Lightning GT out of the bottle at British International Motor Show
The moment many green-loving speed enthusiasts have been impatiently waiting for has finally arrived with the unveiling of the all-new Lightning GT at the British International Motor Show. The sheet was pulled back around 1 o'clock London time to reveal metal that stays quite true to the earlier rendered version. The long hood has sexy curves that deliver more than a twinge of lust but with a fascia that evokes the eloquence of an Aston Martin, it retains a classy British feel. A walk around the back reveals a brief rounded rear deck with no exhaust pipes to spoil the view. While we couldn't cross the pond for the event, the Lightning Car Company folks were kind enough to supply pictures for the gallery below.
Though quite similar performance-wise, the Lightning GT's builders believe they have some solid advantages over the Tesla Roadster in the technology department. The British sports car features Altairnano batteries which are capable of receiving a full charge in as little as 10 minutes and can last for over 10 years. No transmission troubles here either since the 4 PML Flightlink Hi-Pa Drive™ motors are in the wheels. A high mechanical efficiency is maintained with this all-wheel drive design that also aids greatly in brake regeneration and traction control. With all that function comes a bit of comfort as well. Full leather, air conditioning, sat nav and electronic door entry are all part of the £120,000 package. The Lightning GT team are also able to customize vehicles with made-to-measure interiors and even bodywork modifications, according to the customers wishes. Orders have already been received. If you wish to join this exclusive line-up you'll need to throw down £15,000 and be prepared to wait at least a year.
Gallery: Lightning Car Company GT
[Source: The Register]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joseph 12:04AM (7/23/2008)
"No transmission troubles here either since the 4 PML Flightlink Hi-Pa Drive™ motors are in the wheels."
I have three words for this.
1. Cost
2. Complexity
3. Handling
I think it's safe to say that four motors is more expensive than one. A one-speed transmission (two-speed wasn't a very good idea) is so simple, that in my opinion one motor and one transmission is less complex than four motors. And as for handling, the wieght of an in-wheel motor is unsprung weight, which gives adverse handling characteristics.
Reply
tankd0g 12:23AM (7/23/2008)
I doubt these motors need the complicated cooling system the Tesla does. Regenerative braking with in wheel motors is also a no brainer.
someEEguy 1:41AM (7/23/2008)
Cost: Likely true but this is suppose to be an expensive car.
Complexity: Mechanically it's much simpler than a traditional AWD system (as well as more efficient). Electrically it's not much more complected than a single electric motor setup, as electric motors work extremely well together.
Handling: unsprung weight may increase somewhat relative to a traditional AWD system but weight distribution would improve. (Good FAQ on Hi-Pa Drive motors:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/motors/hipa_faq.html)
The downside of the in-wheel setup, will likely be its top speed.
GoodCheer 9:35AM (7/23/2008)
"in my opinion one motor and one transmission is less complex than four motors"
Can you draw (or even name) all the necessary components in a limited-slip differential? I can't, but I know there are many. To get 4WD from one motor you need 3 differentials. Then you need two torque-transmitting universal joints to get power from the differentials to each wheels.
With 4 in-wheel motors I CAN name all the parts you'd need (at least conceptually). There would be exactly 2 per wheel (plus bearings).
I will be interested to see what effect the unsprung weight has, but for the simplicity I live the idea.
jake 9:33PM (7/22/2008)
£120,000 price with those options make it not as bad as before, but you basically still get only the quick charge capability and maybe some more interior and cargo space as extra for spending £40k more. Again since they didn't reveal any more details, hopefully their original performance specs were conservative.
But it looks nice and any new EV is good news, so I wish them the best.
Reply
Charles Pergiel 9:45PM (7/22/2008)
So how much is it? The £15,000 you quote, or the £120,000 Jake quotes? And just who is "The Lightning Car Company"? None of this computes. A couple of facts along with the hype would be helpful.
Reply
jwiggins 11:58PM (7/23/2008)
120,000 is the list price, but one must pay 15000
as a deposit. This is typical of purchasing custom vehicles whether they be aircraft, automobiles, or boats.
Nick 3:28AM (7/23/2008)
Side-view mirrors are MASSIVE ! Are they Truck mirrors ?
Otherwise, very nice car indeed, not 100% as beautiful as the renderings, but close !
Wish them the best !
Reply
Laban 2:08AM (7/23/2008)
The cost might be a problem, at least initially. Handling is perhaps a problem, but i'm not so sure. Volvo mentioned that the difference in unsprung weight was only a couple of kilos which might be noticeable but i'm not so sure that it's a huge problem. Even less so for consumer cars.
But what's so complex about in-wheel motors ? It's the opposite imo, it should be the least complex solution. Especially since the Hi-Pa drive has ABS, regen braking, controller built-in the motor itself.
