Thread: Electric 4WD crosses Simpson Desert

Can be done - as long as you don't have to carry much and are prepared to travel slowly (to allow solar recharge.

While I expect they will manage it (if something doesn't need repair beyond their capabilities), it has as much to do with practical remote travel as the solar challenge from Darwin to Adelaide has to do with intercity motoring.

John

Yep, you've got to start somewhere, with enough time, I'm sure it could make it - are they taking everything they need with them in that vehicle or are they using support vehicles? They wouldn't fit much more than a sleeping bag and lunch in the zook anyway, but good on em for having a go.

I'm pretty sure they have support vehicles. The promo video has a date stamp from 2015, but their Facebook link on their website shows the expedition as having just been completed with photos to come.

Yes I'm guessing they had support vehicle.

I also assume they only drove early and late in the day and charged during the day.

These guys are only small players....imagine what the big companies are working on.

Very cool. The battery tech they used was old school as well, The comments about weight are correct. When my D3 dies ( no time soon) I might just have a play and see if it can do the simpson with out any diesel

Good Job & well done to them, The technology is AT LEAST 10 -15 years old , They use DC Motors & Optima batteries , got the job done though & prove a lot of naysayers wrong.

Im electrifying my LandRover right now , (Well I'm actually still waiting for the motor to get built ) , AC 3 phase motor - costs more than double a DC motor of equiv output , but oh so much more efficient (and regen braking) - that comes down to economy I guess but a DC Motor is heavier & the controller weighs a lot too .

But the Batteries, Optimas can only discharge to about 70% before they need recharging ( you can go more but they wont last long) If they used Lithium LiFePo4 theres is at least a 60% weight saving in batteries & they can be discharged to about 30% capacity without damage , so win - win . Cost a LOT more but last a LOT LOT longer so much cheaper in the long run.

I'm well impressed with the effort.

I still can't help thinking that when manufacturers focus on only replacing the motor but keeping the rest of the transmission and drive train they are missing significant opportunities. Why have one motor, why not four - one for each wheel (hub drive), or two one for each axle.

Originally Posted by Gullible

I'm well impressed with the effort.

I still can't help thinking that when manufacturers focus on only replacing the motor but keeping the rest of the transmission and drive train they are missing significant opportunities. Why have one motor, why not four - one for each wheel (hub drive), or two one for each axle.

A question I have been wondering about since my teens! Hub drive was first used before the first world war, and has periodically appeared in prototypes ever since. None have been successful. It is difficult to see obvious reasons, although one is that the wheel hub is already pretty much occupied by a brake assembly, and fitting both a motor and a brake assembly in the space means at a minimum that both must be designed to integrate with each other. This is an area of design where there is neither experience in design nor experience in manufacture. By contrast, using a conventional drive train uses technology and tooling that already is in place in the factory. This means that the conventional drive train is a lot cheaper to build.

Very few if any revolutionary car designs have not used existing components wherever possible. To quote just a couple of examples - the first Landrovers used an existing engine design, admittedly one that had not yet entered production, although it was already being tooled up, and a gearbox and differentials introduced in 1932. The only new part of the drive train was the transfer case. A second example was the Citroen DS - which was decades ahead of anything else on the road - but the engine was an updated version of an engine that had entered production twenty years previously, and the gearbox and final drive were a copy of the existing gearbox and final drive with a fourth gear.

There is enough new tooling and design in an EV that an existing manufacturer will do everything they can to minimise it - a bit easier for a company entering the business for the first time (e.g. Tesla), but they have a much harder row to hoe anyway, because they don't have the existing technology they can use. But they have the advantage that they are not likely to be trapped by using existing technology when there is a better way of doing it by starting from scratch. (Better means either cheaper to build or sells better or both - there is no data to convince the bean counters that either is the case for hub drive!)