From F1 to the road: electric car platform revealed by Williams Advanced Engineering
Posted By: Editor   |  07 Sep 2017   |  11:25 am GMT  |  79 comments

Williams Advanced Engineering has revealed its new, fully-electric car platform this week as Williams continues to diversify and innovate from its Formula 1 roots.

The FW-EVX aims to maximise how light and efficient an electric car can be with a mass of 955 kilograms. It has debuted at the Low Carbon Vehicle Show at Millbrook, UK (September 6-7).

Part of the Williams Formula 1 Group, WAE is a technology and engineering company which was borne out of Sir Frank Williams and Sir Patrick Head’s original F1 team in 2010 and now works to produce technology which has applications away from F1.

The company makes the battery systems for Formula E and partnered with Jaguar to make the plug-in hybrid C-X75 road car. As a spin-off from the F1 team, WAE focuses mostly on renewable energy and low-carbon products and has clearly been influenced by F1’s hybrid era.

As with its F1 and supercar projects, WAE has made this electric vehicle suited to high performance and low volume production.

The FW-EVX platform itself would be scalable if ever produced, meaning that it isn’t just restricted to production in low volumes and this particular concept’s wheelbase of 2800mm is flexible.

This concept is four-wheel-drive but the front motors can be removed for a rear-wheel-drive electric vehicle.

On a twin-motored RWD version, the motors and gearbox could produce up to 320 kilowatts or around 429 horsepower, while the front-motor produces an extra 160kW (214 hp).

The battery cooling is more efficient, and the car is lighter and safer than existing electric vehicles which are currently limited due to the infancy of electric power in road cars.

Quoted battery capacity figures are 80kWh and a range of around 343 miles. The Tesla Model S, in comparison, has around 85kWh of capacity and a range of around 310 miles with both figures provided by the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).

The battery itself uses sills to force more air into crucial areas as cooling is a huge obstacle in making an efficient power unit and the structure is strengthened with an exoskeleton to reinforce the battery in the event of a crash.

Each battery module produces around 2.1kWh of power, with 38 modules spread in three rows across the vehicle. Fully completed, it adds up to a quoted vehicle mass of 175kg, with the battery cells taking up 340kg of that.

The chassis and suspension add up to 180kg as the concept utilises carbon fibre and aluminium.

“Vehicle efficiency has always been core to Williams – whether it be in Formula One or with Williams Advanced Engineering’s customer projects,” said Paul McNamara, WAE Technical Director.

“These technologies, and our thinking around how to create a tightly integrated, light-weight chassis and powertrain package, have the potential to greatly increase the competitiveness of the next generation of electric vehicles.

“By making EVs more attractive to consumers, we can help accelerate their adoption and the air quality benefits they bring.”

Williams is determined to make its concept a reality and Craig Wilson, WAE Managing Director, said: “We believe there is a high potential business opportunity here, and are excited to see where this could take us.

“This represents a new direction for Williams’ Advanced Engineering business, as its own R&D team has developed the proprietary innovations and has submitted patents for a number of the inventions.”

Have your say on Williams’ electric concept platform in the comment section below.

Featured Innovation
technical innovation from tata COMMUNICATIONS
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

Looks like quite a piece of engineering! The development of a platform like this makes you wonder if coachbuilders might be due a comeback. It would be relatively easy to buy your running gear from Williams and make whatever kind of car you wanted on top.


Al this talk about fuel being a limited non renewable resource is just nonsense, sprouted by the lunatic supporters of electric vehicles. Ethanol, as used in Indy Cars V8Supercars and any number of other racing cars, is a great fuel and is 100% renewable. The waste product from one small sugar refinery is more than enough to run the whole V8Supercars series for a year. That’s around 10 times what the F1 cars use in a season.

If F1 swapped over to say E85 they can claim the “green is even greater mantle” by using a renewable fuel and at the same time increase the fuel flow limit to 200 litres per hour to solve the lack of noise problem. The GHG reduction from using ethanol, when taking into account the carbon dioxide used in growing the plants to produce the ethanol, is greater than 115% net. For the “save the planet” zealots this is a huge step forward over using nasty polluting petrol.