Reply
Mr E 2:16AM (7/23/2008)
I would be more convinced that this is not vapor ware once a operating prototype is running around. Tesla is delivering to customers now.
In-wheel motors are very attractive to the vehicle architect and I would not be so quick to dismiss them because of its challenge. Multiple motors and controllers are not a problem and the Prius and other cars have already proved that because they have been around for a long time.
4 wheel motors are very eloquent way to do all-wheel-drive without all the mechanical components such as a transition, transfer case, drive shafts 3 differentials, half shafts and CV joints. That a lot of space and weight savings! Imagine how much a Subaru would save if all of these components were tossed. 500 lb?
There is only so much acceleration Tesla can do on 2 wheels. 4 wheel acceleration is going to be much better.
About 6% of power is lost to the drive train. If you eliminate the drive train and the losses, then that is like having 6% more power, more acceleration, more range, smaller lighter battery, and lighter body wrapping the perimeter of the car because of all the space saved from eliminating the motor, drive shafts transition, half shafts, 3 differentials, CVs and transfer case.
Cost and complexity is also reduced buy eliminating these mechanical drive train components.
The un-sprung weight increase will not be a issue for economy commuter cars, but for “road hugging” sports cars it will be a issues unless they can use a fully active suspension like BOSE has developed. Of coarse you could offset un-sprung weigh by downsizing the mechanical brakes significantly and there is no CVs or Half shafts too count more savings. A fully active suspension could fully compensate for increased un-sprung weight. Active damping is already implemented on quality cars such as the Corvette.
Reply
jake 2:43AM (7/23/2008)
Perhaps it's just these particular motors/gearing (or no gearing) and the higher weight, but this 4wd doesn't accelerate faster than a Tesla, 0-60 in 4 seconds vs 3.9 seconds. It's making 700+bhp compared to the the Tesla's 250 (old) 300+bhp (new). 700+bhp, despite weight, should perform a lot better. 4wd however, as mentioned, should aid traction control and regenerative braking.
But in wheel motors are a fairly new thing for automobiles so I guess we will see more examples later on.
I agree on the part on how there are ways to compensate for the unsprung weight.
Domenick Yoney 8:50AM (7/23/2008)
You'll notice in the pictures in the gallery that the car indeed moves about under its own power. The company will be putting it through its paces in front of the media sometime soon.
Tom 4:02AM (7/23/2008)
I notice there is no mention anywhere of range. It would be nice to know if the range is in line with Tesla as well. But I agree with the comment that this is vaporware until we see a working model and get some idea of range.
Reply
The Inconvenient Treehugger 4:48AM (7/23/2008)
Getting the in-wheel motors working reliably is a major hurdle that even Mitsubishi and Volvo have had trouble with. It Lightning get it working I am sure M and V will follow suit quite fast. So even if it is high-end car I think they are doing valuable groundwork. Still, I´d prefer putting down money on Fisker Karma as it is definately coming out next year and technology-wise they are not reaching for moon. Heck, it is a lot cheaper, has confirmed driving range, 4-doors and seats four.
But enough already about these sexed-up expensive cars. They´ll just leave us salivating but unsated. Now tell me more about the practical & affordable NICE Ze-O!
Reply
Mirko 5:22AM (7/23/2008)
Volvo uses the same supplier for the in-wheel motors and power electronics (PML Flightlink)
BlackbirdHighway 5:33AM (7/23/2008)
They don't mention range, but the battery pack is reported to be 36 KWH. I figure that puts the range somewhere about 100-120 miles.
It's nice looking, but the price makes the Tesla look like a bargain. Whenever people ask Tesla why they don't use these new quick charge batteries, the answer has been that it would lower range and increase cost. Lightning seems to have proved that. Now we can find out if trading range and (relatively) lower cost for quick charging is worth it for EV buyers.
Reply
Domenick Yoney 9:06AM (7/23/2008)
The range is said to be just under 200 miles and if you check out the picture gallery, you'll see that this is a working model.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 10:39AM (7/23/2008)
Where was the range specified? I looked but I didn't see it.
Is the 36 KWH accurate? Because that did not come directly from Lightning.
Hope they come out with more details soon. It looks like the wheels don't have separate brakes, do they just use the wheel motors to do all the braking? That probably works great, but I can't see the regulators easily accepting it.
Domenick Yoney 1:49PM (7/23/2008)
According to the company the battery is 36Kwh.
That range was mentioned in this article.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/225486/lightning_gt.html
It sounds familiar though. I'm pretty sure I've seen that number somewhere else earlier.
Domenick Yoney 9:09AM (7/23/2008)
The range is said to be in the neighborhood of 200 miles.
Reply