-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla readies revamped Model 3
- Thread starter Chickenlips
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tesla news
People who lived through all the polyseal hype are very skeptical but the fact of the matter is that ceramic is a game changer. You can wash your car with just water and bird poop and Bug Splats which used to eventually eat into the clear coat and then the paint just don't make any impact at all. Better yet you can get a high quality ceramic do it yourself 30 ml bottle which for a couple of hours of elbow grease and another hour or two of paint preparation will save a fortune over what the professional shops are charging (bilking?) customers..
Last edited:
The key to ceramics is the prep - application (for DIY products) is simple enough, but you are looking at several hours of decontamination and paint swirl removal before you get to that stage, or at least if you want it last more than a few weeks...
The historical application of so called paint protection products by dealers before you pick up the car you would have been lucky if the Saturday guy with a bucket and sponge has given it a wipe over before dabbing on the protection.
The historical application of so called paint protection products by dealers before you pick up the car you would have been lucky if the Saturday guy with a bucket and sponge has given it a wipe over before dabbing on the protection.
@dfwatt , Well I'm with @Zilla91 comments regarding bugs sticking to paintwork - it doesn't make any difference what you apply onto the clear coat to protect it - the bugs splatter and dry on top of it and sticks like *sugar* to a blanket. I don't use ceramics and to be honest I don't believe the hype either - its just another "magic" liquid rubbed onto the paint and buffed off - all this Nano & micro tech pseudo intellectual spiel is just marketing bull.
I love detailing and I machine polish my car to remove every tiny swirl and defect I can find, Once buffed up I apply carnauba wax - a pea size bit into the palm of my hands and massage it a panel at a time, leave to haze over and then buff it up with three microfibre cloths - to get a super shine, and i do this every 6 months, - however, go for a drive and the splattered bugs dry on exactly the same as they do on peoples cars who just give their car a wash every few months - the only difference polishing and waxing and indeed ceramic coating makes is it extends the period of time it takes for corrosive elements to etch the clear coat - like tree sap and bird poo - and of course it improves the shine.
I use R222 (formerly P21) wax, but I used Zymol Vintage wax for many years - the absolute dogs danglies according to the manufacturers - and it costs £2400 a pot (though you do get free refills for life) and I have to tell you R222 at £60 a pot performs every bit as good as the Zymol in terms of shine, longevity and protection. I don't believe there is any magic potion that gives a care free super shiny car - the secret is damn hard work in the preparation, and its not a few hours of work either, I spend a minimum of 5 x 12 hour days to clean and polish my car.
I love detailing and I machine polish my car to remove every tiny swirl and defect I can find, Once buffed up I apply carnauba wax - a pea size bit into the palm of my hands and massage it a panel at a time, leave to haze over and then buff it up with three microfibre cloths - to get a super shine, and i do this every 6 months, - however, go for a drive and the splattered bugs dry on exactly the same as they do on peoples cars who just give their car a wash every few months - the only difference polishing and waxing and indeed ceramic coating makes is it extends the period of time it takes for corrosive elements to etch the clear coat - like tree sap and bird poo - and of course it improves the shine.
I use R222 (formerly P21) wax, but I used Zymol Vintage wax for many years - the absolute dogs danglies according to the manufacturers - and it costs £2400 a pot (though you do get free refills for life) and I have to tell you R222 at £60 a pot performs every bit as good as the Zymol in terms of shine, longevity and protection. I don't believe there is any magic potion that gives a care free super shiny car - the secret is damn hard work in the preparation, and its not a few hours of work either, I spend a minimum of 5 x 12 hour days to clean and polish my car.
False equivalence on wax and ceramic. Sorry. That's just not true. Wax is an organic molecule to which other organic molecules bond rather freely. It is hydrophobic. That is the only similarity with ceramic. Posts by people climbing that bugs stick to ceramic the same way they do to wax and to paint but who've never actually tried ceramic reflect the Triumph of Doctrine over experience. For references on this see scientific method. Under scientific method see epistemological status of untested assumptions accepted on face value.
Last edited:
Zilla91
Active Member
Mate, I'm telling you all my recent cars have been ceramic coated from new and it makes no difference to bug splatter
Zilla91
Active Member
This stuff
www.gtechniq.co.uk
Ceramic Coating Products: Boat, Bike, & Car Shampoo Wash | Gtechniq
Gtechniq formulates specialized, high-performance ceramic coating products, washes, shampoos, and more for cars, boats, and bikes.
www.gtechniq.co.uk
Won't work like that. As they get more density the batteries don't have to weigh anymore. Intact quite possible the weight will drop once we get to things like solid state batteries.
Weight also isn't a big deal to range. If you look at Mercedes EQXX they state that roughly 60% of energy goes to drag, 20% to power train efficiency and last 20% to weight and friction. Adding a few 100kg more to a car in the scheme of things makes less difference than you think.
