# 2019 Pikes Peak Racecar



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

It's June, and once again time for the Pikes Peak International Hillclimb. In the last 5 to 10 years, electric vehicles--both in the automobile and motorcycle classes--have gone from being a non-entity to dominating the race. Last year, of course, Volkswagen spent a small fortune to make the ultimate Pikes Peak race car--electric, of course. Their efforts paid off when they beat the all time record by a significant margin.

This year, there has been less talk about Pikes Peak EVs. But when the competitor list came out in January, one of the entries was tantalizingly titled "2019 Palatov D2EV". But there were not any details available beyond this.

We can now reveal a little more about this entry. This entry is being done by Borg Warner subsidiary Cascadia Motion (formerly Rinehart Motion Systems and AM Racing). Cascadia is supplying motors, inverters and systems integration. Our own Frodus, now an employee at Cascadia, has been taking the lead on integration over the past month. The company I work for, EVDrive, has also contributed significantly. The car itself was designed and built by local (Portland) race car builder Palatov Motorsport, which has made several (gas powered) Pikes Peaks cars in recent years.

I can't give out any specific numbers, but the power to weight ratio of this thing is mind blowing. At these power levels, it all comes down to putting it in a package that can be tamed, and piloting it by a driver with the skill and courage to push it to the limits. To that end, Cascadia and Palatov have tapped Greg Tracy, himself a multiple champion at Pikes Peak and a professional stunt driver who has driven for Hollywood block busters such as The Fast and The Furious and the Bourne movies.

Here is a little teaser. The main event is in ten days.


https://youtu.be/Klydsui19p8


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

It's been a pleasure working on this vehicle with Cascadia Motion, EVDrive and Palatov Motorsport.

Here she is earlier this month when we were testing at Oregon Raceway park:


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

just can't weight to here more


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I hope after the event there is more technical information about the car. It appears to have the expected dual-core HVH motor, but that's about all that is visible in the teaser. For instance, AWD became popular at Pike's Peak long ago, but the gravel is all gone so I don't know if that's still required for winning performance.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi Brian,

Dennis Palatov has disclosed it publicly, so I can say it here: The car is, in fact, AWD.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

A couple more videos from early testing at Oregon Raceway Park. I can't get the Youtube embed to work, so you'll have to click on the links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINxmHcZ5lU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnejd17uxU


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> Hi Brian,
> 
> Dennis Palatov has disclosed it publicly, so I can say it here: The car is, in fact, AWD.


Thanks. The Palatov website features blogs and some other information for earlier Pikes Peak cars, but not this one. Perhaps some day there will be some 2019 information.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> Thanks. The Palatov website features blogs and some other information for earlier Pikes Peak cars, but not this one. Perhaps some day there will be some 2019 information.


He actually does have a blog for this one:

http://dpcars.net/d2x/index.htm

He called it D2X when he started because he wasn't ready to reveal it was EV. But there is actually quite a bit of information there, plus lots of cool pictures and videos.

Edit: The 2019 he begins talking about on page 2.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> He actually does have a blog for this one:
> 
> http://dpcars.net/d2x/index.htm


Ah, thanks.... the DP Cars website, not the Palatov Motorsport website (where I found those other Pike's Peak entries).



Hollie Maea said:


> He called it D2X when he started because he wasn't ready to reveal it was EV. But there is actually quite a bit of information there, plus lots of cool pictures and videos.
> 
> Edit: The 2019 he begins talking about on page 2.


The Palatov site for the D5 (a development of the D2) vaguely talks about an EV option, and electric variants of other models have been the subject of blogs and product pages since 2010. The vehicle is designed as a traditional race car, with the long-established mid-rear longitudinal engine, and the electric version just replaces the engine with a motor; it's not a new design. It's the electric and AWD variant of the latest generation of the D2. There's nothing wrong with that - when you have a winning formula you don't change too much - but it's not a path to interesting design.

In the D2 section of the DP Cars site, the new car being electric was mentioned at the beginning of page 2, but there's no further information on that page. Most of the way down page 2, a photo appears with a front final drive unit and a teaser comment about the "special build", showing that it has a typical AWD system; the AWD is new for this platform, but there's nothing specifically EV so far, and page 3 shows that they are still building LS-engine cars of this platform in the new generation.

