Consideration of Rolling Resistance:

The rolling drag on a vehicle Fr is given by:

Fr = fr mg (1)

where fr is the coefficient of rolling resistance. The rolling drag is independent

of speed.

Power needed to overcome rolling is given by:

Pr = Fr × v = fr mgv (2)

The value of fr varies from 0.015 for a radial ply tyre down to 0.005 for tyres
specially developed for electric vehicles.
➔ A reduction of rolling resistance to one-third is a substantial benefit,
particularly for low speed vehicles such as buggies for the disabled.

➔ For low speed vehicles of this type the air resistance is negligible and a
reduction of drag to one-third will either triple the vehicle range or cut the
battery mass and cost by one-third, a substantial saving both in terms of cost
and weight.

➔ Power requirements/speed for an electric vehicle travelling on the flat, with

typical drag (Cd = 0.3) and fairly standard tyres (fr = 0.015), with a mass of
1000 kg and a frontal area of 1.5 m2 is shown in Figure 8.4.

➔ The graph, derived from the above equations, shows how much power is
required to overcome rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag.
 8.4: The power requirements to overcome rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag at different
speeds. This is for a fairly ordinary small car, with C d = 0.3, frontal area 1.5 m 2 , mass = 1000
kg, and fr = 0.015
➔ It can be seen clearly in Figure 8.4 that at low speeds, e.g. under 50 kph, aerodynamics
have very little influence, whereas at high speeds they are the major influence on power
requirements.

➔ It may be concluded that streamlining is not very important at relatively low speeds, more
important at medium speeds and very important at high speeds.

➔ So, for example, on a golf cart the aerodynamics are unimportant, whereas for a saloon car
intended for motorway driving the aerodynamics are extremely important.

➔ (The rolling resistance of a golf buggy wheels on turf will of course be considerably higher
than can be expected on hard road surfaces.)
➔ A graph of the total power requirement for two vans is shown in Figure 8.5, where a
power/velocity curve for each vehicle is plotted. Both vans have a mass of 1000 kg,
frontal area of 2 m2 and a Cd of 0.5.

➔ However one has ordinary tyres with a fr of 0.015, whereas the other has low rolling
resistance tyres for which fr of 0.005.

➔ It can be concluded that for all electric vehicles a low rolling resistance is desirable and
that the choice of tyres is therefore extremely important.

➔ drag is very important for high speed vehicles, but is less important for town/city
delivery vehicles and commuter vehicles.

➔ On very low speed vehicles such as electric bicycles, golf buggies disabled buggies,
aerodynamic drag has very little influence, whereas rolling resistance certainly does.
Transmission Efficiency:
➔ All vehicles need a transmission that connects the output of the motor to the
wheels.

➔ In the case of an internal combustion engine vehicle the engine is connected to

a clutch which in turn connects to a gear box, a prop shaft, a differential (for
equalising the torque on the driving wheels) and an axle.

➔ All of these have inefficiencies that cause a loss of power and energy.

➔ The transmission of electric vehicles is inherently simpler than that of IC

engine vehicles.

➔ To start with no clutch is needed as the motor can provide torque from zero
speed upwards.
➔ Similarly, a conventional gear box is not needed, as a single ratio gear is
normally all that is needed.

➔ The three basic variations of electric vehicle transmission are illustrated in

Figure 8.6.

➔ Whatever the arrangement for the transmission, the transmission efficiency is

important.

➔ A 10% increase in transmission efficiency will allow a similar reduction in

battery mass and battery cost or alternatively a 10% increase in the vehicle
range.
Consideration of Vehicle Mass:

➔ The mass of an electrical vehicle has a critical effect on the performance,

range and cost of an electric vehicle.

➔ The first effect of the mass on rolling resistance and the power and energy to
overcome this has already been discussed

➔ There are two other effects of mass. The first concerns a vehicle climbing a
hill and the second is the kinetic energy lost when the vehicle is accelerating
and decelerating in an urban cycle.
➔ the Force Fhc in Newtons along the slope for a car of mass m (kg) climbing
a hill of angle ψ is given by:

Fg = F hc = mg sin ψ
➔ It follows that the power P hc in Watts for a vehicle climbing a slope at a
velocity v ms −1 is given by:

P hc = F hc × v = mgv sin ψ

➔ Figure 8.10 shows the total power needed to travel at a constant 80 kph up
slopes of varying angles up to 10 degrees for vehicles of two different
weights, but otherwise similar.

➔ They both have a drag coefficient of 0.19, and tyres with coefficient of
rolling resistance of 0.005, and the frontal area is 1.8 m2 .
➔ We can see that the 1500 kg car, which is approximately the weight of the real
GM EV1, has to provide approximately 12 times as much power at 10◦ than is
needed on the flat.

➔ With the 800 kg vehicle the power needed increases greatly, but only by about 8
times. Looking at Figure 8.10 we see why the GM EV1 electric car needs a
motor of power about 100 kW.

➔ In the SFUDS simulation we noted that the maximum power needed was only
12 kW, as in Figure 7.16. It is taking heavy vehicles up hills that requires high
power.

➔ The results shown in the graph send a clear message. Considerable power is
required for hill climbing, and such terrain will restrict the range of electric
vehicles relying solely on rechargeable batteries.
➔ When designing electric vehicles the effect of hills must be taken into
account, though there are no agreed ‘standard hills’ for doing this.

➔ It is not too difficult, after a little experience, to add gradients to the

simulation driving cycles considered in the last chapter.

➔ This is usually done with a specific journey in mind.

➔ The effect of the vehicle mass when accelerating and stopping in town and
city conditions is another area where the mass of the electric vehicle will
have considerable influence on vehicle performance.

➔ Basically when a vehicle of mass m (kg)is travelling at velocity v (ms −1 )

its kinetic energy is given by: KE =½ mv 2
➔ If the vehicle brakes this energy is converted into heat. When regenerative
braking is used a certain amount of the energy is recovered.

➔ The maximum practical limit on the recovery of kinetic energy is about 40%.

➔ In light vehicles the losses associated with continually creating and then
losing kinetic energy are much less, and the benefits of regenerative braking
are similarly reduced.

➔ Apart from the importance of minimising vehicle weight, it is also important

to try to minimise the moment of inertia of rotating components, as these
store rotational kinetic energy.

➔ The energy stored E r (Joules) of a component with a moment of inertia I

(kg.m 2 ) rotating at ω (rad s −1 ) is given by:
The energy stored E r (Joules) of a component with a moment of inertia I (kg.m
2 ) rotating at ω (rad s −1 ) is given by:

E r = ½ I ω^2

The moment of inertia I is normally expressed as:

i.e. the sum of all the finite masses of a component which lie a distance r from
the centre of rotation.

In practice most rotating components such as the wheels are purchased as

proprietary items, but the energy lost in rotary energy needs to be considered
particularly for urban driving conditions.