Printable View
One example where class room theory does not apply in real world. Maybe if your talking about a quagmire or most of your time is spent spinning the wheels. I have proved it in my Electric LandRover , crawling along at under 30kmh on firm dirt tracks my range is 200 plus km , at 80-100kmh on the road its about 70-80km . for the same battery charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red90
My old TDI D1 would run on fumes off road if you weren't revving it's guts out.
Take all other factors, such as aerodynamics, out of it, and look at the basics. Imagine your LR did one engine revolution per one wheel revolution in high range ( simplistic, I know ). Now engage low range. Imagine you LR now does one engine revolution to one half of a wheel revolution. Explain to me how the same amount of energy expended will result in further distance travelled. No amount of regenerative braking will make up the shortfall, unless you have invented a perpetual motion device, in which case you would be rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by goingbush
You make no mention of which gear range you are in doing this. High/low range was the starting point of this part of this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by goingbush
A petrol or diesel engine has substantial internal friction which causes power losses directly increasing with RPM. Electric motors on the other hand have very little internal friction and their efficiency actually increases at higher RPM. The losses are mainly due to magnetic fields reaching saturation in the iron laminations, so double speed half current operation is much better for them.
Not that this has much to do with portals but it's important to get the facts right. [smilebigeye]
Also no wasted energy in the form of heat lost out the exhaust & radiator , which I understand would be higher in a Internal combustion in Low Range . More waste lower speed . Not the case with electric.
Agreed the argument has nothing to do with portals . my fault.
Great and all that, but still no mention of the premise which sent us down this rabbit hole, which was about efficiency high range v low. Are you saying that electric defies the laws of physics? Or, did you not read prior posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Seemingly it has nothing to do with High/Low range either, which was the very thing you chose to argue. Or was it me who was mistaken??Quote:
Originally Posted by goingbush
I don't think so: I asked "Not going to get 320k in low range, are you?"
I love that you have done something different. But you cannot prove that your electric LR has a greater range in low range than it does in high. THAT was the argument. That is what you have not answered.
yes John , It will travel a much greater distance in Low Range than High Range. about 3 xQuote:
Originally Posted by johntins
Its bleedingy obvious when you look at the Kwh meter , its hardly draws any current in Low Range compare to choofing along at 60kmh.
High Range 2nd or 3rd gear keeping below 40kmh, will EASILY have about 50% greater range than sitting between 80-100kph too.
Mark French demonstrated this in his Guiness Record crossing of the Simpson Desert in his Electric converted Suzuki 4x4 , He was in Low Range 1st & 2nd gear most of the way ...... to get the most distance per charge.
Did you read this bit of my post:Quote:
Originally Posted by johntins
Which implies low range operation does it not? Additional transfer case losses are much smaller than increased engine losses, which electric motors don't have. Anyway, I'm interested which "laws of physics" you're referring to, I'd like to look them up in my textbook collection. [bigsmile1]Quote:
double speed half current operation