I didn't compare, but Lucid engineers who came from Tesla claim that it is smaller than Tesla's motor, but more power.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Lucid (Atieva) reveal is December 14th. I'll be there, let you know afterwards.
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
I didn't compare, but Lucid engineers who came from Tesla claim that it is smaller than Tesla's motor, but more power.
Ok... Second article on my blog is being worked on... should have it out soon.
In the meantime, here are some of my shots of the two motors.
Front:
IMG_0906 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
Back:
IMG_0907 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
IMG_0908 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
In the meantime, here are some of my shots of the two motors.
Front:
IMG_0906 by Dennis Pascual, on FlickrBack:
IMG_0907 by Dennis Pascual, on FlickrIMG_0908 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
diamond.g
Active Member
palmer_md
Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Engineering 101.
The closer a driver is to the front bumper the likelier an injury.
The bigger the crumple zone the safer the car.
Not rocket science.
There are tradeoffs. If cab forward design was all positive with no cons every car would be cab forward.
Designing a crash structure that can manage energy effectively to minimize injury to passengers goes far beyong Engineering 101.
Advancement in material science, processes and joining methods has allowed smaller structure to control deceleration very effectively.
Advance CAE tools like ANSYS and ABAQUS in the right hands can accurately model every crash modes from low speed damageability, pedpro, to the new small overlap. These tools allow rapid design iterations on the crash structure system from bumper beam to crush cans to crash rails to torque box, etc. What I am trying to say is a shorter front end doesn't necessary mean shorter crumple zone if the structural system is designed correctly to slow down deceleration, absorb energy and channel remaining energy away from passenger cabin. I would give Lucid the benefit of the doubt.
Cab forward design does have a negative. It means less space to package under the hood. If you look at the Chrysler cars you quoted, they have ugly long front overhangs to make up for lost space. Also, good luck stuffing a V8 or V10 in there. Lucid doesn't have that problem since their 400hp front motor is so small, smaller than Tesla's, they claimed.
In case it's useful, here's a link to my article about Lucid's Silicon Valley reveal back in December. This touches on a number of technical details not covered elsewhere:
Lucid Takes On Tesla With New Luxury Sedan - HybridCars.com
Lucid Takes On Tesla With New Luxury Sedan - HybridCars.com
Finally got around to completing my article on my blog for the second day of Lucid's visit to Souuhern California last week.
As a bonus, my wife was able to record our test ride on video (it's in the article, but if you want to click to that directly -
)
I have the same motor shots in there article above. But have a ton of interior shots as well as pictures of both trunks opened (they don't call the frunk that, it's just a front trunk).
IMG_0977 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
IMG_0975 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
As a bonus, my wife was able to record our test ride on video (it's in the article, but if you want to click to that directly -
I have the same motor shots in there article above. But have a ton of interior shots as well as pictures of both trunks opened (they don't call the frunk that, it's just a front trunk).
IMG_0977 by Dennis Pascual, on FlickrIMG_0975 by Dennis Pascual, on Flickr
green1
Active Member
The reason they were able to make it larger inside while smaller outside is simple. No Elon.
A common theme in all the interviews with the Lucid folks who came from Tesla is how Elon dictated all sorts of things that made the car worse. A reporter told an interior engineer how great it was that this car had rear cup-holders and the engineer said that he had tried to include them on the S but Elon had vetoed them.
Ask Rawlinson how this is better than the S he designed before, and he'll tell you it's the first time he's been allowed a clean sheet. On the S he was handed an exterior, and told to build a car. That caused a lot of compromises. Here they all worked together to optimize it.
Have you ever been able to do your best work with your boss constantly micro-managing you? I know I haven't.
A common theme in all the interviews with the Lucid folks who came from Tesla is how Elon dictated all sorts of things that made the car worse. A reporter told an interior engineer how great it was that this car had rear cup-holders and the engineer said that he had tried to include them on the S but Elon had vetoed them.
Ask Rawlinson how this is better than the S he designed before, and he'll tell you it's the first time he's been allowed a clean sheet. On the S he was handed an exterior, and told to build a car. That caused a lot of compromises. Here they all worked together to optimize it.
Have you ever been able to do your best work with your boss constantly micro-managing you? I know I haven't.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The theoretical maximum safety of a long crush zone is better than the theoretical maximum safety of a short crush zone.
You can change other design features that make a car safer or less safe. Doesn't change fact that longer crush zones offer engineers more safety potential.
It would be laughable to suggest Lucid engineers are so brilliant and Tesla engineers so stupid that they overcome this handicap and Air matches Model S for safety.
green1
Active Member
There's a LOT more to it than length, there's the overall shape too. Considering Tesla engineers were apparently not allowed to play with that as it was handed down from on high, I think they'll have much better luck here optimizing things properly without the artificial constraints.
As for which engineers are "smarter"... a large portion of them are the same people, so that seems like a foolish road to try to follow.
davidc18
Active Member
You know that most of those Tesla engineers are now Lucid engineers, right?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Most likely meant most Lucid engineers are former Tesla engineers. It's unlikely that Lucid has the resources to hire most of Tesla's engineers.
Similar threads
- Article
