DACIA

Dacia Logan Steppe: An adventurer with a Romanian alpine spirit

When Dacia re-emerged under the leadership of Renault in the early 2000s, its mission was quite clear: to produce simple, robust, and affordable automobiles for emerging markets. The Logan, launched in 2004, became the symbol of this philosophy by proving that it was possible to offer a spacious, reliable, and economical sedan at an extremely competitive price. Few, however, imagined that just two years later, the modest Romanian manufacturer would surprise the world by unveiling its first concept car. Thus was born the Dacia Logan Steppe Concept—revealed at the 2006 Geneva Motor Show—a design exercise that showcased an entirely different facet of the brand and anticipated a new stage in its evolution.

Much more than a mere styling study, the Logan Steppe was conceived by the Renault Design Center to demonstrate that an affordable automobile could also evoke emotion. The proposal involved transforming the Logan platform into a leisure-oriented vehicle, inspired by the world of winter sports. It combined practicality, versatility, and an adventurous look, all while maintaining the traditional values ​​of robustness and rationality that already defined Dacia. The result was a concept remarkably close to a production-ready model, making it one of the most realistic show cars presented at that Geneva Motor Show.

Visually, the Steppe departed from the sedan’s austere appearance, adopting the proportions of a raised station wagon with a personality akin to an SUV. The body measured approximately 4,470 mm in length and reached a height of 1,780 mm, thanks to an elevated suspension and an ingenious cargo compartment integrated into the roof. To emphasize its adventurous character, the concept featured wraparound bumpers, plastic fender cladding, side skirts with metallic inserts, 17-inch wheels, xenon headlights with LED elements, and prominent, visible brake calipers. Every detail was designed to convey robustness without excess, remaining true to Dacia’s understated visual identity.

The true highlight, however, was the roof. Instead of a conventional roof rack, the designers created a compartment integrated into the bodywork, specifically for transporting skis and snowboards. Its opening mechanism was inspired by the bindings used on such sports equipment, offering both convenience and security against theft. At the front of this compartment, two powerful auxiliary spotlights—capable of illuminating snow-covered roads or ski slopes independently of the main headlights—further reinforced the project’s alpine theme.

The creativity extended to the interior, which combined light-colored leather with technical fabrics inspired by winter sportswear, creating a modern yet welcoming atmosphere. The cabin accommodated five passengers, while expansive glass surfaces—totaling over 3.3 square meters—flooded the interior with natural light, enhancing the sense of spaciousness. Video screens for rear-seat passengers were mounted behind the front seatbacks, and the multimedia system included an MP3 player—a significant luxury for a concept from a budget-oriented brand back in 2006.

Functionality was another key strength. The trunk featured two symmetrical rear doors rather than a conventional tailgate, a design choice that facilitated access in tight spaces. The interior floor was modular and featured a non-slip surface; it could be reconfigured to create a large, flat area when the seats were folded down, even allowing two people to rest comfortably during trips or outdoor activities. The maximum cargo capacity reached 1.7 m³, demonstrating that practicality remained an absolute priority.

Although it was never intended for production exactly as it appeared in Geneva, the Logan Steppe fulfilled its mission perfectly. It previewed nearly all the design lines of the future Logan MCV, which was unveiled a few months later at the Paris Motor Show and launched in Romania later in 2006, offering both five- and seven-seater versions. While several extravagant features were naturally dropped, the overall architecture, body profile, and highly efficient interior space were carried over almost entirely to the production model—a vehicle that would go on to become a major commercial success in various markets.

The Logan Steppe also represented a symbolic milestone for the Romanian automotive industry. As the first concept car in Dacia’s history, it signaled to the international market that the manufacturer was no longer just a producer of budget vehicles, but a brand capable of exploring new ideas and developing creative projects within Renault’s technological framework. In a sense, this concept paved the way for the adventurous identity that would later emerge in models such as the Sandero Stepway, the Duster, and, more recently, the Jogger.

Viewed nearly twenty years later, the Dacia Logan Steppe remains one of the most intelligent concepts unveiled in the 2000s. Rather than banking on unattainable, futuristic technologies, it envisioned how an affordable, mass-market car could become an adventure companion for families and outdoor enthusiasts. It was an exceptionally realistic, functional, and production-ready concept—qualities that perfectly reflected Dacia’s philosophy. Perhaps this is why its legacy is so significant: it demonstrated that simplicity and creativity can go hand in hand, transforming a budget-oriented project into a vehicle capable of sparking genuine excitement and foreshadowing a new generation of European family cars.

MotorLand

 

AUTONEWS

Euro 7 completely changes the rules of the game

A new era for the automotive industry begins on November 29th. It will no longer be enough for a car to simply pass a technical inspection and meet emission regulations. The new Euro 7 standard introduces monitoring throughout the vehicle's entire lifespan—a shift that could affect owners of both gasoline and diesel vehicles.

The most significant change lies in a system designed to independently monitor the functionality of emission-control equipment. If a car detects that it is polluting beyond permitted limits—specifically, emitting more than 2.5 times the prescribed amount of harmful substances—or if there has been unauthorized tampering with the system, the driver will receive a warning.

And this is where things get serious...If the fault is not rectified within 2,400 kilometers, the vehicle may impose operational restrictions. Manufacturers could implement limits on the number of engine starts, prevent the engine from restarting after refueling, or block the fuel supply system.

