The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Most of that is complete and utter nonsense. Especially the third point about it taking the same amount of energy to move cars of the same weight. 60-70% of the energy in gasoline is wasted as heat and vibration in an ICE engine because when burning gasoline it's impossible to harness most of the energy for productive work. A fact made even worse since most ICE cars aren't hybrids and therefore aren't capable of regenerative braking. The fact is, it requires much less overall energy to move an electric car than an ICE car of a similar size.

The point about all batteries "inevitably ending up in the landfill" is also wrong since it's possible to recycle materials in car batteries. And even if the couldn't be, a car battery car be recharged hundreds to thousands of times whereas each tank of gas is single use and fossil fuels also contain toxins.

The talking about about the mining is also just as much an issue with ICE vehicles since there's no reason to think things like the tar sands or deep sea drilling are less environmentally hazardous that mines for battery materials. And fossil fuels can and have also led to plenty of conflict.

Also, the point about the percentage of electricity generated non-renewably is mostly bunk, partly because EVs due require less energy overall as previously mentioned, but also because the process gas already started to increase the percentage of renewable sources whereas we've basically exhausted the options for making ICE vehicles greener and more efficient.

Plus them calling the zero emissions thing a "myth." It isn't a myth that EVs don't have any tailpipe emissions which is extremely important from a public health and quality of life perspective since so many cars operate in urban areas. EVs not only lack combustion emissions, but they (along with hybrids) also have lower particulate from brake dust due to their regenerative braking. And these larger particulates are particularly nasty with links to both cancer and heart disease. There are many global cities that suffer severe air quality issues with the leading cause by from ICE vehicles.

I do agree with the general point that EVs are not "green" and are not "utopian" since all cars including EVs require a huge amount of energy and materials which impacts the environment so it's important that people are aware of that. But the remedy is driving less and making due with fewer cars and smaller cars, while quotes like that deceptively imply that ICE vehicles are no worse - or actually better - than EVs when in reality EVs are a drastic improvement. They do this with a combination of pointing out some actual harm caused by EVs while neglecting to state that the harm from ICE vehicles is worse while throwing in a few complete falsehoods for good measure.

what a great post.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

saw this on facebook by someone who prefers gas powered cars.

It's telling that you get your education on a topic from Facebook forwards....

Sadly, those threads persist because responding to bullshit is time consuming and requires a ton of effort.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Most of that is complete and utter nonsense. Especially the third point about it taking the same amount of energy to move cars of the same weight. 60-70% of the energy in gasoline is wasted as heat and vibration in an ICE engine because when burning gasoline it's impossible to harness most of the energy for productive work. A fact made even worse since most ICE cars aren't hybrids and therefore aren't capable of regenerative braking. The fact is, it requires much less overall energy to move an electric car than an ICE car of a similar size.

The point about all batteries "inevitably ending up in the landfill" is also wrong since it's possible to recycle materials in car batteries. And even if the couldn't be, a car battery car be recharged hundreds to thousands of times whereas each tank of gas is single use and fossil fuels also contain toxins.

The talking about about the mining is also just as much an issue with ICE vehicles since there's no reason to think things like the tar sands or deep sea drilling are less environmentally hazardous that mines for battery materials. And fossil fuels can and have also led to plenty of conflict.

Also, the point about the percentage of electricity generated non-renewably is mostly bunk, partly because EVs due require less energy overall as previously mentioned, but also because the process gas already started to increase the percentage of renewable sources whereas we've basically exhausted the options for making ICE vehicles greener and more efficient.

Plus them calling the zero emissions thing a "myth." It isn't a myth that EVs don't have any tailpipe emissions which is extremely important from a public health and quality of life perspective since so many cars operate in urban areas. EVs not only lack combustion emissions, but they (along with hybrids) also have lower particulate from brake dust due to their regenerative braking. And these larger particulates are particularly nasty with links to both cancer and heart disease. There are many global cities that suffer severe air quality issues with the leading cause by from ICE vehicles.

I do agree with the general point that EVs are not "green" and are not "utopian" since all cars including EVs require a huge amount of energy and materials which impacts the environment so it's important that people are aware of that. But the remedy is driving less and making due with fewer cars and smaller cars, while quotes like that deceptively imply that ICE vehicles are no worse - or actually better - than EVs when in reality EVs are a drastic improvement. They do this with a combination of pointing out some actual harm caused by EVs while neglecting to state that the harm from ICE vehicles is worse while throwing in a few complete falsehoods for good measure.

