A RBW Electric Roadster, based on a MGB body shell from the 1960s, but with a modern electric driveline, Photo: RBW Electric Classic Cars
When enthusiasts comment on sports cars they commonly show their prejudices in their first sentence. This enthusiast is no exception. I cannot hide my delight that the age of the ICE (internal combustion engine) sports car is ending. Long live the electric sports car!
What seems to be happening is that people are taking their favourite 1960s vehicle bodies and fitting them with an electric power-train. Sometimes these bodies are real, with steel parts that have had sixty years to rust. At other times these bodies are constructed in fibreglass, original if available or a replica if not. Presumably there are also carbon-fibre replicas. Many of the drivelines come from Teslas, or other electric vehicles, that have been totally damaged in an incident.
RBW Electric Classic Cars takes a different approach. Recently, they have produced a prototype of a sports car based on a MGB.
The body shell is new, produced under licence to the original specifications, by British Motor Heritage, of Witney, in the Cotswold. It is powered with a patented driveline system, incorporating three years of development by RBW, Continental Engineering Services (CES), and Zytek Automotive, a 100% owned subsidiary of Continental Engineering Services. This driveline is derived from Formula E technology. All three companies are based in Lichfield. While the electric motor is placed at the rear of the car, a lithium-ion battery pack is located in the abandoned engine room, giving a balanced weight distribution.
The front and rear suspension consist of independent coilovers. The brakes, feature discs and callipers, but also integrate regenerative braking technology.
While the interior features a 7″ dashboard display with wi-fi-enabled navigation, the system seems underwhelming, at least to a computer scientist.
Top Speed
80 mph = ca < 130 km/h
0-60 mph = ca 0-100 km/h
9 s
Range
160 miles = ca 260 km
Batteries
Six Hyperdrive Lithium-ion battery packs
Power Output
70 kW
DC Charging
3.0 kW
Recharge Hours
8 hours
Electrical and related characteristics of the RBW Electric Roadster.
Thirty examples of the RBW Electric Roadster will be produced, starting in early 2021. Prices will start from £90 000, plus taxes, with an initial £5 000 deposit.
Izera Z100 Crossover SUV prototype. Photo: ElectroMobility Poland.
Izera is an electric vehicle brand, named after the Izera Mountains in south-western Poland. It is owned by ElectroMobility Poland, a state-controlled joint venture established in October 2016 by four Polish power companies: PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA, Energa SA, Enea SA and Tauron Polska Energia SA. Each has a 25% share. It even has a marketing slogan “A million reasons to keep on driving.” As if this isn’t enough, the company has been able to design and make two prototypes, with the intention of launching an electric vehicle production facility: a hatchback (T100) and crossover/ SUV (Z100), both suitable for families.
Poland is the largest European state that has no vehicle brand, despite the automotive industry being the second largest in the country, at 7% of GDP, over 200 000 jobs in production and 270 000 other jobs.
The Izera EVs were designed based on a detailed analysis of Polish consumer expectations and car clinic studies. Production models are not meant to be luxury products but affordable vehicles for Poles. ElectroMobility Poland wants to introduce an installment payments system so that the total cost of ownership of the car is less than comparable internal cumbustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
Much of the prototype design originates with Torino Design. ElectroMobility Poland intends to start production around 2023, which means that there is ample time to refine the prototypes into production vehicles. ElectroMobility Poland’s CEO Piotr Zaremba says the production models “will retain the characters of the presented vehicles”.
Production vehicle characteristics announced: 0 to 100 km/h in under 8 seconds; range about 400 km; two battery pack sizes that are suitable for home chargers as well as fast-charging stations; a dedicated smartphone app; all-LED lighting; high-resolution LCD touchscreens; Electronic Stability Control; Forward Collision Warning; Blind Spot Detection; Traffic Sign Recognition; and probably much more. Dimensions of the prototypes and the proposed production vehicles were not revealed.