Obviously the increased fuel flow would result in the need for more fuel to last the race, hence and increase in the current allowance of 105 kgs to around 200 kgs. At the start of the GP the cars would weight more than they do now but at the end of the race they would weight the same. This brings a deeper dimension into tyre strategy, as the car will be lighter hence faster as the race progresses plus gentler on the tyres. This would prevent teams from simply bolting on a set of harder compound tyres for the last half of the race and cruising home. Their opposition can easily run them down on 2 or more compounds softer tyres.

Ethanol would solve 2 of F1 biggest problems, shut up the anti pollution zealots and the lack of noise, as interesting oxymoron right there, make the whiners quieter while making the engines louder. With the bonus of a possibly more exciting last phase of GP’s.


Gary, what the heck are you – a rational person – doing in a place like this?
Here is a place where red hot passion burns through any rational argument and technical awareness is worth about 1% of the knowledge of one’s favorite driver preferred shoe laces at the X race and YYYY year.
Unfortunate, the same goes in the decisions making circles as F.I.A. & owners as it seems.
Curently a lot of ink is flowing about Ross Brawn’s ways to revive the dying sport. But I haven’t seen a line about the evident solution which is to throw away the artificial 100 kg total & 100 kg flow limit imposed by incompetents (sorry but it so looks when everybody knows that it is impossible to race 1 hour and a half at 100 kg/hour fuel flow. Simple arithmetic show this means 66% racing ability.
If they wanted to make F1 attractive as an economy show they are a million miles away of the true one ! The genuine economy race has long passed the 1000 KM for 1 liter of fuel . Eat that F1 !!!
Making the fuel limit significantly lower than the +150 kg when unlimited but keeping it in the range of the technical necessity to ensure some 90-95% racing it would have sent the same “We are in the economy trend of the world” message without radically diminishing it as it happened because it killed racing.


The turbo, energy recovery systems etc have very little if anything to do with the lack of sound quantity or quality from the current engines. The root cause is the maximum fuel flow limit of 100 litres per hour. This forces the engine manufacturers into reducing the engine’s rpm in order to conserve fuel. The result has been a reduction in engine rpm from ~18,000 to ~10,000 rpm.

This affects both the volume of noise and its frequency. Volume is pretty easy to understand, there were simply more bangs per minute, in fact 80% more noise in the same amount of time. Frequency is also a problem, the dull boring moan (low frequency) that emanates from the current engines is just plain boring compared to the scream (high frequency) that we had when the engines revved to 18,000 rpm.

As evidence listen to an 80’s turbo engine and live they were quite load and we experienced a pounding sensation right down to our bone marrow. At that time valve train technology limited them to ~14,000 rpm, so even an additional 40% more rpm would make the current cars sound so much better.

Obviously there are other factors involved in the value of noise, such as the BMEP of the engine, which means that a turbo charged engine itself should produce more noise than an naturally aspirated one (all other tings being equal). Conversely the effect of the exhaust turbine is similar to a rotating muffler in “cutting” through the sound.

The bottom line, until the engine rpm is increased we will be stuck with the dull boring low volume sound and the only way to increase the rpm is to increase the fuel flow limit.


Gary, you may have misinterpreted the relationship of rpm in a turbo vs NA ICE. Just like current 1.6 litre F1 turbo PU’s, the ’80’s F1 turbos didn’t rev past 15,000 rpm. Not because of valve train tech (although that was soon to change via desmodromic engineering principles, but hardly ‘new’ tech) but because there’s no gain in revving higher, and lots to lose in reliability terms. The turbo will deliver all of its power low down in the rev range, whereas to exploit maximum power out of a NA motor, revs (and noise in wasted energy) is the key..


Saudi Arabia has 120 billion barrels of 2P oil reserves, compared to the U.S.’ 40 billion barrels. On a global basis, Rystad estimates that the world has about 2,092 billion barrels of reserves, or about 70 years’ worth of oil at today’s production rate of 30 billion barrels per year.Jul 5, 2016

I got the quote from this site
I do not put hand on heart and say it is absolutely accurate. Take into account that China, Africa, India and SE Asia are becoming more prosperous meaning more cars sold more oil used. Also fossil fuel powered cars are cheaper to build and are more profitable than Hybrid/Electric. so those countries will be targeted for sales of the ‘old stock.
I think fossil fuel powered motor racing will end well before the oil runs out.
Bring on the new tech I say.


In other news, Jag have made an electric E-Type with they will sell if there is enough demand. So, perhaps a platform like this could be used to resurrect lots of old classics.


Is the Williams battery setup any cheaper than the Telsa version to charge from depleted to full? The numbers – KW’s and range are super on paper, but what is the actual cost to achieve this, to a persons pocket?


When will hybrid or full electrification trickle down to karting? Is this something the FIA plans on doing? I also wonder how long the other modes of transportation will take to follow suit airplanes, boats, trucks, railways etc.. or will it have to be mastered in cars first. I also find it strange that F1 has not innovated the manufacturing of carbon fiber or found a new lightweight solution that is more cost effective or easier to manufacture. Will the weight of batteries force them to find new ways or will they just seek for batteries to shrink.


I wonder why Karting hasn’t adopted it on a wider scale, there are full electric karts, saw them running at Sonoma raceway last summer. Seriously fast.


Better battery cooling is good for normal conditions but what about extremely cold conditions? Much of the world records near Arctic temperatures during Winter cycles and battery warming would be a desired feature then.


i saw these platforms over 20 years ago with an electric motor on each corner all controlled by a central ecu which controlled relative spin rate of each motor. there was a lot of talk about electric cars making a big aomeback. i’m still waiting to hear of one that has made a profit.


More evidence the death of the internal combustion engine is not far away


Not necessarily true at all.

You think Ocean vessels will be battery powered soon? How about jumbo jets?

You think electric bulldozers, earth moving equipment, logging equipmen (like a feller-bunched or processor, not just chainsaws) t, etc, will be electric any time soon?

How about snowmobiles, or dirt bikes, or ATVs. You think people will go hunting for big horns in AK with an electric arc with range shorter than I can throw?

You think a company like bombardier, or Polaris, or Artic Cat will just roll over and go away? Majority of people by sleds for 1 thing, 1 thing only. Fun. To feel the power between their legs. Until electric can match or surpass what a fully built back country sled can do (300lbs, 250hp on a nitros shot, can take you 4-5 hours one way into the back country and home again on a tank of fuel and a jerry can)

Electrification works for road cars, but it won’t replace the ICE in dozens of applications for a looong time.

Also, people still ride horses for fun.


twich: you are correct that there will be a logical order of conversion away from internal combustion power for different tools, no doubt. For example, there is currently no known way to have commercial heavier-then-air transport without ICUs.
However, for standard consumer automotive, the transition is not only possible now, it has probably been actively repressed for over 20 years.
As infrastructures and technology are developed, advances will be made, we are at an early stage of the technological development lifecycle for this technology, opposite that for internal combustion technology.
Prediction, consumer boating power will begin earnestly converting to electric very soon (1-2 years).

Also, all of these technology should incorporate cradle-to-grave input/outputs/recovery costs.


Perspective my friend. Even if its 50 years…which it wont be…in the grand scheme that is tomorrow. We are witnessing electrification in its infancy, it is short sided and naive to reference today’s battery capacity. Not to mention the torque application of electric motors put ICE to shame… it isn’t even a comparison. There already are electric motorcycles that will do 200 miles, if you can throw that far you don’t need one to hunt. The minuscule snowmobile market is hardly an accurate reference for the future of the internal combustion engine.


It’s not just snowmobiles…it’s the entire recreational vehicle market. Other dirtbikes for track use, rec vehicles won’t no be electric any time soon. Not in the next 50 years, that’s for certain.

There may be electric rec vehicles for sale in the next 50 years, but they won’t dominate the market at all.

Electric has amazing torque, but shit top end power. Snowmobiles and snow bikes don’t care about torque, they need peak lower.

Electric weighs a tone. Your motorcycle that can do all of 200miles (doubtful), how much does it weigh? Like I said before, sleds, ATVs, bikes, they need to be light, and electric is not that.