Good post, though I'm curious about your assertion about particulate in brake dust:

1) Is the amount of brake dust in the air significant enough to create a major health issue? It's understandable that it would be considered a hazard, but I would think that it is order of magnitudes smaller than the amount of particulate in the air from other sources.

2) How much particulate is reduced by regenerative braking? I haven't seen data on it, but I believe that regenerative braking mostly occurs during times when a light brake application would be used to regulate the speed of the vehicle, rather than coming to a full stop, or heavier braking situations, when conventional brakes do the the work.

3) I am aware of environmental issues caused by brake pad material, however, though the govt seems to be dealing with it through a change in requirements for the friction materials used.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good post, though I'm curious about your assertion about particulate in brake dust:

1) Is the amount of brake dust in the air significant enough to create a major health issue? It's understandable that it would be considered a hazard, but I would think that it is order of magnitudes smaller than the amount of particulate in the air from other sources.

2) How much particulate is reduced by regenerative braking? I haven't seen data on it, but I believe that regenerative braking mostly occurs during times when a light brake application would be used to regulate the speed of the vehicle, rather than coming to a full stop, or heavier braking situations, when conventional brakes do the the work.

3) I am aware of environmental issues caused by brake pad material, however, though the govt seems to be dealing with it through a change in requirements for the friction materials used.

I'm not too familiar with #1, but with respect to #2, I hardly ever touch the brakes on my Tesla 3, in regular urban driving. Of course I don't lead foot it either.

One other aspect is that high-torque EVs can run through tires faster if driven aggressively. Particulate from rubber may be an issue.

[ssiguy]

I have already stated several times why I think hydrogen, at least in the mid-long term, is a far superior choice to batteries so I won't repeat myself. That said, this talk of particulate matter also lays bear another distinct advantage of hydrogen over battery..........they have filters.

When a battery car drives it uses strictly stored energy while hydrogen requires air to take the portable hydrogen back to it's electric state. In other words, they suck in air which it then filters. It gets rid of the stuff that we in the West tend to now ignore when talking about climate change, good old fashioned pollution.

In heavily polluted countries like China and India, pollution means more to them than climate change because it effects their health, quality of life, and economy every single day. In other words pollution, unlike GHG emission, is personal. With hydrogen filters, the more you drive {assuming a clean energy source to produce same as battery} the cleaner your air becomes. Just as these countries "drove" themselves into their pollution nightmare, they can "drive" themselves out of it.

Batteries are pollution neutral while hydrogen is pollution negative.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have already stated several times why I think hydrogen, at least in the mid-long term, is a far superior choice to batteries, this talk of particulate matter also lays bear another distinct advantage of hydrogen over battery..........they have filters.

Uh, you know we're talking about dust from brake pads right?

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uh, you know we're talking about dust from brake pads right?

Yes I do.

Fuel cell vehicles weigh less than battery ones because batteries are so damn heavily. The "tire dust" is not an issue with FC.

Also the FC vehicle can clean up the dust coming from those battery vehicles via it's filters. Imagine if the billion vehicles in the smog invested countries of the world switched over to clean hydrogen. All of a sudden those polluting vehicles could undue to damage that their previous ICE vehicles created.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes I do.

Fuel cell vehicles weigh less than battery ones because batteries are so damn heavily. The "tire dust" is not an issue with FC.

Also the FC vehicle can clean up the dust coming from those battery vehicles via it's filters. Imagine if the billion vehicles in the smog invested countries of the world switched over to clean hydrogen. All of a sudden those polluting vehicles could undue to damage that their previous ICE vehicles created.

You're dreaming in technicolor as usual. Do hydrogen vehicles have regenerative braking?

I'd be willing to bet they use brakes more than EVs that use regen braking more than friction braking.

Economics and logistics make clean Hydrogen vehicles a complete pipe dream right now.

Edit: Check the curb weight of the Mirai FCEV vs the Tesla 3. Guess which one is heavier?

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes I do.

Fuel cell vehicles weigh less than battery ones because batteries are so damn heavily. The "tire dust" is not an issue with FC.

Also the FC vehicle can clean up the dust coming from those battery vehicles via it's filters. Imagine if the billion vehicles in the smog invested countries of the world switched over to clean hydrogen. All of a sudden those polluting vehicles could undue to damage that their previous ICE vehicles created.

