($42k - $5k) x 1.0725 = $39.6825k
$39.6825k - $9k = $30.6825k
$30.6825k / 1.0725 ~= $28.6084k
(I'm being generous with the sales tax multiplier)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Master Plan: GM got there first
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
($42k - $5k) x 1.0725 = $39.6825k
$39.6825k - $9k = $30.6825k
$30.6825k / 1.0725 ~= $28.6084k
(I'm being generous with the sales tax multiplier)
It's true, and fairly easy to explain. Note, though, that there's no difference until the front wheels lose traction and start to spin, which will happen at a lower acceleration than in a RWD car.
Every car has a center of mass, which (viewed from the side) will be roughly in the middle, between the front and back wheels. In the case of a stationary car (or one moving at constant speed), the weight on each pair of wheels depends inversely on the distance of those wheels to the center of gravity. So in a car with the engine in front above the wheels and pretending that the rest of the car weighs nothing at all, all the weight will be on the front wheels and none on the back wheels. In reality, of course, there will be some amount of weight on the front and some possibly different amount of weight on the back wheels. Many serious sports cars have the engine in the middle or slightly behind (Ferrari etc.) to try to get this weight balance to be as close to even as possible, for good handling.
Aside: an interesting demonstration of this is to take a flat stiff object, like a ruler, and lay it over your index fingers at each end. Then start moving your hands together. Initially one finger will start to slip, but as it approaches the center of the ruler, more of the weight of the ruler will be supported by that finger. Eventually the friction between the ruler and that finger will increase to the point that that finger will grip, and the other finger will start to slip! It doesn't matter how you do it, until your fingers get quite close together, the ruler will stay roughly centered between them, and will self-correct to make sure this is true.
The center of gravity of the car is also above the road, not at street level. Now, acceleration comes into the picture. Acceleration and gravity are physically interchangeable. Initially you had a gravity force pointing straight down, but now you're accelerating so you have a corresponding gravity-like force also pointing towards the rear of the car. The resulting net force is angled down and back, and the more you accelerate the more angled toward the rear it gets. Where that angled force line meets the road, that's the effective center of gravity of the accelerating vehicle. So the weight on the front wheels decreases (as does their grip from friction) while the weight on the rear wheels increases (as does their grip). If you accelerate enough that that point moves behind the rear axle, you pop a wheelie, like drag racers or motorcycle riders can do.
The Civic Hatch with Automatic, Nav, Adaptive, and Remote= $29,884 including destination and tax.
Volt with all that is less. And has better response in passing and lower CG and higher safety,..
brucet999
Active Member
I am confused. As I read it, the above seems to prove that RWD traction is greater in acceleration and FWD is less. What am I missing?
I imagined the unweighting of the front wheels to be more related to the rotational force applied to the drive wheels tending to rotate the car about the drive axle in the opposite direction of the wheels' rotation. If that axle is the rear, the front wheels will be unweighted. If the drive axle is in front, then the car will try to rotate around that axle, pressing the rear wheels more strongly onto the ground, but with no chance of popping a wheelie.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
EV-lutioin
Active Member
I need to take you with me when I buy my next car! ... oh, wait, my next car will be a Model 3, no haggling necessary. Problem solved.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
There's always the Clarity EV.... ha, ha, ha
I would buy the Bolt over the Clarity EV, and it is not even a close call for this longstanding Honda fan.
There is no car that demonstrates Honda's commitment to fuel cells than the Clarity.
It is interesting to note the Clarity is joint Honda/GM project. GM holds most of the fuel cells patents. They were the first to build a fuel cell passenger car and then put well over 3,000,000 road miles on FC cars this decade. They are building some for the US Army as well.
It makes you wonder that if GM is the undisputed king of H2 tech, why aren't they selling any? They are all CTF (captured test fleet) cars, not for sale or lease.
Two guesses:
Best guess? GM is OK with H2 development for development's sake, but would like to monetize some of the research by licensing the patents to Honda and others. But they are well aware H2 is not viable for passenger cars.