On page 3 they do show an amusing generator set (to be complete by partners, presumably Cascadia), powered by a GSXR1000 engine. I get the novelty value, and the desire for a compact unit, but it seems like a way to make a zero-emission race vehicle as dirty as a typical-gas engined car; it doesn't use a clean or efficient engine for the stationary unit.

The closest this all gets to technical specs (other than acceleration data) is buried in the discussion of the tow van replacement, which notes that "this year's Pikes Peak car is heavier than what we've built in the past". That's typical of racing vehicles, which are only clearly described after they are museum pieces.

There is eventually a photo of the rear of the car, and there was that photo of the front drive components; between them they contain essentially the sum total of all design information available:








This appears to show the dual-core HVH/AMR motor flanked by battery packs. The packs sit in what are presumably normally aero tunnels, leaving the fancy rocker rear suspension holding the spring/shock units out of the non-existent airflow.  The usual Quaife, Porsche, or whatever transaxle is replaced by a simple bevel-gear final drive, and shaft runs up the middle to another final drive at the front.

The only technically interesting part is how the AWD is done. This is just a guess based on the photos, but it looks like front drive comes off the front of the dual motor assembly, and rear drive off the rear. There are a range of possible configurations:

this could be a dual-core motor with output taken off of each end, driving shafts to both axles at the same speed;
this could be a dual-core motor with solid drive to the rear and drive to the front through some sort of clutch (over-running, controlled friction, or even viscous);
this could be a dual-core motor with a centre differential; or,
what appears to be a dual-core motor could be separate front and rear motors, despite the common housing (unlikely because the relative front and rear power levels would not be appropriate).

There is presumably reduction gearing other than in the final drives, although speed is so high that perhaps the final ring-and-pinion sets are enough. If one reduction drive is shared between front and rear, it could be mounted at either end of the motor (presumably the rear), and the reduced output sent back through the motor's hollow shaft.

If they are driving both axles solidly at the same speed, or just letting the front over-run the rear for corners and powering when the rear slips enough, this is likely the result of their Pikes Peak experience... that with enough power that the car is usually drifting, so more sophisticated front to rear power distribution is unnecessary.

I'm sure the car will do well. It will be interesting to see how it works, and what the design really is.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Awesome breakdown Brian. Great stuff.

I'm excited to see how it performs.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> The only technically interesting part is how the AWD is done. This is just a guess based on the photos, but it looks like front drive comes off the front of the dual motor assembly, and rear drive off the rear. There are a range of possible configurations:
> 
> this could be a dual-core motor with output taken off of each end, driving shafts to both axles at the same speed;
> this could be a dual-core motor with solid drive to the rear and drive to the front through some sort of clutch (over-running, controlled friction, or even viscous);
> ...


If you watch the teaser in the first post very carefully you may find clues that suggest a different solution...


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> If you watch the teaser in the first post very carefully you may find clues that suggest a different solution...


I had fast-forwarded and skipped through it, and saw nothing of value. So I watched it again, complete with audio, and found it to be the usual egotist's test of my patience ("I'm a cowboy and I'm gonna ride a big bull"... yeah, there's bull there all right ), but I did see that at 0:36 it appears to have separate front and rear motors mounted in-line (nearly the two-motor option in my list, but the rear motor is itself a dual-core). That goes with the three inverters (for three cores) suggested by labels for one side (negative) of the DC link cable connections (at 0:39). Thanks for the tip; I had skimmed the video too quickly and missed these details.  In hindsight, the motor detail is sort of visible in the photo shown in my earlier post, but that photo (from the DP Cars site) is much lower resolution and blocked by a frame tube, so I have an excuse... 

Assuming that these are separate front and rear motors (not just three cores in tandem), this is the most capable of the alternatives which I listed, providing control of front to rear power distribution without resorting to friction devices by powering front and rear with separate motors. Of course we know from the images that it uses a single (although dual-core) motor for the rear, and a single motor for the front, so it depends on conventional axle differentials.