It is important to note: the car will not shut down while in motion. Instead, the restrictions will take effect the next time the vehicle is started—which, in practical terms, could mean you will need to call a tow truck.

Electric vehicles are also included...However, Euro 7 does not just bring changes for gasoline and diesel vehicles; for the first time, it also significantly impacts electric cars!

Brakes, tires, and batteries are now also subject to regulation. Dust generated by brake wear is now subject to specific limits: 7 mg/km for vehicles with internal combustion engines (including hybrids) and 3 mg/km for electric vehicles. A particularly interesting new requirement concerns electric car batteries. They will be required to retain at least 80 percent of their capacity after five years or 100,000 kilometers—and 72 percent after eight years or 160,000 kilometers.

Greater safety, but also higher costs...What does all this mean for buyers? The European Commission estimates an additional cost of up to 450 euros per vehicle, while the automotive industry suggests the figure could be as high as 2,000 euros. The inclusion of more sensors, software, and additional systems will inevitably be reflected in the prices of new vehicles.

Euro 7, therefore, is not just another environmental regulation. It marks the beginning of a new era in which a vehicle must demonstrate that it meets environmental standards throughout nearly its entire lifespan.

The European Union Vehicle Emissions and Battery Durability (Euro 7) Regulation changes the rules of the game by expanding regulations past the exhaust pipe for the first time and holding vehicles accountable over a much longer operational lifecycle.

While tailpipe limits for standard petrol and diesel passenger cars remain largely aligned with Euro 6, Euro 7 fundamentally transforms automotive engineering and testing through several key shifts:

Beyond the tailpipe: Brakes and tyres:

• Brake Wear Limits: Euro 7 introduces the world's first mandatory legal limits on particulate matter (PM) emissions generated by brake wear (taking effect starting late 2026 for new models). This pushes manufacturers toward specialized materials like carbon-ceramic discs or advanced alloy coatings.

• Tyre Abrasion: Regulations now cover particulate emissions and abrasion rates generated by tyres, accounting for non-exhaust pollution that traditional laws ignored.

Extended durability and long-term compliance:

• Double the Lifespan: Emission control systems must remain compliant for 10 years or 200,000 km—double the distance and time required under Euro 6.

• Battery Durability: For electric and hybrid vehicles, official rules establish strict minimum capacity retention thresholds (e.g., maintaining at least 80% capacity after 5 years/100,000 km and 72% after 8 years/160,000 km).

Real-world testing & monitoring:

• Stricter Real-World Scenarios: Testing conditions are much broader, factoring in extreme cold starts, short urban trips, high speeds, heavy loads, and varying altitudes rather than predictable laboratory cycles.

• On-Board Monitoring (OBM): Vehicles are equipped with continuous monitoring systems to track emissions and performance dynamically throughout their life.

• Smaller Particle Tracking: Solid particle number (PN) limits now account for ultrafine particles down to 10 nanometers

 

TESLA

New Tesla Roadster flies at the Nürburgring, aided by algorithms

The German Nürburgring circuit—spanning 20.8 km and featuring over 150 corners—has traditionally served as the ultimate proving ground to determine the best supercar on the market, based on the fastest lap time achieved. Naturally, there was significant interest in seeing how the new Tesla Roadster would fare against other supercars, whether powered by electric, internal combustion, or hybrid powertrains. However, there was an initial hurdle: the Tesla Roadster does not yet exist as a production vehicle; the two-seater coupé currently exists only as a prototype, with the production version not expected until 2028.

As the old saying goes, "desperate times call for desperate measures"—or, in this case, if the car isn't yet available, one can create a virtual model to compare it against the competition. Modern simulators—driven largely by the demands of competitive racing, with Formula 1 at the forefront—have evolved to an almost startling degree. This has turned today’s top drivers, such as Max Verstappen, into true masters of simulation, where the precision and fidelity to real-world track conditions are remarkably lifelike.

This virtual supercar comparison relied heavily on the expertise of Marek Lubieniecki, a Polish specialist in vehicle simulation optimization. Long recognized in the motorsport world as a leading authority on lap-time optimization, Lubieniecki calculates ideal racing lines, track-driving dynamics, and optimal trajectories tailored to each specific car and driver, based on their unique vehicle setup. Lubieniecki became a significant figure in F1 when he simulated the behavior of the future power units proposed by the FIA—set to debut in 2026—accurately predicting the challenges regarding battery management, as well as the top speeds at the Brazilian and Mexican Grands Prix. Since then, the Polish engineer has established himself as one of the best in the field at developing algorithms for the simulation and efficiency optimization of single-seater race cars.

To demonstrate the rigor of his virtual model and the validity of his expertise, Lubieniecki began testing parameters such as steering, braking and acceleration capabilities, tire grip, weight transfer, front/rear and total downforce, as well as power, weight, length, width, and height. To verify the margin of error in his virtual model, he input data for the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT, the Tesla Model S Plaid, and the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra, comparing the lap times generated by his simulator for the Nürburgring against the actual best lap times achieved by each of these sports cars. For the Porsche, the deviation was only 0.1 seconds, while for the Tesla, it was 0.5 seconds—over the course of a nearly 7-minute lap. In the case of the Xiaomi, the deviation was 6.6 seconds; Lubieniecki noted that this was likely due to a reduction in power toward the end of the lap, presumably caused by overheating. After proving the validity of his virtual model, Lubieniecki shared via social media that the Tesla Roadster—powered by 1,360 hp and equipped with a suction system to increase cornering grip—would be capable of completing a lap in 5 minutes and 41 seconds.

 

The Polish expert capped the speed at 338 km/h, estimating a lap time between 5:38 and 5:58; he noted that if the suction power drops to 70%, the time would increase to 5:48, and if it falls to 50%, the lap time would extend to 5:58. Should the Roadster fail to keep its temperatures within normal operating parameters, it could lose another four seconds. Nevertheless, Lubieniecki maintains that, under normal conditions, the Roadster has the potential to complete a lap in 5 minutes and 40.772 seconds. This would mean the Roadster beats the 2022 Porsche Taycan Turbo S (which set a fastest lap of 7:33.300) by 1 minute and 52.228 seconds, and the 2026 Taycan Turbo GT with the Manthey package (6:55.533) by 1:14.761. It would also outperform the 2023 Tesla Model S Plaid (7:25.231) by 1:44.459 and the 2025 Xiaomi SU7 Ultra (7:04.957) by 1:24.185.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit (the "Green Hell") promises to be historic, thanks to a significant engineering leap in the model. Although Tesla has yet to set an official track time, technical data and advanced optimal control simulations—based on the specifications of the performance model (excluding gas-powered thrusters)—offer a projection of how the car would perform across the circuit’s 20.8 km:

1. Estimated performance and lap time

Estimated Lap Time: Vehicle dynamics simulations indicate that the Roadster could complete a lap in between 5:36 and 5:58 (averaging ~5:41). Direct comparisons:

- Mercedes-AMG One (a street-legal combustion/hybrid supercar): 6:29.09. The Roadster would be at least 30 seconds faster.

- Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo (an unrestricted racing prototype): 5:19.55. The Roadster would fall within approximately 20 seconds of this absolute record.

2. Critical advantage: Active ground effect (Fans/Suction)

The Roadster’s greatest asset at the Nürburgring is not merely its straight-line acceleration, but rather its grip in low- and medium-speed corners.

- Downforce at 0 km/h: An underbody fan system generates active suction (approximately 1,700 kg, or 1G, of suction force).

- Cornering behavior: Traditional aerodynamic wings only generate downforce at high speeds. Tesla’s suction system provides immediate grip in tight, technical sections (such as Hatzenbach or Adenauer Forst)—areas where conventional vehicles struggle to generate downforce.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit ("The Green Hell") promises to be historic, though it hinges on how Tesla addresses the track's technical challenges.

Theoretical potential (shattering records)...Currently, the record for a production electric vehicle at the Nürburgring is held by the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT (~6:55 min), while the absolute record for road-legal production cars belongs to the Mercedes-AMG One (6:29.09 min).

Based on specifications released by Tesla:

-Immense Power: A 1 MW (~1,360 hp) powertrain combined with instantaneous torque vectoring would deliver brutal acceleration when exiting corners and along the Döttinger Höhe straight.

-Ground Effect / Suction Fans: The Performance version of the Roadster features a system of fans and adaptive skirts that generate downforce even at 0 km/h. This would allow for cornering speeds comparable to—or even exceeding—those of GT3-class race cars.

-Cold-Gas Thrusters (Rocket/Thrust Trim): If utilized during a flying lap, these auxiliary thrusters could provide lateral stabilization and extreme acceleration through critical sections of the track.

Engineers and analysts estimate that, under ideal aerodynamic and traction conditions, the Roadster has the theoretical capability to complete a lap in under 6 minutes.

Major challenges at the Nordschleife...Spanning 20.8 km with over 70 corners, the Nürburgring is the world’s most demanding circuit for electric vehicles, primarily due to two critical factors:

Battery thermal management:

-Maintaining a continuous output of 1 megawatt of power over a 20 km distance generates an immense amount of heat within the battery cells. To maintain this pace without entering a protective mode (thermal throttling), Tesla requires an extremely robust cooling system (featuring dedicated chillers and radiators).

-Weight vs. Braking and Suspension: Despite the extensive use of carbon fiber, titanium, and magnesium, the battery pack (~150 kWh) keeps the estimated weight near 1,700 kg. The continuous stress placed on the brakes, tires (such as the Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS), and suspension—compounded by the bumps and undulations of the Nordschleife—demands an impeccable setup.

Summary of expectations:

Scenario---Estimated Time---Comparison/Impact

-Without thermal limitations (Full Attack Mode)---Under 6:00 min---Breaks the all-time record for road-legal cars (Mercedes-AMG One: 6:29).

-With thermal limitations/road-legal restrictions---6:15 – 6:35 min---Surpasses the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT (6:55) and competes directly with combustion-engine hypercars.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit (the "Green Hell") promises to be historic, thanks to a major engineering leap in the model. Although Tesla has yet to set an official track time, technical data and advanced optimal control simulations—based on the specifications of the Performance model (excluding gas-powered thrusters)—offer a glimpse into how the car would perform across the circuit’s 20.8 km (12.9-mile) layout:

1. Estimated performance and lap time:

Estimated lap time: Vehicle dynamics simulations suggest the Roadster could complete a lap in between 5:36 and 5:58 (averaging approximately 5:41). For direct comparison:

- Mercedes-AMG One (a road-legal combustion/hybrid supercar): 6:29.09. The Roadster would be at least 30 seconds faster.

- Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo (an unrestricted racing prototype): 5:19.55. The Roadster would fall within about 20 seconds of this absolute record.

