combusting. This vehicle could easily be parked at mechanic's shop, or inside your garage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E3y7pwB6W0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E3y7pwB6W0)
Third video shows bunch of Rivian EV's catching fire while charging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-BRqznGzo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-BRqznGzo)
Frankly, these are not isolated incidents, just recently EV caught fire, mechanic died. During working hours. Succumbed to smoke, couldn't get out of open to outside air shop.
-
Better stick to horses, never heard of one of those catching fire by itself. Or a (non electric) bicycle, easier to find nowadays.
-
Oh, not this again. |O
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/tusker-fleet-data-reveals-the-truth-about-ev-fires (https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/tusker-fleet-data-reveals-the-truth-about-ev-fires)
Turns out that putting 50 litres of fuel in the back of a car, then slowly combusting that along with hot oil and exhaust gases, and doing that all in a tiny package with components that have millimetre precision tens of times per second ... is more dangerous than a battery pack and motor.
I mean, who'd have guessed that?
But sure, keep panicking about EV fires if it makes you feel superior, even though there's no data to suggest anything to worry about. :-//
Worth noting that Tesla's decision to not put non-electric door releases on the rear of the car's doors, is nothing to do with EVs, and all to do with Tesla's cost cutting decisions driven by Elon's mentality that the best part is no part. But note that if the car were unlocked, the outside handles should still work even if the 12V system is dead. So, the car was probably locked in that video, and presented exactly the same risk any locked car would after a collision where the 12V system was destroyed or damaged due to the accident. Besides one Mercedes vehicle with gull-wing doors (https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a40274348/mercedes-sls-exploding-door-bolts/), I'm not aware of any car out there that has pyrotechnics or a similar technology to force doors open in the event of a collision. Mercedes chose to fit that to their vehicle due to the risk of a rollover collision trapping occupants, but it's certainly not a common feature.
This is why having a hammer to break glass is something I carry as standard in my car, which is capable of cutting seat belts and breaking tempered glass. I carry it for both myself, and in the event of needing to help someone else.
-
This is why having a hammer to break glass is something I carry as standard in my car, which is capable of cutting seat belts and breaking tempered glass.
What part of -- pass out in under a minute -- you don't understand? Carrying that hammer in your hand while driving is pointless, not even going to touch the part where you look for hammer after crash, while everything has been thrown around the car.
-
What part of
Turns out that putting 50 litres of fuel in the back of a car, then slowly combusting that along with hot oil and exhaust gases, and doing that all in a tiny package with components that have millimetre precision tens of times per second ... is more dangerous than a battery pack and motor.
Don't you understand?
-
This is why having a hammer to break glass is something I carry as standard in my car, which is capable of cutting seat belts and breaking tempered glass.
What part of -- pass out in under a minute -- you don't understand? Carrying that hammer in your hand while driving is pointless, not even going to touch the part where you look for hammer after crash, while everything has been thrown around the car.
https://a.co/d/2g4S713
-
This is why having a hammer to break glass is something I carry as standard in my car, which is capable of cutting seat belts and breaking tempered glass.
What part of -- pass out in under a minute -- you don't understand? Carrying that hammer in your hand while driving is pointless, not even going to touch the part where you look for hammer after crash, while everything has been thrown around the car.
But you won't pass out in a minute if an EV battery does undergo thermal runaway. Here is an actual test of deliberately initiating thermal runaway on a similar battery to that in the Tesla (NMC chemistry).
https://rechargebatteries.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Rapid-Heating-Test-Methodology-Canada-UN-IWG.pdf
Timeline on slide 26:
00:00 - Heating starts
00:11 - Initial TR occurs
00:12 - RESS enclosure ruptures at seal between top/bottom halves
00:15 - Heating stops
00:18 - Several visual dash warnings to stop were provided, vehicle propulsion was
slowly reduced to stop
00:40 - Gas emissions intensify
12:20 - External fire begins from rupture site
13:20 - Hazardous environment is present within
the cabin (based on multigas meter)
14:00 – External fire suppression applied (water)
Now yes it is possible the collision could knock you out but then any fire is dangerous in that case, hence why modern cars have eCall with backup battery to get first responders to you asap who know exactly what to do. Any vehicle fire is extremely hazardous in the event of injury to the occupants, but fortunately these events are very rare and often only occur in the event of excessive speed.
-
Petrol cars are 20x more likely to catch fire, but don't let facts get in the way of a scare story.
https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/research-highlights-lower-fire-risk-in-electric-cars-compared-to-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles/
-
There is a manual door release in tesla, you'd have to unbuckle yourself, climb to the rear, remove back seat, and pull a cable.
Is this an AI which was told to make stupid fake news about Teslas?
If not, please get your BS detector recalibrated u666sa.
-
There are manual door release levers in Teslas, but I'd bet most owners don't know where they are, without having to look it up in the owner's manual.
afaik all modern cars have automatic door unlock in the event of an impact above a certain level, though obviously this relies on the power to it being there. This is of course, not the same as the door release; the door release allows the door to be opened, the door lock inhibits the door release. The automatic door unlock is very fast, and any accident high-energy enough to destroy the power source before it can work is likely to be one that no-one survives anyway.
Having a door release be purely electric would annoy the fuck out of me, personally. And please don't try to argue it's either as reliable or cheap as a simple metal rod.
There are fundamental differences in the way EV battery fires, petrol/gasoline fires, and diesel fires, are triggered and propagate. Fire services are experienced with petrol and diesel, less so with EV batteries, and so it's more of a challenge, right now. As they gain experience, it'll even out.
The "what aboutism" levels in this thread are amusing.
-
There are manual door release levers in Teslas, but I'd bet most owners don't know where they are, without having to look it up in the owner's manual.
Funny enough it took me some time to learn to NOT use the manual release levers every time I exited our new M3. The manual levers are exactly where you would expect them to be, but you are supposed to use the button higher up in the doors. And many people exiting our car for the first time made this mistake.
-
Petrol cars are 20x more likely to catch fire, but don't let facts get in the way of a scare story.
https://internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com/research-highlights-lower-fire-risk-in-electric-cars-compared-to-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles/
You are arguing with a tankie, with an agenda, who just recently had a wagner pmc profile picture. Don't let the flag confuse you.
-
The first crash was a model 3 and she was in the front seat, the video did not show the extent of the damage from the "minor crash" and the story made no mention of the response time.
Given the outrageous lie about the door release, I'm just going to assume the entire front end was collapsed.
-
There are manual door release levers in Teslas, but I'd bet most owners don't know where they are, without having to look it up in the owner's manual.
I know where they are (hint: not in the trunk). People I know that own one know. I'm well aware the sample size is too low, so make of that what you will.
-
Reading this thread is like listening to Marilyn Manson music in an ancient cathedral.
-
The issue of being trapped in the car due to poor door release designs is not unique to Tesla. However, there's a real issue with people being roasted in their Teslas with available rescuers unable to reach them. Elon's weird fixation on an ultra-minimalist design and aesthetic probably is a huge detriment here and IMO should have been stopped by safety regulations.
All of this has nothing to do with being an EV or hybrid. IIRC, there was an issue with certain Cadillacs where an electrical fire in the dash would keep the power door locks energized in the "lock" position and simultaneously cause the windows to not function. And people have been getting locked in Corvettes and XLR's for some time.
https://www.jalopnik.com/man-gets-stuck-in-cadillac-xlr-for-over-13-hours-after-1829008202/ (https://www.jalopnik.com/man-gets-stuck-in-cadillac-xlr-for-over-13-hours-after-1829008202/)
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
Absolutely. How it ever became legal to have essential controls like fog lights, windscreen wipers and the like on a touch screen is beyond me. Not to mention the stupidity of moving the satellite on the steering column that since forever controls the turn indicators over to two bloody touch buttons on the steering wheel itself. Try to indicate you way off a roundabout with that. Does prevent me from ever buying a Tesla again.
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
Absolutely. How it ever became legal to have essential controls like fog lights, windscreen wipers and the like on a touch screen is beyond me. Not to mention the stupidity of moving the satellite on the steering column that since forever controls the turn indicators over to two bloody touch buttons on the steering wheel itself. Try to indicate you way off a roundabout with that. Does prevent me from ever buying a Tesla again.
afaiu NCAP is going to start deducting safety points when certain control are not physical buttons
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
You mean, just like what was standard in automotive before "software guys" took over?
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
You mean, just like what was standard in automotive before "software guys" took over?
Well, I think it was Tesla.
They thought they could do what Tesla did well. They failed (I have a VW ID.3... the user interface is not great).
But even the Tesla solution isn't great... drove a Model Y 3000 miles, plenty of time to get used to it. Still found myself looking at the screen. I guess autopilot is kind of necessary...
I would argue that touch haptic controls can work well: the haptic steering wheel controls on my ID.3 are very good, because the haptic motor/piezo makes them feel like real buttons, and there aren't many of them and they're in common locations so you can do everything you need without looking at them. And they are so much easier to clean because it's one solid surface. But the other touch controls suck, and the touchscreen is slow and laggy, which makes things worse; fortunately, I just use CarPlay for most things and that works well.
-
All of this has nothing to do with being an EV or hybrid.
I hope your reconsider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRCtyDbxU1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRCtyDbxU1Q)
Man was working on a hybrid and all of a sudden it went up in flames. If it was fuel you'd run away. But it was batteries. He got badly burned, his business got destroyed.
Result is a massive medical bill, years of recovery, business that most likely will not bring money again. This is U.S.. No income, no way to pay for your house. You know what happens next.
00:00 - Heating starts
00:11 - Initial TR occurs
00:12 - RESS enclosure ruptures at seal between top/bottom halves
00:15 - Heating stops
00:18 - Several visual dash warnings to stop were provided, vehicle propulsion was
slowly reduced to stop
00:40 - Gas emissions intensify
12:20 - External fire begins from rupture site
13:20 - Hazardous environment is present within
the cabin (based on multigas meter)
14:00 – External fire suppression applied (water)
GD sound like you can have a coffee before you attempt to rescue yourself out, and firefighters can get there without lights and siren!
-
If it was fuel you'd run away.
Ah yes, that has a 100% success rate. They do run the engines too inside garages, as well as welding and grinding and occasionally smoke cigarettes. Fuel is not inert.
Which part of the hybrid was causing the flames BTW?
-
It's important to separate dodgy battery manufacturers who cheap-out to save money and produce cells that are at high risk of catching on fire, verses battery manufacturers who make quality cells that don't catch on fire.
So it makes no sense to point to dodgy batteries that catch on fire and say
"Ban all batteries, or Ban all EVs".
-
evfiresafe had a look into EV fire stats in NZ based on actual data and created some slides. You can view them here https://www.evfiresafe.com/evfs-nz (https://www.evfiresafe.com/evfs-nz)
Danger lies in:
A) battery operated, none manual, door locks
There does need to be some standardization on how all cars implement their manual (no power) door release controls. Yes.
This isn't just for EVs but all cars that have an electric door opening system that will fail if the power is lost.
B) highly toxic smoke from batteries
Yes, but that's only an issue if the odds of EV fires and toxic smoke inhalation happens often enough to be an issue. Freak accidents will always happen and you can't stop that. If it's happening too often then it gets addressed through regulation, or through the manufacturers making their cars safer than their competition. If it's only freak accidents then it usually doesnt get addressed and people accept it.
The aircon/heatpump refrigerant R32 is used in lots of houses and it produces hydrogen fluoride when it burns which is highly toxic. People getting injured by it during house fires happens but it's rare enough that it's not considered an issue that needs fixing. It's really only something firefighters need to be aware of when entering a burning house.
C) self-spontaneous-combustion
Lithium batteries don't catch fire for no reason. They catch fire due to being overheated, overcharged, bad cell design/chemistry or bad assembly or physical damage.
If an EV catches on fire then either the car manufacturer is at fault, or the battery cell manufacturer is at fault. It says nothing about other EV makers or the EV industry in general.
-
Man was working on a hybrid and all of a sudden it went up in flames. If it was fuel you'd run away. But it was batteries. He got badly burned, his business got destroyed.
There's no information in that video to support any of your conclusions. What type of car, exactly? What happened? How do we know gasoline wasn't involved?
-
All of this has nothing to do with being an EV or hybrid.
I hope your reconsider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRCtyDbxU1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRCtyDbxU1Q)
Man was working on a hybrid and all of a sudden it went up in flames. If it was fuel you'd run away. But it was batteries. He got badly burned, his business got destroyed.
Most hybrids use NiMH batteries which are very stable; Toyota still uses these in current generation hybrids. But there is nothing in that video that tells us what caught fire. Many garage fires are started by people welding near fuel tanks which can easily start a fire. Others are started by fires in the interior when the welder fails to recognise that they've overheated interior materials. The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.
Result is a massive medical bill, years of recovery, business that most likely will not bring money again. This is U.S.. No income, no way to pay for your house. You know what happens next.
Shit sucks, but that's nothing to do with the propulsion method the car uses, or used.
GD sound like you can have a coffee before you attempt to rescue yourself out, and firefighters can get there without lights and siren!
Yup, it does appear that EV fires propagate slowly, since the battery is well shielded from the cabin and vents to the outside; this presents far less risk than a conventional car where the engine is up front and the most likely contributor to a fire following a crash. Most people who aren't injured could self-extricate in the event of an EV collision that does start a fire. If they can't -- well, that's bad, obviously. But do we have any evidence that the situation is noticeably worse compared to the state of the art in ICE vehicles? Cars of all forms can catch fire following high speed collisions, it's an acknowledged risk.
It must be said that these conditions that can lead to a battery fire are rare and specifically designed out. Euro NCAP testing, to achieve high-star ratings, requires EV batteries to be monitored pre- and post-crash and no impact upon the battery can be observed; no thermal runaway, no voltage drop, not even leaking coolant. At the same time, electrical contactors or pyrofuses isolate the battery so that occupants can be cut out if necessary.
-
Don't trust any news about EV fires.
Most of the time they don't even issue a retraction like they did here.
-
The aircon/heatpump refrigerant R32 is used in lots of houses and it produces hydrogen fluoride when it burns which is highly toxic. People getting injured by it during house fires happens but it's rare enough that it's not considered an issue that needs fixing. It's really only something firefighters need to be aware of when entering a burning house.
Older refrigerants would create phosgene when exposed to fire. So hardly a new problem.
The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.
That needs to be updated. There is the tradeoff of flame retardant additives having negative health effects, but that should actually be much less of a concern in a car than in a house as most spend far more time in a house or other building than in a car. And also make it illegal to smoke while driving as there's many reasons why that would be unsafe.
-
Went to a rescue a couple of week's ago
Driver had manged to lock them selves in a car and flatten the battery , couldn't get out so called the fire brigade.
The only manual release on this car is the rear hatch witch the driver could not get to
ended up popping the bonnet and connecting a external battery.
The regulators have been caught with there pants down on stupid designs like this.
and what moron at the manufacturers thinks this is a good idea.
-
The biggest contributor to modern car fires, EV or ICE, is the interior materials - these are not required to be flame retardant like a sofa or bed is required to be.
That needs to be updated. There is the tradeoff of flame retardant additives having negative health effects, but that should actually be much less of a concern in a car than in a house as most spend far more time in a house or other building than in a car. And also make it illegal to smoke while driving as there's many reasons why that would be unsafe.
Yep, and fire-retardant things tend to be more toxic and create more toxic smoke than non-fire-retardant things when they burn. The main goal of fire-retardant things is to slow down burning to give the person time to get away or to put the fire out. It's better to get exposed to some toxic fumes and have to recover from some lung issues than to die from a fire that flares up so fast you can't get away.
-
It's not beyond possibility to have both; LSF, LSHF/LSZH cables are common enough, for example, though more expensive than PVC
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
You mean, just like what was standard in automotive before "software guys" took over?
Yup.
(As someone who used to work in the software industry, I am sympathetic to some of their decisions, but I absolutely abhor modern interface and web design. So many babies were thrown out with the bath water at the alter of "modern" design... Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.)
-
Methinks we need to regulate car design more, with respect to controls, requiring:
- doors that can open without electricity, using only ONE set of interior handles (not electronic “everyday” handles and mechanical backups).
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
Absolutely. How it ever became legal to have essential controls like fog lights, windscreen wipers and the like on a touch screen is beyond me.
To me, it is so reckless it should be considered criminal.
Not to mention the stupidity of moving the satellite on the steering column that since forever controls the turn indicators over to two bloody touch buttons on the steering wheel itself. Try to indicate you way off a roundabout with that. Does prevent me from ever buying a Tesla again.
I'm not quite certain what you mean by "satellite". It sounds like you mean the turn signal stalk? If so, then my reaction is: Wait, they did what?! How the fuck is that even legal?? I thought those were covered by legal requirements.
-
afaiu NCAP is going to start deducting safety points when certain control are not physical buttons
I suppose that's a start...
-
Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.
Yes.
Or make them read the old SAA/CUA interface guidelines, published way back when by the likes of IBM (!). Good stuff.
Heh; reminds me of some design meetings back when I worked as a tech writer/programmer, working on a user interface for a machine we were building.
Someone criticized the design by calling it a "Fisher-Price interface". Which is apparently now the basis for things like Windows 11.
-
Today's interface designers would do well to read and take to heart things like Apple's older Human Interface Guidelines, the ones written when they still gave a crap about ease of use.
Yes.
Or make them read the old SAA/CUA interface guidelines, published way back when by the likes of IBM (!). Good stuff.
Heh; reminds me of some design meetings back when I worked as a tech writer/programmer, working on a user interface for a machine we were building.
Someone criticized the design by calling it a "Fisher-Price interface". Which is apparently now the basis for things like Windows 11.
No kidding!
Many of today's flat designs are actually flatter than the fucking mockups we did back when interfaces had depth.
