The Porsche Taycan's Two-Speed Gearbox | Hacker News Reader

The Porsche Taycan's Two-Speed Gearbox

wired.com

104 pointsjbredeche210 comments

The level of hubris here is pretty high. "No reason"? "No performance benefit"?

Porsche is spending billions of dollars to bring a very high performance track-focused sports-sedan to the market. Hundreds of extremely good engineers are getting paid millions of dollars to figure this problem out.

I'm sure the transmission is a giant set of engineering tradeoffs (what project isn't), and maybe it won't work out and will end up being the wrong solution.

But it can't be so obvious that random Joe-and-Jane HackerNews know the answer off the top of their heads and Porsche doesn't after all the resources it has spent to figure out the problem.

I understand your sentiment. I'd like to add the fact that the original Tesla was a two-speed, or perhaps it was the original design for the Model S, but they scrapped it for simplicity IIRC.

It was in the roadster, it was dropped due to poor reliability for all future designs.

So, I'll just hop in here and lay out the spoiler.

There is a major performance difference in the Taycan, it's endurance, and it's highly likely this transmission is a key element to achieving it.

For those that don't know, Tesla's cars can not keep their maximum performance up for a very long time. The battery gets hot and lowers power output until it cools back down. The Taycan, while not having as impressive max specs or range (and some serious questionability about the charging claims) CAN keep its maximum performance indefinitely. At least through a full discharge of the battery pack, but, also after a recharge it can keep going and they demonstrated this recently with a 24 hour marathon test drive stopping only to charge it.

So, without really getting into all the weird perception based arguments, there is clearly a difference in performance and the transmission may be critical to it.

Another reason the Taycan can output near maximum power for a much extended time period is it operates at 800v vs 650v as compared to the Tesla.

Higher voltage alone does not magically give you longer sustained maximum power.

It's also unclear to me why a gearbox alone would give you longer sustained maximum power.

Most electric motors are most efficient and can generate the most power within a certain RPM range. (It's a lot wider than gas engines, but beyond a certain speed the torque falls off.) If you can drive at high speeds at a more efficient motor RPM, then that's less excess heat for the motor and inverter to deal with, and less current draw from the batteries.

Electric motors are pretty much opposite of gasoline engines. Motors have peak torque at 0-2krpm and it drops off rapidly after that. Gasoline cars tend to hit peak torque near the end of their rpm range (ignoring turbos that can change that in any number of ways).

From what I can see, most electric motors are tuned to have peak efficiency at ~5krpm which is conveniently around freeway driving speeds.

One might even imagine they were engineered to be optimally efficient at freeway driving speeds! :D

For single-speed EV’s, the motors are operating very far away from their maximum efficiency point at high speeds. By upshifting, you can reduce the number of revs required at top speed, which should improve efficiency and reduce heating of the motors.

Alone it's probably not enough. In combination with other design decisions, it could be the key though. Take for example the smaller battery. Normally that would be a big limiting factor as battery size is somewhat indicative of maximum power output. But by shifting gears once through the acceleration curve, they can compensate for the lower max power. Furthermore, they could keep higher speeds with less constant power output.

The reason this matters is because a smaller battery will produce less heat overall, which will be easier to cool, and so on.

Anyway it's just a theory. The facts remain: the Taycan can do something the Teslas can't and this gearbox is the biggest single meaningful difference in design of the powertrain. It stands to reason they are related facts to some degree or another.

Higher voltage means less current for the same power. Since the power dissipated on the battery is proportional with the current you want to draw less current. What a lot of people do not understand is that the lack of a gearbox in an electric car is a big problem. When the motor is running suboptimally the excess energy taken from the battery will be transformed in heat.

It depends what speeds make the motor run sub-optimally for a particular vehicle. The range 0-80 MPH is sufficient for almost all normal driving. If you want to make an efficient track car that can operate at high speeds optimally by all means introduce a gearbox. Its going to add more weight, complexity and maintenance though. I don’t think thats the target for any of Tesla’s cars besides the 2020 roadster though.

This is more of a function of battery chemistry on the S/X - the Model 3 does not have the same power restriction under load.

Which makes Elon's promise of sending the Model S round the ring a bit confusing.

Presumably it would be a suicide run to match the Taycan, which to my understanding would involve modifications and not be eligible for the same category.

Either it was an idle boast, or we're about to see the launch of the 21700 Model S.

The new raven model S has the same battery chemistry as model 3

It does not. Raven altered the motor and suspension, battery is same as it ever was for MS (18650) M3 uses 27100, which is taller so can’t just be dropped into the current MS

Not 100% accurate. It is a new battery pack but still based on the 18650 cells. Tesla battery packs have a numerical code which was incremented for the packs in the raven models.

The most pronounced new feature is the ability to charge at up to 200kW on the new V3 superchargers. M3 can do up to 250kW and non-raven S/X can only do in the low 100s.

Once around the ring is not an issue. It's a day at the track that's a problem, not one lap. And not an issue at all if you're fine with waiting periodically while the battery temp comes back to optimal.

Do you have data for a Tesla completing a single Nurburgring lap at full speed? AFAIK they failed each time so far https://insideevs.com/news/323053/tesla-model-s-fails-to-lap...

You're super 100% wrong. The model 3 absolutely does have the same restriction under load. I have no idea where you're getting your ideas.

I am a Model 3 owner, I assure you it will reduce power after a time. No need to take my word for it though you can find plenty of autobahn demo videos showing it. It's not terrible but it is a thing and it's "worse" with track mode.

Numerous "sporty" car reviews also mention this fact. It's just the way it is. Not an impact to most drivers. Absolutely critical to someone who loves the track.

Super 100% wrong! That’s impressive for a clearly factual statement. It is indisputable that the Model 3 does not have the same power restriction under load, and that is primarily attributed to the new battery chemistry.

That is not to say that the Model 3 is entirely unlimited in its power delivery. But a 2018 S/X will go into a low-power mode before you can even finish one lap on the ring and the Model 3 will not. The stock Model 3 Performance brakes will overheat however.

I’ve watched several videos where Bjørn Nyland pushes his 3P to top speed for sustain periods and does not see any power limiting. He shows the same driving on a Model S which gets power limited.

A cursory Google search finds several Tesla forum threads showing people with 3P not being power limited on the track.

I am also a Model 3 owner, and I’ve never seen it reduce power, but I’ve never driven it faster than 110mph for a few minutes, and don’t take it on the track.

The main issue I’ve read about 3P is that the brakes overheat. It needs carbon ceramics on the track.

It is universally acknowledged that power delivery on the Model 3 is better than S/X.

> Porsche is spending billions of dollars to bring a very high performance track-focused sports-sedan to the market. Hundreds of extremely good engineers are getting paid millions of dollars to figure this problem out.