2. Critical advantage: Active ground effect (fans/suction):

The Roadster’s greatest asset at the Nürburgring is not merely its straight-line acceleration, but its grip in low- and medium-speed corners.

Downforce at 0 km/h: An underbody fan system generates active suction (approximately 1,700 kg, or 1G, of suction force). Cornering Behavior: Traditional aerodynamic wings only generate downforce at high speeds. Tesla’s suction system provides immediate grip in tight, technical sections (such as Hatzenbach or Adenauer Forst)—areas where conventional cars struggle to generate downforce.

3. Where the car excels and where it faces challenges:

Sector/Aspect---Behavior at the Nürburgring:

-Slow and Medium-Speed ​​Corners: Dominant—the constant ground effect allows the car to navigate corners with a level of grip and speed unprecedented for a road-legal vehicle.

-Straightaways (Döttinger Höhe): Very fast, but not miraculous—with 1 MW (~1,341 hp) of power and a top speed limited to around 338 km/h (210 mph), it performs much like a high-end, state-of-the-art EV.

Undulations and curbs:

-Critical point: The Nürburgring is notorious for jumps and undulations (e.g., Pflanzgarten). If the ground-effect sealing skirts lose contact with the asphalt due to bumps, the car could lose as much as 30% to 50% of its downforce (suction).

Thermal management:

-Battery Challenge: Sustaining a 1 MW discharge for more than 5 minutes pushes cell temperatures above 60°C. Any power reduction ("power fade") caused by overheating toward the end of a lap could cost 3 to 5 seconds off the total lap time.

Tires:

-Extreme wear: Subjected to the combined forces of aerodynamic downforce (suction) and violent acceleration, the tires (e.g., Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS) operate at the absolute limit of their load and temperature capacity (>110°C).

The verdict...Given an ideal track scenario and a suspension setup tuned to absorb the imperfections of the Nordschleife, the new Tesla Roadster has the potential to shatter the production-car record and approach the lap times of dedicated Le Mans-style racing prototypes. In practice, the main deciding factor will be the thermal system's ability to maintain maximum energy delivery from the first second on the track to the very last.

Autonews and MotorLand

 

BMW

BMW M635CSi COUPÉ (1986): the German shark

Few automobiles represent the technical exuberance of 1980s BMW as well as the 1986 M635CSi Coupé. Derived from the elegant E24 6 Series, this model transformed a sophisticated four-seater grand tourer into a high-performance machine by incorporating an engine developed by BMW Motorsport—based on the powerplant of the legendary BMW M1. Introduced in 1984 as the new flagship of the E24 family, the M635CSi became the first large luxury coupé developed by the Motorsport division. It established a formula that would remain fundamental to future BMW M models: combining sports-car performance and dynamic handling with the comfort required for long-distance travel. Production ran from April 1984 to February 1989, with only 5,855 units built, making it one of the most coveted classic BMW M models today.

The foundation was the E24—an elegant coupé originally designed by Paul Bracq and launched the previous decade—but the transformation carried out by BMW Motorsport went far beyond simply installing a more powerful engine. Beneath the long hood lay the M88/3, a 3,453 cc inline-six engine featuring dual overhead camshafts, 24 valves, and six individual throttle bodies. The powerplant was derived directly from the M88 used in the M1, though it was adapted for the E24’s front-mounted, inclined configuration. With a compression ratio increased to 10.5:1, the engine produced 286 hp at 6,500 rpm and 340 Nm of torque at 4,500 rpm—extraordinary figures for the time. BMW made a point of clarifying that this was not merely a more powerful 635CSi; it was a genuine Motorsport product.

Its connection to the M1 endowed the M635CSi with a distinct mechanical character. Rather than opting for a large V8 or a turbocharged six-cylinder engine, BMW chose a high-revving, naturally aspirated powerplant—one capable of delivering power progressively, accompanied by the signature metallic exhaust note of the brand’s straight-six engines. Power was channeled to the rear wheels via a 5-speed Getrag manual transmission, while a limited-slip differential helped translate its 340 Nm of torque into effective acceleration. The suspension also underwent specific modifications, featuring reinforced components, firmer shock absorbers, and recalibrated anti-roll bars, along with a ride height lowered by approximately 10 mm.

The result was a car capable of extreme speed without compromising its identity as a grand tourer. The M635CSi could accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in roughly 6.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 255 km/h—figures that placed it among the fastest mass-produced BMWs of the era. Weighing in at around 1,500 kg, with four seats and a body measuring nearly 4.76 meters in length, it was no compact sports car; rather, it was a high-speed coupé engineered to cover long distances with remarkable competence. A weight distribution of approximately 54% at the front and 46% at the rear helped maintain the signature balance characteristic of BMW’s rear-wheel-drive models.

Visually, the design followed a philosophy of calculated discretion. The E24’s famous "sharknose" remained intact, but the M635CSi gained a more pronounced front spoiler, a rear spoiler, body-colored side mirrors, and cross-spoke wheels. The BBS wheels—especially in wider configurations—became one of its most recognizable signatures. Its low-slung body, long hood, set-back cabin, and elegantly arched waistline created a silhouette that, even today, seems to strike a perfect balance between aggression and elegance. Inside, sports seats and a leather-wrapped steering wheel complemented an instrument cluster featuring a speedometer that reached 280 km/h and a tachometer marked up to 8,000 rpm, with the redline beginning at approximately 6,900 rpm.