Also, can they stop making text bigger and bigger and bigger?? (Browsing through the Wayback Machine is wild, seeing just how space-efficient websites used to be. It boggles the mind that we now often fit less information onto a 4K, 27-32" display than we did on a damned 800x600 SVGA back in the day. Absolutely absurd.)
-
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
Hazard, volume, back/fwd, are all physical buttons/wheels in tesla.
Temperature not as easily, but there is enough demand that you can buy an aftermarket knob (https://www.enhauto.com/products/s3xy-knob) to do it.
-
- physical controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, levers, etc) for key cabin functions like hazard flashers, air conditioning controls, and audio controls (at minimum, for volume, mute, and next/back). Whatever a normal driver is expected to do while driving must not be limited to a touchscreen.
Hazard, volume, back/fwd, are all physical buttons/wheels in tesla.
Temperature not as easily, but there is enough demand that you can buy an aftermarket knob (https://www.enhauto.com/products/s3xy-knob) to do it.
Yet somehow not the indicator function, at least on the 3 and older Y - that's a haptic button the steering wheel. Really silly when you use a roundabout, making it very difficult to indicate properly... I guess Americans don't have that many, or indicating isn't common there for roundabouts?
They changed that in the Model Y refresh for Europe at least, it gets the indicator stalk back. But there are still plenty of cars without indicator stalks out there now.
-
Yet somehow not the indicator function, at least on the 3 and older Y - that's a haptic button the steering wheel. Really silly when you use a roundabout, making it very difficult to indicate properly... I guess Americans don't have that many, or indicating isn't common there for roundabouts?
They changed that in the Model Y refresh for Europe at least, it gets the indicator stalk back. But there are still plenty of cars without indicator stalks out there now.
Yeah don't disagree, its just a blatant cost cutting measure that no one would want. They also charge too much for the retrofit (https://shop.tesla.com/en_gb/product/model-3-turn-signal-stalk-retrofit-) at $600 (install included).
Very few roundabouts in America. Very few in Canada where I am, they've only recently started to put more in.
-
Very few roundabouts in America. Very few in Canada where I am, they've only recently started to put more in.
We have them, and more and more are being built.
Turn signal buttons on the steering wheel????? How the hell do you know which one you're enabling when you spin the wheel?
-
Like them or not, roundabouts have become numerous (I almost wrote popular) in the US Midwest, especially Wisconsin and Indiana.
-
I'm curious about something. Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes. Do you indicate for that move? In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts. Left if taking the first exit if it is before 180 degrees, no indication if going ahead, and right if going past 180 degrees. For very complex roundabouts that have exits that aren't at nice even 90 degree intervals, or where there are more than four exits, you generally indicate left after passing the exit before the one you intend to use.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/roundabouts.html (https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/roundabouts.html)
This is a problem for a steering wheel indicator, because if you're turning right (crossing our ahead exit), the wheel is going to be upside-down for some of that turn. It's not then possible to press the left indicator without crossing your hands.
There are roundabouts in California, and one of the things that has been said about Tesla is because the engineers tend to be from that area, they think different to the Detroit engineering mindset... where you have problems like snow, rain, and winter. It explains things like the nearly useless auto wipers. Could it also explain the lack of an indicator stalk? We don't use them here, so they aren't needed anywhere.
-
I'm curious about something. Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes.
Don't understand the question. In our roundabouts the circulation is counterclockwise (you turn right upon entering). You're never going "across" any lanes, just around the circle until you reach the exit you want, whereupon you turn right into it.
Do you indicate for that move? In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts.
That's a new one on me, so no, no turn indication needed, as you're never crossing opposing traffic to exit.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something here ...
-
I'm curious about something. Obviously your roundabouts in the USA go reverse to the UK, so turning left means going across the ahead lanes.
Don't understand the question. In our roundabouts the circulation is counterclockwise (you turn right upon entering). You're never going "across" any lanes, just around the circle until you reach the exit you want, whereupon you turn right into it.
Do you indicate for that move? In the UK, we're taught to indicate at roundabouts.
That's a new one on me, so no, no turn indication needed, as you're never crossing opposing traffic to exit.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something here ...
Perhaps I explained it badly. I just mean that your left turn on the roundabout means that you will probably pass what might be canonically known as the "ahead" exit, a continuation of the direction of the road you joined from, unless there is no such exit. In the UK, that is the case for right turns.
Have a look at the diagrams on the Highway Code website I linked, they will probably do a better job of explaining the rules of indication. One problem is, they aren't that well defined for some non-standard roundabouts (what is an 'ahead' vs 'left' vs 'right' turn is down to your judgment), but it seems most driving instructors teach something along the same lines as what I explained. Probably about 50% of cars actually bother to signal properly, so it could be argued to be kind of pointless, but I will continue to do it properly.
-
None of the pages describing roundabouts--and I looked at several, all from different DOTs in various US states--say anything about signalling.
[attachimg=1]
It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.
-
It just isn't necessary
The purpose of roundabouts is to improve traffic flow. Signals allow telling other users where you're going, and therefore allow them to determine sooner if you're exiting and therefore they're clear to enter prior to your exit. So yeah, they're necessary.
-
It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.
Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...???
-
Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...???
For US/Canada we only signal when about to exit the roundabout, not when entering. So in your example the southbound car should wait if it can't safely enter before the other car.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-popular-links/d3-roundabouts
-
It just isn't necessary, as exiting the circle doesn't involve cutting across anyone's travel path; you just leave the circle.
Lets visualise your diagramme as the roads pictured being north, South, East and West.
You are in a car approaching from the South with the intention of going West.
A car is approaching from the North with the intention of going South.
You enter the roundabout first.
Shurely you indicate Left to inform the southbound car of your intention to drive across the front of it...???
No, I don't think so. Keep in mind the rule that cars already in the circle have priority over those entering.
In other words, all cars entering must yield to those in the circle. (That's why they say "Look left". In your country that would be the opposite.)
So it's on the southbound driver to wait until all traffic is clear before entering. Hence no need to signal.
-
For US/Canada we only signal when about to exit the roundabout, not when entering. So in your example the southbound car should wait if it can't safely enter before the other car.
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-popular-links/d3-roundabouts
Interesting: that's the first I've read of that rule or convention:
Use your turn signals when you change lanes or exit the roundabout.
Changing lanes in a multilane roundabout I can see, but why signal when exiting? Unless that means changing lanes.
Hmm; thinking about it, I guess that would be a courtesy to cars entering since they then know that you're not going to pass in front of them. So that would make sense. (Although the old "trust, but verify" thing would be the way to go, so as not to collide with a driver who put their turn signal on by mistake ...)
-
For US/Canada we only signal when about to exit the roundabout, not when entering. So in your example the southbound car should wait if it can't safely enter before the other car.
Seems strange to me.
The southbound car has no idea if the car entering from the south is going north or west.
If the southbound car waits it is holding up traffic if the car entering from the south is actually going north.
In New Zealand you are required to indicate your intentions.
@Analog Kid
We are allowed to enter an intersection while other traffic is in the circle.
I guess thats the significant difference here.
-
Changing lanes in a multilane roundabout I can see, but why signal when exiting?
To inform drivers waiting to enter of your intention to exit, allowing them to proceed to enter sooner. Roundabouts are not stop signs, keeping moving is the goal, not waiting for eveyone else to disappear.
On smaller roundabouts you do this on approach to inform drivers before you arrive (because you yield to what will be there. Everything is done in advance, because things are in motion..).
We are allowed to enter an intersection while other traffic is in the circle.
I guess thats the significant difference here.
They're allowed to there, too, but the concept of giving way without stopping is a little lost on them after decades of abusive stop sign overuse.
-
@Analog Kid
We are allowed to enter an intersection while other traffic is in the circle.
I guess thats the significant difference here.
Well, so are we, just not so as to present a danger of colliding with traffic already in the circle. I mean, you still have to yield if a car is about to pass in front of you, right?
-
... the concept of giving way without stopping is a little lost on them after decades of abusive stop sign overuse.
LOL...
-
...you still have to yield if a car is about to pass in front of you, right?
My point is that in NZ we let them know we are about to pass in front of them by using our indicators...
-
Well, so are we, just not so as to present a danger of colliding with traffic already in the circle. I mean, you still have to yield if a car is about to pass in front of you, right?
You do, but if they give (and you can prove, of course) a misleading signal as to their intention, they're at fault partially or wholly, depending on the circumstances.
This is no different to waiting at a T junction or crossroad for traffic - you may proceed if they signal they'll be exiting and therefore not conflicting with you. Assuming, of course, you're sufficiently confident their signal is to exit prior to reaching you, not for the next turning or a driveway just past you or pulling to the side of the road just past you.. This is why all signals are a call to pay attention to their actions - speed and position.
-
for those not familiar with roundabouts best ya avoid milton keynes, and swindon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDGoajEJ0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDGoajEJ0Q)
-
Changing lanes in a multilane roundabout I can see, but why signal when exiting? Unless that means changing lanes.
imagine the round is infinity large, then it is just a straight road with exits, you don't signal that you intend to keep going straight, you signal when you intend to exit the straight road
-
...you still have to yield if a car is about to pass in front of you, right?
My point is that in NZ we let them know we are about to pass in front of them by using our indicators...
Wellll, ackshooly you let them know you're about to pass in front of them by not using your turn signal ...
-
for those not familiar with roundabouts best ya avoid milton keynes, and swindon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDGoajEJ0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsDGoajEJ0Q)
So a Yank flies into Gatwick, rents a car at the airport, ends up at the Magic Roundabout, first time driving on the "wrong side of the road".
Yikes.
-
Wellll, ackshooly you let them know you're about to pass in front of them by not using your turn signal ...
I'm not quite sure we are both on the same page.
Never mind.
Below is the requirement in NZ, albeit driving on the left side of the road.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-other-evs-and-hybrids-are-dangerous!/?action=dlattach;attach=2708871;image)
-
Wellll, ackshooly you let them know you're about to pass in front of them by not using your turn signal ...
I'm not quite sure we are both on the same page.
Never mind.
Below is the requirement in NZ, albeit driving on the left side of the road.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-other-evs-and-hybrids-are-dangerous!/?action=dlattach;attach=2708871;image)
back when I was a driver-
navigating a roundabout was an essential skill your turning indicator is key to right then left to exit.
older vehicles had a mechanical lock-out that prevented the turning indicator from working in the
opposite direction to the steering wheel. the auto return would fight with your turning indicator as you exit a roundabout.
as IMO others need to know your know your intentions.
-
When it comes to indicator rules at roundabouts, there's what the road rules say, and what is the safest to do.
They're not always the same.
Usually the road rules don't distinguish between small vs large or single lane vs double lane with regard to indicating.
IMHO indicating at very small double lane roundabouts is risky.
It's super easy for other drivers to misinterpret what your indicating means.
Larger roundabouts or single lane are much better suited to indicating.
-
[...]
Keep in mind the rule that cars already in the circle have priority over those entering.
In other words, all cars entering must yield to those in the circle. (That's why they say "Look left". In your country that would be the opposite.)
So it's on the southbound driver to wait until all traffic is clear before entering. Hence no need to signal.
Is that a global rule in USA?
At least in Italy, the usual priority rules are valid: give way to vehicles coming from your right.
This means that cars entering the roundabout have priority UNLESS there's a "Give Way" sign at the access.
Source: my wallet, I recently got a 900 € reimbursement from my insurance, as an a**hole did not give way while I entered the roundabout.
(Links to Italian regulations and case law on request).
Note, though, that 90% (figure pulled from thin air) of roundabouts do have the give way sign.
-
[...]
Keep in mind the rule that cars already in the circle have priority over those entering.
In other words, all cars entering must yield to those in the circle. (That's why they say "Look left". In your country that would be the opposite.)
So it's on the southbound driver to wait until all traffic is clear before entering. Hence no need to signal.
Is that a global rule in USA?
At least in Italy, the usual priority rules are valid: give way to vehicles coming from your right.
This means that cars entering the roundabout have priority UNLESS there's a "Give Way" sign at the access.
Source: my wallet, I recently got a 900 € reimbursement from my insurance, as an a**hole did not give way while I entered the roundabout.
(Links to Italian regulations and case law on request).
Note, though, that 90% (figure pulled from thin air) of roundabouts do have the give way sign.
Interesting differences. Here it's the same as said by Analog Kid - those coming in to the roundabout always yield to those already driving in the roundabout. However there is a subtle detail: roundabout in itself does not define the priority order; having to yield is always signaled with the usual yield sign (upside down triangle). Rather, it's a guarantee that these yield signs will always exist at roundabouts. Law itself defines roundabout as a series of intersections, and places some special rules such as disallowing stopping in the roundabout (from which you can indirectly see that not having the yield signs would cause a serious conflict). However the yield signs are not mentioned in the law explicitly.
-
Went to a rescue a couple of week's ago
Driver had manged to lock them selves in a car and flatten the battery , couldn't get out so called the fire brigade.
The only manual release on this car is the rear hatch witch the driver could not get to
ended up popping the bonnet and connecting a external battery.
The regulators have been caught with there pants down on stupid designs like this.
and what moron at the manufacturers thinks this is a good idea.
There!
Thank you!
Now imagine if car was smoking -- NOT ON FIRE. Guy would be dead before you arrive.
roundabouts
We have a roundabout here at NE 175th street and NE 10th Avenue, in Miami. Do check it out on google street view! :palm:
There is a round about, there are four entrances/exists into it, and each one has a stop sign. Okey. :popcorn:
On top of that there is electronic camera that catches people that don't stop for stop signs.
:popcorn:
Before there they made a roundabout, there used to be a normal 4-way stop sign intersection and it worked just fine.
-
Went to a rescue a couple of week's ago
Driver had manged to lock them selves in a car and flatten the battery , couldn't get out so called the fire brigade.
The only manual release on this car is the rear hatch witch the driver could not get to
ended up popping the bonnet and connecting a external battery.
The regulators have been caught with there pants down on stupid designs like this.
and what moron at the manufacturers thinks this is a good idea.
There!
Thank you!
Now imagine if car was smoking -- NOT ON FIRE. Guy would be dead before you arrive.
And this has nothing to do with EVs or hybrids, just bad design.
-
And this has nothing to do with EVs or hybrids, just bad design.
Learn to use quotes properly, your answer looks like something spergs write.
/
People choose with dollar. If a vehicle poses safety risk people tend not to buy it. In the United States at least.
-
[...] If a vehicle poses safety risk people tend not to buy it. In the United States at least.
And that's what made the Ford Pinto the best selling small car in the United States for ten years...
Oh, wait...
:palm:
-
And this has nothing to do with EVs or hybrids, just bad design.
Learn to use quotes properly, your answer looks like something spergs write.
I know how to use quotes properly, I quoted the context. Your problem is with the message conflicting with your agenda, not the quote or the facts.
-
It appears that the Chinese government has weighed in on flush electric door handles and lack of mechanical release - with a ban.
China bans hidden car door handles over safety concerns
China has banned hidden door handles on electric vehicles (EVs), making it the first country to stop the use of the controversial designs that were made popular by multi-billionaire Elon Musk's Tesla.
It comes as EVs are facing scrutiny from safety watchdogs around the world after a number of deadly incidents, including two fatal crashes in China involving Xiaomi EVs in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from being opened.
Under the new regulations, cars will only be allowed to be sold if they have a mechanical release both on the inside and outside of their doors, according to state media.
The new rules are due to take effect on 1 January 2027.
The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology rules require the outside of every passenger door except the boot, to have a recessed space measuring no smaller than 6cm (2 in) by 2cm by 2.5cm to allow access to the handle.
Inside the car there must be signs measuring at least 1cm by 0.7cm to show how to open the door.
Cars that have already been approved by authorities and are in the final stages of entering the Chinese market will have another two years to update their designs.
Hidden handles are widely used in China's new energy vehicle (NEV) market, which includes EVs as well as hybrid cars and those powered by fuel cells.
They feature in about 60% of the top 100 best-selling NEVs, according to data cited by government-controlled newspaper China Daily.
Although the measures will only apply to models sold in the Chinese market, the country's huge presence in the global car industry means the move is likely to have an impact around the world.
Tesla's door handles are already being investigated by US safety regulators and authorities in Europe are considering their own rules.
In November, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a probe focused on Tesla's electric-powered door handles, responding to reports that they suddenly stopped working, leaving children trapped in the cars.
The NHTSA said it had received nine complaints about the handles in Tesla's 2021 Model Y cars, the company's flagship model.
In four of the cases, the car owners resorted to breaking the window to resolve the issue.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp37g5nxe3lo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp37g5nxe3lo)
-
It appears that the Chinese government has weighed in on flush electric door handles and lack of mechanical release - with a ban.
Thumbs up to the Chinese government on this. Hopefully EU will follow, and this stupidity is put to an end.
It was kinds fun when it was a gimmick by Tesla, because Tesla is a "special snowflake" full of gimmicks like this - that their customer segment wants. Plus, disruptive ideas are beneficial, sometimes things shot down "by common sense" end up being good (or stepping stone to some other innovation) despite all naysaying. We need Teslas, even though I would prefer something else.
However when everyone else started to copy Tesla it started to get boring pretty quick. There are no real upsides to these handles - only downsides, and some dangerously so. We know it now for sure, so we can now stop, and start thinking about the next disruptive idea.
Consumers hate them. Car journalists hate them. Car manufacturers themselves probably hate them, and are just waiting for the right moment they can obsolete them, without making themselves lose face by indirect admittance of fault by dropping them soon after introducing them. A ban helps them out of this, and everyone's happy.
-
Interesting that China, where this will potentially have the most effect on car makers and, rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate with lax standards, is the first country to take decisive action on this nonsense. Whilst the US safety regulators and Europe are still 'thinking about' doing something. Time for the regulators to get up to speed and grow teeth.