I realize that the teaser video is a promotional piece, not intended to convey information.

So here are the two video frames which convey all of the technical information in the teaser:


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Correct. Here is the general layout:


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> Correct. Here is the general layout...


Now that's a good teaser! 

First, some background:
In sports racing classes, one requirement of the rules is typically to have a passenger seat, or at least a space that could be seat, even it if had no seat and was unusable (fire extinguishers are routinely mounted in that space); it was originally part of a pretense that these were modified production cars. The earlier Palatov DP1 had the engine on one side (no possibility of a passenger seat), but the DP2 has a passenger seat space... not so much for race rules (unless but because it is available in a version with a second seat, and even a potentially streetable version.

The battery pack appears to extend forward on the right-hand side into the passenger seat space, with two of three approximately equal packs on the right side and only one on the left. This makes perfect sense for the racing car, provides more space for the battery pack, improves front to rear balance (it doesn't need to be so rear-heavy), and improves side to side balance (counteracting the offset driver). It also ties into a blog comment about asymmetric airflow in this vehicle, since there is presumably a cooler on the left side for which there is no equivalent on the right side.


It also appears that there is no reduction gearbox between the rear motor and the rear final drive; the front is not so clearly shown but I'll guess that it has no reduction box, either. Apparently either the top speed is so high that the reduction available in the final drive is suitable (a record-setting pace averages over 90 mph, with the peak much higher), or it is close enough that the extra weight and bulk (and slight transmission loss) of reduction gearing was not justified. Since I don't recognize the final drive case, I have no idea what gear set ratios may be available for it.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Palatov has now posted images of the battery we at EVDrive built for this car, so I can share them here. This is the greatest battery we have ever made, exceeding the 315 kWh one we made for the original Nikola Motor prototype semi truck. It's very compact, liquid cooled, with an extremely robust interconnect system (the entirety of the interconnects add less than 2% resistance beyond that of the cells themselves). Apart from dragstrip packs that drain in less than a minute, this may be the most powerful battery that has ever gone into a car. We are very proud of it.











Edit: some specs: Just under 80kWh, 840V top off voltage, and 1800A peak (30s)


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Nice; looks tidy and functional. 

Can you share the cell format (cylindrical or pouch), or anything about the configuration (presumably over 200 cells in series, presumably at least two cells in parallel at the lowest level)? How about the cooling configuration: cold plate under the stack (like most current EVs with pouch cells and the Rivian prototypes), cooling plates between cells (like a GM Volt), cooling tubes between cells (like a Tesla)...
Obviously, I understand that available information will be limited.

The top-view drawing indicated that the battery pack extended into the right-hand seat area, but the photos show only packs behind the seats. Did I misinterpret the earlier drawing, or is a third pack section just not in the photos? Now that I compare the photos to the drawing, I also see that the battery packs flanking the motor are substantially longer than the blue boxes which I assumed to be battery packs in the drawing. Pack access is facilitated by bolt-in rear upper structure, but there doesn't appear to be any accommodations of this sort for the seat area.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

The three blue boxes are actually the three PM250DZ inverters. The battery boxes are in fact non symmetrical but not 2 to 1, and they are the same length. 

Cells are cylindrical, 204S36P. Divided into 12S modules with embedded BMS in each module and Cold plates between each module.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Here's some pictures attached!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> The three blue boxes are actually the three PM250DZ inverters. The battery boxes are in fact non symmetrical but not 2 to 1, and they are the same length.


So the inverters are the aluminum housings under the battery packs. This is the first time I've seen that arrangement. Now that I know what to look for, the break between the two inverters on the right side is obvious in the photos, and the length of the inverter matches the blue boxes in the drawing; in Travis's photos, the connectors on the inverters are shown so it is more obvious.

I was wondering if those might be cooling plates; that wouldn't have accounted for the inverters, but with an incomplete car and no detail of the interior of the battery cases, it's all guessing.

With the inverters accounting for the blue boxes, the two-part battery pack configuration is obvious. The removable upper rear vehicle structure is certainly nice for installation.  In other D2 images, this structure is not removable.