ElectroMobility Poland says it is negotiating the purchase of a vehicle production platform from Germany’s EDAG Engineering GmbH, based in Wiesbaden. It is also active in the fields of product development, production plant development, plant engineering, limited series manufacturing, modules and optimization. After a production platform is in place, the prototypes can be industrialized, and a suitable production facility constructed.
A short YouTube video shows the current state of the design prototypes, released to the public.
The Wuling Hongguang Mini EV is being made by the SAIC-GM-Wuling joint-venture, with each company having 50.1, 44 and 5.9% of the shares, respectively. The company is located in Liuzhou prefecture, in south-eastern China. It is known for its microvans (bread box cars), especially the ICE-powered (internal combustion engine) Wuling Sunshine. As China has become richer, microvans have become less popular, encouraging Wuling to focus on other segments.
After first being announced in 2020-03, recent attention has focused on deliveries for the Mini EV. It was launched 2020-07-24, with 15 000 vehicles were sold in the first 20 days. Now, there are more than 50 000 orders. According to Wuling partner, General Motors, the vehicle is inspired by the Japanese Kei car, their smallest highway-legal passenger car segment.
In the future, about 100 Experience stores will be opened, throughout China, to market the car, particularly in urban centres. According to Gasgoo, this is being done to attract fashion conscious younger owners.
The Mini EV dimensions are: length 2917 mm on a 1 940 mm wheelbase, width 1 493 mm and height 1 621 mm. It can provide seating for four adults.
The range is 120 km with a 9.2 kWh battery or 170 km with a 13.8 kWh battery. Charging is via a 240 V outlet. The motor has 13 kW of power, and 85 Nm of torque. This provides a top speed of 100 km/h. It comes equipped with an intelligent battery management system (BMS), as well as low-temperature pre-heating technology and battery insulation. It has an IP68 waterproof and dustproof rating and, according to Wuling, been put through 16 rigorous safety tests. The battery’s functions can be remotely monitored via a smartphone app.
The price of the vehicle in China ranges from 28 800 yuan (ca. €3 550) to 38 800 yuan (ca. €4 750).
More than half (57%) of the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV’s body consists of high-strength steel. It also comes with the anti-lock braking system (ABS) with electronic brake-force distribution (EBD), the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) and reversing radar. The back seats are equipped with two ISOFIX child safety seat restraint interfaces. When the rear seats are not in use, there is 741 litres of storage space. In addition, there are 12 storage compartments in the cabin, including a smartphone tray.
While the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV is currently only available in China, some characteristics hint that it could be built to satisfy European microcar (L7e), or city car (A-segment) specifications. The 13 kW engine power hits at it being a microcar, can only have a maximum of 15 kW. However, the contra-indication to this is the seating for four adults. This would mean that the payload would exceed the maximum 200 kg allowed. If the rear seats were removed, this would put the maximum payload below 200 kg. As a city car, the vehicle would have to be equipped with airbags, and other safety equipment, raising the price.
Wuling Hongguang Mini EV interior, with the rear seats folded (cutaway). Photo: Wuling.
Given a choice between a Zetta CM1 and a Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, there is no doubt (at least in my mind) that the Zetta is a superior vehicle, and probably gives better value.
The Zetta City Module 1 (CM1) is the first Russian built EV to enter production, according to Automotive Logistics. Unfortunately, detailed information is difficult to access. Even the English version of the Zetta company site fails to mention the CM1, devoting its content to technological issues of its drive train, especially the in-wheel = in-hub induction motors. However, some information is available from Russian Auto News.
The modular approach used by Zetta means that different modules can be built for different purposes, goods as well as person transport. Some of these will be mass produced focussing on common needs. This is the case of the CM1. Others may have more limited appeal, such as outfitting a vehicle to accommodate a person with disabilities, who has very specific and individual needs. Yet flexibility is not the only attribute. The Zetta is also technologically efficient, economic and – to repeat that so-often misused term – ecological.
The in-hub drive train is exceedingly important for Zetta. Zetta CEO Denis Schurovsky says “Summer and winter validation has shown us that induction motors can endure road dynamic stresses. They are resistant to chemicals, dust, water, etc. All wheels are connected to a single management system that simulates electric ABS and ESP with high recuperation capability.” Each in-hub motor is rated at 20 kW, for a total of 80 kW, a respectable power for such a small vehicle.
The CM1 has a length of 3 030 mm on a 2 000 mm wheelbase, and with a width of 1 270 mm and height of 1 600 mm. It is configured as a four-seater. Inside EVs makes a point that the car is just 340 mm longer than a Smart Fortwo, and that the seating must only be for children in the back. This misses the point entirely that an EV with in-hub electric motors will use space much more efficiently than an ICE (internal combustion engine) designed vehicle. Top speed is 120km/h and battery capacity ranges between 10kWh and 32kWh, for a range of between 200 and 560 km. Depending on the battery pack selected, the weight of the vehicle should be between 500 and 700 kg.
About 90% of the vehicle content is Russian. Much of the remainder is in the batteries, imported from China. The vehicle has been in development since 2017.
At a price of €5 300, Zetta CM1 claims to be the cheapest EV in the world. The vehicle has been developed by Russian Engineering and Manufacturing Company (REMC) in Toliatti/ Togliatti, the Russian city named after Italian Communist Party Leader Palmiro Togliatti (1893 – 1964). Estimated production is 15 000 vehicles a year.
And so to the question many readers will be asking, would I buy one? I would like to answer yes, especially after a theoretical regret at prioritizing a Japanese Subaru Justy four wheel drive in 1986, instead of the cheaper Russian Lada station wagon (VAZ-2104) or its similarly priced, but considerably larger and more powerful 4×4 off-roader, the Lada Niva (VAZ-2121). Andy Thompson in Cars of the Soviet Union (2008), states that Lada “gained a reputation as a maker of solid, unpretentious and reliable cars for motorists who wanted to drive on a budget.” It is my hope that the Zetta will offer purchasers a similar, positive experience. Unfortunately, the answer will probably be no, and I will be unable to engage in the one-upmanship that comes from owning a €5 300 EV, capable of doing the same basic driving tasks as a €53 000 (or more) Rivian R1S or Tesla Model Y.
eCaravan, an electrified Cessna 208B Grand Caravan, awaiting its first test flight (Photo: MagniX)
On 2020-05-28 aviation history was made, with the first 30 m test flight of an eCaravan, an electrified Cessna 208B Grand Caravan at Grant County International Airport in Moses Lake, Washington. The eCaravan was modified in Goldcoast, Queensland, Australia by Magnix, so that it is powered by a 560 kW magni500 all-electric propulsion system with a 1 tonne, 750V lithium-ion battery. The flight consumed $6 worth of electricity, needing 30-40 min of charging.
The electric aircraft propulsion company MagniX worked with engineering and flight test specialist AeroTEC on this project. In its current state, the Magni500-powered plane can fly 160 km with 4 or 5 passengers while keeping reserve power. The companies are aiming for a certification by the end of 2021.
In a slightly more distant future, the companies hope to offer machines capable of operating 160 km flights with reserve capacity, and a full load of nine passengers. The longer term goal is to enable 800 km flights, which account for about 45% of all flights flown in the world. Some decades ago, smaller commuter airlines operated such routes. The general aircraft operating these routes disappeared because they were economically unviable. They were replaced by larger, more complex regional jets. Electric aircraft could provide the economic characteristics that make such routes feasible again. However, it is the relatively low energy density of batteries that has constrained the range and payload of electric aircraft. Magnix is studying other technologies, including lithium-sulfur batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.
The advantage of electric propulsion systems is their environmentally friendly operation, fewer moving parts and simplicity, compared to ICE engined aircraft. Some estimate that electric propulsion will reduce operating costs by up to 80%.
