Hirochi SBR4

Looks like a mistake, now the boost pressure of the Hillclimb is even lower than a production vehicle, the AWD TTS2



EDIT: Fixed in 0.17.1 update.

 

Alright then, looks like you were right here.

 

So boring and heavy that the first tesla prototypes had little issues leaving sport cars with over twice the horsepower into the dust in acceleration races. Oh the faces of those Ferrari drivers..... but if you look at the underlying physics is is quite logical: ICEs in general only reach peak power at high RPMs.... at low RPM you are only having a fraction of that total power available. Driving a non turbo gasoline car with 100 HP @ 6000 RPM means that you only have rougly 33 HP at 2000 RPM... meaning you only really have 33 HP of acceleration power available.

This is the primary reason why turbodiesel of comparable power classes feel so much more powerful than gasoline engines.... they dont rev as as high but they have more power on similar RPM. Comparing the above example with the competition 90 HP turbodiesel.... in theory the gasoline car has 10 % more power output... but in practise at 2000 RPM the turbodiesel has 45 HP available which is 36 % more power. You need a gasoline car with 136 HP to have a similar daily driving experience as a 100 HP turbodiesel.

If you want that Focus 1 gasoline car with 100 HP to compete in driving performance with the 90 HP diesel you have to give it an additional 700 RPM as it only reaches 45 PS at 2700 RPM. If you want more total output than the diesel (90 HP @ 4000 RPM) you have to rev this gasoline engines all the way up to 5400 RPM. Only in the area between 5400 - 6000 RPM the gasoline engine has a superior performance than the 90 HP turbodiesel.

In principle, only horsepower defines acceleration and topspeed. Torque is shockingly unimportant and actually primarly defines WHERE and WHEN peak power happens. Wheel torque... the thing that actually make the car moving is the product of the transmission and drivetrain configuration. A 100 HP gasoline car may have far less engine torque than a 90 PS turbodiesel.... but at top speed its 10 % more peak power transform into 10 % more wheel torque at that speed.

You can create 100 HP with 300 NM of torque @ 3000 RPM.
Or you can create 100 HP with 150 NM or toque @ 6000 RPM.

Assuming a perfectly optimized transmission.... those two cars have exactly the same performance.

The only problem is that due to every single revolution of an piston ICE having to overcome significant resistances that high RPMs are one of the most fuel economy ruining things in a car.

The engine that requires only 3000 RPM to deliver 100 HP will consume significantly less fuel per power unit than the engine running at 6000 RPM for 100 HP. Hence the reason why basically any truck engine is probably both a diesel and large displacement but low RPM. It is simple much more fuel efficient... even with the engine being much heavier.

In ICE piston engines, power output is the product of RPM (how often does it fire) and torque (How hard does it fire/how powerful are the individual explosions that put the piston downwards). In theory twice the fires would be twice the power output but in practise the increased difficulty to suck in enough air fast enough decreases torque and ultimately limits peak power as the loss of torque in the end can not longer be compensated by raising RPMs. For example reving an 100 HP @ 6000 RPM to 6500 RPM would in theory grant 108 HP but in practise the engine is increasingly starved of air/fuel and as such power output at 6500 RPM is actually lower than at 6000 RPM. And then there are physical and mechanicals limits.... the self ignition of diesel engines makes RPMs above 5500 unviable as the diesel needs some time to self ignite. RPM can be much higher for gasoline engines but required materials make this expensive. Since piston speeds cannot exceed a certain value very high RPM require shorter strokes further putting limits and drawbacks on the engine.

In 4 stroke 4 cylinder engines there are 2 cylinder firing per engine revolution. In the first half of the revolution, the first cylinder fires..... when it reaches the bottom the second (for balance reasons usually the third actual one) fires and completes the revolution. For every engine revolution half of the cylinders have a power stroke.... so technically your 4 cylinder cars actually never has more than 2 of those delivering power in a single engine revolution. It takes 2 engines revolutions in a 4 cylinder 4 stroke engine to fire all cylinders. A single power stroke has to fight against one intake, one compressing and one exhaust stroke. Oh... and drive the valve train, the oil pump and the cooling system and actually still propelling the car... not to mention powering the generator and all that other stuff.