User friendliness is a massive one. What will it take to fix these new elecctrix gizmos? Will you be able to phone the IT guy in Bangladesh while you are a 2 days ride into the bush with no cell service? Or will you need a degree in electrical engineering to be able to do trail side repairs on these electric vehicles?

Price. Electric can’t compete with Rec vehicles in price. I can buy a used dirtbike or sled for less than 5k….less than 2k. KTM is looking at releasing electric track day bikes, but they want a bloody arm and a leg. Electric will not get any cheaper in the near future.

I’m going to guess you live in a part of the world that doesn’t have much outdoor Rec vehicle usage…:but its big business, and it’s not going away any time soon.

To think that electric will replace the ice in heavy industry in the next 50 years is very wishful.

I have a fiend who owns ans runs a processor on Vancouver Island. When he goes to work, he fills up 2 Tidy tanks with diesel, in the back of a diesel 1-ton truck. Then drive 2-5 hours to the machine. Runs the machine for a shift, then drives home.

Battery tech is a lot more than 50 years away from being able to provide that amount of energy, at reasonable costs, and reasonable weight.

Look, I’m not against electrification, and I do know it will happen. It’ll happen in cities and major roads very quickly over the next little while. But applications of ICE are very wide spread, very diverse, and it will take a long time for electric to replace the ICE in many applications. Urban areas will go electric quickly. Rural will stay with petrol for a long time, simply because of cost. The small town where I grew up has 1 gas station, and just got high speed internet 2 years ago. Who the hell is going to pay to bring all the infrastructure necessary for electrification to my small town of less than 1000 people. The local tax payers certainly can’t afford it, and our government doesn’t exactly have loose change lying around (parks Canada just listed 6 billion dollars worth of public assets for sale on the government buy and sell…government’s basically broke and clearing out shop….they can’t afford to bring electrification to every 1-horse town in BC, Alberta, Sask, Manatoba, and the territories.).

How well does electric work in cold conditions? Genius question, I haven’t researched that. Can an electric motor run efficiently in -40, -50 Celsius?


That should say “honest question,”. Not genius…stupid auto correct.


The future of automotive is electric.

The dinosaurs also thought it would go on forever.
If F1 doesn’t have a glide path to electrified, they’ll have a heavy crash into obscurity.
Bernie got out because the “getting was good!”

Facts all around, but some just will not take their blinders off.

F1 exists only at the extreme edge, leading the automotive industry.
If it isn’t in that ecosystem space, it will be nothing!


I’ve been saying this. How the hell can F1 go full electric though? Will the FIA run two independent, open wheel, all electric race series? FE and F1e….

Is FE just supposed to bow out of existence when F1 decides that electric power is “mature enough” to grace the F1 grid?

F1’s arrogance and ignorance has lead it down a very dead end path.


“open wheel” more like hybrid open wheel and closed cockpit vehicles next year seems like they are making that hybrid as well.


Well, with all the automation in Formula 1, and driver being less than 10% of the package now, maybe the electric automated Roborace series can carry the Formula 1 branding in the future? 🙂


you know Sebee, I know that you are a secret genius.
I think you’ve let the beans spill on this; I think that could very likely be the future.
And a hoard of ‘qualified’ virtual racers included virtually, in the race; so that the only human ‘winners’ will be from a devout (think religious) legion of followers, paying to race in online qualifying events all week long, leading up to the actual ‘physical’ race, in which the ‘champions’ of the week-long qualifying series (all virtual) get to race ‘virtually’ in the Sunday (I’m not sure if they, FE, actually run on the Sat. or Sun.).

I can see that you’re thinking in a changed paradigm.

There will certainly be technology to overlay a physical race (real drivers or robo-drivers), real time with a number of well-connected (better yet, bring them to the location of the physical race, they hang out in the ‘virtual’ paddock, and take their ‘virtual;’ racers at race time.

These are the characteristics of the future dominant series, participation of fans in virtual qualifying, winning sponsorship to virtual race real time within/in parallel with actual race, as it happens!

If the technology doesn’t currently exist, it could within tweleve months.

You are a genius.

keep up the good work!


See…my perfectly good reply you, on topic and no rudeness didn’t make it through.