Hollie Maea said:


> Cells are cylindrical, 204S36P. Divided into 12S modules with embedded BMS in each module and Cold plates between each module.


17 modules, an odd number and so presumably accounting for the slight difference in left and right packs.
About 3 Ah per cell.
With cold plates between modules, this presumably means cooling the cells from their ends, like Rivian.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

frodus said:


> Here's some pictures attached!


Thanks!

It's nice to see how everything goes together.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

We made it to the top of the mountain! Time was 9:55. Not bad at all considering how little time we had for testing and driver seat time!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> We made it to the top of the mountain!


Congratulations! About half of the Unlimited class didn't make it.



Hollie Maea said:


> Time was 9:55. Not bad at all considering how little time we had for testing and driver seat time!


That was good for 9th place overall, and in the middle of the Unlimited class (which only had three entries that completed the run, with #1 winning overall at 9:12 and #3 over a minute behind this car).
http://livetiming.net/ppihc/

So obviously the car works! 🙂

The overall record of 7:57 was set by an electric race car from Volkswagen, but no one (of any type of car in any class) was close to that this year; the VW didn't run again.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Wow, only 78 competitors? Many who didn't finish?

It's amazing that last year's competitor beat the best this year by a full 12%.

Reminds me of the 919 tribute tour last year, when the Porsche beat the Nürburgring record by 17% (normally this wouldn't be allowed, lap times are artificially limited, there are sections of the course where you could not react fast enough if something appeared).

You'd think that in these long established races, that the knife's edge would be hundreds of a second for records. It just goes to show what an exciting time we live in that things are in such flux that leaps and bounds are still being made.

Good show.

Anyone have links to footage of your climb?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Anyone have links to footage of your climb?


Even I have not seen it yet. But it should be available in the next day or two and I will post it here as soon as it is.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Wow, only 78 competitors? Many who didn't finish?


The entries which did not complete a valid run are listed in the linked results. There are a lot of them: presumably a few crashed, but most probably had some failure, due to the severe conditions (more sustained high power than a normal track due to the climb) or due to a lack of chance to sort out the bugs, because there is only one of this event per year and very little running time per competitor (a problem with any one-car-at-a-time event).

It is impressive that the Palatov car completed the run at competitive speed in its first year.

78 entries actually sounds like a lot to me, given the need to space them out on the course, and the inherently obscure type of competition. Performance rallies run somewhat similarly, and never have close to that many entries in Canada.



MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> It's amazing that last year's competitor beat the best this year by a full 12%.
> 
> Reminds me of the 919 tribute tour last year, when the Porsche beat the Nürburgring record by 17% (normally this wouldn't be allowed, lap times are artificially limited, there are sections of the course where you could not react fast enough if something appeared).
> 
> You'd think that in these long established races, that the knife's edge would be hundreds of a second for records. It just goes to show what an exciting time we live in that things are in such flux that leaps and bounds are still being made.


The Pike's Peak climb is a little unusual in motorsports. It's not part of a series, and is not very similar to the events in any series, so it doesn't make sense for most potential competitors - especially corporations - to build a car specifically for it. As a result, it tends to get used as a demonstration event: cars are built to show the capability of a company or product, and once the point is made they move on. I think this is the case for both Palatov and Cascadia. The record-holding VW I.D. R has moved on to Nürburgring. If participation were more consistent, results would be less erratic.

Pike's Peak rules are also a factor. Most race series have substantial technical restrictions, intended to keep competition close and constrain the level of expenditure. Pike's Peak has an Unlimited class, so almost anything goes (and that makes it a suitable target for EVs); if anyone with deep pockets pursed the event seriously, it would immediately become unworkably expensive... assuming that no one has tens of millions of dollars to spend per year on a single annual event. So it's the domain of dedicated semi-pro enthusiasts and brief celebrity appearances.

International pro rally cars came to the mountain years ago (back when the road was mostly gravel) giving the European and Japanese manufacturers a chance to show that a street-legal production-based car - carrying a passenger - could beat the single-seat hilclimb specials. The race was a rally series event briefly, but it didn't fit in very well with the rest of the series, and they moved on.

