VW/AUDI should better bring back in production the A2. It fulfilled the actual needs and was within the normal price range. Why doing all things overall for more costly cars when they have the solution

Some information on the previous version of the 1L car:

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ecotech/economy.htm

Would be great if they actually did make it, but there will be a lot of board meetings between now and 2010!

The Audi A2 electrified would the the Car of today . In 1999 already it had a better CO2 ( 81-86 versus 104 ) than the Prius2 of today with about the same interior space .

Inuk

GreenPlease

Don't forget that you can't fully discharge the battery so you need a 10KWhrs battery, but that would still be reasonable. Yes for thatking of commuter an all electric would make more sense than a diesel. I don't understand VW on this one, also I think a Venture Car or Naro car type of concept would make more sense than the WV which was not really practical.

Anyway thatis a positive thing that a big automaker get involve in ultro-low efficient vehicle, we will need them very soon my friend.

Doggydogworld

Sorry sir but with in-wheel motors you can get rid of differential and break..

Incidentally, the collective experience of previous EV converters suggests that to find out the miles per kWh value you can expect from a given body shape / weight of a particular donor vehicle, you simply look at the mpg values and convert:

For a diesel vehicle, divide mpg (US) by 10 to get expected miles per kWh.

For a gasoline vehicle, divide mpg (US) by 7.5 to get expected miles per kWh.

Using this well-established rule of thumb suggests that the VW 1-litre car should manage 26 miles per kWh, if converted to electric drive. An 8 kWh battery would therefore give over 200 miles range, at a cost (for the battery at least) of just $4,000.

The bigger problem is that in order to get a very low vehicle weight it had to be built from composites, materials that are not recyclable. Europe has a law mandating 95% recyclability in cars.

The Audi A2's problem was that it was built of aluminum, in order to reduce weight. Aluminum is notorious for transmitting vibration. Every road test I read complained about the A2's level of vibration. I think that's why people didn't buy it.

I think VW realizes there are too many compromises and too much cost in building a 1-liter car. The decision to go with a two-cylinder engine is a sign they're going to aim for about 2-liter consumption, is my guess. And I would bet they'll have to go back to steel to meet recycling standards.

We're going to have to start thinking about the consequences of an all-electric vehicle fleet. Considering how little attention today's drivers pay to monitoring daily fuel use (they know how much it costs them to fill up, but, in general, they don't know their mileage), cars at the side of the road or blocking driving lanes with dead batteries becoming commonplace is my prediction. Electric cars will require much more planning ahead and paying attention to charge levels, temperatures and road conditions.

I think the VW Polo Blue Motion TDI is a pretty decent alternative to the now-defunct Audi A2. Too bad it is not available in the US.

PML flightlink claims to have wheel hub motors that produce enough torque on deceleration to not need mechanical brakes. If too much current is generated for the battery pack the excess current could be dumped into a simple resistor which would dissipate braking energy as heat just as in mechanical friction brakes. Or, you could put that current to use in a functional resistor: REALLY bright brake lights, LOL.

Relying solely on actively-controlled regenerative brakes with no mechanical "fail-safe" backup won't pass current motor vehicle safety standards. You need mechanical brakes. Might not use them much, and perhaps they could be downsized or simplified from a conventional design ... but you need a hydraulic/mechanical braking system of some sort.

I think it is fine to have the motors act as brakes, but you will still need parking brakes. I can see a small set of drum brakes in the rear wheels and in-wheel motors on the front wheels.. with no mechanical brakes in the front.. hopefully the rear brakes should be good for the life of the car since they do very little braking.

A good electric motor design does not need a transmission, the windings can be reconfigured with just some electronics.. without moving parts. Of course if it is cheaper to put in a transmission then go for it.

Dont forget transmissions are expensive, very expensive, and unreliable.

- DaveGreen
The electric motor can turn at 13,000 rpm for long periods without much wear. Sport bikes like the Honda CBR600RR produce 118Hp from just 600cc when they reach 13500 rpm BUT only for a few seconds at a time. You'd better change gear quickly or you may damage the engine.

Therefore the need for a gearbox is to keep the engine inside a durable range.

Perhaps you haven't given it much thought but as you accelerate away using a 6 spd, say, you are actually diluting torque at each gear change by 15%.
Compare that to the torque from an electric motor which also dilutes as you accelerate above 7000rpm but in a gradual fashion as constant power is maintained.

With the ICE you are always sliding up towards rpms for max power, each gear change then drops you back down the power curve. Your average power is about 65% of peak. On the other hand the electric motor can stay at peak power during acceleration.

For that reason we can say that a 65Hp electric motor is the equivalent of a 100Hp engine.

Those who race electric bikes with LIPO batteries disagree. They say it's even more than that. On the track a 10kw electric using a single gear reducer can perform as well as a conventional 30kw rated engine.
Of course it must also be factored in that without a gearbox the electrics are always 'online' which would give a throttle response that is second to none.