1-megawatt electric car sets a new record at Pikes Peak hillclimb

Unencumbered by the effects of altitude, EVs are coming into their own.

Read the whole story

 

[VidasDuday]

Wait wut? The road is now paved? "No more fun of any kind!".

No more drifting in my Town & Country minivan on the downhill. I especially liked keeping the brakes at only +20 degrees over ambient air temps. ;-)

 

[amp88]

Onboard of the winning run.

Interesting to note that the car dropped to half power before halfway through the course (listen to the interview at the end of that video; Millen claims it should have been 30 seconds faster).

360 degree video of part of a practice run.

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

Millen's time is the fastest for an EV, but still almost a minute off the outright course record, set in 2013 by nine-times World Rally Champion Sebastian Loeb and his fire-breathing Peugeot 208 T16 Pikes Peak

I think that's to be expected. It's still impressive that an EV won this year. It took a while for electric bikes to come into their own on the Isle of Man and I expect the same will be true when electric vehicles try to break into other well established motorsports arenas.

Personally, all of this EV racing has me tickled pink, whether it be Pikes Peak or Formula E or TT Zero. Many people still insist on treating EVs as second hand citizens or "less than". EVs have different strengths and weaknesses than petrol powered cars, there's no denying that, but hopefully these respectable showings at established motorsport events will help to get some of the naysayers on the EV bandwagon.

 

[amp88]

Rhys Millen took his Drive oE PP03 to the top of the mountain in 9:07.022, beating rival Nobuhiro "Monster" Tajima by more than 20 seconds.

Should be Drive eO PP03 (source).

 

[DinoosaurJones]

A little off-topic, but if the race allows that much flexibility in technologies, what about a car that carries its own oxygen for the higher altitude bits?

 

[neffo]

Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

 

[VidasDuday]

"On multiple occasions, I have spent time testing tourists with a pulse oxymeter at the top of the cog railway, the Pike’s Peak Summit. The results are interesting in that no matter where you live/travel from or how healthy you appear to be…or not, the results were truly significant in that all were deficient to some degree."

http://www.ppihc.com/updates/2015/06/16 ... -bulletin/

 

[Dr Gitlin]

amp88[/url]":12c5127n]

Rhys Millen took his Drive oE PP03 to the top of the mountain in 9:07.022, beating rival Nobuhiro "Monster" Tajima by more than 20 seconds.

Should be Drive eO PP03 (source).

Thanks, should be fixed now.

 

[ShuggyCoUk]

neffo[/url]":3bx4r905]Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

According to Wikipedia cabin pressurization (or one presumes a regulated air supply) in an aircraft is required at 3800m, the top of pike's peak is reasonably well past that.

Given the effective ascent rate, and quite extreme physical and psychological exertions the drivers perform it doesn't surprise me that oxygen is supplied

 

[chipmunkofdoom2]

DinoosaurJones[/url]":yvof2d7z]A little off-topic, but if the race allows that much flexibility in technologies, what about a car that carries its own oxygen for the higher altitude bits?

I don't think the problem is the oxygen content in the air. I think the issue is the density of the air. Combustion engines need to suck in a lot of air to run. Some enthusiasts estimate the older generation F1 cars suck in a massive 400 to 450 litres of air per second. If, using rough numbers, your car consumes 400 litres of air per second and you're racing at an altitude where the air is 25% less dense, you'd need to supply your engine with about 100 litres of additional air per second to negate the effects of the less dense air.

Now that's at full revs (19K RPM) for a F1 car, but it's a good frame of reference for understanding the problem. You'd have to bring enough air with you to offset the difference in atmospheric pressure, not just concentrated oxygen.

Note: I'm not aerodynamicist, just a science minded motoring enthusiast. Any revisions or corrections from someone that actually knows what they're talking about are welcome.

 

[amp88]

DinoosaurJones[/url]":1mrx5ys2]A little off-topic, but if the race allows that much flexibility in technologies, what about a car that carries its own oxygen for the higher altitude bits?