I honestly don't understand this. Almost all of us drive at safe speeds on public roads and sit in traffic.

Focusing so much on racing just comes across as a distraction. I love my Model 3, But my older Leaf was fast enough for me.

Then you are absolutely not the target market for any Porsche, let alone this one. Not a dig, I'm not the target market either.

> But it can't be so obvious that random Joe-and-Jane HackerNews know the answer off the top of their heads and Porsche doesn't after all the resources it has spent to figure out the problem.

Does this same discussion-closer apply when we talk about software? Plenty of software companies with the same hundred engineers millions of dollars thing. Yet we are allowed to talk about their fuckups. What makes you think cars are different?

And yet their car is only about as fast as a FWD 300HP Renault Megane RS on the Nurburgring.

It's a little surprising that even with a two-speed Gearbox the Taycan has neither better range nor low range 0-60 acceleration than the Tesla P100D (which has the same size battery). Obviously spec comparisons aren't the whole story and the handling and high-range acceleration may be better on the Taycan. Looking forward to seeing more comparisons and already glad to see more EV models in this category.

Edited incorrect comment about top speed.

According to the article:

> It’s programmed to shift between its two speeds at 43 mph, though the computer can be programmed to make the change at different points based on the route, topography, or the distance the driver hopes to cover before plugging in.

I wonder if that shift point has anything to do with the slower acceleration. I'd imagine it would make a small difference.

As for the top speed, I believe Tesla is limited to 155mph and the Taycan is reported to be limited at 161mph. So the Taycan is actually faster, but I'm not sure how much it matters since both are limited by the software.

Model S top speed is 163 mph.

Porsches have never really been about straightline speed. Always about overall performance and a sports-car feeling.

I'm guessing they optimized things like power, gearing and weight placement to offer good acceleration through a range of speeds with amazing handling and decent range at speed.

True, and the Taycan may well be a better car in many ways. But a discussion of the gearbox has nothing to do with handling or sports car feeling.

I'm wondering what we're missing here. 5% efficiency improvement at high speeds isn't anything to write home about today. The transmission is a known quantity -- it's just gears, it won't get more efficient as they develop it. The efficiency of the whole system (battery/drivetrain/regen/motor/aero/etc) can be optimized quite a bit going forward, but if the 2-speed transmission will only ever get us a 5% increase, I'm not sure it's worth the added weight and complexity.

Obviously Porsche knows what they're doing, and it may be about thermal management on the Autobahn more than about outright efficiency, but I'm skeptical.

If this were 2010 I'd say "yeah, obviously Porsche knows something about building a real sedan that you can take on a real highway trip, Tesla has no idea what they're doing".

But, having produced actual sedans that actually work, and Porsche going with a more complicated system for 5%.. I don't know what I'm missing.

>True, and the Taycan may well be a better car in many ways. But a discussion of the gearbox has nothing to do with handling or sports car feeling.

There isn't a single published metric in which the Performance Model S doesn't trounce the Taycan.

How about 0-60 or 1/4 mile where you haven’t spent 10 minutes warming the batteries first?

if you're looking for the best car on paper, Porsche is probably not for you.

Well in terms of looks, charging network, city driving, autopilot, price and drag racing I'll take the Tesla. So far we've just seen a bunch of hand waving about how Taycan is better on the track... looks like there is a Model S being sent to Nurburgring to lay that to rest.

> looks like there is a Model S being sent to Nurburgring to lay that to rest.

It looks like that Model S might just be sitting next to the Nurburgring for a while once it gets there.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28942079/tesla-mod...

sounds like you're the target audience for tesla. nothing wrong with that, but everyone has their own taste. for the money, I'd much rather have the new GT4, but that's neither here nor there.

> charging network

The charging network available to the Taycan is the combination of different CCS charging network providers. They've been doing roaming deals with each other to simplify charging for their users. For example, Electrify America has roaming agreements with EVgo and ChargePoint:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/evgo-electrify-america-ch...

Road trips don't seem to be a problem in the Taycan. 408 miles, one 24 minute stop for charging:

https://www.carscoops.com/2019/09/porsche-taycan-makes-408-m...

There’s almost no chance Tesla is going to get anywhere near the Taycan. There’s been a few professional drivers who’ve given it a shot and breaking 9 minutes has been a challenge. For context, that’s the same lap time as a Mazda MX-5.

There’s almost zero chance Elon is going to find another 1:20 with the existing Model S. Just not going to happen.

https://youtu.be/Dphw4km60m4

At the end of the video the dude was barely able to break the 170 kph on straights.... The performance degradation throughout 2/3rds of a lap was atrocious. The driver was pretty decent considering he was hauling around a massive sedan, the guy knew the ring very well.

Nurburgring Ring times. P100D has terrible thermal management and goes into limp mode before completing the course. If people really cared about 0 to 60 times, we see a lot more Dodge Demons on the road instead of 911s and Corvettes.

If Porsche can get price point for a regular Taycan below $100k, i'll gladly trade in my Porsche and Tesla for one because it does everything i want. I can drive canyon roads and never have to fill up.

Nurburing will be put to the test next week. To compare a 2014 model S or even p85 is pointless. Until then it is just another attempt at hand waving and cherry picking from Porsche.

> Nurburing will be put to the test next week.

Unlikely. The track is fully booked for a while. I know that Musk wants to get an apples-to-apples comparison between the two cars, but Musk needed to start working on this (starting with a Nurburing reservation) months ago.

I'm sure they'll get a test-run in within a few months, but there's no way they'll get the info within a week.

Lots of jeering on Twitter right now as Nürburgring is saying that Tesla does not have a lap reservation for them next week as Musk had claimed. https://twitter.com/RoadandTrack/status/1170044182808977408

> Porsche has tons of experience setting fast Nürburgring lap times, and a huge asset in the form of factory racer Lars Kern. The Model S Performance is a quick car, but Tesla has no prior experience attempting to lap the Nürburgring. It's hard to imagine the automaker could go out and beat Porsche on its first visit to the track.

Maybe they're hoping Autopilot will set the track record? LOL

Sure, and it's an ancient car, by EV standards. I'd hope that a Porsche that nobody has taken delivery of yet and costs way more is better.

Last time I was at the track (in my BMW M car, mind you) we had a couple of Model 3 Performance cars, and a couple of Model S.

I could pass the Model S with ease. I couldn't get close to the Model 3 Performance.

Model 3 performance needs ceramic brakes for the ring. Car is too heavy for the Brembos and it is at the limit for brake size.

The Taycan currently only comes with two brake options: carbon surface coated brakes or full carbon ceramic brakes.

Porsche have said in many interviews the coating is for cosmetics rather than performance.