An 4 Stroke 4 Cylinder ICE running at 3000 RPM will

• Finish a full rotation 50 times in a single second
• Injecting fuel 6000 times per minute..... or 100 times per second
• Have the pistons change direction 100 times per second
• Actuate the valves 25 times per second in perfect sync with the up and downward moving pistons

Sounds impressive? Well... it is.

Electric motors work on entirely different operating principles: There are no cylinders that fire and output does not really depend on air movements. Instead you have a magnetic field that makes a shaft rotate. The amount of electricity supplied primarly affects the strengh of the magnetic fields and as such power output is far less dependant on RPM The type of electric motor most commonly used in vehicles reaches very high torque values from zero RPM on upwards and similar reaches peak power and as such peak acceleration values pretty quickly, too.

As a result, for everday driving acceleration and performance feel, electric cars offer superior power feelings compared to gasoline and even turbodiesel cars of comparable nominal power. More power is available at usual operating rev ranges and since there is no need for a multi gear transmission you also save time on switching gears. A lot of diesels require an additional gear shift compared to gasoline cars due to a lower rev range, hurting acceleration times.

There is also an argument for traffic safety. Having full power available all the time without first needing to shift gears can be the difference between a near miss and and accident. Especially commuter gasoline cars are usually driven in high gears for fuel economy..... which means that they take pretty long to reach strong acceleration values.

That would be incorrect. Most studies put that number well below 100000 km.... a distance that most cars will easily reach in their lifetime. Beyond the - indeed problematic - battery production an electric vehicle is actually less polluting to produce. A lot of parts simple are not needed..... no clutch... no complex transmission..... no torque converter and automatic transmission, no engine oil (which is highly refined oil and as such quite polluting and energy hungry to produce), no heat shielding for glowing hot exhaust pipes, no turbo charger, no exhaust, no expensive high tech injecting system, no sound proofing for quit enough operation.... no cat, no particulate filter.... I probably forgot something.

Of course... one primary issue always remains.... moving at least a metric ton of metal to move a single person arround is inherently inefficient. 80 kg of object that needs moving..... 1000 - 2500 kg of vehicle used to move that 80 kg object.

Still.... I actually think that this speaks still strong for battery mobility because it is a concept that scales much better for ultra light vehicles than ICEs. Small ICEs are even more inefficient and the cost pressure means low tech and poor - if any - exhaust cleaning. Not to mention the noise..... those ICE scooters make more noise than a tank battalion patrolling around your house. Light ICE mobility is neither cheap nor efficient..... people end up using full size cars because the cost difference is not significant enough compared to the comfort loss.

CO2 on itself may not be polluting but the warming effect large amounts of it have on the planet can lead to devastation for both humans and the planet. For example, increasingly extreme weather has increased the sales of AC units to an all time high..... but those consume a lot of power. An estimate says that the USA use more electricity for AC than the UK combined for everything. We burn crap to create heat to drive turbines to create electricity which we then use to cool down our homes.

Extreme weather also means a higher change for mass migration and war.

Equipment failures and accidents can always happen.... and it is always bad for the environment.

Human right abuses are horrible.... but it is not like the oil industry is free of it. Lovely places like Saudi Arabia come to mind..... you know they are only so filthy rich and powerful because you keep buying gas.

Yes... it is shit and we should do something about it. Still would argue that batteries can - at least partially - be recycled - while the 10000 liters of diesel you burned are gone forever. Battery recycling is also more efficient for larger batteries..... the battery of your smartphone is a bigger problem because it probably will never be economical to recycle... especially not if you cant remove it anymore without opening the phone.

I would not call EV virtuous,,,, like most things they have both advantages and drawbacks. They are certainly not perfect but imho considering all facts on the table they are on overall still better than using ICEs for everyday car driving.

The thing with battery technology is that for decades there has never been serious resarch into the matter. There is a reason why tesla used laptop batteries in the beginning.... there simple wasnt anything else available that was more developed.

I dont believe in magic solutions to technological problems but the reality is that batteries have basically quadrupled their performance in the last decade or so. We are finally approaching range parity with ICEs in the not so distant future. And now with serious investment and research into that area..... it seems not unreasonable to assume that this trend will continue.

Once mainstream..... development will continue. If one had told good old Nicolaus Otto that people would build gasoline engines this small and powerful and long living (by standards of the time) he would have probably laughed you off as a a fantasist. If the german car industry had spent its billions of euros on research into that area instead of trying to make diesels clean (failed) and fun/comfortable to drive, we would most likely be looking at a different traffic today.

We life in times of great change.... and nobody can say for certain what the future will look like. But one thing, I am pretty certain..... that in 20 - 30 years.... the fossil oil burning car will be an rare sight outside of a museum.

Hydrogen is certainly an interesting concept and I see quite significant usage in certain applications where batteries are not viable. For cars however, I personally think hydrogen is simple to late to the party. We have basically no infrastructure while we have electricity basically anywhere. Home charging may be slow but it beats not charging at all. Added to the fact that cars are stationary most of the day and that the average commuter does not need a lot of range and it is actually the smaller issue. Meanwhile super chargers from Tesla can be increasingly found on most major long range motorways so finally electric cars can do long range (although not as comfortable as refulling.... yet)

Low amount of produced cars also means that the economies of scale dont exist as they do for batteries. There is a significant battery market even without cars as a lot of things today require off the grid power..... like your smartphone.

Hydrogen cars will most likely face harsh competition from battery vehicles.... they need a major selling point and they are running out of them as battery vehicles increasingly solve the range and the recharge time problem.

Lithium is indeed a major problem for batteries but it also makes recycling more economically interesting. Legislation could also encourage this further by mandating more recycling friendly design. And then a lot of car batteries could see a second life as home power storage where reduced capacity is less of a concern. Speaking of capacity... larger ranges/capacity also means that a loss of capacity is less problematic.... if you have 200 km range and loose 20 % you are down to 160 km which makes trips above 60 km distance a unfun experience. But if you have 600 km range.... and loose 20 %... you still have 480 of range which a quite acceptable value for a used car.

Battery life is comparable poorly resarched territory yet it seems safe to say that batteries need to maintain a certain temperature range all the time which costs energy and hurts efficiency as a result. On the other hand.... for regular driving usage this may be less of a problem... at least compared to an ICE. Consider.... everytime you cold start your car you spent generous amount of fuel to heat up the engine, the exhaust and exhaust cleaning system. A lot of trips end shortly or even before the engine has reached operating temperature. And then you go to work... the engine cools down and after work you start at ambient temperature again. Still... long stationary EV may face significant energy usage as the battery cooling/heating system has to run all the time to maximize battery life time.

Charging time: The advent of super chargers that approach significant percentages of a megawatt in combination with ranges in excess of 500 km increasingly move the limit of electric vehicles range from the battery to the driver, similar to ICE cars. After 500 km... waiting 15 - 20 minutes for a 80 % recharge is increasingly a minor drawback compared to ICE cars.

Indeed. Even using regenerative energy sources the total efficiency of the power to the wheel train cannot compete with batteries. In fact.... if for 500 km of electric range you need 1 windmill using batteries you would need THREE windmills to end up with 500 km of electric hydrogen based range. It takes not shy of 3 times the electricity to get the same range as with a battery due to much higher conversion losses.

You will also loose the ability for extended regenerative braking unless you equip a secondary battery as I cant see cars producing hydrogen out of electricity onboard... the fuel cell is complex and expensive enough already and it does the opposite.