-
about time
While jammed doors, even in an accident, are rare now, electrical gremlins are not.
-
Interesting that China, where this will potentially have the most effect on car makers and, rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate with lax standards, is the first country to take decisive action on this nonsense. Whilst the US safety regulators and Europe are still 'thinking about' doing something. Time for the regulators to get up to speed and grow teeth.
China mandated in 2006 all new mobile phones support charging via a USB Type-A port, effective from June 14, 2007.
The EU mandated the same in 2022.
I have no idea about this in the US.
China was the first to ground all Boeing 737 max.
-
Interesting that China, where this will potentially have the most effect on car makers and, rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate with lax standards, is the first country to take decisive action on this nonsense. Whilst the US safety regulators and Europe are still 'thinking about' doing something. Time for the regulators to get up to speed and grow teeth.
They were incredibly lax until a few years ago.
https://insideevs.com/news/466968/chinese-ev-tested-germany-crash-safety/ "the Suda SA01 does not have to pass any crash tests to get certified. It is cheap because it does not present airbags, ESP, or ABS."
-
Interesting that China, where this will potentially have the most effect on car makers and, rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate with lax standards, is the first country to take decisive action on this nonsense. Whilst the US safety regulators and Europe are still 'thinking about' doing something. Time for the regulators to get up to speed and grow teeth.
I am of the opinion that in the EU we have too much bureaucracy and overregulation. we have a bunch of bureaucrats far removed from real life telling us what we should be doing.
This case with door handles might be quite clear cut as it costs nothing and adds safety but requiring too much has the effect of pricing some people out of the market. Every requirement should be analyzed carefully for cost and benefits. Requiring too much just means some people cannot afford a car... which means they can not opt to some jobs where they would need a car, etc.
-
I am of the opinion that in the EU we have too much bureaucracy and overregulation. we have a bunch of bureaucrats far removed from real life telling us what we should be doing.
Mass amnesty is next, just like they did in Spain. The demise of countries before your very eyes.
Most of the good big thinkers have long passed, now the world is left with mostly patients running the insane asylum. With what Moltbook shows us, things will get way worse at accelerated rate.
-
The Model 3/Y door handle could presumably be made safe if it was commonly used (so people knew how to work it as a random person trying to save someone from a car) -and- it is mechanically connected to the locks in the door, so that no electrical power is required to actually unlock the doors. I think the latter is true on Model 3/Y for at least the front doors, not sure about the rear. But the interior door locks do require power, at least for the rear, and that is unforgivably bad design.
The benefit to these door handles is aerodynamics, but I'd be surprised if all four handles made a difference in drag greater than 1%. So it's mostly about looking sleek/sexy rather than actually being good at the job.
-
The benefit to these door handles is aerodynamics
No, it's the impression of aerodynamics, and the early wow factor ("oh, this is something new, aerodynamics I guess!"). 1% difference surely is possible to achieve, but only if compared to artificially bulky classic design. Like, it is entirely possible to do normal mechanical door handle design which is aerodynamically as good. Like, having a small "dent" in the door for the handle isn't automatically a bad thing, golf balls have those to improve the aerodynamics. All of this can be simulated today to arrive a design which is safe, easy to use, looks nice, and is probably within 0.3% of drag energy use compared to a perfectly smooth (no handles at all) reference.
-
A very small improvement in aerodynamics adds up quickly over the entire driving range of the vehicle on a single charge/tank.
The door handle design will have been done for aerodynamics as the primary reason.
Sure, the gain isn't huge but every little bit adds up quickly.
The golf ball thing only works if you have many many dents over a larger area where the turbulence can all interact and cancel out creating a net positive. The effect doesnt apply to a single dent. A smooth surface will always be better than a single dent.
-
A very small improvement in aerodynamics adds up quickly over the entire driving range of the vehicle on a single charge/tank.
The door handle design will have been done for aerodynamics as the primary reason.
Sure, the gain isn't huge but every little bit adds up quickly.
I agree with that. But it still leaves the question why on our M3 the outside front door handles electrically operate the lock, while inside the car the same doors can also be opened mechanically, using the emergency levers. Could not have been too difficult to let the fancy, flush handles (that I like design-wise, btw) also operate mechanically. Stupid choice IMO.
-
yeah. I'm not a fan of having opendoor-by-wire from a safety standpoint.
If there had been a big advantage for the user going to a opendoor-by-wire system then I would have been fine with it, but i cant think of any user advantage.
It does make the door mechanism simpler, but that isn't an advantage for the user.
-
[...] Like, having a small "dent" in the door for the handle isn't automatically a bad thing, golf balls have those to improve the aerodynamics.
The Mythbusters did an episode on exactly that.
They slathered a car with modeling clay and did a mileage test. Afterwards they cut golfball-like dimples into the clay (and even thought of dumping the removed weight into the trunk), and did another mileage test. The dimples measurably increased the mileage, but i don't remember the value.
And that in a, in full Mythbusters style, not really controlled test scenario :D
-
The benefit to these door handles is aerodynamics
No, it's the impression of aerodynamics, and the early wow factor ("oh, this is something new, aerodynamics I guess!"). 1% difference surely is possible to achieve, but only if compared to artificially bulky classic design. Like, it is entirely possible to do normal mechanical door handle design which is aerodynamically as good. Like, having a small "dent" in the door for the handle isn't automatically a bad thing, golf balls have those to improve the aerodynamics. All of this can be simulated today to arrive a design which is safe, easy to use, looks nice, and is probably within 0.3% of drag energy use compared to a perfectly smooth (no handles at all) reference.
I agree and used to do a lot of work with Solidworks CFD designing and testing wind turbines.
The effect of a flat door handle compared to a properly designed normal handle is effectively zero. The drag is so small compared to the under carriage, suspension and wheel wells it's not even worth mentioning. So the flat handle is nothing more than a gimmick imo.
Your also correct that the dent in a door handle is irrelevant. The air flow streamlines expand into the dent then converge on exit with little or no drag. What does generate a lot of drag is any turbulent airflow. One would think the front end of a Tesla would be a train wreck so far as drag as concerned but it isn't so much because the air is in compression. The higher air pressure diverts the air ahead of itself around the body. This is not true on the sides and rear of the car at a lower air pressure which tends to produce more turbulence.
-
I agree with that. But it still leaves the question why on our M3 the outside front door handles electrically operate the lock, while inside the car the same doors can also be opened mechanically, using the emergency levers. Could not have been too difficult to let the fancy, flush handles (that I like design-wise, btw) also operate mechanically. Stupid choice IMO.
Stupid from a safety perspective, for sure.
But its cheap, simple, reliable, and easier to rain seal. If you want to optimize cost you'd eliminate all mechanical interconnections, because the electronic door latch mechanism will already need to exist.
See inside here: youtu.be/Z6uLFjKGE3s?t=930 (http://youtu.be/Z6uLFjKGE3s?t=930)
Used price $20: https://ingenext.ca/products/tesla-model-3-door-handle-outer-passive-right-hand-black-1780885-00-a?_pos=10&_sid=d61dcfa67&_ss=r
And you could argue other features like preventing leaving a child in the car is important too (38 deaths per year).
-
Also the need to lower the window when opening a door, because the window rims disappeared for easthetic and/or aerodynamic reasons, makes an electric solution more viable.
-
Interesting that China, where this will potentially have the most effect on car makers and, rightly or wrongly, we tend to associate with lax standards, is the first country to take decisive action on this nonsense. Whilst the US safety regulators and Europe are still 'thinking about' doing something. Time for the regulators to get up to speed and grow teeth.
China also banned one pedal driving mode by default. The mode is still there but the driver has to opt-in. This is to prevent unfamiliar drivers from unintended sudden acceleration from pedal misapplication.
-
I just bought our second EV, which is a Polestar 2... The regen on that is way heavier than my ID.3. I think in the last 200 miles I've touched the brake pedal maybe a couple of times... you can come to a complete stop without pressing the brake at all. It has a "lighter" mode which is more like the ID.3, where the last 5-10 mph requires the use of the brake.
-
Yep, properly implemented regen means your brake pads really don't wear at all.
Which makes sense, you want all that energy going into the battery.
-
I just bought our second EV, which is a Polestar 2... The regen on that is way heavier than my ID.3. I think in the last 200 miles I've touched the brake pedal maybe a couple of times... you can come to a complete stop without pressing the brake at all. It has a "lighter" mode which is more like the ID.3, where the last 5-10 mph requires the use of the brake.
My wife was giving me heck yesterday for driving like an old man trying to maximize braking energy on our 25 Tucson hybrid. The trick seems to be to break uniformly watching the charge rate. It's only the last 20 feet where the generator rpm drops to a lower level where it becomes ineffective and the brakes take over.
Now when I drive the F150 I get irritated. All the braking energy is completely wasted and I get nothing back. It just seems stupid that all that braking energy is wasted.
-
I just bought our second EV, which is a Polestar 2... The regen on that is way heavier than my ID.3. I think in the last 200 miles I've touched the brake pedal maybe a couple of times... you can come to a complete stop without pressing the brake at all. It has a "lighter" mode which is more like the ID.3, where the last 5-10 mph requires the use of the brake.
Lowering the regen setting doesn't reduce efficiency at all. The regen setting only dictates the amount of regen power when off the gas pedal. Full regen is always available via the brake pedal. Regen is only temporarily disabled when ABS is active (emergency braking)
-
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
-
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
Probably a case of getting used to it. Some EVs have lighter regen due to having a smaller battery or motor. Seems my ID.3 can regen up to 60kW, but the Polestar can do 100kW. Setting a lower limit makes the Polestar drive a bit more like other EVs.
But I do agree that if you learn modulation of the pedal then it's not a big deal.
-
Yes, heavy regen tends to freak some people out.
It's personal preference.
Maybe some wife-factor going on too. They won't sell as many if the wife won't let you get it because she hates how the breaking feels during a test drive.
Definitely something you get use to, but first impressions matter.
Always best to have the option.
-
Always best to have the option.
Indeed.
It's personal preference.
Not quite, see below.
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
Sorry to tell you, but that's because the regen on the Tesla Model 3 is inferior than the 1st gen Nissan Leaf or Toyota Prius. On the majority of EVs and Hybrids, there are sensors to detect the travel of the foot brake. The deeper you press the brake pedal, the more regen the motors have. Friction brakes will only engage when the braking command exceeds the max regen. Adjusting the regen setting or activating one pedal driving does nothing to efficiency, it only changes the throttle pedal mapping. The Tesla Model 3 does not have this hardware, regen braking cannot be mapped on the brake pedal, earlier models did have regen options however use a lower setting reduces efficiency because regen power cannot be increased by the brake pedal. Later models removed the option entirely to make the EPA energy efficiency rating better.
-
Yes, heavy regen tends to freak some people out.
Also the driver behing you.
Not sure if it's still the case, but in the past many models did not engage the braking lights when regenerating
-
Friction brakes will only engage when the braking command exceeds the max regen.
You can hear this a lot, but I'm not fully buying it. The friction brake system is simple and mechanical for safety. I don't think it's easy to tune so that no friction braking happens at all before max regen. Would require both careful tuning from the manufacturer, and careful use by the driver, to "feel" at which point friction braking steps in.
Then again, the difference would be small. Small amount of friction braking helps prevent brake discs from rusting and getting stuck.
-
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
Sorry to tell you, but that's because the regen on the Tesla Model 3 is inferior than the 1st gen Nissan Leaf or Toyota Prius. On the majority of EVs and Hybrids, there are sensors to detect the travel of the foot brake. The deeper you press the brake pedal, the more regen the motors have. Friction brakes will only engage when the braking command exceeds the max regen. Adjusting the regen setting or activating one pedal driving does nothing to efficiency, it only changes the throttle pedal mapping. The Tesla Model 3 does not have this hardware, regen braking cannot be mapped on the brake pedal, earlier models did have regen options however use a lower setting reduces efficiency because regen power cannot be increased by the brake pedal. Later models removed the option entirely to make the EPA energy efficiency rating better.
Nothing to be sorry about; I never drove in either the Leaf or the Prius so I would not know their superiority ;)
What I do know is that in an M3 you hardly ever need to touch the brake pedal. Hardly ever means that I am really surprised if I need to use it. Usually only because something unexpected happens in front of me.
IIRC the M3 brakes/regenerates with a maximum of 70kW, depending on SOC and temperature. This 70kW of braking power is controlled with the accelerator. All the way up: maximum braking and regen, a bit down: less braking and less regen. In a couple of hours driving you learn when to let go of the pedal and how far to let go and from that moment on the brake is hardly ever used. @PSI: This (at least in our case) is also well understood and liked by my better half.
So, while the M3 might be called inferior for not having sensors in the brake pedal Tesla solved this entire problem by letting me have precise control of the amount of braking/regen without ever moving my foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal. As I always say, there is a lot of negative to be said about an M3, but its drive system is not one of them.
-
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
Sorry to tell you, but that's because the regen on the Tesla Model 3 is inferior than the 1st gen Nissan Leaf or Toyota Prius. On the majority of EVs and Hybrids, there are sensors to detect the travel of the foot brake. The deeper you press the brake pedal, the more regen the motors have. Friction brakes will only engage when the braking command exceeds the max regen. Adjusting the regen setting or activating one pedal driving does nothing to efficiency, it only changes the throttle pedal mapping. The Tesla Model 3 does not have this hardware, regen braking cannot be mapped on the brake pedal, earlier models did have regen options however use a lower setting reduces efficiency because regen power cannot be increased by the brake pedal. Later models removed the option entirely to make the EPA energy efficiency rating better.
Nothing to be sorry about; I never drove in either the Leaf or the Prius so I would not know their superiority ;)
What I do know is that in an M3 you hardly ever need to touch the brake pedal. Hardly ever means that I am really surprised if I need to use it. Usually only because something unexpected happens in front of me.
IIRC the M3 brakes/regenerates with a maximum of 70kW, depending on SOC and temperature. This 70kW of braking power is controlled with the accelerator. All the way up: maximum braking and regen, a bit down: less braking and less regen. In a couple of hours driving you learn when to let go of the pedal and how far to let go and from that moment on the brake is hardly ever used. @PSI: This (at least in our case) is also well understood and liked by my better half.
So, while the M3 might be called inferior for not having sensors in the brake pedal Tesla solved this entire problem by letting me have precise control of the amount of braking/regen without ever moving my foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal. As I always say, there is a lot of negative to be said about an M3, but its drive system is not one of them.
I also have not driven a Leaf or Prius, but have driven a M3 quite a bit. It seems really nice to me. I don't have any complaints about the regen.
-
Yes, heavy regen tends to freak some people out.
Also the driver behing you.
Not sure if it's still the case, but in the past many models did not engage the braking lights when regenerating
The 2019 M3 does light its brake lights whenever it decelerates beyond a point. I remember someone telling me that in the EU this is mandatory in any car, EV or ICE, since a couple of years although I could not find a confirmation of that.
Initially I was no fan of this feature as it makes for a lot of useless brake light flashing, e.g. when drivers lift their foot from the accelerator only a little to make a bit of room for a merging vehicle. These flashing brake lights invite real braking further down the road, which might lead to accidents. I remember my driving instructor explaining to me that in principle you do not brake on a highway, unless there is something to brake for. You anticipate and slow down in time. But yeah, that was a long time ago and in 2026, with all of us in a hurry, driving on busy roads with one eye on our smartphones and our brains occupied elsewhere, I guess we need all the help we can get ;D
-
It's interesting how car manufacturers struggle with things that seem obvious to get right.
Some Korean BS EV - don't remember which exactly - specifically drives me mad. Constant, aggressive brake light flashing for absolutely no reason whatsoever, in normal highway traffic. So the engineers read "EU mandates brake lights for motor braking" and wrote code if(torque < 0) light_up_brake_lights();. Owner coasts a very slight 1-degree downhill and it hits 0.001 kilowatts into the regen side and panic light ensues, signalling to others we need to slow down. Give me a break. EVs have existed forever. Nissan for example had never any problem with this. Brake lights light up with significant regen torque, something equivalent of maybe 10-25kW or so braking power depending on speed.
Then there was this Opel Ampera which honks on its own without a reason. Very nice during nighttime. That's also regulated by law, actually; the owner is responsible for car doing illegal things.
I wish there was an official hotline for reporting misbehaving cars, and a quick process to fix bugs. It's not owner's fault that car designer smoked something.
Re regen: Leaf regens strongly enough (up to 35kW) if battery is warm and not too full until complete stop in one-pedal model, but it does automatically use mechanical brakes too and it's hard to quantify exactly how much. In normal driving mode, the regen annoyingly starts to ramp down already around 20km/h or so. Actual brake pedal increases the regen, though. I would still prefer it to regen a bit more at low speeds especially; but don't want to use the one-pedal mode as it teaches wrong behavioral patterns, specifically one can accidentally forget the car on Drive and accidentally hit the pedal too easily.
-
It's interesting how car manufacturers struggle with things that seem obvious to get right.
That's usually caused by executives and upper management who feel powerful when they make big company decisions, and also 'group think' plays a roll. They are to detached from reality and from the people who actually use the products they sell. So their decisions are usually wrong or suboptimal. They back up their decisions with interpretations of 3rd party data, so when they're wrong they can point at the data being at fault and so don't get fired.
-
It's interesting how car manufacturers struggle with things that seem obvious to get right.
That's usually caused by executives and upper management who feel powerful when they make big company decisions, and also 'group think' plays a roll. They are to detached from reality and from the people who actually use the products they sell. So their decisions are usually wrong or suboptimal. They back up their decisions with interpretations of 3rd party data, so when they're wrong they can point at the data being at fault and so don't get fired.
On the bright side, they can be nudged in the right direction: VW decided to bring back physical buttons for key controls, starting with their ID2 platform. By user demand and NCAP requirement. You hear that, Tesla?