Like most electric cars, when driving “normally” you don’t really ever touch the brakes as the energy regen that kicks in when you step off the accelerator pedal slows the car down so effectively. Porsche were worried the discs would develop unsightly surface corrosion from lack of use for some drivers - the coating keeps them looking good.

The Taycan freewheels when you take your foot off the accelerator and only regenerates when you hit the brakes. This is quite different than most other electric cars.

That's just a default configuration difference. You can configure it to do lift-off regen if you like. There's also a camera based auto-regen mode that can switch between coasting and regen based on the distance to the car in front.

Philosophically, Porsche believes it's easier to drive a car fast when one pedal is solely responsible for accelerating and one for braking. Having the throttle be responsible for acceleration and light braking makes it difficult to modulate speed consistently. You can even see the philosophy at work on their gasoline cars, in Sport+ mode the anti-lag system pretty much removes engine braking.

Primarily for cosmetics since it generates much less brake dust, but it's also has a shorter stopping distance due to increased coefficient of friction from increased contact area and seems to be more resistant to fade.

https://thebrakereport.com/porsche-surface-coated-brake-pscb...

Which seems pretty reasonable...large family sedan vs a sports sedan.

Besides, when the new Tesla roadster rolls out in 2020/2021, it is game over for everyone else anyway. At a price point of ~$200k, it'll kind of make the Porsche Taycan a joke. Unless you are a Porsche only individual. Which, to their credit, is a fairly sizable market.

I'm skeptical Tesla can even roll out the Model Y before 2021. Meeting deadlines has never been their strong suit.

Rimac pretty much stole the show in the electric supercar segment already.

Tesla's capex spending is lower than their depreciation, meaning they're not investing enough to maintain their existing production lines. There is no way they will be rolling out any new models any time soon.

Additionally the MS and MX interiors are starting to get a bit dated compared to the ultra-sleek Model 3’s interior - the MS’s interior design is still fundamentally unchanged since 2012. They did upgrade the infotainment system in early 2018 though, but that’s invisible to users who don’t notice smoother framerates.

Replying here because I can't to child.

Tesla's capex being lower than depreciation doesn't mean that they're not maintaining their production lines (but neither does it mean they're not - the two are largelty unrelated).

Depreciation is set by accounting policy, not by how much maintenance capex you'd need to spend to keep the facility in the same condition.

Side note, but when you see a missing reply option it's an attempt to slow down fast replies.

You can still reply though, you just need to click on the time stamp above the comment and you'll get a reply box for that comment.

From road and track: """At launch, Porsche will offer two versions of the Taycan—the Turbo and Turbo S. The Turbo will carry an MSRP of $153,510 at launch, while the Turbo S will cost $187,610. Both of those numbers are minus destination charge."""

I suppose that leaves room for a non-turbo (lol) Taycan closer to your prices sometime in the future.

What's the turbo doing?

I (lol)ed because "turbo" and "turbo-s" are a naming convention from their conventional cars that is fairly non-sensical on an electric car given that they don't have turbochargers.

Eg. Macan < Macan S < Macan Turbo

Of course, the two non-turbo Macan models above both turbochargers so the moniker really just means "the fastest model" in Porsche speak.

The combustion non-turbo 911s also have turbochargers, so yes, long time marketing label, not feature description.

hilarious :)

Plus the GT2RS has a turbo but doesn't have a turbo trim. And the various GT3 cars don't have a turbo.

That’s more a marketing thing and emissions driving them to use small turbo 4 cylinders. Up until 2-3 years ago the bae 911 was naturally aspirated

> that is fairly non-sensical on an electric car given that they don't have turbochargers

Lots of things have had "turbo" terminology over the years.

- PCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Turbo_Boost

- Video games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter_II_Turbo%3A_Hyp...

- Folk music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-folk

In areas where it didn't already mean a very specific feature. If I bought a sound card and it had "turbo boost" I would laugh pretty hard too! And if Intel started selling 'turbo' processors that couldn't turbo, that might even be bad enough to get lawsuits...

I’m surprised people are getting so pedantic about using the Turbo moniker on an electric car. Sure, historically in cars it has typically referred to a type of forced induction commonly used on combustion engines, but it’s also been generally used to mean “FAST” in virtually every other marketing field for decades. I love cars, regardless of the means by which they generate forward motion, and couldn’t care less Porsche called this one a Turbo - it’s performance characteristics are entirely in keeping with what one expects from a Porsche with the Turbo branding.

There are a number of lower trims coming. Plain taycan will be single motor, I believe they mentioned a 4S that will be the lowest dual motor option and a GTS, all below the turbo.

Porsche has been saying all along the base taycan will be right around the base panamara price, around 90K. Makes sense since taycan shares rear suspension and interior parts with panamara, and unlike other ICE cars where BEV raises costs, the cost of motor + battery is likely to be around the price of a porsche engine. Panamara turbo is 150K just like taycan turbo as well.

Does the Taycan overheat and go into limp mode if you take it to the track?

The old Model S had a hard time keeping up with a Nissan Leaf on the track.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/16/how-did-a-nissan-leaf-b...

Does it pop glued coolant lines making you pay for track cleaning like the rest of track oriented Porsches? https://rennlist.com/forums/997-gt2-gt3-forum/592328-catastr...

A 5% efficiency gain might be a big deal when it comes to motor heat. Electric motors tend to be around 85-90% efficient or so, and if you can get the motor from, say, 85% efficient to 90% efficient, that might translate to a one-third reduction in waste heat.

> that might translate to a one-third reduction in waste heat.

Is that a big deal, though, compared to battery heat? Or is it in the context of a race scenario?

Speculation, since I’m not an expert:

The battery is big, so it has high thermal mass and lots of area for cooling. The motor is small. Motors can also easily be thermally limited. A permanent magnet motor that overheats will demagnetize and be destroyed. Induction motors and other non-permanent-magnet motors are less sensitive, but resistance goes up and metals and glues soften at higher temperature.

My understanding is that getting rid of waste heat is one of the main factors that limits how much power you can get out of an electric motor for any length of time. Less heat means you can get up a long steep hill without overheating (or causing the electronics to back off on the motor amperage to avoid damage).

I think the early versions of the original Tesla roadster had gearboxes with multiple speeds, but Elon eventually got rid of it and settled on just having one for later versions of the roadster (and all subsequent Tesla cars).

I think they found it didn't give much of an advantage when it did work and that they generally just didn't work very well.

And anybody who has driven a Porsche knows what an immaculate steering and transmission feels like. I seriously doubt Porsche would release something that was not up to the standard of the regular vehicles.

I had the recent boxster and was a fan (though it was stick).

I have driven the older “tip-tronic” (I think that was the name) paddle shifters though and they weren’t very good at the time. Supposedly they’ve improved since then though (that was probably 2009 or so).