Did you get it?


I’m not sure about that. Say in 20 years everyone is driving (or being driven sleepy around) in their very silent, very passive electric cars and F1 comes to town with “ancient” , roaring and loud technology that reverberates their core and widens their eyes. Just say. Might they buy a ticket?


This concept/approach should answer some of the questions regarding ‘road relevancy’ recently raised for F-1’s relationship to the ‘real’ world. In some ways a positive step forward. A very timely article, for sure.

Would be worthwhile, methinks, to explore the overall cost, carbon (and other chemical) footprint(s) with respect to EV development, construction and use. While it is clear that an EV itself has the potential to produce a lower (carbon) footprint when focused on the ‘unit’ itself, there are the batteries and composite materials involved (production and disposal) of the vehicle directly and the production of the electricity to charge the vehicles. The wider view of the overall ecology related to an EV should be of some interest.

Cost and use aspects are another dimension, at least here in the U.S. where distance and time are relatively more involved than other countries. For example, a trip from Seattle, WA or Portland, OR to San Francisco or Los Angeles, CA — how much time would that take compared with a petrol-based conveyance, especially when you have the issues related to recharging – even with the development of a good number of recharging stations in the last 5 years.

One wonders how this type of a footprint/cost/time comparison compare with the (currently well under development) Elio vehicle concept along the Morgan 3-wheel petrol-based design philosophy for example? The Elio concept has (advertised) updated this with an engineering approach to “modern” manufacturing and development methods. Here is a link to that platform, for those who may be interested in exploring:

Please understand, development of alternative personal transportation options is totally supported. Availability and usefulness for the general population hinges on cost and convenience more than anything else, it would seem. Which is the motivation for wondering out loud. It would seem that the applicable value of technology is based on availability/practical application for the wider range of individuals for either concept/approach to have significant overall effect on the ecology.


Still no road relevance from F1. Half a dozen companies like Tesla have got involved in the EV game, and none of them have anything to do with F1.

What’s going to happen when a Tesla beats this Williams? All those billions of dollars to go F1 racing, the “ultimate test bed,” only to get beat by a company that has absolutely nothing to do with F1.

If F1 was at the cutting edge of this EV tech, why is Williams so late to game?


Late to the game? hardly! Williams have supplied all the batteries ever used in FE – the most rapid discharge of any pure EV. Williams have been quietly extending the knowledge they have acquired with F1 ERS’ need for very rapid discharge for some time – hence their patents. Rather than being beaten by Tesla they could well be licensing their technology to most EV producers.


Some seriously good points here.

This a very fluid situation, these electric cars. Battery technology is moving forward quickly, and much of it is not being released to public knowledge until IP is patented and safe. Here are a few bulled points for you to consider of stuff that is known right now.

Electrolytes technology is changing batteries at break neck pace. There are batteries that can handle 500,000 cycles now, faster recharge form higher voltage, larger capacity, and most importantly – safe. No Samsung Note type of stuff. We’re back to lithium too, not lithium ion – that’s a huge capacity boost. They can all be recycles – that’s something that’s clearly going to play a role in battery tech – the will not just throw all that lithium away.

Then there is generation. Molten Salt Reactors are 3 years away, likely a few more for mass deployment. These things are a miracle of generation, no other way to put it. Small, safe, funning off current reactor nuclear waste. Amazing stuff. Look it up. There is other generation coming online too.

Then there is the whole issue of what these fine particles from engines are doing to the population of the planet. 50% of us live in cities, and these fine particles are show to take 4 years off our lines. Can we centralized emissions at generation instead of tailpipe to capture them more effectively? I think that’s a very likely scenario.

I see huge promise in what electric can do. Combine with automation and intelligence and the definition of commuting and transit systems will likely change dramatically.


And where does all the lithium come from???


Thanks for the insightful educated post. I think most people miss everything you pointed out and hence the enormous potential.


Always wise to deduct 100 miles off any “official” range figures for electric vehicles…so if Williams is quoting 343 miles of range….then the reality for “Real World” driving is about 243 miles…and that’s just not very good or practical.

The technology needs to have a range of 400 miles or more to become attractive to the ‘masses’.