-
The core reason why still significant % of people are unwilling to use EV is that EVs are crap, and they are not crap because they are EVs, also not crap due to range or charging power anymore, now they are crap because they are some toy projects of the executives Psi mentioned above, not serious cars designed for actual use for normal laymen who just want a low-effort simple car to move from place A to place B repeatedly and for many years.
There is no excuse for this bullcrap. Nissan designed a production-ready, real EV that behaves and functions like a normal car, in 2011. All you need to do is to do the same but with modern-day battery tech (as generic term including cells but also thermal management etc.). That is low level design work like battery chemistry, cooling/heating pipe design etc. etc., nothing special.
Instead, most EVs are designed on the terms of "maximize cost, maximize complexity, minimize reliability, minimize familiarity", and that's all fine when you are a Silicon Valley startup and want to sell to early adopters, but not fine if you are seriously going to revolutionize the world and get good market share. So we primarily got dangerous door handles that kill you, dangerous touch screen only controls that kill you and the others, and secondarily, as a side effect, decent EV performance (range, battery heating etc).
I'm extremely happy with the Nissan Leaf. Zero enshittification and zero bullcrap. The only issue, admittedly a seriously big one, is that it totally sucks in the modern-day EV performance metrics - range, lack of battery heating and cooling, slow quick charge. Oh well. I take that rather than a crap car designed to cause erection to car journalists but then blinks brake lights randomly and spends half of the first 2 years at repair shop because it was shipped as an unfinished hobby project rather than real mass production car. I simply cannot choose between car "booting" for 5 minutes, or consuming 700W of power all the time, like "modern" Chinese-"Swedish" crap does. So I have to rely on the third option, move your business elsewhere. To me, it is essential that basics work, and it's unbelievable this is still the achilles heel of EVs in freaking 2026. I was much more optimistic in 2012 when it looked like Tesla is getting the EV performance right, and Nissan is getting the "normal car" aspect right, that someone comes and combines these two. But nope.
-
Here in Belgium, I've counted till now six accidents with EV's caused by people who underestimate the acceleration power of those cars. When asked, those people all report the same in the news: all of a sudden the car speed forward. Those six cases were the extreme cases reported in the news. The real number must be much higher.
Driving on the highway, some drivers use the enormous torque of their EV's to weaponize their cars by quickly overtaking on the wrong side and slamming their cars back into the lane they came from. Those are all new cars and the owners have comprehensive insurance (If that's what they call that in English) so they don't mind trashing a car.
-
The core reason why still significant % of people are unwilling to use EV is that EVs are crap, .....
I agree with the sentiment. It is hard to believe that grown-up car companies like Toyota, VW, BMW and the like would not be able to produce a normal, affordable, fully functional car with an electromotor instead of an ICE inside. They had the car-technology, they had the money to do the research to make the switch happen and they had the market penetration that is needed to make it a success. But no, due to some hard to understand force all cards keep being set on ICE. Ah well, if fuel prizes remain what they are today maybe a Hindenburg moment will happen. I won't hold my breath though.
-
Here in Belgium, I've counted till now six accidents with EV's caused by people who underestimate the acceleration power of those cars. When asked, those people all report the same in the news: all of a sudden the car speed forward. Those six cases were the extreme cases reported in the news. The real number must be much higher.
Driving on the highway, some drivers use the enormous torque of their EV's to weaponize their cars by quickly overtaking on the wrong side and slamming their cars back into the lane they came from. Those are all new cars and the owners have comprehensive insurance (If that's what they call that in English) so they don't mind trashing a car.
They'll mind when their insurance provider refuses to pay out based on the car's telemetry data and/or the dashcam footage.
-
the owners have comprehensive insurance (If that's what they call that in English) so they don't mind trashing a car
They will do once they've had a claim: even if it wasn't their fault their future premiums will be higher.
-
Here in Belgium, I've counted till now six accidents with EV's caused by people who underestimate the acceleration power of those cars. When asked, those people all report the same in the news: all of a sudden the car speed forward. Those six cases were the extreme cases reported in the news. The real number must be much higher.
Yes, the near instantaneous torque of an EV is absolutely something to recon with. But this is not limited to EV's. One could argue why cars, ICE as well as EV, would need to have shitloads of horsepower and torque while they are used on roads that mostly have a 100-130km/h speed limit. But it seems that horsepower and torque are very strong sales arguments. So now cars, from the smallest Polo to the largest Beemer can be had with more HP/kg than you would ever need. And with any of these you can underestimate the acceleration. But in the end it is your right foot controlling that acceleration.
-
An ICE will have maximum torque at some high RPM. Coming off the line, it takes time to get the full torque to the pavement. Hence spinning the tires. The EV has maximum torque at 0 RPM, right off the line. Don't drag race an EV with an ICE - it will be embarrassing.
Top speed is a HP thing and clearly there are ICE vehicles that will move right along.
We should build high performance cars and ban low performance drivers. Driving is a lot more fun with a bit of oversteer.
-
EV's actually have weaker torque than ICE car at speed due to lack of a multi-speed gearbox. An ICE car with similar weight and 200hp engine will have better acceleration at 60+ mph than most EVs with same power because of torque weakening effects. You end up needing a more powerful motor to compensate, which is why Tesla start fitting things like 500hp motors (total power) to Model 3, to make the high end motor power feel better. The ICE car will downshift to 3rd gear (or driver will) giving a better torque advantage.
So the problem is not torque but power, and the majority of EVs do not have that much power. ID.3 for instance and Polestar 2 that I drive are very average cars in their class and they have around 200-220hp, this is not unusual for many midrange ICE cars (Golf TSI 1.5 for instance has 148hp but weighs 20% less than ID.3, so power to weight ratio is quite similar.)
EVs do have excellent torque from zero which makes for good traffic light grand prix where you can merge in front of other traffic, for instance with a short overtaking lane. Also good for acceleration onto sliproads to merge on highways. But use such power must be used responsibly.
-
"Performance" / torque / horsepower thing is red herring if you compare the similar price class. People who either have the money, or want to be in deep debt, equally buy powerful ICE cars and EVs, and equally smash them and others. Manual transmissions limit that kind of abuse, but they are getting rarer especially in the price class we are discussing. It is increasingly usual for "normal" average Joes and Janes, not just car enthusiasts, to buy powerful cars, mostly SUVs.
-
It is increasingly usual for "normal" average Joes and Janes, not just car enthusiasts, to buy powerful cars, mostly SUVs.
That is the problem. Many of those EV's have the ability to go from 0...100 km/h in less than 3.5 s. A tesla in 2.4. That's about as fast as modern F1 car and faster than an F1 car from twenty years ago. That's just crazy.
Meanwhile, the EU is pushing green cars with local governments subsidising those weapons.
-
What I do know is that in an M3 you hardly ever need to touch the brake pedal. Hardly ever means that I am really surprised if I need to use it. Usually only because something unexpected happens in front of me.
Might that be the main reason for the safety complaint? That drivers stop getting used to the brake pedal and end up with a slower response to use it?
I think the solution would be to design the brake pedal with a substantial initial dead zone, with a sensor to detect movement in that zone. Map it so that it goes to max regen near the end of that dead zone.
-
The core reason why still significant % of people are unwilling to use EV is that EVs are crap, .....
I agree with the sentiment. It is hard to believe that grown-up car companies like Toyota, VW, BMW and the like would not be able to produce a normal, affordable, fully functional car with an electromotor instead of an ICE inside. They had the car-technology, they had the money to do the research to make the switch happen and they had the market penetration that is needed to make it a success. But no, due to some hard to understand force all cards keep being set on ICE. Ah well, if fuel prizes remain what they are today maybe a Hindenburg moment will happen. I won't hold my breath though.
At first the existing car companies didn't know what they were doing. They had never made an EV before, so they made lots of mistakes. Understandable.
Tesla came along first with an extreme high performance car with lots of new features and tech never seen before. Not just an EV but a ground up rethink, which made sense, Tesla being a new company.
The problem happened when the other car companies decided the pathway to win was to copy/out-do Tesla and push them out, instead of accepting Tesla had grabbed a chunk of market and finding their own market that Tesla wasn't covering. There was/is plenty of people who wanted an EV but not a Tesla.
They assumed they could win Tesla buyers back by making a Tesla'ish EV themselves. Which is possible but not when using their existing and slow management style.
Say what you want about Tesla/Elon but the person and the company like to push boundaries and try radically new things. Which is great, it's good to have those options and they push things forward, but when other companies try to copy this bleeding edge approach without also having the internal company structure needed things fall apart quickly.
Tesla has very engineer-heavy management and leadership style so they tend not to fall into the same traps as typical companies where the managers and executives have little to no engineering knowledge or mindset but try to drive bleeding edge engineering innovation.
The next thing the big car companies have to deal with is simple, cheap and reasonable EVs coming out of china.
If they can't compete on price they will lose the worldwide market. Countries that have tariffs on china EV imports may mean they can only make a profit selling their cars locally.
Another issue they have is they make a lot of their money selling replacement parts, and EVs tend to have a lot less to go wrong so that cuts into their profits. There's still car accidents so it's not a massive reduction, but they are operating with low margins anyway and most are in debt.
-
As an M3 driver I never understood why on various EVs the amount of regen is adjustable. Why would you want that if your right foot on the accelerator is all you need to control the amount of braking/regen?
I wouldn't mind slightly heavier regen at low speeds, OR regen that scaled up based on how close you were to the vehicle in front of you. But its definitely very good as it is.
Nothing to be sorry about; I never drove in either the Leaf or the Prius so I would not know their superiority ;)
Nissan leaf regen and braking at low speeds is rough, I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe its superior in concept but in execution it just feels bad. https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/ (https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/)
Re regen: Leaf regens strongly enough (up to 35kW) if battery is warm and not too full until complete stop in one-pedal model, but it does automatically use mechanical brakes too and it's hard to quantify exactly how much. In normal driving mode, the regen annoyingly starts to ramp down already around 20km/h or so. Actual brake pedal increases the regen, though. I would still prefer it to regen a bit more at low speeds especially; but don't want to use the one-pedal mode as it teaches wrong behavioral patterns, specifically one can accidentally forget the car on Drive and accidentally hit the pedal too easily.
I agree with what you are saying, and studies do as well, but you can still form safer habits. Either move your foot to the brake pedal when you have stopped, or move it somewhere else away from any pedal.
Ideally sensors would just stop you from accelerating into a stationary object at all, or at a red light, but that only seems to work at high speeds.
-
Telemetry is cancer, remove it from EV (or ICE)
-
It is increasingly usual for "normal" average Joes and Janes, not just car enthusiasts, to buy powerful cars, mostly SUVs.
That is the problem. Many of those EV's have the ability to go from 0...100 km/h in less than 3.5 s. A tesla in 2.4. That's about as fast as modern F1 car and faster than an F1 car from twenty years ago. That's just crazy.
I fully agree with the 'just crazy', however, this is not isolated to EV's. Looking at this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration) 12 of the ~70 cars listed are EV, the rest are ICE or Hybrid. The fastest three are EV, but specifically built for the task.
EV's are easily faster than ICE and this aspect was used (mainly by Tesla) to get them on the map and out of golf cart territory. We want fast cars. We buy them. We refuse to set 'chill mode' and then we drive them into things. If we do not want that we need to set rules, not complain about the technology.
Meanwhile, the EU is pushing green cars with local governments subsidising those weapons.
Although offtopic I would argue that subsidizing EV's is a sound policy, taking into account that using electricity for road transport makes far more sense than (also heavily subsidized) fossil fuel.
-
Telemetry is cancer, remove it from EV (or ICE)
I'm happy with Telemetry if I'm the only one getting the data and I have options who to sell it too for $ :-DD
-
Another issue they have is they make a lot of their money selling replacement parts, and EVs tend to have a lot less to go wrong so that cuts into their profits. There's still car accidents so it's not a massive reduction, but they are operating with low margins anyway and most are in debt.
Certainly. Also, selling cars online and not having to change fluids every 25k is going to hit old-auto's dealer networks pretty hard, which makes for a lot of resistance.
-
Another issue they have is they make a lot of their money selling replacement parts, and EVs tend to have a lot less to go wrong so that cuts into their profits. There's still car accidents so it's not a massive reduction, but they are operating with low margins anyway and most are in debt.
Certainly. Also, selling cars online and not having to change fluids every 25k is going to hit old-auto's dealer networks pretty hard, which makes for a lot of resistance.
yep. Actually thinking about it more, even the replacement parts needed for car accident repairs aren't safe. Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents.
Switching from ICE cars driven by people to an increasing % of EV driven by AI is going to have a bigger effect on a wider range of industries than people think.
-
Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents
Going by the complaints of modern cars swerving into oncoming traffic (auto lane follower or something), remove the human who is quickly righting things and there would be more accidents. And not just minor scratches.
-
The thing to understand about ICE car manufacturing is that conventional manufacturers typically made:
- Engine
- Chassis and body panels (usually including interior plastics)
- Sometimes the gearbox (usually home-grown if manual, usually 3rd party if automatic)
Basically everything else? That's just bought in. Airbag module & airbags, seatbelts, ECU, BCU, ADAS, infotainment, suspension parts, steering components, brakes, etc. All produced by other industries.
EVs really change things up. Manufacturers now need to get good at making batteries, since batteries are the "engine". That sounds like an odd thing to say because of course batteries do not move, but they are the critical component to electromobility. Motors are well understood and inverters/motors are about as efficient as they will ever be (e.g. the Tesla Model 3 small motor is 90% efficient under light load, it's quite hard to beat that.) But a battery defines weight, packaging, charging speed, manufacturing cost (25-50% of the car's cost), lifespan and efficiency.
The other thing is, and it's not exclusive to EVs, but the transition to EVs has happened at the same time that vehicles have become a lot more software-defined. For better or worse many consumers demand these modern features (although there has been noticeable pushback over touchscreens and LKAS, the majority of features have been accepted and sometimes even demanded.) To do software well in cars, you really need control over the whole package. Companies like Tesla make a great deal of their modules now, which allows them to do very clever things like software updates that fix issues that would otherwise be recall-worthy, improve the drivetrain and fix bugs. This gives them an edge over conventional manufacturers that are still testing the product. Of course you could argue it is not so great to be a first adopter of any car model now, given you end up as a guinea pig until the software issues are fixed (looking at you VW with your useless ID software...)
ICE manufacturers have struggled with this transition. I'd argue some of them have done better than others: VW has built battery factories, and plans to make its own cells by 2028. Ford has struggled, making an overly-complex Mach-E powertrain, and having to get in bed with VW to deliver cars to EU mandates. Honda have bought in Chinese EVs instead. Nissan have done fairly well with their Leaf, but have been slow to deliver other options, which allowed other manufacturers to catch up to their lead. Tesla have oddly fallen behind, offering an ageing fleet and failing to match consumer demand for multiple models, and also a really ugly truck and Elon shenanigans (whether or not you agree with them) didn't help either.
-
Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents
Going by the complaints of modern cars swerving into oncoming traffic (auto lane follower or something), remove the human who is quickly righting things and there would be more accidents. And not just minor scratches.
"Auto lane follower" is not a self driving car, its a basic cruise control functionality.
Waymo has already been proven to be far safer than a human driver. Thinking that a human can "quickly right things" faster than a fully 360 degree aware autonomous driving system is absurd.
https://waymo.com/safety/impact/
https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents/safety/Comparison%20of%20Waymo%20and%20Human-Driven%20Vehicles%20at%2025M%20miles.pdf
-
Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents
Going by the complaints of modern cars swerving into oncoming traffic (auto lane follower or something), remove the human who is quickly righting things and there would be more accidents. And not just minor scratches.
"Auto lane follower" is not a self driving car, its a basic cruise control functionality.
Waymo has already been proven to be far safer than a human driver. Thinking that a human can "quickly right things" faster than a fully 360 degree aware autonomous driving system is absurd.
https://waymo.com/safety/impact/
https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents/safety/Comparison%20of%20Waymo%20and%20Human-Driven%20Vehicles%20at%2025M%20miles.pdf
I think you're right, this kind of technology will go towards supplementing the skills/attention gap for poor to average drivers, if implemented correctly. It shouldn't be a distraction.
However I have had cases in my own vehicle where I have intervened before the system did. Two systems (a human and a computer) are always better than just relying on one or the other.
-
Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents
Going by the complaints of modern cars swerving into oncoming traffic (auto lane follower or something), remove the human who is quickly righting things and there would be more accidents. And not just minor scratches.
Auto lane following isn't AI self-drive. There's really only Tesla and Waymo and doing it atm and it's early days.
The current Tesla self drive is pretty damn good. I'm pretty sure in a hypothetical experiment where you replaced all cars in an entire city with Tesla's on the latest self-drive version then the accidents would be either less or around the same.
Which, if I'm right, it's really encouraging considering AI self drive is only going to keep getting better.
-
Self-drive cars will reduce the number of accidents
Going by the complaints of modern cars swerving into oncoming traffic (auto lane follower or something), remove the human who is quickly righting things and there would be more accidents. And not just minor scratches.
Lane assist should only active when adaptive cruise control is on. Some crappy manufacturers make it on at all times. To make matters worse, they programmed it like auto-start-stop so the driver has to turn it off every time after starting the engine. Otherwise the car can steer into a bicycle or a semi truck and the driver must fight the steering wheel to keep the driving straight
-
LKAS reduces accident rates, it doesn't increase them.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27624313/
https://aaafoundation.org/research/potential-reduction-in-crashes-injuries-and-deaths-from-large-scale-deployment-of-advanced-driver-assistance-systems/
Nonetheless, drivers don't like it. Depends how it's implemented. I've driven cars with good LKAS (like my ID.3) and poor LKAS (early VWs).
-
All new safety tech causes accidents/deaths, it's just that it saves more than it takes. Or it should do otherwise there's no point in it.
