Hyundai IONIQ Forum banner

21 - 40 of 81 Posts

Registered
2021 Chevy Bolt
Joined
20 Posts
Just to stir the pot, hows everyone feel about hydrogen? I'm all for it, and it seems like some of the asian manufacturers seem to be working on it. Sounds like theres a decent amount more for it to be mainstream obviously, but might be good for long haul trucking. I wonder if it could find its way into ships..which are the real polluters.
I think hydrogen is ideal for long haul trucking! Not sure yet about passenger vehicles 馃

I believe Hyundai just unveiled a hydrogen powered truck/rig a few days ago.
 

Registered
Joined
106 Posts
I think hydrogen is ideal for long haul trucking! Not sure yet about passenger vehicles 馃

I believe Hyundai just unveiled a hydrogen powered truck/rig a few days ago.
Hydrogen is a dead end technology. It would have been a good choice if the move to cleaner vehicles had started fifteen years ago, but battery electric technology is sufficiently mature that there isn't much point in it anymore (and it'll be completely dead once solid state batteries are available). The biggest problem is that most hydrogen fuel is currently produced as a byproduct of hydrocarbon processes (so called "grey" or "blue" hydrogen). Eventually, "green" hydrogen may be available more generally, but that won't be for many years. This is to say nothing of the entirely new infrastructure that would be necessary to distribute hydrogen fuel (whereas EV charging infrastructure, though expensive, is a comparatively simple upgrade to existing electrical infrastructure).

If you had asked me in fifteen or twenty years ago, I'd have said hydrogen was the way to go, but battery electric technology has come a long way and fuel cell technology has not (and hydrogen infrastructure is extraordinarily rare). It's just not worth it at this point imo.
 

Super Moderator
Joined
1,781 Posts
Also not in favor of a bright hydrogen future, are the huge loss percentages in the energy transitions

electricity ==> hydrogen ==> motion

This is a very energy-inefficient chain, like the ICE chain is/was which (like the original steam engine on which it is based) actually is mainly producing heat with motion as a minor byproduct. Compared to such enormous loss percentages, the nonzero losses in the transitions

electricity ==> battery ==> motion

are almost neglectable.
 

Registered
Joined
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Random question for the day: Does anyone else think the Hyundai badge on the nose looks out of place (and maybe even disrupts the airflow), and the hood could it benefit from some debadging? The matte paint (if selected) would have to be treated gently, but people have debadged Veloster Turbos and Mercedes and others with matte paint, so it can be done.
I think if the matte paints have been clear coated correctly, they should hold up just like the rest, or at least I am hoping so.

Hydrogen is a dead end technology. It would have been a good choice if the move to cleaner vehicles had started fifteen years ago, but battery electric technology is sufficiently mature that there isn't much point in it anymore (and it'll be completely dead once solid state batteries are available). The biggest problem is that most hydrogen fuel is currently produced as a byproduct of hydrocarbon processes (so called "grey" or "blue" hydrogen). Eventually, "green" hydrogen may be available more generally, but that won't be for many years. This is to say nothing of the entirely new infrastructure that would be necessary to distribute hydrogen fuel (whereas EV charging infrastructure, though expensive, is a comparatively simple upgrade to existing electrical infrastructure).

If you had asked me in fifteen or twenty years ago, I'd have said hydrogen was the way to go, but battery electric technology has come a long way and fuel cell technology has not (and hydrogen infrastructure is extraordinarily rare). It's just not worth it at this point imo.
This seems to be the prevailing attitude. And I get it. But I think we aren't done with this battle yet. I see it being adopted with longer range vehicles and then being passed down. I do agree with you and @Jan Treur that there needs to be some improvement though. Otherwise, like you both have said, it probably won't work.


I take a middle route. I kind of hate minimalism (as an engineer and as a user of things, IMO minimalism almost always comes at the cost of usability, at least before adapting to an uneccessary learning curve). At the same time, there are advantage to modern interface technology (they can display way more information and enable much greater configuration than old school dials and switches). I think the key is balance. I think modern displays should be the primary information displays, and that they should be as close to the eye line as practicable (Thus VW/Hyundai's approach is superior to tesla's in that they do not divert driver attention as far from the road). Additionally, I think AR HUDs like VW and Hyundai are adopting are a very good idea in principle as they can deliver vital information without diverting driver attention (In theory. I haven't driven one of these things yet so I can't comment on the reality, and I'm sure different people will experience these things differently. But the feature can be turned off anyway). I think, however, that common basic functions should retain dedicated, preferably physical controls as they are quick and easy to use on muscle memory alone (and just feel better to use). (In this the EV6 probably comes closest to the mark, as it at least retains dedicated controls for heated seats/etc which the I5 does not).
I agree with 99% of this. The only thing I think needs to be asked is: what information do I actually need?