I own an hybrid (330e) and I3Rex and I live in North California. What you state is not what my experience has been so far. The I3 actually gives me more miles than I was expecting. It is true that, if in hot weather they go down in range (so does a gas engine btw you just do not pay attention to that). I don’t have the panic to recharge the vehicle here. Besides I can charge both car home every night, for the I3 I go 120 miles fully electric (plus another 50/60 for generator if needed). What it must change is the driver mindset. It is wise to recharge every time you park for example (and here pretty much you can). Batteries and charges are making progress too… If you take a Tesla as an example they can go 260+ miles (400km given or take) which is comparable to a diesel car range. Then there is of course fuel cells option (Toyota does it), but there is a lot of road to go. Will see how they will develop. Huge interest of course is from oil company as they have plants already (you need hydrogen in refineries). All automakers if they want to stay in business they must cut down emissions, and F1 has to do it too.


All nice.
Even if I would be more than happy with 400km range in an EV, thruth is that diesel cars have a range of 700KM and gasoline cars of about 600km.


In California they are offering some amazing incentives to buy a new electric car, you can get massive discounts, like 50% or more in some cases. I’m seriously thinking about one as a second car with the regular gas car for highway driving.


You would need 50% discount off an electrc car because the depreciation for the first owner is catastrophic.


“If you take a Tesla as an example they can go 260+ miles (400km given or take) which is comparable to a diesel car range.”

I would be expecting around double that range for a typical diesel.


Surprising that it seems to be using air-cooling for the battery back. Thermal management of BEVs is really important and it tends to work better using liquid for cooling (and warming). Drag could also be higher. These type of skateboard concepts are interesting to manufacturers as you just add different top hats to produce very different vehicles. There is also a possibility of re-engineering the skateboard production process so that there is almost zero human input.


Could it be history is starting to repeat itself — with chassis/rolling platform (AKA ‘skateboard’) manufacturers relying on coachbuilders fitting the physical trappings of human comfort and style ? For how many years did GM retain the “Body by Fisher” tag on the sills of their bow-tie and related offerings ?


It seems that with platforms such as these, it may open up an opportunity and a new era for boutique coach builders.


I’ll say one thing about that battery. It sure promotes a low c.g. . . hey Frank, what about the flywheel???


It was the flywheel idea that started the spin off Williams Advanced Engineering company in the first place. I believe they used a variation of the flywheel technology to sell to bus companies.


The flywheel was a brilliant idea. It may have a comeback.


Didn’t Williams sell off the flywheel technology to GKN?

Tornillo Amarillo

Is is for Massa for his FE project?


Massa winning FE championship would be cool.


Good chance – he’ll be headed there when he stops F1


Well, we agree that if he goes, he will have A CHANCE.
But the talent is there in FE, and even with better equipment, Massa is by no means a ‘slam-dunk’ for the best results….
… it would be nice to see him do well, and demonstrate how good he is.


I don’t know how well Massa would go in FE. He’s specialty is high grip high downforce, which is why he likes the new cars.

FE is low grip, all about 4 wheel drifting the car with minimal slip angle. Also Massa isn’t exactly known as a Street Specialist, his record in Monaco speaks to that.


I can help them finish it off cheap. A sort of upsidedown fishbowl containing 4 chairs bolted down and all controlled by a wireless ipad held by the driver. Can pass controller to a passenger if over the drink drive limit.


This one in the Martini livery?

The Grape Unwashed

It would be lovely to see Williams make a real success of it away from F1, especially if it helped fund a renaissance for the team. It’s still a great team, it just needs a bigger budget.


It’s a bloody shame what has happened to Williams. A shame.

It is the team that drew me into Formula 1, if you can believe it.

Now, it is an illustration of everything that is wrong with Formula 1 really.

The Grape Unwashed

Me too Seebee, Williams and (Ron Dennis’) McLaren are my motorsport heroes, I hope we’ll get to see them challenging for titles again.


Just one of many I’m betting. The new Merc supercar will be released soon, it’s going to be a hybrid but I think it will be a step closer for a major manufacturer producing a fully electric supercar, Porsche, Jag Honda? it’s only a matter of (a short) time.
Even Fiat (Ferrari) will get on board if they want to sell cars in numbers.