Airbags have killed many people, cough Takata cough. But damn will they have saved so many that would have died without it.
-
Nonetheless, drivers don't like it. Depends how it's implemented. I've driven cars with good LKAS (like my ID.3) and poor LKAS (early VWs).
How do you like your ID3. Would you recommend it? I currently have a VW Golf MK6 Highline.
-
Nissan leaf regen and braking at low speeds is rough, I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe its superior in concept but in execution it just feels bad. https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/ (https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/)
That's just a broken car, e.g. air in the system, brake cylinder failure etc. Nothing to do with "rough regen".
The mechanical brake system has changed very little during last 50 years, and differences between cars are small. This is also why EV manufacturers don't want to put too much regen functionality into the brake pedal - it's hard to fine-tune exactly to interact in optimum way.
-
Nissan leaf regen and braking at low speeds is rough, I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe its superior in concept but in execution it just feels bad. https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/ (https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/)
That's just a broken car, e.g. air in the system, brake cylinder failure etc. Nothing to do with "rough regen".
The mechanical brake system has changed very little during last 50 years, and differences between cars are small. This is also why EV manufacturers don't want to put too much regen functionality into the brake pedal - it's hard to fine-tune exactly to interact in optimum way.
Same vehicle with premature battery failure due to ineffective cooling and expensive replacement costs. It's just a car you want to avoid.
https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-terrible-unexpected-cost-of-nissan-leaf-ownership (https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-terrible-unexpected-cost-of-nissan-leaf-ownership)
-
Nissan leaf regen and braking at low speeds is rough, I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe its superior in concept but in execution it just feels bad. https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/ (https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/)
That's just a broken car, e.g. air in the system, brake cylinder failure etc. Nothing to do with "rough regen".
The mechanical brake system has changed very little during last 50 years, and differences between cars are small. This is also why EV manufacturers don't want to put too much regen functionality into the brake pedal - it's hard to fine-tune exactly to interact in optimum way.
Same vehicle with premature battery failure due to ineffective cooling and expensive replacement costs. It's just a car you want to avoid.
https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-terrible-unexpected-cost-of-nissan-leaf-ownership (https://autoexpert.com.au/posts/the-terrible-unexpected-cost-of-nissan-leaf-ownership)
And yet, it's the car that kept winning every other car, all ICEs included, in German inspection statistics in least numbers of failures, over many years. Just keeps running, does not drain the battery by itself, boots in 1 second, does not need fixes during the warranty or after it (except the battery failure risk, which indeed is huge elephant in the room). It's possibly the only no-bullshit EV available.
... so that leaves the fact the battery thermal management is total crap, or as I think tom66 put it, made out of chocolate. And it fast charges slow. Even slower when cold or hot. And range diminishes in cold more than on other EVs. So, you have a risk of battery damage especially in warm climates. And Nissan trying to change their warranty policies avoiding the cost of battery replacements in borderline cases.
So yeah, it's crap. But they got one fundamentally important part right: otherwise it's a normal, reliable, well-designed car. Not EV, but car. I have had zero worries. It just keeps working reliably. Even the battery is fine, but that's thanks to colder climate.
What we needed was a normal, well-designed, affordable, reliable car, with decent EV technology. When comparing Tesla and Leaf in 2013 or so, I expected that would be available in 3-4 years. Still not available in 2026. You get silicon valley gimmicks, or you get established ICE manufacturers trying to act like silicon valley startups and doing silicon valley gimmicks. Large masses of people want neither. They want normal cars. They also don't want the old Leafs because they suck in a different way - they are bad EVs.
This is a huge market for the manufacturer who gets this right first, but it's also not an instant gratification, it's a long term game. Just like Toyota has a great reputation of doing reliable, normal cars people trust generation after generation. We need similar EV. Toyota would have been in a great position to do it, but they failed. Nissan got closest, but failed on the EV side. Tesla did great EV tech work but failed to do the "normal reliable car" part. That's to be expected, they are purposely disruptive. The real problem began when all the giants tried to mimic Tesla in everything.
No matter how much car journalists and car enthusiasts have to hate LEAF, it was the #1 best-selling EV surpassing Tesla for many years, and for very good reasons. As long as car manufacturers cannot take a good look into the mirror, and understand why many people, like myself, prefer to have Nissan LEAF, they will be also unable to do the EV transition. People will keep driving Toyota Corollas and Nissan Micras because that's what people want - not because of ICEs, but because of what kind of cars they are.
-
No matter how much car journalists and car enthusiasts have to hate LEAF, it was the #1 best-selling EV surpassing Tesla for many years, and for very good reasons.
Best selling doesn't mean good. Look at Microsoft Windows as a prime example.
I really have no other comments to make about the EV component of the vehicle, as I don't drive or own an EV. I have no intention in the foreseeable future to replace my petrol-driven vehicle with an EV. The economics (for me) just don't add up, even with today's fuel prices. The cost of insuring an EV compared to my current vehicle alone would blow any savings out of the water.
-
Nonetheless, drivers don't like it. Depends how it's implemented. I've driven cars with good LKAS (like my ID.3) and poor LKAS (early VWs).
How do you like your ID3. Would you recommend it? I currently have a VW Golf MK6 Highline.
Hmm... Probably wouldn't buy one again, but not because it is bad as such, just that there are better cars out there now for the money.
Mechanically it's a solid car; 50,000 miles on it since I bought it (now at 83,000 miles) and no major issues. Charge port door did fail but this happens on the fuel-powered Golf too, and it can be DIYed for about £40, I paid a mechanic £180 to do it for me. Car still charges fine with this fault but you end up having to pop the door open with a trim tool as it doesn't pop open automatically anymore.
Driving wise it is typically excellent as expected from VW; it's a fairly heavy car at 1800kg but you don't really feel that too much. It takes corners nicely, suspension is comfortable, and with the 204 hp motor, it's decently fast for a family hatchback (0-60 in 7.5 seconds). I wouldn't call it a hot hatch car, like a Golf GTI, but it keeps up with most things on the road.
Software wise the car is not great, but newer software updates have improved a lot. The UI is laggy, probably explained in part by running lots of virtualisation layers (the base OS is some automotive RTOS, which then runs -three- Linux kernels inside individual VMs, each VM running some Java application, one of which uses a hypervisor to access the Snapdragon GPU... it's a bit insane and very typically German over-design). I mostly use it with CarPlay; for which it works fine but takes about 10-15 seconds to connect when compared to my Polestar which literally connects as soon as you plug in the USB cable. My car gets free data connectivity until 2033, which means preheating and charging control remotely shouldn't need a subscription.
The climate controls are awful on the first gen car. They aren't lit up at night, and they're based on a touch sensor with no haptic feedback. This makes it almost impossible to adjust the climate controls at night without looking. This is improved in gen 2 (2023 onwards) as they light up, but the same slider design is used, which is still a bit crap. It took me a year before I found out that two fingers on the climate setting turns on the heated seat; this is not marked on the controls anywhere. The laggy UI means entering menus to change the climate setting is not a great experience.
The steering wheel controls are haptic too, but they work well because of the feedback mechanism (you feel a 'click' from an internal actuator, which is quite convincing); I think on balance probably better than physical buttons because they're easier to clean, but I don't mind too much either way.
There are also some annoying things missing that would have been good to include. The car has a battery heater, which is used during charging and in very cold conditions, but pre-2023 models have no automatic battery preheating for rapid charging. This means if you're driving in the winter you can get to a rapid charger and only get 40-50kW because the battery is cold. Hot battery can do 130kW, this is the difference between a 45 minute stop and a 20 minute stop, and when other manufacturers have been doing this, it's pretty inexcusable IMO. There is a workaround for this, where you can add a CAN bus injector to the drivetrain bus to send the preheating command. But it should be a software option.
There's no capability to tow or fit a roof rack, which was one of the things I gained with my Polestar 2. You can fit a bike carrier on a towbar, but the car itself has zero tow rating.
Design wise it's a fairly polarising car; the outside looks are a bit ugly if I'm being honest. The rear looks better than the front, with the rear lights being fully LED and set against a black body panel. The packaging however is, again typically VW, excellent. This is one of the things the mainstream automakers sometimes get really right. The ID.3 is barely bigger than my previous Golf Mk7, yet has about a foot more legroom in the rear and a larger cargo compartment. The turning circle is tighter than expected (10.2m, the comparable Mk8 Golf is 11m), which makes for easier parallel parking and manuevering. The car's wheels are further forward than an ICE equivalent, due to the rear-wheel drive and tight packaging. The front seats put the legs of driver and passenger up almost to the wheel arches, because there is no engine and transmission to accommodate. The car doesn't have a frunk like some EVs, but the large boot makes up for this.
Range is as expected and the car is quite efficient. Can get 3.5 miles per kWh even driving fast, 4 miles per kWh is obtainable if you're careful. In practical terms, this means a real world range from the 58kWh model of 180 miles in summer, 150 miles in winter. My car is equipped with a heatpump which really helps in winter, adding around 10-15 miles of range. However be aware the heatpump on ID.3 is based on CO2 refrigerant, and effectively very few garages are set up to accommodate this. CO2 refrigerant is very high pressure - 60 bars typical. However, no need to regas so far, and there is the argument that such a high pressure system could be more reliable because the components will need to have thicker internal walls, etc. One fun side effect is the car has a CO2 cabin sensor in case of a leak, to warn the occupants to ventilate.
So er... in summary? Not a bad attempt, but 6/10 probably would not buy again. The software alone put me off another VW group vehicle. But I'm going to keep the ID.3 for many years, and I expect it will do well past the battery warranty. My car is 15,000 miles from the end of the battery warranty, and already out of general warranty, so we will see how reliable it ends up being. But so far reports online suggest they are very reliable cars with only odd "niggles" as faults go.
-
The cost of insuring an EV compared to my current vehicle alone would blow any savings out of the water.
And they cost a fortune to insure, because manufacturers purposely made them finicky and expensive to repair, so that farting near the car totals it.
As far as I know, over there you have huge amount of surplus PV production, to the point of it being a "problem", with zero value.
-
The cost of insuring an EV compared to my current vehicle alone would blow any savings out of the water.
And they cost a fortune to insure, because manufacturers purposely made them finicky and expensive to repair, so that farting near the car totals it.
As far as I know, over there you have huge amount of surplus PV production, to the point of it being a "problem", with zero value.
Er, not in my experience.
Polestar 2 insurance was £450 for the year.
ID.3 was £550.
Comparable Golf was £520.
They aren't more expensive unless you buy a Tesla.
I don't have a clean record either (though all non-fault incidents; two rear-end collisions in three years.)
-
Er, not in my experience.
Polestar 2 insurance was £450 for the year.
ID.3 was £550.
Comparable Golf was £520.
They aren't more expensive unless you buy a Tesla.
I don't have a clean record either (though all non-fault incidents; two rear-end collisions in three years.)
Insurance politics vary greatly between countries. Over here "EV premium" is significant. We also have pigouvian "EV tax". But at least electricity vs. fuel cost difference is huge in favor of electricity.
-
Nissan leaf regen and braking at low speeds is rough, I don't know what they are talking about. Maybe its superior in concept but in execution it just feels bad. https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/ (https://www.speakev.com/threads/brake-pedal-goes-to-the-floor.14149/)
That's just a broken car, e.g. air in the system, brake cylinder failure etc. Nothing to do with "rough regen".
The mechanical brake system has changed very little during last 50 years, and differences between cars are small. This is also why EV manufacturers don't want to put too much regen functionality into the brake pedal - it's hard to fine-tune exactly to interact in optimum way.
Its a very common issue. First gen Leaf attempts to blend regen and regular braking via software which is tough (even tesla was tweaking similar things recently (https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/3798/tesla-rolls-out-comfort-braking-in-20268-for-refreshed-model-y)).
But apparently there is a cal routine that I didn't try, I will give it a shot, hopefully will fix it: https://www.reddit.com/r/leaf/comments/o569ar/some_nissan_leaf_owners_say_their_leaf_brakes/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/leaf/comments/o569ar/some_nissan_leaf_owners_say_their_leaf_brakes/)
-
I drove a few Toyota hybrids (service centre loan cars). The regen braking was probably the first, other than it being an automatic, thing I needed to get used to.
This was 2018 maybe? Yaris and Auris. In traffic, when you put your foot on the brake instinctively, for a fraction of a second everything was normal, then regen load kicked in and suddenly you were slowing too quickly and had to modulate the brake pressure off. If you had to stop braking and start again, this cycle would repeat. When you got down to about 3mph, usually approaching a car length of two from the car in front, regen would instantly cut out, no decay, no warning, no feedback, it would just cut out it's part of the brake load, requiring you reapply move force for the mechanical brakes again.
Honestly, after a few days my feet just adapted it out and got used to it.
EDIT: The best bit for me is when they give me my car back. GT86. A yaris feels like a small van to me. The seat is low, bucketed, legs out nearly straight, the car rises around you, you sit down in it in the floor. The steering is heavy and sensitive, controls responsive, if you ask the car to jerk violently it will do so. No "smoothing out the driver inputs".
Part of me toys with the idea of putting a Nissian Leaf or Renault Zoe motor and battery in it.... put through the clutch and gear box! That would be a dangerous EV for a whole different class of reason. Instant flat torque in all 6 gears.
-
Part of me toys with the idea of putting a Nissian Leaf or Renault Zoe motor and battery in it.... put through the clutch and gear box! That would be a dangerous EV for a whole different class of reason. Instant flat torque in all 6 gears.
Tesla tried making a two-speed manual for the first gen Roadster; it shredded the gearbox. Most people who do EV conversions but leave manual gearboxes in tend to keep the gearbox in 3rd or 4th, sometimes using a higher gear for highway efficiency. You will probably find the equivalent of first gear will just give you constant wheel spin and shred tyres.
One interesting effect is you don't need the clutch itself, even to shift gears. The motor can be programmed to go open circuit when you press the clutch pedal, which allows it to be spun up to whatever speed the gearbox requires. This is a feature of many DIY/EV conversion motor drivers.
-
Do EV's generally already do active regenerative breaking? (ie. applying voltage to the motor from the battery, giving it more to push against to keep break force consistent regardless of speed, not just using it as a normal generator.)
-
Do EV's generally already do active regenerative breaking? (ie. applying voltage to the motor from the battery, giving it more to push against to keep break force consistent regardless of speed, not just using it as a normal generator.)
Only the ones that use induction motors. The permanent magnet motors generate their own voltage and applying voltage from an external source will not increase the amount of power that can be regenerated.
-
Shouldn't any EV capable of wheel spin on acceleration be capable of breaking hard enough to lock the wheels (or spin them the other way even) on the electric motor alone?
-
Shouldn't any EV capable of wheel spin on acceleration be capable of breaking hard enough to lock the wheels (or spin them the other way even) on the electric motor alone?
Having owned some fairly fast RC cars with fully reversible motors... the absolute hilarity of hitting full reverse while travelling forwards and having differentials would be funny to see in the real world. At a track with a safety fence.
The cars tend to do a very harsh 180 rotation and drive backwards or flip over upside down. Those RC cars have torque to wegiht ratios that make F1 cars look like bicycles though.
-
I guess lower power EV's just lack the torque to do regenerative breaking to that extent, googling suggests putting a capacitor in series with the battery so it can temporarily generate more torque. The cost of needing higher voltage switches is not a small one though.
-
I guess lower power EV's just lack the torque to do regenerative breaking to that extent, googling suggests putting a capacitor in series with the battery so it can temporarily generate more torque. The cost of needing higher voltage switches is not a small one though.
You can get google to confirm any word salad mumbo jumbo you want, but no, regenerative braking is not limited by torque capability of the motor but rather, traction doing that safely in the usual 2WD or even 4WD configurations through the differential(s), and no, putting capacitor in series with the battery does not help generate more torque, it completely disables the vehicle from doing anything.
You can smoothly transition from power-generating regen to power-consuming holding torque generation (in BLDC motors) if you so wish. But if you never use the mechanical brakes for anything, they rust and seize. They exist in every corner of the car for good reasons, so better utilize them to hold the car, and give occasional use to keep them operational.
-
The capacitor is to build up a higher voltage. It's not in the circuit permanently, you can discharge it mostly losslessly to keep it at a given level.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0825/7/4/84 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0825/7/4/84)
I was wondering why by necessity EVs would lose regenerative breaking power at low speed, as is so often said.
-
I drove a few Toyota hybrids (service centre loan cars). The regen braking was probably the first, other than it being an automatic, thing I needed to get used to.
This was 2018 maybe? Yaris and Auris. In traffic, when you put your foot on the brake instinctively, for a fraction of a second everything was normal, then regen load kicked in and suddenly you were slowing too quickly and had to modulate the brake pressure off. If you had to stop braking and start again, this cycle would repeat. When you got down to about 3mph, usually approaching a car length of two from the car in front, regen would instantly cut out, no decay, no warning, no feedback, it would just cut out it's part of the brake load, requiring you reapply move force for the mechanical brakes again.
Honestly, after a few days my feet just adapted it out and got used to it.
EDIT: The best bit for me is when they give me my car back. GT86. A yaris feels like a small van to me. The seat is low, bucketed, legs out nearly straight, the car rises around you, you sit down in it in the floor. The steering is heavy and sensitive, controls responsive, if you ask the car to jerk violently it will do so. No "smoothing out the driver inputs".
Part of me toys with the idea of putting a Nissian Leaf or Renault Zoe motor and battery in it.... put through the clutch and gear box! That would be a dangerous EV for a whole different class of reason. Instant flat torque in all 6 gears.
https://youtu.be/DE2oDKguy3Q?si=rih4IkKdnNbZmA9f
-
The reason EVs reduce braking power as they decelerate is the motor controller has to drive the motor in such a way to produce sufficient voltage to charge the battery. This is typically done via constant torque command. As the vehicle slows down the power output from the motor will decrease as power = torque * RPM.