And keep in mind that the whole road has only been paved since 2011, so the event is not as established - in its current form - as it might seem at first. Personally, while I understand the reasons for paving the road, I think it has made the competition much less interesting; essentially any high-powered road race car would be decently quick as-is, while in the past (on gravel) there were few cars anywhere else that were really suited for the challenge. Electric drive, by the way, would have been just as suitable on gravel, and electric cars did run in those days, but were not competitive with their earlier technology.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Wow, only 78 competitors? Many who didn't finish?


Many never even started. The Motorcycles took forever to finish because of multiple accidents. Two riders were airlifted. One of them, Carlin Dunne, was killed near the finish line. 

We didn't start the cars til around noon and our car was the last one up without rain at the starting line. It ended up pouring for the remainder of the race. Everyone was switching to rain tires, and those with no windscreens decided not to run, and quite a few others decided it wasn't safe to run.

Weather was mostly the issue. Only a couple DNF's due to mechanical. No cars had accidents that I saw.

(I was on the mountain at the pits, BTW, if people have questions)


----------



## jonescg (Nov 3, 2010)

Great effort guys, and such a shame about the tragedies on, and off the mountain.

Travis, can you show any more detailed images of the battery packs as they came together? I've always been intrigued by the idea of cooling cylindrical cells axially because the conductivity is so much better in that plane, but there's a fair old resistance gap between the bit that's hot and the end of the cell. As someone mentioned above, it sounds like Rivian packs were used


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

jonescg said:


> Great effort guys, and such a shame about the tragedies on, and off the mountain.
> 
> Travis, can you show any more detailed images of the battery packs as they came together? I've always been intrigued by the idea of cooling cylindrical cells axially because the conductivity is so much better in that plane, but there's a fair old resistance gap between the bit that's hot and the end of the cell. As someone mentioned above, it sounds like Rivian packs were used


Yes there is some resistance between the end of the roll and the cell, but far less than between the layers of the jellyroll. Literature suggests that axial heat resistivity is 10-30 times lower than radial. Our testing has confirmed that in spite of the lower surface area, cooling occurs faster on the ends than on the sides.

Rivian packs were not used, we at EVDrive designed and built the pack for this car.


----------



## jonescg (Nov 3, 2010)

Hollie Maea said:


> Yes there is some resistance between the end of the roll and the cell, but far less than between the layers of the jellyroll. Literature suggests that axial heat resistivity is 10-30 times lower than radial. Our testing has confirmed that in spite of the lower surface area, cooling occurs faster on the ends than on the sides.
> 
> Rivian packs were not used, we at EVDrive designed and built the pack for this car.


I'd love to see any images if you can share them. And yeah, I did a bunch of testing at my work on axial vs radial, and concluded they were both pretty effective depending on what the goal was. The biggest challenge with axial was coming up with a cooling plate that had zero risk of shorting the pack.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

frodus said:


> Many never even started. The Motorcycles took forever to finish because of multiple accidents. Two riders were airlifted. One of them, Carlin Dunne, was killed near the finish line.


This much accident delay is not typical, but of course that sort of thing can happen in any motorsport competition.



frodus said:


> We didn't start the cars til around noon and our car was the last one up without rain at the starting line. It ended up pouring for the remainder of the race. Everyone was switching to rain tires, and those with no windscreens decided not to run, and quite a few others decided it wasn't safe to run.
> 
> Weather was mostly the issue. Only a couple DNF's due to mechanical. No cars had accidents that I saw.


In discussing the differences in performance between years in this sort of event, I should have mentioned weather. Some teams would presumably not have rain tires, and not run in wet conditions even aside from visibility concerns.

One feature of solo competitions (such as hilclimbs, but even the qualifying sessions of road racing) is that competitors in the same class may not run under the same conditions. That is unavoidable, but can be frustrating.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

jonescg said:


> As someone mentioned above, it sounds like Rivian packs were used


Well, I didn't say that ... I just noted a shared design feature.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

jonescg said:


> The biggest challenge with axial was coming up with a cooling plate that had zero risk of shorting the pack.