Second best? GM is scared to death of California Bureaucrats who seem to be out to screw them every chance they get. H2 gets double credits, but GM is Charlie Brown and CARB is Lucy holding the football, and they know it.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Its not always the person that gets to the finish line first that wins.
List of stripped Olympic medals - Wikipedia
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I suspect that your first guess is most likely to be true. Given that GM owns the most patents related to fuel cells, and given GM's extensive institutional knowledge of EVs through EV1 to Volt and Bolt programs, I find it difficult to believe that they would be placing so much emphasis on Bolt and its successors if fuel cells were in fact their future direction.
Basically, GM knows too much about this and the chances of them making the wrong decision are slim to none. They've sided with EVs.
The fuel cell projects are probably kept around just in case an advance in the technology makes it more viable. The cost to continue current R&D in this area is probably marginal in GM's overall budget.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This is true.
LEAF was first, and the battery turned out to be not very good. Hopefully Nissan's 2nd try will be better, because as things are now the LEAF is completely outclassed by the Bolt.
Garlan Garner
Banned
No, No.... the LEAF gets an honorable mention IMHO. Again....first is not always the best position to be in.
Lets play that game where two people agree to take turns punching each other in the face until someone is knocked out? Who wants to volunteer to get punched first?
Sometimes its a matter of who is left standing at the end of the game. Both the LEAF and the BOLT are about to receive a punch by the Model 3 and I don't believe they will be left standing as they are right now.
That's not MSRP is it? I'd deducted $5k for the easily-available incentives on the Volt in California.
And the Civic does have power seats and a moon/sun*roof.
But it wasn't really what I was getting at. I just hate that people ignore the fact that the incentives are post tax. My number was CA state sales tax only and ignored local taxes. I also ignored the VLF, which would add another $400. (VET in Maine would add more than that). All in, in California, pre-tax v post-tax on $9,000 will add over $1,000 to the cost.
* Depends on how hot it is where you live.
Last edited:
I said REAR drive was better for traction during acceleration. The basic reason is pure physics. Weight transfer causes the front end to lift reducing amount of weight pressing the tire to the road. In front wheel drive this reduces traction (torque steer is when one wheel has better traction than the other). In rear wheel drive this affect increases rear wheel traction. Basically, all drag racers are rear wheel drive.
Not sure about "better ability to accelerate out of a skid" either. If your sliding you don't have traction so accelerating will only make tires spin further decreasing traction sending you straight into the wall.
brucet999
Active Member
Wow. I'd better schedule that brain transplant operation right away.
About the skid, I inarticulately tried to say that driven front wheels pulling in the direction of the curve are more effective on slick surfaces than passive front wheels trying to re-direct motion of the car that is being pushed by rear wheels.
This video presents a lot of interesting arguments that suggests the GM Bolt no matter how much of a technical achievement it was, is still intended as a compliance car.
Which makes me repeat my premise, no mater how good an EV seems, if it doesn't sell in substantial numbers, it didn't beat Tesla in any consequential issue at all.
Perhaps once M3 is shipping in substantial numbers GM will suddenly become serious about selling the Bolt. Time will tell.
It seems GM is managing the roll out in order to limit sales to the numbers it need for ZEV credits, while behind the scenes its still trying really hard to undo Obama's fleet mileage standards !
Which makes me repeat my premise, no mater how good an EV seems, if it doesn't sell in substantial numbers, it didn't beat Tesla in any consequential issue at all.
Perhaps once M3 is shipping in substantial numbers GM will suddenly become serious about selling the Bolt. Time will tell.
It seems GM is managing the roll out in order to limit sales to the numbers it need for ZEV credits, while behind the scenes its still trying really hard to undo Obama's fleet mileage standards !
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm not sure that Tesla is in competition with the Bolt. What is the bolts' competition in Tesla?
So if there is no competition....then how can anyone win or lose?