Porsche already has the 918 spyder, which is a hybrid


Mercedes Project One will be shown in 2 weeks, and I understand delivered in 2 years. I bet you that by the time the Project One cars are delivered, electric cars will be topping it in 1/4 mile and Nurburgring lap times.

Look at what’s happening now already:

Electrification is really the great equalizer. There is no magic anymore, it’s about battery density, and no one can maintain an advantage there. In fact, the smartest cars will allow the ability to swap out batter packs as battery tech evolves. That would allow recycling of the batteries, and upgrades to range for cars potentially.

A final thought.
Is the McLarne 650S a “Supercar”? If so, the Ferrari 488 is clear a Supercar as it betters the 7650, right? Then what to make of this:

Clearly the P100D is capable of beating the 488 in 1/4 mile – it was just a reaction time fail on purpose or by accident that caused that result in this case. Since it plays in the league of 650S and 488, is it a Supercar? Considering that it carries 5 or even 7 passengers and their belongs, and is useful every day – isn’t that…super? 🙂


EP9s with a price of $1.48 million

Don’t say “Up!” before you jump !
Don’t say “Up!” after you jump, first
look around to see where you landed.

Just toys for a few big (money) boys. And just until first electric burning accident to one of them. Then well washed and polished they will embellish their guest rooms.
There is no future in electric mass personal transport. for two reasons. First is that electricity is not transportable at your living quarters in the required quantity through the existing power grid. Just go to your electricity supplier and ask for n increase of home installed power by a factor of 10 at least. ROFL. Don’t forget to tell them that ALL your neighbors intend to do the same. ROFL again.
And in second: Old XVII century physics tell us that power is a product of electric tension (voltage) and intensity. So to get 40 KW ( that’s 40 000 watts or less than 55 HP ) you need – let’s say – an electric welding current of 200 A at a 200 V tension. Hmm, pretty deadly both of them taken alone. I would not let my grandsons play too close of that. Old accu packs are supposed to be recycled, but that means collecting and storage – more accidents in sight+pollution.
of course.
And that electricity actual power grid cannot wear, where will it come from ? Fukushima ?!?


You do realise Seebee that if you drive the P100D like that the driving time to refuelling time exceeds 10 to 1 ie; 1 hour of driving to 10 hours of recharging. You second paragraph says it, it is all about fuel density and batteries are at ~150th compared to petrol. So “your” P100D might beat “my” 488 a couple of times but I’ll still be doing 1/4 miles for a couple of hours after you’re out of gas, sitting there waiting for a recharge.


A Tesla Supercharger will recharge a Model S P100D at about 350 miles per hour. Higher than 10 minutes buying petrol, but not 10 hours and, unlike petrol, it’s free. Generally, you are unlikely to spend more than 30 minutes at a Supercharger. How much petrol will your 488 use in “doing 1/4 miles for a couple of hours”


P100D driver needs less than 3 seconds to emasculate a 488 driver from a standing start at a traffic light. After which time he can turn right and go pick up his 4 kids in it from school.
I’m quite certain he will have plenty of range left after said 3 seconds.


Nice post Gary, especially stating how little fuel density batteries produce compared to fuel. In my research on batteries this is a big challenge.



If you’ve seen the Tesla model S chassis, this will clearly remind you of it. Except it looks like they went for weight savings to deliver range, but at a higher cost likely.

RWD platform is pointless. P100D has shown that AWD is the way to go, not only for performance but stability for real world drivers who’s skills are limited and road conditions changing each season.

This type of platform project leaves low volume body designs an option. You want a one of a kind car? A modern version of something that existed? This makes it a possibility.

No automation available at all though, right?


Automation would be down to the car producer. This is just a battery/inverter/drive train/chassis. Presumably, the driver interface and control electronics could be designed to do whatever you want.


Automation? Which part do you wanted to “automate”?
The driver?


“No automation available at all though, right?”

Never mind the automation Sebee, come with me if you want to drive 🙂


Is this a joke?


