Scion FR-S Turbo Sedan Comes Into Focus (BRZ too I'd assume)

[kuhlka]

Originally Posted by chrisl

The energy density of batteries is too low for what we'd really like to have for our vehicles (it takes over a thousand pounds of batteries to give a fairly aerodynamic sedan [Model S] a 260 mile range). Supercaps are more than an order of magnitude worse than that (so a thousand pounds of supercaps would only give a Model S a <26 mile range). Yes, they're great for fast charging and discharging, but they're nowhere near the required energy density to be viable as the main energy storage in a car yet. They could potentially be used to provide quick bursts of power though, so the main battery wouldn't need to provide as much current.

You're talking about 1st gen, mostly prototype technology. Give the auto industry 5-10 years and they'll have super-capacitors and solar in cars. Imagine having the bodywork coated in solar cells, bodywork also doubling as SC's, AND a huge SC cell running along the bottom of the car for an ultra low center of gravity.

One of the reasons current electrics are so inefficient is because they're unable to store regenerative braking power fast enough. If a SC car could get at least 100 miles per charge, that'd be a game changer. If it only takes a minute or two to charge up, we'd have a viable cross-country electric for road trips. At that point, it's just a matter of charging stations catching up, and gas stations would probably start installing charging stations.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by kuhlka

You're talking about 1st gen, mostly prototype technology. Give the auto industry 5-10 years and they'll have super-capacitors and solar in cars. Imagine having the bodywork coated in solar cells, bodywork also doubling as SC's, AND a huge SC cell running along the bottom of the car for an ultra low center of gravity.

I wouldn't count on it. In 5-10 years, supercaps probably won't even be up to the energy density that lithium rechargeable batteries already have, and we don't have a ton of battery powered cars running around right now. Also, having the bodywork double as supercaps probably won't happen anytime soon, since then little dents and dings could cause shorts in your electrical system, which would be a very bad thing for a supercap-powered car.

Originally Posted by kuhlka

One of the reasons current electrics are so inefficient is because they're unable to store regenerative braking power fast enough. If a SC car could get at least 100 miles per charge, that'd be a game changer. If it only takes a minute or two to charge up, we'd have a viable cross-country electric for road trips. At that point, it's just a matter of charging stations catching up, and gas stations would probably start installing charging stations.

Not true at all. The regenerative braking in modern electric cars can go directly to the battery without a problem, and the only time we can't store it fast enough is when you are slamming on the brakes. As for the minute or two to charge up? The problem there isn't the batteries/capacitors in the car. The problem there is the electrical grid needed to supply the power for charging.

Let's assume that the proposed car is about as efficient as a Tesla. To go 100 miles, such a car would need about 30kWh of electrical capacity. To charge this car in two minutes, you'd have to supply it with 900kW of power. If you're charging it at something like 500V, this means nearly 2kA of current will be flowing through the wire, requiring a conductor larger than 2000 kcmil in size (this is a copper wire nearly 2 inches in diameter). Alternatively, you could push up the voltage, but then you need thick, heavy-duty insulation. In addition, if 3 or 4 of these cars were charging at once, the charging station could easily pull as much power as a fairly large skyscraper, which the current electrical grid is not designed to handle. It really isn't as simple as you're trying to make it here.

[kuhlka]

Originally Posted by chrisl

I wouldn't count on it. In 5-10 years, supercaps probably won't even be up to the energy density that lithium rechargeable batteries already have, and we don't have a ton of battery powered cars running around right now. Also, having the bodywork double as supercaps probably won't happen anytime soon, since then little dents and dings could cause shorts in your electrical system, which would be a very bad thing for a supercap-powered car.

Not true at all. The regenerative braking in modern electric cars can go directly to the battery without a problem, and the only time we can't store it fast enough is when you are slamming on the brakes. As for the minute or two to charge up? The problem there isn't the batteries/capacitors in the car. The problem there is the electrical grid needed to supply the power for charging.

Let's assume that the proposed car is about as efficient as a Tesla. To go 100 miles, such a car would need about 30kWh of electrical capacity. To charge this car in two minutes, you'd have to supply it with 900kW of power. If you're charging it at something like 500V, this means nearly 2kA of current will be flowing through the wire, requiring a conductor larger than 2000 kcmil in size (this is a copper wire nearly 2 inches in diameter). Alternatively, you could push up the voltage, but then you need thick, heavy-duty insulation. In addition, if 3 or 4 of these cars were charging at once, the charging station could easily pull as much power as a fairly large skyscraper, which the current electrical grid is not designed to handle. It really isn't as simple as you're trying to make it here.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the recent breakthroughs with graphene supercapacitors. The research scientists are claiming they hold as much charge as Lithium, except charge in a fraction of the time.

Everything I've read about regenerative braking is that even at low to moderate braking force the current batteries aren't able to absorb/charge-up all of that power.

Considering graphene doesn't require an electrolyte, it should mean we don't need gigantic 1-ton batteries to make a car go 100 miles on a charge. Also, even if it takes 10 minutes to charge the batteries, that's no big deal for a road trip and a comparable charge time to fossil fuel fill-ups if you take into account a piss break and grabbing a drink from the shop.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/51873011"]The Super Supercapacitor | Brian Golden Davis on Vimeo[/ame]

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by kuhlka

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the recent breakthroughs with graphene supercapacitors. The research scientists are claiming they hold as much charge as Lithium, except charge in a fraction of the time.

Those are pretty cool, but I'd always be a bit wary of putting too much faith in press releases, at least until there are some actual products out there using them.

Originally Posted by kuhlka

Everything I've read about regenerative braking is that even at low to moderate braking force the current batteries aren't able to absorb/charge-up all of that power.

That's not so much a limitation of the technology as it is a limitation of the implementation used in most modern hybrids. The Porsche 918 Spyder can regeneratively brake at 0.50G, which will take you from 60 to 0 in 5.5 seconds. Yes, for truly hard braking, it still has to use the brakes, but for the majority of braking around town, that seems perfectly adequate. Other cars could do something similar, but it all depends on how they want to set up their electric motor, controller, and batteries (and what current, both charging and discharging, they want to design it for).

Originally Posted by kuhlka

Considering graphene doesn't require an electrolyte, it should mean we don't need gigantic 1-ton batteries to make a car go 100 miles on a charge. Also, even if it takes 10 minutes to charge the batteries, that's no big deal for a road trip and a comparable charge time to fossil fuel fill-ups if you take into account a piss break and grabbing a drink from the shop.

Even if it matches the energy density of lithium, you'd still need ~1klb of capacitors to get a ~200-250mi range. As for the 10 minute charge? That still requires (using the same estimated capacity as in my calculations above) a 180kW charger, pushing something like 400A of current. This is admittedly getting down to the level that the wires are of a nearly reasonable size, at least, but it's still an awful lot of power to be pushing around, especially with multiple cars charging at once. Also, this isn't that much better than what the Tesla can already do with the superchargers, which can provide about 200 miles of range in a 30-40 minute charge (vs your proposed 100 miles in 10).

[lantsalot]

Personally, i'm a bit confused on what Toyota is doing with sedans. They seems to be having an identity crisis with the Camry and Corolla and have been for years, and it seems like they are wanting to hastily capitalize on the success of the 86 by morphing it into a sedan which will (if history is any judge) quickly become the same thing as the Camrolla.
Don't kill the bar, Toyota.

[mystic]

This makes me upset...I hope this is just a rumor. :|

[Laika]

Originally Posted by Whitigir

LOL! are you kidding ?

The rest of the world has been making those Sport Sedan, it is just expansive, and now Toyota want a Dip in it with a cheap one.

Cadillac
BMW
Mercedes
Audi
.
.
.
etc

Toyota is late to the game

I think he made the same point as you

[Kobby19]

I really hope a sedan doesn't release. Just means more people will have an BRZ/frs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[daiheadjai]

Well, if the BRZ/FRS are cancelled due to lack of sales and profits, you'll get your wish - no BRZ/FRS for anyone!

[n2oinferno]

I don't understand why anyone would be upset with this. The more they can utilize the platform, the better. That means a better chance of future generations of the vehicle as well. It's not like they're just going to slap a couple of extra doors onto the existing cars and call it a day. And I'd be shocked if it had a similar name as well. From the outside you probably would have no idea it's the same underpinnings.

As far as exclusivity and people not wanting to see things developed just so their cars are more rare. Well, sorry, you bought a Subaru or a Toyota. You want exclusivity, save your pennies and get something really exclusive.

[Kobby19]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I don't understand why anyone would be upset with this. The more they can utilize the platform, the better. That means a better chance of future generations of the vehicle as well. It's not like they're just going to slap a couple of extra doors onto the existing cars and call it a day. And I'd be shocked if it had a similar name as well. From the outside you probably would have no idea it's the same underpinnings.

As far as exclusivity and people not wanting to see things developed just so their cars are more rare. Well, sorry, you bought a Subaru or a Toyota. You want exclusivity, save your pennies and get something really exclusive.

You make a very valid point. Unfortunately, even if you save enough money for an exclusive vehicle. It'll cost just as much maintaining the car.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by Kobby19

You make a very valid point. Unfortunately, even if you save enough money for an exclusive vehicle. It'll cost just as much maintaining the car.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Better start saving double then.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by dori.

these threads continue to amuse me, ya'll act as though Subaru will stop producing the coupes and make the sedans only or something...

That's exactly what happened to the WRX.