hph6203 said:

---

500 kW charging. Hardware is basically feature complete at this point, not much incremental utility to going above 500 kW. Proliferation and vehicle improvement will be the focal point now.

---

I may be in the minority but I don't think larger battery packs are the game changer. Charging speed and proliferation of fast chargers is what is going to be most relevant. A larger pack only helps you with the first part of a long trip as it will just take that much longer to charge at each stop. 300 mile range seems like the sweet spot, specifically if they can get charging down to roughly 10 minutes. If they get charging speed down I'd prefer an LFP pack getting around 275 miles than an NMC getting 350 for the increased life of the battery and safety.

Faster charging, smaller, solid state batteries with less cooling requirements but more energy density would be a great thing. Doubt that happens near term at all, though.

Yeah, but at 500 kW power the limiter is on the vehicle side, not the charger side. At 500 kW a Lucid Air at peak charge rate adds about 40 miles/minute. The limiter is how long that can be sustained, which is a function of battery size/thermal management.

An 85 kWh pack being the standard to balance size/cost/thermals with efficiency gaining to ~5 miles per kWh gets you 425 miles of range. Sustained charging at 500 kW to 50% gains you 212 miles of range in 5 minutes. In other words ~3 hours of driving for every charging stop.


500 kW is enough power, better batteries and more efficient motors is the limiter. 1000 kW power would just mean blasting to thermal limits faster and would speed up charging minimally.

94chem said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I have more people use the manual latch than the button on the Model Y, which is irritating because the manual specifically states repeated use of the latch can cause damage.

---

Reading a car manual to learn how to open the door. Yeah, people not reading is the problem. eyes rolling.

---

you don't need to read the manual - if you use the latch it tells you on the screen that repeated use could damage the latch.

Yes, I'm not referring to max charging speed. I'm saying the game changer isn't higher capacity batteries but rather overall charging speed. Part of that game charger likely is continued focus on battery technology, but that doesn't need to be capacity oriented.

Tester takes a Rivian on a road trip. Hilarity ensues.

https://insideevs.com/news/742161/rivian-r1t-road-trip-charging-test/

Quote:

---

With an EPA-rated range of 420 miles and a usable battery capacity of 141.5 kilowatt-hours, the EV was driven down to a 10% state of charge en route to a Tesla Supercharger that's open to all electric vehicles. During the trip to the Supercharger, the battery was preconditioned and was ready to take in the maximum amount of kilowatts available for a 400-volt battery like the one in the R1T250 kilowatts.

After plugging in the DC fast charger, the electric pickup refused to go over 173 kW, even though the battery was preconditioned and there was no thermal limitation on the charger side. The charging session was stopped after exactly 15 minutes, and the state of charge level went up to 36%. In total, the R1T had taken in 43 kWh of energy during the 15-minute stint.

Then, Conner hit the road at a constant speed of 82 miles per hour on the highway. The problem was that the adaptive cruise control wouldn't work, so he had to use the accelerator pedal to keep the speed constant, like in the old days.

During the whole test, the climate control was running on Auto and the air suspension was manually set to the lowest level to improve efficiency. After just 75 miles on the highway, the R1T's state of charge was back at 10% and the efficiency was 1.93 miles/kWh. In other words, not a great road-tripping machine, mainly because of the unimpressive charging performance.

---

TL/DR he tried to treat it like a gasoline vehicle, running at highway speeds with the AC on and only stopping a few minutes to fill up.

Did not work.

That's a company that clearly warranted another 6.6 billion dollar 'investment' (haha, loan) by the Biden administration last week.

In all seriousness, I saw that California is going to carve out it's added on EV subsidies (aka rebates) to exclude Tesla, which is I think the only EV manufacturer that produces cars in California (could be wrong). I wonder if Tesla could cap its sales in California to make sure they stay under the threshold for subsidies next year? Make Californians buy a bunch of craptastic GM/Ford/VW/Nissan etc. EV's to further turn them sour on this insanity? I, for one, would laugh.

Quote:

---

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a close Trump adviser, sharply criticized the idea of barring the automaker from EV subsidies writing on X in response "Even though Tesla is the only company who manufactures their EVs in California! This is insane."

Musk has said he supports ending subsidies for EVs, oil and gas.

Newsom said on Monday that if Trump eliminates a federal EV tax credit, he will propose creating a new version of the state's Clean Vehicle Rebate Program that ended in 2023 and spent $1.49 billion to subsidize more than 594,000 vehicles.