Hydrogen also has the annoying tendency to find a way through any tank..... put your freshly fuelled hydrogen car into your garage and come back 3 weeks later.... the tank is empty.... and dont use a lighter mate.....

This is correct. Internal Combustion Engines are much more efficient than external combustion engines (steam locomotive for example) but even the most efficient ones pale in total efficiency to even primitive electric motors.

The highest efficiency ICE engine barely reaches 50 % efficiency..... and it is a titantic ship diesel that is larger than most multi story building and costs millions of euros.... it also has no emission laws to worry about.

Under ideal driving and load conditions - which almost never happen in real life - an gasoline car can reach a efficiency of arround 35 % while a diesel can reach up to 45 %. For a gasoline car... almost two thirds of your fuel tank end up not moving the car but being wasted as heat and friction. For a diesel car... still more than half of your fuel tank does nothing more than heating the environment.

And again... that is best case scenario. Cold engine? Cut 15 % across the board. Cold weather? Cut another 10 %.... uneconomic driving..... bye by 20 %.... Stop and go traffic.... seriously... you dont even want to know anymore.

To be fair... the limits of chemistry in this regard basically doubled the last 5 years due to major research finally looking into it in earnest.

Ranges approach 500 km and more.... charging time become reasonable..... seems increasingly a car that works for the average guy.

The inefficiency of ICE also allows batteries to be

• 3 times as large
• 3 times as heavy
• and a kilowatt of electricity to be 3 times as expensive as a litre of fuel

and still remaining competive.

In simple terms.... your fuel tank (battery) has only 1 / 3 of the capacity of the fuel tank (fuel) but since electric motors reach efficiency of well above 90 % i compared to a lousy 30 % of ICEs.... you end up with the same range.

We speak about 15 - 20 KW/H for the average electric car for 100 KM..... that is the equivalent of just 1,66 - 2,22 litres of gasoline per 100 km.... even the most efficient Hybrid under ideal conditions requires more than twice that amount of energy. Meanwhile... the average gasoline car uses in excess of 7 liters per 100 km.... tendency hardly sinking.

To add insult to injury.... stop and go... city driving and all those things amplify those differences. Stop and go always hurts fuel/energy economy.... but it hurts far more on an ICE that is far less efficient in the first place and can only partially shut down and never can regenerate any energy at all. You just have those losses... where the engine is running even with a start stop system although there is no traction demand right now. Starting an ICE just takes time and energy so there is an upper limit of how agressive an start stop system can be. Then an ICE has to maintain a minimum RPM which is usually puts available power output way above what would be technicaly required for stop and go. On a manual... your clutch will hate you.... on an auto.... the oil will probably get pretty hot as will the engine which will require significant fan cooling due to lack of driving airstream.

Currently, a global trend is that more and more people live in cities. This means more mobility demands on an increasingly limited space and more congestion where all the efficieny issues of ICEs become more and more of a problem. As does air pollution.... and even if you use dirty coal to power electric vehicles..... I am convinced that even this would be more environmentally friendly than using ICEs. Reasoning being

Coal power plant efficiency: 45 % - power grid and charging losses = 35 % * 90 % = 31,5 % total efficiency
Burning diesel: 20 - 25 %
Burning gasoline: 15 - 20 %
and that is still economic driving....

The final nail into the coffin for fossil fuels however is the basic fact that we CAN generate electricity without them..... while we cannot generate a reasonable fuel alternative to burn in our cars. Bio fuels are an interesting concept... but even if they are produced by renewable energy only I would question that not using this electricity for driving in the first place would be far more efficient in the first place. See hydrogen... why use 3 times the electricity for the same range when you can do it with 1 times?

I see hydrogen as a niche for heavy vehicles where its drawbacks are less important and where batteries for various reasons are far less attractive than in a car.