I agree with what you're saying. The air cleaning (general air pollution reduction) capacity of hydrogen vehicles shouldn't be underestimated not to mention pure water out the tail pipe. And I don't see why a hydrogen vehicle wouldn't have regenerative braking given that a battery of some sort would no doubt exist to operate electric stuff within the vehicle...just not a massive battery. It's still an electric motor attached to the wheels. I think it highly likely that hydrogen storage systems will see improvement far beyond any amout that battery tech can improve. Batteries will never have the ability to power planes, trains and larger vehicles which will be powered by hydrogen. Personal hydrogen boilers for the home to create both electricity and heat/hot water are not that far off in the future. With your homemade electricity you'd still be able to plug in your battery electric vehicle at home for easy charging but ultimately you'd be charging your battery via hydrogen so why not skip a step and ditch the battery? All this said, it seems clear that we'll see a generation of BEVs before the ultimate tech is in place.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Good post, though I'm curious about your assertion about particulate in brake dust:

1) Is the amount of brake dust in the air significant enough to create a major health issue? It's understandable that it would be considered a hazard, but I would think that it is order of magnitudes smaller than the amount of particulate in the air from other sources.

2) How much particulate is reduced by regenerative braking? I haven't seen data on it, but I believe that regenerative braking mostly occurs during times when a light brake application would be used to regulate the speed of the vehicle, rather than coming to a full stop, or heavier braking situations, when conventional brakes do the the work.

3) I am aware of environmental issues caused by brake pad material, however, though the govt seems to be dealing with it through a change in requirements for the friction materials used.

Yes, according to a 2015 meta study titled "Brake wear particle emissions: a review" (published in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research) brake dust is often the largest source of non-exhaust particulate (or NEP) which also includes particles from tires, the road, and other mechanical components. However, the exact proportions depends on the stretch of road. Brake dust makes up the majority of the NEP near roads with more stopping due to intersections or congestion or with downhill sections, while it's a smaller percentage near flat, free-flowing roads. However, there tends to be a lot of stopping in urban areas and obviously urban areas is also where the population is concentrated.

Grigoratos, T., Martini, G. Brake wear particle emissions: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 2491–2504 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3696-8

Another study from this year published in the same journal found significant health risks involved in NEP, with the biggest risk area being the cardiovascular system. (below)

Stojanovic, N., Glisovic, J., Abdullah, O.I. et al. Particle formation due to brake wear, influence on the people health and measures for their reduction: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 9606–9625 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17907-3


There's also a 2021 study from the Journal of Hazardous Materials titled "Comparative analysis of non-exhaust airborne particles from electric and internal combustion engine vehicles" It specifically compares ICE vehicles to EVs in terms of NEPs and found that while EVs without regenerative braking actually produce more NEPs due to their greater weight (about 20% more for an otherwise equivalent vehicle), regen reduces that significantly to the point that large EVs actually produce fewer NEP than not only equivalent ICE vehicles but even some that are significantly smaller ICE vehicles. You can see one of the graphics they included in the study showing how gasoline ICE vehicles (or petrol as they call them since it was a British study) compared to EVs with different levels of regen capability. It should be noted that there are virtually no EVs on the market in NA that lack regenerative braking. While the regen is stronger in some vehicles than in others, the majority of braking can usually be done through regen. That is basically the whole reason for the existence of hybrids. If regen braking wasn't able to consistently recover the majority of the energy in a car's momentum, they wouldn't be able to offer such impressive fuel savings.

Click for full size image


Liu, Ye, Haibo Chen, Jianbing Gao, Ying Li, Kaushali Dave, Junyan Chen, Matteo Federici, and Guido Perricone. "Comparative Analysis of Non-exhaust Airborne Particles from Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles." Journal of Hazardous Materials 420 (2021): 126626.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Most of that is complete and utter nonsense. Especially the third point about it taking the same amount of energy to move cars of the same weight. 60-70% of the energy in gasoline is wasted as heat and vibration in an ICE engine because when burning gasoline it's impossible to harness most of the energy for productive work. A fact made even worse since most ICE cars aren't hybrids and therefore aren't capable of regenerative braking. The fact is, it requires much less overall energy to move an electric car than an ICE car of a similar size.

The point about all batteries "inevitably ending up in the landfill" is also wrong since it's possible to recycle materials in car batteries. And even if the couldn't be, a car battery car be recharged hundreds to thousands of times whereas each tank of gas is single use and fossil fuels also contain toxins.

The talking about about the mining is also just as much an issue with ICE vehicles since there's no reason to think things like the tar sands or deep sea drilling are less environmentally hazardous that mines for battery materials. And fossil fuels can and have also led to plenty of conflict.

Also, the point about the percentage of electricity generated non-renewably is mostly bunk, partly because EVs due require less energy overall as previously mentioned, but also because the process gas already started to increase the percentage of renewable sources whereas we've basically exhausted the options for making ICE vehicles greener and more efficient.

Plus them calling the zero emissions thing a "myth." It isn't a myth that EVs don't have any tailpipe emissions which is extremely important from a public health and quality of life perspective since so many cars operate in urban areas. EVs not only lack combustion emissions, but they (along with hybrids) also have lower particulate from brake dust due to their regenerative braking. And these larger particulates are particularly nasty with links to both cancer and heart disease. There are many global cities that suffer severe air quality issues with the leading cause by from ICE vehicles.

I do agree with the general point that EVs are not "green" and are not "utopian" since all cars including EVs require a huge amount of energy and materials which impacts the environment so it's important that people are aware of that. But the remedy is driving less and making due with fewer cars and smaller cars, while quotes like that deceptively imply that ICE vehicles are no worse - or actually better - than EVs when in reality EVs are a drastic improvement. They do this with a combination of pointing out some actual harm caused by EVs while neglecting to state that the harm from ICE vehicles is worse while throwing in a few complete falsehoods for good measure.

great post, some people just don't want to change. It's hard getting through to some.

[Nouvellecosse]

In terms of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), they do have regenerative braking since there is always a battery buffer rather than the fuel cell directly powering the motors since the fuel cells can't really amp up or down their power delivery very much to account for acceleration, going up hills, etc. FCVs would also be a major improvement over fossil fuel vehicles and for awhile there was serious debate as to whether vehicular electrification would be done using fuel cells or just batteries. FCVs do have their downsides however.

The biggest one is probably that FCVs and their related infrastructure are more complicated than BEVs. They still need electric motors, but instead of batteries they need both the fuel cell itself as well as the onboard hydrogen storage system. The hydrogen must be stored under extremely high pressure in order to have the energy density to achieve a competitive range, and the infrastructure to either compress the hydrogen or store the compressed hydrogen is more complicated and pricey than comparatively simple battery chargers. A facility that can actually produce hydrogen on site would be even more expensive compared to installing a charger, while having the hydrogen delivered the way gasoline currently is forfeits one of the big advantages of an electric vehicle which is the ability to use the power grid. Many people can actually charge a BEV at home.

That's not to say that FCVs are bad or aren't feasible. I'm sure they very well could have been if things just went slightly differently and there may still be some applications for them. I'd consider them fairly even with BEVs having a slight overall edge and much more current momentum.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

2) How much particulate is reduced by regenerative braking? I haven't seen data on it, but I believe that regenerative braking mostly occurs during times when a light brake application would be used to regulate the speed of the vehicle, rather than coming to a full stop, or heavier braking situations, when conventional brakes do the the work.

The only data I've seen on this type of thing is from the TTC. The mechanisms are similar so it may be enough for a zeroth-order approximation.

https://news.engineering.utoronto.ca...ontos-subways/

Obviously a single train is far heavier than a single roadway vehicle, but there are far more vehicles than trains.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not too familiar with #1, but with respect to #2, I hardly ever touch the brakes on my Tesla 3, in regular urban driving. Of course I don't lead foot it either.

One other aspect is that high-torque EVs can run through tires faster if driven aggressively. Particulate from rubber may be an issue.

Thanks for the info. I've not driven a full EV as yet, but it appears that Tesla's regen braking is much more aggressive than the hybrids and PHEVs I've driven.

I've always been impressed by regen braking, and as such would always switch up the display to show charge/discharge situations to try and optimize regen charging (especially on the PHEVS, as you get an obvious bonus of increased range on the battery side of things). So, as such I noticed the best regen on these cars happened when going down slight grades where you would just lightly brake to maintain constant speed. After a certain point the friction brakes would kick in and the energy was wasted as heat.

Haven't seen any data on particulate from rubber. I would imagine that would vary greatly depending on how aggressively one drives, much the same as brake particulate would vary based on driving style.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by rbt

The only data I've seen on this type of thing is from the TTC. The mechanisms are similar so it may be enough for a zeroth-order approximation.

https://news.engineering.utoronto.ca...ontos-subways/

Obviously a single train is far heavier than a single roadway vehicle, but there are far more vehicles than trains.

The issue with the subway is that while it does have regen braking and therefore would produce very low levels of particulate, many subway stations are indoors, often with ventilation similar to buildings just containing people, so the particles can build up in stations and tunnels day after day until the tiny amount becomes significant.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, according to a 2015 meta study titled "Brake wear particle emissions: a review" (published in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research) brake dust is often the largest source of non-exhaust particulate (or NEP) which also includes particles from tires, the road, and other mechanical components. However, the exact proportions depends on the stretch of road. Brake dust makes up the majority of the NEP near roads with more stopping due to intersections or congestion or with downhill sections, while it's a smaller percentage near flat, free-flowing roads. However, there tends to be a lot of stopping in urban areas and obviously urban areas is also where the population is concentrated.

Grigoratos, T., Martini, G. Brake wear particle emissions: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 2491–2504 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3696-8

Another study from this year published in the same journal found significant health risks involved in NEP, with the biggest risk area being the cardiovascular system. (below)

Stojanovic, N., Glisovic, J., Abdullah, O.I. et al. Particle formation due to brake wear, influence on the people health and measures for their reduction: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 9606–9625 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17907-3


There's also a 2021 study from the Journal of Hazardous Materials titled "Comparative analysis of non-exhaust airborne particles from electric and internal combustion engine vehicles" It specifically compares ICE vehicles to EVs in terms of NEPs and found that while EVs without regenerative braking actually produce more NEPs due to their greater weight (about 20% more for an otherwise equivalent vehicle), regen reduces that significantly to the point that large EVs actually produce fewer NEP than not only equivalent ICE vehicles but even some that are significantly smaller ICE vehicles. You can see one of the graphics they included in the study showing how gasoline ICE vehicles (or petrol as they call them since it was a British study) compared to EVs with different levels of regen capability. It should be noted that there are virtually no EVs on the market in NA that lack regenerative braking. While the regen is stronger in some vehicles than in others, the majority of braking can usually be done through regen. That is basically the whole reason for the existence of hybrids. If regen braking wasn't able to consistently recover the majority of the energy in a car's momentum, they wouldn't be able to offer such impressive fuel savings.

Click for full size image


Liu, Ye, Haibo Chen, Jianbing Gao, Ying Li, Kaushali Dave, Junyan Chen, Matteo Federici, and Guido Perricone. "Comparative Analysis of Non-exhaust Airborne Particles from Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles." Journal of Hazardous Materials 420 (2021): 126626.

Thanks for taking the time to post the results of your research. Muchly appreciated.

It appears that airborne particulate due to brake pad wear is more of a problem than I had imagined. I was thinking in terms of the particulate in the air due to exhaust, particularly diesels, but also from other sources such as wood stoves, industrial emissions, etc. However, when you consider that brake dust is emitted at ground level and in the most populated areas, it is obviously more of a health concern than I had thought.

In terms of regen vs non-regen braking as related to brake pad wear, I was thinking in terms of the volume of brake pad material depleted due to lack of regen capability on IC cars. In brake testing that I participated in several years ago, the pad wear on hybrid/PHEV vehicles was better than non-regen vehicles in general, but I don't recall the pad life to be significantly better (like maybe 10 - 20%?). Additionally, pad life on regen vehicles was reduced somewhat due to increased effects of corrosion from the brakes being worked less (i.e. pads seizing into caliper brackets, brake disc surface corrosion, etc.). Warren's post, however, tells me that regen on newer EVs is much more aggressive than that of the hybrids/PHEVs of just a few years ago, and thus the differences would be much more dramatic.

Moreover, when you consider that a set of brake pads can last in the neighbourhood of 70,000 - 90,000 km of driving (depending on driving style, mode and location of driving, etc), the volume of pad material that is turned into particulate over that time period (3 or 4 years on average) seemed to be relatively negligible. However, your data has changed my mind on that. Thanks!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by rbt

The only data I've seen on this type of thing is from the TTC. The mechanisms are similar so it may be enough for a zeroth-order approximation.

https://news.engineering.utoronto.ca...ontos-subways/

Obviously a single train is far heavier than a single roadway vehicle, but there are far more vehicles than trains.

Thanks! I found that very interesting.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for the info. I've not driven a full EV as yet, but it appears that Tesla's regen braking is much more aggressive than the hybrids and PHEVs I've driven.

I've always been impressed by regen braking, and as such would always switch up the display to show charge/discharge situations to try and optimize regen charging (especially on the PHEVS, as you get an obvious bonus of increased range on the battery side of things). So, as such I noticed the best regen on these cars happened when going down slight grades where you would just lightly brake to maintain constant speed. After a certain point the friction brakes would kick in and the energy was wasted as heat.

Strong regen braking actually requires a bigger battery and a good battery management system. The current flowing back into the battery is significant, especially at high speeds and/or steep hills. My car will limit regen when the battery is too cold or too hot. It's all in the display though so it's easy to see what's happening.

Watching the battery increase on hills and refill is cool in a hybrid. I've driven a prius a bunch and yes the regen there is weaker, and linked to the brake pedal itself which seems a bit weird.

On the Tesla (and other EVs I think), it's linked to the accelerator. So I can actually slowly back off the "gas" and it will start slowing the car. It gets referred to as "one pedal driving" since you don't touch the brake.

The car will go into "hold" when it comes to a stop as well, so you aren't rolling forward or back. No need for the brake even at a red light!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Strong regen braking actually requires a bigger battery and a good battery management system. The current flowing back into the battery is significant, especially at high speeds and/or steep hills. My car will limit regen when the battery is too cold or too hot. It's all in the display though so it's easy to see what's happening.

Watching the battery increase on hills and refill is cool in a hybrid. I've driven a prius a bunch and yes the regen there is weaker, and linked to the brake pedal itself which seems a bit weird.

On the Tesla (and other EVs I think), it's linked to the accelerator. So I can actually slowly back off the "gas" and it will start slowing the car. It gets referred to as "one pedal driving" since you don't touch the brake.

The car will go into "hold" when it comes to a stop as well, so you aren't rolling forward or back. No need for the brake even at a red light!

That's very cool! Thanks for your firsthand experience info. I hadn't realized that so much had changed, and am wondering if other companies are managing regen as well. Do you notice significant differences in drivability when the batteries are very cold or very hot? i.e. do you have to use the brake pedal more often?

I'm really impressed with the re-think that's happening due to EVs becoming the next iteration of the automobile. This sounds as significant (or more) as a jump from the Model T with its planetary transmission, manual spark advance, crank start, etc, to a "jet-age" car of the 1950s with their smooth V8s, automatic transmissions, and tailfins... In other words, automobiles are experiencing somewhat of a quantum leap before our very eyes!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

That's very cool! Thanks for your firsthand experience info. I hadn't realized that so much had changed, and am wondering if other companies are managing regen as well. Do you notice significant differences in drivability when the batteries are very cold or very hot? i.e. do you have to use the brake pedal more often?

I'm really impressed with the re-think that's happening due to EVs becoming the next iteration of the automobile. This sounds as significant (or more) as a jump from the Model T with its planetary transmission, manual spark advance, crank start, etc, to a "jet-age" car of the 1950s with their smooth V8s, automatic transmissions, and tailfins... In other words, automobiles are experiencing somewhat of a quantum leap before our very eyes!

I live in Vancouver, so "very hot" and "very cold" are relative terms. But when it's around 0C and the battery has cooled to that temp, the regen is limited so that I'm using the brakes on occasion around the city, or on small hills, etc, until it warms up a little.

The heat is less of an issue since the batteries like to be 25C or so, and they are actively cooled if they get too much higher. The only time I've noticed that is through BC interior mountains in the middle of summer... even then it's a limited impact.

With respect to technology, yes, modern EVs are a huge leap. More efficient in a raw power sense, able to recapture their energy through regen braking, and the motor itself is orders of magnitude simpler. My car has no transmission, immediate torque from zero rpm, and no belts. I have battery coolant that is zero maint (maybe replaced once in its lifetime), washer fluid, AC refrigerant, and I think that's it?

Once we can attain current Toyota-level reliability in EVs, entire industries will be obsolete. Then if/when autonomous driving is real, more will go.