all 62 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 5 months ago

Finally a car you can drive for people who don't have to compensate for some weird issues.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    $8-9k, 32 mph top speed, intended as urban transport

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    It's a decent start, and more importantly it is a start. Being brutally honest it's a pretty minimal urban commute vehicle. The old 2013 Leaf I just bought for $4500 gets the same mileage with its used battery, and can go 90mph, OTOH the Olinia seats 6. Kudos for getting the ball rolling. It will only improve from here.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Being brutally honest it’s a pretty minimal urban commute vehicle

    Oh no, Mexican engineers ended up making exactly what they sought out to make.

    Sure, let's compare a 13 year old used car to a new vehicle for value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's fair to consider the inventory of used cars (and used car prices) when evaluating the universe of mobility options.

    This thing is basically an ultra premium electric golf cart. It will serve certain purposes far better than a Nissan Leaf, and some purposes significantly worse. Same with comparing it to a cargo e-bike capable of hauling kids in the back.

    And maybe it will have enough adoption (and associated network of parts, knowledge base for maintenance and repair) to where a 10-year-old example sitting out in the world in 2036 will serve as an affordable option for someone else in that particular moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    They need to lean into the irony and have the horn default to La Cucaracha.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Oh, snap! They're working on a truck variant, coming soon! https://www.olinia.auto/olinia-cargo

    I've been thinking of getting a van...

    And the dashboard has physical buttons!

    image

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    I really really hope its just a normal bare-bones car which doesnt listen to your converstations or track your driving or have a kill switch or require firmware updates. If its just machinery intented for driving without burning fossil fuels, I will almost definitely try to buy one

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Mexican..... Y para que es este boton con laletra D?

    Other Mexican..... En mi troka le pones la D y jala bien. No seas pendejo! La de es para moverse.

    First Mexican... A okay. Entendido y anotado!

    Debating what the D on their Mexican made car is for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I had a dream I saw one of these irl..

    I'm a sucker for microvans. I had a 64' ford econoline. I had a 71 and a 74 vanagon.

    I moved onto EV's a few years ago, and now can't go back. I had a deposit down on a Canoo. I don't like the VW id. This lil' tucker seems to capture the spirit of the microvan FAR better than anything else I've seen to date.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    430 miles with max payload. ID buzz is overpriced and not very practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Yeah its just ..

    It's not very cute 😡

    And I want it more microvan style. Like I want to have a huge amount of windows and sit far forwards in the cockpit.

    I'll go back and look at that Kia again because it does seem very practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The face on that thing is adorable!

    I want one.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago
    [–] 7 points 5 months ago (42 children)

    Its 3.5-kilowatt electric motor is capable of handling steep terrain

    That's slightly less than 5 hp, less than your average lawnmower!!

    The vehicle is designed for urban mobility, with a top speed of 50 kilometers per hour,

    No way that thing can drive 6 people uphill at 50 km/h.

    I think it has some niche use cases where it can be good, and best of luck to Mexico with this. But I don't see this as a popular means of transportation unless it is very cheap. The cost is stated at 150k Pesos. which is $ 8700,- USD. That does not sound quite cheap enough. But maybe it can be used for a lot of public service purposes?

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    That's probably an error from the site. The official one says 13kW:

    https://www.olinia.auto/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Thanks that explains it, with 13 kW it's much more plausible.
    3.5 kW is simply not enough for the claimed performance.
    I searched for if something else is 3.5 or 3,5, but that number does not appear at all on the official page.
    Weird typo, and also weird that nobody caught it? It simply doesn't make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    Yes, it is obviously a typo. For reference, GM's tiniest EV, the compliance-car SparkEV (2014-2017?16?) can dump over 120kW into the front wheels. While that is ridiculous and basically unusable if you like traction, the car only has a 19kWh battery and seats 4. Sure they were just learning but it's tiny and uses about 11kW on average outside of winter.

    Edit, forgot EV torque: yes with only 13kW but speed limit of 50kph it probably can go uphill with a typical passenger load at speed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, compared to even my 2013 Leaf's 80kw motor it's a toy. But I look at this as a starting point. They were at ground zero, and now they have engineering experience, a manufacturing operation, and a finished working product to improve upon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Turns out it at least has a 13 kW engine, the article is wrong on that point.
    Still not a lot, but at least that makes the performance claims much more likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    I love comments from people who quote horsepower on an electric motor when horsepower is a fake number generated by measuring torque and using a constant number. Only applicable to gasoline engines.

    This vehicle will carry 6 adults up a steep hill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    horsepower is a fake number generated by measuring torque and using a constant number.

    It's just a unit of power. You can calculate watts from force x speed, too, if you use metric units. Yeah, you can shift the whole thing to a rotational system with torque and rotational velocity (and then derive the linear equivalent force and speed from those units as the radius of the circle cancel out).

    Only applicable to gasoline engines.