"The governor's proposal for ZEV rebates, and any potential market cap, is subject to negotiation with the legislature. Any potential market cap would be intended to foster market competition, innovation and to support new market entrants," his office said.

---

California does have real budget problems, which they are trying to pass on to 'businesses' (never consumers, of course). I'm skeptical they can afford to subsidize Chinese/Korean/German etc. EV's this much further, even if Gavin does propose it.

Separately, Chicom-owned Lotus ditches plans to go all-electric due to 'softening demand.'

Other end of the 10% challenge:
15 min: 10% to 77% SoC (70.9 kWh delivered)
193 miles at 80mph

Right.

The appropriate level of analysis to determine technological viability is to look at who is doing a good, the cost of doing that good job, and the rate at which that good job is becoming a cheap job.

That 70 kWh add in 15 min would be ~280 mile add on a 2024 Model 3 LR RWD. Meaning there's plenty of opportunity for best practice convergence to create a fast charging, long range, efficient and cheap vehicle.

Taycan, I believe, is 350 kW power limited (at the very least that's the peak available charge rate, might be lower). Tesla is beginning their v4 500 kW charger installations.

The EV mandate is killing the price of new transportation for new car consumers wanting ICE cars, because of the absorption cost to carry the line. Everyone is paying the price for EVs, and that is NOT RIGHT.

The EV should be relegated to the free market to fail, as it should, until it can compete on level ground. Eventually it will likely win and that is OK. But until then...

Drill Baby Drill.

V8's with pipes. Let them hear and feel the fossil fuels until they can compete on an even field.

That's not how businesses operate. They maximize profits regardless of losses. The ICE vehicles are not raising in price to cover losses in EV manufacturing lines. They raise in price as a result of a business desire to maximize total profits. The way they react to EV losses as a result of mandates is invest as minimally as possible in the product line, which is a long term recipe for disaster.

You could argue that CAFE standards impact the type of vehicle an ICE manufacturer can make, but I doubt that's the driving force behind the majority of the price increase over the years. The inducement to the price increases is more likely feature creep and lower volume higher margin vehicles being a better business. That market saturation has occurred as a function of vehicles lasting longer than they used to (damn near twice as long) and that car companies have decided it's better to sell a technological space ship as a "ooo shiny" toy to rich people and allow the lower end of the market to be handled by rich people dumping old news vehicles into the used market.


If you lifted all CAFE standards today you wouldn't get a $15,000 drop in prices, because the car companies don't want to be in the high volume low margin business of selling a stripped down, no power windows or locks vehicle, because everyone, rich and poor, wants the spaceship car and people would buy a used spaceship over a new hooptie. This business practice insulates the car companies from economic downturns, because rich people are gonna be rich even during recessions while poor people are gonna be poorer during the same period. They saw what happened during the 2008 crisis and the bailouts that happened and decided they didn't want to sell to the middle/lower middle class, but their low cost, fuel efficient vehicles (sedans/coupes), and focused on high margin fuel inefficient vehicles (trucks/SUVs).

Everyone?

Old Sarge said:

---

The EV mandate is killing the price of new transportation for new car consumers wanting ICE cars, because of the absorption cost to carry the line. Everyone is paying the price for EVs, and that is NOT RIGHT.

The EV should be relegated to the free market to fail, as it should, until it can compete on level ground. Eventually it will likely win and that is OK. But until then...

Drill Baby Drill.

V8's with pipes. Let them hear and feel the fossil fuels until they can compete on an even field.

---

Massive drilling will be necessary until alternatives are developed to the same scale. Only nuclear has the remotest possibility of doing that.

All that electricity will require massive drilling.

cecil77 said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

The EV mandate is killing the price of new transportation for new car consumers wanting ICE cars, because of the absorption cost to carry the line. Everyone is paying the price for EVs, and that is NOT RIGHT.

The EV should be relegated to the free market to fail, as it should, until it can compete on level ground. Eventually it will likely win and that is OK. But until then...

Drill Baby Drill.

V8's with pipes. Let them hear and feel the fossil fuels until they can compete on an even field.

---

Massive drilling will be necessary until alternatives are developed to the same scale. Only nuclear has the remotest possibility of doing that.

All that electricity will require massive drilling.

---

When a person is presented with the option of new and ****ty or used and nice the majority are going to choose the used and nice. The autos abandoned the economy vehicle, because their vehicles last long enough for the used market to cover that price point and the higher margin, lower volume business represents reduced risk, because their consumer base is more insulated from economic downturns.

So yeah, functionally everyone. Because most do make that choice and those that don't aren't going to be given the option because providing it may give more profitability in the short term, but more risk in the long term.