 

calm down electric bad

 

That is the longest post I have ever seen on a forum anywhere. Congrats for that. Too bad that it is very off topic, but well, I'm not the one to decide that here.

I don't really know what to make of this ICE-EV fight. It has been long overdue that humanity finally starts thinking about an alternative but that should and could have started a lot earlier. However, we all know humans hasve never been good at these things...
What I hate about electric cars though has nothing to do with their technology. It's just the fact that it seems that every car company is now coming out with the most hideous designs anyone has ever seen, advertise it as the second Jesus and just want to hop onto this new trend and get a slice of the electric cake.
This absolutely disgusts me.

Still, this has nothing to do with the Hirochi SBR4, which is a virtual car from a virtual car company in a game. Other than the fact that this car now has an electric variant because the developers wanted to try something new, this discussion has nothing to do here. I know it's hard to stop a good discussion (which this is, and highly interesting to read on top) but it would really help if you would open up a new thread in a fitting section of the forum to discuss this further.
I am very sorry if this came over as backseat moderating, that was not my intention and I normally don't say anything against such discussions, but I just wanted to encourage you to continue this much more freely in a dedicated thread.

 

An ICE is nearly always closed to readline at top speed, where an Electric engine has lower power. EV advertisers always boast about 0-60 acceleration, they say nothing about topspeed or 60-100 acceleration.
An ICEV excels after redling and shifting into 2nd gear. The Tesla Model S is even cannot maintain 220km/h for more than 5 minutes because of overheating "thermal throttling".

Upshift please. An ICEV is more efficient at highway driving, but an EV is less efficient at highway driving because in an EV you cannot upshift to bring the RPM down to save energy.

The Earth heats up and cools down periodically, even without human existance.

Think about biomass fuel. This is renewable energy, and burns like gasoline or diesel, in an internal combustion engine.

Even an luxury EV, the Tesla Model S, uses laptop battery instead of high discharge rate power tool battery, laptop battery does not last long with performance driving. It may last 20+ years with Prius style driving.
For everyday commuting, a modern ICEV does not required to warm up, you can drive away right after engine start. Only racing is required to warm up before a session.
And for fuel usage. You can floor it with 1% fuel remaining and still get 100% power and you can keep a constant refuel rate at gas stations from 0% to 100% fuel. In an EV this in not possible. Horsepower drops far before battery depletion, at 20% to 30% charge. And you cannot charge all the way to 100% at full speed. Therfore the totally availible to the driver is only 65% of the electric charge, 500X65%=325km.

Unfortunately, lots of EVs for mostly city driving (range is lower than 300km) such as the Nissan Leaf has idle creep hard coded, which the driver cannot turn idle creep off. This forces the driver to use brake to control stop and go speed, which hurts mileage a lot. For high end EV such as the Tesla Model S, the driver is able to turn creep off. At stop and go traffic where speed is too low for regen to be effective, no creep means most of the time you coast, saving a lot of energy. But most of the driver don't have a choice.

Despite this, EVs are much more expensive to buy than their ICEV counterparts. EVs are cheaper to produce, the higher cost are the result of green hype.

No. High current batteries exist well before the introduction of the Model S.

 

This is by FAR the longest post I've ever seen on the forums. But I still think the TOG II is the funnest tank ever made.

 

Oh good grief. Anyone want to rip this post apart for me? I've actually been working hard for once in my life and I'm kind of beat right now.

 

Okay, guys: please move this over to the Automotive discussion subforum: https://www.beamng.com/forums/automotive.42/

 

Lets just not read what is above Occam's Post And start talking about the car again.

 

what happened to you being a staff member?

 

Lmao would seem fitting that once a decent argument arrives you need to have it spoon fed to your pea sized mind.

 

You are bound and determined to make me waste my day on this thing, aren't you? "Decent argument" you mean a gigantic pile of rationalizations and efficiency fetishism?

 

Let me translate this to big brain speak:
Also in baby spoonfulls.