You are also missing one other point. The more capacity a battery has, the faster you can charge it generally. So maybe you have a 500 mile battery and have 100 miles to get home so you charge for 10 mins and end up with enough. Or you could have a 150 mile battery and probably have to charge for close to an hour as it'll charge so much slower.
So if you want faster charging, it's a mix of chemistry changes and / or large capacity batteries that get us there at the moment.
1,000 kWh is maybe a bit excessive as an example. We probably only need 150 kWh in a Model 3 to have a range compatible to most ICE cars. The weight difference won't be that massive and won't have a massive impact on efficiency. Model S goes further than Model 3 despite being larger and heavier, not all that extra weight is the bigger battery.
I think they've settled on a size that they think gives enough range to get people to buy a car without making them too expensive. It's not an efficiency choice but finding the right range vs price ratio at the moment. As they get cheaper though I do hope they'll give more expensive models larger batteries.
Zilla91
Active Member
More weight will make the car less fun to drive. That alone is what put me off the BMW i4 because that thing felt so heavy
Right that's a different requirement of course rather than weight impacting efficiency too much.
Ultimately I think as they improve energy density we'll get more range for the same or even less weight. It's just a matter of time. What I hope they don't all do is just put smaller batteries in to keep the total kWh of the pack the same. Yes for some cheaper cars to exist this has to happen but give us a choice, I want a larger pack and I'll pay for it.
I would look at the longer battery this way:
if range would suddenly become 500 miles, meaning that it is ~100 kwh. this would mean that I would stop to charge at SC for longer time but much less often.
Now for most people, you stop only during long trips. and in many cases this is like 15 min top up session (I presume)
but since with larger battery you reach your destination without need of SC - this slot will remain open.
if range would suddenly become 500 miles, meaning that it is ~100 kwh. this would mean that I would stop to charge at SC for longer time but much less often.
Now for most people, you stop only during long trips. and in many cases this is like 15 min top up session (I presume)
but since with larger battery you reach your destination without need of SC - this slot will remain open.
yup. this is what I do. If I need to fly out from some airport which is like 100 + miles away, I always stop on my way forward, to top up. usually it is from like 60% to 80% as I am not fancy to stop for a charge in case I might need to do that on my trip back after long flight.... I would not do that at all if range was longer.
LiamPope
Member
You're missing an important factor! The number of EVs on the roads is only going up. Fast! Even if higher capacity batteries will facilitate quicker charging and more people charging more/exclusively at home, that reduction of pressure on charging locations will be more than cancelled out by more and more EVs entering operation faster than the UK builds charging infrastructure! Less queues - lol!
MrBadger
Badger out
I worked for a place that did expert analysis on this type of thing - their work would have been peer reviewed and would often turn up in reputable leading edge science journals etc.
They did a comparison of battery vs hydrogen. It was quite some while ago, so goalposts have probably moved, but their range cutoff for economic move from battery to hydrogen was in the ballpark of some of the numbers being discussed above. Off top of my head, if you wanted 300 mile range, it was battery, if you wanted 600 mile range, it was hydrogen. The switchover was somewhere in between.
There may also have been a commercial bias to the type of vehicles being analysed - but may be wrong on that as certainly the presentation that I attended on the subject discussed hydrogen filling stations and logistics in a similar vein to petrol filling stations.
After coming out of that I was convinced that Hydrogen was the way forward, but look where we are today...
They did a comparison of battery vs hydrogen. It was quite some while ago, so goalposts have probably moved, but their range cutoff for economic move from battery to hydrogen was in the ballpark of some of the numbers being discussed above. Off top of my head, if you wanted 300 mile range, it was battery, if you wanted 600 mile range, it was hydrogen. The switchover was somewhere in between.
There may also have been a commercial bias to the type of vehicles being analysed - but may be wrong on that as certainly the presentation that I attended on the subject discussed hydrogen filling stations and logistics in a similar vein to petrol filling stations.
After coming out of that I was convinced that Hydrogen was the way forward, but look where we are today...
i am always baffled when people say that hydrogen is the way forward.
How can you have a process which involves additional steps to be more efficient than the one which does not have these additional steps?
makes very little to no sense
How can you have a process which involves additional steps to be more efficient than the one which does not have these additional steps?
makes very little to no sense
I guess the logic is that even with the inefficiencies in conversion, you can store a lot more energy in the same space and therefore the vehicles will travel for much further.
As I understand it though the vast majority (e.g. 90%+) of journeys are very short, so hydrogen seems to be a solution looking for a problem from the sounds of it.
As I understand it though the vast majority (e.g. 90%+) of journeys are very short, so hydrogen seems to be a solution looking for a problem from the sounds of it.
Similar threads
- Question