Agreed. Daily driving in my 958 GTS is great. Long highway stretches are fantastic. But it's not until weekend autocrossing that I really get to feel how well tuned a 2-ton SUV can be. Turning in times in the middle of the same pack as the coupes is fun.

People that haven't driven a modern Porsche just do not grasp how precise the driving experience can be. It's astounding how well-tuned their vehicles are.

Mazda dumped a bunch of R&D and complexity into their transmission for "only" a 4-7% (AT)¹ and 1% (MT)² efficiency improvement. I guess in the automotive world, you're fighting for every last %.

¹ https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skya...

² https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skya...

Tesla tried to use a two speed transmission back in its Roadster days. They scraped it due to reliability issues. So even Tesla thinks (or thought) that two speed transmissions had technical advantages.

Comparing Porsche and Tesla shows that the perception of performance applies to EVs too: European performance is more about the handling, while American performance is more about straightline acceleration. The reason for this difference becomes obvious if you compare what the roads are typically like between the two regions.

Live in Germany, and I care about handling, breaking power, and acceleration at rarely >50km/h, and often at >100-130km/h. Acceleration at 0-100km/h makes no sense for any meaningful use of a car here.

When I'm driving at >250km/h on the highway and one truck tries to overtake another at 80-90km/h, people driving 130 on the middle lane end up switching to the fast lane, so I have to break down to 100-130 km/h, and re-accelerate back up to >250km/h afterwards. The faster that happens, the less my average speed falls.

In Germany at least, one never lands into the highway merging lane at lestt than 60-70km/h, and the normal thing is to be at 50km/h and slowly move towards 80km/h for merging once you are on the merging lane and merge carefully. By the time you finish merging you are already at 120km/h in the slow lane.

If you are driving curvy roads, you want good handling so that you don't have to break down to less than 50-60km/h most of the time, and then you want good acceleration from 50-60 up to 100 km/h, and good breaking. You can't drive curvy roads here faster than 100km/h anyways.

Nurburgring is a mixture between highway and track-curvy roads (realistic curvy roads in germany are not like that), where a skilled driver with a car with good handling rarely drops below 130km/h in the curves, and is at about 250 km/h on all straight segments except for the very last one. Being able to reach 300km/h in the last segment is nice, but it only makes a dent in the overall lap time and doesn't really help if your car has bad handling. Also, its the last segment of the lap, so if your EV is overheating you'll fail miserably there.

The only situation I can imagine in which 0-60 matters is if you are drag racing, and for that, I have a 9.000 EUR BMW S1000R that beats pretty much every single car. Why would anyone pay >80.000 EUR for a drag racing car escapes my comprehension. Why would anyone care about Nurburgring times escapes my comprehension as well. I was once there with the bike, and I almost shit my pants. There is a huge difference between smoothly cruising at 250 km/h in a Germany highway, and driving at 250km/h on Nurburgring. People driving there are insane.

I've not done a whole lot of research but Tesla has it figured it out, compare a Tesla in power and range with the BMW i8. Maybe Porsche can make a better showing than their German counterpart.

Porsche is German too.

I believe they just didn’t give the option to wreck your car by overclocking.

Their selling point is repeatability, so overloading the systems is not part of the Taycan experience.

Probably it’s possible to push the car to higher performance and risk performance degradation later on as with Tesla. Would be fun when people start playing around with these cars’ systems.

Porche appears to be claiming that one of the features of the Taycan is repeated launch control 0-60s without overheating or other problems that Telsa is warning people about when you use ludicrous mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP9kokeyxGU

That was a issue with the Model S, not with the P3D. I suspect that when they switch over the S to the new style batteries, it goes away.

But by switching over to the Model 3 powertrain, Tesla will lose their 0-60 crown. The 3 might have better cooling motors, batteries, and efficiency, but the S launches faster despite being much heavier.

So Tesla gets to pick whether they want a Model S that doesn't overheat, or a Model S that's slower to 60 than a Taycan.

>has neither better range

any additional gear is an additional loss of efficiency. One gear engagement results in up to 10% of loss.

> It's a little surprising that even with a two-speed Gearbox the Taycan has neither better range nor low range 0-60 acceleration than the Tesla P100D (which has the same size battery).

0-60 times probably don't matter on the track. Its probably more important to optimize the 60 to 120mph time, which is where the torque of a (single gear) electric motor begins to taper off. I bet that Taycan has superior 60-to-120mph times than any gearbox-free design, which would lead to superior track performance. Especially on a track as big as Nurburgring.

Even on highway driving, 0-60 times kind of don't matter as much as 30-60 times. (Aka: merging into a highway). The only reason to push 0-60 times is for drag-racing really.

> The only reason to push 0-60 times is for drag-racing really.

Wat? Most people care about accelerating from a standstill to the average legal speed limits.

0-60 captures that perfectly. It's incredibly relevant to the general public's driving patterns.

People rarely do a full power 0-60 with a car that can do it under 5 seconds. More likely they go from 30-60 or similar.

When a car does it silently without being overtly antisocial they do it far more often.

Leaving all the other cars next to you in the dust is quite antisocial behavior actually.

For the most part, I want to accelerate with everyone else when that green light goes off (except for Trucks: I wanna leave Trucks in the dust and get away from them ASAP). The 30mph to 60mph acceleration of off-ramp into freeway cruising speed however, is pretty important. A lot of things are going on when I merge onto a freeway, so I'd like to make sure I can accelerate in an adequate amount of time: to the point where I've (occasionally) downshift to 2nd, even in standard traffic, to get to 60mph asap.

> Leaving all the other cars next to you in the dust is quite antisocial behavior actually.

As a motorcycle rider I disagree, it's the safest option for us.

I get that not everyone is pleased about it, though.

> As a motorcycle rider I disagree, it's the safest option for us.

Things are different if you're in a 4000+lb electric vehicle. The bigger the vehicle, the more polite it is to stick with the rest of traffic (or even let people pass you).

According to you.

From a safety perspective, in stop and go traffic, the heavier the vehicle the more I want it traveling in front of me not behind me. Unless I'm certain I can completely escape its field of influence like when splitting lanes on a motorcycle.

Even on the bike you don’t accelerate full out. You are already way ahead with half power and full power acceleration from 0 is quite risky when you get wheel spin.

> Leaving all the other cars next to you in the dust is quite antisocial behavior actually

Honest question: can you expand on that? Assuming it's a safe thing to do, why is it antisocial?

Serious question: how is this antisocial behavior? I understand wanting to stick with the flow of traffic when you're part of the pack, but if you're in front of the pack, what's the advantage (to anyone) of hanging back?