-
The reason EVs reduce braking power as they decelerate is the motor controller has to drive the motor in such a way to produce sufficient voltage to charge the battery. This is typically done via constant torque command. As the vehicle slows down the power output from the motor will decrease as power = torque * RPM.
A CVT that engages on the motor for regen would be interesting. Probably pretty hard to make a CVT handle that sort of power.
-
Do EV's generally already do active regenerative breaking? (ie. applying voltage to the motor from the battery, giving it more to push against to keep break force consistent regardless of speed, not just using it as a normal generator.)
Only the ones that use induction motors. The permanent magnet motors generate their own voltage and applying voltage from an external source will not increase the amount of power that can be regenerated.
The "active regenerative braking" you described is called "dynamic braking" which energy is consumed to brake and kinetic energy is converted to heat. This type of braking is most common on diesel-electric trains.
The capacitor is to build up a higher voltage. It's not in the circuit permanently, you can discharge it mostly losslessly to keep it at a given level.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0825/7/4/84 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0825/7/4/84)
I was wondering why by necessity EVs would lose regenerative breaking power at low speed, as is so often said.
regenerative braking is essentially using the electric motor as a generator. The generator has a lowest RPM for it to work. There are mainly two types of electric motor used on EV. Induction motor and permanent magnet motor. An EV is a DC power system, everything except the motor windings have DC, so there's no "power factor"
Induction motor: The inverter generates a rotating magnetic field. If it rotates faster than the motor, the torque is positive, if it's slower, the torque is negative. The difference between the RPM of the magnetic field and the motor is called "slip". The inverter also controls the voltage, the higher the voltage, the lower the "slip" at a given torque, the higher the efficiency. However if the voltage is too high the winding will saturate, causing damage. To regen, the controller sets an AC frequency lower than the motor RPM, this causes the electricity being transferred from the motor to the battery. If the speed is too low, the motor RPM minus "slip" equals to a zero or negative frequency, in this case electricity is consumed rather than generated (regen becomes dynamic braking), so the controller turns off the regen and uses the friction brake.
Permanent magnet motor: The motor can be considered "electronically commutated" DC motor. The inverter controls the frequency to exactly match the motor's rotation, doing the work of the "commutator", and the voltage to power the "DC" motor. The permanent magnet generates a voltage proportional to the RPM, this voltage is called back-EMF. The output voltage of the inverter can be higher, the same, or lower than the back-EMF. The torque is the voltage difference divided by the resistance of the motor. To regen, lower the voltage so the current will be reversed i.e. from the motor to the battery. If the vehicle is too slow, the regen torque is insufficient even the input voltage is zero i.e. short-circuiting the winding (regen becomes dynamic braking).
In conclusion, the regen power is not proportional to the vehicle's speed and regen is lost at a low, but non-zero speed.
One pedal driving mode is just the vehicle engaging friction brake auto-hold before, not at, full stop, compared to "traditional" vehicles that only hold after full stop.
-
The reason EVs reduce braking power as they decelerate is the motor controller has to drive the motor in such a way to produce sufficient voltage to charge the battery. This is typically done via constant torque command. As the vehicle slows down the power output from the motor will decrease as power = torque * RPM.
A CVT that engages on the motor for regen would be interesting. Probably pretty hard to make a CVT handle that sort of power.
Dual motor EVs do this well, because they tend to have different gearbox ratios for each motor, which allows them to recover energy over a wider range. Also, some EVs can use the motor as a boost converter, which allows it to regen more aggressively at lower speeds. Not sure of the exact physics there, but it definitely does vary quite a bit from model to model.
-
Also, some EVs can use the motor as a boost converter, which allows it to regen more aggressively at lower speeds.
(https://www.ultralibrarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Basic-synchronous-buck-converter-circuit.jpg)
Synchronous boost is synchronous buck working in reverse. You can simplify the power train minus the mechanical part as a voltage source(Vi) and the motor with a synchronous buck in between, the voltage applied to the motor is the battery voltage X duty cycle of the buck. If it's higher than the motor's back-EMF(Vo), the current/torque is positive and the car accelerates. If it's lower, the current/torque is negative the motor regens. In the latter case, the motor driver is working as synchronous boost, the back-EMF is boosted to the battery
Edit: It's not "some EVs", all EVs have boost converter to increase the voltage from the motor in order to charge the battery. There's no dedicated boost converter, the motor driver/inverter is being used as a boost converter during regenerative braking.
First, lets picture a simple buck converter
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383526394/figure/fig1/AS:11431281274598722@1725027144047/Synchronous-Buck-converter-circuit.png)
The input voltage is the battery, the output load is the motor instead of R, the Vout is the motor's back EMF. Ideally, the ratio between the output and the input is the duty cycle of the buck converter. The synchronous boost is just mirrored synchronous buck. The Vout is proportional to the vehicle speed due to the back-EMF of the motor. To accelerate, increase the duty cycle so the battery voltage times duty exceeds the motor's back-EMF. To regen, the duty cycle is reduced so the opposite is true. Then we can mirror the buck converter, it's exactly a boost converter with the duty cycle becomes (1-D) instead. This is an ultra-simplfied form and does not apply to a real motor driver.
Then, lets move to a real motor driver, the H-bridge for DC motor
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/H_bridge.svg/1920px-H_bridge.svg.png)
Full forward is S1 and S4 on, S2 and S3 off. Full reverse is S2 and S3 on, S1 and S4 off. Coasting (zero torque) is all off. Dynamic breaking is S1 and S3 on, S2 and S4 off, OR S2 and S4 on, S1 and S3 off. Without an external resistor, dynamic braking is going to overheat the motor and/or the switches really fast so it's not actually used on EV.
Forward with speed control: S4 is on, S3 is off, S1 and S2 are switched alternatively. In this case the driver is working as a buck converter described before, the higher the S1 % the higher the speed, the higher the S2 % the lower the speed. If the speed(back-EMF) is high but the S1/S2 is low, the motor is in regen and the voltage is boosted back to the battery.
Finally, for three phase inverter used on EV
(https://electricalgang.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Three-Phase-Inverter-Circuit-2048x1152.png)
It's just like H-bridge, but three phase instead of single phase.
The 6 switches are switched on and off sequentially as the motor spins and the waveform is like this
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_4BO4UfH-PE/maxresdefault.jpg)
PWM is used in the same way as above to control the output voltage and when output voltage is below the back-EMF, the inverter is being used as a boost converter to transfer power from the motor to the battery.
-
Also, some EVs can use the motor as a boost converter, which allows it to regen more aggressively at lower speeds. Not sure of the exact physics there, but it definitely does vary quite a bit from model to model.
Every EV uses the motor as a "boost converter" - it won't work any other way. For example, for any permanent-magnet motor (BLDC / PMSM), the open-circuit voltage produced by the motor will be always lower than the battery voltage, unless the speed is somewhere around 200-300 km/h or so. I don't believe there is any real difference circuit-wise between cars - of course as you say power = speed * torque and as such, at lower and lower speeds there is less and less to generate, while simultaneously the "boost ratio" gets higher and higher. Manufacturers tune their inverters in different ways, and probably the biggest concern is related to the balance / smooth transition between mechanical braking and regeneration and traction in slippery conditions, not so much trying the squeeze the last % of efficiency at very low speeds.
And regeneration is nothing else but just "short-circuiting" the motor, just at less than 100% duty cycle. Kinetic energy is converted into magnetic field stored in the motor inductance, released at higher voltage during the moments the short is removed, pushed into battery - exactly equivalent to the classic boost converter circuit. Approaching zero speed, duty cycle required to brake approaches 100%, and the boost efficiency starts to drop, where exactly, I don't know, maybe in the 95% duty cycle range the drop would be already significant. And eventually, even a fully shorted motor does not produce infinite holding force at zero speed.
-
probably the biggest concern is related to the balance / smooth transition between mechanical braking and regeneration and traction in slippery conditions, not so much trying the squeeze the last % of efficiency at very low speeds.
Ideally the car simply has enough power to use the mechanical system as pure fallback, then you can simply dedicate the majority of the pedal range to regeneration and not worry about the transition at all. Keep the mechanical range for emergencies and full stops. Any need to transition forces you into an awkward set of compromises. Do you keep the deadzone large for pure regeneration? Then the mechanical range is harsher. One pedal driving avoids that, but has its own problems.
That's probably why Porsche said they didn't believe in one pedal driving, they can recover energy 99% of the time, because mechanical breaks don't kick in 99% of the time. The luxury of a powerful drive system.
-
Ideally the car simply has enough power to use the mechanical system as pure fallback, then you can simply dedicate the majority of the pedal range to regeneration and not worry about the transition at all. Keep the mechanical range for emergencies and full stops. Any need to transition forces you into an awkward set of compromises. Do you keep the deadzone large for pure regeneration? Then the mechanical range is harsher. One pedal driving avoids that, but has its own problems.
Be that as it may, I would not trade my M3 for a car that has not the same one pedal drive facilities. I don't know how they managed that but it works flawlessly without any extra flappy levers, controls, settings or what not. Just lift my foot off the accelerator, adjust if necessary and I end up right behind the car in front of me nearly every time. And does that make the car inefficient? Not that I can tell. What I do know is that it gives me a shitload of comfort for which I would gladly invest a bit of range, if any.
That's probably why Porsche said they didn't believe in one pedal driving, they can recover energy 99% of the time, because mechanical breaks don't kick in 99% of the time. The luxury of a powerful drive system.
I find that funny. It would be a first for Porsche buyers to let efficiency be a part of the decision to get one.
It might not be the luxury of a powerful drive system but the inability of some Stuttgart engineers to get this right 😀
-
Porsche doesn't use one pedal driving because its motors are too powerful for that, unlike Tesla's 70kW, Porsche Taycan can regen at up to 265kW, if you use one pedal driving mode, releasing the gas pedal will create a braking force similar to a panic stop on a economical car
-
Ah, and it would be impossible to restrain that tremendous regen capacity with some clever software? Using my right foot on the accelerator as the governor?
After all, said foot is capable of finely controlling the same ballpark braking energy when I use the brake pedal in a regular car.
-
After all, said foot is capable of finely controlling the same ballpark braking energy when I use the brake pedal in a regular car.
You have to actively press the brake pedal. Imagine if just having your foot slip off the throttle resulted in a crash stop...
-
Braking in one pedal driving is brake by wire as long as you don't hit the brake pedal, it can be anything the software wants up to the power limit of the drive. So a lot lower in this case, if Porsche wanted to implement it.
-
After all, said foot is capable of finely controlling the same ballpark braking energy when I use the brake pedal in a regular car.
You have to actively press the brake pedal. Imagine if just having your foot slip off the throttle resulted in a crash stop...
Software! After all, there still IS a brake pedal to turn that slip off the throttle into an emergency stop if needed. There is no reason why a Porsche would need to apply the full regen capability right after letting go of the accelerator.
And as I imagine that Porsche engineers are no less capable than Tesla engineers I think not implementing a solid one pedal drive is a choice. But a (IMO) bad one, as this is an extremely usable feature. One of the two that sets Tesla apart from all (AFAIK) of its competition (the other being their supercharger network integrated in the navigation).
-
After all, said foot is capable of finely controlling the same ballpark braking energy when I use the brake pedal in a regular car.
You have to actively press the brake pedal. Imagine if just having your foot slip off the throttle resulted in a crash stop...
Software! After all, there still IS a brake pedal to turn that slip off the throttle into an emergency stop if needed. There is no reason why a Porsche would need to apply the full regen capability right after letting go of the accelerator.
As a non-EV driver I, perhaps naively, assumed that the throttle would mimic ICE in that taking your foot off would apply (fake) engine braking. Comments here seem to suggest it is a lot more than that, hence my comment. And, thinking about it, how can it be a single-pedal thing if it doesn't apply quite serious stopping power when released? So just how hard that braking effort should be is the question, and I think it would be potentially unsafe to err on the side of 'lots'.
-
Mechanical servo brakes will provide at least full application of brake without any external or internal "power". If the car simply turns off due to a failure the ESC etc shuts down, the mechanical brakes will still work at least to stop you.
I had a renault that once the brake servo was depleted you could NOT apply the brakes at all. Full weight on the pedal and pulling up with my arms on the steering wheel, over 100kg of pedal pressure and I couldn't stop it from rolling at 3mph and had to use the handbrake! In the manual it has a big red warning section that if the "STOP" light illuminates or the engine stops for any reason while travelling, "Apply the brake in ONE smooth application. Do not release the pedal until fully stopped."
-
So just how hard that braking effort should be is the question, and I think it would be potentially unsafe to err on the side of 'lots'.
No more than normal driving would require. Even Porsche can figure that one out..
-
As a non-EV driver I, perhaps naively, assumed that the throttle would mimic ICE in that taking your foot off would apply (fake) engine braking. Comments here seem to suggest it is a lot more than that, hence my comment. And, thinking about it, how can it be a single-pedal thing if it doesn't apply quite serious stopping power when released? So just how hard that braking effort should be is the question, and I think it would be potentially unsafe to err on the side of 'lots'.
Maybe I do not understand your question correctly, but the crux is that the amount of regen (stopping power) in one pedal drive is regulated with the accelerator. Maximum one pedal drive braking power is of course limited to the maximum regen capacity (IIRC ~75kW in a M3) but this maximum power is (depending on the anticipatory qualities of the driver) hardly ever used. If, during normal driving you find that you need to stop for the traffic light ahead, you lift your foot slowly from the accelerator and the car starts to decelerate / regen a bit. You lift your foot more and it starts to decelerate / regen more. If you miscalculate and think, hey, I am not making it to the stopline, you press you foot down just a little bit -> less deceleration / less regen. With some training by doing (2 hours?) this enables you to stop the car exactly where you want it. Combined with the automatic application of the brake pads when coming to a nearly complete stop this makes for true one pedal drive.
-
Maybe I do not understand your question correctly
OK, let's narrow it down a bit. Take your foot off the throttle and how much braking effort (regen or whatever) should occur? Where would it be in the range.. nothing at all, about the same as with a typical ICE, much more than that, or anchor out the back?
-
Maybe I do not understand your question correctly
OK, let's narrow it down a bit. Take your foot off the throttle and how much braking effort (regen or whatever) should occur? Where would it be in the range.. nothing at all, about the same as with a typical ICE, much more than that, or anchor out the back?
That depends.
Drive at a constant speed = keep your foot on the accelerator in the same position.
Lift your foot a little bit = coast. No regen, you slowly decelerate due to friction.
Lift your foot a bit more = regen + deceleration from that regen, amount controlled by how far your foot is lifted.
Lift your foot completely off the pedal = over a short period (seconds) increase regen from wherever it is at to its maximum. For a M3 this will not smash your nose in the steering wheel, for a Porsche I wouldn't know. Thing is that an EV does not have to immediately put full regen on; it could (and in the case of a M3, does) soft start this.
And yes, I can see where that might not give you maximum efficiency, but that is a small (if any) trade-off for a very comfortable way of driving a car.
That is all I have to add on this subject as it is a bit off-topic and I'm running the risk of being made out a Tesla fanboy, which would be off the mark ;D
-
Maybe I do not understand your question correctly
OK, let's narrow it down a bit. Take your foot off the throttle and how much braking effort (regen or whatever) should occur? Where would it be in the range.. nothing at all, about the same as with a typical ICE, much more than that, or anchor out the back?
That depends.
OK, apparently you do not understand a simple and straightforward, quite specific question correctly.
I did actually debate with myself whether to add the line: "None of this 'just like brake pedal', 'lifting gently', etc. Just take your foot right off and what should happen?", but I figured that might be seen as too obvious to mention and probably cause a bit of kickback. But it seems it wasn't obvious at all and I should have added that line :(
Lift your foot completely off the pedal = over a short period (seconds) increase regen from wherever it is at to its maximum.
So what is 'maximum regen'? Not asking what the Tesla is or what that M3 thing is; I am asking what you think it should be on that sliding scale which we can all relate to.
-
Maybe I do not understand your question correctly
OK, let's narrow it down a bit. Take your foot off the throttle and how much braking effort (regen or whatever) should occur? Where would it be in the range.. nothing at all, about the same as with a typical ICE, much more than that, or anchor out the back?
For normal setups, whatever amount of regen is selected, which may be quite a bit stronger than normal engine braking (but this is selectable, not least because petrol and diesel vehicles have very different behaviours and drivers will have a preference based on their experience). For one-pedal driving, it should be roughly equivalent to a fairly quick (but not emergency) stop. There's plenty of studies out there which look at driving behaviours to put numbers to that, manufacturers shouldn't find it overly hard to pull off. Unless they're Porsche.
-
For normal setups, whatever amount of regen is selected, which may be quite a bit stronger than normal engine braking
Thanks - having the driver be able to select what suits them sounds good, within limits :)
I wonder, if the regen is set to 'quite heavy' and his foot slips (or he otherwise lets the pedal up), would the driver get nicked for brake testing the vehicle behind?
-
After all, said foot is capable of finely controlling the same ballpark braking energy when I use the brake pedal in a regular car.
You have to actively press the brake pedal. Imagine if just having your foot slip off the throttle resulted in a crash stop...
Software! After all, there still IS a brake pedal to turn that slip off the throttle into an emergency stop if needed. There is no reason why a Porsche would need to apply the full regen capability right after letting go of the accelerator.
As a non-EV driver I, perhaps naively, assumed that the throttle would mimic ICE in that taking your foot off would apply (fake) engine braking. Comments here seem to suggest it is a lot more than that, hence my comment. And, thinking about it, how can it be a single-pedal thing if it doesn't apply quite serious stopping power when released? So just how hard that braking effort should be is the question, and I think it would be potentially unsafe to err on the side of 'lots'.