I don't know how many vehicles have used a pure oxygen supply to increase the oxygen content going to the engine, but in the past numerous entries have used nitrous oxide.

neffo[/url]":1mrx5ys2]it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

It's not mandatory, but many (especially in the quicker machinery) elect to run with an oxygen supply. Interestingly, for an episode of a TV series (called Speed with Guy Martin) he took part in PPIHC, and won his class. Since he wasn't using an oxygen supply for the run, as part of his preparation he built a hypoxic cell in his house so he could control the oxygen content in the air to simulate the levels at Pikes Peak. To demonstrate the low oxygen content, they showed that a match would not remain lit once struck in the room. If you're outside the UK you should be able to watch the documentary here.

 

[M-S-G]

Megawatt?

 

[Shavano]

ShuggyCoUk[/url]":28w4b71s]

neffo[/url]":28w4b71s]Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

According to Wikipedia cabin pressurization (or one presumes a regulated air supply) in an aircraft is required at 3800m, the top of pike's peak is reasonably well past that.

Given the effective ascent rate, and quite extreme physical and psychological exertions the drivers perform it doesn't surprise me that oxygen is supplied

Most drivers would not have trouble going to that altitude that fast. The vertical ascent is only 4720 feet according to Wikipedia. The chance of altitude sickness in a person who lives at sea level is significant at 14,110 feet (end of the race). A person living at 5000-6000 feet as most Colorado people do is unlikely to have trouble. But if your driver DID have trouble, he'd be going over the side.

 

[Shavano]

amp88[/url]":2et07ui2]

DinoosaurJones[/url]":2et07ui2]A little off-topic, but if the race allows that much flexibility in technologies, what about a car that carries its own oxygen for the higher altitude bits?

I don't know how many vehicles have used a pure oxygen supply to increase the oxygen content going to the engine, but in the past numerous entries have used nitrous oxide.

neffo[/url]":2et07ui2]it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

It's not mandatory, but many (especially in the quicker machinery) elect to run with an oxygen supply. Interestingly, for an episode of a TV series (called Speed with Guy Martin) he took part in PPIHC, and won his class. Since he wasn't using an oxygen supply for the run, as part of his preparation he built a hypoxic cell in his house so he could control the oxygen content in the air to simulate the levels at Pikes Peak. To demonstrate the low oxygen content, they showed that a match would not remain lit once struck in the room. If you're outside the UK you should be able to watch the documentary here.

Sounds like his PPO2 was too low. I've seen people light up and smoke cigarettes on top of Pike's Peak.

 

[eggie]

VidasDuday[/url]":bg2twrtv]Wait wut? The road is now paved?

That's why Bob Unser's still the king.

Nothing implied about Loeb; his record speaks for itself.

 

[Shavano]

So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

 

[El Guapo]

Shavano[/url]":1nte87iw]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

The motors won't be drawing the full 1020kW the entire race. Once you are up to speed and not accelerating (in straight stretches) you only draw enough power to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and lifting the mass of the vehicle. You certainly won't be going WOT around every corner either.

 

[Romberry]

Shavano[/url]":1ga86kje]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

The vehicle doesn't draw full power all the time. Think of even a road car like the Tesla S with its 85Kw/Hr battery and its 300+ KW/Hr motor. Anyway, during all out acceleration, you draw max current. Other than that, you draw somewhat less (assuming you aren't at top speed and the limits of power vs. drag/gravity.)

On edit...

Ninja'd by El Guapo

 

[ebow]

Wish they'd superimposed speedometer readings, to provide some context and distract me from the dropoffs.

 

[Gloves_Donahue]

Imagine how good EV's would be right now if, beginning at the turn of the 20th century, battery technology had received the same 100+ years' R&D as the internal combustion engine.

 

[robotic_tourist]

Ari Vatanen's drive in the Peugeot 405 T16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJsHlugRls4

I saw the car in the flesh at a rally super special stage, but it was just a show car and only went at about walking pace.

 

[BigAssRat]

Shavano[/url]":3bvksg71]

ShuggyCoUk[/url]":3bvksg71]

neffo[/url]":3bvksg71]Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

According to Wikipedia cabin pressurization (or one presumes a regulated air supply) in an aircraft is required at 3800m, the top of pike's peak is reasonably well past that.

Given the effective ascent rate, and quite extreme physical and psychological exertions the drivers perform it doesn't surprise me that oxygen is supplied

Most drivers would not have trouble going to that altitude that fast. The vertical ascent is only 4720 feet according to Wikipedia. The chance of altitude sickness in a person who lives at sea level is significant at 14,110 feet (end of the race). A person living at 5000-6000 feet as most Colorado people do is unlikely to have trouble. But if your driver DID have trouble, he'd be going over the side.