The answer is almost none. You need temps (only to detect a problem), range and speed. I might have mised something, but IMO, ALL other inputs are exrta and cause distraction. I am super against touch screen controls for simple changes like temperature or radio station/input. Like you said, the HUD might be a good mix of information, but in a place where it doesn't make you crash for looking at all of it.

Now, that doesn't mean the car shouldn't have tons of information that you might want to look at later when parked, or options to customize before you get going. I just don't think they need to be useable in motion or anywhere near the view line of the driver. Maybe the passenger in the glove box or something gets access to it all, or the driver when parked.

But 12 inch vertical screens like tesla and dodge ram trucks, is begging people to get distracted and crash. In this new age of "safety and regulation" I don't understand how the view from the drivers seat has gotten so ridiculously cluttered.
 

Registered
Joined
73 Posts
I've driven a 2020 Acura RDX which includes a HUD that shows speed and navigation directions similar to the Hyundai. I liked it a lot - takes some getting used to, but it projects the right amount of information while keeping distractions to minimum.

How do you guys feel about digital side mirrors? I believe they're still illegal in the US, not sure about Europe and other places. I think they're kind of cool, and help break up the standard design language we're so used to seeing while also providing aero benefits. Hyundai's implementation of them seems busy, in that they add two more screens to the dash (for a total of 4).
 

Registered
Joined
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I've driven a 2020 Acura RDX which includes a HUD that shows speed and navigation directions similar to the Hyundai. I liked it a lot - takes some getting used to, but it projects the right amount of information while keeping distractions to minimum.

How do you guys feel about digital side mirrors? I believe they're still illegal in the US, not sure about Europe and other places. I think they're kind of cool, and help break up the standard design language we're so used to seeing while also providing aero benefits. Hyundai's implementation of them seems busy, in that they add two more screens to the dash (for a total of 4).
I'm dead split.

I like the idea, I love the ability to change the designs.

BUT, they go directly against my hate of tech in cars. It's too much, they make cars too expensive and impossible for average Joe to replace or repair easily.

My mind is a conflicted place!
 

Registered
Joined
15 Posts
How do you guys feel about digital side mirrors?
Im wondering what problem they鈥檙e trying to solve with them? Is rear visibility really improved? Are they that much more aerodynamic? (The Hyundai implementation doesn鈥檛 seem like it.) Just seems like a gimmick that draws more power and could fail and leave you blind.
 

Registered
Joined
73 Posts
Im wondering what problem they鈥檙e trying to solve with them? Is rear visibility really improved? Are they that much more aerodynamic? (The Hyundai implementation doesn鈥檛 seem like it.) Just seems like a gimmick that draws more power and could fail and leave you blind.
Yeah I'm with you and woods WRT the complexity vs. net benefits with these. I think the argument is that any decrease in frontal area helps aero, and they also give you blind spot views through the use of wide angle lenses.
 

Registered
Joined
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Yeah I'm with you and woods WRT the complexity vs. net benefits with these. I think the argument is that any decrease in frontal area helps aero, and they also give you blind spot views through the use of wide angle lenses.
Always need to mix 鈥減erformance鈥 with reality. If they are making track only Hyundai鈥檚 make them as baller as you want. But regular people need to see to back up or switch lanes, and electronic failures are guaranteed at some point in life. A mirror always works as long as it鈥檚 still there physically

the telluride has these side cameras when turning to help see what鈥檚 there. Everytime I used it I hit the curb because I was looking at the stupid screen!Gimmick that鈥檚dangerous to new drivers imo
 

Registered
Joined
73 Posts
For all my speed freaks, this is pretty impressive:


9.2s 1/4 mile in a production car is fairly insane. Wonder what the Ioniq will run - my guess is low 13s with the AWD build, which is still quite good for the class. Asian Petrolhead on YouTube was able to get a 4.9s 0-60 from it.
 

Registered
Joined
35 Posts
While this future proofs the car, it doesn't help much in the present. I think it will be years before you can go cross country with such fast charging readily available. Chicken and egg issue, but great that there are first movers on the car side. Easier than infrastructure though.
If you check out the EA stations in the US with 350kW charging rates we are getting close to not having a problem. If you have not done it, check A Better Routeplanner to test the route you want to take. For me from Tucson, AZ to San Francisco, CA has several routes that have the 350kW chargers (I believe they are all 800v).
I have had my reservation since the first day they were offered. But of course no idea when they will actually be available or if the dealer and I can agree on a price.
 

Registered
Joined
35 Posts
Not sure about how much advantage a camera for side view mirrors is, but my Bolt EV has a camera for the center rear view "mirror." It is great as the view angle is wider than a standard mirror and is not blocked by people or items in the back. It even provides a better picture at night. And yes the side view cameras are still illegal in the US. There are some very areodynamic versions that I have seen - the Ioniq 5 is not ome of them.
 

Registered
Joined
73 Posts
If you check out the EA stations in the US with 350kW charging rates we are getting close to not having a problem. If you have not done it, check A Better Routeplanner to test the route you want to take. For me from Tucson, AZ to San Francisco, CA has several routes that have the 350kW chargers (I believe they are all 800v).
I have had my reservation since the first day they were offered. But of course no idea when they will actually be available or if the dealer and I can agree on a price.
Although our charging infrastructure is getting better, I do worry about congestion at charging locations, especially in busier places.

Most of these EA locations only have one or two 350kW chargers, so if there's a line of 3 cars you're in for at least an hour wait. I've read some horror stories about Teslas having to queue for hours at busy supercharger locations during times like holiday weekends.

This will get worse as more and more drivers switch to EVs.

 

Registered
Joined
34 Posts
Most of these EA locations only have one or two 350kW chargers, so if there's a line of 3 cars you're in for at least an hour wait. I've read some horror stories about Teslas having to queue for hours at busy supercharger locations during times like holiday weekends.
Tesla has been adding superchargers at an amazing pace. We have a Tesla Model 3 and haven鈥檛 had to wait for a supercharger ever. The car even shows you how many superchargers are not in use. EA has a lot of work to do to keep up the pace for the tons of non-Tesla EVs coming onto the road.
 

Registered
Joined
73 Posts
Tesla has been adding superchargers at an amazing pace. We have a Tesla Model 3 and haven鈥檛 had to wait for a supercharger ever. The car even shows you how many superchargers are not in use. EA has a lot of work to do to keep up the pace for the tons of non-Tesla EVs coming onto the road.
Agreed, Tesla's charging network is one of their biggest advantages at the moment IMO. That said, I hate the Apple-like mentality of making everything proprietary, so I'm going to be rooting for EA to succeed.
 

Registered
Joined
106 Posts
Agreed, Tesla's charging network is one of their biggest advantages at the moment IMO. That said, I hate the Apple-like mentality of making everything proprietary, so I'm going to be rooting for EA to succeed.
EA has also been expanding rapidly, and they've even been including 350kw chargers at many locations. Furthermore, IMO we should be hostile on principle to proprietary charging networks (particularly when access is uneven. Teslas can use the CCS network, but not the other way around). Especially as CCS networks become more prevalent (which there is every reason they will, and we should encourage that), we should even start considering common infrastructure type regulations requiring equal access on standards compliant technology (It's also worth noting that the supercharger network operates on the same basic standard technology that CCS does, the biggest difference is in packaging and arbitrary software gatekeeping).
 

Registered
Joined
106 Posts
I think if the matte paints have been clear coated correctly, they should hold up just like the rest, or at least I am hoping so.


This seems to be the prevailing attitude. And I get it. But I think we aren't done with this battle yet. I see it being adopted with longer range vehicles and then being passed down. I do agree with you and @Jan Treur that there needs to be some improvement though. Otherwise, like you both have said, it probably won't work.



I agree with 99% of this. The only thing I think needs to be asked is: what information do I actually need?

The answer is almost none. You need temps (only to detect a problem), range and speed. I might have mised something, but IMO, ALL other inputs are exrta and cause distraction. I am super against touch screen controls for simple changes like temperature or radio station/input. Like you said, the HUD might be a good mix of information, but in a place where it doesn't make you crash for looking at all of it.

Now, that doesn't mean the car shouldn't have tons of information that you might want to look at later when parked, or options to customize before you get going. I just don't think they need to be useable in motion or anywhere near the view line of the driver. Maybe the passenger in the glove box or something gets access to it all, or the driver when parked.

But 12 inch vertical screens like tesla and dodge ram trucks, is begging people to get distracted and crash. In this new age of "safety and regulation" I don't understand how the view from the drivers seat has gotten so ridiculously cluttered.
I generally agree that the tesla approach of big giant screen way out of the line of sight is bad. I will go as far as to say that what information is truly necessary and useful is a worthy topic of debate (I, for one, think it's very helpful to be able to see the names of the streets around me / the speed limit / traffic conditions and other status alerts). I like the Idea of an AR hud because the whole point in theory is to deliver useful information unobtrusively (I can't say how effective the I5's will be, not having seen it). I'm confident that I'd miss fewer turns if I didn't have to look right and down and squint at my infotainment screen (or else a GPS unit) to see where the GPS intends for me to go.

Another important consideration, I think, is that useful/acceptable information load might vary person to person (I assume this hasn't been studied in depth), nevermind personal preferences absolutely will... So why not make a lot of these things configurable?
 

Registered
Joined
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Agreed, Tesla's charging network is one of their biggest advantages at the moment IMO. That said, I hate the Apple-like mentality of making everything proprietary, so I'm going to be rooting for EA to succeed.
it literally handicaps their own business models, its 100% stupid.
I generally agree that the tesla approach of big giant screen way out of the line of sight is bad. I will go as far as to say that what information is truly necessary and useful is a worthy topic of debate (I, for one, think it's very helpful to be able to see the names of the streets around me / the speed limit / traffic conditions and other status alerts). I like the Idea of an AR hud because the whole point in theory is to deliver useful information unobtrusively (I can't say how effective the I5's will be, not having seen it). I'm confident that I'd miss fewer turns if I didn't have to look right and down and squint at my infotainment screen (or else a GPS unit) to see where the GPS intends for me to go.

Another important consideration, I think, is that useful/acceptable information load might vary person to person (I assume this hasn't been studied in depth), nevermind personal preferences absolutely will... So why not make a lot of these things configurable?
I agree with this. I think the AR HUD removes alot of my concerns of giving the information you mentioned you want to see. I like seeing that stuff too, I just don't like having to look over, hit buttons and wait for some slow ass infotainment to show me what I want. LOTS of time to crash inbetween.

I was diagnosed with ADD when I was young, I don't do anything about it, but I did read a few articles how drivers with ADD are much more susceptible to being distracted by car settings, along with any other squirrels that runs across the road. People with those issues, and I'm sure many other cognitive ones, really shouldn't have all the distractions unnecessarily thrown at them. Increased customization options only make sense, but OEM's want to use their proprietary software everywhere. Only problem is the fucking suck at writing software and need to cut the **** and just team with apple/google and call it a day.


I just read a review on the new mazda on the jalopnik (booo I hate them too i know) 186 miles! double the fast charge time AND they destroyed a clean interior with one of those stupid ass pop up screens. Anyone who implements a screen like that these days needs to be fired immediately.

 

Registered
Joined
106 Posts
it literally handicaps their own business models, its 100% stupid.

I agree with this. I think the AR HUD removes alot of my concerns of giving the information you mentioned you want to see. I like seeing that stuff too, I just don't like having to look over, hit buttons and wait for some slow ass infotainment to show me what I want. LOTS of time to crash inbetween.

I was diagnosed with ADD when I was young, I don't do anything about it, but I did read a few articles how drivers with ADD are much more susceptible to being distracted by car settings, along with any other squirrels that runs across the road. People with those issues, and I'm sure many other cognitive ones, really shouldn't have all the distractions unnecessarily thrown at them. Increased customization options only make sense, but OEM's want to use their proprietary software everywhere. Only problem is the fucking suck at writing software and need to cut the **** and just team with apple/google and call it a day.


I just read a review on the new mazda on the jalopnik (booo I hate them too i know) 186 miles! double the fast charge time AND they destroyed a clean interior with one of those stupid ass pop up screens. Anyone who implements a screen like that these days needs to be fired immediately.

FWIW, I have a 3rd gen Mazda 3, and it's infotainment system is similar (raised up). The reason they did that was actually because it's (theoretically) safer as it's closer to the eye line. What bugs me about it is that android auto doesn't make good use of the screen space at all, the map display is only marginally useful. I have to squint to just see the speed limit. The actual stock nav system used the screen space much better. The commander knob concept (that they stole from BMW, I think) is also a really good idea. I wish EVs would adopt it as an auxiliary to the touchscreen (or else have proper mechanical navigation buttons/wheels on the wheel)
 
21 - 40 of 81 Posts
Top