The point of "one pedal" driving modes is that you can drive 99% of the time with one pedal. Or maybe 97% or 99.927% or whatever, depending on your typical driving patterns and how the car designers designed it.
Obviously it would not brake at 265kW even if that was technically possible. Indeed this is a thing designers can control however they wish in software. I thought that would be obvious.
One pedal driving mode actually has absolutely nothing to do with regen, even. It could be available in ICE car as well, just no one did it. Even in EVs, one pedal driving mode applies mechanical brakes - again to varying degrees and in varying conditions depending on manufacturer, but I'm 100% certain every single EV with one pedal mode does it in some condition. So a modern ICE car, with automatic transmission and ESP which can apply brakes, could do that as well.
So it's 100% user experience / interface thing.
Nissan Leaf, for example, in one pedal driving mode does not diminish the regen as early (so actually does regen more, which is good for energy), but then also starts applying mechanical brakes well before the car is stopped. Mechanical brakes stop the car from ~walking speed. The amount of energy that could be gained by regenerating from 5km/h to stop is of course completely negligible, and so is wear to brake pads.
User experience and safety are probably the #1 factors, here. Just the right amount of braking force when the user lifts their foot off the pedal. Not too much for "sudden stop". Not too little so that they have to use brake pedal all the time, then it's not one-pedal mode anymore. But it's also to make drivers hit the brakes sometimes, to avoid their brain forgetting about the brake pedal in emergency situations. It's a complex UX problem.
I used one-pedal mode for maybe ~6 months, then reverted back to good old D/B modes mimicing automatic transmission (creep, need brakes to fully stop - with the exception of relatively strong regen down to ~15 km/h or so). So at intersections with YIELD instead of STOP, and not much other traffic, can usually go without touching brakes at all. But still have to use the pedal often enough so that muscle memory does not forget it.
-
As a non-EV driver I, perhaps naively, assumed that the throttle would mimic ICE in that taking your foot off would apply (fake) engine braking. Comments here seem to suggest it is a lot more than that, hence my comment. And, thinking about it, how can it be a single-pedal thing if it doesn't apply quite serious stopping power when released? So just how hard that braking effort should be is the question, and I think it would be potentially unsafe to err on the side of 'lots'.
I would say one-pedal driving on most EVs is a bit like the kind of braking you get when you put a manual ICE car in 3rd gear and let off the throttle when travelling at say 60 mph. You will decelerate at say 0.2-0.3g. Except unlike an ICE the regeneration force is more or less the same at any speed and in some EVs, it can regenerate down to zero speed.
For anyone who is experienced with driving a manual car you would know the idea of putting the gearbox into a lower gear when approaching stop lights, exiting the highway or otherwise. In most driving schools this is actively taught as a recommended strategy to improve fuel economy, reduce brake wear and improve control over the vehicle.
Regen braking is just like that but everything is on the 'gas' pedal; some EVs (notably the Korean offerings) offer paddles on the steering wheel that let you dynamically control the regen force, whereas others have a fixed setting or a few options buried in a drive mode selection screen. My ID.3 has a 'D' and 'B' mode, in 'D' mode there is no regen on the accelerator pedal, you get regen only with the brake pedal where the mapping is altered to apply regen when you brake. In most EVs, the maximum amount of regen does increase a bit when using the brake pedal.
-
I would say one-pedal driving on most EVs is a bit like the kind of braking you get when you put a manual ICE car in 3rd gear and let off the throttle when travelling at say 60 mph.
Thank you - that gives a very good idea. I have to say that's not what was coming across from earlier comments.
Obviously it would not brake at 265kW even if that was technically possible.
As I said, the comments implied it was rather more than ICE enging braking would produce.
Indeed this is a thing designers can control however they wish in software. I thought that would be obvious.
Of course it's obvious! Jeez, you can be a patronising asshole sometimes, you know.
-
I wonder, if the regen is set to 'quite heavy' and his foot slips (or he otherwise lets the pedal up), would the driver get nicked for brake testing the vehicle behind?
Unless you cut someone off or have non-functioning brake lights, the fault here is 100% on the person behind, as it means they were following too closely. Full brake pedal at 100km/h is -1g or more (model 3). The max regen is -0.2g. So its quite a difference from hard braking.
There is some good data here, some of it is obsolete as the software has changed since 2020: https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tesla-Regen-Brakes-and-Sudden-Acceleration.pdf (https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tesla-Regen-Brakes-and-Sudden-Acceleration.pdf)
Honestly I would recommend test driving, even if you have zero interest in buying the car. From an "electronics tech" standpoint alone.
-
Also, brake lights illuminate on regen once over a certain deceleration threshold.
European spec; USA/elsewhere may be different:
- Below <0.7m/s^2 there may be no brake light signal
- Between >0.7m/s^2 and <1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal may be generated
- After ≥1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal must be generated
Arguably this is better than conventional cars, where brake lights illuminate even if you hover over the pedal.
-
I wonder, if the regen is set to 'quite heavy' and his foot slips (or he otherwise lets the pedal up), would the driver get nicked for brake testing the vehicle behind?
Unless you cut someone off or have non-functioning brake lights, the fault here is 100% on the person behind, as it means they were following too closely.
That only applies if they run up the arse of the brake tester. There doesn't need to be an actual accident to be nicked for it - careless or inconsiderate driving would cover it. Of course, it would need to be witnessed, but with dashcams in practically everything nowadays, braking hard for no reason other than a clear road in front could be tricky to pass off if the car behind has to take evasive action.
-
Also, brake lights illuminate on regen once over a certain deceleration threshold.
European spec; USA/elsewhere may be different:
- Below <0.7m/s^2 there may be no brake light signal
- Between >0.7m/s^2 and <1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal may be generated
- After ≥1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal must be generated
Arguably this is better than conventional cars, where brake lights illuminate even if you hover over the pedal.
It's still problematic. When driving uphill, the driver may attempt to accelerate but the gas pedal is not pressed deep enough so the slope is still decelerating the car, the brake light may illuminate, confusing the driver behind. The same applies when driving downhill, the regen torque may not be enough to compensate the slope, the car may be accelerating despite the regen power is significant. In this case the brake lights won't illuminate but the car behind it should brake.
It's better to use torque-to-weight ratio or power-to-weight ratio, when the regen exceeds said ratio, illuminate the brake lights
-
It's still problematic. When driving uphill, the driver may attempt to accelerate but the gas pedal is not pressed deep enough so the slope is still decelerating the car, the brake light may illuminate, confusing the driver behind.
If the car in front of you decelerates, I'm not sure if it's a bad thing you're aware of that...
The same applies when driving downhill, the regen torque may not be enough to compensate the slope, the car may be accelerating despite the regen power is significant. In this case the brake lights won't illuminate but the car behind it should brake.
...
Why? The car in fron of you accelerates and then you (the car behind) should brake?? Perhaps you should brake because of the slope but that would have nothing to do with the behaviour or danger posed by the car in front of you...
-
It's still problematic. When driving uphill, the driver may attempt to accelerate but the gas pedal is not pressed deep enough so the slope is still decelerating the car, the brake light may illuminate, confusing the driver behind.
Not sure how that would confuse the driver behind? After all, whatever the reason the car in font decelerates (braking, hill, massive engine failure, a 16 tons weight suddenly appearing in front) it is nice to have this signaled to the car behind. That is why using a deceleration value coming from a motion sensor is a much better parameter to decide when to light the brake lights than having a switch on the brake pedal. The more so because with a motion sensor much more difficult programmable electronics are involved >:D
-
There is some good data here, some of it is obsolete as the software has changed since 2020: https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tesla-Regen-Brakes-and-Sudden-Acceleration.pdf (https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tesla-Regen-Brakes-and-Sudden-Acceleration.pdf)
Thanks for that!
-
It's still problematic. When driving uphill, the driver may attempt to accelerate but the gas pedal is not pressed deep enough so the slope is still decelerating the car, the brake light may illuminate, confusing the driver behind.
Not sure how that would confuse the driver behind? After all, whatever the reason the car in font decelerates (braking, hill, massive engine failure, a 16 tons weight suddenly appearing in front) it is nice to have this signaled to the car behind. That is why using a deceleration value coming from a motion sensor is a much better parameter to decide when to light the brake lights than having a switch on the brake pedal. The more so because with a motion sensor much more difficult programmable electronics are involved >:D
Exactly - acceleration-based brake light is purely positive with no downsides - it catches those cases where brake light earlier didn't light up when it should - " the driver in front of me is slowing down significantly - need to pay attention". The reason for slow-down is irrelevant. Driver failing to find their gas pedal in steep uphill is a good reason, because usually all other drivers have no such problems, and as such, slow-down is surprising.
Blink mode for long-sustained heavy braking adds even more safety.
But sure those thresholds need to be carefully set. My observation of KIA EVs is that they blink brake lights totally randomly with no reason whatsoever in smooth road traffic (or even lack thereof). But if what tom66 says its true, EU would regulate also the lower threshold where lights are allowed to come up, and this is based on acceleration, not motor torque (so downhill should not confuse the car). Maybe the cars I have been observing predate this requirement, or maybe they just violate it / are broken. Or maybe the lower "false positive" threshold is too low. Unnecessarily activating brake lights in normal highway / road traffic cause serious concern. That's driving where brake lights should basically never activate - their only meaning should be, "someone is stopping to turn" or "deer jumped in the front". Only 0.1% minority of nutjobs / psychopaths used to randomly press their brakes in the good old days without reason. This was not a significant enough problem. Now every random grandma driving their new shiny KIA EV causes constant random brake light blink noise; others learn not to react to brake lights anymore. And that is bad. Ignoring brake lights adds another 2-3 seconds of delay in cases where someone truly brakes. This is why I always try to routinely react to brake lights by slowing down myself - that propagates the need for attention to the drivers behind me. But lately I can't do that anymore because now I'm responsible of propagating the false signal. Earlier that was only a problem with rare sociopaths on the road. Now it happens all the time.
-
Also, brake lights illuminate on regen once over a certain deceleration threshold.
European spec; USA/elsewhere may be different:
- Below <0.7m/s^2 there may be no brake light signal
- Between >0.7m/s^2 and <1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal may be generated
- After ≥1.3m/s^2 the brake light signal must be generated
Arguably this is better than conventional cars, where brake lights illuminate even if you hover over the pedal.
It's still problematic. When driving uphill, the driver may attempt to accelerate but the gas pedal is not pressed deep enough so the slope is still decelerating the car, the brake light may illuminate, confusing the driver behind. The same applies when driving downhill, the regen torque may not be enough to compensate the slope, the car may be accelerating despite the regen power is significant. In this case the brake lights won't illuminate but the car behind it should brake.
I'm fairly sure the lighting rules only apply if some regen is in use, i.e. negative motor power. If driver is going uphill, motor power will be positive unless they are slowing down.
And going downhill with regen on but not decelerating shouldn't illuminate brake lights, because you aren't decelerating.
Anyway, it sounds like you have not driven an EV before. You don't really have to apply more 'gas' in the same way that you do on an ICE car, the pedal application is roughly constantly unless you wish to accelerate. So you won't slow down on a hill in the same way that an ICE car does, where the engine needs to put more fuel in under direct command of the user. Obviously the electric motor has to do more work, but this is handled by the drive computer.
-
Exactly - acceleration-based brake light is purely positive with no downsides - it catches those cases where brake light earlier didn't light up when it should - " the driver in front of me is slowing down significantly - need to pay attention". The reason for slow-down is irrelevant. Driver failing to find their gas pedal in steep uphill is a good reason, because usually all other drivers have no such problems, and as such, slow-down is surprising.
Blink mode for long-sustained heavy braking adds even more safety.
Good point, thanks.
The EV makers need to prevent blinking if the deceleration is between >0.7m/s^2 and <1.3m/s^2 to avoid confusing the driver behind as if it's on heavy braking. Although I never personally witnessed that
Anyway, it sounds like you have not driven an EV before. You don't really have to apply more 'gas' in the same way that you do on an ICE car, the pedal application is roughly constantly unless you wish to accelerate. So you won't slow down on a hill in the same way that an ICE car does, where the engine needs to put more fuel in under direct command of the user. Obviously the electric motor has to do more work, but this is handled by the drive computer.
Not really, the gas pedal controls the motor torque(at lower speed)/power(higher speed), it does not compensate for the slope. The "coasting point" on one pedal driving mode may vary at different speed but that's a different matter
-
Anyway, it sounds like you have not driven an EV before. You don't really have to apply more 'gas' in the same way that you do on an ICE car, the pedal application is roughly constantly unless you wish to accelerate. So you won't slow down on a hill in the same way that an ICE car does, where the engine needs to put more fuel in under direct command of the user. Obviously the electric motor has to do more work, but this is handled by the drive computer.
You sure? Everything I have read about e.g. Tesla online seems to confirm it's pretty much a torque pedal. LEAF is more like a torque pedal at very low speeds, then power pedal at higher speeds. This is the first time I hear anyone saying that EVs have "speed pedals".
-
You sure? Everything I have read about e.g. Tesla online seems to confirm it's pretty much a torque pedal. LEAF is more like a torque pedal at very low speeds, then power pedal at higher speeds. This is the first time I hear anyone saying that EVs have "speed pedals".
Yes torque pedal, with variation based on speed: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/inzuhz/model_3_factfinding_accelerator_pedal_position_vs/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/inzuhz/model_3_factfinding_accelerator_pedal_position_vs/)
Leaf should be similar, you can see the mapping here: https://ecutek.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SUPPORT/pages/1663500289/Nissan+Leaf+-+Gen2+2013+-2018+Tuning+Guide#Accelerator (https://ecutek.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SUPPORT/pages/1663500289/Nissan+Leaf+-+Gen2+2013+-2018+Tuning+Guide#Accelerator) wonder how hard it is to remap it to be B mode by default..
-
Anyway, it sounds like you have not driven an EV before. You don't really have to apply more 'gas' in the same way that you do on an ICE car, the pedal application is roughly constantly unless you wish to accelerate. So you won't slow down on a hill in the same way that an ICE car does, where the engine needs to put more fuel in under direct command of the user. Obviously the electric motor has to do more work, but this is handled by the drive computer.
You sure? Everything I have read about e.g. Tesla online seems to confirm it's pretty much a torque pedal. LEAF is more like a torque pedal at very low speeds, then power pedal at higher speeds. This is the first time I hear anyone saying that EVs have "speed pedals".
I guess it's complicated, but it's probably best described as speed-dependent torque control.
The inverter is ultimately given a torque command, but the pedal is mapped to have a dead zone around maintaining constant speed with positive and negative torque either side of that. If you keep constant pressure it's kind of like standard cruise control, with the motor outputting the required torque to maintain speed. Both the ID.3 and the Polestar I drive do not require any additional "gas" to go up a hill. You do need more to set off from a hill though, because the motor speed is not constant there.
Pure torque control would be harder to drive. At low speeds you would need to push the pedal really hard to climb hills because you need that torque. That would feel wrong, IMO. Even ICE cars have some kind of mapping there.
I imagine there's a lot of secret sauce around making accelerator pedals feel different too. I used to drive a Golf GTE and that had a sport mode. In truth the car produced the same power regardless of whether it was in sport or normal hybrid mode, but the accelerator pedal became a lot more "live" when in this mode, which just gives you the impression of a faster car, even if it isn't actually any faster. Strange psychology that.
-
looks like form over function leading to poor door release designs.
car safety design engineers been replaced by car design cad artists!
at the end of the day electric or otherwise vehicles are functional machines to do a job
not to become a deathtrap in a minor accident because the sophisticated all electric doors will not open.
-
Anyway, it sounds like you have not driven an EV before. You don't really have to apply more 'gas' in the same way that you do on an ICE car, the pedal application is roughly constantly unless you wish to accelerate. So you won't slow down on a hill in the same way that an ICE car does, where the engine needs to put more fuel in under direct command of the user. Obviously the electric motor has to do more work, but this is handled by the drive computer.
You sure? Everything I have read about e.g. Tesla online seems to confirm it's pretty much a torque pedal. LEAF is more like a torque pedal at very low speeds, then power pedal at higher speeds. This is the first time I hear anyone saying that EVs have "speed pedals".
I guess it's complicated, but it's probably best described as speed-dependent torque control.
But surely the purpose of the speed as a function input is to avoid having to press the pedal deep down at higher speeds, and vice versa, due to the quadratic aerodynamic loss at high speeds, thus increasing torque need per speed. But it means exactly that - more torque at higher speed.
But to act like a speed regulator - to maintain constant speed when more torque is needed due to uphill in relatively constant speed situation, it would need to do the opposite: more torque at lower speed, so that relatively small difference (drop in speed) would drive the torque up to compensate; or use derivative of speed to add torque. This is all the stuff that cruise control does (P,I,D, maybe various feedforwards). But if the speed is constant when uphill starts, then surely the speed input parameter does nothing to the torque. But to maintain the speed uphill, more torque is needed. Ergo, you need to press the pedal further. Matches my experience on LEAF. What I'm missing?
-
But surely the purpose of the speed as a function input is to avoid having to press the pedal deep down at higher speeds, and vice versa, due to the quadratic aerodynamic loss at high speeds, thus increasing torque need per speed. But it means exactly that - more torque at higher speed.
But to act like a speed regulator - to maintain constant speed when more torque is needed due to uphill in relatively constant speed situation, it would need to do the opposite: more torque at lower speed, so that relatively small difference (drop in speed) would drive the torque up to compensate; or use derivative of speed to add torque. This is all the stuff that cruise control does (P,I,D, maybe various feedforwards). But if the speed is constant when uphill starts, then surely the speed input parameter does nothing to the torque. But to maintain the speed uphill, more torque is needed. Ergo, you need to press the pedal further. Matches my experience on LEAF. What I'm missing?
You're missing that the pedal has a relationship to torque that is dependent on vehicle speed and load, it's not a simple linear relationship like 50% = 150Nm torque. Even the LEAF has some torque-speed mapping like thm_w mentions... but I suspect there is no consistency between manufacturers, since there is no official standard over what this should look like (other than more pedal = more acceleration, I guess).
-
But surely the purpose of the speed as a function input is to avoid having to press the pedal deep down at higher speeds, and vice versa, due to the quadratic aerodynamic loss at high speeds, thus increasing torque need per speed. But it means exactly that - more torque at higher speed.
But to act like a speed regulator - to maintain constant speed when more torque is needed due to uphill in relatively constant speed situation, it would need to do the opposite: more torque at lower speed, so that relatively small difference (drop in speed) would drive the torque up to compensate; or use derivative of speed to add torque. This is all the stuff that cruise control does (P,I,D, maybe various feedforwards). But if the speed is constant when uphill starts, then surely the speed input parameter does nothing to the torque. But to maintain the speed uphill, more torque is needed. Ergo, you need to press the pedal further. Matches my experience on LEAF. What I'm missing?
As I explained before in this replyhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-other-evs-and-hybrids-are-dangerous!/msg6236591/#msg6236591 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tesla-other-evs-and-hybrids-are-dangerous!/msg6236591/#msg6236591), the motor controller + motor can be seen as a synchronous buck plus a DC motor. To control the motor speed, you adjust the duty cycle of the "synchronous buck". Since the inverter output/motor input voltage is battery voltage X duty cycle. The theoretical, unloaded speed is the vehicle's top speed X gas pedal position. Control the voltage to control the speed.
However, this sort of control is not suitable for EV and only used in low-cost e-bikes or e-scooters. An EV's motor has very high efficiency, to get that, the resistance of the motor winding has to be made very small. If the throttle is a little bit higher the torque will be very high, because the torque is proportional to the electric current, and electric current is (battery voltage X duty cycle - back-EMF) / resistance. In fact for most high power traction motor application. The battery voltage X duty has to be very close to the back-EMF to prevent too much current from damaging the motor.
Therefore the control logic is use current control to control torque. When the vehicle is coasting, the battery voltage X duty is exactly equals to the motor's back-EMF. We can describe it using a linear function. Assume the motor's back-EMF per speed is A, the throttle/target current is B. The duty cycle is A X speed + B, regen is when B is negative. When the speed is very high, |B| is limited, the duty cycle is controlled even closer to the speed, to prevent the power from going over the limit.
Cruise control or any other of hill assist that use the speed as the target, the outer loop is speed, but the inner loop is still the current/power
-
Since I learned to drive a gas car (as I expect pretty much everyone did except possibly a few very young ones here), I would allow the car to slow down going uphill to avoid it going well above the speed limit when going back downhill. (That's for the usual up and downhills in most areas, not mountain driving which requires downshifting.) Going to a hybrid, that remained mostly unchanged except Toyota hybrids have indicators so I use that instead of simply going by feel.
Haven't switched to full EV yet but I don't see why it would be any different. Is it simply that the "unlimited" regen capacity of an EV means there's not much downside to maintaining speed going up hills and using regen to stay within the speed limit going down the hill?
-
Haven't switched to full EV yet but I don't see why it would be any different. Is it simply that the "unlimited" regen capacity of an EV means there's not much downside to maintaining speed going up hills and using regen to stay within the speed limit going down the hill?
Many many different balances in play here, the additional speed up the hill adds V3 losses... but in ICE engines those additional losses can be offset or overtaken by increased engine efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption) at the higher load, particularly uphill where the potential energy gain is also adding in. Synthetic testing for fuel efficiency standards have made those engines tuned for 80-100km/h operation. Many petrol/diesel cars are going to be more efficient keeping to the speed limit up the hill and then engine braking on the way down (rather than gaining speed coasting from a lower starting speed).
EV is likely to be much less variable in efficiency vs load, I'd guess least energy would be keeping as slow as practical at all times.
-
But surely the purpose of the speed as a function input is to avoid having to press the pedal deep down at higher speeds, and vice versa, due to the quadratic aerodynamic loss at high speeds, thus increasing torque need per speed. But it means exactly that - more torque at higher speed.
But to act like a speed regulator - to maintain constant speed when more torque is needed due to uphill in relatively constant speed situation, it would need to do the opposite: more torque at lower speed, so that relatively small difference (drop in speed) would drive the torque up to compensate; or use derivative of speed to add torque. This is all the stuff that cruise control does (P,I,D, maybe various feedforwards). But if the speed is constant when uphill starts, then surely the speed input parameter does nothing to the torque. But to maintain the speed uphill, more torque is needed. Ergo, you need to press the pedal further. Matches my experience on LEAF. What I'm missing?
You're missing that the pedal has a relationship to torque that is dependent on vehicle speed and load,
No, read again. I said there is relationship, but for what you say to be true about uphills, the relationship should be the opposite way - given constant pedal position (e.g. 50%), more torque at lower speed. Read my message again and then explain what I am missing?
Your central claims are:
* ~Constant pedal position
* ~Constant speed
The only logical conclusion is that uphill, torque needs to increase. That can only happen via sensing the slope (unlikely?), or detecting small error in speed (the small drop) increasing torque as a response - but that would be exactly the inverse mapping than online sources say about speed-torque relationship in the pedal mapping (which is, as many sources say, more torque at higher speed, not less). That would be a pure speed pedal - pedal position effectively setting cruise control setpoint, with fixed torque limits you can't control. That would be an undrivable car.
That leaves my claim, driver pressing the pedal down to maintain speed like always before, but that's exactly what you are saying is not the case.
So what I am missing? My theory is that the cars you mention have just relatively lot of power and torque available, and snappy pedal response, thus, the adjustments you need to do in moderate uphills are small enough you just do it subconsciously. Or, you just drive with cruise control mostly so do not notice. And when driving without cruise control, you would do it in urban environments e.g. with intersections which means you would usually also want to slow down going uphill (e.g., visibility reasons) and that happens naturally.
-
Target speed and speed error are two different variables.
Also they probably take into account derivatives of the pedal position.
-
Target speed and speed error are two different variables.
Also they probably take into account derivatives of the pedal position.
Target speed and derivative of setpoint are concepts of cruise control. I don't think any car manufacturer has a concept of "target speed" in manual throttle mode (drive by pedal), but maybe I'm wrong. If there is, then tom66's observations would make sense.
-
All I can say is both my e-cars drive that way. I have not driven a Leaf, so could not comment on anything other than what is publicly provided about that car. I have not tried to climb mountains, I'm talking normal slopes like you find on highways and regional roads.
For what it's worth my hybrid ICE did not behave in the same way - you had to apply more throttle to go up hills. I suspect this was a fuel economy decision, since obviously increasing engine load means you burn more fuel, so by forcing you to press the pedal harder they game the economy slightly.
-
All I can say is both my e-cars drive that way. I have not driven a Leaf, so could not comment on anything other than what is publicly provided about that car. I have not tried to climb mountains, I'm talking normal slopes like you find on highways and regional roads.
For what it's worth my hybrid ICE did not behave in the same way - you had to apply more throttle to go up hills. I suspect this was a fuel economy decision, since obviously increasing engine load means you burn more fuel, so by forcing you to press the pedal harder they game the economy slightly.
So, I really suspect just: having a lot of power, sensitive pedal, subconscious unnoticed adjustment of the pedal uphill or slight slowdown on slopes you don't notice because you are concentrated on traffic, because you really can't support your observation with hard facts. Surely if I compare LEAF to older gasoline cars I have driven, going uphill needs much less extra throttle, and the reason is simply better availability of torque. Especially some normal 1.6-liter family car with manual stick in 5th gear has very little extra torque available to begin with, requiring significant extra movement on the pedal, like, from 30% position easily to 70% position (going even further is likely diminishing returns on torque and could push efficiency down, prompting shifting to 4th gear instead; I don't really know, just assuming). With an EV running at 1/6th of the available torque, the same effect could be from 30% to 35% position. I'm probably noticing it more because I use LEAF's ECO mode all the time, I don't like modern day super sensitive snappy pedals. The "default" mode tries to pretend being sporty, but just leaves a dead zone, because while 160kW is decent power, it isn't a sports car.
-
So, I really suspect just: having a lot of power, sensitive pedal, subconscious unnoticed adjustment of the pedal uphill or slight slowdown on slopes you don't notice because you are concentrated on traffic, because you really can't support your observation with hard facts.
It could also be the opposite, speed gets unnoticed. I sometimes drive on a winding road where the speed limit is 60km/h, during uphill most drive slightly lower than 60km/h while during downhill they drive higher than 60km/h, whether they are in EV or ICE. I use the gas pedal(uphill) and engine braking(downshift, downhill) to control exactly 60km/h, but I often feel like a weirdo as I constantly overtake during uphill or being overtaken at downhill.
Electric motor controller typically controls the torque/power delivered to the motor proportional to the gas pedal times the motor's rated torque power. The motor's torque curve is often a straight line from 0km/h to middle speed, then goes y=1/x at higher speeds, Half throttle is y/2, etc.
ICE is different as the torque/power curve is only on full throttle. Partial throttle is not torque times the throttle opening. The engine torque is mostly a function of the manifold pressure. when the engine is at max RPM, half throttle means 0.5atm pressure. However at low RPM, even 20% throttle may get you 0.8atm since the engine runs slower there's less vacuum. The transmission compensate that (assume you drive an automatic) for comfort and fuel efficiency. At low throttle the engine delivers mid to high torque at low RPM and low torque at high RPM, the gearbox upshifts to keep the engine at low RPM to increase efficiency, the higher torque at low RPM is compensated by the gear ratio, the torque on wheels are low. At mid throttle the engine gives nearly max torque at low RPM but half torque at max RPM, the gearbox shifts to mid RPM and with a higher reduction ratio to give higher torque to the wheels. At high throttle the gearbox just uses the lowest possible gear. In conclusion the gearbox's computer keeps the engine sufficiently loaded, the gear ratio selection compensate the engine's partial throttle torque characteristics to give a linear-ish feeling.
Here's a torque of an ICE at partial throttle.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.optimumg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/throttle_map.png)
Unfortunately I couldn't find the torque curve of an electric motor at partial throttle, they are either max torque curve or without a controller.
-
It could also be the opposite, speed gets unnoticed.
Yeah, sensible people in sensible countries do not overfixate on speed, it's counterproductive. Finland's different - we have 10-30 km/h slower speed limits than everywhere else, with social pressure that you overspeed by 5-10 km/h, with 200EUR fine starting at 7km/h overspeed, so it's a delicate game. You need to drive exactly 6 km/h over the limit. Easy with cruise control. With this magical value, you don't need to overtake much, and will not be overtaken. Without cruise control, it makes you fixate to your speedometer. Which is actually more risky, than sometimes accidentally overspeeding by 11 km/h, so approaching the normal driving speeds of normal countries.
-
Have only read the last three or four pages of this thread, but there are a few of points I haven't seen mentioned. On both of my EVs 1 pedal driving is a choice in a setup menu. When not selected I find the driving experience much like driving an automatic transmission ICE. My wife happens to prefer 1 pedal driving, so that is what I use when in her car. It takes some getting used to, but is generally OK. My vehicle remains in the conventional mode.
One bad thing about one pedal driving is associated with cruise control. If cruise control is disabled the car immediately brakes to achieve the speed that pedal position wants. I seldom can get it right for a smooth transition. This could be avoided by limiting acceleration magnitude when cruise is disabled, but I can see circumstances where this would be inappropriate.
A note for those aiming for a "perfect" relationship between deceleration and brake light operation. Traditional ICE vehicles, and I suspect most if not all modern ICE vehicles activate the brake lights based on a switch sensing the brake pedal position, and is ideally adjusted to light when the pads barely touch. After all of the variations in vehicle design and maintenance this has at best a very loose correlation with more than the sign of the acceleration. Note also that there are quite a few "two footed drivers" of ICE vehicles, with one foot lightly on the brake and one on the accelerator pedal. This often results in flashing or inconsistent brake light activation. While deceleration based brake lights might be a good safety feature, this is a motor vehicle issue, not an EV issue.
-
Note also that there are quite a few "two footed drivers" of ICE vehicles, with one foot lightly on the brake and one on the accelerator pedal. This often results in flashing or inconsistent brake light activation.
Really? I would not have guessed that. Left foot on the brake, right foot on the accelerator? Bloody dangerous if you ask me. Cannot imagine this is ever taught during driving lessons. Maybe driving an automatic they would get away with it, but boy are they in for a surprise if they ever change into a car with a clutch and stickshift 😀
While deceleration based brake lights might be a good safety feature, this is a motor vehicle issue, not an EV issue.
I think this is mandatory now on new vehicles. As is flashing those lights when emergency braking.
-
Driver’s education in the US, at least in my youth, explicitly warned against two-feet pedal driving, even with automatic transmission (clutch-less).
A current problem, crying for a technical solution, is confusion of brake and accelerator pedals by older drivers in panic mode, with obvious outcomes, using only one foot.
-
I agree that both driver training and many states operating rules/regulations in the US are against two foot driving. I don't know statistics on what percentage of people do this, but have been a passenger with a number of drivers that do, have discussed it with others in social situations and followed cars whose brake light response is hard to explain otherwise. I have even heard defense of the practice as a method to reduce reaction time for braking.
All this is not to defend the practice, just pointing out that it is not rare.
-
My surprise came from the fact that in NL the vast majority (>92%, 2024) of drivers still get their license for cars with manual transmissions, the reason being that a license for an automatic is only valid for an automatic, where the license for a manual is valid for both types of transmission. I could not see how anyone, having learned to drive a stick shift, would ever use their left foot to brake.
But in an automatic it would be possible.
-
I could not see how anyone, having learned to drive a stick shift, would ever use their left foot to brake.
But in an automatic it would be possible.
Well...
I vividly remember the first time i drove an automatic. The reflex of hitting the clutch in preparation to downshift is *strong*. :D I was driving manual for ~15 years at that point.
Well, i learned the brakes work fine. And luckily i was alone, not on the main road yet, and therefore not very fast yet. :phew:
I still have to fight this instinct sometimes. My main car is still manual, and i only rarely drive automatic.
-
The reflex of hitting the clutch in preparation to downshift is *strong*.
Yep, and not only that but the left foot is used to exerting much greater pressure than the right one, so hitting the brakes with the left foot can be a nose-into-steering wheel event. I quickly learned to tuck my left foot under the seat to keep it out of the way.
-
I still have to fight this instinct sometimes. My main car is still manual, and i only rarely drive automatic.
I often change between an automatic M3 and a manual Mini. The mistake I see myself make moving from M3 to Mini is that I sometimes forget to use the Mini's clutch when coming to a stop, killing the engine. The car is smart enough to restart the engine as soon as I find the clutch so this silly mistake usually slips by unnoticed by others :)
From Mini to M3 I just place my left foot firmly on the footrest on the left side of the well and keep it there. So far I never experienced the 'brake with the clutch foot' error.
-
Here's another ICE torque curve at partial throttle.(https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8club.com-vbulletin/1624x865/80-stock_desired_engine_torque_029b10ce27ed22edba7f929c0260c6998d022f77.png) At below half throttle, the throttle roughly controls the engine speed, the faster the engine RPM the lower the torque
Finally found one for electric motor.
(https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/e4/69/ce291758b40763/US08560143-20131015-D00000.png)
and yes, it's linear
-
Finally found one for electric motor.
It's a patent, so just an example with values that might be misleading on purpose. Google is your friend, e.g. reverse-engineered Tesla model 3 pedal map: https://i.imgur.com/8OjhYGv.png
Showing almost constant pedal position -> torque relationship, despite people saying it's difficult to drive; but with funny "boost" at very low speeds, to give snappier start.
Increasing torque with higher speed would counteract the square relationship of aerodynamic drag and thus make it behave more like "acceleration pedal" than "torque pedal", at least on flat surface. For hills, actual acceleration feedback would be needed, though.
Unless I'm missing something, but I don't think I am.
-
Given all the dots all over the place and the fact the electric motor could hit the line almost instantly, it could be a long term target with shorter term targets based on other effects (such as pedal depression derivative).
Also on flat terrain at constant weather it would be really easy to mix up cause and effect.
-
(such as pedal depression derivative).
It's an interesting idea. But which way would you do it? Overshoot the response - but EVs are very "snappy" already to the point you need to be quite careful with the pedal - similarly, for regen in slippery conditions (ESP/ABS will of course react fast and communicate with the inverter to reduce regen, but it's still better not to cause the slip to begin with), exaggerating the effect from lifting you foot up seems a colossally bad idea.
So it would need to go the other way - reduce the snappiness with a derivative, basically a stabilizing term? Maybe someone does it? Maybe it's a better low-delay alternative to just filtering the signal - stabilize with derivative, reducing the human doing overshoot without causing actual delay (bulk of the signal goes through directly). Or maybe they use Kalman filter or something.
-
Showing almost constant pedal position -> torque relationship, despite people saying it's difficult to drive; but with funny "boost" at very low speeds, to give snappier start.
So the throttle control is indeed linear, partial throttle gives partial torque/power.
The funny boost is not about snappier start, it's because the car only has one pedal driving mode. When the speed is too low the motor can't regen. At 8km/h the duty cycle becomes zero, the motor becomes dynamic braking.
The throttle mapping is 0~20% regen, 20~100% accelerate. If the car is below 8km/h, a <20% throttle will give nothing and as the driver pushing the pedal harder there will be sudden acceleration as the pedal crosses 20%. To avoid the deadzone, the throttle has to be mapped 0~100% accelerate at 0km/h, 0~10% regen 10%~100% accelerate at 4km/h and 0~20% regen, 20~100% accelerate at >8km/h.