I have lived in Parker, CO for 15 years (5900ft above sea level), and I work out regularly, running 4 miles a couple of times a week. I still get headaches and a slight shortness of breath when when I go to the top of PP. I also snowboard, and don't have much issue at 10k to 12k. There is something magical about 14k though, at least for me. Also, I believe, while I haven't done any, the major difficulty of doing the 14'er peaks is the lack of air, especially when doing any kind of rigorous activity.

 

[Mazzicc]

BigAssRat[/url]":utz354wa]

Shavano[/url]":utz354wa]

ShuggyCoUk[/url]":utz354wa]

neffo[/url]":utz354wa]Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

According to Wikipedia cabin pressurization (or one presumes a regulated air supply) in an aircraft is required at 3800m, the top of pike's peak is reasonably well past that.

Given the effective ascent rate, and quite extreme physical and psychological exertions the drivers perform it doesn't surprise me that oxygen is supplied

Most drivers would not have trouble going to that altitude that fast. The vertical ascent is only 4720 feet according to Wikipedia. The chance of altitude sickness in a person who lives at sea level is significant at 14,110 feet (end of the race). A person living at 5000-6000 feet as most Colorado people do is unlikely to have trouble. But if your driver DID have trouble, he'd be going over the side.

I have lived in Parker, CO for 15 years (5900ft above sea level), and I work out regularly, running 4 miles a couple of times a week. I still get headaches and a slight shortness of breath when when I go to the top of PP. I also snowboard, and don't have much issue at 10k to 12k. There is something magical about 14k though, at least for me. Also, I believe, while I haven't done any, the major difficulty of doing the 14'er peaks is the lack of air, especially when doing any kind of rigorous activity.

I happened to hike Pikes Peak on Saturday, and have now done 12 of the Colorado 14ers. At the trailheads between 9 and 11k, you can feel how quickly you get short of breath, simply by running to the bathroom when you get up there. Around 13k, my pulse never drops much below 90-100bmp, even if I'm not breathing hard.

The lack of air is easily the most difficult thing about those hikes. The last mile or so is usually done for me by taking about 30 steps, stop and count 10 deep breaths, and repeat.

 

[jaggedcow]

andrewb610[/url]"hwca25i]Electric Cars are great, but when it comes to the major issue they're supposed to help solve, they won't help until we can generate power in a cleaner way overall (and by 'we' I mean the world)
That being said, if you're going to do both things, obviously you need to do one first.

If you're referring to the long tailpipe theory (where an electric car is still dirty because it gets its power from coal electric plants), then electric cars are still an improvement over gas powered cars. Firstly, coal power plants are more efficient than any internal combustion engine (mostly by virtue of being huge and producing at scale). Secondly, almost nowhere relies solely on one type of electricity production, so the mix is never 100% non-renewable sources.

Having 100% green power would be great, but an electric car is still an immediate improvement.

 

[Jeffro-Tull]

El Guapo[/url]":2i5mr5ra]

Shavano[/url]":2i5mr5ra]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

The motors won't be drawing the full 1020kW the entire race. Once you are up to speed and not accelerating (in straight stretches) you only draw enough power to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and lifting the mass of the vehicle. You certainly won't be going WOT around every corner either.

You're right, but have you seen Pikes Peak? 156 turns and 4,470 feet of elevation change. There's not a lot of straight line coasting going on in the climb.

 

[Statistical]

andrewb610[/url]":jjo2eoxg]Electric Cars are great, but when it comes to the major issue they're supposed to help solve, they won't help until we can generate power in a cleaner way overall (and by 'we' I mean the world)
That being said, if you're going to do both things, obviously you need to do one first.

It isn't all or nothing. First internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient compared to a high efficiency powerplant. That means burning more fuel per usable unit of energy.

The higher total system efficiency of electrical vehicles (and yes that includes everything from thermal efficiency in the power plant, generation efficiency, transmission efficiency, conversions efficiency and motor efficiency) allows them to overcome even "dirty fuel". Simpy put if your power company is using "dirty" fuel you are still using less of it due to higher efficiency than burning it inefficiently in an internal combustion engine.

So EV is cleaner. How much cleaner depends on how clean the electrical generation is that is true but even a worst case scenario (100% coal usage) the total efficiency is still better than a 36 mpg compact car. The average case is better than a 50mpg hybrid.

Another way to look at it is even if you powered all your powerplants by oil and then used them to charge EV it would be more efficient and cleaner than the current fleet of cars on the road right now burning it directly. I wouldn't suggest that as a policy decision but it does illustrate that vehicle emissions are high not just because they burn oil but because they burn it so inefficiently.

 

[Errum]

amp88[/url]":2im75yrh]Onboard of the winning run.

Interesting to note that the car dropped to half power before halfway through the course (listen to the interview at the end of that video; Millen claims it should have been 30 seconds faster).

360 degree video of part of a practice run.

Actually he said that it lost the rear motor pack, hence the half power.

It's worth noting that while electric motors are insensitive to high altitude as far as power output is concerned, the same does not hold true for their cooling, which would be adversely affected by the low air density at altitude. This would also be the case for battery pack and power electronics cooling. It may be telling that it was the rear motor pack that cut out, since ducting cooling air to that area is always harder than at the front.

Regarding supplemental oxygen for the driver, it's documented that during regular F1 races a driver's heart averages about 170 beats/min, with peaks to 190. Now overlay high altitude on that and you can see why extra oxygen for Pike's Peak is no bad idea.

 

[Errum]

Jeffro-Tull[/url]":90jlzsie]

El Guapo[/url]":90jlzsie]

Shavano[/url]":90jlzsie]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

The motors won't be drawing the full 1020kW the entire race. Once you are up to speed and not accelerating (in straight stretches) you only draw enough power to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and lifting the mass of the vehicle. You certainly won't be going WOT around every corner either.

You're right, but have you seen Pikes Peak? 156 turns and 4,470 feet of elevation change. There's not a lot of straight line coasting going on in the climb.

In racing there's no straight line coasting, period. However that doesn't mean you're on full throttle any time you're not on the brakes. The average power draw is going to be some lower percentage of maximum, depending on the nature of the track. An electric race car will normally recover a fair amount of energy through regenerative braking, but Pike's Peak is of course an unusual case, since it's so massively uphill.

 

[Statistical]

Errum[/url]":7sduo9qn]

Jeffro-Tull[/url]":7sduo9qn]

El Guapo[/url]":7sduo9qn]

Shavano[/url]":7sduo9qn]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

The motors won't be drawing the full 1020kW the entire race. Once you are up to speed and not accelerating (in straight stretches) you only draw enough power to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and lifting the mass of the vehicle. You certainly won't be going WOT around every corner either.

You're right, but have you seen Pikes Peak? 156 turns and 4,470 feet of elevation change. There's not a lot of straight line coasting going on in the climb.

In racing there's no straight line coasting, period. However that doesn't mean you're on full throttle any time you're not on the brakes. The average power draw is going to be some lower percentage of maximum, depending on the nature of the track. An electric race car will normally recover a fair amount of energy through regenerative braking, but Pike's Peak is of course an unusual case, since it's so massively uphill.

I think the regenerative braking is a huge factor in being able to use a smaller (and thus lighter battery). I don't know the specs on this car but for Tesla S the battery to wheel efficiency is about 82% and the wheel (brake) to battery efficiency is about 80%. So you don't recovery everything but you do recovery quite a bit. I imagine they probably made a lot of tests runs to cut the battery pack as small as possible with enough of a safety margin so you don't have the humiliation of running out of "gas".

 

[ShuggyCoUk]

Shavano[/url]":1m9lk80x]

ShuggyCoUk[/url]":1m9lk80x]

neffo[/url]":1m9lk80x]Interesting... a couple of things I noticed, for one they have a siren on the car (presumably for safety), and secondly it looks like the driver has his own oxygen supply. Is that normal for Pikes Peak runs?

According to Wikipedia cabin pressurization (or one presumes a regulated air supply) in an aircraft is required at 3800m, the top of pike's peak is reasonably well past that.

Given the effective ascent rate, and quite extreme physical and psychological exertions the drivers perform it doesn't surprise me that oxygen is supplied

Most drivers would not have trouble going to that altitude that fast. The vertical ascent is only 4720 feet according to Wikipedia. The chance of altitude sickness in a person who lives at sea level is significant at 14,110 feet (end of the race). A person living at 5000-6000 feet as most Colorado people do is unlikely to have trouble. But if your driver DID have trouble, he'd be going over the side.

It's not altitude sickness they're worried about, it's impairment of function of any kind. They're operating right at their limits if they're really going for the records, and the consequences of serious control failure is very likely death. a few percent slower on the reflexes, and little less quick at integrating the incoming information? those can end up being lethal, or pushing less hard than they possibly could.

 

[amp88]

Errum[/url]":38wwji0k]In racing there's no straight line coasting, period.

Yes, there is. The "lift and coast" technique has been a key fuel saving strategy for decades in motorsport.

 

[weblionx]

Shavano[/url]":3oprt56t]So I was looking at the car specs from the article "A 50kWh lithium-ion battery feeds those motors, giving the PP03 1,368hp (1,020kW) and 1,593lb-ft (2,160 Nm) at its disposal. "

At full power, it only has 50kWh/1020kW = 2.9 minutes worth of charge? But it took 9 minutes to do the course. Is the article wrong? Is it one battery per axle? One per wheel? Or did the driver have to carefully manage his power to make sure he didn't run out of charge before he got to the finish line?

In addition to what everyone else said, it has separate sets of motors for the front and back, so as road conditions change it may provide more power to one half and less to the other for maximum efficiency. Even at full open throttle the car may not actually be using 1MW. Then there's what's recovered from regenerative breaking, if any.

 

[dlux]

Mazzicc[/url]":qdv9rk8g]I happened to hike Pikes Peak on Saturday, and have now done 12 of the Colorado 14ers. At the trailheads between 9 and 11k, you can feel how quickly you get short of breath, simply by running to the bathroom when you get up there. Around 13k, my pulse never drops much below 90-100bmp, even if I'm not breathing hard.

As a sea-level creature, I drove up Pike's Peak once on a cross-country drive for the experience. I think there was a warning about not proceeding without a half-tank of gas (since they were probably tired of tourists running out all the time.) This was before they paved the road so there was a sense of adventure, and the endless left-right turns start to get tiresome when you're also trying to sight-see.

At about 10,000 ft the altitude change was really getting to me. I felt a headache coming on but of course one doesn't stop at that point. At 12,000 ft it really started to hit me, but there again I'm not acclimated to that kind of altitude. So now the road is above the tree line and I'm feeling like some sort of pioneer and just as the peak is in sight a UPS truck passes going the other way! So much for that sense of adventure.

When I finally reached the peak I pulled over, took a few steps, and then had to go back and sit in the car for ten minutes with a throbbing headache. I am not built for altitude at all. But at least I could now scoff at all the people in New Hampshire with their 'The Car Climbed Mount Washington' bumper stickers.

 

[Errum]

amp88[/url]":2ohe7vnl]

Errum[/url]":2ohe7vnl]In racing there's no straight line coasting, period.

Yes, there is. The "lift and coast" technique has been a key fuel saving strategy for decades in motorsport.

Fuel saving isn't racing, and in any case doesn't apply in a short duration time trial such is Pike's Peak.

 

[dlux]

Errum[/url]":3gq79cnd]Fuel saving isn't racing.

Explain that to the 12- and 24-hour racers where pit stops matter.


Edit: Reply composed before you qualified your post regarding duration.

 

[Errum]

dlux[/url]":w8cad9ld]

Errum[/url]":w8cad9ld]Fuel saving isn't racing.

Explain that to the 12- and 24-hour racers where pit stops matter.

Explain why that's relevant to Pikes Peak.

 

[amp88]

Errum[/url]":2je40eex]

amp88[/url]":2je40eex]

Errum[/url]":2je40eex]In racing there's no straight line coasting, period.

Yes, there is. The "lift and coast" technique has been a key fuel saving strategy for decades in motorsport.

Fuel saving isn't racing, and in any case doesn't apply in a short duration time trial such is Pike's Peak.

Your statement was "In racing there's no straight line coasting, period.", not "In competition at Pikes Peak there's no straight line coasting, period.".

 

[dhughes]

All I could think was one blown tire, loss of control and over the edge you go. Nope!

But I guess that's the point of this race the danger.