1. By accelerating dramatically off the line, you're telling the other cars that they are driving too slowly.

2. Alternatively: you may be sending a signal that you want to drag-race with someone. And nobody likes it when drag-racers start playing on public roads. Keep that stuff off the streets and on the track only.

Now sure, if the cars next to me are driving slowly, I'll leave them in the dust. But its not something I'll do on every green-light, and its something I'd do only if they're going exceptionally slowly (ex: driving 40mph in a 60mph zone)

Those are the two signals I perceive whenever someone accelerates strongly off of a green light: either #1, or #2, depending on context. There's certainly a time to signal #1, but its a relatively rare event.

Since when is the priority to not offend the drivers around you?

We must live in completely different worlds.

My comment re: antisocial was more in reference to noise pollution and disturbing residents at home where they have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet.

> Since when is the priority to not offend the drivers around you?

Caring about others is pretty much rule #1 about living in a polite society. People who don't care about others are called sociopaths, literally anti-social behavior.

Prioritizing safety on the streets, making sure you send clear signals with your actions, etc. etc. Its all part of driving and being a good citizen on the road. Part of that is absolutely understanding how others perceive your driving behaviors: if you're driving too slow, too quick, if your high-beams are too bright, etc. etc.

Its also about understanding why motorcycles lane split (safety + efficiency), and other behaviors. And a lot of it is cultural: different areas have different cultures so its not a one-size fit all approach either.

if you accelerate quickly to the legal limit and others take it as an invitation to drive recklessly, that sounds an awful lot like their own problem.

I agree with your other comments about driving in traffic. avoiding large speed differentials when you are surrounded by other cars is very much your responsibility.

> avoiding large speed differentials

That would be (or should be) the entire point of a posted speed limit, go with the flow. There should also be a lower speed limit.

On roads I would bet many crashes occur due to the difference in speed between vehicles. Speeding motorcycles, slow trucks, fast sports cars, all of which would be around vehicles of moderate speed.

The reaction time for the faster vehicle driver is different than the the drivers other slow vehicles. Also consider not all drivers have the same experience. Those differences are dangerous.

That would be (or should be) the entire point of a posted speed limit, go with the flow. There should also be a lower speed limit.

You can't have both. Suggest doing some Googling for a topic called the "85th percentile rule."

To me, all it says is you enjoy your fast car. I don't see any reason to take offense, and if you're ahead of me, it means you're not in my way.

If you take someone accelerating quickly from a light as a signal that you're driving too slowly, you probably drive too slowly. I don't think its a signal at all - and who really cares if it is?

1. By accelerating dramatically off the line, you're telling the other cars that they are driving too slowly.

Which they often are. No fuel or pollution is saved when you creep away from a light so slowly that it keeps several cars behind you from making it through until the next cycle.

> what's the advantage (to anyone) of hanging back?

It might just be me, but driving at night on rural roads is much more pleasant when you’re behind a car that’s travelling at the same speed and route. Having someone follow is much worse, with headlight glare being irritating.

> with headlight glare being irritating.

Of topic, but I wish we'd switch to polarized headlights.

That's ridiculous. The more cars you drive near, the more likely there is to be a collision. I take off from lights to get away from the pack, and I drive away from the packs on the highway. If there's nobody near you, you can't hit them.

The #1 factor in collisions is actually speed differential.

If you are driving at a dramatically different speed than everyone else, you increase the chance of collision. I'm not saying drive like grandma: I'm saying drive the same speed as everyone else, to minimize the risk of collision. If you're too slow, you are as dangerous as going too quickly.

Someone going 40 mph in a 60mph zone is just as dangerous as someone going 80 mph in a 60mph area. Speed differential is what causes accidents. If everyone is driving the same speed, its relatively difficult to actually hit anyone (as long as you stay out of people's blindspots). That's why downshifting to 3rd (or even 2nd) to reach 60mph ASAP while getting onto a highway is important to me.

Speed differential when driving in traffic, OP said to get away from traffic. There is no differential when there is no car near you

A rare road indeed where all other traffic is behind you...

Being first at a red light is not very rare.

And even if there are cars adjacent, you can scoot away just fine with a speed differential under 10mph.

Motorcycles do this too, and the drawback is that you are much more likely to run into someone who's just missing the red light in the other direction. And that will be a high-speed differential collision, not anything like contacting the people who are going in the same direction as you.

This is more of a risk in places where red light running is endemic. Sadly here in Auckland is rapidly becoming one of those places.

The word anti-social has a serious clinical psychological definition I'm not sure if that's what you intended mean.

I understand it has a casual use like the word "theory" does, but this one used casually seems more unfortunate given the nasty nature of the clinical definition.

Sometimes engineers are referred to as a geek, while the next moment referred to also as "anti-social" (remember before billionaires not as many people thought it was acceptable?). Who knows, as a group quirky maybe? but it seems unsubstantiated to suggest murderers are overrepresented in the population.

John Carmack among others agrees with you about Tesla acceleration not being antisocial. Here he is talking about it (timestamp in link takes you to the right part of the video):

https://youtu.be/Ua-ikbZVofc?t=674

I do it quite often, but it really depends on location I think.

In more rural locations you'll commonly have a 90 degree turn onto a 60-70mph road.

I probably wouldn't if it were 3s 0-60 though.

The tire wear for repeated 3s 0-60 must be enormous.

With modern traction control and AWD not really

This. Porsche's traction control is fantastic.

At 4s it's not too bad. I mean, I don't have anything to compare to, but we're still talking tens of thousands of miles per replacement.

Obviously that's not like, a full throttle acceleration and slowdown constantly, just merges.

I drive a supercharged sports car that does 0-60 in 2.9 and do it every couple of days on a rural road near me, adrenaline is great! This is definitely an outlier though.. I get the impression from reading the forum for my car that most people don't push it near its limit regularly.

the car, tell me.

When, years ago, I had a performance car 0-60 was only useful for obtaining shock from first time passengers. Though 20-50 was far more reliable in getting surprised involuntary curses from the passenger seat, as was invoking wheelspin at 70. :) The fact it had a ludicrous 0-60 had plenty of kids revving engines trying to encourage a traffic light drag race. Usually this would have me driving off like an ageing vicar.

What was useful in real world driving was 40+ top gear roll on acceleration, or 70+ on the track, as was the enormous amount of engine braking. 0-60 really didn't matter other than as indirect indicator of capability. The fun, and performance was elsewhere.

I'd wager the vast majority of driver's have never really floored it, and especially from standstill. People care about getting from point A to point B safely and conveniently, and flooring it to get from 0-60 as fast as possible is ridiculously unsafe, has no utility (except very rarely when merging), and is terrible for both your car, your tires, and your fuel economy.

This is not a car for the general public, it is an incredibly niche, specially designed machine should conform to the public's driving patterns. On top of that, it STILL has an insanely fast 0-60 time.

Granted, I could be missing the point you're making. Apologies if that's the case.

On a track, the lateral G force the car can maintain traction at and the deceleration time matter a lot too.

> 0-60 times probably don't matter on the track.

Yes, in the Taycan's Nürburgring-Nordschleife run, for example, the speed was mostly above 100kph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m31EgQkswg

I think this is a benefit only at higher speeds, tbh. The Tesla single speed setup seems to be really tuned towards low end acceleration, which admittedly is a logical thing to tune for in a premium family sedan.

We've already seen some pretty good hints that the next Tesla Roadster may have at least a two speed gearbox, probably for similar reasons.

> The Tesla single speed setup seems to be really tuned towards low end acceleration, which admittedly is a logical thing to tune for in a premium family sedan.

It's probably actually tuned for range/consumption. The Taycan gets roughly 2/3 the range of a Model S despite better aerodynamics and almost the same battery size.

We'll see what EV drivers value more, track performance or range.

Porsche are experts in transmissions and gearboxes, but are starting (almost) from scratch for batteries. Give them a few years, they'll catch on.

I suspect it might be motors too.

Why do they even need gears? I can see why we need differentials (until we have one motor per wheel), but can't gears be done in some electronic way with clever arrangements of motor

For example, the tesla has ~10:1 reduction ratio gearing, but I wonder if there's a clever way of rearranging the poles/coils of the motor, maybe like a crankshaft, so you get the best torque matched to the rpm?

> Why do they even need gears?

electric motors don't actually have flat torque curves. they make peak torque at zero rpm and then gradually decrease. the curve is much smoother than an ICE, but it's still possible to increase the performance of the engine by keeping it in an optimal rpm range provided you don't add too much weight and/or power loss through the transmission.

They have built the 918 hybrid hypercar and a number of phev versions of their production cars that are faster than the pure ICE versions. The hybrid 919 le mans winner is also a triumph.

I think porsche has been developing electric expertise better than just about any other established brand, but they are focused on charging speed and consistent performance rather than straight range.

Porsche is joining Formula E next season so I imagine they will get up to speed pretty quickly.

Some things Porsche has done with the Taycan which contrast with Teslas are:

- Launch repeatability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP9kokeyxGU

- A 7:42 lap time at the Nürburgring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m31EgQkswg

- Travelling 2,129 miles in 24 hours: https://insideevs.com/news/365827/porsche-taycan-24-hours-en...

Aside from not providing much of any performance benefit, this will introduce difficulty coordinating regenerative braking through the shift point.

One of my former employers had a group trying really hard to make a 2-speed for EVs make sense. It just doesn't. If there is an efficiency gain, it's probably better to throw the extra money and weight into the motor. An exception might be if you want to cruise at 120+ mph for long distances, but that's not realistic.

Which part of cruising at 120+ mph for long distances is not realistic?

Long distances?

1. outside Germany, cops 2. power scales as v^3 destroying range.

We shouldn't lose sight of #3.

3. This is a toy we're talking about here.

I eagerly await to see the Taycan's range at 120+ mph. evcalc.ch suggests it would be around 164 Km for 200 Km/h (Turbo S).

Why don't you think there will be much performance benefit? The Porsche taycan is much faster accelerating than any Tesla at high speeds, probably due to the two speed gearbox. I don't think it is an efficiency thing, electric motors just start loosing power after a certain rpm, and a gearbox helps with this.

Cruising at 120+ mph on long distances happens a lot on German autobahns, one of Porsche’s main markets.

I drive from Ingolstadt to Bonn regularly and on average I am able to get ~170km/h average speed for the trip. If I'm lucky (e.g. at night) I surpass ~180km/h. That requires a lot of cruising at 250km/h. Starting with a full tank I still end up with gas to spare. I had a Ford Focus 10 years ago and I remember managing ~150km/h average speed for the trip without refuelling...

If I need to charge an EV once for 20 min to be able to complete the trip then the car probably does not make sense for this use case. An Opel Corsa would finish the trip faster, for a fraction of the price.

Now if you give me an EV that can do 500km at >180km/h avg speed without recharging under normal german traffic conditions (lots of 250km/h mixed with lots of 130km/h) and is still left with some power for a bit of city driving then that would be an improvement.

As I understand it, this gearbox type is key on Porche's intent to make it able to maintain performance over use rather than overheat, notably it improves acceleration and efficiency at high speed. I would expect the Taycan to use less energy to maintain 150mph.

Ah, that makes sense. So that it can cruise at high speeds efficiently.

don't you have a ton of cooling air at 150mph?

It's about efficiency at various speeds, plus having to intake more air to cool more things increases drag, the best way to improve cooling performance is to improve power use in the first place.

In dual-motor (front, rear) Tesla vehicles, each motor is on a different gear ratio for optimal power bands.

I wonder if this is part of why their dual-motor models get better range. I could see it being better for regenerative braking, too.

Double the regenerative braking is why they get better range, I bet, despite being heavier.

The two motors in a Model S are different ratings. It seems that at cruising speed the car can choose the most efficient one to use and let the other one 'freewheel'.

Two motors probably gives better control over regen and certainly over braking but the regen rate seems to be determined by the battery, inverter, and design decisions. In my 2014 Model S 70D the maximum regen is about 50 kW, at least that's what the display shows, but the motors can develop at least 250 kW.

I suspect it is also limited for safety reasons, 250 kW of braking would give deceleration of about the same magnitude as the maximum acceleration. At 100 kph (27.8 m/s) the car has an energy of about 1.62 MJ so at 250 kW it would come to a stop in 6.5 seconds.

Actually my car does 0 to 100 kph in about 5.6 seconds so it clearly produces more than 250 kW.

Sorry for rambling on, your comment set me thinking and then I just had to check my working.

Not sure on the S or X but my model 3 AWD has less range than RWD. AWD is quicker by 10%.

AWD adds more weight and drive train losses.

This is only true on the Model 3. Indeed, on the S, the dual-motor variants were more efficient due to different gearing. It is still unclear the community why the 3 dual motor variants are as much as 10% less efficient. It is not totally accounted for by weight, and the extra induction motor should be capable of torque sleep.

The single motors get better range.

FWIW the original Tesla roadster was also a 2 speed, but they dropped the gearing as soon as they could meet their original top-speed without it.

Yeah, and it was apparently prone to breaking (I learned this from Googling just now). I was pretty sure I drove a 2-speed Roadster back in the day, but wanted to confirm that actually made it to production -- it did. (The Roadsters I drove were Tesla-owned but I'm pretty sure they were full production models).

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I remember Tesla being laughed at for this whole overpriced roadster thing, then because their transmissions were breaking, then because the 'fix' was to produce a "crippled" 1-speed car because they couldn't figure out how to make a transmission that didn't break.

And now, 10 years later, I own a 1-speed one, and, miraculously, the whole thing works on a real sedan, not just a kit car.

Once upon a time there were cars with a "normal" 4 speed (+reverse) gearbox and an added "overdrive" box (that if I recall correctly could only be used in 3rd and 4th gear), surely there were a few Triumph's and some Volvo station wagons, they had a button/switch on the gear stick that activated it electrically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrive_(mechanics)

This device (with all the possible evolutions in these 30 or 40 years) sounds a lot like this "overdrive" box.

Loads of cars had an overdrive and it made a significant difference to fuel economy at high speed.

I think the difference here is that the Taycan has a kind of automatic gearbox that can operate while under hard acceleration whereas, as far as I remember, you only pushed the overdrive button when you had reached cruising speed.

Yes, that is part of the evolutions I mentioned, what I meant essentially was saying that a two speed gearbox (electrically/hydraulically operated) reminds me more an overdrive box (which is actually a two speed gearbox electrically/hydraulically operated) than an actual 4/5/6 speed manual or automatic gearbox.

The actual use of the old overdrive was to lower revs of the engine (please read as save fuel) at a given speed, or (I know, not the actual intended use) to increase top speed, which is exactly what the new Taycan gearbox seemingly is used for (automatically, not manually, of course).

I remember a diesel Volvo station wagon (must have been a volvo 240 or 244) where in order to overtake someone at 120-130 kmh, the procedure was:

1) turn A/C off

2) accelerate as much as possible in 4th gear

3) push the override button

that gave just a little more speed.

Interesting fact about ZF: it was founded in 1915 to make gearboxes for zeppelins.

TIL:

"ZF Friedrichshafen is more than 90% owned by the Zeppelin Foundation, which is largely controlled by the town of Friedrichshafen."

Seems logical. I think most manufacturers have just decided that they'd rather use an over-sized motor than deal with a transmission, but if you're willing to tolerate a more complicated drive-train you get more usable power with less weight.

Using a transmission might get weird if you have multiple motors, though. For instance, it would be odd to have the front wheels in one gear and the rear wheels in a different gear, or the right rear wheel in a different gear than the left rear wheel.

From what I've read, the AWD versions of the Model 3 (possibly others) actually do this (different ratios in the front and back). As the article says, Tesla had a hard time building a transmission that wouldn't tear itself apart under the torque of the electric motors.

So, they put the front and back motors at different ratios. The back motor is used at lower speeds, and the front motor kicks in at higher speeds.

I'm not sure about the higher speeds vs lower speeds thing. Anyway, Tesla knows the gear ratios in both units, they can apply power as necessary to get the exact torque split the computer wants.

That makes sense for fixed-gear setups; I guess they just have to make sure that the lower-geared motor can spin at high enough RPM that it's not limiting the overall maximum speed. (Or perhaps they can use a freewheel mechanism, but that defeats using that motor for electronic braking.)

Having multiple motors each with their own switchable-gear transmission on the other hand might get hard to justify in terms of complexity.

> comes mated to a motor with a maximum power rating of 140 kW

Is that a typo? The Chevy Bolt and Hyundai Kona both have 150 kW motors, and Teslas start above 200 kW.

They don't have any actual inside information about the Taycan, so they switch to talking about the ZF transmission.

Many years ago I remember reading about EV conversions, and besides direct drive or keeping the existing multispeed (manual) transmission, one of the other relatively popular options was a Chevrolet Powerglide with the torque converter removed. This is a two-speed automatic from the 1950s that's known for being simple and very strong, and remains quite popular for drag racing. I suspect its popularity for EV conversions also arises from being able to handle the huge amount of torque an electric motor can exert, and the better performance of 2 speeds, so it's interesting to see Porsche also choosing a 2-speed auto for its EV.

According to the article, two-speed transmissions can increase range about 5%. That is important because batteries are so expensive.

However, battery prices are falling rapidly. They dropped 35% in 2018 alone. That being the case, I am guessing most ev manufacturers will stick with single-speed powertrains, and focus their technological efforts elsewhere.

Porsche has to have reasons for using a gearbox but I don't think this article espouses them. The points they hit on are where Tesla's as good or better, so there must be other good reasons.

I'm surprised ZF/Porsche didn't turn this into an eCVT, as an eCVT (a la Prius) has probably the same complexity, but with the added benefit of having more ratios. I suspect it would also reduce shock loads on the transmission as a result of shifting.

I wish the article would have gone into this, because I suspect Porsche said no more for marketing reasons rather than technical ones, as CVTs are universally hated in car performance circles.

Wouldn't an eCVT require an additional motor?

Yes, but only two small ones to control the rotational speed of the ring / planet gears.

I'm not convinced it's in the same ballpark of complexity as a 2-speed gearbox, which would need just a simple two-way friction clutch.

A CVT can't handle as much torque as a gear-based transmission.

The e-CVT has nothing to do with actual CVTs, it's a planetary "torque split" gearbox that's very robust.

That could simply be due to the fact that CVTs have never been really used and developed for high performance applications, since car enthusiasts hate them. But there was an F1 car with a CVT before they were banned.

CVT != eCVT

An eCVT is a planetary gearbox which uses a pair of electric motors to control the rotational speed of the ring and planetary gears to achieve an overall gear ratio anywhere between a minimum and maximum ratio.

It's largely the same thing as what this two-speed gearbox is, but it leverages electric motors to provide a smooth transition between two ratios, instead of using (presumably) a set of clutches and auxiliary gears to select one of two fixed ratios.

This is why this question jumped out at me immediately. On the surface, they are going with a really, really archaic, complex design over a more simple, all-electric design which is ideally suited for their application.

I can't help but think ZF started with an eCVT, then retrofited it back to being a two-speed. They must have had a good reason for this. And I wonder if it's a patent/license issue, or if there's some technical reason this wouldn't work. And I'm disappointed the article doesn't go into details on this.

The main advantage of the eCVT is the ability to seamlessly combine the power from two motor-generator units and an ICE (as in the Prius) while holding the ICE in the RPM range you want it. Here, there is only one electric motor and keeping it at a certain RPM range (other than below it's max) isn't really important. While a CVT will get you smooth ratio changes, you are still constrained by a minimum and maximum gear ratio, a range which is relatively small compared to this kind of two speed (in this case you can have two gear ratios that are super far apart, as an electric motor makes the same torque regardless of the RPM, unlike an ICE, where you want your gear ratios close to help stay in the powerband). As for CVT's being universally hated in performance circles, they're only universally hated by the same kind of people that hate flappy paddle dual clutch transmissions, i.e people who don't care or know what is actually faster, more reliable, and more efficient in different use cases, but only care about a clutch and an H-pattern shifter.

> and keeping it at a certain RPM range (other than below it's max) isn't really important.

Yeah it is, because electric motors have RPM bands where they are most efficient. The whole point of a adding a two-speed transmission in the first place was to increase efficiency, range, and top speed. If they managed a 5% improvement with a two-speed, I'm betting they could at least double that with an eCVT.

CVT transmissions can’t handle the power. They’re also universally hated by everyone except people who merely use a car to get from A to B. A Porsche owner is the polar opposite of someone who would tolerate a CVT.

someone this close minded would likely not be considering electric in the first place (and would probably whine about porches being mostly v6 and not v8/10/12)

Close minded? Huh. You won’t find a CVT in anything but a budget economy vehicle. If you want performance, you don’t want a CVT. If you want to prioritize efficiency over everything else (including reliability), a CVT is fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW15C

CVTs grant you the ability to maintain peak power at all speeds for acceleration and you don't have any losses to shifting. If you look at recent Civics for example Sport trims with more horsepower and a manual trans will lose out or tie CVT models in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times despite the CVTs having bad launch characteristics. And this doesn't even touch on how torquey they can feel at higher speed relative to a standard trans at the same HP.

I won't question your claims about reliability but CVTs are actually pretty performant within their segment, they just dont make the Vroom Vroom shifty noises that some car enthusiasts equate to performance.

The primary issue with CVTs (as others have mentioned) is that they can't be strapped to engines that make more than ~200 HP.

yes - close minded.

if you want performance - you want performance however you get it.

if someone makes a performant cvt, you want that. if they don't, you dont.

someone bound up in performance==x will not buy 'y', period.

It seems like the advantage of a CVT only really apply to internal combustion engines since they can only really go from about 500 to 8,000 rpm, and in that range they only have peak power or peak efficiency in small ranges. EV motors can go from 0 to 18,000 rpm.

Currently there is no reason to put transmissions into EV's. More money should be put into the improvement of electric motors and battery tech. People care about range and reliability. While acceleration is awesome, Tesla can already achieve sub 2.5s 0-60 which is more than most anyone can handle. Adding a transmission to an EV just adds one more thing to fail and replace fluid every few years.

Are saying that Porsche--which is spending billions of dollars on the Taycan and its transmission--is doing this for no good reason?

"People care about range and reliability."--Certainly some, perhaps most people, do. And Tesla serves that market very well.

But that isn't Porsche's market. Porsche's target market cares a lot about handling, and performance in track-like conditions.

> Are saying that Porsche--which is spending billions of dollars on the Taycan and its transmission--is doing this for no good reason?

Yes, they are. They are saying that "better on a track" is a bad reason, and "it makes more money" is a bad reason.

That is not a claim that Porsche is incorrectly engineering to reach their goal, or doing anything unprofitable.

It's an opinion.

In what way is "better on track" a bad reason? Lots of cars have features which are only really useful on a track, are all of these cars needlessly complex?

A lot of people would say yes, and I would not call them objectively wrong to have that opinion.

That's a different opinion than the one being expressed and therefore the I'm discussing. The argument I'm talking about is the one which claims, "There is no advantage to a two-speed transmission". You seem to be saying that the advantages of such a transmission are bad reasons to build it.

But those are different arguments.

> the one which claims, "There is no advantage to a two-speed transmission"

The post does not say those words.

The discussion of how Tesla can "already" achieve a fast 0-60 is a pretty clear acknowledgement that the number can be improved. But there's "no reason" because it's already so good, and there are important downsides.

That's all paraphrasing the post itself. It is not the blatantly false technical argument that you imagine.

And the post I made earlier was not a novel argument. It was taking "no [good] reason" and using that to classify a couple obvious "reasons" as not good. A very small logical step.

I'm amazed they spent all that R&D loot and then called it 'Taycan' - I can't decide if it sounds more like 'toucan' or 'trashcan'.

FWIW the Wikipedia article[0] on the car has this to say about the name:

> The name Taycan, roughly translates from Turkish as "lively young horse" in reference to the steed of the Stuttgart coat of arms on the Porsche crest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Taycan

Direct drive BLDCs have enough torque to drive anything under 1t.

A split torque design doubles that to 2t.

Tiny Chinese EVs have no problems with autobahn speeds for any amount of time.

just to be sure: should I be in awe in front of a 2 speeds automotive gearbox from a 100 years old manufacturer?

it's been a few minutes and I still don't feel the tingling.

What a load of bullshit. The article is making a merit out of a clutch to cover for their failing. I had to stop reading after ridiculous statements like “that 5 percent range improvement can save significant money as battery capacity” - riiiight it can save ... 5%. I’d rather pay more for the battery and save of the maintenance down the road. Serious Wired, how much did they pay you for this?

> Multispeed transmissions must be robust to deal with the massive amounts of torque that electric motors can generate in a very short period of time, says Shashank Sripad, a mechanical engineer also from Carnegie Mellon.

Put a manual clutch on it; problem solved. Manual boxes can be built strong.

Then make it at least a 3 speed so there is a decent H pattern there from the stick user's perspective, and so that the ratio isn't so large (it's like around 2X change¹, supposedly! That means the motor's RPM has to drop by by half on upshift and double on downshift.)

3 speeds could use a 1.44 step.

   1 3
   | |
   +--
   |  \
   2  R = V/I

---

1. Source: this article claims the gears are 16:1 and 8.05:1. https://jalopnik.com/an-extremely-detailed-look-at-the-porsc...

If you put a manual gearbox in it, I bet a single bad shift would tear it apart with all that torque at low RPM. Also would probably kill the clutch unless you are a really good driver, and it is hard to shift when you can't hear the engine RPM.

And I don't think manual gearboxes are any stronger than a well built automatic but I have nothing to back that up except intuition.

> it is hard to shift when you can't hear the engine RPM.

A third-rate hardware tinkerer could come up with a circuit that makes a motorboating sound from a speaker at the engine RPM. That could be heard just during shifting activity, like when the clutch is out.

> Also would probably kill the clutch.

It would require a special clutch design. The clutch is not needed when starting, of course, because since the motor can generate torque right from zero RPM, the transmission can be engaged. A clutch mechanism needed when changing gears due to the mismatch in speeds that needs to be bridged. The existing two-speeder must have something serving as a clutch, just not a manually operated one.

Speaking at torque at zero RPM; can't that be modulated down somehow? Surely there must be some way of managing the motor to bring in torque gently. This must be happening already, right? I mean, electric cars don't burn rubber each time they get moving.

> I don't think manual gearboxes are any stronger than a well built automatic

That's easy; just define the requirements for "well built" so that it is so, and don't care about weight, size, and other things. The automatic transmission from a bus is probably stronger than the manual in an econobox car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com