That's an interesting challenge, but the bus plates on the Tesla modules always looked like they should be heat transfer plates to me. Of course, they're not designed for that purpose and so are not thermally well coupled to the cells.


----------



## jonescg (Nov 3, 2010)

Hehe, sorry to mis-attribute you there Brian 

Yeah, the diabolical nature of cylindrical cells is that the entire outside of the cell is a cell terminal, and if you must individually fuse them you will necessarily have a sizable gap between the bus plate and the terminal. This can be minimised, and you can use a high viscosity potting agent to fill the gaps, but Tesla worked out ages ago that radial cooling was good enough, and a bit easier to build.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> As a result, it tends to get used as a demonstration event: cars are built to show the capability of a company or product, and once the point is made they move on. I think this is the case for both Palatov and Cascadia.


I'm not too sure about that. I think this car still has untapped potential. They were working on it and tweaking on it even during race week, and if you look at the qualifying times vs the race, we actually passed by 8 or 9 cars just in those last couple of days. So I think it's possible it could race again (I don't have any inside information on that either way).

But in general, for sure Dennis Palatov will be back at Pikes Peak in the future; it's kinda his thing and he goes at least every other year. And he has said publicly that he wants to continue to produce additional models of electric cars. And as long as he's doing that, you have to think that Cascadia will be involved (and hopefully us at EVDrive as well). This car just scratches the surface of what is possible with these high power components.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

I don't know anything about these events...

How do you end up getting to go?

Is it the kind of thing that they pay you to attend, or is it like being in a garage band or a marathon runner and you pay for the privilege of participating?

Are there qualifiers?

I'd imagine that there has to be some kind of restraint on participating, performance or price -wise, else you'd have all kinds of gag entries. Grandpa's station wagon, mom's minivan, etc.

Other than getting cars and people to the hill, what's involved?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Rough cut video of the race. We'll have more polished video later this month.

https://youtu.be/-Bjaq4qlW0I


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

The car is down at Bonneville for Speed Week right now. Conditions are really bad this year (the salt is wet) but hopefully we can get some good high speed runs!


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Also, here's a great new video from the race, with commentary by the driver, Greg Tracy.

https://vimeo.com/353896262


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

brian_ said:


> The Pike's Peak climb is a little unusual in motorsports. It's not part of a series, and is not very similar to the events in any series, so it doesn't make sense for most potential competitors - especially corporations - to build a car specifically for it. As a result, it tends to get used as a demonstration event: cars are built to show the capability of a company or product, and once the point is made they move on. I think this is the case for both Palatov and Cascadia. The record-holding VW I.D. R has moved on to Nürburgring. If participation were more consistent, results would be less erratic.





Hollie Maea said:


> I'm not too sure about that. I think this car still has untapped potential. They were working on it and tweaking on it even during race week, and if you look at the qualifying times vs the race, we actually passed by 8 or 9 cars just in those last couple of days. So I think it's possible it could race again (I don't have any inside information on that either way).
> 
> But in general, for sure Dennis Palatov will be back at Pikes Peak in the future; it's kinda his thing and he goes at least every other year. And he has said publicly that he wants to continue to produce additional models of electric cars. And as long as he's doing that, you have to think that Cascadia will be involved (and hopefully us at EVDrive as well). This car just scratches the surface of what is possible with these high power components.


It has been a couple of strange years since the 2019 event. The Pike's Peak event did run both last year and this year, although with only 44 (2020) and 52 (2021) entrants. There was a Palatov D2 car in both years, but it was an older non-EV model. The only EVs in both years were Teslas. The 2021 winner drove the same car as he drove to the win in 2019. 2021 times can't be compared to previous years because snow and ice at the top led to the course being shortened by three miles (the top three).

As interesting as this sort of car is, without a series and class specifically for them they do tend to be very expensive throwaways. Perhaps the D2EV is doing something else.

A 2020 article mentioned that the car was run on the salt flat at Bonneville (in 2019) and included this interesting view of the D2EV without bodywork or battery packs:


----------