"Electric car at full speed not safe"

"Lithium not be good"

"Biofuel not good"
"Maybe for large machine but not for car"

"Global warmening make club penguin kill and also human"

"Electro car more price because vegans"

Thats the most i could get out of it after my brain bluescreened 3 times.

 

Uhhh…. I thought the purpose of this thread was to give ideas about future plans for the SBR and discuss the many ways to improve the car. when did this started turning into the "everything wrong with electric cars?" debate?

 

ESRB "exist"

 

The electric SBR4 is pretty nice to drive IMO. You do have to keep your wits about you though because it masks its speed, so its easy to outbrake a turn. By BeamNG standards, it feels pretty planted too (with ESC on). I must confess that I do also like the artificial electric car sounds in BeamNG, I think they are well judged.

 

I will make a new topic sometimes about alternative power sources but I shall still answer a few particular points:

I would love to upshift my Focus.... sadly to many professional car reviewers complained that the Focus MK 1 with 1,6 Gasoline engine does not accelerate as good as their 2 liters 400 NM 160 HP turbodiesel and as such Ford saw it fit the MK 2 a shorter transmission which means in 5 - and final gear - you ar reving 3250 RPM at 120 km/h. Far less RPM would be quite sufficient but you simple dont have more gears.

No doubt that an EV at high revs is less efficient than at lower revs but I would estimate that the penality is far lower.... after all you are just spinning a shaft inside a magnetic field... you dont move hundreds of liters of air through small openings by using up and down moving pistons.

In fact, the very ability of electric motors to rev so high it what makes them only require one gear in most cases.

If we are unlucky... increasing heat will solve the human existance problem...

We need a lot of oil replaced.... that a lot of agriculture just for driving arround. Being limited to ICE also means poor overall efficiency and air pollution.

Yes, you can and you should as an engine under load warms up much faster to operating temperatures.

Still.... the very reason why racing engines are warmed up is precisly the same. Maximum efficiency is only achieved when the engine is at operating temperature. When you start your car in the morning the engine and all parts of it are at ambient temperature. Most oil is in the oil pan and as such lubrication is below average for a lot of moving parts. Oil is also at ambient temperature and less viscous. All this not only accounts for increased wear and increases the internal engine resistance = more fuel for the same performance.

Piston to cylinder tolerances are meant for operating temperatures. When cold.... more blow by is happening leading to oil poisoning and also increased emissions. Cold fuel condensating at the cylinder wall not helping matters. In fact... on some short range abused turbo diesel the blow by fuel amount can visible increase the amount of oil in the engine. Diesel is a poor lubricant but still much better than gasoline. On the bright side... gasoline vapours much faster meaning that one good long drive at operarating temperatures will remove most gasoline out of the oil.

Then there is exhaust cleaning.... catalytic converters require 400 C to even begin functioning. Modern car ECU have only one goal after start... heat up the cat..... as fast as possible. This is good for the enviroment... but bad for fuel economy because what do you think it uses to heat up the cat?

ICE efficiency is horrible at cold start.... but the worst of it is left behind after the first few minutes. Still... peak clean emissions and fuel economy only really happens after 15 - 20 km of average driving for gasoline cars and may take up to 25 km of driving for large car diesels.

You pay this price everyday with an ICE. Modern materials and downsized turbocharged engines reduce the lenght of the warm up phase and wear and tear but you can never fully get rid of it. There is a reason why many ambulance are kept with engines and oil preheated. This keeps wear and tear to a minimum even though the engine is most likely driven very hard right after the start.

This is stupid.... I would assume that those car companies did so because in the US most cars have an automatic transmission which classically exhibits this behavior for technical reasons.

I would estimate that the battery development costs play a role, too.

T.O.G.... only real with intergrated hotel, swimming pool and sauna.

 

Anyway, why does the Esbr not have a Engine starter imput? I want to just turn off the car.