    Power is power. By using similar units it makes it easier to compare different vehicles. If everyone wants to convert to watts, we can, but we'd still be making those comparisons.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I only used hp because most people are more familiar with it.
    And for my own electric car hp is also used in more than 9 out of 10 spec spaces to describe the power.
    As I mentioned earlier, it has 150 kW equal to 204 hp.

    And no you are wrong, it is in no way only applicable to gasoline engine, even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you probably mean ICE, which can be gasoline, Diesel, propane or even hydrogen.

    IDK how old you are, but by your logic you sound like you are 8 years old.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (28 children)

    Why wouldn't it be able to drive 6 people up a hill, so long as its got the battery?

    This feels like it would be a problem for an ICE vehicle, but this is like, precisely where an electric vehicle is far superior to an ICE vehicle. Its very ICE brained/ ICE coded to do the mental translation from torque to HP, then back to torque. This simply isn't an issue for electric vehicles. You just go right to torque

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    kW is a measure of power, like HP, not torque. N.m is the SI unit for torque.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    I think you're right in that an ICE vehicle with similar specs would be worse off. Also, I think there's an error regarding the stated output of the engine. Official sources are showing a much higher rated output of 13.5kw.

    It still seems underpowered if it is intended to carry 6 adults uphill at 50 kph. Regardless of torque, power is the rate at which work is done. It can be expressed as the resistive force times the velocity. I can't find a weight for the vehicle, but based on vehicles with similar specs, I'll guess it's well over 700kg. Moving 700kg up a 6-degree slope, which is still a pretty reasonable grade, at 50kph would require over 13kw and that's the theoretical max, without passengers, headwinds, etc. No way is the Olinia 1 doing 50kph uphill with 6 adult passengers.

    Perhaps that's not the problem it's designed to solve, though. Maybe it's okay if it slows down to 25kph, carrying 6 adults, because it's navigating an urban environment. If the point is efficiency in city commuting, this could be a viable addition to the array of solutions for displacing fossil fuels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (19 children)

    Your original comment just sounds like a lack of experience with electric vehicles. Simply put, EV and ICE are fundamentally different power trains. Routing a comparison through HP is exactly what someone familiar with ICE but not EV is exactly what you would do if you know traditional cars, but it doesn't map to EV's in how they work in the real life.

    And honestly, at the price we could probably buy one, find six lemmings in Mexico and a decent hill and just run the experiment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    We might have a misunderstanding here.

    The comment to which you're replying is my original comment.

    Nothing in it is intended to be pro ICE or anti EV.

    This doesn't have anything to do with something as abstract as engineered systems. It's basic physics. You can't get 15kw out of something with a max output of 14kw. That's just axiomatic.

    P = Fv cosθ

    https://www.tutorchase.com/notes/a-level-ocr/physics/6-3-2-mechanical-power-from-force-and-speed

    Doesn't matter if it's ICE, EV, horses, flywheels powered by suspended weights, steam turbines powered by fusion, etc. It's just not possible to move a mass at an angle and velocity such that one of those variables increases without also increasing the power. These are some of the assumptions on which EVs are built. And they're constantly validated by testing and everyday EV (and ICE) driving experiences.

    I sincerely hope this project succeeds for all the right reasons. I'm not advocating for the preservation of ICE vehicles and infrastructure. My concern here is STEM literacy among advocates of progressive solutions. I would very much like for us to be taken seriously, and I think that requires communicating our position and intent effectively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    We don’t have a misunderstanding. You made a reductive argument, got challenged, and now you’re acting like invoking “basic physics” makes the engineering irrelevant.

    Run your own scenario honestly. Holding 50 kph up a 6-degree grade with six adults is a high sustained wheel-power demand. If a vehicle only has 14 kW of continuous usable wheel power, ICE or EV, it probably is not doing that.

    But that does not make the powertrain irrelevant. That is exactly the point you keep missing.

    In an ICE vehicle, the rated power depends on RPM, gearing, transmission losses, and whether the engine can stay in its power band. In an EV, usable output depends on the motor, controller, battery, thermal limits, gearing, and peak-vs-continuous power. Those are not interchangeable systems just because the same physics applies to both.

    So no, reducing the question to horsepower does not make sense. Reducing it to torque does not make sense either. That is just car-brained ICE framing.

    The powertrain design is the point. Treating ICE, EV, horses, and flywheels as interchangeable for a real vehicle-performance question is not STEM literacy.

    The right answer here is to buy one of these, for both of us to go to mexico and make two freinds each, go to an appropriate hill, and give it a shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    Sure, but there's still a floor defined by physics. With the right setup, it could lift 5000lbs up a cliff. But it might take a year and hundreds of recharges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    With the right setup

    Yeah. That's the entire point. The engineering changes the experience drastically. You can't just say watts are watts and be done with it. Its a reductive approach to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

    Yeah but the point is given a certain amount of watts, there's a maximum speed to lift no matter what the setup is. And it doesn't matter whether you measure that power in Watts, horsepower or Pferdestärke - the maximum speed to lift a given weight is the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (12 children)

    Yes, sometimes. My wife's car is a Tesla 3. And yes the feel is very different. But the bottom line physics is still the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Its not "bottom line physics is the same" because the fucking aren't. The actual construction of the fucking vehicle and its power train matters. This why everyone is dismissive of your point. You just straight up wrong here.