In a previous weblog post, Alice, an all-electric, nine-passenger aircraft being developed by Eviation Aircraft, was discussed. That project was disrupted in 2020-01 when an electric system fire damaged an Alice prototype in Arizona. Magnix had also been named one of two companies to supply propulsion systems for it.
The eCaravan in flight at Moses Lake, Washington, USA, 2020-05-28. Photo: Magnix
Oatly has devised a process to provide a vegan alternative to milk. Now it is concentrating on making that process more sustainable, but reducing CO2 emissions. Artwork: Oatly.
My personal transition from omnivore to vegan/ vegetarian is proceeding almost as slowly as my transition away from driving a diesel to an electric vehicle. One positive change, is that we purchase our eggs and milk (and some honey as well as produce) from neighbouring farms, rather than grocery stores.
I asked my personal shopper to add some Oatly products onto her shopping list. Instead, she invited me to help her shop at the local Co-operative in Straumen. Thus, I was able to purchase one litre (about a quart) of havredrikk kalsium (oatmilk calcium). Unfortunately, I was unable to find the other products I wanted to try: havregurt vanilje (oatgurt vanilla); havregurt turkisk (oatgurt Turkish) and iMat fraiche (Oat creme fraiche).
Oatly is a Swedish vegan food brand, producing dairy alternatives from oats. Based on research at Lund University. The company’s enzyme technology turns oats into a nutritional liquid food suitable for the human digestive system. The company operates in southern Sweden with its headquarters in Malmö, with a production & development centre in Landskrona. The brand is available in more than 20 Asian and European countries, Australia, Canada and USA.
Oatly claims to be a sustainable food manufacturer. Artwork: Oatly
Oatly also tries to be sustainable, by reducing its contributions to global warming. They also produce a sustainability report. It shows that almost half of Oatly’s contribution to greenhouse gasses comes from the cultivation of ingredients, a quarter from transport, 15% from packaging and 6% from production (p. 26).
Oatly is not perfect. For example, there has been some controversy about it selling oat residue to a pig farm. On the other hand, it has benefited from two publicity attacks. First, Arla, the Swedish dairy company, attempted to discourage people from buying vegan alternatives to cow’s milk (mjölk in Swedish) using a fake brand Pjölk. Oatly responded by trademarking several fictitious brands Pjölk, Brölk, Sölk and Trölk and began using them on their packaging. Second, the Swedish dairy lobby LRF Mjölk, won a lawsuit against Oatly for using the phrase “Milk, but made for humans” for £ (sic) 100 000. When Oatly published the lawsuit text, it lead to a 45% increase in Oatly’s Swedish sales. Once again, this seems to suggest that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
On 2020-05-14, Oatly and Einride announced that Oatly will use four 42-tonne vehicles starting 2020-10 to transport goods from production sites in southern Sweden, using Einride’s Freight Mobility Platform. This is estimated to lower its climate footprint (on the affected routes) by 87% compared to diesel trucks: 107.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year per truck, about 430 tonnes per year in total, or 2 100 tonnes throughout the five year duration of the contract.
Part of the solution involves optimizing electric trucks operations using computer-controlled logistics with Einride’s Freight Mobility Platform software. Accurate transport planning allows 24 tonnes of goods to be transported an average of 120 kilometers without charging. It involves optimizing and coordinating drivers, vehicles, routes as well as charging. On a typical shift, three drivers will drive four different trucks. This means that one truck is always charging, which places less strain on batteries, and making the operation more durable and economical.
Oakly’s 42-tonne Einride trucks will feature a DAF glider, with Emoss driveline and Einride software. Photo: Einride
This initial iteration involves a DAF glider (a vehicle without a driveline/ prime mover/ power source, fitted with a Emoss motor. Future iterations may involve a Einride Pod, previously referred to as a T-pod.
Uncrewed SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft approaching the ISS 2019-03-04 (Photo NASA)
There seem to be two categories of space exploration corporations, winners like SpaceX, and those unable to win, like Boeing. For the past few years, the reputation of Boeing has been slipping, in large part from its inability to manage, design and manufacture high quality, technological products. This was examined in a previous post, Clowns Supervised by Monkeys, about the Boeing 737-MAX, and continues here, about the CST-100 Starliner.
The Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, is a human spaceflight program funded by the American government and administered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The goal of CCDev is to fly US and international astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) on privately operated crew vehicles.
The CCDev program started in 2010, with CCDev 1 providing $50 million to five US companies to develop human spaceflight concepts and technologies. This was followed up in 2011, with CCDev 2 providing $270 million to four companies for developing vehicles that could fly astronauts after the Space Shuttle fleet’s retirement. In 2014 operational contracts to fly astronauts were awarded to SpaceX and Boeing.
CCDev 3 was renamed Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap). This involved proposals for end-to-end operational concepts including spacecraft, launch vehicles, launch services, ground and mission operations, and recovery. A final request for proposals was released on 2012-02-07 to be submitted by 2012-03-23. Three proposals were selected, and announced 2012-08-03: Sierra Nevada Corporation was awarded $212.5 million for its Dream Chaser/ Atlas V proposal; SpaceX was awarded $440 million for its Dragon 2/ Falcon 9 proposal; and, Boeing was awarded $460 million for its CST-100/ Atlas V proposal.
Certification Products Contract, phase 1 (CPC 1) involved the development of a certification plan with engineering standards, tests, and analyses. Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and Boeing were each awarded about $10 million.
CPC 2 was renamed the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) and included the final development, testing and verifications to allow crewed demonstration flights to the ISS.
On 2014-09-16, Boeing and SpaceX received contracts to provide crewed launch services to the ISS. Boeing received a potential $4.2 billion, and SpaceX up to $2.6 billion.
On 2019-11-14, NASA’s inspector general reported a seat price of $90 million for Starliner and $55 million for Dragon Crew. Boeing’s price exceeds the $80 million paid by NASA to the Russian space corporation, Roscosmos, for Soyuz spacecraft seats to fly astronauts to the ISS. The report also stated that NASA agreed to pay an additional $287.2 million above Boeing’s fixed prices. Similar compensation was not offered to SpaceX.
While the first CCDev flight was planned for 2015, insufficient funding and technical issues caused delays.
Date
Description
Status
2015-05-06
Dragon 2 Pad abort test
Success
2019-03-02
Dragon 2 Uncrewed orbital flight test
Success
2019-11-04
CST-100 Pad abort test
Success
2019-12-20
CST-100 Uncrewed orbital flight test
Failure
2020-01-19
Dragon 2 In-flight abort test
Success
2020
Dragon 2 Crewed test flight
Planned
2020
CST-100 Crewed test flight
Planned
The CCDev was aimed to minimize development costs through private investment and development, by using two space transportation vehicles competing with each other. NASA had hoped this approach would provide redundancy both in regards to development and flight operations.
After completing the demonstration flights, each company is contracted to supply six flights to ISS between 2019 and 2024.
As shown in the table above SpaceX has successfully tested its Dragon 2, Crew Dragon, despite a delay caused by a ground test failure, caused by a leaky valve.
On 2019-12-20 an unmanned Boeing CST-100 Starliner space taxi malfunctioned on the capsule’s first mission, an Orbital Flight Test (OFT). The initial failure was due to a timer fault. Now, another error has been found in the capsule’s software which could have destroyed the Starliner. If this second fault had not been discovered, it could have resulted in the deaths of the astronauts onboard a Starliner.
The CST-100 has had greater problems. Its abort test, while successful, still had a parachute fail during descent. Its service module leaked toxic fuel, delaying its uncrewed OFT by months. The OFT was supposed to be one of the last steps in Boeing’s development of the CST-100 Starliner. When that test finally happened, a timer failure prevented a rendezvous with the ISS. It failed its mission. Then it was discovered that there were other issues including inappropriate thruster firings, inappropriate valve mappings, potential collision issues between the service module and the crew module, as well as space-to-ground communication issues.
Doug Loverro, the head of NASA’s human spaceflight section, stated that the software anomalies were “likely only symptoms…we had numerous process escapes in the design, development, [and] test cycle for software…We have a more fundamental problem…”
Boeing is failing in its ability to deliver mission critical software, not only in spacecraft but with the disastrous software failures with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) system on the Boeing 737.
NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine held a media teleconference detailing some of the CST-100 issues, explaining it in the “interest of transparency”, thanks to the OFT having “lots of anomalies”.
Given a choice of being an astronaut with SpaceX or Boeing, there is no doubt that every rational person would opt for SpaceX. Boeing is just too dangerous a company.
Crash site of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, Boeing 737-8F2 (TC-JGE, “Tekirdağ”), at Schiphol Airport, near Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2009-02-25 Copyright Fred Vloo / RNW (Creative Commons Generic 2.0 licence)
Clowns supervised by monkeys, is a description of Boeing that comes from one of its employees in an email in 2017. After two fatal crashes of 737 Max aircraft killed 346 people because of faulty Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software, a flight control subsystem designed to enhance pitch stability.
In addition, there have been multiple problems with 787 Dreamliners. Some of the problems involve leaking fuel valves and lithium-ion battery problems. Most recently, in 2019-12, it was revealed that Boeing removed copper foil that formed part of the lightning strike protection from wings of the aircraft.
Additional questions are being asked after yet another 737 made a “rough landing” on 2020-02-05 at Istanbul’s Sabiha Gokcen airport. Three people were killed and 179 injured, of the 183 passengers and crew on board. Adding to this is a question about the legitimacy of the report on the 2009-02-25 crash of Turkish Airlines flight 1951.
This crash is the subject of Mayday episode 72 (aka Series 10 Episode 6) “Who’s in Control?” first shown 2011-02-28.
New York Times journalist Chris Hamby claimed in 2020-01 that the investigation either excluded or played down criticisms of the manufacturer in its 2010 final report, after pushback from Boeing and American National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials. The Hamby article uses a 2009 human factors analysis by Sidney Dekker. In 2020-02, it was reported that Boeing refused to cooperate with a new Dutch review on the crash investigation and that the NTSB had refused Dutch lawmakers’ request to participate.
Then there is the KC-46 Pegasus, a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed from the 767 airliner. Numerous issues include its remote vision system, refueling boom, delivery with loose tools and other debris left inside planes after manufacture.
Software Verification
While not all issues are software related, several are. There seem to be significant flaws in Boeing’s software verification process. The heart of the problem is that Boeing has been given permission by the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to certify its own designs. That means that Boeing regulates itself.
The verification of software takes considerable effort, and expertise. Some experts claim that it takes an order of magnitude more (a fancy way of saying ten times more) to verify a software program than to develop and test it. Many also conclude that it takes a special type of person, frequently someone on the autism spectrum, to undertake such work. For extroverts, and other people far removed from autism, dealing with system verifiers can be problematic.
Airbus and Boeing refuse to compete on the basis of safety. Both companies pretend that they are equally safe, and that the only metric that needs to be taken into consideration by airlines is price. Unfortunately, safety is an issue, and some inconvenient metrics demonstrate this. The Airbus A320 family of aircraft competes against the Boeing 737 family. Airsafe’s fatal crash rates per million flights puts Airbus A320 family rate of 0.08 in contrast to Boeing 737’s family rate of 0.23 (Almost three times higher).
Lou Whiteman, an analyst at the Motley Fool, wonders if Boeing should be split up. He reasons that Boeing is too large and complex to manage effectively. The result is a series of blunders. Because of the dominance of Boeing, any failures have a massive impact on the entire U.S. economy.
Beyond Boeing to modern business culture, one of the challenges facing many companies is the use of extraverts as executives. These often have an ability to speak for themselves, even promoting themselves as executive material. Yet, an ability to listen may be, if not lacking, regarded as of secondary importance. Worse still is the situation where sociopaths and psychopaths become executives. Readers interested in the challenges posed by extroversion are encouraged to read Susan Cain, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.
I’m allowing Fugboi to have the final comment originally posted as a comment in the Mentour Pilot video: “What’s wrong with Boeing? Answer: MCAS (Money Comes Above Safety)”
TOGG’s battery electric SUV will be available from 2022. Photo: TOGG
Tog is the Norwegian word for train. TOGG is not a train, but a family of five EV models to be produced in Turkey by a consortium. Two prototypes were unveiled 2019-12-27, consisting of a red SUV and a grey sedan. The Turkish government had guaranteed to buy 30 000 of the vehicles by 2035, or about 2 000 vehicles a year over a 15 year period. Annual production volume is estimated to be 175 000 units a year. An investment of about $3.7 billion will be required between now and 2033.
Turkish plans for a domestically made vehicle were first announced in 2017-11, by a consortium that was formally established in 2018. Shares in consortium member stocks fell after the announcement, in part because of their lack of experience in automotive production. Members of the consortium consist of: Anadolu Holding; BMC Group, a Turkey-Qatar partnership; Kok Group; Turkcell, a mobile phone operator; and, Zorlu Holding, parent of TV maker Vestel.
Turkey’s Automobile Initiative Group (TOGG) project was launched in 2019-10. In addition to assorted forms of state support, production facilities are going to be constructed in Bursa in northwest Turkey. Bursa is already Turkey’s automotive hub. Ford, Fiat Chrysler, Hyundai, Renault and Toyota make vehicles in Turkey, that are exported to Europe.
This lack of automotive competence has now been rectified. TOGG’s CEO is Gurcan Karakas, former Bosch executive. Its COO is Sergio Rocha, former General Motors Korea chief executive. Production will begin in 2022 with compact SUVs.
Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan, regards this project as a demonstration of Turkey’s growing economic power. Thus, TOGG has been launched as a potential global brand, starting with the European market. Erdogan said Turkey’s EV charging infrastructure would be ready nationally by 2022.
Further details will be published as they become available.
Alice is an electric aircraft being developed since 2017 by Eviation Aircraft of Israel. A first flight is expected sometime in 2020, followed by a certification program lasting two to three years. Composite materials form 95% of the plane. It will be controlled by fly-by-wire (a system that replaces manual flight controls with electronic ones) and powered by three pusher propellers (facing backwards) , two on the wingtips and one at the rear of the fuselage.
Eviation was founded in 2015 by Omer Bar-Yohay, Omri Regev and Aviv Tzidon. Eviation teamed up with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) to launch a research and development program to start in the spring of 2019 at ERAU’s Prescott, Arizona campus. The program would focus on performance analysis, validation and testing, along with preliminary design and sub-scale testing of future electric propulsion and airframe design concepts.
Eviation has secured $200 million of investment to cover certification and production while the first prototype was assembled in Vannes, northwest France. This site was chosen, because it is the location of composite materials specialist, Multiplast. Other suppliers include: Honeywell is providing flight control systems, including automatic landing. Magnaghi Aeronautica will supply the landing gear. Kokam Company will supply pouch lithium polymer batteries to power the full-scale prototype. While Siemens 260 kW motors had been selected as a primary power source, MagniX Magni250s 280 kW motors were selected as a second power option. This ranking may change as MagniX owner Clermont Group from Singapore took a 70% stake in Eviation Aircraft in August 2019.
Charge vehicles, similar to aviation fuel trucks, would be used to charge the plane. Each hour of flight time was expected to require a charging time of 30 minutes.
The planes have a unit cost of $ 4 million. Currently, over 150 Alice aircraft had been ordered by two American companies. An investment of $500 million is needed to begin serial production.
Alice flight deck. Image: Eviation.Alice interior. Image: Eviation.
