GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,882
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Kyle Patrick (@SlipZtrEm) on September 4th, 2019 in the Automotive News category.
With a touch of McLaren 570sWhy do those headlights somehow remind me of the new Supra?
Sure enough.With a touch of McLaren 570s
Jeepers. That's some mental image to keep in mind if I ever spot one of these in the wild. Looking up its dimensions, though, it is hardly a compact car either.It may use a combination of steel and aluminium for its construction, but the Taycan still outweighs a Cayenne, tipping the scales at 5060lb.
I guess we are back to the 80's again, when sun glasses had "turbo" on the side...
Tesla: [screams internally]
Still enthusiasts would argue that doesn't make the Civic Type R more premium than the Taycan, I suppose.The video gives the lap time as 7:42. It's certainly not the cheapest car one can buy to do that sort of time, given that a Civic Type R can do 7:43.8:
https://www.gtplanet.net/hondas-civic-type-r-takes-on-the-nurburgring-and-wins/
And that it weighs 2.3 tons. Drives in 2-ton Panameras and Cayennes suggest it should handle its weight okay, but using more than half a 911's worth of extra resources over a 911 goes against the EV message somewhat.
Not that its competitors are much lighter exactly (Model S 2.2 tons, I-Pace 2.1 tons, Audi e-tron 2.6 tons, Mercedes EQC 2.4 tons). But then I'm not keen on that aspect of any of them, either...
Let's say that battery technology jumps forward and suddenly it takes up half the weight that it used to. For the Model S, that would be a savings of 600 lb. You think we're not just going to double the capacity? Or make it heavier because we want to be able to charge it faster? I think for the near future, as battery technology improves, the car weight stays the same, it just gets more features piled on.
It seems like average car weight has as much to do with the available performance as anything else. As performance capability increases, the public wants to gobble some of that up in weight so that they can have more features and comforts. Porsche has probably achieved the best balance they could here. My guess is that they wanted more range than it has too.
Maybe we'll get to the point where we have a modular battery. But loading a 600 lb spare battery in your trunk is not going to be easy.
I understand the motivation for them doing it, but I reserve the right not to like itI think big weight numbers are going to be in our future for a while. I think it's a little bit of the performance SUV trend also showing up in passenger cars. Performance has gotten so good across the board, that customers are starting to want things crammed into one package which previously would have been impossible. Once you can make a car do 0-60 in under 3 seconds, handle well, and corner hard, are you going to make a lighter weight car and still be able to sell it?
Let's say that battery technology jumps forward and suddenly it takes up half the weight that it used to. For the Model S, that would be a savings of 600 lb. You think we're not just going to double the capacity? Or make it heavier because we want to be able to charge it faster? I think for the near future, as battery technology improves, the car weight stays the same, it just gets more features piled on.
It seems like average car weight has as much to do with the available performance as anything else. As performance capability increases, the public wants to gobble some of that up in weight so that they can have more features and comforts. Porsche has probably achieved the best balance they could here. My guess is that they wanted more range than it has too.
Edit:
Maybe we'll get to the point where we have a modular battery. But loading a 600 lb spare battery in your trunk is not going to be easy.
But one think I quite liked about the ones knocking around when I started was that most of the concepts took a holistic view of making a car more efficient - not just powering it with a battery, but generally making it smaller and lighter too (at the very least, to try and offset the weight of the battery pack itself) and cutting aero massively (rather than the incremental gains we're seeing currently).
To clarify it was the general vibe I liked more than the cars themselves. Some of those early EVs were weird, or simply crap. But it seemed like engineering a way around a particular set of problems, rather than just throwing an enormous battery at a car and calling it a day. The latter is honestly no different from the industry as a whole right now - all improvements in power and fuel economy are really doing are offsetting the fact that cars are getting bigger and heavier. EVs are becoming an extension of that.
You liked the ones that weren't selling! And now you lament that the ones that are popular aren't more like the ones that weren't. I do understand where you're coming from, but that's not what buyers want. Buyers don't necessarily care about engineering purity. I guess that leaves purists exercising their right not to like it. I can sympathize, i do that too sometimes.
To clarify it was the general vibe I liked more than the cars themselves. Some of those early EVs were weird, or simply crap. But it seemed like engineering a way around a particular set of problems, rather than just throwing an enormous battery at a car and calling it a day. The latter is honestly no different from the industry as a whole right now - all improvements in power and fuel economy are really doing are offsetting the fact that cars are getting bigger and heavier. EVs are becoming an extension of that.
Think I've said it elsewhere, but when we look back on this era in half a century's time, I wonder how we'll interpret it? My suspicion is that, on reflection, we'll wonder why on the eve of the private automobile's existence the thing everybody seemed hell-bent on buying were 2-ton breezeblocks that got to 60mph in three seconds.
Now, the death of the private automobile (in the US at least)? I think that's a stretch.
I know the feeling. My job involves a lot of a) driving very fast, very resource-intensive cars, and b) getting on a lot of flights. Yet I still consider myself an environmentalist. I save energy and recycle where I can, I'm trying to cut down on meat, and I avoid driving whenever possible. Among the many things that stress me out is my confliction over what I do and what I think I should do, so I definitely get it!If anyone is undergoing a serious identity crisis, it's me.
I don't know why they'd be worried by a vehicle which is objectively worse in most ways and also $50k more expensive. And doesn't have semi-auto driving capabilities. And doesn't have a fast-charging network.Tesla: [screams internally]
Personally, I would geek out a lot more over a nuclear EV powered by a compact LFTR. I don't know the likelihood of developing one that can fit into a car or having it total up to less than two tons (or how scalable the idea could be), but if it could at least turn out similarly to a Tesla or Taycan it would be way more compelling. I'm not interested in running charging cables out to our driveway, or even dumber, across the sidewalk to my personal tree-shaded parking spot on the street.
As for what customers want, (some) manufacturers still care about shaving weight even if few drivers do. Every extra pound/kilogram adds to the cost to other parts, of course.