Half joke, half serious, but ultimately I guess it’s up to you how you want to take it 🙂


Are you driving me to a PU Grand Prix? I’ll have to pass. 🙂


That one was straight over your head I think Sebee but never mind, I’ll be back 🙂


Indeed. This one I’m going to need an explanation for. We need to CSI my failure to get it.

Was it a version of “dead or alive, you’re coming with me.” or “come with me of you want to live.”

I used to take my driving seriously, but now I just want to not deal with the other drivers on the road. Uber has spoiled me. If only I didn’t have to have to exploit some guy to drive me…hence, automation.

Also, I don’t really know you. You’re just some Random guy. I’m not getting in your car…unless you have 4 stars plus review perhaps.


So in order: Yes it was the latter, you should always take driving seriously but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also enjoy it, some fool can hit you in an automated car just as easily as if you were driving yourself, yes I’m just some Random guy however lots of people get in my car as I’m fully authorised to drive other random people around, I have five stars (^ look, they’re right there) and I often get reviewed…most recently by some guy named Sebee.

Comment terminated 🙂


Sebee, why can I nearly agree with you regarding EV’s (except the suspect rear wheel drive option comments!) and vehemently disagree regarding the return to outdated PU’s in F1? 🙈


I like the p100…


Uh no… sound quite ignorant to say RWD platform is pointless. Stick to commenting and leave driving and driving dynamics to drivers.


RWD demands more of drivers and absolutely belongs in competition like Formula 1. The cars should be a handful, and therefore require skills and balls. That’s why we watch. We don’t watch UFC because we want to do it. We watch it because we want to watch people who have the skills and balls to step into the octagon.

Now, on the public road, where this chassis belongs, there is no question that FWD is more efficient, safer, more useful. And AWD adds traction in more slippery conditions as well as bailing unlike drivers out of trouble. You need proof – why do you think Lamborghini are AWD? 918? P1? FWD is by far the top selling approach in cars for a reason. And AWD is the main reason why SUVs are so popular, along with ability to put more power down, safely.

You may be fond of RWD, but if you will buy this Williams chassis in RWD configuration for benefit of driving dynamics and someone with an AWD version pulls up next to you and smokes you in 1/4 mile or in changing conditions, what does that prove? Also, if you go for AWD you can turn off the option of the front motor easily for your fun, and the only penalty is a little bit of weight – which if you think about the location of motors would be quite balanced in AWD version vs. RWD. RWD offering here by Williams is simply a cost cutting measure, and I’d argue an inferior offering.

That’s my argument and view. Fortunately it is not yours and not Williams, and they do offer the RWD just for someone like you, and AWD just for someone like me. In this case, we can both be happy with our views and preferences. Thanks Williams!


First of all, rear wheel drive isn’t just for competition. It affords the option of exploiting a chassis with extra input of the throttle that you can’t do with AWD or FWD cars. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a McLaren P1 or a caterham superlight with 80bhp

Secondly…. What you’re referring to as AWD in general is primarily FWD and power goes to the ‘auxillary’ wheels when the driven wheels start to lose power. It’s not like an R32 skyline where all 4 wheels are creating hell

If you get an AWD car and the drivetrain isn’t primed for a full throttle launch then you’ll look like a fool at the drag strip when your AWD system bogs down. The only reason AWD works well is because of launch control. On a circuit, you’ll start to feel the weight penalty of the AWD system unless you can compensate by putting more power through the wheels. If you try to power out of a corner when only 50% power goes through the rear wheels, you’ll understeer.

FWD is being preferred by the industry because it’s less complex by introducing a propshaft to go to the back of the car and the engineering involved behind it. And the solutions to have safer and more enjoyable cars in FWD cars has come a long way. FWD cars will be inherently safer too because when they understeer you can left foot brake and tighten the line without upsetting the balance of the car and crashing.

Now not having driven or been in the solution Williams have come up with i can’t say much. My knowledge only goes on what I can drive rather than theoretical assumptions


Teslas with 2 motors are clearly way faster than Teslas with 1 motor at the rear. I think this compares, yes? And I’m sure you can swith a motor if. I wouldn’t even be surprised if you reverse the polarity on the RWD platform here and it becomes FWD.

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation