When I visit https://lightyear.one/ the default location for the range estimate is "Rotterdam, Netherlands" and the default display is "year max" which is "5311 Wh, 59 km per day"
Firstly, the moment you select "Summer" that drops to "2731 Wh, 30 km per day" so the headline figure of 59km is already exceeding even their claimed summer range by almost 100%. So they're fudging figures right from the front page.
Secondly, that's 6.9 miles per kWh, whereas the Tesla Model 3 gets 4.1 EPA-rated miles per kWh [1]. So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla?
A 69% increase in efficiency is a 40% drop in battery cost for the same range. To me it seems unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi would have all left a cost saving that big on the table, if it was easy to achieve.
Thirdly, [2] says the Lightyear One has "five square meters of integrated solar cells", and that "The 12 km/h added by the solar roof and hood during daylight exposure extends the range as you drive", i.e. 7.4 miles/hour of solar charging. Even assuming they're 69% more efficient than Tesla, that means they're getting 1.08kW out of 5m² of solar panels.
For comparison, if you look at a random rooftop solar installation in California [3] with 40m² of panels, from 9am-5pm the mean output was 4.5kW - so with 5m² of panels, the output would only average 0.55kW. So the Lightyear One claims 96% more output - even making the very generous assumptions that "during daylight" is only the peak 8 hours a day, that the shade and angle of the car panels are as good as a residential rooftop solar installation, and ignoring winter and places less sunny than California. Unless they're using solar panels made of Unobtainium, used in price-no-object applications like satellites, this seems unlikely to me.
Seems to me there are two possibilities here:
1. They've developed an EV 69% more efficient than a Tesla, AND solar panels 96% more efficient than rooftop solar, AND rather than selling either of those technologies to the existing car or solar companies that would very much like them, they've decided to start their own car company.
2. They're quoting efficiency figures for driving at golf cart speeds, or solar figures for noon in the Sahara desert, or daily range figures assuming you'll visit a plug-in charger every so often.
I know which I think is more likely - and my €149,000 will be staying firmly in my pocket.
Personally I think it's unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi were all so blinkered in their thinking that they forgot about better aero and reducing weight when doing so could save 40% of the cost of the most expensive part of the car.
If you think that's likely - and it would be great news for EVs and the environment if it was the case - I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about the credibility of Lightyear's claims.
They're not blinkered. Audi and Honda are using wing cameras for improved aero, but they're not willing to commit to the Lightyear One's shape or to use in-wheel motors. A car like the Porsche Taycan has all wheel steering so it's not going to use wheel covers.
It's like you're not even reading what's in front of you. Compare and contrast the following cars:
Have a look at them all. Think about their shapes. Think about their weight. Think about the engineering and design trade offs that are being made. Think about materials and manufacturing costs. Think about the market segment they're targeting. None of this is amazing or mysterious.
The Tesla Model S has a Coefficient of drag * area (or CdA) [1] of 0.562 m² so to have 40% less drag, the Lightyear One will need a CdA of 0.337 m² or better. (Choosing the Model S as I can't find CdA figures for the Model 3)
The GM EV1 only seats 2 passengers, it's 1.77 m wide and 1.28m high, it even has fender skirts [2]. Its CdA of 0.367m² is still only 35% below the Tesla.
The Lightyear One seats "5 adult passengers", and it's 1.90m wide and 1.43m high.
So the Lightyear One is wider, higher, and has 3 more passengers than the EV1 - but it's going to have less drag?
One of us might not be reading what's in front of us, but I don't think it's me :-p
I don't understand why you're going to so much effort to be wrong. The Lightyear One's drag coefficient is under 0.2, the Model S has a drag coefficient of 0.24. The Lightyear One is lower and narrower than the Model S. The Lightyear One is lighter than the Model S. The Lighyear One has in-wheel motors for greater efficiency, the Model S doesn't and neither did the EV1.
Firstly, the moment you select "Summer" that drops to "2731 Wh, 30 km per day" so the headline figure of 59km is already exceeding even their claimed summer range by almost 100%. So they're fudging figures right from the front page.
Secondly, that's 6.9 miles per kWh, whereas the Tesla Model 3 gets 4.1 EPA-rated miles per kWh [1]. So they're going to be 69% more efficient than Tesla?
A 69% increase in efficiency is a 40% drop in battery cost for the same range. To me it seems unlikely that Tesla, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi would have all left a cost saving that big on the table, if it was easy to achieve.
Thirdly, [2] says the Lightyear One has "five square meters of integrated solar cells", and that "The 12 km/h added by the solar roof and hood during daylight exposure extends the range as you drive", i.e. 7.4 miles/hour of solar charging. Even assuming they're 69% more efficient than Tesla, that means they're getting 1.08kW out of 5m² of solar panels.
For comparison, if you look at a random rooftop solar installation in California [3] with 40m² of panels, from 9am-5pm the mean output was 4.5kW - so with 5m² of panels, the output would only average 0.55kW. So the Lightyear One claims 96% more output - even making the very generous assumptions that "during daylight" is only the peak 8 hours a day, that the shade and angle of the car panels are as good as a residential rooftop solar installation, and ignoring winter and places less sunny than California. Unless they're using solar panels made of Unobtainium, used in price-no-object applications like satellites, this seems unlikely to me.
Seems to me there are two possibilities here:
1. They've developed an EV 69% more efficient than a Tesla, AND solar panels 96% more efficient than rooftop solar, AND rather than selling either of those technologies to the existing car or solar companies that would very much like them, they've decided to start their own car company.
2. They're quoting efficiency figures for driving at golf cart speeds, or solar figures for noon in the Sahara desert, or daily range figures assuming you'll visit a plug-in charger every so often.
I know which I think is more likely - and my €149,000 will be staying firmly in my pocket.
[1] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1119556_tesla-model-3-r... [2] https://lightyear.one/lightyear-one/ [3] https://pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=21356&sid=19238&dt=2019...