    Go load up your wife's Tesla 3 with 1k lbs of cinder blocks, and then find an equivalent stated HP ICE vehicle and do the same. Drive both of them up the same hill and tell me its the same thing. And if you TRULY want to experience the difference, find a manual transmission ICE equivalent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    It's the same in terms of your maximum optimized speed. Power is power. An ice engine needs to rev high to get high power and an electric motor doesn't (depending on how it's wired). But if you optimize the drive train perfectly in either case, there is a maximum speed you can lift a given weight based on the power output of the engine system. v=P/(mg) this is irrelevant of whether your power is coming out of an electric, ice or other type of motor. A typical electric setup would probably get closer to that ideal than a typical ice in terms of achieving their maximum quoted power output. But the electric set up will never exceed it. That's just physics no matter how much you might like EV cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Stop talking and load the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    My wife would get mad at me for messing up her car. And while theories should sometimes be empirically verified even when already a standard assumption, in this case the physics is trivial high school level and so fundamental that it's stupid to bother. And just driving cars doesn't test it at all anyway - the fact that you think it does, demonstrates that you don't actually understand the point at all. But you don't seem to be capable of comprehending what I'm saying, and that fine; it takes all types. Have a good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    You'll just do anything it takes other than verify you claim in reality where you will very quick recognize it breaks down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Where what breaks down? You don't seem to even understand the point you're arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Then take the time to go back to your original claim and you'll soon recognize that you've just been talking out your ass this whole time about a trivial and irrelevant claim that isn't supported in the real world.

    You routed a comparison of an EV to an ICE power-train through HP, which is basically invalidated the comparison from the start, because as a basic comparison it doesn't make sense. And the reason why isn't just physics. But I'm not going to tell you more then that. You need to be curious enough to develop an understanding of why its a false equivalency to do so. You not understanding why that is the case is the entire point. Like you genuinely aren't worth arguing about this because your lack of understanding is so clear.

    And if you can't take the time to be introspective enough to recognize that, you genuinely aren't worth the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Haha. Horse power is just another measurement of power like Watts. Just different units. Like km vs miles. You've realized that you're wrong and have nothing but insults left. Sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Jesus fuck you are still here? The guy who still doesn't know what horsepower is? That its not actually "just another measurement of power". That the term doesn't actually mean what they think it means?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe do some research before embarrassing yourself further? Or not. Whatever!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Nobody but you said anything about ICE, you are making a straw man argument.
    And saying converting from kW to hp has anything to do with torque is as moronic as claiming that km/h and mp/h are measuring different things, when they are obviously not, they are both accurate measurements of speed. In the exact same way kW and hp are both measurements of power. They are merely different scales, and I only made the conversion to make it easier to understand the power in relation to a vehicle.
    For instance many EV's have 150 kW engines, (including mine), But in many car pages they are stated as 204 hp.
    150 kW and 204 hp is EXACTLY the same, just like 3.5 kW is exactly the same as 4.7 hp, or almost 5 as I wrote.

    As it turns out the article is wrong about the kW only being 3.5 kW, the true number is 13.5 kW, which makes the claimed performance figures way more plausible.

    Just because an electric engine can output it's max performance faster, and doesn't have to rev up first, doesn't mean it has more than the stated power. Yes with an ICE car it would be worse in acceleration, but when it is revved up, they would have similar performance. Going 50 km/h which is the top speed of the car, it is obviously revved up to the max.
    But for some reason you got upvotes? Sad to see that people are so easy to mislead with nonsense.
    As I stated before, the performance claimed for the car is simply impossible with only a 3.5 kW engine, and as it turns out it is 13.5 kW.

    So your "why not" question is based on ignorance, and your whole comment is an argument from ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    So you are very clearly new to the ev space.

    ICE: Internal combustion engine.

    You aren't worth the bother. You simply don't have a clue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Of course I know what an ICE car is, what the fuck makes you think I don't?
    You are the one that constantly get the terms wrong, and claim they mean something they don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    Bruh you bouncing all over this thread and getting it wrong in literally every fucking place you can.

    THATS why I think you don't know what ICE means.

    Do you own an EV? Have you ever driven one fully loaded with fat boys versus an ICE shitbox with allegedly the same horse power? I have. I do weekly. I have many fat friends and we drive up hills.

    You started this conversation on horsepower then moved the goal posts when it was inconvenient for you to stick with that framing. And moving it to Kw doesn't change that, and its because there is a lot of "stuff" that happens between a watt being consumed (either via burning fuel or drawing from a battery) and an thing being propelled forwards, either on a flat surface or up a hill. And all that "stuff" make huge differences in terms of performance. Engineering actually matters for real world performance.

  • source
  • parent