4 ms·

Interesting, I wonder how much of this is from the advantage of the car being a EV. Not having a huge engine on the front or a "transmission" probably gives a l

Interesting, I wonder how much of this is from the advantage of the car being a EV. Not having a huge engine on the front or a "transmission" probably gives a lot of freedom on how the chassis can be designed. It must of been really fun designing the car frame.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Does anyone know how the BMW i3 and the Chevrolet Bolt compare?
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  I can’t speak for those, but the Ford Focus Electric is based on the original ICE Focus design and has the batteries in the rear cargo area (and no frunk either). The lack of a big chunk of metal where the engine would be - without augmenting the front crumple zone - presumably lessens the Electric Focus’ front impact safety rating based on the physics alone.
  - CompelTechnic 8y ago
    This is flawed reasoning. Think of the original Focus's crumple zone as a spring that can deflect until it hits the rigid engine. Remove the engine for the electric model and the spring is free to deflect further. Increased deflection results in more energy absorption. You also get increased time during which the impact is spread out, reducing maximum acceleration. If your original thinking is that the engine acts as dead weight to absorb momentum, which is now located in other areas of the car in the electric version, this is likely a smaller effect than the increased energy absorption and impact duration. I wish I could find a trustworthy comparison of the safety ratings of the two models, but it looks like the two cars' ratings are considered identical most places I look. Not sure if that is actually true.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Worse. No matter how good they do they can't do better because they're smaller cars with less availible space that can be converted into time spent decelerating in a crash. Crumple zone size is a high school physics problem. More distance -> more time -> less acceleration -> less force

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago

Does anyone know how the BMW i3 and the Chevrolet Bolt compare?

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
I can’t speak for those, but the Ford Focus Electric is based on the original ICE Focus design and has the batteries in the rear cargo area (and no frunk either). The lack of a big chunk of metal where the engine would be - without augmenting the front crumple zone - presumably lessens the Electric Focus’ front impact safety rating based on the physics alone.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  This is flawed reasoning. Think of the original Focus's crumple zone as a spring that can deflect until it hits the rigid engine. Remove the engine for the electric model and the spring is free to deflect further. Increased deflection results in more energy absorption. You also get increased time during which the impact is spread out, reducing maximum acceleration. If your original thinking is that the engine acts as dead weight to absorb momentum, which is now located in other areas of the car in the electric version, this is likely a smaller effect than the increased energy absorption and impact duration. I wish I could find a trustworthy comparison of the safety ratings of the two models, but it looks like the two cars' ratings are considered identical most places I look. Not sure if that is actually true.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Worse. No matter how good they do they can't do better because they're smaller cars with less availible space that can be converted into time spent decelerating in a crash. Crumple zone size is a high school physics problem. More distance -> more time -> less acceleration -> less force