The year 1986 is particularly significant, as it marked a transitional phase for the M635CSi. From that point on, versions equipped with a catalytic converter and the S38B35 engine—featuring lower compression and a reduced output of approximately 260 hp—began to appear, primarily for markets with stricter emissions control requirements. Meanwhile, the non-catalyzed European specification, which retained the M88/3 engine, continued to deliver the coveted 286 hp. BMW itself notes that the catalyzed version was integrated into the lineup later, whereas the early M635CSi models remain especially prized by collectors precisely for their original, high-performance configuration.

There was, therefore, a reason why the M635CSi earned an almost mythical reputation among enthusiasts. It brought together two seemingly contradictory personalities: while cruising, it could behave like a refined luxury coupé—quiet and comfortable—yet when the driver pushed the M88/3 engine into its upper rev range, it transformed into a machine with genuine Motorsport-grade performance. Moreover, it carried a direct lineage from the racetrack and the BMW M1, making the E24 a connecting link between BMW’s first supercar and the future generation of M models that would come to dominate the decades that followed.

The 1986 BMW M635CSi Coupé is, for this reason, much more than just a sporty version of the 6 Series. It represents an era when BMW could still apply racing technology to a production car—free from complex electronic interventions, turbochargers, or the need for extravagant, headline-grabbing figures to prove its capabilities. All it took was 6 cylinders, 3.5 liters, 24 valves, rear-wheel drive, and 286 hp. The result was one of the most complete and fascinating European grand tourers of the 1980s—a car where the elegance of the E24 met, beneath its hood, the heart of an M1.

 

MotorLand

 

AUTONEWS

DIY rooftop tent sets up in a jiffy

[CraftAndu] shares his DIY car rooftop tent design that looks like a pretty accessible build. It allowed him to test drive the concept to his satisfaction while spending a fraction of what a commercial unit would cost.

The rooftop tent consists of a folding platform of sturdy plywood bolted to the roof rack. The tent is attached, with the support rods cleverly anchored to the hinges so folding the platform stows the tent and mattress, and unfolding deploys it. Doing this in a way that also leaves suitable clearance between the sections when folded requires a special hinge design, but it’s mechanically straightforward. According to [CraftAndu], it’s also plenty strong and he never had any worries about stability. The final touch is a rain cover made from durable waterproof fabric that buckles around the whole thing.

There are a few nifty design elements we particularly like. The integrated aluminum ladder is a nice touch, as is the little folding table on the inside of the ladder. Also, since the platform folds out to the side, one can have a small roof overhead while sitting below. Hanging a tarp around the perimeter also creates a what he jokingly refers to as “the livingroom”.

[CraftAndu] also shares his thoughts after using it for a two-week trip. Chief among them is that while it worked very well and shows no signs of wear, it’s still just a tent. It’s a bit cramped, cold, and like any tent it needs to be dried out in the morning due to condensation even if there’s no rain. On the plus side, it’s ridiculously convenient and easy to set up. Check it out in the video, embedded just below.

If you want to see some other DIY vehicle-camper projects, don’t miss this DIY pop-up truck camper, the Toyota Corolla that sleeps two, and for a little something different here’s a van converted to off-grid camper-slash-remote office.

Materials:

Decathlon 2-person Pop-up tent (50€)

Mattress for comfort (80€)

A sheet of plywood (3000X1500 mm, 18 mm thick. In imperial it would be 10x5 feet and 3/4 inch thick) (80€)

An aluminum ladder that is at least as long as the car is tall. (25€)

3 mm sheet metal for the hinges

4 small hinges for the ladder (around 25€ for all the hardware)

2 metal pins for connecting the ladder to the small hinges (these pins are used in trailer hatch hinges)

Bolts (16 pcs. M6) for connecting the ladder hinges to the plywood base.

Bolts (2 pcs. M12) for connecting the main hinges to each other.

Bolts (8 pcs. M10) for connecting the main hinges to the plywood.

Bolts (8 pcs. M10) for connecting the tent rods to the main hinges.

Bolts (4 pcs. M10) for connecting the tent to the roof rack.

Corresponding washers and locking nuts.

Paint for plywood and metal parts. (10€)

Heavy-duty buckles (2 pcs.) and angle aluminum for keeping the tent closed while driving

Wire clips, and a few panhead screws for connecting the tent to the plywood.

Rain cover material (further explained in step no. 6) (50€)

Buckles (8 pcs.) for attaching the rain cover to the tent

The prices included are what I paid for this stuff (august 2021, Estonia). Prices probably vary a lot in different locations.

Roofrack is needed to attach the tent to the car. If you do not have any I recommend building it as I did. I used two rectangular tubes and attached those to the car using muffler brackets. Cheap but very sturdy - good for hauling material as well!

CraftAndu

 

AUTONEWS

Winter could cut electric air taxi range by up to 22%, simulations suggest

Freezing temperatures can steal a surprising chunk of an EV's range. Here's what's really happening when the mercury drops.

Lithium-ion batteries work through chemical reactions that slow as temperatures fall. Cold conditions increase resistance inside the battery and can temporarily reduce how efficiently it delivers power. Once the pack warms, much of that lost performance returns. This is different from permanent battery degradation, which develops over time and depends on factors such as age, use and heat exposure.

In a petrol car, waste heat from the engine can warm the passenger cabin. Electric vehicles produce far less waste heat, so they must use electricity for cabin comfort. Some rely on resistance heaters, while others use heat pumps that can provide warmth more efficiently in many conditions. Defrosting windows, heating the battery and keeping passengers comfortable all add to winter energy demand.

The US Department of Energy has explained that low temperatures affect both battery performance and the energy required to heat the cabin. The exact impact varies widely with vehicle design, driving speed, trip length, weather and heating settings. A single percentage quoted online should not be treated as a reliable prediction for every model.

Short journeys can be particularly inefficient...A driver making several five-minute trips may see a bigger winter penalty than someone travelling steadily for an hour. Each departure can require another burst of energy to warm the cabin and battery. On a longer drive, those initial heating costs are spread over more distance. Highway speed, strong headwinds and wet or snowy roads can further increase consumption, regardless of whether a car is electric or petrol-powered.

Preconditioning makes a practical difference...One of the simplest ways to improve winter comfort is to warm the vehicle while it is still plugged in, if the model supports that function. Scheduled departure settings can prepare the cabin and, on some vehicles, the battery before the journey begins. Using electricity from the charger rather than the battery for part of this work may leave more stored energy available for driving.

Drivers should consult their owner’s manual because battery...preconditioning, charging limits and departure scheduling work differently across manufacturers. Some cars automatically prepare the battery when a fast charger is selected in navigation. Others require specific settings or do not offer the feature.

Small changes can protect useful range...Heated seats and steering wheels can sometimes keep occupants comfortable while allowing a lower cabin temperature, although clear windows and safe visibility must come first. Maintaining manufacturer-recommended tyre pressures also matters: pressure typically falls as ambient temperatures drop, and underinflated tyres increase rolling resistance. Smooth acceleration and moderate speed can reduce consumption on cold roads.

It is also wise to plan charging stops with a buffer rather than relying on the dashboard’s range estimate as a guarantee. That figure responds to recent driving patterns and can change quickly after a motorway stretch or a shift in weather. Public fast charging may initially be slower when the battery is very cold, especially if the vehicle has not preconditioned its pack.

What buyers should compare before choosing an EV...Official range ratings are useful for comparing vehicles under standardised test conditions, but they are not promises of real-world winter performance. Shoppers in colder climates should look beyond the headline figure and consider whether the car includes a heat pump, battery thermal management, departure scheduling and dependable charging-route planning. Independent cold-weather tests can add context, provided the conditions and test methods are clear.

The important distinction is between temporary seasonal range loss and long-term battery health. Winter usually changes how much energy the car can use efficiently on a particular trip; it does not automatically mean the battery has worn out. With realistic expectations, a charging buffer and a few adjustments to daily routines, most drivers can manage the colder months without treating every falling range estimate as a warning sign.

If you've ever started an EV on a freezing morning and wondered where all those missing miles went, you're not imagining it. Electric vehicles can lose a substantial amount of driving range in cold weather, sometimes enough to make a familiar trip suddenly require a charging stop.

The battery is part of the reason, but it is not the whole story. Cold temperatures affect the battery's chemistry, while heating the cabin and bringing the battery up to its preferred operating temperature also consume electricity. Put all of that together, and winter can be a serious hit to an EV's efficiency. So why does cold weather have such an outsized effect on an electric car?

Cold temperatures make the battery less efficient...An EV's battery doesn't stop working when temperatures drop. Instead, the chemical reactions that allow it to store and release energy become less efficient.

Lithium-ion batteries rely on the movement of ions through an electrolyte. When the battery gets cold, that process becomes more difficult, limiting how quickly and efficiently the battery can deliver energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy's research found that battery chemistry is one of the factors behind reduced EV range in cold conditions. Its analysis found that battery-electric vehicles could see range reductions of around 41 percent at 20°F under the tested conditions.

That's also why an EV may behave differently immediately after being parked outside overnight than it does after you've been driving for a while. As the battery warms up, some of that performance penalty can diminish. Importantly, this doesn't mean the battery has suddenly lost 40 percent of its permanent capacity. Much of the winter range reduction is temporary.

Heating the cabin takes energy from the battery...Here's the part that can surprise people. A gasoline engine produces plenty of waste heat while it's running. A conventional car can use some of that heat to warm the passenger compartment.

An EV doesn't have a hot internal-combustion engine producing the same readily available supply of waste heat. Instead, it has to use electrical energy to heat the cabin. And when it's really cold outside, that heater can run for a significant portion of the trip.

AAA's 2019 testing found that operating an EV's HVAC system at 20°F reduced average driving range by 41 percent compared with its 75°F baseline.

The Department of Energy similarly identifies HVAC energy use as a primary reason cold weather affects EV range. Its analysis says the power required for heating rises as outside temperatures move farther from a comfortable cabin temperature. That's why an EV can use considerably more energy simply keeping its occupants warm than it would on a mild day.

It would be easy to assume that turning off the climate control would solve the problem. It wouldn't. Cold weather affects several parts of the vehicle at the same time.

-Battery chemistry: A cold battery is less efficient at delivering usable energy

-Cabin heating: Electricity is required to keep passengers warm

-Battery conditioning: The vehicle may consume energy warming the battery to an appropriate operating temperature

-Regenerative braking: Some EVs reduce regenerative braking when the battery is too cold

-Tires and roads: Cold temperatures, snow and slush can increase rolling resistance

-Driving conditions: Winter winds, precipitation and slower traffic can further increase energy consumption

AAA's latest testing specifically found that battery conditioning and cabin heating represented a dominant share of energy consumption during cold operation, particularly in urban driving. That combination explains why winter range loss can be so noticeable even when the battery itself hasn't suffered any permanent damage.

Heat pumps can make a big difference...Not every EV handles winter temperatures exactly the same way. One of the technologies that can help is a heat pump. Rather than relying entirely on electrical resistance to create heat, a heat pump transfers available thermal energy, allowing the vehicle to heat the cabin more efficiently under appropriate conditions.

That's one reason newer EVs can perform differently from older models in cold weather. There are still limits, though. A heat pump can't completely eliminate the effects of cold battery chemistry, and extremely low temperatures can make thermal management more demanding.

Drivers can also reduce some of the penalty by preconditioning the vehicle while it's plugged in. Instead of using battery energy to warm the cabin and potentially the battery after leaving home, the vehicle can draw that energy from the electrical grid before the trip begins.

Winter range loss doesn't mean your battery is dying...Perhaps the most important thing for EV owners to understand is that a dramatic winter range reduction is not necessarily a sign of battery degradation.

Cold weather can temporarily reduce how much energy the battery can use efficiently, while heating the cabin and conditioning the battery consumes additional electricity. Once temperatures return to more moderate levels, much of that lost range returns.

The numbers can be significant. In AAA's 2026 testing, three EVs experienced range reductions of 25.3, 44.8 and 47.0 percent, respectively, when tested at 20°F versus 75°F. The overall average reduction across the EVs tested was 39 percent.

That's a wide spread, and it illustrates an important point: there is no universal winter range penalty for every EV. Battery size, thermal-management system, heat-pump configuration, vehicle efficiency, speed and climate-control settings can all change the result.

So if your EV normally shows 300 miles of range and winter turns that number into something much lower, don't immediately assume something is wrong with the battery. Cold weather is essentially making the car spend more of its stored electricity just to operate normally.

Simulations indicate that winter conditions could reduce the range of electric air taxis (eVTOLs) by up to 22%, due to the impact of low temperatures on the aircraft's total energy consumption.

Why does cold weather reduce the range of eVTOLs?

• Interconnected thermal management: In electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, the propulsion system, batteries, and cabin subsystems all draw from the same limited energy source.

• Heating demand: Low temperatures require additional energy to heat the battery—maintaining its efficiency and performance—and to regulate the temperature in the passenger cabin, thereby reducing the energy available for flight.

• The need for planning: The study suggests that future urban air mobility operations will require temperature-sensitive flight planning, incorporating heating and cooling requirements into the scheduling of routes and flight distances.

Cold weather reduces the effective flight range of electric air taxis (eVTOLs) by up to 22% because the aircraft must balance a limited energy supply across interlinked propulsion, battery, and cabin heating systems.

Why cold weather reduces range:

• Sluggish Battery Chemistry: Lithium-ion batteries rely on chemical reactions to generate electricity. Lower temperatures increase internal resistance and slow down ion movement through the electrolyte, meaning the battery delivers less usable energy.

• Competing Thermal Demands: Unlike gas-powered aircraft or cars that produce abundant waste heat, electric aircraft must use stored battery power to heat the passenger cabin and manage component temperatures.

• Interlinked Subsystems: In an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, the propulsion, battery, and cabin subsystems share the same restricted energy pool. Diverting energy to thermal management directly shortens the distance the aircraft can fly.

• Thermal-Aware Planning: According to research published on U.S. Department of Energy, modeling thermal-management architecture is critical, and future operations will require "thermal-aware flight planning" rather than calculating range strictly by distance.

 

AUTONEWS

Volkswagen ID.Polo vs Cupra Raval

The electric B-segment is about to witness one of its most interesting showdowns within the Volkswagen Group itself. The Volkswagen ID. Polo and the CUPRA Raval share the MEB+ platform, a 211 hp engine, and very similar battery capacity, but each plays its own game: one prioritizes practicality and affordability; the other, the emotional and sporty component. If you're looking for an urban electric vehicle from the German group, this duel is for you.

Wolfsburg and Martorell have made a smart move: leveraging the new MEB+ platform to launch two electric city cars that share a basic structure but offer different experiences. The ID. Polo replaces the e-up! and democratizes the urban electric car within the Volkswagen range. The CUPRA Raval , meanwhile, is the group's sporty and youthful offering, with a sharper design and a more premium feel.

Both are designed for the city and everyday use, with compact dimensions (around 4,05 meters) and seating for five. 

The MEB+ platform is the evolution of VW's modular electric architecture, optimized for smaller, more affordable cars. This translates to:

-RWD in both models.

-Underfloor battery, which improves the center of gravity.

-Common Mechanics of about 160 kW (211 hp).

-Fast DC charging prepared for short sessions.

On this common base, each brand applies its own filter: the ID. Polo seeks comfort and efficiency; the Raval, a more lively response and a slightly firmer suspension setup.

With 52 kWh batteries (ID. Polo) and 51,5 kWh batteries (Raval), the range figures are virtually identical, around 420-450 km WLTP. In real-world urban driving, both should easily exceed 300 km, making them perfect companions for those who charge at home and only need a car for everyday use.Compare EV Models

In DC fast charging, both accept enough power to make a coffee break (10-80%) in about half an hour.

The CUPRA Raval and VW ID.Polo take two very different routes to the same goal: an urban-friendly, long-legged small EV. In this CUPRA Raval VS VW ID.Polo matchup, the CUPRA leans into hot‑hatch attitude while the VW majors on calm, clarity and everyday ease. Both pack unusually big boots and five-door practicality, but they serve up very different flavors from the driver’s seat. Think of the Raval as the extrovert with substance, and the ID.Polo as the quietly confident type that makes your routine feel effortless. Your preference will likely hinge on whether you want your commute to feel energetic or soothing.

The CUPRA Raval feels keener and more playful, with punchy responses and front-end traction that lets you lean on it out of tight city corners. In sportier trims its adaptive chassis widens the gap: taut when you want it, relaxed when you don’t. The VW ID.Polo counters with a more measured demeanor, prioritizing smooth inputs and tidy body control over theatrics. It’s instantly easy to drive well, with an intuitive, unflustered flow that suits dense traffic and longer slogs alike. If you value a little sparkle every time you dip into the throttle, the Raval delivers; if you’d rather arrive calm, the ID.Polo has your back.

The VW ID.Polo rides with an adult calm that stands out in this class, remaining hushed and composed even on larger wheels. The CUPRA Raval is firmer by character, yet its softer modes take the edge off sharp bumps and keep motorway travel settled. For overtakes at speed the Raval feels a touch more alert, while the ID.Polo prefers a steady, unruffled cruise and even reins in top-end pace to underline that mindset. Efficiency tends to favor the VW, stretching each charge a bit further in mixed use. Neither is a charging champion, but both plan a road trip sensibly if you accept a brief mid-journey stop.

Inside, the VW ID.Polo is all about clarity: real climate buttons, proper window switches and a cleaner interface reduce faff on the move. The CUPRA Raval looks and feels sportier, with bolder lighting and materials and a modern, app‑rich infotainment platform, but its touch sliders demand more attention. Seat comfort also splits the pair: the VW goes broader and plusher, while the CUPRA’s sport seats offer firmer bolstering—and optional buckets can feel snug for wider frames. Perceived quality is strong in both, with the VW aiming for quiet solidity and the CUPRA for a more design-led vibe. If you crave tech-forward customization, the Raval appeals; if you want controls you can operate by instinct, the ID.Polo wins the day.

Both cars punch above their size for practicality, with genuinely generous boots and useful double-floor solutions that swallow strollers, weekly shops or weekend gear with ease. The VW ID.Polo adds thoughtful touches like a big underfloor compartment and the option to power accessories or tow light loads, broadening its use case. The CUPRA Raval answers with smart details, plenty of cabin cubbies and strong parking aids, including surround cameras that take the stress out of tight streets. Rear seating is adult-friendly for short trips in each, with the Cupra’s flat floor helping foot space and the VW feeling a touch airier to see out of. In town, the VW’s visibility and gentle responses are soothing, while the CUPRA’s one‑pedal feel and strong traction make darting through gaps feel natural.

If you’re watching the bottom line, the VW ID.Polo typically undercuts the CUPRA Raval at like-for-like spec and tends to sip a little less energy day to day. The Raval pushes back with stronger performance and a sportier spec sheet that feels more special on a Sunday morning. For commuters and young families who prize comfort, clear controls and low running effort, the ID.Polo is the pragmatic pick. For design‑savvy drivers who want a small EV with hot‑hatch attitude and modern software depth, the Raval feels worth the stretch. With those priorities in mind, the detailed comparison that follows will make your choice even clearer.

The CUPRA Raval vs. VW ID. Polo comparison on EV Guide explains that the Volkswagen ID. Polo and the CUPRA Raval are platform siblings (based on the MEB+ architecture) and share the same assembly line in Spain; however, they offer distinct approaches—one prioritizing rationality, the other sportiness.

Key Differences and Specifications:

• Platform and Foundation: Both are built on the Volkswagen Group’s MEB+ architecture and manufactured at the same industrial facility in Martorell, Spain.

• Batteries and Range:

• They offer battery options of 37 kWh (LFP) for entry-level versions and 52 kWh (NMC) for higher-capacity versions. 

• The VW ID. Polo Life, equipped with the larger battery, achieves a range of up to 454 km (WLTP cycle), while the CUPRA Raval Endurance reaches 445 km.

• Performance and Powertrain:

• The top-tier versions of both models deliver 226 hp (166 kW) of power and 290 Nm of torque. 

• Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes approximately 6.8 to 6.9 seconds. 

• Top speed: The VW ID. Polo reaches up to 190 km/h, whereas the CUPRA Raval is limited to 175 km/h.

• Driving Dynamics:

• The CUPRA Raval features a more aggressive setup, with a suspension lowered by 15 mm compared to the Polo, a 10 mm wider track, and a more direct, spirited steering feel. 

• The VW ID. Polo focuses more on daily comfort, highway efficiency, and greater family-oriented practicality.

• Design and Interior:

• The CUPRA Raval adopts a rebellious urban aesthetic, featuring copper accents, sports seats, and striking lighting elements. 

• The VW ID. The Polo maintains a more sober, traditional identity, staying closer to the heritage of the brand’s compact models.

• Pricing and Positioning:

• The CUPRA Raval is positioned as a more aspirational, urban "hot hatch" option, with launch prices ranging from approximately €25,950 to €33,300. 

• The VW ID. Polo is designed to be more accessible in its entry-level versions (with initial estimates starting at around €20,000 to €21,000, or an approximate equivalent for the global market).