Print 55 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on May 15 at 1:55 AM

First time eDrive and xDrive tech has been combined in one vehicle

BMW has unveiled the Concept X5 eDrive, which will be showcased at the New York International Auto Show. Although the vehicle is labeled as a concept, it’s a dead ringer for the production plug-in hybrid version of BMW’s popular crossover that it plans to bring to market sometime within the next year or two.
The hybrid drive system gets its primary motivation from a 245hp turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. That gas engine is combined with a 95hp/184 lb-ft electric motor developed by the BMW Group. Power for the electric motor comes from a lithium-ion battery pack (which is mounted under the cargo area) that can charge from any wall outlet.
The Concept X5 eDrive can drive on electricity alone for up to 20 miles at speeds up to 75 mph. BMW says that the car will have an average fuel consumption of over 74.3 mpg in the EU testing cycle (which means we’ll likely see less than half of that quoted figure under EPA guidelines). BMW says that the X5 concept can reach 62mph in under 7-seconds.

The Concept X5 eDrive is the first from BMW that uses its xDrive all-wheel-drive system paired with eDrive hybrid technology.
The concept also has a ConnectedDrive system that helps plan routes and lists the location of charging stations on the GPS map. This allows the driver to find a charging station when they are around town in electric mode.

Source: BMW

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Tesla!
By EricMartello on 5/15/2014 1:55:58 AM , Rating: 1
Because weight doesn’t change with speed, the drag force due to weight doesn’t change with speed.

Repeating what I said...brilliant, you're learning that you can be right more often if you just repeat what I say.

Therefore the power consumed due to weight scales linearly with velocity or is proportional to mass times velocity.

But then you decide to be a liberal, keep talking, and be wrong again when you could have just shut up and spared yourself further humiliation.

Let's talk about this thing called MOMENTUM. The weight of a vehicle at speed does not change, and if you are traveling at a constant velocity YOU ARE NOT ACCELERATING and therefore the effects of mass do not change.

Yes, it takes more power to accelerate a larger mass to a certain speed BUT once at speed, and that's what we're talking about here in case you totally missed it, there is no difference in power required to move the object due to mass.

The PRIMARY resisting force is wind resistance when traveling at a higher speed.

The drag force due to aero drag scales with the square of velocity. Therefore the power consumed due to velocity (aero drag) scales with the cube of speed or is proportional to velocity cubed.

Funny, this guy lost the battle, the audience went home but he's still so sure he's right. Then he says this and proves that he still doesn't get it.

Adding the results of the linear function and the cube function creates a third function in which mass and velocity still feature separately. That third function is NOT proportional to the square of speed. Mass times velocity is NOT a constant and so cannot be factored out along with the other constants when figuring out proportionality. I’m not wrong about this.

Oh, you are terribly wrong and if you think you're not then you are fitting the very definition of stupid.

We are talking about a constant velocity, not a change in velocity (acceleration). Mass doesn't change due to speed, and once a mass is moving it has this thing called momentum.

Momentum, in the case of a moving car, is effectively a constant that will scale linearly with velocity - and that makes sense because like I told you before, the car weighs exactly the same at 55 MPH as it does at 80 MPH.

The power requirements I provided to you are accurate...period...and more importantly, you were wrong altogether about EVs being more efficient so trying to make your "last stand" here and failing isn't doing you any favors.

That went straight over your head. The Tesla’s weight and tires will result in a rolling resistance of 56lb force. If you think that is insignificant to the point of being practically zero when compared to aero drag then what else can I say. Either you can’t understand or you won’t understand and neither of these makes you look good.

No, I simply disregard irrelevant statements such as this one...but keep talking about rolling resistance, you even know what that is. It's really helping you get your point across, except your point that EVs are "more efficient" than their gasoline counterparts is a myth I've already dispelled so what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to display how poorly you understand physics?

An EV is not like one of your model aircraft and the correct terminology is Motor controller specifically so people like you won’t become confused. I posted this on the 4/16/2014 in this thread so it is what I have been saying all long.

EVs are virtually identical to model RC cars and planes, save for the Tesla using an AC motor while the models use DC motors and do not require an inverter.

You could call a speed controller a "motor controller" just like you could call a woman a "dame", but just like calling a woman a dame suggests you have no clue how to deal with women...referring to a speed controller as a "motor controller" suggests you have no clue about electric drive systems.

The advantage of full torque from zero is not having to have a clutch (or torque converter).The advantage is not having to have a clutch. It’s a mechanical simplification.

In terms of driving performance its really not an "advantage" in any way, shape or form. It's just a mechanical necessity, because there is no reason to idle an electric motor.

In the case of Tesla the range of the motor is so broad that it also doesn’t need a gearbox and can make do with a single reduction ratio. A further mechanical simplification. The net result of this is lower weight better reliability and reduced cost.

A direct drive is one of the perks of using an electric drive system, but I've demonstrated that it's a stretch to say that it is "better". As far as being more reliable? Maybe, maybe not. The motor itself is probably not going to break down but the complex electronics that make it run are prone to failure.

So you have a more reliable transmission but you introduce potentially thousands of potential failure points with each additional line of code and electronic component required to make the car work.

Net effect? No improvement over a modern gasoline car in this dept either.

So if torque is not consumed and power is consumed and power is torque x RPM then really it is just RPM that is being consumed?? LOL. You’re funny.

If an engine produces a constant 100 ft-lbs of torque and the no-load engine speed is 1,000 RPM, adding a load that reduces the RPM by 500 is equivalent to a 50% drop in power. Note that the input torque remains unchanged, hence it is not being "consumed".

(1,000 RPM x 100 ft-lbs) / 5252 = 19.04 HP (no-load)
(500 RPM x 100 ft-lbs) / 5252 = 9.52 HP (50% load)

It's funny that you cannot grasp this concept and yet feel compelled to continue replying. I almost feel like you're being wrong on purpose because you want me to educate you.

All that and you still haven’t said were torque in an idling engine is being transferred to.

Torque is transferred to anything that is connected to the output shaft of the engine. Why are you struggling with these kiddie concepts?

How does it feel Eric being bested by a “dim-witted buffoon”. Nothing in this world is free Eric not even cheap shots.

Really, or is this a segue into your comedy routine? LOL

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki